On the identical obligations of the population in the chrysobulls issued for the St. George monastery near Skopje

The chrysobulls issued by the Bulgarian emperor Constantine Tich (1238), and by the Serbian king Milutin (1299) authenticated all the estates and privileges of the St. George monastery near Skopje. From these chrysobulls one learns how, during the XI, XII and XIII centuries, the monastery acquired diverse gifts from some ten Byzantine emperors, four Bulgarian emperors, and four Serbian kings or rulers. Both the Bulgarian and the Serbian documents mention a large number of matching expressions that indicated the obligations of the subjugated peasants (serfs), criminal offences and judicial penalties and one sees the same titles for the representatives of all local authorities. Greek and Slav words were used as special terms. It was attested a long time ago that the Greek expressions originated in Byzantium and that they were taken from the rich Byzantine terminology. All of this occurred when Skopje and its vicinity were under stable Byzantine rule in the course of the decades and centuries, and, more substantially, when it was an integral part of the large Byzantine thema of Bulgaria. The case is different where Slav terms are concerned. They originated within the borders of the Bulgarian or the Serbian state, or they may have come into being as the Slav translation of some Greek expressions. The presence of Greek and Slav terms in the Bulgarian and the Serbian documents did not escape the notice of scholars and they have succeeded in accurately explaining most of them. Still, there are no adequate interpretations for some terms, and the inaccurate explanations given for a number of expressions have nonetheless become accepted in professional literature. This paper devotes particular attention, concerning the aforesaid problem circle, to the appearance of the word desetak (tithe) both in the district of Skopje and in the Serbian mother territories, then, to the specific meaning of the term carina (customs duty) to the appearance of mostnina or the toll for transit across bridges, the mistaken explanation of the term udava, as well as the differences between priselica and preselica. Researchers established long ago that peasants in Byzantium paid tithes in wheat, wine, sheep, pigs and honey, either in kind or in coin. This paper explains that tithes in honey or in beehives, during the XII century, were also paid by peasants in the Serbian mother territories that were never under direct Byzantine rule nor did they ever constitute a part of any Byzantine thema. The same applies to the payment of mostnina in Polimlje (the Lim River Basin), also in the XII century, which can be explained by the Byzantine influence that penetrated in diverse ways into the Serbian mother territories. The paper sheds light on the special meaning of the term carina, as well as its widespread use. At issue was a land that consisted of fields, vineyards and orchards that were cultivated by subjugated peasants, on behalf of the ruler, nobility or boyars. These kinds of carina existed in the district of Skopje, and in the territory of Hum Konavle, in the district of Kotor, and along the Coast. The phenomenon of carina in these regions can be explained by the fact that they were part of the Byzantine themata of Bulgaria and Dalmatia. As for the manner of punishment known under the term udava, it was for a long time believed to be 'the arbitrary imprisonment because of a debt', that is 'the arbitrary court'. This misinterpretation has become deeply rooted in professional literature despite the fact that four decades ago, it was proved that the word udava implied punishment in summary court procedure, without trial or the presentation of evidence. For certain criminal offences, there were pre-determined penalties that were pronounced by the authorities of those times. This paper concludes with the explanation that the term priselica meant compensation for damage caused by bandits or thieves, and that priselica was not the same as preselica. The latter expression meant the temporary sojourn of a nobleman and his suite in a district that had been placed in his charge or 'possession'. The nobleman, his suite and their horses, to all intents and purposes, enjoyed the right to maintenance, which was an additional burden for the population of a certain district.