Collection of papers

Prince Milan Obrenović as Supreme Commander During the Wars of Liberation and Independence (1876–1878)

Suzana Rajić — 2026-06-10

This paper examines the position and activity of Prince Milan Obrenović as Supreme Commander of the Serbian army during the wars against the Ottoman Empire (1876–1878), within the broader context of the long-term process of building a modern military system in Serbia. Th e analysis begins with the first reign of Miloš Obrenović, who laid the foundations of a standing army and established the principle that the ruler was the supreme commander of the armed forces. Constitutional and legislative changes during the reign of Mihailo Obrenović, as well as the Constitution of 1869, formally reinforced this principle, while simultaneously allowing significant influence of the government and the Ministry of War in operational command. On the eve of the wars, the Serbian army exhibited numerous structural weaknesses: an insufficient number of professionally trained officers, limited material resources, organisational and recruitment problems, and a lack of combat experience within the officer corps. Milan Obrenović ascended the throne as a minor and without substantial military experience. Although he acquired basic military knowledge during his education, it was insufficient to compensate for the systemic deficiencies of the military organisation. In 1876, Serbia faced strong internal political pressures, national movements in neighbouring regions, and complex international circumstances. Th e decision to enter the war was motivated not only by national aspirations but also by the need to preserve internal stability and dynastic legitimacy. Prince Milan assumed supreme command on 29 June 1876, transferred the headquarters of the Supreme Command to the theatre of operations, and actively followed the course of military actions. Nevertheless, during the First Serbo-Turkish War, strategic decisions were taken within a broader circle, under the strong influence of the government and the Russian General Mikhail Grigorievich Chernyaev, commander of the central troops—initially of the Morava, and later of the Timok-Morava Division. Th e setbacks of 1876 revealed the limited sphere of action of the Supreme Command, headed by the ruler, within an insufficiently consolidated military system. In the continuation of hostilities in 1877–1878, however, the Prince assumed a more decisive role within the Supreme Headquarters and sought to exert direct influence over key decisions. During this period, he gradually emerged as the effective bearer of supreme command. Following the conclusion of the wars and the international recognition of Serbian independence, Milan moved to strengthen his position in the military sphere. By appointing Jovan Mišković as Minister of War in 1878 and introducing a new military organisation in 1879, he reinforced the vertical chain of command and more clearly defi ned officers’ duties and competences, from the Chief of the General Staff to corps commanders. According to the principle of strict subordination, the ruler stood at the apex of the military hierarchy as supreme commander, while the Minister of War acted as his closest associate. In conclusion, the paper demonstrates that Prince Milan’s position as Supreme Commander was initially primarily formal and constitutional in nature, but that through wartime experience and post-war military reorganisation it acquired substantive institutional content. This development sheds light on the gradual consolidation of monarchical authority in the military sphere and its role in the modernisation of the Serbian state in the late 1870s.

Српско-турски рат 1876. године у животу и каријери генерала М. Г. Черњајева

Анатолий Семенович Аникеев — 2026-06-10

Рад се бави личношћу руског генерала Михаила Григорјевича Черњајева и његовом улогом у српско-турском рату 1876. године, са посебним освртом на његово виђење сопствене мисије у Србији. Полазећи од његових аутобиографских записа и преписке, аутори анализирају мотиве његовог доласка у Србију, политичке и војне потезе током рата, као и његове ставове о српском друштву и државном уређењу. Посебна пажња посвећена је контроверзним одлукама, попут проглашења кнеза Милана за краља, као и различитим оценама Черњајева у историографији и јавности. Иако често критикован као неуспешан војсковођа и авантуриста, рад указује на његову искреност, пожртвованост и снажан осећај словенске солидарности. У ширем контексту, Черњајевљева делатност сагледава се као одраз политичких идеја, очекивања и противречности руског и српског друштва у доба Велике источне кризе.

Феномен добровољачког покрета у српско-турским ратовима 1876–1878. године

Людмила Васильевна Кузьмичева — 2026-06-10

Рад анализира феномен добровољачког покрета у Србији током српско-турских ратова 1876–1878. године, у којима је учествовало више од 5.000 страних добровољаца различитог националног и друштвеног порекла. Најбројнији су били руски и бугарски добровољци, али је покрет имао изразито међународни карактер. Разматрају се мотиви доласка добровољаца, њихов друштвени састав и улога у ратним дејствима, као и однос према српској војсци и становништву. Иако њихов војни значај није био пресудан, добровољачки покрет имао је значајан политички и пропагандни утицај. Закључује се да је добровољачки покрет представљао важан фактор у контексту Велике источне кризе и у обликовању међународне подршке Србији

The Intelligence Activities of Stevan Lukić, Head of the Aleksinac District, 1875–1876

Aleksandar M. Savić — 2026-06-10

This paper, based on an analysis of unpublished archival materials of Serbian provenance, reconstructs the intelligence activities of Stevan Lukić, Head of the Aleksinac District, in the period from the outbreak of the uprising in the Bosnian Vilayet in 1875 to the beginning of the First Serbo-Turkish War in 1876. The research findings demonstrate that intelligence activities in the Aleksinac District did not constitute a spontaneous, ad hoc response to the crisis, but rather a relatively organized and institutionally supported system, within which Stevan Lukić played a central role as coordinator, selector of sources, and intermediary between the field and the central authorities. An analysis of correspondence with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicates that the state leadership was aware of the importance of such activities and that their fi nancing, direction, and supervision formed part of official state policy, rather than being exclusively the result of the district chief’s personal initiative. A particular contribution of this study lies in the reconstruction of the structure and functioning of the intelligence network. Th is network comprised multiple levels and diverse channels – ranging from members of the local population in border villages, through confi dential agents in Niš and the wider area of the Sanjak of Niš, to individual offi cials within Ottoman institutions, including the telegraph service. Such a diversity of sources enabled multiple verifi cation of the collected information and reduced the risk of misinformation, indicating a high degree of practical adaptation to conditions of intensified surveillance and repression by the Ottoman authorities. The research further demonstrates that intelligence activities were not isolated from broader political processes, but were closely connected with preparations for a possible uprising in the Sanjak of Niš and with the strategic plans of the Serbian government within the framework of the Great Eastern Crisis. The information collected on the concentration of Ottoman troops, their deployment, armament, and intentions provided a basis for assessing Serbia’s defensive capabilities, as well as for considering the timing and scope of potential off ensive actions. However, owing to the clear military superiority of the Ottoman Empire during the period under consideration, these activities remained in practice largely confined to an informational and preparatory role.

The Morava (Bugar-Morava) District of Aleksinac County in the First Serbian–Ottoman War of 1876

Zoran Stevanović — 2026-06-10

Following the liberation from Ottoman rule and the annexation of six detached nahiyas to Serbia in 1833, part of the former Ottoman Kruševac nahiya became the Morava Captaincy. As early as the following year, it was renamed the Bugar-Morava Captaincy and comprised 57 villages. The area extended between the left bank of the South Morava River, Mount Mali Jastrebac, and the basin of the Ribarska River. Bordering the Ottoman Empire, this territory formed part of Kruševac County as a srez (district) until 1859. At the end of that year, significant administrative and territorial changes were introduced, whereby the Bugar-Morava District, in a somewhat reduced form, was transferred from Kruševac County to Aleksinac County. According to the 1874 census, on the eve of the war with the Ottoman Empire, the district consisted of 41 villages with a total population of 15,459 (8,124 men and 7,335 women). At the outbreak of the war in 1876, the main body of the Morava Army, under the command of General Mikhail Chernyaev, was concentrated near the village of Supovac and tasked with advancing toward Niš in two columns, while its right wing, stationed near the village of Vukanja, was to advance via Grebač toward Prokuplje. Th e fi rst cannon shot marking the beginning of the war was fi red toward Niš from Serbian positions above the village of Supovac on 2 July 1876. In early August 1876, the Ottoman army launched a major offensive on both sides of the South Morava River, aiming to advance through Aleksinac and Deligrad into the interior of Serbia. Consequently, the Morava District became the scene of intense fi ghting, stretching from Supovac through Tešica to Mrsoje (Moravac). Aft er their defeat at Šumatovac on 23 August 1876, Ottoman forces redeployed to the left bank of the Morava River—into the Morava District—assuming that this direction was less fortifi ed and would allow for easier progress by bypassing the strong defensive positions around Aleksinac and Deligrad. Th e decisive battles of the war were then fought on the heights of Prćilovac, Gornji Adrovac, Krevet, Gredetin, Veliki Šiljegovac, and Đunis, aft er which Serbia, having suffered defeat, was forced to request a truce and subsequently conclude peace with the Ottoman Empire. By the time the truce was declared, the Ottoman army had occupied the entire Morava District, which remained under occupation until the conclusion of the peace treaty in March 1877. During this period, all villages were plundered and burned, while those who failed to fl ee were killed at the thresholds of their homes. Before the war, the 41 villages contained a total of 2,415 houses; 2,199 of them (91%) were burned or destroyed. In 26 out of 41 villages (63.41%), all houses were completely destroyed. Th e displaced population spent the winter of 1876/77 in the Temnić District of Jagodina County, where more than 70 people died, over 50 of them children under the age of 15. In the war of 1876, 183 soldiers from the Morava District were killed or permanently disabled due to wounds. Th e war had devastating consequences for the demographic development of the district, as evidenced by the fact that between 1863 and 1874 the population increased by 27.17%, whereas in the following decade (1874–1884) it grew by only 5.98%.

The Čačak District Army in the First Serbo-Turkish War (1876)

Olivera Milosavljević — 2026-06-10

The Čačak District Army, which fought against the Ottoman Empire in 1876, was recruited from four districts of the Čačak administrative area: Trnava, Dragačevo, Karanovac, and Studenica. It consisted of the Čačak First-Class Brigade, the Čačak Second-Class Brigade, and one Third-Class battalion. The First-Class Brigade comprised four fi rst-class battalions, one cavalry squadron, one artillery battery, one company each of pioneers and craft smen, a medical squad, and a supply train. While operating on the Javor and Raška Fronts as part of the Ibar Army, it was commanded successively by Lieutenant Colonel Ilija Čolak-Antić, Captain Jovan Mišković and Major Milutin Garašanin. When transferred to the main Morava Front, command was assumed by Major Svetozar Hadžić. The Second-Class Brigade consisted of four second-class battalions and was commanded by Major Jovan Varjačić. Within the Ibar Army, the Čačak District Army was the fi rst Serbian force to engage the Ottomans, doing so on the Novi Pazar Front on 23 June 1876. On that day, it captured the former Serbian capital of Raška and, on the following day, it seized the entire area up to Novi Pazar, crossing the Raška River onto Ottoman territory. However, both attacks on Novi Pazar ended unsuccessfully, as did attempts by its left wing to advance toward Kosovska Mitrovica. Due to the deteriorating situation on the Javor Front, the Čačak First-Class Brigade and part of the Second-Class Brigade were redeployed to Javor in July. The remaining second-call units and part of the Th ird-Class forces remained on the front between Javor and Raška, where one of the few engagements occurred on 18 October, when an Ottoman attack from Novi Pazar was repelled. On the Javor Front, Čačak troops, together with the main body of the Javor Army, took part in several major battles in July—at Lisina, Suvi Rt, Borovac, and Petrovac—but by the end of the month, the Ottomans succeeded in capturing Mount Javor. In August, the Čačak units were defeated at Pogled, yet they made a signifi cant contribution to the victory of Major Ilić and the Užice troops at Čemernica on 23 August and in the recapture of Pogled. The following day, they participated in Major Ilić’s independently initiated attempt to retake Javor, which ended with his death. Javor remained under Ottoman control, although the front stabilized. Although positional warfare was conducted there from late September until 19 October, the Ottomans once again captured Pogled. Owing to the critical situation on the main front, the Čačak First-Class Brigade, together with its artillery battery, was dispatched from Javor to Deligrad on 10 September, where Major Svetozar Hadžić assumed command. By mid-September, as part of Colonel Horvatović’s corps, it took part in the three-day Battle of Krevet, which ended without a decisive outcome. In early October, the first-class troops from Čačak also fought in the three-day battle near Veliki Šiljegovac, where they displayed notable bravery. Finally, they participated in the Battle of Đunis on 17 October, in which the Ottomans achieved a decisive victory in the First Serbo-Turkish War. Due to an ultimatum issued by Russian Emperor Alexander II, Serbia concluded an armistice with the Ottoman Empire based on status quo ante bellum, which took efect on 20 October. Military operations ceased across the entire theater of war, and the Čačak troops, except for units assigned to guard duty, returned to their homes. Defeated in the First Serbo-Turkish War, Serbia suffered approximately 6,000 killed and missing and about 9,500 wounded or permanently disabled soldiers. Although the exact number of men mobilized from the Čačak District and the number of casualties it sustained remain unknown, their contribution on the Javor Front and subsequently on the main front was significant, particularly in countering the Ottoman off ensive toward the valley of the West Morava River.

Aranđelovac and Its Inhabitants During the Serbo-Turkish War 1876–1878

Zorica Petrović — 2026-06-10

During the second half of the 19th century, Aranđelovac was the center of the Jasenički srez (district) within the Kragujevac okrug (county). It was well known for its mineral springs and the Bukovička Banja spa, which had been developed according to the standards of modern balneology by the early 1870s: in 1872, a new hotel was opened, later known as the “Staro zdanje” (Old Building); the modern steam bath (Parno kupatilo) was open for public in 1875; and the spa park was one of the best-designed and best-maintained spa parks in the country. This rapid rise of the small town and the spa was abruptly interrupted by the Serbo-Turkish Wars of 1876–1878. In both Serbo-Turkish Wars, residents of Aranđelovac participated as part of the Kragujevac, Rudnik, and Belgrade Brigades. Depending on which okrug the surrounding villages belonged to, militarily fit men from the territory of present-day Aranđelovac were mobilized into the Jasenički, Kolubarski, Kosmajski, or Kačerski battalions and took part in nearly all the battles and on all fronts. Previous researches have come to the data with the names of 111 killed and 34 wounded soldiers originating from the Aranđelovac area. Archival records on the participation of Aranđelovac residents are scarce, inscriptions on gravestones have been damaged by the passage of time, and family memories have been overshadowed by later, larger-scale, and bloodier wars. Today, 150 years later, it is necessary to conduct more detailed archival research and carry out fieldwork to locate and preserve epitaphs, as well as family recollections, in order to determine as accurate as possible the number of victims from the present-day territory of Aranđelovac in the Serbo-Turkish Wars of 1876–1878.

Consequences of the Suffering in the Aleksinac District During the Serbo-turkish War of 1876–1877

Miloš Jagodić — 2026-06-10

The territory of the Aleksinac district was the scene of military operations in the war between Serbia and Turkey from mid-August until the end of October 1876. Because irregular Turkish units systematically burned and plundered the settlements occupied by the Turkish army, the population — which fled en masse to the interior of Serbia — suffered significant material losses. The refugees returned to their homes aft er peace was concluded in March 1877. Only then was the government able to devote itself seriously to aiding the war sufferers. Since regular state revenues could not cover those needs, an emergency surtax of 3 dinars per tax head was levied in 1877, and a surtax of 1 dinar per tax head was levied in 1878 to finance assistance for the war sufferers. In 1877 the government formed a Commission that administered the collected funds and purchased food, seed for crops, livestock and tools for the population in need. Th e Commission operated formally until 1881. According to the commission’s records, compiled from nominal lists, the Aleksinac district had a total of 19,722 war sufferers (34% of the district’s 1874 population) and 2,962 destroyed houses (33% of the number of houses in 1874). Th e greatest damage was inflicted on the settlements in the Morava county, where all 41 villages suffered, amounting to 87% of the houses and 89% of the population compared with the 1874 census. Th e population recovered slowly in material terms, so that the number of taxable households in the Aleksinac and Banja counties had only returned to the prewar level of 1876 by 1881, while this had not yet happened in the Morava county even by 1882.

Two Lists of Churches of the Timok Diocese That Were Damaged During the Serbo-Turkish War of 1876–1877

Uroš S. Šešum — 2026-06-10

The paper presents a critical edition of two lists of churches belonging to the Timok Diocese that suffered destruction or significant material damage during the First Serbo-Turkish War. Both documents are preserved in the State Archives of Serbia (DAS) in Belgrade, within the fonds of the Ecclesiastical Department of the Ministry of Education and Church Affairs (MPS-C), where they were registered in 1882 and 1883. Neither of the two edited lists represents a complete record of diocesan churches damaged in the war of 1876, as they omit those churches that had suffered damage during the conflict but had already been repaired or provided with liturgical items by the time the lists were compiled. Since the available sources indicate that the Ottoman army, within the territory under the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church in the Principality of Serbia, lying within the state borders, damaged and plundered churches exclusively in the territory of the Timok Diocese, the two edited lists effectively constitute a record of Orthodox churches in Serbia that suffered during the war and had not yet been repaired by the first months of 1883. Consequently, following an overview of the wartime devastation of the territory of the Principality, the introductory section attempts to reconstruct the complete list of Orthodox Church buildings in the Principality of Serbia that suffered damage in the war of 1876, including data on the damage sustained and the subsequent restoration of each church.

Предговор

Алексеј Тимофејев — 2026-06-10

Пролог

Алексеј С. Тимофејев — 2026-06-10

The Fate of Mikhail Cherniaev’s Descendants and the Remembrance of Russian Volunteers in the Serbian-ottoman War of 1876 in Twentieth-century Serbia

Aleksej Timofejev — 2026-06-10

This paper examines the fate of the descendants of General Mikhail Cherniaev, the leader of Russian volunteers in the Serbian-Ottoman War of 1876, and the ways in which the memory of Russian volunteers was shaped in Serbia during the first half of the twentieth century. After the general’s death, the Cherniaev family continued to cultivate the memory of his achievements and actively supported Serbia during the Balkan Wars and the First World War. Despite repeated appeals addressed to the Serbian authorities, financial assistance intended to facilitate the rescue of the family arrived too late, at a moment when crossing the border was no longer possible. Most members of the family remained in Leningrad, where two daughters died of starvation during the siege, while a third perished in exile in Siberia. Antonina spent the rest of her life in Finland, whereas Nadezhda, the last surviving descendant, received military decorations for her medical service during both world wars. The paper also addresses the broader context of commemorative practices related to the Serbian struggle for independence in 1876 and the achievement of independence in 1878. In the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, attention to these events remained limited and largely depended on individual initiatives, particularly at the local level. By combining a microhistorical perspective on the судьба of one family with an analysis of collective memory, the study highlights the complex relationship between personal experience, transnational connections, and the politics of remembrance in twentieth-century Serbia.

Southern Serbiа or Northern/Western Bulgaria – South Pomoravlje in Felix Kanitz’s Works

Danijel Radović — 2026-06-10

Felix Kanitz was one of the most famous foreign travel writers who journeyed the Balkan Peninsula during the 19th century, and earned him the nickname “the Columbus of the Balkans.” He devoted his most significant works to the Serbs and the Bulgarians. For that very reason, it is important to examine where Kanitz placed one of the dividing ethnical and geographical boundaries between these two people—more precisely, in this paper I am discussing what he has considered “southern Serbia” and what “northern Bulgaria,” as he titled his first travelogue when he visited the region of the Southern Morava Valley. In this paper I have examined his perception of the territory which was 1878 annexed to the Principality of Serbia. The territory Kanitz had firstly defi ned as “Bulgaria,” changed in his later works, and by that I am researching changes of his impression the ethnographic picture of the region. In his first books, Kanitz entitled the region of South Pomoravlje (the part outside the borders of Serbia before 1878) Bulgaria and considered it as an exclusively Bulgarian ethnic and culturalhistorical region. Only in his last works the ethnic and historical picture was developed somewhat more balanced, although he still considered that he was facing a “difficult ethnographic question.” His sympathies for the Bulgarians at the expense of the Serbs are visible in all his works, a fact noted by his biographer, Geza Feher. The Bulgarians were Kanitz’s “favourite” Balkan people, as Maria Todorova informs us. This is also shown by the example of South Morava, a region he travelled the most and described many times than any other. In this paper I entangled Felix Kanitz’s early and ending conclusions regarding South Pomoravlje aiming to deliver more balanced interpretation of his prejudice and political enrolment.

Contribution to the Study of the Building Heritage of Aleksinac: The Example of 13 Oktobar Street

Đorđe Stošić — 2026-06-10

The street row of single-storey houses with courtyards, fences, and gardens preserves the pattern of housing and everyday life from the period of modernization of Aleksinac (the late 19th century and the first decade of the 20th century). Its value does not lie in any “one of the most beautiful houses”, but in the rhythm of the whole: the uniform height of the buildings, the roofline, the width of the street, the typology of courtyard fences, the rows of trees and fruit trees in the gardens, as well as the calm, pastel tones of the façades. It is precisely this set of elements that creates the recognizable character of the street which, despite individual disruptions caused by aggressive new construction, high-rise buildings, and inappropriate materials, has not been completely lost. 13 Oktobar Street represents the “heart of urban Aleksinac” – a space in which the history, scale, and spirit of the place are most clearly reflected. It is a rarely preserved example of urban housing culture and an urban matrix in which the relationships between the collective, public, and private are evident through the organization of plots, the positioning of houses, and their relationship to the street and the courtyard. Therefore, the preservation of this entity is not only a professional concern but also an obligation within planning, design, and all forms of spatial intervention. Protection should not be focused solely on individual buildings, but on the environment as a whole and on the way of life embedded within it, which is of essential importance. In this sense, 13 Oktobar Street is a strong example of contemporary tendencies in cultural heritage protection, which increasingly shift the focus from isolated monuments or individual houses toward the preservation of architectural ensembles, the character of space, and the intangible layers of everyday life that shape the identity of a place.

Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord in Sokobanja

Teodora Bradić Jovanović — 2026-06-10

The paper deals with the study of the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord in Sokobanja. It was built according to the design of leading architects of the Serbian-Byzantine style, Dušan Živanović and Svetozar Ivačković. The construction of the church lasted eight years and is the endowment of Metropolitan Mihailo Jovanović, who, in order to highlight himself as a founder and express his private piety, built the church in the place of his birth. The icons for the iconostasis, as well as the frescoes of the church, were painted by Milisav Marković, one of the most engaged artists in the Kingdom of Serbia in the second half of the 19th century, especially in the area of the Timok Diocese. The artist painted over eighty iconostases, and his work was well appreciated by the high church hierarchy. Milisav Marković didn’t introduce any innovations in the formulation of the iconostasis in Sokobanja, but rather adapted the program to the clients. The iconographic program is reduced, but it fulfills liturgical and symbolic elements. The church was equipped with all the necessary liturgical objects. After the consecration in 1892, Metropolitan Mihailo donated silver liturgical objects to the church necessary for performing the liturgy. The treasury is particularly notable for the Gospel, which Prince Miloš Obrenović donated to the church in 1836.

Occupations and Economic Activity of the Population of the Town of Aleksinac According to the 1884 Census

Aleksa Đorđević — 2026-06-10

From the perspective of social and economic transformation, this paper examines the gradual integration of the town of Aleksinac into the broader market and industrial currents of the nineteenth century. Although agriculture remained the foundation of the local economy, the emergence of new occupations and service activities points to the ongoing processes of urbanization and modernization. The population census of 1884 provides valuable insight into the economic structure of Aleksinac in the second half of the nineteenth century. Based on data on the occupations of household heads, it is possible to trace economic relations, the transition from a traditional agrarian economy toward more industrial and market-oriented forms, and the emergence of new craft and service activities indicative of contact with European and modern economic trends. Although primarily intended for fiscal purposes, the census material enables the reconstruction of socio-economic changes and demographic structures in the town. The analysis shows that agriculture remained the dominant activity, accounting for 23.88%, with crop farming significantly more prevalent than livestock breeding. Crafts, trade, and entrepreneurship constituted the second most important categories, while services, public administration, and hospitality were moderately represented. Activities in the fields of education, culture, and religious life were only marginally present, which may be interpreted as reflecting the persistence of traditional, patriarchal cultural patterns, as well as the population’s economic orientation toward activities that ensured immediate income. Urban social strata — particularly clerks, officials, merchants, and artisans — played a key role in the town’s socio-economic structure. The administrative cadre contributed to institutional stability and the promotion of modernization, while merchants and entrepreneurs introduced new economic and cultural patterns. Hospitality establishments functioned as important public spaces for social interaction and commercial exchange, and the close connection between the commercial and hospitality sectors points to the early emergence of bourgeois economic relations within the local community.

Anachorites, Soft Power, and the Mojsinje Holy Mountain

Nebojša Đokić — 2026-06-10

The research presented in this paper focuses on the Mojsinje Holy Mountain, a unique sacral landscape located at a crucial geostrategic junction in Serbia. While popular and scholarly discourse often limits the origin of this monastic complex to the late 14th-century hesychastic movement, the author’s long-term fi eld research indicates that many of the sites (such as St. Roman and St. Nestor) possess significantly older foundations dating back to the Byzantine period (10th–12th centuries). The central thesis suggests a paradox: why would a center for hesychastic “quietude” and anachoretic withdrawal be situated in the immediate vicinity of major military strongholds and the vital “Gate of Pomoravlje”? The answer, according to the author, lies in the Byzantine understanding of the relationship between church and state. In Byzantium, religion was frequently employed as a sophisticated instrument of “soft power” and “hybrid warfare.” The paper delves into the Byzantine ethics of war, contrasting the traditional Roman concept of reconquista (reclaiming former imperial territories) with the ideological use of the Church to pacify and assimilate “barbarian” populations (such as the Pechenegs and Bulgarians). Through an analysis of the writings of Michael Psellos, John Mauropous, and especially Theophylact of Ohrid, the author demonstrates how missionary activity and the establishment of monastic cells served as a frontier mechanism for stabilizing imperial borders. Ultimately, the Mojsinje Holy Mountain is reinterpreted not just as a refuge for monks, but as a strategic spiritual bastion that functioned as a “soft power” projection of the Empire in a zone of high military importance.

Captain Živan S. Protić (1843–1876), Hero of Šumatovac

Ninoslav Stanojlović — 2026-06-10

This paper is dedicated to the life of Engineering Captain 2nd Class Živan S. Protić (Požarevac, 1843 – Šumatovac, 1876), tracing his origins, education, family background, peacetime service, and wartime engagement. Th rough his father, Stevan, he descended from an old Požarevac family of priests and merchants, while through his mother, Milosava, he was the grandson of Ilija Stošić, voivode of Homolje. Živan S. Protić occupies a relatively modest place in Serbian military history, having been overshadowed by his far more prominent older brother, Konstantin (Kosta) S. Protić – general, minister, prime minister, and royal regent. Nevertheless, his participation in, and death during, the renowned Battle of Šumatovac – attested in official documents and the memoirs of his contemporaries – secured him a place among the heroes of the First Serbian-Turkish War of 1876.

During the First Ottoman War – Family Correspondence as a Source for Supplementing the Biography of Tihomir R. Đorđević

Danijela M. Popović Nikolić — 2026-06-10

The legacy of Tihomir R. Đorđević, together with the legacy of the Janković sisters – preserved as special collections within the National Library of Serbia – represents a significant yet still insufficiently researched source base for confirming and expanding both established and newly discovered data on the life and work of Tihomir R. Đorđević. Of particular importance is the exceptionally extensive body of correspondence, only partially and incompletely processed, comprising over six thousand letters and nearly nine thousand sheets. Building on the results of previous research into this corpus, and taking into account that each study has contributed to the identification and presentation of new biographical data on Đorđević – as well as to a more precise understanding of the cultural history of Serbia in the late nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century – this paper presents the findings of research on the corpus of family correspondence among members of the Đorđević family (Radosav and Jelisaveta Đorđević; Borka and Draginja Đorđević, later Janković; as well as letters written by T. R. Đorđević himself). Th e research corpus also includes additional manuscript materials related to the life of the Đorđević family. In addition to the standard archival description of the material (inventory data, internal systematization, localization, and chronological framing), this study incorporates an analytical approach focused on themes, stylistic features, and naming practices, with particular attention given to data that complement and/or correct information found in previous relevant biographies – especially those shedding light on aspects of private life in Serbia at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries. Examining correspondence from various theoretical and methodological perspectives opens up multiple insights into the private sphere, encompassing not only the world of the sender but also the private (and public) lives of others, shaped by the broader social environment and, in particular, by the relationship with the addressee. Such personal testimonies include events, emotions, and experiences; however, despite their primarily intimate and private character, they also reflect a wider social, historical, political, and cultural context. Th e temporal discourse embedded in these testimonies represents an important source for studying its many layers and thus constitutes valuable material for multiple scholarly disciplines. Th e analyzed corpus of correspondence clearly demonstrates its research potential, particularly in the fi elds of the history of private life, biography, and, above all, the study of letters as a distinct genre at the intersection of documentary and literary forms.

Milojko Veselinović (1850–1913)

Žarko Ilić — 2026-06-10

Miloјko Veselinović was born on 17 August 1850 in the village of Jasenje, near Aleksinac, in the Principality of Serbia. After completing a lower secondary school in Aleksinac, he moved to Belgrade, where he finished three additional grades of grammar school. Following his withdrawal from the Teacher Training School in Kragujevac, he obtained his first appointment as a teacher in the village of Prćilovica. In late August 1872, he went to Vranje as a Serbian teacher, sent by the Committee for Schools and Teachers in Old Serbia, Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and remained there until December 1874. Under pressure from the Exarchist movement, he was forced to leave Vranje, despite having achieved considerable success there, as nearly 300 pupils were attending the Serbian school by the end of the second year of his service. Upon returning to Belgrade, he enrolled as a non-degree student in the Philological-Historical Department of the Great School and completed his studies in 1878. He took part in the First and Second Serbian–Ottoman Wars as a member of an insurgent-volunteer detachment, serving as a battalion commander and, at times, as deputy to the commander-in-chief, Miloš Milojević. After the war, he served as a clerk in Poljanica and Čačak, and after a two-year break from state service, in November 1882 he was appointed clerk at the Ministry of War. He remained in this position until his departure for Constantinople in 1889, where he was tasked with working on the publication and editing of textbooks for Serbian schools in the Ottoman Empire. In the later stages of his career, he served as vice-consul in Skopje (1893–1895), Thessaloniki (1895–1896), Bitola (1896–1899), and briefly again in Skopje (1903). He regarded the dissemination of the Serbian name and the establishment of Serbian schools in Old Serbia and Macedonia as the primary goal of his work. In addition to his diplomatic service, scholarly activity constituted an important part of his life. He authored numerous works dealing with ethnographic, philological, and geographical issues of Old Serbia and Macedonia, collected folk poetry from these regions, wrote studies in church history and travel literature, and translated one novel from Polish. He died on 25 February 1913 in the Monastery of St Roman near Aleksinac and was buried in the cemetery of his native village of Jasenje.

(А)ranđel “Raša” Milošević (1851–1931) Supplements to the Biography

Zoran Stevanović — 2026-06-10

(А)Ranđel Rašа Milošević was a distinguished political figure, one of the founders of the People’s Radical Party and a member of its Main Committee, as well as a professor, Minister of National Economy, director of the Serbian Shipping Company, head of the State Monopolies, and a professional writer, publicist, and translator. He spent his childhood in his native town, where he completed elementary education, after which his family relocated to Belgrade. There he attended secondary school and subsequently pursued higher education at the Faculty of Engineering of the Great School, later continuing at the Department of Chemical Technology of the Technological Institute in Saint Petersburg. Upon completing his studies, he began his professional career as a professor in Pirot, ultimately concluding it as head of the State Monopolies. In his youth, Milošević was a close associate and follower of Svetozar Marković. By 1881, he had emerged as one of the founders of the People’s Radical Party, and two years later was sentenced to death – later commuted to imprisonment – for his role in organizing the Timok Rebellion. This study provides new and lesser-known information concerning the origins of Raša Milošević, his childhood in Aleksinac, family circumstances, as well as his years in Pirot and his political engagement.

A Contribution to the Biography of Doctor Dobroslav Knezmilojković

Aleksandar Nikezić — 2026-06-10

Dobroslav Knezmilojković (1865–1941) was born in Aleksinac into one of the town’s most distinguished families. He received his early education in Aleksinac and Niš, and later graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy in Vienna, where he earned his doctorate in chemistry in 1893. During his studies, he was a member of the prestigious Saxonia student association. After returning to Serbia, he worked as a state chemist, supervising and inspecting city pharmacies throughout the country. He was among the founders of the Serbian Chemical Society. For many years, he served as director of the State Chemical Laboratory and was a member of examination committees for professional certification. He took part in the Balkan Wars and the First World War. As a skilled fencer, he was also active as an instructor in the “Dušan Silni” Gymnastics Society. In addition, he supported numerous patriotic and cultural-educational associations and played a significant role in founding agricultural cooperatives in Aleksinac and its surrounding area. After his retirement, he continued to participate actively in the social and political life of his hometown.

Nikodije Arandjelović Kode: Teacher, Warrior, and Sufferer

Aleksandar Dinčić — 2026-06-10

Based on available archival and memoir sources, as well as relevant scholarly literature, this paper examines the complex life trajectory of Nikodije Arandjelović Kode— an intriguing historical figure—from his birth and education, through his participation in the Great War, to his activities during the interwar period and World War II. A particularly valuable source for the study of Nikodije Arandjelović is the documentation from his teaching personnel file, which is used extensively in this research. These materials, combined with Arandjelović’s personal recollections, suggest that he was a respected and esteemed individual, although his historical role still cannot be fully assessed. Nikodije Arandjelović belonged to a generation that had the fortune of surviving the first wartime upheaval, but also the misfortune of experiencing a second one that destroyed their family and profoundly shattered their personality and identity.

Tihomir R. Đorđević in Aleksinac (Late 1870s–1905): The Beginnings of One of the First Serbian Cultural Historians

Miroslav M. Popović — 2026-06-10

Tihomir R. Đorđević (1868–1944), who began his professional career at the age of twenty and left a lasting mark in various scholarly fields, was an ethnologist and folklorist, as well as a sociologist and cultural historian who applied the latest developments in European and global scholarship. He studied the folk life and customs of the Serbian people, as well as cultural developments in Serbia in the nineteenth century. He particularly distinguished himself through his research on the life, customs, and creativity of the Roma, as well as through his contributions to the study of the everyday life of Turks, Muslims, Albanians, Circassians, and Jews. As a cultural historian, he was notable for his conscientiousness and precision, observing phenomena within a broader context while simultaneously collecting data meticulously and conducting detailed analyses. He was born in Knjaževac in 1868 to Radosav and Jelisaveta Đorđević. He began his education in Tešica, continued in Aleksinac, and then in Niš. From 1887 to 1891, he studied at the Department of History and Philology of the Belgrade Higher School. He subsequently worked as a municipal clerk and later as a teacher at the Aleksinac Lower Gymnasium, the Private Gymnasium, and the Teachers’ School. In 1902, he spent one semester at the University of Vienna, and he later defended his doctoral dissertation at the University of Munich. In 1905, he became a professor at the First Men’s Gymnasium, and, following the establishment of the Ethnological Seminary at the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Belgrade, he was appointed assistant professor. Đorđević’s education, teaching, and scholarly work in Aleksinac were crucial for his development as a scientist and as a public and cultural figure. As a scholar well versed in history, archaeology, and several foreign languages, he made a significant contribution to the education of students in Aleksinac. Through public lectures, the founding of the journal Karadžić, and his participation in scholarly and educational excursions, he played an important role in shaping cultural life and public opinion in the Aleksinac region, helping to place the town among Serbian cultural and scholarly centers. The influence and quality of the works published in Karadžić were widely recognized. It was in Aleksinac that Đorđević fully developed as an ethnologist, teaching Ethnography of Serbian Lands at the end of the nineteenth century, while also distinguishing himself as a cultural historian through theoretical contributions published in Karadžić around the turn of the century. His life and work in Aleksinac represented a turning point that led him to become one of the leading scholars and intellectuals on a Serbian, Yugoslav, and European scale.

Deputies From the Town of Aleksinac in the Assemblies of the Principality and the Kingdom of Serbia (1870–1918)

Zoran Stevanović — 2026-06-10

This paper analyses the political representation of the town of Aleksinac in the assemblies of the Principality and the Kingdom of Serbia, situating it within the broader processes of state-building and the development of parliamentary institutions in the second half of the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries. By tracing the chronological succession of deputies, the study demonstrates that local political elites played a significant role in mediating between central authorities and local communities, thereby contributing to the consolidation of modern political structures. The electoral history of Aleksinac reflects key transformations in Serbian political life, including the transition from publicly conducted elections under strong governmental influence to more institutionalised practices based on secrecy and party organisation. Particular attention is devoted to the long-term political prominence of Vasa K. Stošić, whose career illustrates the enduring influence of local leadership in a period increasingly shaped by ideological and partisan divisions. Combining elements of prosopographical analysis with a microhistorical approach, the paper highlights the importance of local perspectives for understanding the functioning of parliamentary politics in Serbia. It argues that the study of smaller urban centres such as Aleksinac provides valuable insights into the dynamics of political modernisation, the formation of representative institutions, and the interaction between local and national political spheres.

The Diaries of General Pavković Up to the Outbreak of the NATO Bombing as a Historical Source

Miroslav Radivojević — 2026-06-10

The books based on the diary entries of General Nebojša Pavković constitute engaging and compelling reading. Their original source value, practical usability, and significance for historiography are considerable. Daily notes on intelligence assessments, armed clashes and events, the names of those killed, and the occasional aggregated presentation of data enable historians to access a wealth of valuable information, some of which would otherwise remain unknown for decades, or even permanently. The diaries serve as testimony both to the struggle against the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and to the participants on both sides, as well as, to a large extent, to the role of the international factor. Pavković addresses not only military but also political actors, recording conversations, agreements, and orders aimed at resolving problems within the territory of the province. Certain segments, however, require a degree of caution, particularly Pavković’s attitude towards specific individuals with whom he was evidently in conflict, as well as the inherent limitation of being unable, from his position, to provide a detailed account of all events during a turbulent and complex period across extensive zones of responsibility. For this reason, comparison with and supplementation from other sources are necessary. Pavković’s views on Generals Momčilo Perišić, Aleksandar Dimitrijević, and, to a lesser extent, Dragoljub Ojdanić are subject to such analysis. Some of Pavković’s claims are, nevertheless, corroborated by subsequent events, such as the final conviction of Perišić for espionage and the disclosure of state secrets in 2021 and 2022, as well as Dimitrijević’s conduct in relation to, and before, the Hague Tribunal. In addition to primary materials from proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office, historians may also draw on memoirs and recollections of other participants for purposes of comparison and further contextualisation. This does not diminish the fact that the diary records of Nebojša Pavković, one of the most significant military commanders in modern Serbian history, and all the more so for that reason, represent a seminal and indispensable work for any historian interested in topics related to the events in Kosovo and Metohija during 1998 and 1999.

Between Neutrality and Solidarity: Romanian Policy at the Onset of the Great Eastern Crisis (1875–1876)

Danko Leovac — 2026-06-10

The paper analyzes how the Principality of Romania navigated between neutrality and solidarity with neighboring Christian peoples during the first phase of the Great Eastern Crisis, from the Herzegovina uprising in 1875 to the end of the First Serbian–Ottoman War in 1876. It argues that Romania practiced an “active neutrality,” combining diplomatic restraint with military and administrative measures to protect its security and prepare the ground for future independence. On the basis of diplomatic correspondence, circular notes, decrees, consular reports, and the contemporary press, the study reconstructs the evolution of Romanian policy from cautious observation to a more assertive defense of its interests. Foreign Minister Vasile Boerescu’s circular of 9 August 1875 codified Romania’s stance as a “passive but interested observer,” insisting on strict neutrality and good relations with the Porte, while openly acknowledging sympathy for Christian populations in Herzegovina, Bosnia, Serbia, and Montenegro. This formula reflected the fundamental dilemma of Romanian diplomacy: how to maintain an autonomous national policy distinct from that of its Balkan neighbors, despite strong emotional and political affinities. Neutrality, however, did not mean passivity. Prince Carol ordered large-scale maneuvers and troop concentrations along the Danube, signalling readiness and deterring potential violations of Romanian territory. The government issued detailed instructions to prefects and port captains to prevent the crossing of armed bands, volunteers, and war matériel, and set up commissions to control implementation, although enforcement remained uneven and episodes of Bulgarian and Russian activity on Romanian soil persisted. At the same time, Romanian newspapers articulated a programmatic vision that durable peace in the East required the creation of autonomous Christian states, linking Romanian historical experience with the ongoing struggles of Balkan Slavs. As war between Serbia and the Ottoman Empire became imminent, Foreign Minister Mihail Kogălniceanu attempted to use the crisis to obtain de facto recognition of Romanian independence, while Romanian diplomacy campaigned for the neutralization of the Danube to avoid being drawn into hostilities. After Serbian military setbacks and the formation of Ion Brătianu’s cabinet in July 1876, Bucharest tightened its neutral stance, restricting arms deliveries and volunteer transit despite Serbian pressure and the 1868 treaty. The paper concludes that the experience of 1875–1876 functioned as a transitional phase in Romanian foreign policy: from interested observer, through an actively neutral guardian of its own security, to a future independent actor ready to participate in reshaping the Balkan political map in 1877.

Great Britain and Serbia in 1876

Čedomir Antić — 2026-06-10

This article reconstructs the generally known history of British policy towards Serbia and the Eastern Question during 1876. The author has noted a certain disproportion in the public movement in favor of Balkan Christians and the support they enjoyed in some parts of the media. Also, regardless of all the differences, British policy, the author argues, had no significant alternative in the British political movement aimed to support the Balkan Christians. All changes in British policy could primarily be reflected at the superficial level, their geopolitical and cultural assignment, since the early Modern ages, could change only in cases such as the world wars - when the British empire acquired unexpected enemies, and even then the change in its policy was not permanent.

Serbia in British Reports (1880–1883): Diplomatic Image in a Time of Political Upheavals

Jelena Paunović — 2026-06-10

This paper analyzes the representation of Serbia and King Milan Obrenović in British reports from 1880 to 1883, with particular attention to the political, diplomatic, and economic context in which these reports were produced. The study situates the image of the Serbian monarch within the broader framework of Great Power rivalry in the Balkans, emphasizing the extent to which British observers interpreted developments in Serbia through the prism of imperial competition, strategic interests, and regional instability. By examining British diplomatic and political sources, the paper seeks to illuminate not only the perception of King Milan himself, but also the wider international circumstances that shaped that perception. A central issue discussed in the paper is the railway connection between Serbia and Thessaloniki, which represented far more than an infrastructural project. It became an important site of political and economic contestation, as both Britain and Austria-Hungary sought to secure influence over Serbian transit routes, trade, and foreign orientation. British reports reveal a close interest in the railway question because of its implications for commercial access, regional connectivity, and the balance of power in Southeast Europe. In this sense, the project functioned as a key indicator of Serbia’s position between competing external pressures and internal modernization eff orts. The paper also examines the role of foreign capital in Serbian political life, showing how financial negotiations and controversial agreements exposed the vulnerability of the Serbian state and complicated King Milan’s governing position. British sources appear attentive to the tensions arising from Serbia’s dependence on external economic support, particularly when such support intersected with political interests and diplomatic maneuvering. King Milan is thus presented as a ruler whose authority was shaped by the demands of modernization, the constraints of international politics, and the challenges of maintaining domestic stability. Special attention is given to the proclamation of the Kingdom of Serbia in 1882, which is interpreted as a major symbolic and political turning point. In British reports, this event is not merely described as a dynastic transformation, but as a development of broader regional significance, reflecting Serbia’s aspirations for greater state legitimacy and international recognition. At the same time, the proclamation is understood within the context of intensified Great Power competition, which continued to defi ne Serbia’s external environment and limit the autonomy of its political choices. Overall, the paper argues that British reports portray King Milan Obrenović as a monarch positioned at the intersection of domestic transformation and international rivalry. These sources off er valuable insight into how Serbia was perceived in Britain during the early 1880s and how its political evolution was framed in relation to the strategic concerns of the Great Powers. The study therefore contributes to a more nuanced understanding of Serbia’s place in nineteenth-century European diplomacy and of the complexities surrounding King Milan’s rule.

The Clash of Empires: The Political and Military Dimensions of Relations Between the Ottoman and Russian Empires During the Great Eastern Crisis (1875–1878)

Tamara Bošković — 2026-06-10

This paper examines the political and military dimensions of relations between the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire during the Great Eastern Crisis (1875– 1878), a period that profoundly reshaped the Balkan region in the final quarter of the nineteenth century. The crisis began with uprisings in Herzegovina and Bosnia and escalated through the Serbian–Ottoman Wars and the Russo–Turkish War, culminating in the Treaty of San Stefano and the decisions of the Congress of Berlin. These events marked a decisive turning point in the decline of Ottoman authority in the Balkans and the reconfiguration of regional power relations. Th e study focuses on the interaction between imperial interests, ideology, and geopolitics in shaping Russian and Ottoman policies during the crisis. Russia sought to expand its influence in Southeastern Europe by combining diplomatic initiatives with military intervention, while simultaneously relying on the ideological framework of Pan- Slavism, which served as a powerful instrument for mobilizing support among Slavic populations in the Balkans. Th rough this ideological construct, Russia positioned itself as the protector of Orthodox and Slavic peoples, thereby legitimizing its involvement in regional conflicts. In contrast, the Ottoman Empire, weakened by internal political instability, economic difficulties, and administrative challenges, aimed to preserve its territorial integrity and maintain international support. Its responses to the uprisings and wars reflected both the limitations of imperial power and attempts to adapt to mounting external pressures from the Great Powers. Drawing on a comparative analysis of primary sources and relevant domestic and foreign scholarship, this paper highlights the complexity of Ottoman–Russian relations during the Great Eastern Crisis. It demonstrates how military confrontation, diplomatic negotiations, and ideological strategies were deeply intertwined, shaping not only the outcomes of individual conflicts but also broader geopolitical transformations. Th e research contributes to a deeper understanding of imperial rivalry in the late nineteenth century and the role of great-power politics in the transformation and gradual decline of the Ottoman Empire.

The Skill of the (Im)possible – Pre-war Politicians From Pirot in the “Embrace” of the Communists

Davor Lazarević — 2026-06-10

Behind the façade of the United People’s Front, the recognizable iconography of the communists, their party vocabulary inherited from the pre-war period, and the gradually emerging cult of personality surrounding Josip Broz Tito were deliberately subdued in public propaganda. In order to create the impression of the broadest possible freedom of political choice, the leadership of the Front strategically incorporated prewar politicians of civic and democratic orientation into its ranks, presenting them as prominent representatives in the campaign for the first parliamentary elections in the new state. For most of these individuals, such engagement represented the final phase of their political careers – a “swan song” – while for the regime it served as yet another instrument in shaping the contours of a controlled and essentially pseudo-democratic system. This phenomenon is particularly visible at the local level, especially through the activities of Dragoljub Jovanović, a distinguished Yugoslav politician and native of Pirot, who enjoyed considerable trust among the local population. Alongside him, several lesser-known local figures, such as Dušan Stevčić and Branko Radosavljević, aligned themselves with the new authorities and found a place among the political “winners.” At the same time, others, among them Dimitrije Mladenović Gaga and Svetozar Misirlić, were subjected to repression shortly aft er liberation, resulting in long-term imprisonment or severe personal consequences. By examining selected segments of their biographies related to the immediate post-war period, this paper seeks to highlight key aspects of the political and social model established at the state level, which was clearly reflected and reproduced within the local context.

Confiscation of Property From “Enemies of the People” in the City of Pirot

Predrag M. Vidanović — 2026-06-10

In order to establish a socialist order after World War II, modeled on the Soviet Union, and to create a material foundation, that is, a new form of property, the fundamental human right to life was often violated. In the course of its development, the socialist-communist system, while forming this material basis, enacted a series of legal measures, the most important of which were laws on confiscation, agrarian reform, and nationalization. This paper examines the confiscation of property from the so-called “enemies of the people” in the city of Pirot, presenting three case studies as representative examples. Panta Veljković, a merchant from Pirot, was sentenced to one year of forced labor, the loss of civil rights for two years, and the confiscation of part of his property because he had hidden 200 kilograms of sugar in his attic and failed to report it to the competent authorities, despite being aware of the legal consequences. Svetozar Misirlić, a descendant of a prominent and respected local family, was a successful hotelier and president of the municipality. A man of imposing physique and impetuous temperament, he was one of the most controversial figures in the Pirot bazaar in the twentieth century. His name is most often associated with the linden treelined promenade along the Nišava River, but also with his extrajudicial execution by communist authorities in Pirot in September 1944. Dimitrije Mladenović – Mita Gaga, one of the most prominent citizens of Pirot in the twentieth century, was a merchant, industrialist, senator, and Member of Parliament in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. He was the founder of the “Tigar” factory and the “Temac” hydroelectric power plant. Accused by the communist authorities of collaboration with the occupier during the war, he was found guilty and sentenced to death, a sentence later commuted to ten years’ imprisonment on appeal. The sentence also included the confiscation of his property, resulting in the transfer of his ownership shares in Tigar and the Temac hydroelectric power plant to the state.