## 4 Intensity Map Derived in This Study
The first one is about the reporter, priest [PERSON], who was the parish priest in the village of Vlaska near Mladenovac at the time of the earthquake. The second one,explicitly written in the report, is that the Vlaska church building was a wooden log cabin, in contrast to Vlaska near Jagodina, where there was no church at all. From the report, we can also learn that the brick houses were damaged: \"My house, as well as that of many neighbors, was heavily cracked, and in many places, the chimneys fell\" (EMS-98: chimneys fracture at the roof line, I = VIII), and that \"church itself swayed in that direction\". Based on the quoted report, we adopted the value of intensity I = VIII. [PERSON] likewise assigns the intensity I = VIII, but to the wrong Vlaska village, while he evaluates the effects in the right Vlaska with I = VI, based on an unknown report. Another important piece of information in this report is that, unlike the brick houses that cracked and the chimneys fell from them, the wooden church did not suffer any damage. The third example is given for Batocina (number 3 in Appendix C). Although it does not give a level for the strength of the earthquake, it very well describes the damage to the buildings: \"Nearly all chimneys fell\"; \"Masonry cracked in almost all directions, bricks were falling out of the masonry in some places\"; \"Church unable to serve anymore\"; \"The school is closed the entire month of April, because the repairs are extensive\". Hence, for this location, we estimated the intensity with an interval value of I = VIII-IX degrees. Also, in the report for 8 April and the following report for 9 April, it is explicitly stated that \"the direction is always from NW to SE\" and that \"the cracks from the first tremor were only widened by subsequent earthquakes\". The fourth example refers to Lapovo (number 4 in Appendix C) and it shows that reports given for aftershocks can help us in a good assessment of the intensity of the main shock. Thus, apart from the information that \"there was a strong earthquake\" (I = V according to EMS-98), there is no other data on the basis of which we could estimate the approximate value of the intensity of the main shock. However, in the report from the railway station dated 13 April (the fifth day after the main shock), it is stated that \"there was no damage\" and that \"the old cracks (from the main shock) are getting wider\". We can conclude that cracks did appear on the station building during the main shock, which leads us to rate the intensity in Lapovo as I = VII-VIII. Since the nearby locations were rated I = VIII and I = VIII-IX, we finally rated the intensity in Lapovo with I = VIII. The same was the case with the location of Velika Plana, which is about 17 km north of Lapovo (see example number 5 in Appendix C). In the first report from the railway station in Velika Plana, after the main shock, there is no mention at all that the station building was damaged. We learn about its damage only from the report dated 22 April 1893, which says that \"the station building is increasingly damaged\". Since the type and extent of the damage were not specified, we rated the intensity with I = VII-VIII. The next-to-last example we give here refers to the village of Cetereze (see example 6 in Appendix C), which is mentioned in the report for the nearby village of Brzohode. This report states, \"at the church in Cetereze, murky water flowed from the fountain for 2-3 \(s\)\". It is very difficult to determine the intensity with this information only. Bearing in mind that Cetereze is located between the towns of Zabari in the west and Brzohode and Petrovac in the east, and as we have in the report for Zabari the information that \"In Zabari the church is badly cracked and damaged, especially the vault and the north side under the tower\" and in the report for Petrovac that \"the vaults of the church were severely cracked\", it seemed logical that something similar happened with the church in Cetereze.