STUDIA CROATICA

Year XI – January - June 1970 – Vol. 36-37

CARDINAL LOUIS STEPINAC

THE FRANCISCAN NICHOLAS TAVELIĆ: FIRST CROATIAN SAINT

POWER AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL COMPLEX AND SOCIAL PHENOMENON IN CROATIAN LITERATURE AFTER THE WAR

CHRISTIANITY AND NATIONALISM

Documents

CROATIAN PRIESTS DEFEND THE CROATIAN CHARACTER OF ISTRIA

EXPLOITATION, NEOCOLONIALISM, OR WHAT ELSE?

Notes and Comments

THE INSECURITY OF NATIONAL POLITICS IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Dr. ANTE STARČEVIĆ IN RECENT FRENCH PUBLICATIONS

Chronicles and News

IN MEMORIAM OF PROF. JOHAN WILHELM MANNHARDT

MIROSLAV KRLEŽA

ZDRAVKO DUČMELIĆ'S RECENT EXHIBITION (WILDENSTEIN, 4/27-5/10, 1970)

MICRON NEWS

Book review

Luka Brajnović: U Plamenu (Catching Fire)

Eugen Beluhan: Stepinac Govori (Stepinac Speaks)

Ante Kadić: From Croatian Renaissance to Yugoslav Socialism

George J. Prpić: Communism and Nationalism in Yugoslavia

Ivo Omrčanin: Diplomatische und Politische Geschichte Kroatiens

Ivo Rojnica: Susreti i doživljaji 1938-1945 (Meetings and events experienced between 1938-1945)

Franjo Tudjman: Velike Ideje i Mali Narodi (Big Ideas and Small Nations),

Dr. Kvirin Vasilj: Zašto Vjerujem? — Why do I think so?

X Ordinary General Assembly of the Croatian Latin American Institute of Culture

CARDINAL LOUIS STEPINAC

Advocate for the divine cause and for his Croatian people. — Reflections on the 10th anniversary of his death (+ February 10, 1960)

FRANJO NEVISTIĆ

It is a very delicate matter to write about religious things and figures in decidedly anti-religious times. We expose ourselves to the danger of being misunderstood. Some might declare us ignorant, anti-scientific, obscurantist. B. Russell, J. Huxley, J. Rostand—a whole series of recognized authorities—are irreligious, atheists. Russell, one of the most outstanding mathematical-philosophical talents of our century, demanded not to be considered a Christian and wrote a book: Why I Am Not a Christian? Isn't opposing so many scientific authorities the audacity of the ignorant?

Furthermore, our subtitle could be considered controversial and provocative, even for those who publicly declare themselves Catholic. We could be accused of attempting to attribute to men what belongs only to God, of elevating the interests of the Croatian people to the status of a purely divine matter, of blurring the lines between universal values in their pure authenticity and particular interests tainted, perhaps, by depravities of any kind. Ultimately, such a position would be offensive to Stepinac's character, something we wish to avoid at all costs, for this extraordinary man transcends all such considerations.

Aware of this danger, we will try to explain more precisely what we mean and what our primary concern is in beginning to write this article dedicated to the exceptional figure of Cardinal Stepinac on the tenth anniversary of his death.

To begin with, we also sincerely acknowledge national utilitarian motives. But isn't this a position flawed from the outset? Isn't national utilitarianism a fundamental cause of the general axiological confusion and the "egotistical" division so characteristic of the crisis of our time? Do we have in mind the right and the possibility of any justification for invoking what we consider a universal value for our particular utilitarian ends?

When we think about this, we are troubled by the historical-cultural research of the Austrian professor F. Heer. "The Advocate of the Divine Cause," as we have stated in the subtitle, inevitably links our thoughts to the knowledge and experience of the aforementioned professor, concerning the most serious error and abuse attributable to ecclesiastical authority and Church dignitaries, which lies at the very foundation of the "crisis" of Christianity. Does not the age-old attempt to transfer God's authority to man, which Heer rightly considers the fundamental abuse of authorities in general and ecclesiastical authorities in particular, lie hidden behind our formulation in the subtitle? [1] This is the first thing we must keep in mind when writing this article.

But, moreover, as we stated at the beginning, for many, exalting a religious figure means taking a stand against science, progress, and civilization. The evidence of this "truth" is especially revealed by the fact of so many scientific and technical successes—trips to the moon, instant images and transmission of the voice of the man walking on Selene, to all points of the Earth, on the one hand—and so many religious divisions, even within Christianity itself, that again threaten to unravel its last bastion, the Catholic Church.

Instead of submitting to scientific reason, which is generating reliable knowledge, and to the logical consistency that arises from it—a condition indispensable for tolerance among individuals, peoples, and nations—we cling to religious fantasies that sow intolerance and establish the worship of tribal deities, resulting in hatred and intractable conflicts. The age-old battle between faith and religion, on the one hand, and reason, science, and disbelief, on the other, seems to be drawing to a close, inexorably turning in favor of the latter. What, then, is the truth?

Religion, Civilization, and Progress

Religion, especially Christianity, has always faced difficulties throughout its nearly two-thousand-year history.

A. J. Toynbee recounts a famous case, occurring at the dawn of the Christian era, which subsequently characterizes the entire history of Christianity. "When the struggle between the victorious Christian church and the local pre-Christian religion ended in the Roman Empire, a famous incident occurred at the time when the Roman-Christian imperial government was forcibly closing pagan temples and suppressing pagan forms of worship in the western part of the empire. In the course of this campaign, the government ordered the removal of the statue and altar of Victory, which Julius Caesar had placed there, from the Senate in Rome.

B. The spokesman for the Senate at that time, Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, held a debate with Saint Anthony on the matter, and the documents of that debate have come down to us. Symmachus was defeated, not by arguments but by force majeure. The government simply closed the temples and removed the statues. But in one of his final arguments, Symmachus wrote these words: 'It is impossible to arrive at such a great mystery by following only one path. The mystery of which Symmachus speaks is the mystery of the universe, the mystery of the relationship in which God exists with the good and evil. Christianity never answered Symmachus. Suppressing a rival religion is not providing an answer. The question posed by Symmachus is still alive in today's world. I believe the time has come for us to confront it."[2] We cannot accept the British historian's opinion that Christian philosophers and theologians, their saints, and their Magisterium have not provided an answer.

We could accept it on the condition that we acknowledge that this answer was not understood by many and was obscured by the actual lives of Christians, even the most representative ones, but that it was not a testament to their Christian truth. But we can accept the truth of Symmachus's formulation of the problem, as well as the fact that there were and are to this day many Symmachuses who demand a clearer, more acceptable, more convincing answer. Modern scientific man is not satisfied with the mere invocation of the Church's sanctity and authority, says a Croatian philosopher. He demands justification of our belief before the judgment of reason.[3]

Christianity has often been accused of being an adversary of progress and civilization, both in theory and in practice.

When Jean Rostand says, quite sincerely, that he would like God to exist, but that he cannot believe in His existence, he is a new and modern Symmachus asking for reasons for Christian belief. "They include me among the atheists," he told a French priest, "and I accept it. But what is an atheist? What I don't believe in is a personal God who would look down on us, judge us, punish us, or give us rewards. But I have no right to deny a God who would represent a kind of sense of evolution, a finished perfection, deeply interwoven in the universe..." Of course, such a statement, made by an authority like his, confuses us, reframing Symmachus's problem for all of us. And there are so many other authorities, from Einstein, Julian Huxley Sr., Julian Huxley Jr., Bertrand Russell, to J. Rostand himself, who speak in this way.

To contribute to the solution of this perennial problem, a radio debate was held between Friedrich Heer and Gerhard Szczesny. The latter published a book entitled: *Die Zukunft des Unglaubens* — *The Future of Unbelief*, repeating in a new form all the arguments against the Christian faith in light of the conception of a contemporary non-Christian man.

Friedrich Heer was invited by a German radio station to respond to Szczesny, who believes that the current crisis of Christianity is definitive. "Insofar as public opinion in the Western world insists that only the veracity of the tenets of the Christian faith can save the world, it will necessarily prolong the time of unbelief and will always condemn new generations to stupidity, superficiality, and cynicism." Szczesny himself explains these formulations: "What does this statement of mine say? It says that I oppose the Christian claim to religious domination, its worldview, ethical, cultural, or ultimately, political."

Discussing the number or percentage of those who fulfill their Christian duties in Germany, Szczesny adds: “It is not precisely the number that is the issue here, but there is no doubt: the majority of our contemporaries do not believe in a personal God, or in the conversion of man to Jesus Christ, or in the Last Judgment and the afterlife. Nevertheless, 'public opinion' and the norms of our society do not stem from this fact but from that fiction. The Christian image of the world and the Christian sentiment of the world are granted a universality they do not possess, while at the same time demanding their obligatory character for everyone.”[4]

If there were an absolute majority of Christians who fulfilled their faith, it would be logical to demand recognition of the social order built on the foundation of Christian doctrine. But in this way, relying on this nonexistent majority, all those who hold a different opinion, especially non-believers, are considered a "minority of lunatics and evil people," terrorizing them to such an extent that they have no alternative but to hide their convictions or to acknowledge them and expose themselves to "terror." If one accepts that the concepts of "Christianity, humanism, and religiosity" are interchangeable synonyms, then the lives of those who do not share this conviction are merely existences in the "practical-factual" world.

Professor Heer acknowledges that there is a crisis in Christianity today, but he gives it a different meaning. His opponent views it globally, accusing Christianity as a whole. Heer analyzes the phenomenon and identifies three types or classes of Christian men who, through their anti-Christian behavior, create the impression of a general crisis. The first type comprises the fanatics and intolerant individuals who demand absolute freedom for themselves and their Church, advocating the elimination of all who think differently, since they are, therefore, enemies of the State and subversive elements. The second type consists of the restorationist politicians who try to publicly identify their power, and the power of their party, with the cause of God, the Church, and free "humanity."

The third represents the "snob" of Christian culture, who talks about everything, judges everything, and condemns everyone in the name of his Christianity, "without realizing that Christianity, in him, has long since become mere literature and idle chatter." These three types of Christians merely skim the surface of phenomena with a sharp intelligence, but without the "inner participation or the strength of faith." "This kind of worldly Christianity reveals a very late hour... And that lends it a certain twilight glow, but does not transform it into dawn."

Heer considers this current crisis, this "definitive liquidation," as "the process of incarnation, of that growth of the life of Christianity in the world which can only occur after the radioactive dissolution of its confessional and non-confessional elements, its orthodoxies and heterodoxies, its secularizations and spiritualizations that belong to this life process which is the emission of light" (Strahlung). This death of the secular elements forms the humus for a new life and the regeneration of Christianity.[5]

Two famous British historians, E. Gibbon, from the 18th century, and Sir J. G. Frazer, were similarly adversaries of religion and Christianity. The first, in describing the splendor of the Roman Empire and its fall, attributing it substantially to the penetration of religious sentiment, added: "I have described the triumph of barbarism and religion." Frazer, in turn, has deepened and explained Gibbon's ideas. According to him, the penetration of Eastern doctrines into the rationally constructed Greco-Roman world undermined its foundations. That world rested on the firm basis of the subordination of the individual to the community. "Trained from childhood" in the ideal of subordination to the community, Greeks and Romans did not hesitate to sacrifice themselves completely when the time came. If they acted otherwise, the idea of justifying themselves on any grounds other than cowardice never occurred to them.

According to this historian, religions, especially Christianity, by giving absolute supremacy to the salvation of the individual soul, disregarded duties to the community of any kind. The Civitas mundi held no more value for personal salvation than that obtained in direct communion with God. Thus, patriotism lost its meaning, while saints and cloistered figures became an ideal. Even the "perpetuation of the species" was renounced, with monastic life and vows of chastity in mind. "The revival of Roman law, Aristotelian philosophy, and ancient art and literature at the end of the Middle Ages signaled Europe's return to native ideals of life and conduct, to healthier and more manly concessions to the world. The long standstill in the march of civilization had ended. The flow of the eastern invasion had, at last, changed. And it is still ebbing."[6]

In quoting the words of his great compatriot, Toynbee notes that those less familiar with historical texts might easily attribute these ideas to A. Rosenberg. Because the idea of a healthier and more virile life evokes Nietzschean theory and National Socialist practice and, we might add, Marxist-Stalinist theory and practice.

Toynbee asks his readers to agree with him that our current civilization is a post-Christian civilization and "of the same order as the pre-Christian Greco-Roman civilization." From what we can personally see, we cannot help but accept this assertion by Toynbee, which, in turn, is none other than Frazer's idea that "the Eastern invasion" continues to ebb. This ebb of the Eastern spirit signifies, for Sir Frazer, a return to the Greco-Roman world, to a more virile civilization, a rational civilization of a scientific-technical and industrial type.

The fundamental error, as we can see, lies in the fact that Gibbon and Frazer, impressed by the enormous historical-empirical erudition and a vast accumulation of human testimonies bequeathed by the generations that came before, substituted the historical immanentism of man with the transcendentalism of man and history. They took one projection of human life for the totality of its projections; History is seen as a project of progress and earthly well-being through philosophy, art, and religion, as bearers of a new seed of life and a new dimension that gives them meaning.

Frazer's joy at the fact that the Eastern invasion is still "receding" and the Greco-Roman world is being reborn—that is, the religious and "barbaric" world is dying and the rational world and progress are resurfacing—clearly demonstrates the British scholar's insensitivity to the philosophical problems that alone can give meaning to life. The very geographical location of religiosity—"Eastern invasion"—clearly speaks to Frazer's irreligious and aphilosophical spirit.

For him, religion and philosophy are not a universal human need, but a contingency, a chance, fleeting phenomenon, a contingency historically linked to a certain region of the world with the East. Defending a position contrary to that of Gibbon and Frazer, Toynbee argues that the current state of our civilization may be either a "superfluous repetition" of what the Greco-Romans experienced or, worse still, a slide "backwards on the path of spiritual progress." For the moment, this spiritual regression can be found in a kind of universalization of the Leviathan cult, in idolatry, and in tribal religions.[7]

Seeking to determine the source of this idolatry, Toynbee says: "We have been living for a number of generations, obviously, on spiritual capital, that is, adhering to Christian practices without possessing the Christian faith. And practice that is not sustained by faith is a commodity that is exhausted, as we have suddenly discovered, to our dismay, in this generation."[8]

This divorce between formal practice and Christian faith, according to Toynbee, compels us to a complete revision of our history and a general worldview. We would be impressed by our secular civilization of today, which originated in the genius of Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, in the Renaissance, and in the rise of modern science and technology, along with democracy and our way of life, considering all of this as a brand-new event of unsurpassed magnitude, when in reality it is a repetition of the pagan experiment, a Greco-Roman experiment.

If we have sufficient moral and intellectual energy to revise our current conceptions, we will see that it is not this that is new, but rather the novelty of Christianity, of the "Crucifixion and its spiritual consequences," that should impress and concern us. In the perspective of historical time, revealed by modern science, the life of Christianity, over 1900 years, is comparable to a blink of an eye. We must also consider "the perspectives of Christianity" for our future, in the future of our history.

Focusing his attention on this problem, the British historian of our day reveals his gifts as a great historian, which prevent him, if we dare say so, from seeing a picture synonymous with life, giving preference more to the schemes of historical events than to religious-philosophical solutions. According to him, all historical catastrophes and cataclysms, because of the suffering they cause to humanity, bring about the maturation of a great and new religion.[9]

Christianity, and especially Catholicism, with some of its core tenets, opened up new perspectives after the catastrophe of the Second World War and the ensuing intellectual, moral, and political crisis worldwide. The prospect of a synthesis of all the great higher religions and their shared values emerged. But even so, no one was authorized to believe that this would bring about heaven or paradise on Earth.

Contrary to the communist optimism that, with the establishment of a "universal church" in the face of the pluralism of "churches," authority, subordination, and slavery would disappear, Toynbee stated with cautious optimism that something of the institutionalism of Caesar or a supreme ecclesiastical leader would always survive everywhere, because human nature "has an innate capacity for both good and evil."

And while Frazer and his supporters considered the doctrines of the higher religions antisocial and destructive, Toynbee categorically denied this. The error of Gibbon, Frazer, and others rests on a mistaken conception of the nature of souls or persons. "People are conceived only as agents of spiritual activity; and the only conceivable field of action for spiritual activity is that of spirit-to-spirit relations... If man has been created in the image and likeness of God, and if man's true end is to accentuate his likeness ever more, then Aristotle's assertion that 'man is a social animal' applies to man's highest power and goal: that of striving for an ever more intimate communion with God.

Seeking God is, in itself, a social act. And if God's love was transformed into action within this world in the Redemption of humanity by Christ, man's efforts to become like God must also include efforts to follow Christ's example through sacrifice for the redemption of his fellow human beings... The antithesis between the attempt to save one's own soul by seeking and following God and the attempt to fulfill one's duty to one's neighbor is, therefore, entirely false. The two activities are indissoluble. The human soul that truly seeks salvation is a fully social being, just as the Spartan was like the ant, or the communist is like the bee."[10]

The testimonies we have advocated to prove the existence or non-existence of the religious crisis, the opposition or non-opposition of religion to progress and civilization, have been drawn from the works of authors with an empirical-scientific, precisely historical, orientation, with Toynbee's thoughts being particularly marked by "contaminations" of a reflective and philosophical-theological nature.

To give more complete weight to these testimonies, it is necessary to appeal to the opinions of philosophers by vocation. We will cite only two of existentialist orientation and one of religious tendency with a mystical inclination. The German Martin Heidegger, even though he remains silent before metaphysics and the departure from historical immanentism, leads us logically and inevitably to the door and the prospect of a life, which he calls "authentic life." Analyzing the "phenomenon of man," the astute German thinker, disillusioned and fed up with progress—science and technology—and with the "inauthentic" life that has prevailed in the Western world since the Renaissance, discovers two completely different spheres of existence. By choosing to act in one, the inauthentic one, man degrades himself, descending to the level of the surrounding, material world. Here, his primary occupation is not knowing but acting, operating, securing the means of existence. Indeed, knowing would not constitute either man's interest or his original characteristic.

Where there is no doubt, there is no capacity to escape "the straying, because it implies the illusory certainty of possessing, in such straying, the perfection of one's own being and one's own unity. This illusory certainty is the opposite of faith, which can only be attained on the condition of striving beyond dispersion, toward the unity and stability of being." Abbagnano does not recognize man as a being but as the possibility of being "in relation to being." He adds and explains his position verbatim: "If man were Being itself, and if he possessed by his very nature the unity and stability that are peculiar to Being, faith in Being would be useless and impossible for him.

But this faith asserts itself as necessary in his face as he becomes aware of the distance that separates him from Being and the possibility that his relationship with Being may be weakened or broken. Because of this distance, Being appears to him as an obligation or value: as that to which he himself must strive and anchor himself in order to avoid the danger of a definitive fall. But when he does not recognize such danger and allows himself to be lulled by an illusory security, the doors of faith close, because Being does not appear to him as an obligation but as a possession already attained and irrevocable. In such a case, he is this side of faith, because he is this side of doubt; he confuses the instantaneous appearances of his daily life, the fictitious arrangements, the renunciation and the ignorance with a secure possession and deludes himself into thinking he has reached a safe harbor." "towards which it has never been directed."[14] Of course, one could continue citing texts and authors indefinitely, defending one position or another on the matter. But this difference between illusory security and real security, about which Abbagnano reasons, seems to us to hit the nail on the head. Especially considering the almost universal complaint about the crisis of our current culture and civilization. Illusory security traps us in historical immanentism, from which there is no escape.

Failures and catastrophes seem inevitable. The Russian philosopher and mystic, Nikolai Berdyaev, tries to demonstrate, logically and analytically, the impossibility of any alternative within the immanentist conception of history. In his book *Der Sinn der Geschichte* (The Meaning of History), taking into consideration the subordination and enslavement that man suffers at the hands of public power and the impersonal and mass organization of modern industrial enterprise, Berdyaev does not recognize progress and civilization worthy of the name.

But he considers the failures of the Renaissance world and of modern history to be full of meaning. "This failure of recent history does not confirm its meaninglessness, nor does it allow us to build a pessimistic opinion about the destiny of history. It has an intrinsic meaning insofar as it conceives of world history as a tragedy, and insofar as it must be conceived as such. If we take into consideration that its solution is not found within history, but outside its orbit, then historical failures acquire a deeper intrinsic meaning, and we begin to understand that the meaning of history does not properly consist in the solution of its objectives in one or another of its periods"... "History, truly, is a path to another world, and herein lies its religious content."

To expect a perfect solution within history is to expect something impossible. This is the knowledge and the metaphysical meaning of history. "If humanity does not achieve what it expected and begins to feel the lack of a way out of the historical impasse, then we realize that its objectives are not achievable within the historical process and we understand that only a transcendent way out of history can solve them."[15]

It might seem that we are straying from our topic, but this is not the case. We have sought to demonstrate that defending philosophical and religious values does not mean siding with reactionaries, adversaries of progress and civilization. On the contrary, renouncing these values represents humanity's most dangerous deviation from its historical path. Frazer's accusation of "religious barbarism" is thus empirically and theoretically refuted.

The illusion of security of someone drowning is the worst of illusions. Those aware of the danger struggle, make an effort, and choose the path of salvation. Moreover, all observations regarding the current crisis within Catholicism itself should not lead to false conclusions. A. Toynbee's successor in the chair of history at the University of London, Professor... Geoffrey Barraclough, analyzing the spectacular changes of our time, adds: "The pessimistic attitude of considering all change as something bad simply because it is change is a recurring theme in history, which history has systematically refuted.[16]

According to the opinions we have discussed, it follows that there have been, are, and will be historical catastrophes with deeply regrettable consequences. But they vary in magnitude, causing more or less pain for humankind. If there is any mitigation of that pain, if there are prospects for overcoming it, we must thank the degree of religious effectiveness in its pure authenticity. Frazer's joy at the "recession" of the "Eastern invasion," therefore, is the main cause of a general insecurity in today's world and of the intensification of suffering caused by the catastrophes we are witnessing.

Writing, then, about religious matters and genuinely religious personalities is a highly topical issue." of universal interest. With that said, we believe we have found the general justification for our topic. It remains to be seen whether we find this same justification regarding its specific aspect: Cardinal Stepinac; the divine cause and that of his people.

The author of these lines knew Cardinal Stepinac personally. He has thought about him a great deal and has read much of what has been written about him. In attempting to formulate a judgment on his extraordinary personality, he could not help but repeat what Toynbee said about such an authentically religious spirit. Cardinal Stepinac was "the Spartan like the ant, or the communist like the bee."

Far from Frazer's false assertions that the religious man is a selfish person, solely interested in the salvation of his soul, Cardinal Stepinac, authentically religious, literally sacrificed all his energies for the sake of his fellow human beings, his brothers and sisters.

Even in his early youth—Eugen Beluhan notes—he demonstrated that mettle of a man destined to suffer for others. One day, at the primary school, the teacher, having had to leave on an urgent errand, left the students alone, advising them to behave. For added security—he was a very strict teacher—he entrusted Stepinac with supervision, ordering him to write down the names of all those who misbehaved. Of course, as always, the boys preferred to play pranks and cause all sorts of disturbances. Stepinac wrote them down on the classroom blackboard. But upon seeing the teacher return, and knowing full well that he was going to punish the "guilty" ones, he quickly erased their names. When the teacher asked him who had misbehaved, he remained silent. For refusing to name his classmates, the teacher decided to punish Stepinac himself, giving him several blows to both hands. Thus began the young Stepinac's journey, a life he would dedicate entirely to his fellow man, even unto death. [17]

This suffering increased the sympathy and respect for the young student. And indeed, from that day forward, he was chosen for all manner of humiliations, persecutions, imprisonments, and finally for the confinement from which he had to leave this visible world forever and pass into Eternity on February 10, 1960. His death plunged the entire Croatian people, the Church, and a large part of the non-Catholic world into mourning.

But let us first see how this extraordinary man was called to priestly service and how he came to constitute a universal symbol and value.

Stepinac was forced to hastily complete his classical secondary studies in Zagreb. The outbreak of the First World War compelled the Dual Monarchy—Croatia, at that time, was an integral part of it (1916)—to constantly call up new conscripts, especially young intellectuals as potential reserve officers. Stepinac was assigned to the school in Rijeka, later to command the Croatian units of Bosnia-Herzegovina on the Italian front. Taken prisoner, he was registered in Italy as a volunteer to fight alongside the Allies on the Thessaloniki front.[18]

Back at his parents' house, Stepinac did not return to the seminary. He dedicated himself to agricultural work on his father's land. He enrolled in the Faculty of Agronomy, but soon abandoned his studies and returned with even greater dedication to the aforementioned work.

Upon receiving the Zagreb-based magazine Sacerdos Christi in 1924, which featured articles by his former director of the diocesan orphanage, Dr. José Lončarić, writing about the life of the Apostle of Vienna, Saint Clement Hofbauer, Stepinac became more taciturn. In one of his articles, without mentioning Stepinac, Dr. Lončarić made a clear allusion to him. "Throughout this time, while I was writing this, I had before my eyes a young Croatian man from a respectable, Catholic, peasant family. From what I know of him personally, and according to what others have told me, and recently, his father, the young man is good and honorable. He wished to be a priest, as did his parents—I don't know which more so, his father or his mother.

But the war broke out, and he had to go to the front, thus destroying both his plans and those of his parents. Yet even in the war and in the trenches, the young man remained good and devoted to God with all his heart. Upon returning home, he remained in the world; but he found no peace in the world, as if there were neither happiness nor satisfaction within him. Reading the story of the apostle of Vienna and the descriptions of the most significant moments of his life, I often wondered if God might not also call this young Croatian man to his sanctuary, even though the vagaries of life were drawing him away from it." But knowing that this is also part of Providence's plan, it is not unreasonable to think that, in the end, this young man would become a priest...".[19]

The impact of these articles was decisive for Stepinac's future. He traveled to Zagreb, consulted Father Loncaric (who revealed to him his mother's secret: from his birth, she prayed the rosary daily so that God would grant her son the grace of a priestly vocation). He told Father Loncaric of his decision to return to the seminary, made a spiritual retreat, and went back to his parents' home.

After consulting his parents, who joyfully received this news, Stepinac traveled to Rome, remaining at the prestigious Germanicum college for seven years (1924-1931) until he graduated with a doctorate in philosophy and theology. On November 26, 1930, he was ordained a priest and celebrated his first Mass in the Basilica of St. Mary Major. In July of the following year he returned to his homeland and was able to celebrate in his native village. In the books of the Germanicum college the superiors of Stepinac noted: Optime omino indolis, in omnibus solidissimus, vere pius, in studiis valde diligens.

Is it any wonder, then, that his ecclesiastical "career" was so rapid and spectacular? With the aforementioned qualifications, the Vatican knew well in whom it was entrusting the fate of the Church in such an important region, so exposed to so many dangers. His centuries of experience, his sensitivity to authentically spiritual values, and his guidance by the Holy Spirit led the Holy See to have absolute confidence in the young priest. As early as July 23, 1931, he was appointed head of ceremonial services at Zagreb Cathedral. His performance was exemplary. L'Ossevartore Romano published the news on May 30, 1934, of Stepinac's appointment by Pope Pius XI as Auxiliary Archbishop of Zagreb cum iure successionis. At 35, he was the youngest archbishop in the world.

When a delegation of clergy from Zagreb, headed by Bishop Salis-Seevis, congratulated him, Stepinac replied: “My intention and my goal are clear. To follow the doctrine of the cross and defend truth and justice without fear and in accordance with the Gospel: Dilexi justiciam et odi iniquitatem… This is my motto… And, just as I was ready to sacrifice everything for the good of my people, so too was I ready to work for the Catholic Church, which has taught me since my childhood that one must give to each what is due and love all people with true love.”[20]

On the eve of his consecration as archbishop, July 23, 1934, a multitude of citizens of Zagreb, with delegations from all the provinces of Croatia, led by intellectuals, laypeople, and clergy, approached him to publicly express their support. In reply to the numerous speeches delivered on that occasion, Stepinac said, among other things: "There are priests in the Archdiocese of Zagreb far more courageous and honorable than I. You will easily find many experienced, learned, devout, and holy men who, according to their work, intelligence, and age, would have greater aptitude and merit for this office of Archbishop of Zagreb; but you will never find one who loves her people more than I do and who is ready to sacrifice herself for her holy faith and the Catholic Church."[21]

With these qualities—in omnibus solidissimus—she threw herself into her work. She organized soup kitchens for the poor, helped the unemployed, visited the sick, reorganized Catholic Action, founded new parishes, and comforted and stood in solidarity with all who suffered. His pilgrimages to the shrine of Our Lady of Bistrica (now 300 years old), his sermons to students, workers, and professionals are jewels of a personality forged in the fire of the Gospel and in contact with a reality that, incidentally, was not evangelical. Only a man of this mettle could face the many adversities looming over Europe, precursors to the Second World War. The Jewish refugees, first from Germany and then from Poland, were the focus of his concern.

But, in reality, the true human drama of the man, the patriot, and the priest Stepinac himself began with the spread of the war to his homeland. Enslaved by Belgrade for more than two decades, the Croatians proclaimed their independence, which was also welcomed by Archbishop Stepinac. Herein lies the root of all subsequent misfortunes and the most blatant accusations against him, which would ultimately lead to the "sad trial" (L'Osservatore Romano) of 1946, culminating in the "infamous sentence" of 16 years of hard labor handed down by a people's tribunal under Marshal Tito.

To better understand Archbishop Stepinac's views and attitude during the last great war, a crucial period in his life during which his adversaries attempted to denigrate him, we will quote excerpts from his speeches, delivered during those years amidst dangers that threatened him on all sides.

El 31 de septiembre de 1941 — en el transcurso del primer año de vida de Croacia independiente — Stepinac pronunció un sermón ante los alumnos de la Academia militar croata. "No son comunes los casos en el mundo — empezó — que los alumnos de una Academia militar, es decir, los futuros oficiales, acudan a conferencias espirituales que terminan por acercarles a la Mesa del Señor, en el sacramento de la Santísima Eucaristía.

Si alguno de vosotros me preguntara qué distintivos deberían adornar a los futuros oficiales croatas, lo condensaría en tres palabras: la reverencia ante Dios; la reverencia ante vuestro prójimo y la reverencia ante vosotros mismos... Por lo tanto, tened a Dios siempre en vuestros pensamientos, en vuestros corazones y vuestras bocas a fin de que podáis hablar de El con reverencia y caminar delante de Aquel ante quien están abiertos todos vuestros pensamientos, palabras, deseos y obras. Aquel gran guerrero del viejo Testamento y héroe de Israel, David, no rezó sin razón: Configue timore tuo carnes meas!...".

Regarding reverence for one's neighbor, Stepinac said: "For who would dare look with contempt and disdain upon him who is the living image of the living God, and this is every man, this is all men without any discrimination, and for whom it is written: 'Whoever touches you, touch my pupils...'" Finally, referring to reverence for oneself, Stepinac told the students: "A stag of the Emperor Titus bore an incision on its antlers with letters in gold, so that no one would dare touch it: 'Do not touch me, I am Caesar.' On your foreheads you bear an incision with the seal of the Creator God: 'I am of God!' Therefore, feel reverence for yourselves, for he who wallows in the mud ends up in the filth. If, on the contrary, you are to adorn your souls with three distinctive marks—reverence for God, for your neighbors, and for yourselves—I believe, beloved children." that you will be a source of pride and service to the nation.”[22]

On November 27 of the same year, Stepinac, after the spiritual exercises for military chaplains, delivered a brief address and said, among other things, the following: “At the end of these exercises, I would have nothing more to say, were it not for St. Paul’s insistence to his disciple Timothy: ‘Praedica verbum, insta opportune importune!… But more than with your mouth, preach Jesus crucified with your life, for this is how the servants of God are best recognized, according to the words of St. Paul: ‘These are those who crucified their bodies with their passions and desires…’”[23]

On December 14, 1943, Stepinac delivered a sermon in Zagreb Cathedral on the occasion of another anniversary of the coronation of Pius XII. There, amidst persecutions of all kinds — religious, national, racist, etc. — When Nazism was at the height of its power, Stepinac also said the following: “If you ask me where we see the enormous value of the papacy for humanity today, I could answer: ‘In what is being trampled on throughout the world today; it is the defense of the dignity of the human person, the defense of the rights of the family and of small and weak peoples.’

Yes, beloved children, this is one of the greatest errors of our time; the dignity of the human person has declined to zero. People became accustomed, in the First World War, to the collapse of the currency and see nothing special in this. They are also accustomed to seeing the fall of so many other material goods. But no normal human mind can reconcile itself with the annulment of the dignity of the human person, and of the value of man…

Last week, we repeatedly had the opportunity to see tears and hear sighs from serious men and pitiful complaints from helpless women threatened by danger.” similar simply because their marriages do not conform to the theory of racism. As representatives of the Church, we could not remain silent without renouncing our service... Pope Pius XII rightly declared in his Christmas message: 'Whoever desires that the star of peace should appear and remain upon human society must reject all that kind of materialism which sees in the people only a flock of individuals without any internal bond of connection, fragmented and destined, as if they were an object, to domination and arbitrariness.'[24]

Thus, steadfast in his faith and his struggle against all forms of violence, Stepinac remained throughout the war and waited, unwavering, for its end. The political representatives of the Croatian people, if not killed, sought refuge in exile. Only Archbishop Stepinac remained in his post as the highest religious representative of the Catholic Croats. The Great Serbian-influenced Yugoslav communism waited 16 months to imprison Archbishop Stepinac, after first unleashing a vicious campaign against him. Serbian hatred—in its Eastern Orthodox and communist forms[25]—was turned against this unarmed man, a servant to all in the most difficult of times. Certain of his righteousness and of the love he offered to all without discrimination of creed or race, Stepinac was ready to face the evils that were about to descend once again upon his people.

Brought before the "tribunal," he refused to defend himself and only spoke when he deemed it absolutely necessary. He was unfazed by the provocations, neither from his judges nor from the handpicked communist mob summoned there to mock him. Despite being tried alongside one of the directors of Public Security under Dr. Ante Pavelić's regime, and despite the communist authorities' attempt to provoke him by asking if he wasn't ashamed to be sitting next to him, Stepinac remained true to his dignity, rejected the insinuation, and made no accusations.

That young Stepinac from primary school, who had written down the names of his misbehaving classmates and erased them when the teacher returned to punish him, stood up again before a new "teacher"—the Serbian-influenced communism that arrogated to itself the right to punish every Croat for "bad" behavior within its own borders, that is, those who were ready to die for the freedom and independence of their homeland, Croatia, in the struggle against communism, whose ranks were 80% Serbs, trying to reimpose Serbian hegemony and communist totalitarianism.

Against all expectations, Stepinac was condemned. "If you believe this trial pleases the Croatian people, give them the opportunity to speak. For my part, I will accept their verdict. I have respected and will always respect the will of my people," Cardinal Stepinac said before Tito's tribunal. But for the new "master," the will of the people, especially the will of the Croatian people, meant nothing. The "vanguard of the working people," considering itself the authentic representative of the entire nation, imposed a severe punishment, worthy of an armed mob, so that Stalinism would be the highest ethical standard: to instill fear in everyone; and, those few who dared to raise their heads, to hand them over to the executioners.

"Our conscience could not authorize us to recognize and admit the basis of the accusations made against the Archbishop of Zagreb, accusations which, as you know, led to his condemnation to a very severe punishment. Moreover, we could not disappoint the hopes and expectations of Catholics throughout the world and of a good number of non-Catholics, who learned with great satisfaction of the elevation to the cardinalate of a pastor who is an example of apostolic zeal and Christian fortitude," said Pope Pius XII upon elevating him, even while condemned, to the dignity of cardinalate.

Pope John XXIII, upon the prelate's death in confinement, also said the following: "His prolonged tribulation during fifteen years of exile in his own homeland, and his serene dignity and confidence in his continued suffering, have led him to universal admiration and veneration... Oh! Truly, this Cardinal Stepinac, who dedicated 26 years of episcopate to his illustrious archdiocese, first with tenacious and fervent apostolic activity, and who in the final years of his painful, all-too-long imprisonment, accumulated such a wealth of merits that the Heavenly Father has surely bestowed them as grace and blessing upon all the families and all the faithful of that fervent and devout Croatia, is an exact reflection of the Good Shepherd, faithful and edifying."

Mr. Louis S. Breier, president of the American Jewish Association, declared on October 13, 1946: “This great man of the Church has been accused of being a Nazi collaborator. We Jews protest against this slander. Knowing his past well, we can say that from 1934 and in the following years he was always a true friend of the Jews, a fact he did not conceal even during the harshest persecution under the regime of Hitler and his satellites. He was one of the very few in Europe who stood up against Nazi tyranny, even when it was most difficult and dangerous… Alongside His Holiness Pius XII, Archbishop Stepinac was the greatest defender of persecuted Jews in Europe.”

Even Marshal Tito, his chief executioner, once said that Stepinac was condemned only at the insistence of the Orthodox majority (i.e., the Serbs, Note from the Editorial Staff of Studia Croatica). Milovan Djilas, then the second-in-command in Yugoslavia, confided to the sculptor Ivan Mestrovic that he considered Stepinac innocent, but that he had to be condemned for political reasons.[26]

We have already seen, in general terms, that religion, in its essence, is not contrary to progress and civilization. Cardinal Stepinac, a man of few words in the social sphere, was a genuinely religious man, a victim for the sake of the good of his contemporaries.

Someone might ask whether, within ecclesiastical conceptions, he was a conservative or a progressive. We consider this question superfluous for anyone who has grasped the core of the problem of authentic religiosity. If Pope Pius XII, considered "conservative," and Pope John XXIII, considered "progressive," both esteemed and praised Cardinal Stepinac equally, it means they recognized in him a universal value, and what is universal transcends and encompasses all categories of time and space.

The forms of economics, society, or power; the monarchical or collegial government of the Church become secondary matters for men of this kind. Any form of power in their hands is an instrument to bear witness to their goodness, to transfer universal Love to each and every one of those who are pilgrims in this "valley of tears" on their journey toward their eternal destiny. Truly religious men always keep in mind that Gospel wisdom: "And he who worships this world, will not worship it, for he will be beyond the form of this world."

We believe, therefore, that Mr. F. Heer will not consider us suspicious of attempting to bestow upon a man what belongs to God. We do not wish to repeat the historical pattern of turning a man into an "instrumentum regni" (instrument of the kingdom) in order to impose, in the name of God, certain unconfessed objectives. On the contrary, if large and wealthy nations highlight those of their "celebrities" who excel in the field of physical prowess, if these nations seek to ratify their superiority in this way, is it possible that we, the Croatians, cannot consider men of Stepinac's stature a source of national pride?

Not as vain pride—let it be understood—but as one of the sources and reasons why the Croatian people have the right to esteem and recognition as free and independent within the community of civilized nations. It is regrettable that almost all those who highlight Stepinac's virtues and his universal value forget the Croatian people and Stepinac himself, as a son of Croatia, who bore witness to its freedom as well as to the Church and its Christian virtues.

That man—truly pious—knew well that universal values are embodied and lived only in concrete, individual forms. The history of our times recognizes the existence of peoples and nations as an undeniable fact. Their relations are not governed by justice and law. Physical force and Machiavellianism have become the almost general norm.

If small countries lack sufficient physical force to uphold their rights, their claims to justice will be in vain. For ten years, our magazine attempted to demonstrate that this is indeed the case for the Croatian people. How could it have happened that Stepinac, an eyewitness to the injustice his nation endured, did not react appropriately? "I love justice and hate injustice... This is my motto," Stepinac said upon his appointment as Archbishop of Zagreb.

And in accordance with this motto, "to follow the doctrine of the cross," Stepinac, upon his first contact with the highest representative of Serbian power over Croatia, Prince Paul Karageorgevic, bore witness to his love of justice in a concrete way. After long years of tyrannical persecution imposed by Belgrade on the Croatian people, the representatives of Serbian hegemony signed a compromise in August 1939 with the democratic representatives of that nation. Despite all the shortcomings of that document, imposed by the international situation—just days before the start of World War II—Prince Paul wanted to directly gauge its success and measure its "popularity" in Croatia, so he traveled to the Croatian capital, Zagreb.

The regime's henchmen had organized a solemn reception. Among other events, a religious service was planned at the historic Croatian Catholic Church of St. Mark, in the square of the same name. There, the highest dignitary of the Catholic Church in Croatia, Archbishop A. Stepinac, awaited Prince Paul, a Serbian of the Greek Orthodox faith. True to his motto — dilexi justitiam et odi iniquitatem — Stepinac, waiting at the main door for the exponent of Serbian militarism at that time, said: “Yes! The Catholic Church pays homage to authority and the aura of splendor. Or rather: it points to that splendor surrounding authority, testifying to its supernatural origin.

But the Catholic Church also clearly states that the only sure foundation of authority lies in God and in reverence for God. Yes! To separate authority from God, to disregard His commandments, to overstep one's bounds and infringe upon the rights of others — the rights of the Church or the rights of the people — whether one's own or another's, is tantamount for representatives of temporal power to felling the tree upon whose branches they sit; it means undermining the foundation upon which their own throne rests…

“Therefore, Your Highness, I feel a special pleasure in being able to greet you at the entrance of this ancient temple, which is the age-old witness of…” that inextinguishable conscience and that unsurpassed faith in justice and equity that live in the Croatian people. At the door of this ancient temple, which, through its experience of eight centuries, bears witness that every attempt to trample on divine justice and equity, as well as the rights of the Croatian people—this particle, however small, that forms part of God's right—has ended with the defeat of those who forgot that there is no authority against God, eternal and great, nor against His commandments...".

The reaction of the Serbian prince's entourage was overwhelmingly negative. Only due to the delicate nature of the international situation was Stepinac not imprisoned. The Serbian hegemons could not understand the language of a man inspired by the Gospel. For them, the phrase "rights of the Croatian people—a small part of God's right" signified a "crime of laissez-maise."

In 1941, the Croatian people declared their independence. Stepinac welcomed it with complete sincerity because, as he himself said, the Croatian people had lived in monarchical Yugoslavia as "slaves." But this people was not without sin. The general war and the internal revolution, instigated by Moscow, unleashed passions of all kinds. The Serbian minority in Croatia, the main oppressor of the Croatian people and the active instrument of oppression in the hands of foreigners for more than a century, incorporated its forces into the communist movement to destroy Croatia's independence. The national reaction sometimes took violent and inhuman forms.[27]

But Stepinac, consistent with his humane temperament and his position as an ecclesiastical dignitary, remained among the few adrift in that enormous maelstrom. Just as he had previously admonished the representatives of Serbian hegemonic power over the Croatian people, so now he did not cease to rebuke the Croatian national authorities themselves. In a letter to the Minister of the Interior, Stepinac wrote: "Neither concubines, nor adulterers, nor prostitutes should be marked with any kind of symbol; and if this is done to those who deserve the contempt of human society, why is this being attempted with those who, through no personal fault, belong to another race?"

In another letter addressed to the same Minister of the Interior, he wrote: "It is not surprising that many are asking what the difference is between the Bolshevik concentration camps and ours. Can the Ustaše movement count on God's blessing if it denies the dying what other states have not denied until now?"

Addressing the Croatian head of state directly, Stepinac said, among other things: "No one in our state desires the happiness and progress of the people and the new state as much as the Catholic Church, but this happiness and progress must depend on adherence to natural law and the positive law of God equally, whether on the part of the representatives of power or their subjects... Poglavniče! (Chief, leader, sovereign.) You must not allow irresponsible and unauthorized elements to harm the true good of our people. Sins against nature committed in the name of the people and the state cry out for vengeance against the state itself and against the people!" [28]

Because of his firm stance and unwavering attitude, Stepinac had to endure very bitter moments in his own Independent State of Croatia, despite considering it the beginning of the realization of that people's right to self-determination. This bitterness only increased with the passage of time. When the war ended with the triumph of Yugoslav communism, Stepinac, slandered, denigrated, humiliated, and exposed to organized public contempt, was condemned as if he were a criminal, finally dying, after 15 years of imprisonment and confinement, in his native village.

Despite all these vicissitudes and sufferings, Stepinac remained unmoved. Before the communist tribunal, as the accuser of the Croatian authorities for their negative attitudes, he also became the defender of the Croatian state, regardless of the imminence and gravity of the danger. “I was not ‘persona grata’ to either the Germans or the Ustaše; I was not an Ustaše, nor did I take an oath... The entire nation had declared itself in favor of the Croatian state through a plebiscite, and I would have been infamous if I had not felt the pulse of the Croatian people, who were enslaved in the former Yugoslavia...

Everything I have said about the Croatian people's right to freedom and independence is entirely in accordance with the basic principles set forth by the Allies at Yalta and by the Atlantic Charter. If, according to these principles, every nation has the right to independence, then why is it denied to the Croatian nation? The Holy See has repeatedly emphasized that both small nations and minorities have the right to freedom. Can a Catholic bishop or metropolitan not even mention this principle? “If we must fall, let us fall for having fulfilled our duty…” Stepinac told the judges of Titus.[29] This is the most important moment in Stepinac’s life, which we wish to highlight in a special way.

There is a certain utilitarian current, and even L’Osservatore Romano[30], that tries to overlook it. The right to freedom and independence of the Croatian nation, Stepinac himself said, is a part, albeit a small one, of God’s right. This Christian universalism of his must be acknowledged when it comes to defending general values in a comprehensive way, but there is an attempt to cover it up with an incomprehensible silence when it comes to its application in the specific Croatian case. We consider this approach offensive to the Cardinal’s personality and to the very principles of Christian universalism. The Croatian people need Stepinac’s witness, because Croatia continues to endure one of the harshest, systematically exploitative tyrannies, directed against its very existence.

To invoke the universal value of the example and witness of Stepinac's support for Christianity, while ignoring it in the specific case of his own people, is contrary to the Christian spirit. Such a position involves an inadmissible opposition to the natural values of man and to those of his religious and metaphysical vocation. The Croatian people's right to freedom is their natural right. It has not expired due to errors committed by their government in exceptional times. If this same criterion were applied to other peoples and nations, who would have the right to freedom and independence according to that criterion of Saint Augustine, according to which great kingdoms are great robberies?

Herein lies Croatian "utilitarianism" in highlighting the religious personality of an ecclesiastical dignitary, Cardinal Stepinac. The values and rights for which the Cardinal bears witness and offers his life must be authentic values, worthy of universal respect. Presenting a witness of this caliber would honor each and every people.

That is why we are not surprised by the accusations or the silence of our enemies. But the silence on the part of Those of us who have the inescapable obligation to illuminate the entirety of the Cardinal's life—his human, priestly, and patriotic aspects—are deeply puzzled by this silence. We consider it an emanation of a purely diplomatic spirit, a vulgar Machiavellian orientation that cannot result in any lasting good for anyone, despite the attempt to glorify the Cardinal. Christianity, that inexhaustible creative force, does not need false means to recover from the current crisis. Only integrity can help us overcome the accumulated difficulties. This is the lesson of Stepinac's life and death, the lesson of all martyrs and saints.

Finally, we believe we have fully justified our subtitle by calling Stepinac an advocate for the divine cause and for his people. Within the divine cause—the universalism of the Cardinal's conception and lived experience, his love and kindness toward all—there is room for the right to freedom of the Croatian people. This is how the Cardinal saw it. Stepinac, and thus he defended it with a fortitude worthy of a martyr and a saint.

For the same reason, it is to be believed that the Croatian people will not have to wait long to see this illustrious son of theirs raised to the altar of mortals who, through the tenacity of their will, became in this life examples of the highest ethical perfection, which makes them immortal, even within the events of history. We believe that, through his glory, the Croatian people will take another step toward their freedom.

On the occasion of the first decade since the death of Cardinal Stepinac, our magazine, and through it the Croatian people, takes the step of reverently honoring his memory.

FRANCISCAN NICOLAS TAVELIĆ: FIRST CROATIAN SAINT

On June 21, 1970, the first saint of Croatian blood was solemnly canonized. Indeed, the Croatian people—mostly Catholic—have had many martyrs and saints who sacrificed their lives for their religious convictions or distinguished themselves through extraordinary virtues, radiating a message of goodness, the most distinctive element of humanity in the visible world and the fundamental basis of any civilization worthy of the name. Only Nicholas Tavelić has received this official title from the Catholic Church, thus becoming a universal symbol of Catholicism. Proud of him, the journal STUDIA CROATICA reproduces below the brief and concise report on his life, martyrdom, and veneration. The text is a translation taken from an official publication of the Congregation of Rites (Sacra Rituum Congregatio), published in Rome in Latin and Italian in 1961.

The past has left us with few documents about Blessed Nicholas Tavelić. But we have sufficiently extensive information about his death to allow us to clarify and illuminate the course of his entire life. Besides this information, other details emerge from descriptions of the local conditions in the places where Blessed Nicholas Tavelić lived, since many people wrote about him so copiously and with such authority that at least the main events of his life are now accessible to us.[31] We will not devote much space here to his curriculum vitae. We will simply briefly present what seems most certain in order to highlight the most outstanding passages of his life.

1) Place of birth. — Known as "the Sibenician," his birthplace would be the city of Sebenico, since, having been born in that city and in accordance with the Constitutions of the Franciscan Order (Ordo Fratrum Minorum) in force at that time, he was a student at the monastery located there. The authors claim, however, that he was a student at the monastery of Bribir (Bribirensis), drawing this conjecture from the arguments in a manuscript by Domingo Zavorovich: Trettato sobre le cose di Sebenico, written in 1597. However, as we will see later, we consider that no arguments of this kind exist in Zavorovich's work. Indeed, he himself, although less clearly, writes that Blessed Tavelić was a student at the monastery of Sebenico.

2) His surname. — In the Order, as was customary, Blessed Tavelić did not bear his surname; he was called according to his place of origin, that is, "Sibenicense." Jacobo de Marchia was the first to indicate his surname: Frater Nicolaus de Tavelicis de Sebenico. He had seen two of his brothers in Sebenico between 1331 and 1438. Almost all foreign writers later accepted this assertion, among them Marcus Ulyssipanensis, Lucas Wadingua, Arturus de Monasterio, etc. But his fellow countrymen, men of letters, call him Tavilić or Tavelić, without us knowing which of the two forms was used by his family. Father Crnica presents two documents, one from the year 1398 and the other from 1430 in which the form Tavelić appears, considering that this must be accepted as the true one [32].

3) His family. — Tavelić belonged to a noble family from Sebenico (Šibenik), and many of its members held high offices in that city.[33] Federico Antonio Galvani compiled much information about this family in Il re d'armi di Sebenico, vol. 29, Venice 1884-1886.

The first known ancestor was Bogdan, according to Galvani, who had a son named Peter. Galvani also considers the possibility that Blessed Nicholas was Bogdan's brother, that is, Bogdan's son.[34] Lacking supporting documents, we cannot describe the genealogical line with certainty, nor can we state with certainty whether this information is true or not. Indeed, other authors point to different generational lines of this family.[35] According to Parchich, the Tavelić family died out in 1649 due to a plague epidemic.

4) Year of his birth. — We do not know the year of Blessed Nicholas Tavelić's birth. We can, however, make a rough estimate, accepting two dates as highly certain. We know, first, from the account of his death, that he perished at the hands of the Muslims on November 14, 1391, and second, that his two brothers were seen in Sebenico between 1431 and 1438 by St. James.

In Blessed Nicholas's time, the Farinerian Constitutions of the Franciscan Order were in force. According to them, friars were not ordained priests before the age of 25,[36] and were likewise forbidden to hear confessions outside the Order before the age of 30.[37] Therefore, Blessed Nicholas, before going as a missionary to Bosnia, would have been at least 30. Furthermore, according to the information from Sebenico regarding his death, he resided in Bosnia for 12 years and, subsequently, for several years in Palestine. To fill this gap, bearing in mind that his two brothers lived between 1431 and 1438, we can say with some certainty that Blessed Nicholas was born around 1340.

5) Entry into the Order. — From the account of his death, we know that Blessed Nicholas was from the province of Slavonia.[38] We also do not know when or where he entered the monastery, nor what studies he completed. It is almost certain that he pursued the studies prescribed by the Order at that time: first philosophy, and then theology. Since there were general and provincial studies at the same time, we cannot say for sure whether he pursued any of the former. After completing his studies, he was ordained a priest.[39]

6) Missionary in Bosnia. — From his province of Slavonia, he was sent to Bosnia as a missionary. By the end of the 12th century, the heresy known in documents as the Pateran or Bogumi heresy had taken hold there.[40] To combat it, the Popes entrusted the matter to the Order of Preachers (Dominicans), although almost from the beginning Franciscan missionaries from the Slavonia province also appeared.[41] But in 1327, Pope John XXII granted the office of inquisitor to the Franciscans, withdrawing it from the Dominicans.[42] Shortly afterward, in 1339 or 1340, Gerard Odonis, Minister General of the Franciscans, established a separate Vicariate for Bosnia,[43] to which friars from various provinces of the Order came to carry out missionary work.[44] This was also how Blessed Nicholas left his province to work against the heretics of Bosnia.

We do not know when he was transferred to that region. It was possibly decided at the urging of Bartholomew of Alvernia, who at that time (1367-1407) was seeking missionaries.[45] Some writings suggest that the transfer took place in 1379,[46] but this does not seem certain. Indeed, the account of his death states that he resided there "for many years" (the Sibenic copy speaks of "12 years" and then of "many years" in Palestine). We know that he died in 1391, and to account for these "many years" (pluribus annis), we must date his arrival in Bosnia perhaps to around 1372.

7) Residence in Palestine. — After having lived for many years in Bosnia, Blessed Nicholas went to Palestine. When and why are not stated in the documents. Here, too, he lived in "observance of the Rule" for "many years," full of virtue and devotion to God, obeying his superiors. In Palestine, on November 14, 1391, along with three other Franciscan friars (Deodatus of Ruticinus, Peter of Narbonne, and Stephen of Cuneo), he was killed by Muslims to whom they boldly preached that their religion was false and that, consequently, to achieve eternal salvation, they would have to embrace Christianity.

The cruel death of these Franciscans was immediately described in letters addressed specifically to their home provinces in order to record the event. Several copies of those writings still exist today, making it easy to verify the authentic text of that information, which is of paramount importance for his canonization. It constitutes the principal document not only of his martyrdom but also of the life of Blessed Nicholas.

Regarding the veneration accorded to him, the aforementioned Vatican publication states: "The oldest record of the veneration of Blessed Nicholas and his companions in martyrdom dates back to the beginning of the 15th century and was preserved in a manual (Ordinis Fratrum Minorum) from Sebenico, in accordance with the custom of the Roman Curia. This manual currently consists only of the last part of the Sebenico version of the Relatio (report) on their martyrdom, due to the loss of the other folios.

Here we reproduce exactly what it expresses, as well as what the complete copy of said information repeats in the 17th century, with the exception of a minor variation: 'These venerable confessors of Christ were martyred on November 13th, and their feast day should be celebrated on that same day.' Since then, the veneration of this group of martyrs has not been abandoned; it should be noted, however, that in Sebenico, Tavelić's birthplace, special importance was given to the latter, gradually neglecting the others." His three companions. Indeed, the Tribunal established in Sebenico on November 19, 1880, to regulate the cult of Tavelić, ignored them, and in the decision of November 24, 1881, only he was mentioned... The discussion regarding the special case, the "casus exceptus," reached the Ordinary Congregation on May 25, 1889, and Pope Leo XIII ratified the sentence issued by the Most Eminent Cardinals who headed the Sacred Congregation of Rites on June 6 of the same year.

On May 17, 1890, the aforementioned Congregation granted the Diocese of Sebenico the Office and Mass of Blessed Nicholas. From that moment his cult spread throughout the territory of Yugoslavia (or rather, Croatia, because at that time the Croatian lands were under the Habsburg Empire. — Note from the Editorial Board of Studia Croatica) in which today we have numerous altars and churches dedicated to him.

Today, the feast of the Blessed is celebrated in all the dioceses of Yugoslavia, in the Order of Friars Minor, and in the Custody of the Holy Land.

"Faced with this extraordinary spread of the cult of the Blessed, the episcopate of Yugoslavia, headed by the archbishop of Zagreb, of happy memory, Louis Stepinac, later a cardinal (+ on February 10, 1960), asked Pius XII on November 14, 1939, to deign to canonize him in 1941 on the occasion of the See, Pius

As is widely known, the tragic events of the Second World War not only prevented the celebration of the centenary festivities, but also profoundly convulsed the political order of that region, favoring the establishment of a regime hostile to the Catholic Church. The promoters of the beatification, recalling the benevolence shown by Pius XII, continued to nurture the hope of that now distant year of 1939, and therefore commissioned two Croatian Franciscans to gather and critically study the historical material that could still be obtained relating to Blessed Nicholas.

Here then we have the origin of two publications: that of Father Antonio Crnica, Historico-iuridica dilucidatio vitae, martyrii et gloriae B. Nicolai Tavelić, incliti martyris Ordinis Minorum, splendoris et protectoris gentis croatorum, canonizationi eius aequipolenti dicata, recurring triplici anniversario a diffusione cults eius et gloriae and that of Father Domingo Mandić Documenta martyrii B. Nicolai Tavelić et sociorum eius Ordinis Minorum. The two works were published in Rome in 1958, incorporating themselves into this matter (of canonization).

***

Our readers have been able to see these two works cited in the notes of the preceding text. They are two works by Croatian Franciscans of singular erudition, one of whom—Dr. Dominik Mandić—is at the same time the most prominent current historian in the political history of Croatia***. Together with Dr. Antonio Crnica, also a Franciscan from Dalmatia, they have contributed with their scholarly work to the elevation of Blessed Nicholas Tavelić to the highest dignity of the first Croatian saint, "splendor and protector of the Croatian people." In this way, through a more visible link, the past, history, and culture of that country are inextricably tied to Western civilization, whose fundamental characteristic is freedom of conscience and speech, and respect for human dignity in general—principles that are currently being cynically trampled under the communist regime in Belgrade.

Regardless of what the Western world may think of the Catholic Church and its saints, we can say that its freedoms, undeniable distinguishing features in contrast to totalitarian and despotic societies, are of Christian origin, as A. Toynbee categorically affirms. It is hoped that the new saint of the Catholic Church will bring more clarity to the understanding of the difficulties faced by the Croatian people, currently oppressed by a foreign regime and government, unconditional adversaries of Western civilization.

POWER AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL COMPLEX AND SOCIAL PHENOMENON IN CROATIAN LITERATURE AFTER THE WAR

VLATKO PAVLETIĆ

"We must separate once and for all power and violence from the yearnings of the spirit."

IVAN SUPEK (*)

If the author's personality is the ultimate consequence of the reciprocal action—cumulative increase or decrease—of the various forces that operate from or upon it, then we can state with absolute certainty that the literature of a certain period, in its entirety, bears within itself the scars of all pressures, traces of all the currents and hurricanes that stirred upon its horizon.

Post-war Croatian literature, consequently, is the appropriate expression of objective reality, whether it approaches it cautiously or indirectly.

That writers evade problems at a given time is no less sociologically significant, as a sign of that time, than the artistic creation of those same "taboo" problems. Without considering all the social and political components, it would be difficult for us to understand the origins of the arrows of diverse directions that intersect in each individual accident-experience, which, meanwhile, are nothing other than tangents of existence and salvation in the face of assaults and resistance, conditioned by different pressures on the undefended or unprohibited zone left at the disposal of writers.

If we accept Krleža's assertion[47] that Lucifer is closer to the writer than his younger brother Promoteus, then the position of the artist who expresses himself through words in the most pressing social situations is more difficult, more complex, and more delicate than that of the composer and the visual artists. These latter find their expression in works that lack a direct message or a challenge to the existing order; The most serious thing that can happen to them is the loss of material subsidies from state bodies for the works they are painting or sculpting in the shadow of officially supported workshops, in the silence of their modest and dark attics, awaiting brighter days and greater creative freedom.

The writer, on the other hand, to obtain the title of artist of the word, must also have the possibility of publishing their writings, but how can they do so if it is already dangerous to write them, delving deeper into them than is permitted? And they are always allowed so little that even those who bear the shameful cross of conformity do not know for sure when they will fall under its weight or, more precisely, which "master" might think they do not bear that cross with sufficient patience and submission.

Within the same limited perspectives of the world, there are conservative, dogmatic, and liberal men; and adhering, at a given moment, to one of these currents does not mean; Incidentally, it's important to avoid confrontations and conflicts arising within the same movement, given its extreme potential for doubt and aberration, such as between the right and left wings.

The history of world literature, especially Soviet literature, is a tragic example of talents, even geniuses, who fell by failing to understand in time that it wasn't the right moment to publish. They ignored what was truly hidden behind the slogans and beneath the surface of the constant distortions of originally pure and revolutionary ideas and principles, such as humanism, freedom, and the liberation of classes and individuals.

The revolution devours not only its own children, but often obliterates the very meaning that gave it life. But without this meaning as a fundamental condition, and without the other requirements for free creation, writers are forced to choose between few possibilities: to preserve their lives, losing their humanity, or to preserve their humanity, risking their lives. Or, finally, disillusioned, they resign themselves to their fate, accepting death by their own choice (Yesenin, Mayakovsky, Fadeev) or through the "help" of the organs of power (Bebelkh, Pilnyak, and others), unless they wish to produce dead fetuses permanently, mechanically, and apologetically.

The limitations and fear of Stalinist dogma, imposed by brutal force, undoubtedly constitute the source of the terror-driven obsession of many contemporary Soviet writers in the fourth decade of the 20th century. Instead of Trotsky's rightly rejected permanent revolution, Stalin succeeded in instilling a permanent fear in Soviet Russia, to which he too succumbed, according to the old adage that those who instill fear in many are themselves feared by many.

Finding themselves in such a situation, Soviet writers could only exist on the condition of acting as apologists for that society and blindly obeying the Party, since heretics (even dreamers) unexpectedly disappear from the stage of life. If some of them survived, it was thanks to their voluntary abstention, while others managed to develop and hone their capacity for self-censorship to unimaginable levels.

Fear, personified in that censor, lurks in the soul of every writer. Such is the image that haunts dreams and the objective reality of the atmosphere described, for example, by Mikhail Bulgakov in the prologue and epilogue of his satirical work *The Purple Island*, condemned and exposed in our time by A. Solzhenitsyn in the polemic he held with the members of the Steering Committee of the Writers' League, bureaucratized defenders and representatives of a single, monolithic truth. But these themes are archetypal within Russian literature, well known to Gogol and so dear to Dostoevsky: the Grand Inquisitor and the petty censor.

In contemporary Croatian literature, the first to observe the phenomenon of the Stalinist specter in that realm of spiritual life that breeds desolation was Krleža, our most outstanding and revolutionary writer. In his novel *On the Edge of Reason*, he dedicates an entire chapter to unmasking dogmatism in all its narrow-mindedness, demanding recognition that even "moonlight can constitute a worldview." And in *The Banquet at Blitva*, he offers the recognizable image of monarchical Yugoslavia as a prison of peoples and individuals, stylized to the point of configuring a universal vision of truth in perpetual conflict.

In this work, Krleža demonstrates the incompatibility of formative state ideology with that of humanism; he portrays the unscrupulous ambition of the representative of state power, who, not only verbally, but also through his actions and his entire being and life, denies the illustrious figures of both active revolutionaries and contemplative heretics. This author continues to analyze the theme of the bloody tangled web of power that stops at nothing, humiliating and annihilating all that is human. In his drama Areteo invigorates that old theme with a new modality, projecting it into time to make more striking the truth that humanity rises very slowly and advances slowly, resulting in the fact that even today the bloodthirsty gorilla in the form of a man often speaks through the telephone receiver.

As we see, the most obvious consequence of oppression is evasion. Several forms of retreat occur: the most natural being to avoid the fear of danger, obedience, and conformity. No less frequent is the ostrich tactic of burying one's head in the sand to avoid seeing what one cannot help but condemn. From this arises a kind of statism and—sometimes, in conditions where freedom is lacking—an apolitical and tolerated art for art's sake.

The further removed from reality, the better. Either apologetics or escapism. It is possible that luck may grant someone the grace of playing the role of court jester or officially supported heretic, but all this is to confuse the naive. In conditions of injustice, there are no laws upon which anyone's salvation can be based. When Yugoslav writers asked Leonid Leonidov about Pilnjak's fate and the reasons for his death, this prominent Soviet writer replied that it was a mere coincidence that Pilnjak wasn't sitting before them at that moment to answer the same question posed to Leonid Leonidov. The circle, in any case, is closed.

Solženicin also gave his unflinching testimony on this same event. Ranko Marković offered a brilliant symbol of this ambiguous, doubly limited situation in Croatian literature. His novel The Embrace testifies to a complex expansion of fear that acts perniciously on artistic creation, but at the same time demonstrates that, within conditions of insufficient freedom, writers can say something about what oppresses them by resorting to a specific language of allegories and symbols.

Allegory, undoubtedly, can bear witness to the general suspicion of its time more effectively than the aesthetic achievements of many writers who capture it directly. Indirect narration, in addition to what it clearly states, also expresses, between the lines, the atmosphere that is not explicitly mentioned. Writers take detours, invoking the past for help, especially when, deprived of the possibility of (symbolically) raising their fist against the authorities who coldly direct and calculatingly monitor the behavior of their subjects, they wish to achieve control even over their most hidden and oppressed thoughts.

If we conceive of literature not only as a kind of reflection but also as a personal compensation, then logically the need arises for the hypersensitive artist, anguished by fear, to begin speaking about fear without dwelling on its accusation, without revealing their true nature. Imagine the person who, gripped by terror, instead of fleeing, approaches the source of their fear with the desperate intention of overcoming it. At least one of the two: if not to the source of fear, then to fear itself. The situation is very risky, but psychologically, quite understandable: Where should someone flee to when they have nowhere to flee? Through some other unexpected action, can the mouse confuse and even frighten the cat? R. Marinković offered his solution: the embrace!

In his work of this title, he has created a bizarre situation to illustrate the fundamental reason for the creative decline of the writer who lives and works under strong and constant oppression. All that remains for him is the behavior of the hen: scratching in the garbage and eventually searching for something valuable among what is worthless. Marinković begins his work with a scene of the frightened writer, observing the world through the keyhole of his room.

With him is also his Double, by profession and by fear, who is about to write, but cannot. His imagination is paralyzed by terror before the main subject, the greatest and only one that matters. Therefore, he pretends to be interested in what is truly secondary, uninteresting. He drags himself around like a dog with its tail tucked in, sniffing around corners, standing in front of shops, and listening to pointless conversations in the barbershop. Finally, his attention dares to focus on the subject of power, and specifically on the inspector of the state monopoly.

Encouraged by this first foray, he confronts, in the next step, an organ of power: the gendarme. Thus resurfaces the original and eternal opposition of all totalitarian regimes: that of authority and that of intellectuals. "Look, then, at these intellectuals: each one sees something double. And they are the worst kind of scum." — "But they are not all like that. There are decent people among them too. Look how many books they are writing, and all from memory!" — “They’re scoundrels, I tell you. They care about the people like I care about your grandmother who died a long time ago. Yes, books. But what’s in them? Five, six lies. And only to deceive and incite the peaceful people to rebellion. Yes, they’d write in their books that I’m a big dog and you’re a dog, and that’s all. They’ll immediately foist five, six lies on you as soon as they realize you’re a man of the people.”

One of the fundamental distortions of oppression is the lie. Everything rests on deception, with lies almost exclusively characterizing relationships between individuals. Without lies, it’s impossible to live, as Dostoevsky repeated, for whom “life and lies are synonymous.” Marinković describes his observations about “our little man,” who, having lied so much, decides to lie no more and instead tell the truth.

Heeding the wisdom of "our little man," Marinković begins to speak in Zagreb as well, doing so indirectly and with so many detours that, finally, he ends up speaking directly and without circumlocution. The writer, scorned for his lack of a strong character, can resist no longer and cautiously approaches the object of his fear: the gendarme, as if he were the living embodiment of power, rustic and brutal. He approaches him from behind and, driven by an inner and barely comprehensible instinct, embraces him as if playing a game, saying: Guess who I am!

The gendarme quickly realized it was the writer, "the bookseller," as he said, without understanding what was really happening, and shook him to free himself from his embrace. The writer stares at the steel barrel of the revolver and does not give in. It is clear to him that there is no turning back, because violence doesn't joke, not even when it seems to, just like the gendarme who, like a fox, tries to appease the writer. The gendarme praises the intellectual, the books, the schools... as he never had before this embrace.

But the writer knows full well that from the flatterer he can expect only the opposite of what his words express, so he doesn't loosen his grip. He then tells the gendarme a story, moving him to tears, but there is no turning back; with power, a man cannot play jokes or approach it without being punished. At the end of the story, the confession continues: "You're crying over fantastical inventions, but you kill for what's happening.

You're crying over a fictional man, the thief, despite your position as a policeman, but the living, real man who invented the thief and Gina and the story for you, who conjured up two crocodile tears... you would kill this man like a dog. And you expect me to leave you! Why don't you have compassion for me? Am I not perhaps unhappy? Didn't bad luck, simply because you exist, push me to this extreme and utter misfortune, forcing me to die like this alongside you because I can't believe you? You frightened my imagination, you dissipated and devoured my prayers as they were about to be born in my mind, you poisoned all the sources of my thought..."

My imagination wandered hidden, while you strutted through the world; it fled from you, from what you truly are and from what happens because of you, hiding in hair salons, newsstands, dancing around the legs of ridiculous old men, beggars, begging itself for a piece of life on the margins of reality. But this here, this like this... in the last embrace, this I couldn't have imagined, and now, look, this is happening and I can't write it anymore. "I must hold you tight and die..."

We naturally ask ourselves, where are the writer and his Double—actually, the writer in his capacity as narrator and as the hero of the stories—aiming? Why did he do all this? Why didn't he give up from the beginning? He himself reasons: Yes. Perhaps I couldn't? Logically, I could have given up. I could have listened again to what the "sir" [48] Bepo is saying in his barbershop, watched what the state monopoly inspector is doing at the newsstand; I could have bowed my head for the blessing of Saint Nicholas, pax tecum..., concerned myself with toy-men, ant-men who frighten Black Stains, who gnaw at black letters, who wander through our prayers.

Yes, I could have... But didn't I see the bullet destined for me and for Death in the index finger of the monster who had silenced his breath in the glove? I saw the Black Stain, which dripped over life and the It devoured in the darkness; I have seen it grow from a black drop and devour life in the darkness of the night, like a crocodile with its three hundred jaws, each one having one hundred and thirteen teeth.

With thirty-three thousand teeth and, moreover, nine hundred fangs, knife-teeth, pincers for tormenting dreams, hammers for shattering thoughts, from which fall out, like spirals from a brain in a broken skull, the ideas formulated in sentences still warm, alive, and trembling, unloading upon it thirty-three thousand fears, aiming against it thirty-three million dead.

An irritated wave of unwritten ink flooded me, uncarried and untransformed into words, into rays of language; it entered through my eyes and erased my sight with a sponge of darkness. Blind, like Samson, I embraced the pillars of my subject: fear and death. It is here, in my numb hands, in the pain of my authorial limbs... Soon it will rush upon me... I bequeath it to you, suspect, you frightened by Black Stain, you who hide in barbershops, listening to "šjor" Bepo, who concern yourself with ants, chewing words, strolling along the lines... I can no longer write it; before me stretches an ocean of darkness and an endless night..."

This was a tremendous challenge to the Hundred-Toothed Terror, who behaved as if he had understood absolutely nothing. Thus ended Marinković's miraculous embrace, without consequences. But only on the condition that it had not been intentionally understood.

After the universal confrontation between overwhelming power and the very limited scope of human reason in The Embrace, the need arose to translate everything into political language and, at the same time, apply it to the very specific situations in which we found ourselves during the Stalinist era and the first phase of the struggle against it. A term was coined—the cult of personality—to denote the power accumulated by someone who holds all the prerogatives. It is, therefore, a personal dictatorship.

For this to happen, it was necessary for a person to rise above their human dimensions and become a myth. Hence the expression "the cult of personality," precisely indicating the process of mythification. Individuals are genuinely afraid, and to keep them in that state longer, power extends its dominion everywhere so that oppression becomes ever more overwhelming.

And, on the other hand, the frightened "subjects" perceive this power as greater than it actually is ("Fear has big eyes"), thus falling victim to mythomania. In this, they find a kind of self-justification: the greater the fear, the more understandable and acceptable the total fear that paralyzes all our organs of movement will seem. The victim is left to their own devices, as if hypnotized, ready to do whatever is ordered. What should writers do in such conditions?

If they retain at least some of the freedom necessary to write indirect, allegorical narratives, they choose a corresponding theme from history and mythology. In Croatian literature, Mariano Matković** drew upon the legacy of antiquity: Heracles, as the main character in his drama of the same title.

The primary objective of a writer in situations of this kind is to awaken minds from their semi-paralysis, which is only possible if, before their very eyes, the mythical dimensions of power are destroyed with a single blow, pulverizing the stone monument erected in its honor. Matković did everything possible in this regard. He brought to the stage the drama of that Heracles who no longer wishes to remain a mythological being and who yearns for the allegories of ordinary human life—a drama, consequently, of the disillusioned who find nothing more in their idol. This Heracles is a planned demystification, but, at the same time, an attempt to prevent us from falling prey to hatred of the oppressor: he, too, is merely a man and, logically, subject to many human weaknesses.

The dramatic conflicts, specific to relationships in a society steeped in the cult of personality, have, in Matković's interpretation, both their obverse and reverse, presented in such a way that his work deals not only with the "de-Heraclea-ization" of the masses and of "Heraclea-ized" life in general, but also with the situation of Heracles himself, to whom a mirror is constantly held up that greatly magnifies him, mythologically amplifying his image. Such a mirror is necessary for all power that blindly enjoys its unlimited prerogatives.

Because, looking in an ordinary mirror, it would not understand in time what is happening, nor would it relinquish the position of responsibility it cannot adequately fulfill. Matković, consequently, has viewed the problem of absolute power from a mythical perspective, reducing this type of personality to human scale and thus differentiating himself from Marinković, who elevated a common policeman, embraced by the author, to the level of a symbol and even a myth.

It is interesting to note that all the texts in postwar Croatian literature that analyze the phenomenon of power are extraterritorialized, mythologized, or projected onto history (as, for example, in Kušan's drama Monument to Demosthenes, or in the figure of the policeman in Dončević's The Pacifists, whose activities take place in monarchical Yugoslavia). The most consistent in substantiating the problem was and remained Matković, who, in The Inheritance of Achilles, revisited already well-known and characterized types from ancient mythology, focusing on the essential question: to what extent mythological power carries the cause within itself and how much its influence depends on objective conditions, and especially on the receptivity of the masses.

The phenomenon of power is highly complex, but two factors are decisive: the ruling minority and the obeying majority. Through the reciprocal interplay (reinforcing or weakening each other) of deception and self-deception, Matković sought to uncover those blind forces of history that defy reason, yet, precisely for that reason, exert a greater influence on the irrational realm of the collective consciousness, allowing it to unconsciously choose, not infrequently, the worst path for its own future.

Addressing the problem of the denial of reason, which recurs so often wherever absolute power is established, we must mention some of Matković's other works, as this writer has gone further and delved deeper into the enigma of the fear of the "subjects" throughout Croatian literature—with the exception of Krleža's Opus. In his work titled Benito Floda fon Reltih, Marković evokes the association of Mussolini and Hitler (an anagram of Reltih), delving into the pathological realm of power. Meanwhile, within the unique structure of his novel Cyclops, he fully embraced fear in the dictatorial atmosphere of the 20th century, having previously sought relief from the biting, concentrated dose of the subject: authority and politics, softening it with humor or dismantling it with irony (The Stars of Hosea and The Carnival).

Among the representatives of the "Krugovaši" (of the Circle) group, Slobodan Novak and Antonio Šoljan most frequently and suggestively express their position regarding power. The difference between them lies in the fact that Novak draws extreme consequences by locking himself in the impregnable castle of his nonconformity and defending himself with weapons of irony and sarcasm, while Šoljan, in turn, accepts the game in which he is both a player and the object of the game, the object over which authority exercises its power, and the subject who, in a lucid analysis, seeks its weaknesses when it becomes its own self-sufficiency.

Šoljan, in his one-act drama Mountain (presented on television but also staged in theaters), presents, in a kind of art for art's sake, power that, within its own euphoria, reaches pathological levels of dehumanization. The drama's plot is located far from our own time, but the parallels and comparisons are by no means accidental. Drawing somewhat on Camus's concept of the meaninglessness of life, Šoljan, in a remote South American military barracks, discovers a miraculous white mountain as a symbol and, at times, the object of human actions and efforts that, in and of themselves, have no meaning whatsoever.

It is a test of one's own strength, a Sisyphean effort (as in the case when Captain Herrera accepts an undertaking, knowing beforehand that it was beyond his capabilities and unnecessary). But Šoljan was not exclusively interested in Herrera's fate, taken as an illustration of the inseparability between the necessity and impossibility of human endeavors, but above all as the presentation of the paradoxical phenomenon of the new Commander García, a scrupulous servant of all authority, of all government, but also a depraved representative of power in situations whose keys he himself holds in his hands. It is interesting that Šoljan, at this moment of García's absolute power, also realizes the natural deformation that occurs in men obsessed with the ambition for command, which inexorably leads them towards evil and places them at the service of obscurantism and dehumanization.

Šoljan's message in *Montaña* is a mixture of despair and defiance: "We climb without hope, without reward, without meaning; we climb for our small, human satisfaction of not having been trampled and crushed; we climb in vain, and precisely for that reason." Herrera falls dead at the summit after reaching the top in record time, and Colonel García inhumanly experiences one of his most profound defeats. The "Triumph" of absolute power is, in this case as well, marked by utter shame in the face of the victim's spiritual superiority.

This same superiority of the vanquished is highlighted in the form of a Socratic dialogue in Šoljan's *The Ascension of Galileo* (a radio drama). Šoljan seizes upon Galileo's well-known historical trajectory for his a priori thesis concerning the fatal, demonic, and inevitable kinship between executioner and victim, traitor and betrayed, detractor and denigrated, judge and condemned. This idea, already present in Marinković's *The Embrace*, is notably surpassed here by Galileo's inner ecstasy, his awareness of feeling no guilt, having no reason to fear, and no need to defend himself.

Alluding to the contempt of power for truth and the notion that the people need not science but its results, the author boldly arrives at the bitter conclusion that everyone expects him to seek salvation through repentance rather than continue the struggle for truth. As one possible way out of this dilemma, we might recall the ancient adage that the coward dies before his death, while the brave choose the place, time, and cause of their demise. In *The Mountain*, absolute power is contrasted with capricious absurdity, while in Galileo's *Ascension*, the will and love of truth ultimately triumph over the will to power within the ephemeral brevity of its success.

In Šoljan's recent and most expressive play, Diocletian's Palace, the history of personal power has been brought to an even more crystalline, and I would even say extreme, clarity. My assertion is justified because the circle is now complete, considering that this story begins as tragedy, continues as drama, and ends as farce. Indeed, Diocletian's Palace is the "historical farce," imbued with inspired, astute observations about humanity and the world. The Palace represents for Diocletian what the world represents for God: an enormous and grandiose undertaking, but with what result? The question is not divine in nature, but entirely human.

The disappearance of the human—the dehumanization of the modern, technocratic world—which many philosophers and poets have observed, Šoljan explains theatrically through the absence of the symbols embodied by the people: the Palace is finished, but there are no people left. Those who built it are gone, and so are those for whom it was built. On stage remain only the emperor, searching for his heir in a child killing a lizard, and his singer, a kind of court jester, the wise man awaiting his end, inextricably linked to the tyrannical patron. The situation is already familiar: the embrace of Marković's narcissistic power with reason that loves truth.

Šoljan, however, does not repeat, in this case, even remotely, the characteristics of power or the autocrat in Marković's Embrace, or in his aforementioned pieces The Mountain or The Ascension of Galileo, because Diocletian is so consumed by doubt that the singer's voice is represented to him as the voice of his own doubt and his unsuppressed conscience. Therefore, he remains listening, hoping to find no justification. Indeed, Diocletian seeks justification for everything, while the singer finds only meaninglessness and triviality. Looking at the Palace, one inevitably thinks of the unnecessary victims, while Diocletian considers that those who were sacrificed in building the Palace thus gave meaning to their lives, which otherwise would have been frustrated.

The singer, on the other hand, dismisses as pure vanity the aspiration for power, the will to that power which tramples everything underfoot, directed toward a goal it has set for itself, incomprehensible to everyone, forcing subjects into enormous sacrifices with the slogan: "All for the Palace and the Palace for the Emperor!" The singer is inspired by a deeper motive. When asked if he would sacrifice his life for the emperor, he replies: "I would sacrifice the emperor for my life, if it were possible." Emperors come and go, the world remains. The world is always stronger; stronger than those who try to change it.

Šoljan wanted to convey very serious things in his farces, and express a very important idea: that authorities change, but slogans always remain the same. He brings to the stage the merchants who sell words and, if necessary, can sell men; they buy and sell everything the emperor needs, offering themselves first in the sale. Here Šoljan opens up new possibilities and new perspectives. It's not that power confiscates or expropriates everything; it wants to pay, to buy, but on the condition that, in the end, the buyers would have to pay for everything. This is the farcical variant of dialectics, or—as Šoljan ingeniously deduces from the name Diocletian—of "Diocletics."

Indeed, the curse of power: the more it imposes itself on others, the less it enjoys itself. The procedures it resorts to, the ventures it invites, are "camouflaged" by demagogic rhetoric, while their true sources spring from the irrational. When you are ordered to build, build and ask no questions; when you are ordered to destroy, destroy and ask no questions. Those who hold power govern without explaining their decisions. That is why they hate those who seek meaning, reasons, justification, or clarification—they hate intellectuals. Power and intellect do not go together. Šoljan knows this well, and that is why he has brought together the emperor and the singer, the potentate and the poet, a somewhat naive fanatic and a far-sighted skeptic. By uniting opposite extremes, he sought to achieve what necessarily arises from the connection of opposites, as, for example, in electrical tension. And he has succeeded: his farce soothes the spirit like a Christmas tree adorned with twinkling stars that, while not dispelling the darkness with their concentrated light, do counteract it with their constant sparkle. One goes out, another ignites, and thus the darkness is never total. Here, Šoljan ignites his final spark: everything is relative and everything repeats itself, passing once again from farce to drama and tragedy.

The aforementioned works of Croatian literature after the last war demonstrate, surprisingly, that oppression breeds resistance according to the law of action and reaction: the greater the oppression, the stronger the resistance. The themes of fear and the phenomenon of Power transformed from elements that restricted creative freedom into worthy material for artistic reworking. By restricting writers' freedom, they are inspired to create exceptional, multifaceted visions. I say multifaceted because the writer's resistance recalls the characteristic Oedipus complex, provided that freedom is substituted for the mother and power for the father.

(Translated from Kritika, No. 6, Zagreb, 1969). (V. Pavletić is the president of the Croatian Writers' Association).

CHRISTIANITY AND NATIONALISM

TOMISLAV ŠAGI-BUNIĆ

Nationalism, like racism, is labeled in Paul VI's encyclical Populorum Progressio as an obstacle to building a more just world. The Council even deemed it appropriate to warn Christians against "exaggerated nationalism" (Decree on Missions, art. 15 6), while Paul VI expressed himself negatively on several occasions regarding it. The issue of nationalism remains a pressing concern in today's world. Many Christians desire greater clarity on this matter, especially since the term is not always used in the same sense.

This is already inferred from the criterion adopted by the Council, which does not simply reject nationalism outright, but rather exaggerated nationalism. It is extremely important that Christians in our country (Croatia) have a clear understanding of these problems, given the historical baggage associated with them. What is the relationship between Christianity and the nation? What ideological position should Catholics adopt regarding this complex problem? Or rather, what vital decisions do Catholics make in this regard to live an authentically Christian existence, a life truly of Christ in their specific time and place?

Can a Catholic be a nationalist?

This problem cannot be conceived as a mere answer to the question: Can a Catholic be a nationalist, a champion of nationalism? Especially in our country, it is necessary to address this question in its entirety, or, if possible, in its entirety, even if only in a concise form. The problems are universal in nature, and it is understood that, in part, we will speak in general terms, valid for all of Christendom and for all peoples. However, since clarity is important in our country, and since concepts are more understandable when explained with examples, no one should be surprised that we first consider the Croatian people.

(This last sentence appears to be incomplete and possibly a fragment from a different source.) The first and foremost concept we must consider is that Christianity cannot be identified with a nation and that it is a higher reality that transcends all peoples, recruits its adherents in all nations, and creates a community of a distinct character from the national one. Christianity manifests itself as a separate people, the people of God, but this people, as such, lacks an earthly homeland. It believes in the conquest of the definitive and eternal homeland toward which it journeys and which is found in God. The Church is the community of those who believe in Christ and, in the name of Christ, gather around his mystery to—by living communion with Christ through faith—live their lives on earth in such a way as to attain eternal union with him in the kingdom of the Father.

It is obvious, then, that Christianity presupposes peoples with their respective homelands; Christianity comes to the aid of peoples so that those who believe in God's call may live in a new way. Peoples are not something supernatural, but rather the product of nature and history. In a certain sense, they shape themselves, growing through their own creative forces.

The Church is a special gift from God, bestowed after the death and resurrection of the Son of God as a supernatural grace from heaven, as the participation granted to humankind in the life of the Divine Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No nation can appropriate the Church, subjugate it, identify with it, turn it into a mere instrument of its interests, or supposedly renounce all its national interests in favor of the Church. In any case, when anything of the sort occurs or is proclaimed, we fall into great confusion that can only harm authentic truth and reality, signifies a setback in the growth of values, and ultimately attacks the Gospel and God.

Christianity, a reality of a higher order than the nation

Therefore, Christianity and Catholicism cannot be equated with Croatian identity. It is inaccurate to say that the Catholic Church is equivalent to the Croatian people, that one cannot be Croatian if one is not Catholic, and especially if one is not an active and practicing Catholic. This is so obvious that it would hardly warrant comment were it not for the unfortunate past confusions among Catholics in Croatia, and the possibility that some still fall into this error, which has hindered both the strengthening of a living and authentic Catholicism as a life with Christ in faith, and the genuine progress of the Croatian nation.

It is not our intention here to level charges against those who, in good faith, engaged in this confusion of concepts, attempting to equate Croatian identity with Catholicism or vice versa, or simply wishing to emulate those who, without considering the consequences, accused Catholics of not being good Croatians because they belong to a universal Church.

We believe it necessary to clarify such ambiguities and declare that we consider everyone to be a child of their homeland, Croatia, regardless of their relationship with the Catholic Church, and that, as Catholics, we should never evade the consequences that this fact also has for us.

If the Church were to identify itself with a people and try to expel from it all those who are not truly faithful, it would betray its own nature, cease to be the ascending Church, confirm that, as Church, it has its homeland here on earth, hinder its own normal spiritual growth by virtue of the divine call addressed to all people, and limit itself solely to biological development in accordance with the reproduction of the human race. For a person becomes a member of the Church by virtue of baptism and not by birth.

The Church, by its very nature, must always feel itself in every people as the anointed part of grace of that people, knowing that, in the supernatural order, it is sent to it not to deny it as a people, to subjugate it, or to divide it, but to establish within it, freely and with all who desire it, the core that lives divine love, ready to help everyone, without harming anyone.

There Cannot Be Christian Nationalism

From the foregoing, it is clear that there cannot be a Christian or Catholic nationalism. Someone will undoubtedly say that such nationalisms existed and enjoyed strong support by forming vigorous movements. For example, we have Action Française (founded in 1898), a distinctly Catholic-nationalist (and, moreover, monarchist) movement inspired by Charles Maurras. Herein lies a misunderstanding. Not without reason were there declared atheists among the leaders of Action Française who did not accept divine transcendence.

It cannot be denied that the Christian religion, as a historical fact, deeply penetrated the substratum of certain nations as historical realities. It is true that Catholicism was the determining factor in the formation of certain countries. It would be ridiculous to deny this, but only on the condition of understanding it correctly. We must know how to distinguish and differentiate things. in their intrinsic nature.

Here, the distinction made by some theologians between religion as a product of human creative genius and Christianity as divine revelation is of no help. There is no doubt that pagan religions were and continue to be highly national and even tribal. Seeking God and wanting to establish contact with Him, peoples created religious forms intimately linked to their national identity and creative capacity, determined by their national genius.

Christianity is not a natural religion of that kind, arising as a human effort to reach God, but rather the coming of God to humanity, God's call, his sacrifice, the self-giving of God to humankind. However, Christianity as a divine gift, as the divine Gospel, as God's saving action, does not reject or eliminate the religious forms created by the people, but accepts them, purifies them, is incarnated in them, and enables the further development of popular activity in the religious sphere, now channeled in the right direction toward God without the danger (or at least with less danger, according to Christian vigilance in each community) of deviations or straying.

It is obvious that, in this sense, Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, as divine revelation embodied in forms created by a people before embracing Christianity (for example, many popular customs) or inspired by the already adopted and lived Christian mystery, can constitute an important, even decisive, element in the totality of values and goods that form the spiritual and—in a certain respect—even material homeland of a people.

In this sense, Christianity can be considered as the starting point of nationalism or as a component of patriotism, but in such a case, it is no longer Christianity in its authentic truth that is being discussed, but rather the concrete forms in which Christianity has been embodied. It is then that the danger arises that those who frame the problem in this way will obscure, for themselves and for others, the intrinsic essence of Christianity and imperceptibly stray from it, living not in genuine Christianity but in empty schemes incapable of translating the authentic and essential message of Christ.

In such a case, we would have only a national value; but, through a misunderstanding, it is attributed the transcendental value that belongs to Christianity itself, degenerating into that fanaticism which sometimes gives rise to tragedies and even national catastrophes, and even catastrophes for all humankind. It is evident that these religious-national values, understood in this way, should be interpreted more as national than religious values, although in the former sense they are created by the national genius under Christian inspiration. Therefore, it is not possible to exclude from the framework of national consciousness and values of this type those others that arise perhaps outside of Christianity, that have different roots and other inspirations, such as—if that is the case—the Islamism or a philosophical current and artistic inspiration without direct derivation from Christianity.

From the foregoing, it seems clear that Catholicism can be less likely to claim to be the exclusive basis of national consciousness or the inspiring starting point of nationalism the more intensely it is experienced as a revelation and communion with Christ; and it runs a greater risk of becoming nationalistic the more it is considered as a religion analogous to others, a fruit of man's creative genius in the incessant search for God. It is evident that Christianity cannot exist in a pure form, without being molded into concrete forms, but by always showing itself alive and conscious of its essence, it will not run the risk of becoming nationalized.

The Church cannot impose itself by force.

It follows, then, from what has been said that what is called the homeland of the Croatian people cannot be conceived without contributions from the people themselves, enriched by the Catholic faith, but neither can it be conceived without the contributions and spiritual and cultural ties with other peoples through the Catholic Church. What This does not mean at all that the Catholic Church can deny the other constitutive elements or identify itself with the people. The Church found certain values—even religious ones—in the evangelized people and, throughout the centuries, tried to help them in their spiritual growth, to unite their children in the life of Christ, doing so with varying degrees of success, skill, and Christian authenticity, and also committing omissions and errors.

Therefore, it is part of that people, without being the people itself, and cannot impose itself upon them by force, as that is not its mission. It must strive to serve that people, and even if certain relationships have changed today, it cannot and should not act to divide them, but rather become a selfless agent of concord and harmony within its means and to the extent permitted by its own nature, which is to preach divine love and human freedom for individual development and maturity.

And this applies to the Croatian people as well as to others who have embraced its doctrines. The members of that Church should be aware that what is called the homeland of the Croatian people is also comprised of values and assets inspired by other spiritual sources that have taken root in that people and given the Croatian national community a specific character. The Catholic Church would cease to be universal if it were to become entrenched in an exclusivism that fails to see and recognize these other values of different origins.

If Christianity has the unique mission of uniting people and establishing a special order for community life, distinct from that of a national community, this does not mean that Christians should remain apart from their people, without interest or responsibility for their earthly homeland. Above all, it does not mean that Christianity, by not identifying with nationality, is an antagonist or opponent of nationality.

The Catholic Church is a community of people who, in every nation, gather around Christ to live according to the faith, in the love of Christ and in service to their neighbor until the day of Christ's return. But these people do not live in a vacuum, in an empty space, in an abstract region. They do not differ from their fellow citizens in terms of territory, language, or political institutions (cf. the Epistle to Diogenes), but rather participate in the life of their people and share their responsibilities. They are necessarily united in the creation of goods and values essential to all.

As we saw at the beginning, nationalism is viewed with suspicion by Catholics, but love for one's country and people is not; patriotism is not suspect, but rather it is a duty of all the faithful to cultivate love for their homeland, although without fanaticism or exclusivism, as the Council teaches (GS art. 75,4).

By nationalism, we understand here the theory and the movement originating from it that considers nationality to be, in a certain sense, the supreme good to which we must sacrifice everything and which justifies crime and injustice committed in its name. Nationalism, understood in this way, deifies the nation (as did Hitler's Nazism); it is a desire to dominate other peoples and the belief that national egoism and the power of the nation constitute the supreme good, in whose name it is permissible to trample not only on the values of one's own people but also on those of other peoples.

Under such nationalism, enormous sacrifices are demanded of the people themselves—and, of course, of their oppressed classes—to bolster internal prestige by creating a powerful army with the aim of intimidating neighbors or for conquest; or other procedures are employed that do not serve the common good, but rather national vanity.

Such is the nationalism of a people who seize territory or property belonging to others, or who try to subjugate other peoples economically, culturally, politically, or even nationally, suppressing their national identity, absorbing them, and denationalizing them. It matters not whether these acts are carried out openly or covertly, nor whether slogans and refrains are brandished about new structures, the creation of stronger state units, "the new order," or liberation from colonialism, etc.

All these goals can be achieved—or at least attempted—without nationalist oppression, whether our own or that of others, without imposing our dominion over another country, without disregarding the national and cultural values of other peoples, and without resorting to shameful practices that violate individual and national dignity. Individuals and nations must strive for these objectives freely and by common agreement; perhaps their aspirations are less ambitious, but they will be achieved with greater success and greater human dignity. Such nationalism must be repudiated; it is unworthy of humanity and, above all, incompatible with the Christian vision of humanity and its philosophy.

The Presence of the Church

For this reason, we prefer to speak of patriotism rather than nationalism, although the term nationalism cannot be condemned if it is understood as a commitment to the just development and freedom of one's own people and those of others, a commitment that is not prone to committing injustice or selfishly imposing itself within its own borders, but rather aims to enhance the greatness of its country in solidarity with other nations. In this case, we are talking about the "healthy nationalism" of which Pius XII spoke.

We can applaud—though it may seem paradoxical—what Friedrich Heer says: "The Christian, the European Catholic, is the French, Spanish, Polish, Irish, English, Croatian, German, Italian Catholic, or he does not exist." Christianity and the Church are not abstract concepts, but a concrete and living community of people, and therefore must be situated within a people, within a national community. Christianity does not consist of intellectually embracing an idea—which could be considered an act not determined by a particular homeland—; it is the coexistence of a human group in a specific place; it is, for example, liturgical action, and therefore it cannot exist without being rooted in a soil, being formed and enriched by a specific culture, being imbued with its own ideas and feelings, that is to say, by the homeland.

It may begin like a grafted plant, as a foreign contribution, but it will not grow without taking root in the new soil until it becomes an integral part of it. The homeland, the people, the nation—concepts so related yet distinct—designate complex realities, necessary for humankind to live and develop as human beings, to feel like themselves, beings not only accepted but also accepting of others, secure, rooted, provided for and surrounded by sufficient goods, values, and care, eager to communicate with others, happy creators and useful, to fulfill themselves and contribute to the common good, to feel protected by others and joyful in protecting their neighbors.

It is not my intention to detail the specifics of each of these notions, nor to specify the differences between these realities of the State. Suffice it to say that the State—above and beyond what the homeland already possesses—has authority, that is, the power and force to ensure the preservation and promotion of all the values that constitute the national heritage. The state possesses political independence, whether sovereign or limited (e.g., the state within a federation of states), while the nation lacks it or, at least, aspires to achieve it.

The Church and the Fatherland

For the Church, however strange it may seem to us, the people and the nation take precedence over the State. The Catholic Church, throughout its history, has not always duly considered this fundamental fact*. The function of the State is the free progress of humankind, including facilitating and assisting individual progress. A person cannot develop properly without their nation, without their people, without the values and goods that these concepts imply.

The State can and should strengthen its power and authority to the extent required for the defense of other States and their self-interested desires, to ensure freedom and create the necessary conditions for the civic and economic freedom of all citizens (and of all nations in the case of a plurinational State); however, this strengthening of state authority should never be an end in itself. The purpose of the State is the progress of humankind and, therefore, of the nation, insofar as humankind develops within it. The State may increase the means of coercion, but never to subjugate its compatriots or subject other countries, but rather to protect its citizens from abuses by others or to contribute to the development of the nation. Never to oppress, always to liberate.

In this respect, the Church also needs the State's assistance to protect it from potential oppression and to ensure its freedom. But the life of the Church does not unfold within the State, but within the nation; not within the framework of the State's authority and activities, but in the lived experience of the values and goods that constitute the essence of a people. Therefore, the Church, being a community organized on a supranational level, must aspire to and succeed in becoming deeply rooted in the people, in the nation. This certainly applies to those holding the respective offices in the ecclesiastical community. Perhaps it can be justified that certain offices within the hierarchy Ecclesiastical positions in a nation should be filled by foreigners until the respective Christian community progresses and matures, but it is unacceptable to keep a people in a state of immaturity for centuries and humiliate them by not entrusting positions of responsibility to their own people.

I believe it is correct to acknowledge that, in this respect, the Catholic Church did not always act appropriately in the case of the Croatian people; one need only recall the nationality of high-ranking prelates in the last century, even the archbishops of Zagreb, since state authority was given more consideration than the legitimate aspirations of the people. If today other children of our common homeland point this out to Croatian Catholics, there is no need to force their defense at the expense of sincerity and historical reality. It is necessary to acknowledge the truth and ensure that this does not happen again.

There are, of course, other elements that also require the Church, at the level of its organization, to be rooted in the nation, to be a living part of the people. Being an integral part of the people does not equate to being in agreement with Whatever happens there, or even what a part of that people undertakes or does, even if it is claimed to bear the mark of the authentically national and popular, may not correspond to the true interest of the entire country. It may not coincide with the supreme good of humanity. The Church that lives among the people will defend all noble causes more effectively when the people feel it is aligned with their genuine interests and do not see it forced to resort to compromises that do not correspond to Gospel truth nor bear witness to the love and justice of Christ.

Homeland, environment of mature freedom

Catholics must feel solidarity with their people; they must—precisely to be good Catholics—live intimately with the national community and sincerely love their homeland. Being a member of the Church of Christ as such, as an eschatological community that seeks its ultimate purpose in God and believes it will attain it, is what facilitates—if one is sincerely a member of the Body of Christ and not merely an instrument for trivial ends—selfless love for all one's neighbor and joyful common collaboration in perfecting oneself and forming a nation into the most appropriate means to achieve all kinds of benefits and extend them to every individual.

Catholics will always ensure that the aggrandizement of their homeland does not come at the cost of the destruction or plunder of others, but neither can they consider themselves upright and Christian if they shirk their responsibilities in their own country. We call our homeland our mother, for it is, in fact, equivalent to the maternal womb in which we grow with warmth, protection, and security. Hence, in it one finds the means to be a free Christian, and to accept, as a free person with conscious decision, divine love. Certainly, one can also be a Christian in prison, but the normal thing is to respond to the divine Call within that full freedom that is only found in one's homeland. Consequently, every Christian, within the mission they carry out, must contribute to increasing the common good, which will make their brothers and sisters freer and more capable of making independent decisions.

Undoubtedly, this also applies to economic goods, to the economic development of the community, which, in fact, constitutes one of the most important prerequisites for freedom. I emphasize this aspect of the homeland, this element of the national community, because some Christians are prone to undervalue it or to relegate it. While we do not completely agree with the role that Marxists attribute to this factor, we must also recognize the extraordinary contribution that Marxist thought made in this regard. Christians cannot be seen as strangers in their own country, merely demanding rights, complaining of their denial, or acting indifferently and opportunistic. Rather, they must fight for these rights through all legal and legitimate means, so that they may always participate, everywhere, and on an equal footing in the creation of value and the accumulation of resources that must be equitably distributed. Christians must be the first to foster civic cooperation, even though this is an arduous task given the deep divisions that have arisen in our nation. Friendship does not imply weakness, nor does it translate into mere recriminations; rather, it entails prudent boldness and patient tenacity.

Christians and National Culture

A Christian also cannot remain indifferent to the linguistic problems of their people, since language is the primary instrument that facilitates the cohesion of Christianity within a religious community. Liturgy and theology, preaching and catechesis are inconceivable without language and its communicative power. Christianity as a living community within the people—which is especially meaningful for Croatians in their current stage of development and before technical means have reached all social strata—must play a leading role in promoting this essential value of the national identity, particularly in the liturgy, since it is precisely the masses who enrich their own language through liturgical rites.

Language, as an instrument of the national spirit and a repository of tradition as the basis for cultural development, is so important, both now and in the future, that the Christian family should fear its own demise if this language were to be corrupted or extinguished, since it would lack the principal element for transmitting tradition. And with the stagnation of linguistic development or the possibility of linguistic confusion, intellectual progress and theological confrontation with substantial contemporary problems would be impossible; it would lack the necessary light to illuminate the Christian community and, eventually, others who would be interested in acquiring that knowledge.

It is not possible to list here all the national values without which Christianity cannot live or develop in its fullness. We will mention only, for example, the visual arts, poetry and literature, and especially music. Regarding all these disciplines, we Catholic Christians have much to say. All of them are essential for the development of Christian life, and in all these areas, Christians as such—and with their Christian inspiration—have always been active creators. In this time of liturgical reform, musical talents are indispensable to us in order to create a new repertoire within Christian liturgical life.

In music there is no dogma, nor should we cling only to the old; it is necessary to create new things in such a way that music becomes an integral part of our homeland: Croatia. Without a lively and dramatic engagement with contemporary Croatian music, a revitalizing and invigorating emergence of liturgical music does not seem likely. If our music is currently going through a phase of transition and, according to some, even extreme desolation, perhaps a bold endeavor and a constant search for renewal in the field of liturgical harmonies would contribute something to the musical creations of the Croatian people.

The Prophetic Element

Many believe that the role of Christians in the life of a people is necessarily conservative, that is: in favor of maintaining the old ways at all costs. Such an assumption would be accurate if Christianity were merely a natural religion. It is part of the essence of religions to be conservative, to sacralize and safeguard values within forms that quickly fossilize. Christianity, on the other hand, is prophetic at its core; it is dissatisfied with what has been achieved, always aspires to the best, and never judges its accomplishments to be sufficiently vibrant and authentic. It always believes that they can be improved and surpassed.

In Croatia, this Christianity is not vibrant and restless enough. The Council shook us. It depends on faithful Christians, and first and foremost on young people, that we become a living Christianity—not only by contributing to existing national goods and values, already achieved—but also by boldly moving toward the future and creating new goods, without fear of helping all who wish to create, grow, and contribute to the well-being of the people. It is the Christianity that has renounced its stability and mobilizes to achieve new and positive prosperity...

Christians must be patriots.

Christianity must be patriotic and popular, and good Christians must be patriots. Always keeping in mind, of course, the entirety of the human family and without pursuing or protecting false self-interests that threaten the just interests of humanity or of another nation. Christians will also show love for their country when they must correct it, criticize it, point out its weaknesses, omissions, or, at times, dishonorable actions.

Christians know that the dilemma of "either religion or nation" is false, for there can be no friction between the two when problems are properly addressed. Of course, tensions, misunderstandings, and disagreements are to be expected, but these should never be resolved hastily as if they were insurmountable contradictions; it is necessary to proceed with patience and love, which are, par excellence, Christian virtues. The Catholic Church may be oppressed, attacked, or persecuted in a nation. In that case, it must defend itself, but never in a way that calls into question other authentic and true values of the homeland, especially the freedom of all its members. Tensions must be overcome with sincerity, with a prompt willingness to engage in dialogue, and by courageously bearing the cross as Christ did.

(This article was published in the fortnightly newspaper Glas Koncila (The Council's Spokesperson), issue of June 16, 1969, Zagreb, Croatia.)

Tomislav Šagi-Bunić is one of the most prominent Croatian theologians today. He was a close collaborator of Cardinal Šeper at the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, whose progressive, yet moderate, views did not escape the attention of the public and the Council Fathers. In recognition of these views and the other virtues of the priest and theologian, Cardinal Šeper was appointed Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1968. In recognition of Father Šagi-Bunić's personal merits, Pope Paul VI appointed him in 1969 to serve as a member of the Central Theological Commission within the aforementioned ecclesiastical body, which can be considered the highest doctrinal forum of the Catholic Church. Šagi-Bunić is currently the dean of the Faculty of Theology in Zagreb.

We note with particular satisfaction this event, which brings great honour to the small Croatian nation.

Documents

CROATIAN PRIESTS DEFEND ISTRIA'S CROATIAN CHARACTER

Report to the Allied Commission of 1946

The Italian magazine Il Borghese published on February 22, 1970, the article "Italy and the Next Yugoslavian Crisis," authored by Piero Buscaroli. Starting from the increasingly evident fact of the current general crisis in communist Yugoslavia, Buscaroli intentionally complicates and obscures the Croatian national question within the complex of factors that form the backdrop to this crisis. But the author's main purpose is to revive illegitimate Italian claims to the eastern Adriatic coast, the ancient homeland of the Croatian people. Buscaroli explicitly mentions Istria as one of the four provinces that Italy supposedly lost at the end of the Second World War.

So that readers of Studia Croatica can see how unfounded Piero Buscaroli's article is, we reproduce here a document of international significance concerning the Croatian and Slovene ethnic character of Istria. We trust that world public opinion will never again permit a proclamation like that of the Italian governor—Dr. Giuseppe Bastianini—of Croatian Dalmatia during the last world war under Italian occupation, when on April 12, 1942, in Zadar, he emphatically declared that all those who do not wish to acknowledge Italian culture, Roman morality, the Italian language, and the fact of "the return of the armed lion of Saint Mark" must emigrate from there (i.e., from Dalmatia, SC Editorial Staff).

On March 19, 1946, at 10:45 p.m., priests Božo Milanović, Tomo Banko, and Leopoldo Jurca appeared before the Allied Commission in Pazin (Istria) and remained until 2:00 a.m., representing the Croatian clergy of Istria, organized in the "Priestly College of Saint Paul for Istria." Seated around a long table in the town hall were the delegates from the British, American, Soviet, and French governments. Seventeen people in total. The British representative presided that day.

After the greeting, the priests took their seats, and the minutes concerning the confidentiality of the questioning were read. The Chairman of the Commission, after returning their greetings, referred to these minutes and asked them how many priests the "Priestly College of St. Paul for Istria" represented, and which ones. The President of the College, Tomo Banko, replied: "It is a professional organization of all the Croatian priests in Istria and the Slovenian clergy serving in the Croatian part of Istria."

QUESTION: How many priests are members of the College?

ANSWER: Fifty-two.

Q: So there are no other Croatian and Slovenian priests in Istria?

A: There are also twelve Slovenians in the Slovenian part of Istria; sixty-four in total.

Q: How many are there in all of Istria? R. — (As previously agreed, Rev. Božo Milanović began to answer) One hundred and fifty-two.

Q. — So, there are eighty-eight Italian priests in Istria?

R. — That's true, but we represent 75% of all Istrian parishes and the majority of the mixed ones. In other words, in Istria there are 132 purely Croatian parishes, 1 Italian parish, and 23 mixed parishes, which only include those with more than 10% of other nationalities. Consequently, of all the parishes and chaplaincies in Istria, 75% are Croatian, 12% Italian, and 13% mixed.

Q. — Does that mean one priest serves several parishes?

R. — That's right; many of them, the Croatians, serve two or three.

Q. — Could you provide us with a list of the parishes in Istria? R. — Of course; we have them here in several copies, in Croatian, English, Russian, and French.

The members of the Commission were pleasantly surprised and received copies with evident satisfaction. The Commission's president emphasized the great importance of this list to them, and the commissioners leafed through it. One of them inquired:

Q. — How did you include Sovinjak among the Croatian parishes if, according to the 1945 census, there are more than 200 Italians in Sovinjak out of a total of 300 inhabitants?

R. — Because we know that some families, although registered as Italian, are of Croatian nationality, and because it is common knowledge that Sovinjak is a Croatian parish.

Q. — We have heard that the fascists persecuted many Croatian priests. How is it that your organization lists 52 members? R. - During the first year (1919) of Italian rule, due to the persecutions, so many Croatian priests had to flee to Yugoslavia that 60 parishes of that nationality were taken over by Italian priests who immediately introduced their language into the churches and parish offices. The persecutions continued, and very few Croatian priests remained in Istria. Our organization sent students to Italian seminaries and ensured they maintained their national identity. In this way, we trained new priests in Istria. Therefore, most of the 52 members of our College are young.

Q. — Did the number of your priests increase after the war?

A. — No, except for five recently ordained.

Q. — How long has the St. Paul Priestly College for Istria existed?

A. — Since 1920; later, its activities were suspended due to fascist persecution. We revived it last August with the approval of the ecclesiastical and civil authorities.

Q. — According to the 1921 census, there were 90,000 Croats and 250,000 Italians in Istria. What do you know about this?

A. — It was precisely the opposite: around 90,000 Italians and 250,000 Croats. In the entire Julia Zone, there were about 600,000 Slavs—that is, 350,000 Slovenes and 250,000 Croats.

Q. — How did you arrive at that figure?

A. — Based on Church statistics.

Q. — Did the Church conduct a census of the population?

A. — Every three or four years, the dioceses published a list of their parishioners and priests. This list also included the number of inhabitants in each parish.

Q. — In what format were these censuses published?

A. — In book form, in a standard format.

Q. — Did these censuses indicate nationality?

A. — In the census of the Diocese of Trieste, which until 1919 also encompassed the present-day Diocese of Fiume, except for the city itself, Croatian places and villages were designated with Croatian spelling, and Italian places with Italian spelling. This way, we know where the Croats and Slovenes live and where the Italians live. In the Diocese of Gorizia, it's easy to determine, since there are mixed parishes there.

Q. — Who published this census and how was the data collected?

A. — The bishopric officially published the list of its parishes and priests, while the data was received from the parish priests.

Q. — What criteria did the parish priests use to determine nationality?

A. — According to the language spoken at home. In many towns, the fascists forced parents to speak to their children in Italian, under the pretext that the children would be able to understand their teachers at school. In those families, the parents spoke Croatian and the children spoke Italian, at least until they grew up, because then they used their parents' language. In those cases as well, the family language was the criterion for determining nationality.

Q. — Did the priests go from house to house asking what language they used? A: It wasn't necessary, since parish priests are frequently in direct contact with their parishioners by visiting the sick, blessing homes, etc., so they know them well.

Q: Does this census also cover western Istria?

A: Yes, as far as Novigrad (Cittanova).

The Russian delegate: How did you register those without a faith?

A: There aren't any among us.

Q: Could we obtain an ecclesiastical census of Goritia?

R. — I can give it to you tomorrow for the dioceses of Trieste and Poreč. With that, you'll have the census for all of Istria, but nationality can be deduced simply from the old census (pre-1918) of the Diocese of Trieste, which until then also included Rijeka (Fiume), except for the city of Rijeka itself. Here in Pazin, I have the censuses for the Diocese of Trieste from 1918 and 1940 and for the Diocese of Poreč from 1918 and 1923.

The members of the Allied Commission showed great interest and gratitude for obtaining these censuses, attributing special importance to them.

Q. — Do you know how the 1921 population census was published?

R. — The Italian employees went from house to house and recorded whatever they wanted, while the Croatians had no control over their records. For a long time, the results were not published, so the population neither took them into account nor had the impression that a census had even been conducted. The Italian press never referred to this census.

Q. — Do you know this directly or indirectly?

A. — I always read the Italian newspapers very carefully, looking for any reference or commentary on the matter. I found no news whatsoever. Moreover, we didn't just focus on the statistical data regarding the nationality of the population of Istria, but even more so on the area populated by each nationality. We occupy 80% of the territory in Istria, as you can deduce from the list of Croatian, Italian, and mixed parishes and chaplaincies that we just gave you. The Croatians inhabit Istria in a compact area all the way to the coast, and the Italians are only scattered here and there, like islands among us.

Q. — Did they enjoy linguistic freedom in the churches under Italian rule? R. — I already mentioned that in the first year of Italian rule, the language of that country was imposed exclusively in 60 Croatian parishes through the Italian priests. In the Istrian islands, since ancient times, the liturgy had been celebrated in Old Church Slavonic, but in the early years of Italian rule, that language was prohibited and replaced by Latin. As for the sermons, things were like this: where there were Italian priests, they preached in their language, and where there were Croatians, in Croatian, but encountering great difficulties and often under the condition of also delivering the sermon in Italian during the same Mass.

P. — Did they have to deliver it first in Italian or in Croatian?

R. — First in Italian and then in Croatian. In some villages, such as Motovunski Novaci, for example, people would leave the church during the Italian sermon, but the Carabinieri would force them to return.

The members of the Commission exchanged puzzled glances.

The president asked, “If I understand correctly, the religious service was to be held in Latin and everything else in a modern language?”

“Yes, that’s correct.”

“Could religious instruction be given in Croatian?”

“Only during the first year under Italian rule could it be done in the native language, or until there was a Croatian school. Half of our primary schools were abolished in the very first year of Italian rule, and the rest suffered the same fate a few years later. We didn’t have secondary schools under Italy.”

“We have comprehensive data on schools, and we’d like to return to the subject of religious instruction.”

R. — I would like to add that in Italy, after the concordat, priests were not allowed to teach religious instruction in schools. In the old Italian provinces, parish priests could visit schools twice a year to supervise the teachers responsible for religious instruction. However, here the authorities forced parish priests to go to schools and teach religious instruction. They did this with the aim of Italianizing the students.

But Croatian priests refused to contribute to the denationalization of their compatriots through religious instruction and taught it exclusively in churches. In their work, they were often harassed and persecuted. For this reason, we frequently sent delegates with petitions to the Vatican, generally without success. The Holy See's hands were tied, as it could worsen the situation of the Church throughout Italy because of us. Furthermore, it is important to note that there was no higher clergy of Croatian nationality, since, under the concordat between the Holy See and the Italian government, stipulated in 1929, not a single priest could be appointed parish priest or bishop without the prior approval of the Italian government. Therefore, only bishops of Italian nationality, considered nationalists by the Italian government, could be appointed. We Croats in Italy were divided into four dioceses.

Q. — Where is the headquarters of your College and where does its president live?

A. — I pointed to Reverend Banko. Then the members of the Allied Commission bowed respectfully. The president of the Commission apologized to the priests present for having kept them so long and questioning them in detail, as their information was very valuable for the Commission's purpose.

Q. — In the churches of Zone A, can the Slovenian and Italian languages be used freely?

A. — Yes, but in Trieste, little attention is paid to sermons in Slovenian. Q. — Is this due to a lack of priests who speak that language?

A. — No, but rather because in certain churches it is not possible to preach in Slovenian. Likewise, in the city of Pula, not a single sermon is delivered in Croatian. (The Commission expressed its surprise.)

Q. — Can you name the parishes in Trieste and its surrounding area?

A. — You will find them on the list I will give you tomorrow. He added that of the 23 mixed parishes in Istria where sermons are delivered in two languages, this is only done in five of them, while in the remaining 18, the use of Croatian is still excluded.

The Commission was surprised and asked for the list of the five parishes with bilingual sermons. I provided them, and the commissioners took note. I then informed them that the Italian newspapers and prefects, in several hearings, refused to call us Croats and recognize us as such, instead referring to us as "Istriani," "Carsi," etc., and generally nicknamed us "alloglotti."

The Chairman of the Commission then allowed the other members to ask questions if they wished. The French delegate inquired why we had included Buzet among the Croatian parishes, given that, according to the 1945 statistics, there were 240 Italians and 170 Croats there.

R. — That parish includes not only the houses near the church but also many other Croatian villages with a total population of over 4,000. Therefore, the number of Italians doesn't even reach 10% of the total parishioners.

P. — Could you name some of those villages?

R. — You'll find a list of them all in the book I'll give you tomorrow.

M. Mosley, the American delegate, then asked: When was the St. Mohor Association founded, and what kind of society was it?

R. — It's a literary society, and it was founded in 1924. We used to print books here in Pazin, where we had our printing press. But the Italians in this city destroyed it in 1919 and 1920. They smashed the machines and scattered the type in the street, where anyone could pick it up for a month, except us. Later, we founded the Society of Saint Mohor as a religious confraternity with ecclesiastical approval, since the civil authorities did not allow us to establish associations of any other kind.

Q. — Were you authorized to print books?

A. — In order to more easily obtain permission, we moved the printing press to Trieste. There, overcoming great obstacles, we were able to publish several books. But they imposed censorship on them after they were printed, and without prior approval, we could not leave the printing press. For several months, we had to wait for the necessary approval. In this way, they withheld the calendars until the appropriate time for their sale had passed. A book of stories was confiscated because it contained the names of Croatian authors. Once the book was approved in Trieste, the Carabinieri in Istria obstructed its distribution. Rev. L. Jurca, present here, was fined 500 lire for distributing books to the members.

Q. — The three of you were in one or more parishes. So, are you aware of the situation in a wider jurisdiction?

A: We serve in several parishes.

The president asked, “Representatives of the clergy, considering the memorandum you have just given us, do you have anything to add?”

A: During the national struggle under the Austrian Empire, Croatian politicians compiled a list of Italians who had long resided in Istria. There were 24,000 of them.

That the Italians generally descend from Slavs is evidenced by their surnames, which were changed by the fascists.

The Croatian character of Istria is also confirmed by the Croatian names of all the fields, valleys, mountains, rivers, etc., which are also used by the Italians. The Croats and Slovenes in Istria possess their folk poetry, stories, traditional costumes, unique customs, and so on, which the Italians of that region lack.

Our people suffered so much under Italian rule that they would rather die than become dependent on Italy again, and I believe everyone would consider that their greatest misfortune.

We maintain that the Adriatic is the natural border between Italy and Croatia. Istria is located on the eastern shore of the Adriatic. Where the Adriatic ends and the Soča (Isonzo) River flows into it, there, since ancient times, lies the ethnic boundary between the Slavs and the Italians, who have coexisted in that uninterrupted territory.

Istria also constitutes a geographical and economic unit inseparable from Croatia.

(Translated from Bakarska Zvona — The Bells of Bakar, No. 7, October-November 1968, Bakar, Croatia).

EXPLOITATION, NEOCOLONIALISM, OR WHAT ELSE?

Dr. Bruno Tandara, a member of the Council of the Republic in the Sabor (Diet) of the Socialist Republic of Croatia, defending politicians from southern Croatia (Dalmatia) against attacks by representatives of Belgrade's centralist government regarding their public criticism of exploitation in general, and specifically of the Imotski district—one of the 16 most underdeveloped in Croatia—also wrote the following:

"In the Federal Republic of Croatia, there are 16 underdeveloped communes. Assessing the progress of each of them from the perspective of per capita national income, the Imotski district, with its 1,630 new dinars per capita, is among the most backward in the country. These figures speak volumes. I don't mean to say that the community shows no interest in this part of the Socialist Republic of Croatia, but the results achieved are very meager compared to that district's share of the national wealth accumulation." The commune is a Yugoslav national capital. It has around 50,000 inhabitants. Of this total, 4% work within its territory. Imotski workers are likely at the forefront of the emigration list, as 8,000 of them work abroad. The remaining population in the commune is engaged in extensive agriculture. At one time, there were two main branches of this cultivation: viticulture and tobacco.

Viticulture was undermined by the importation of wines from Western countries. (If the same "protection" were given to the national automobile industry, our popular "Ficho"* would have expired long ago.) Tobacco is a state monopoly, but its harvests clearly confirm that its yield was higher during the reign of Emperor Franz Joseph I of Habsburg ****.

The Federation (i.e., the central government of Belgrade — Editor's Note) sends annual revenues into its coffers. For the "tobacco" sector in Imotsky, 4 billion old dinars. Furthermore, as I have already mentioned, 8,000 Imotsky workers are employed in convertible currency countries. These workers send money to their families through what are called international foreign exchange allowances. Our system for these allowances is organized in such a way that banks pay the recipients according to the domestic market price. Specialists say that our workers abroad remit around 150 million dollars annually.

Of this sum, 12 million dollars correspond to remittances from Imotsky workers. Our specialists have publicly stated that banks paid 1,750 old dinars per dollar. With this withholding operation, it is evident that the banks are earning 500 dinars per dollar.

Multiplying 500 by 12 million, we arrive at the substantial sum of 6 billion old dinars. In simpler terms, the bank has profited at the expense of 8,000 The workers of Imotsky received a very substantial windfall. If we now add the proceeds from tobacco sales, the sum reaches fantastic proportions for the people of Imotsky. This is indeed the case, considering that the Federation (the central government in Belgrade—Editor's Note) received 10 billion old dinars in a single year from one of the poorest municipalities in Yugoslavia.

I have also read that the community (meaning Yugoslav political entity—Editor's note) has invested only 2 billion old dinars in the development of Imotski since the end of the war. We have only one aqueduct in the town itself and lack paved roads to connect us with the rest of the world, while many of our students do not complete their "Osmoljetka" (8-year primary school) because the necessary conditions are lacking."

After revealing these self-evident facts, Dr. Tandara added: "If this is neither exploitation nor a system of neocolonialism, then what is it?"

(Translated from Croatian Voice (Hrvatski Glas), Canada, January 21, 1970).

Notes and comments

THE INSECURITY OF NATIONAL POLITICS IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

While popular discontent with Yugoslavia as a state is growing in Slovenia and the Yugoslav-Bulgarian crisis surrounding the Macedonian problem is intensifying, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, anxiety is increasing over the still-unresolved fundamental political and state issues. Regarding the political tensions stemming from the national question, a report on the deliberations held by the Central Committee of the Communist League of Bosnia and Herzegovina on November 13 and December 11, 1969, was published in Sarajevo in mid-December 1969. This report reveals a great concern among party leaders due to national antagonisms arising from Croatian and Serbian influences. It also reflects the instability of the internal political situation in Yugoslavia, at a time when Serbian generals are carrying out demonstrative acts in the western parts of the country and the central security services are suppressing the already meager press freedom, muzzling intellectuals, and re-establishing a climate of terror and insecurity. From the aforementioned report, it can be inferred that Serbian expansionism is currently targeting Bosnia and the regions beyond the Sava River.

After "condemning the spread of national intolerance" in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the document of the Central Committee of the Communist League of those two regions emphasizes (Vjesnik, December 15, 1969, Zagreb): "Lately, old ideas and demands regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina are resurfacing publicly and alarmingly. For example, nationalist circles in Serbia argue that, having lost Macedonia and Kosovo, it is necessary to fight 'so as not to also lose Bosnia, which is Serbian, and must be conquered not only from the Drina River but also from the Sava.'"

Furthermore, nationalist groups in Croatia have recently acquired experts on the problems of Bosnia and Herzegovina. These experts are "concerned" about the level of education, the fate of "Croatian Bosnia," and "Croatian Muslims." Just as in the past, they find support in reactionary circles, among nationalists, and among the remnants of "enemies of" Bosnia and Herzegovina. "Class" in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There are attempts to distort the meaning of our struggle against Serbian, Croatian, Muslim, and other nationalisms and chauvinism in favor of establishing the Federal Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a community of equal peoples, as if this struggle were directed against another republic and against the unity of Yugoslavia. The Central Committee also strongly condemned other dogmatic and bureaucratic-statist phenomena, accusing them of favoring Ranković and the Informburo.

"The Central Committee of Bosnia and Herzegovina emphasizes that the sources of nationalism lie in the contradictions of our own development, in the activities of the remnants of the class enemy, and in nationalist phenomena in other republics that affect our reality. Therefore, the Central Committee believes that the Communist League and other progressive forces must undertake systematic ideological and political action to combat these phenomena of nationalism and chauvinism, as well as their agents."

"Since some believe that national relations in Bosnia and Herzegovina are complex, presumably due to the unresolved issue of the national character of the Muslim population, it should also be noted on this occasion that the Communist League and the peoples of that republic have removed this issue from the agenda in the following way: through the constitution and documents issued by the Communist League or other political organizations of the republic. Previous reports of the Central Committee of the Communist League stated in this regard: 'Practice has shown how harmful the various forms of persistent pressure of the preceding period were for Muslims to define themselves nationally as Serbs or Croats, respectively, since, as was made clear earlier and socialist practice confirms, Muslims constitute a separate people.'"

This official report thus acknowledges that the Serbs are exerting considerable pressure to liquidate the current Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, annex it to Serbia, and reduce Muslims to an isolated minority. Let us briefly analyze both phenomena.

By emphasizing the attitude of "the nationalist elements in Serbia," who, having lost Macedonia and Kosovo, "are fighting for Bosnia, which must not be lost, because Bosnia is Serbian," and by linking this aggressive policy to "dogmatic, bureaucratic-statist phenomena, favorable to Ranković and the Informburó," the communist leaders in Bosnia and Herzegovina warn the public that these elements want to liquidate that republic. Macedonia and Kosovo are no longer part of the Great Serbian plans, and expansion now points westward, toward Dalmatia, Lika, and Istria, through Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Great Serbian circles thus acknowledge that, in their opinion, that republic is of a transitional nature and that, "being a Serbian territory," it must be annexed to Serbia. This constitutes a serious danger for Bosnia and Herzegovina today, while a similar threat looms over the Republic of Croatia. The communist leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina will not be able to safeguard their republic if they continue to insist on the current policy, which means giving primacy to the so-called federation and subordinating Bosnia and Herzegovina to Great Serbian centralism. They admit that the small margin of freedom their republic enjoys is currently in danger. There is only one solution: a thorough review of relations not only in this republic but also in the others, through the transfer of state sovereignty from the central state to each of the republics.

This review can be achieved through agreements and in collaboration with the other threatened republics, as well as with the representatives of Serbia. By attacking the Croats and the Republic of Croatia, the communist leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina are aggravating not only the already weak Croatian position but also their own. Through concerted action by the Croat and Serb Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina to protect their land and achieve greater independence from central powers in administration, the economy, the military, and cultural life, a solid foundation for further political development can be established.

Closely linked to this is the political strength of the Muslim population, whether considered a people or a religious community, who identify as Croat, Serb, or nationally undefined. In the current political climate, Muslims are officially declared a people and pitted against the Croat and Serb populations. This has left them isolated and a minority with no prospect of realizing their political will. On one hand, Serbian policy aims to dominate Bosnia and Herzegovina and annex it to Serbia, while on the other, Belgrade-inspired policy seeks to defame and prevent the collaboration of the Catholics and Muslims who constitute the majority in this republic.

A realistic solution, favorable to both Bosnia and Herzegovina and its neighbours, consists of the full recognition of the right of Bosnian and Herzegovina's Muslims to decide for themselves the question of their nationality, free from interference and pressure from the centralist federal apparatus. The recognition of this right must coincide with the transfer of state sovereignty from the federation to the respective republics, which will then freely arrange their relations, whether within a federal or confederal framework, or as separate state entities.

Such solutions are imperative today in view of the acute state crisis in Yugoslavia, caused from both within and without. These problems cannot be resolved through the provocative actions of Serbian generals and the intensified terror of the state security services. On the contrary, all of this increases tensions that could lead to further explosions and catastrophes.

Switzerland, 1970.

Dr. Ante STARČEVIĆ IN RECENT FRENCH PUBLICATIONS

On the occasion of the attack perpetrated on February 18, 1968 against the Yugoslav embassy in Paris, the left-leaning Parisian newspaper Le Nouvel Observateur, in its number 172 from 28/2 - 5/3 1968, published the article by Francois Caviglioli, permanent contributor to the "Notre Epoque" rubric, entitled: Les Oustaschi du boulevard Delessert, and with the subtitle: "L'attentat contre l'ambassade de Yougoslavie a fait un mort et 19 blessés. Est il fait des extrémistes qui ont pour slogan «Dieu au Ciel, les Croates sur terre»?"

From the third line of the aforementioned article by Caviglioli we read: "Un jour d'avril 1895, Ante Starcevitch sort du ministère de l'intérieur, à Vienne. Sous son bras, un dessier: l'Austriche-Hongrie promet l'indépendance à Croatie et mise sur les Croates pour mater les Serbes. Ante Starceyitch est un avocat de Zagreb. Les Austrichiens l'ont choisi pour gagner ses compatriots à la nouvelle idée impériales. Ante Starcevitch va devenir le théoricien du nationalisme croate, de la supériorité du peuple croate sur les Serbes, les Bosniaques, les Slovènes — «Dieu au ciel, les Croates sur terre». Croatian extremists".

The author then points out that between Starčević's early writings and February 18, 1968, much blood was shed and there were numerous foreign and secret service interventions in the complex Balkan affairs; today, Croatia has its place, its political and economic autonomy within the Yugoslav federation. There are no longer Croatian nationalists in Croatia, but there are in Germany, Italy, France, South Africa, the United States, etc. In the form of a conversation with an imaginary Friar Ljubo, a former Franciscan, Mr. Caviglioli lists, one after another, his fantastical creations with the sole purpose of demonstrating the supposed disastrous consequences of Starčević's political doctrine not only in the present day, but also during the Second World War.

The same Friar Ljubo said, "...it is so angelic that one wonders how he managed to kill fifty Serbian children in Dvor-M-Uni during the summer of 1941." Ante Pavelić is the man for whom his cooks prepared paste made from human eyes; the Duke of Spoleto distributed titles and pensions, while Croatia remains a poor country subjected to a tribal regime and structure.

These are, in short, the examples we take from Caviglioli's article, published in five columns with two photographs (one of the Marseille attack and another of Ante Pavelić in bed after the attack against him in Buenos Aires, with the caption: "Ante Pavelić to Madrid (1959) — Human Eye Pastes").

Mr. F. Caviglioli would probably blush if he knew that Ante Starčević was already 72 years old in 1895, that he was ill, that he made his will on July 26, 1895, and died in Zagreb on February 28, 1896; that he was never a lawyer but worked in several law firms; that he never received any service from the imperial court and was one of its most exasperated adversaries, somewhat less unfavorable towards Hungary, but all the more irreconcilable with the idea and reality of the Hungarian-Croatian Compromise of 1868; that he was also an adversary of the Serbs, whom he did not consider as a separate people, but as an integral element of the Croatian people; With their help, Ban Khuen Hedervary, imposed on the Croatian people by Vienna at Budapest's suggestion, ruled Croatia for 20 years in order to "pacify" it (from 1883 to 1903).

Starčević is the founder of the Croatian Party of Law, organized in 1861. Its supporters wanted to deal directly with the emperor without taking Austria or Hungary into consideration. Hence the slogan "God and the Croats," which should be translated into French as "Dieu et les Croates," with the real meaning that in Croatia neither Vienna nor Budapest, neither Germans nor Hungarians should rule, but only God and the Croats.

Caviglioli's surprise would be even greater if, by some miracle, he were to learn that Ante Starčević was perhaps the greatest devotee of the French people in all of Austria-Hungary. It suffices to quote what he said in the newspaper Sloboda (Freedom) on June 25, 1879, in an article titled: "Prince Louis Napoleon" (referring to Prince Eugène Louis Jean-Joseph, the only son of Napoleon III, who perished in South Africa). There, Starčevič said: "We are moved by the death of Louis Napoleon not because he was a French pretender, but because, with him, the noble cause lost its protector. Whether or not he ascended the throne, his mere and insistent effort to become a worthy heir to his family's traditions would have already earned him this distinction in the struggle for the people's freedom.

These traditions are contained in one of the most salutary ideas for a people that history knows. An idea that, being inherent in human nature itself, will persist in the lives of future centuries: the idea of nationality. That which is united by the nature of its origin, by the same language and customs, by its own interests, must merge into a state unity; and, if its past is not shared, its future must be. Among the texts he dictated to Count Las Casas on the island of Saint Helena, it is easy to deduce what grand plans Napoleon harbored in this regard." I. And just as he sought to liberate and unify the peoples—the Croat and the Pole—so his nephew helped to liberate and unite Italy. We Croats, victims of that wretched man (that is, the Habsburgs—author's note) who owes his very existence to us, find no other salvation—disunited, denationalized, poisoned—than in that Napoleonic idea. And that is none other than the (Croatian) Party of Right. (See: Dr. Blaž Jurišič, Ante Starčević—Selected Writings, Zagreb, 1943, p. 532).

If Mr. Caviglioli knew anything about the Croatian political history he writes about, he should strongly reject suggestions that Starčević was linked to the events of the last world war, not only those that occurred, but especially those that did not and which Caviglioli takes for granted. The Black Legend... It always turns blacker over time, and when nothing more can be added, one wonders in amazement, "We know that Curzio Malaparte wrote about the 'basket of human eyes on Ante Pavelič's desk,' but who invented the story about cooks preparing eye paste for Pavelić?" Could Mr. Caviglioli tell us where he got this precious piece of information?

Perhaps Mr. Caviglioli isn't entirely to blame for his position and his view of Ante Starčević's personality. He probably read the Parisian publication L'Histoire Pour Tous, which, in its issue number 15 of July 15, 1961, published Jo Franchal's article, "Terror on the Balkans — Three Generations of Conspirators." Among his historical lies, that gentleman also wrote the following: "The Croatian agitator Starčević founded a terrorist group, the Right Party, whose program aimed solely to create a vast Croatian State encompassing the territories situated between Germany and Greece."

The radical nature of this doctrine does not attract a large number of partisans, but those it rallied were all fanatics who did not hesitate to use the bomb and the knife to spread their ideas." If Mr. Franchal were to learn by chance that most of the authors of the creation of Yugoslavia before 1918 came from the ranks of the Party of Right (Frano Supilo, Ante Trumbič, Ante Pavelič [the dentist], to mention only a few of them and known outside the borders of Croatia) it is possible that he himself would revoke his sentence: "the Croatian agitator Starcevitch founded a terrorist group, the Party of Right..." and the others, or fundamentally change them, or omit them.

Thus, for example, the aforementioned gentleman should know something about the linguistic conflict between Croats and Serbs that erupted in the middle of the last century and crystallized in Vuk Karadjic's "Greater Serbian" idea and Ante Starčevič's "Greater Croatian" idea, with each side refusing to recognize not only their own language but also their very national existence. Meanwhile, some Croats even rejected their name as Croats, calling themselves Illyrians and Yugoslavs out of a sense of harmony with the Serbs who had immigrated to Croatian lands during the Ottoman invasions, who rejected both labels, firmly adhering to their Serbian name.

If Franchal were aware of just this fact, he could probably understand Starčević's formulation of "the Slavic-Serbian race," with which he intended not only to characterize Serbs but also Croats, and in particular those who renounced their Croatian name. According to Starčević, all peoples have their "Slavic-Serbians," because he formed this concept from the words "slavus" and "servus," which inherently contain the meaning of double servitude. Starčević himself describes the "Slavic-Serbians" as follows: Who are the Slavic-Serbians? Anyone who knows Austria should also know the Slavic-Serbians, the creatures who agree to defend it.

Anyone who knows the Slavic-Serbians should equally know Austria, behind whose government they stand. The Slavic-Serbians are the dregs of a people, a kind of man who sells himself to anyone for any price, offering Croatia to every buyer; a kind of people anyone can buy, if nothing else is available, for a mess of pottage: people who would make Austria and similar bad governments one less disgrace to own. A kind of man who, even among the most "Distinguished individuals, an honest government would only reserve the task of cleaning pipes; people who are by their very nature against everything good, celebrated, and majestic, and who seem to have sworn to wipe the Croatian people off the face of the earth, being intent on this purpose. These Slavic-Serbian men, these forces, are working in Croatia for Austria." (B. Jurišić, Op. cit., p. 535).

Repeating once again the calumnies from the period of the Second World War, Franchal notes that Starčević had already set the objectives of the Ustaše, that is, "to exterminate the Serbs," whom he considered "a dead race for the A."

We have the impression that someone, in a most brazen manner, is deceiving French historical journalism. We have already stated that Starčević could not preach the extermination of the Serbs because he considered them an integral part of the Croatian people. In this respect, even his supporters disagreed with him, while he himself stated that it was impossible to force anyone to be what they did not wish to be. The aforementioned phrase appears in a completely different context and with a completely different meaning.

We find it in his dissertation, "To Slavism or to Croatism?" (Zagreb, 1867). In it, Starčević takes a position on the idea of Pan-Slavism, considering it detrimental to Croatia, and giving his reasons for doing so. Dr. Mile Starčević, one of his relatives, said the following about Starčević's Pan-Slavic vision: "If someone, despite all the facts that contradict Pan-Slavism, is dreaming of Slavic brotherhood and unity, then he is ripe for the asylum or the axe." And it should not be forgotten that, at that time, when Starčević wrote such a phrase, it was the Croats who championed and dreamed of the Pan-Slavic ideal more than the Serbs in Croatia.

By means of a letter dated November 13, 1961, we informed Mr. Alain Decaux, editor of the journal L'histoire Pour Tous, of certain inaccuracies made by Mr. Jo Franchal, requesting that he indicate the sources from which the author of the article drew these assertions. "Since we cannot cite them," we stated on that occasion, "we can only conclude that his own imagination has led him astray," believing that the author, ignorant of the matter, had confused the people and the periods, as was clearly evident from our letter.

Messrs. Decaux and Franchal must have had a particular reason for not responding to our observations. Perhaps they had complete confidence in the person whose works and information served as sources for the author of the aforementioned article. Perhaps we wouldn't be far from the truth if we assumed that the mastermind behind this denigrating slander against Ante Staréevié was Professor Viktor Novak of the University of Belgrade, a contributor to the newspaper Medjunarodna Politika (International Politics), through which Belgrade disseminates anti-Croatian "reports" in several languages across all fields of social science.

Thus, for example, Professor Novak, in his recent work Vuk i Hrvati (a special edition of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade 1967, p. 645), on pages 307/8, says: "Love inspired the young Starčević, hatred engendered the enemy of Yugoslavism and Slavism, the destroyer of the brotherhood and unity of Serbs and Croats. All his subsequent and consequential activity against Austria will not, unfortunately, diminish the grave responsibility that rests upon him as a historical figure, and despite the idolatrous glorifications after his death, when his ideology, in the form of a Francoism (*), is reduced to the monstrosity that we can only find in an interpretation of Starčević's ideology inspired by a more horrendous kind of paroxysm; an ideology of a sacred character and an annihilating force against all that..." He had previously opposed it—in the interpretation made during the time of the victory of the "father of the nation," Ante Starčević, that is, during the fatal emergence of the independent state of Croatia.

Starčević's ideology needed precisely 20 years to manifest itself in tremendous orgies and reap countless victims, bloodied and martyred, wherever Yugoslavism and Servism sought to prolong their existence." A simple syntactic analysis of this text is enough to show that the professor from Belgrade was guided more by hatred than by reason, as is usually the case in his writings when dealing, for example, with Stepinac, the Vatican, the independent state of Croatia, etc., from 1952 onward. There is no doubt that the Ustaše Movement adopted the idea of Croatian state independence from Starčević's ideology, but once this independence was achieved, it is clear that within its power there could be no room for Yugoslavism or Servism in the sense understood by Professor Novak and the Serbian hegemonists: Yugoslavism and Servism as irreconcilable adversaries of Croatian independence. A

ccusing Starčević of the atrocities committed in the conflict between Yugoslavism and Servism—on the one hand, which sought to subject the Croatian people to Serbian domination from Belgrade, and the legal and legitimate formations of the Croatian armed forces—is neither a fair nor justified accusation from any point of view, and even less so worthy of a university professor. Starčević defended the right to self-determination of the Croatian people, grounding it in their own history and in accordance with the new ideology of nationalities.

No one can link his ideology and personality to the events of an era contrary to Starčević's liberal and humanitarian spirit. Professor Blaž Jurišić says in this regard: "The current principles of governance and authoritarian systems would not have been in accordance with his taste; in this sense, he could not be considered modern."

We believe, therefore, that a segment of France's cultural media does little or nothing to enhance France's reputation. The Balkan barbarism infiltrating France from Belgrade is worthy of contempt from all people of goodwill and those with a spirit oriented toward truth and historical objectivity. We regret that these Balkan contaminations of falsehood have such a detrimental effect on historical truth and objectivity precisely through certain French publications. For the rational being—which is humankind—there is no sin more shameful than that committed against the truth.

MILAN BLAŽEKOVIĆ

Chronicles and News

IN MEMORIAM OF PROF. JOHAN WILHELM MANNHARDT

On September 10, 1969, Professor Dr. Johann Wilhelm Mannhardt died in Freiburg im Breisgau, at the age of 86. Professor Mannhardt dedicated his entire life to ethnography, the preservation of ethnic groups and the mutual understanding of peoples, as well as to the problem of the harmonious relationship between the people and the State.

To fulfill this purpose he made several trips around the world. On the occasion of the one held by South America - especially invited by the Croatian Latin American Institute of Culture - he gave a conference at the Croatian-Argentine Cultural Club on September 11, 1961, on the topic "Ethnic Europe and its orbit." From that date on, the Institute and the editorial staff of Studia Croatica maintained relations with Professor Mannhardt through the exchange of this journal with Europa Ethnica, of which he was co-founder and co-editor, together with Guy Héraud (Strasbourg, France) of the "Mouvement Fédéraliste Européen", Povl Skadegard (Denmark), current secretary general of L'Union Fédéraliste des Communautés Ethniques Européenes. and Dr. Theodor Veiter (Feldkirch and Vienna, Austria).

In addition to his collaboration in the founding of "Südosteuropagesellschaft" (Society of Southeastern Europe), Professor Mannhardt was the creator of a peculiar institution—Deutsche Burse zu Marburg—in which youth from all regions of Germany and from German ethnic groups residing in other European countries lived for a semester with their teachers and educators. Through "Ethos and Pathos" they came to form one. national community despite regional differences in education, religion, political concepts, studies and temperaments. This community was able to survive the most difficult times of the pre-war, the war and even the post-war.

The students and collaborators of the aforementioned Institution are responsible for the publication of articles and speeches, partly unpublished, by Professor Mannhardt in 1965, under the title Bausteine zur volkswissenschaft (Fundamental Stones for Ethnography), on the occasion of its 80th anniversary, to which our Institute and the editorial staff of Studia Croatica also joined.

May these lines serve as a testimony and reminder of the personality of Prof. Mannhard, a tireless fighter for the good of the people!

MIROSLAV KRLEŽA

The prestigious Buenos Aires newspaper La Nación, in its Literary Supplement of April 26, 1970, which features contributions from leading European and South American writers, published an article on the outstanding figure of the Croatian leftist writer Miroslav Krleža, which we transcribe below.

We note that the letter Ž in his surname should be pronounced like the "j" in Jean in French or the "g" in George in English.

Miroslav Krleža, born in Croatia in 1893, when that region belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, is among the first Yugoslav writers and is considered part of the Central European literary tradition, which also includes Rilke, Kafka, Musil, and Severo Broch. The French translation of his book *I Don't Play Anymore* (published by Ed. du Seuil) has renewed interest in this multifaceted writer: novelist, poet, playwright, and polemicist. His dissident stance has earned him the familiar labels of "deviationist," "Trotskyist," and "petit bourgeois." *I Don't Play Anymore* was published in 1938, as the atrocities of Stalin's regime were beginning.

The protagonist, unorthodox and sacrilegious, is a lawyer who loses his position, his family, his possessions, and ends up in various prisons and, finally, in a psychiatric institution. Faced with the attack of his enemies, the disgraced lawyer does not defend himself, does not play by the rules, does not play into the hands of his tormentors, he no longer plays the game. The anonymous character in this novel resembles that of Felipe Latinoviez in The Return, the solitary artist who, as early as 1932, feels the "nausea" of life, which Sartre would later discuss in a famous novel, precisely titled Nausea. Krleža defined his position with these words: "In order to fulfill his duty honestly, the writer needs to be, in a certain sense, a dissident, even a defeatist, both with respect to the State and its institutions, and with respect to the nation and its authorities."

LA RECIENTE EXPOSICION DE ZDRAVKO DUČMELIĆ (WILDENSTEIN, 27/4-10/5, 1970)

As on previous occasions, the recent exhibition of this Croatian painter's works also attracted the attention of the public and cultural circles of Buenos Aires.

Zdravko Ducmelic, born in Croatia, began his painting studies at the Academy of Arts in Zagreb, continued them at the Academy of Fine Arts in Rome, and completed them at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts of San Fernando in Madrid. This talented painter thus arrived in Argentina as an established artist with a perfected technique. Therefore, his first exhibition in Buenos Aires and in other major cities of Argentina sparked interest in him as a talented and creative artist.

Ducmelic's painting activity began during the tumultuous days of the Second World War, and during his initial creative phase, his work reflected the essential characteristics of the painting of that era and its harsh reality. The artist was still unable to free himself from those experiences, which had been deeply ingrained in his sensitive and creative mind from the very beginning of his artistic career. Writing about the paintings of Z. Ducmelic, Julio E. Payró says, among other things: "His early works impressed with a poetic and poignant accent, characteristic of Central European artists caught in the throes of war and, to a greater or lesser degree, influenced by the somber Germanic expressionism exemplified by the woodcuts of Nolde, Kirchner, Rohlfs, or Schmidt-Rottlutt."

After his arrival in Argentina, the artistic output of this prolific painter, in addition to the aforementioned traits, is characterized by momentary forays into abstraction and a renewed return to figurative painting. This is a very common characteristic among contemporary painting that emerged after the Second World War.

In conflict with the new reality and the world, driven by the yearning to express the spirit of the times—a profound spiritual drama that reflects the hunger of our days—Ducmelic does not react with despair and protest, but rather by withdrawing and taking refuge in his solitary and imagined reality, a somewhat melancholic reality, yet intensely lived and human. Assimilating many elements and technical possibilities from his earlier painting into his new works, Ducmelic does not retreat into the past.

His recent paintings manifest his desire to express that reconstructed and modified reality. He succeeds, and in doing so, takes a great step forward. Being both painter and poet*, the viewer finds in many of Ducmelic's canvases the experiences, states of mind, and emotional tendencies of a very distant, closed, and difficult-to-access world. In an immaterial form, the space represented and defined by geometric lines and planes, and the figures of man, woman, and child, placed within this space filled with mysticism and memories, continue to be the subject of Ducmelic's paintings. The color, always clean and fresh, highlights and accentuates the metaphysical and mystical atmosphere of his works. For being both powerful and highly sensitive, the paintings recently exhibited by Ducmelic offer visible testimony to the ever-expanding independence and freedom of their author, without concessions to any norm or style.

A panoramic view of the opinions on Z. Dučmelić's latest exhibition in the Buenos Aires press.

Vertiente Publishing House, Mendoza, has just released a lavish album of recent paintings by Zdravko Ducmelic, featuring six full-color reproductions and fifteen in black and white. As a prologue, it includes a thoughtful and concise study by Professor Adolfo Ruiz Díaz on the different stages the painter went through. As this work was first published in our journal (see Studia Croatica, 1968, vol. 28-31, pp. 139-41), any further comment would be superfluous. Finally, the monograph we are referring to contains a brief bio-bibliographical note about the Croatian visual artist residing in Argentina.

Since 1965, Ducmelic has been a resident artist at the renowned Wildenstein Gallery in Buenos Aires, where he regularly exhibits his work.

His last exhibition at the gallery (from April 27 to May 10, 1970) garnered highly complimentary reviews from the Argentine press, some of which we transcribe below:

The newspaper La Nación, in its Literary Supplement of May 10, 1970, reproduced his remarkable work entitled "Bodies and Imaginary Spaces."

The art critic for the newspaper La Prensa (May 9, 1970) states, among other things:

"To the already vast field of painting have recently been added manifestations so dubious as to make it even more complex, so much so that we are forced to ask, when painting is mentioned, what kind of painting is being referred to. It is for this reason that, when referring in the title of this commentary to Ducmelic's 'paintings,' we consider it necessary to begin the analysis by clarifying that this artist is a painter in the deepest sense of the term.

"Dumelic has been in the country for 20 years; he arrived from Croatia, where he was born... We recall his first exhibitions and the quality of his work at that time, in which he had the commendable good taste to avoid mere propaganda when referring to the war, a subject that, logically, he could not ignore at that time."

"Ducmelic has been in the country for 20 years; he arrived from Croatia, where he was born... We remember his first exhibitions and the quality of his work then, in which he had the good sense to avoid mere propaganda when referring to the war, a topic that, it is logical to admit, he could not ignore at that time." "In the exhibition of oil and tempera paintings that opened at the Wildenstein Gallery, he presents a collection of works that we consider to be the best of his career; his craftsmanship has reached an excellent level, and the communication he achieves in his images is moving. Regarding his artistry, we feel it is important to point out that he has reached a point that he should not exceed."

The critic for the Buenos Aires evening newspaper, La Razón, writes:

"...But the solitude and anguish that Ducmelic paints are imbued with spirituality, with a faith and hope that, instead of distressing us, perform in the viewer the twofold process of emptying their soul and seizing that space with their time. Furthermore, it is essential to speak of the artist's technique, which is evidently perfect but unobtrusive; there is no ostentation of virtuosity; indeed, he delights in concealing the wisdom of a mature painter, who masters the instrument with which he expresses himself, and possesses enough humility and intelligence so that the material does not silence the voices of the spirit. The exhibition he is holding in Wildenstein is a consummate demonstration of an artist who, certain of his truth, reveals it without great fanfare, like someone discussing the metaphysical things that happen to him every day in his province."

The weekly magazine Confirmado (May 6-12, 1970, p. 59) titles its commentary "The Guest of the Secret" and says:

"There is a secret lineage, beyond easy individualization, of hallucinating inhabitants of mystery, sleepless alchemists, obsessive travelers to the most recondite roots of time, of names, of keys, of matter, habitual comrades, in short, of the inner margins of reality, visible or invisible. Zdravko Ducmelic belongs to it, like the Kabbalists, like Lord Dunsany, like Lovecraft, to name only a few members of this exiled legion. And the exhibition that the Croatian painter, who has lived in Argentina for many years, is holding in Wildenstein vindicates for him this ever-dramatic lineage.

"His current exhibition is, undoubtedly, the most revealing of all those he has held in the local art scene in the last fifteen years, the one that best defines the ultimate meaning of his experience... On the occasion of his exhibition in the same gallery in May 1968, we said: 'Since he arrived in the country, his work has shown itself to be pictorially serious, dense. But perhaps he was burdened by an anecdote he had experienced too closely as a protagonist, one that disturbed him. His earlier work, dramatic, aggressive, judgmental, desperate, and somber, justified the reference, steeped in the atmosphere of the European tragedy he had just witnessed. But afterward, it would seem that Ducmelic had reversed the direction of his expressive mechanism: if before he had been obsessed with references to the outside world, the clash with the surrounding reality, the tragedy humanity was experiencing, the anguish of finding a way out, other elements began to possess him. No longer from the outside in, but from the inside out.

"Taking this process to its extreme, Ducmelic has arrived at his current paintings. He disdains the exasperated document, marginalizes references to immediate time and space, and descends into regions where only total memory operates, where what has been and what will be merge into a single, revealing form of manifestation.

The important thing is that in Ducmelic's painting there is no artifice, no easy or predictable literary contrivances. Color, form, and matter are not the servants of a symbolism that, by its very nature, superficially appeals to the imagination and fantasy. They are indivisible parts of the reality they reveal; they are made of its very essence." And if they unsettle as they do, if they sometimes overwhelm with the strange nature of their silence or their light, if their deserts or empty spaces provoke such vertigo—their blue is certainly infinite—it is because all that material is not made, but rather simply is, even though to verify this one must commit to all that risk. An attitude from which it is difficult to escape, as from the powerful temptation of their abysses.”

The weekly Periscopio (Buenos Aires, May 5, 1970, pp. 58-59) interviews the artist and offers insightful judgments on his works. Ducmelic confesses to the critic:

“I hate comparisons, the erudite game of resemblances, because in this way what I believe to be essential is erased: mysticism, a kind of elaborate, refined naiveté.”

“Obviously, Ducmelic is not an artist whose work enjoys popular understanding.” (Not even size could help me)," he smiles. His canvases are shrinking in size over the years, and their dimensions are penetrating deeper and deeper into each composition. "War, repression, violence, destruction will always exist. My painting, more than rebellion, is a resignation."

"A curious detail, which further underscores the presence of the stark canvases hanging on the walls of the Wildenstein Gallery: the reappearance of Ducmelic, a somber pacifist, a priest of resignation, occurs at a regressive moment in humanity. His hopeless message fits easily into a situation where, without any apparent signs to cause it, humankind retreats, resorting to negative symbols, as if invaded by its ancestral fear of God."

MICRO-NEWSPAPER

Francisco J. Orlich, former president of Costa Rica from 1962 to 1966 (and deceased on October 29, 1969), was of Croatian origin. The journal "Studia Croatica" and the Croatian-Latin American Institute of Culture, as well as other Croatian organizations in Argentina, maintained personal and correspondence with the late president. His death represents a great loss not only for his homeland, Costa Rica, but also for the "homeland of his ancestors," as he personally referred to Croatia in a letter to our Institute.

Dr. Franjo (Francisco) Pušković, a Croatian gynecologist residing in the city of Paraná, Argentina, attended three international medical congresses in March and April of this year. While passing through the Republic of Costa Rica, he laid a floral offering on the tomb of the recently deceased Don Francisco Orlich and delivered a lecture on "Treatment of Brucellar Gynecological Diseases" to the participants of the VI Central American Congress, dedicated to Gynecology and Obstetrics.

From there, Dr. Pušković traveled to New York, where he presented two of his works at the VI World Congress of Gynecology and Obstetrics: "Incidence of Trichomoniasis, Moniliasis, and Gonococcal Diseases in the Cervix: Cervical Diseases Based on 1200 Cases from the Gynecology Service of the San Martín Hospital" in Paraná, as well as "Brucellosis in Gynecological Diseases."

Dr. Stjepan Cvitkovic is the youngest physician in Argentina. He graduated on December 6, 1969, from the University of Buenos Aires at the age of 19. Local journalism and television devoted considerable attention to this talented young man, whose parents arrived in Argentina after the last world war. According to the young professional, he will dedicate himself to the study of cancer. We note this Croatian success, wishing that the talented young man's scientific endeavors will achieve great things, in accordance with his intellectual background.

Professor Dr. Fran Bosnjakovic, former rector of the Croatian University of Zagreb, one of the most distinguished specialists in the field of thermodynamics, received the gold medal on February 26, 1970, along with the French scientist A. Mondiez. This distinction, awarded by the French government, recognizes scientific work in the field of heat. On this occasion, Dr. Bosnjakovic was honored by several European scientific organizations.

He had previously received a similar distinction from the Association of German Engineers, as he served as a professor of thermodynamics at the University of Stuttgart in Germany. His scientific work encompasses all fields within his specialty, such as the gasification of solid fuels, plasma, etc. Dr. Bosnjakovic remains an honorary professor at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.

On the occasion of its 300th anniversary, the Faculty of Theology of Zagreb, which is also the first nucleus of the Croatian university system, conferred honorary doctorates on March 12, 1970, upon seven distinguished theologians and philosophers. The recipients were: Dr. Franz König, Archbishop and Cardinal of Vienna; Dr. Franjo Kuharic, Ordinary of the Archdiocese of Zagreb, whose see remains vacant following the appointment of Cardinal Franjo Seper as head of the current Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; and Dr. Carlos Balić, Professor at the Antonianum and the Lateran University in Rome, as well as President of the International Marian Academy.

Professor Dr. Wilhelm Keilbach, originally from Croatia, former dean of the Faculty of Theology in Zagreb and current professor at the University of Munich and president of the International Society for the Psychology of Religion; Dr. Ivan Ostojic, professor of theology in Split; Dr. Mijo Skvorc, Jesuit and one of the most prominent preachers in Croatia; and Father Antonio Zaninović, Dominican and director of the Dominican Library in Dubrovnik.

The University of Zagreb, whose original core was the Faculty of Theology, now separated from it because "theology is not a scientific discipline," as stated by Dr. Ivan Supek, a Marxist and the university's current rector, has also awarded honorary doctorates to ten renowned international scientists. They are: Lev Andrejevic Arcimovic, professor in Leningrad; Ernest Bloch, Marxist philosopher; David Cuthbertson, Scottish professor specializing in nutrition; Giacomo Devoto, one of the most prominent linguists of this century; Werner Heisenberg, Nobel laureate specializing in quantum mechanics; Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin, Nobel laureate specializing in the molecular structures of biologically active substances; Roman Jakobson, linguist; György Lukács, prominent Hungarian Marxist philosopher; and Professor Nikolaus Pevsner, art and architectural historian. André Vaillant, a French Slavist. And, to make the new doctors feel special, an identical title was conferred on Marshal Tito at the same event. Congratulations to the new doctor and to his sponsor, Professor Dr. Vladimiro Brajkovic, a specialist in maritime law—if memory serves!

Father Tomo (Tomás) Markovic, former professor at the prestigious Jesuit college in Travnik and one of the best-known Croatian folklorists, died on February 6, 1970, in Caracas, Venezuela. He published a series of articles dedicated to Croatian folklore. He was particularly active within the Croatian community in Venezuela. May he rest in peace.

Dr. Milovan Gavazzi, professor at the Croatian University of Zagreb, received the Herder Prize of 10,000 German marks last May in Vienna. This prize is established to honor individuals who have made significant contributions to the affirmation and propagation of European culture. Gavazzi is a renowned ethnologist of international fame. He contributes to scientific journals in Berlin, Wiesbaden, London, and Stockholm. His best-known works include: Ethnographic Overview of the Croats; Cultural Analysis of Croatian Ethnography; The Ethnographic Constitution of the Croatian Village; The Fate of the Old Slavic Heritage in the Life of the South Slavs, etc.

Last year, the Yugoslav communist authorities banned the publication of Hrvatski Knjizevni List – Gazeta Literaria Croata (Croatian Literary Gazette), the newspaper of the TIN literary society. By the end of last year, 18 issues had been published, garnering support and sympathy among Croats both in their homeland and in exile. The same authorities confiscated the passport of its editor, Zlatko Tomicic, president of the TIN society, and prohibited him from leaving the country. This newspaper was the only publication with a Croatian name in its title. Despite the numerous obstacles placed in its path by the communist government, the newspaper had amassed over 30,000 subscribers. Thus, Tito gave a fitting demonstration of his "liberalism" and the "brotherhood and unity" of "his" peoples.

Mr. Juan Rojnica, Vice President of the Croatian-Latin American Institute of Culture, Buenos Aires, delivered a lecture at the Rotary Club of Olivos on May 19th of this year.

On this occasion, speaking about the Cuban situation in the presence of Cuban representatives in exile and before a distinguished audience, Rojnica also described the suffering of the Croatian people under the Yugoslav communist regime, appealing to Rotarians worldwide and all freedom-loving individuals to offer their concrete support in the struggle of both peoples—Cuban and Croatian—against communism, because "fine words" are no longer enough.

Also, upon departing Argentina on May 22nd, Mr. Torrientes and Dr. Martínez Márquez, both Cuban nationals, at the City Hotel, Mr. Rojnica, a special guest of the Cubans, addressed them during dinner, promising his moral and material support for the renewed Cuban liberation efforts. The local press has focused its attention on the presence of the aforementioned gentlemen and on the words of our compatriot Rojnica.

Reseña de libros

Luka Brajnović: U Plamenu (En Llamas)

A fictionalized biography of Blessed Nicholas Tavelić, Rome 1969, published by the Postulancy for his canonization.

The author of this fictionalized biography of Nicholas Tavelić, Croatia's first officially recognized saint, is well-known to Croatian and Spanish readers. Excerpts from his Tales from Childhood have been published in Spanish, and more than thirty of his literary essays have appeared in the magazine Nuestro Tiempo. He is the literary editor of the Barcelona-based magazine Mundo. His professional works—he is a professor at the University of Navarro—include the following publications: Information Technology, The Language of Science, and Journalistic Ethics.

L. Brajnović was born in Kotor (Kator Mouth, Croatia) on January 13, 1919, and dedicated himself to journalism and literature as a student. His first fictionalized biography was published in Zagreb in 1945. It was dedicated to the life and work of the Croatian Baroque painter Tripo Koljaca, born in Perast, a Croatian town in Dalmatia. Brajnović began his literary career as a poet. Many of his poems are scattered throughout various Croatian newspapers and magazines. In exile, he published two books of poems: Smirene Zemlje (Calm Lands) and Na Pragu Radosti (On the Threshold of Joy).

The novel U Plamenu (In Flames), as we can see from the literary announcement, was written in 1965 with the desire to introduce readers "to a figure in Croatian and Franciscan history." This novel is, in fact, "the author's vision of the life and death of Blessed Nicholas Tavelić, who perished almost six centuries ago in Jerusalem as a Croatian Franciscan martyr."

The author's conception is not lacking in originality. Imbued with feelings and love for his main character, he prefers a simple yet correct style, characterized by expressive clarity and uncomplicated narratives. The unfolding of events flows lively and naturally, here and there with genuine enthusiasm, which constitutes the true value of this fictionalized biography and lends it personality and inner realism. With a sincere desire to inform, he made use of all the historical material available, but finding it scarce, he decided to supplement it with the poetic enthusiasm and visions of a true writer and poet. Much of this biographical novel was written in this style, with abundant imagination, solid, easy, and spontaneous, the author taking care that his expression was always appropriate to the idea being expressed, in an ever more perfect way. All of this lends authenticity and sincerity to his narrative. The author's style is so natural that it is difficult for the reader to separate "the writer's vision" from what is truly real in the saint's life.

Continuing his writing career after leaving his homeland, Croatia, and living in the cultural milieu of Spain, where his talent was enriched with new stimuli and inspiration for his literary creations, this biographical novel of Blessed Nicholas Tavelić—now a saint—by L. Brajnović, constitutes a valuable contribution not only to the Catholic Church and his homeland, Croatia, but also to his remarkable literary oeuvre.

Mr.

Eugen Beluhan: Stepinac Govori (Stepinac Speaks)Valencia 1967, pág. 525).

The author of this voluminous work is a Croatian Catholic priest from the Archdiocese of Zagreb, currently residing in Spain. Father Beluhan served in his parish during the spiritual leadership of Archbishop Aloysius Stepinac. This afforded him the opportunity to know Stepinac personally and appreciate his extraordinary character as a man, as a Croatian, and as a priest invested with the highest authority within the Croatian ecclesiastical hierarchy. To contribute to the efforts of many others in documenting the life and work of this pastor, whom Pope John XXIII likened to the image of the Divine Shepherd, the author focused primarily on documents directly from his archbishop. These include letters, homilies, declarations, circulars, and other episcopal writings.

This documentation—a true treasure of religious and theological thought—comprises 318 pages of this book. Anyone wishing to understand and unravel the extraordinary personality of Cardinal Stepinac in all its dimensions will need to read and study it carefully.

From these documents speaks a man—tragic in the eyes of mortals—but a holy man in the eyes of those who look beyond and above the material and transient world. Unwavering, living, and effective faith, capable of moving mountains; love for suffering humanity, whether from physical or moral ills; defense of the helpless, even to the point of self-sacrifice and identification with them—these are the ideas and values that emanate from this authentic documentation—all due to the spirit and hand of the martyr Stepinac.

It is impossible for us to understand how an intellectual or ordinary believer today could be uninterested in the life, fate, and example of Cardinal Stepinac, since his exceptional personality and multifaceted nature condense and resolve the most serious problems of the conflict between human freedom and dignity and totalitarian power in its most inhumane expressions.

His encounter with Nazism and, later, with Communism, signifies the clash of civilization with the most abominable forms of barbarism. A current of opinion seems to be emerging that tends to forget the reality that martyred Cardinal Stepinac, surrendering to the vain illusion of being able to harmonize the conflict—civilization and barbarism—by abandoning certain liberal positions of a material nature and forgetting its profoundly metaphysical and religious roots.

Understanding the needs of others and loving one's neighbor are important; but the general orientation, the worldview, and the metaphysical vocation of humankind must run parallel without compromise. In the first part of his work, the author tells us about Stepinac's life. Born in a Croatian village into a wealthy, large, and very religious family, Louis Stepinac had to abruptly end his secondary studies to join the army of the Dual Monarchy, of which his homeland, Croatia, was an integral part at that time (1916).

On the front lines, where he commanded Croatian units in Bosnia and Herzegovina, he was taken prisoner. After the war, he returned to his parents' home, unable to decide whether to continue his preparation for the priesthood, which he had begun before the war, or any other secular studies. While reading a series of articles by his former director at the Zagreb archdiocese orphanage, in which he described the life of Saint Clement Hofbauer, Apostle of Vienna, he alluded, without naming him, to L. Stepinac, whom he knew as an extraordinary young man for his kindness. The former soldier Stepinac then decided to return to the seminary.

For seven years he studied in Rome, receiving his doctorate in philosophy and theology (1931). His superiors could not overlook the extraordinary qualities of the new student. Shortly after his return to Croatia—then Yugoslavia—Stepinac was appointed head of ceremonial services at Zagreb Cathedral. In 1934, he was appointed auxiliary archbishop, cum jure successionis, to the then Archbishop Dr. Antonio Bauer. Upon Archbishop Bauer's death, from 1938 onward, he was in charge of the administration and pastoral mission of one of the largest dioceses in the world. The conditions were extremely adverse. The Croatian people were deprived of the most basic human and national rights under the Serbian dictatorship in Belgrade; internally, there was unemployment and poverty, while from abroad, war threatened. The vicissitudes caused by the ensuing conflict made possible the proclamation of Croatian independence. But even this independence was under close watch. The Axis powers loomed, and the subversive movements of international communism and the Serbian national minority contributed to undermining it.

The mutual persecutions and atrocities grew ever larger. The eyes of the people converged on the archbishop, both believers and non-believers. Some trusted him completely, while others sought to exploit the institution's prestige for their own nefarious purposes. Stepinac could not deny anyone in distress his human compassion. But helping some alienated others, and vice versa. Navigating that maelstrom required an enlightened man. Maintaining his Croatian patriotism, his religious faith, and his high dignity intact, while offering aid to the adversaries of those values, tested the highest virtues of a mortal.

And Stepinac managed to overcome all these adversities. If, it is true, the triumphant Serbian communism, which during the war had invoked his authority to protect itself against the enemy's harshness, He imprisoned him, attempted to denigrate him, and sentenced him to 16 years of hard labor. But the Catholic world across the globe defended his innocence, unlike any similar case in ecclesiastical history, led by L'Osservatore Romano. His innocence was also recognized by those most fiercely persecuted at that time: the representatives of the Jewish people. Even Tito and Milovan Djilas themselves had to acknowledge it, apologizing for Stepinac's persecution—one on behalf of the "Orthodox majority" and the other for reasons of state.

However, Stepinac died confined to his native village on February 10, 1960, without investing himself with the cardinal's purple with which Pope Pius But his life, his sufferings, his sacrifices and his death will represent victory in the future over the momentary success of his executioners.

In these days, the Holy See will canonize the first Croatian saint, a Franciscan from southern Croatia – Nicholas Tavelić – but it will not be long – it is our firm belief – before Cardinal Stepinac will be canonized, an incomparable witness to the supernatural vocation of man at the historical moment when this vocation is being denied and, at the same time, when we feel the general frustration of a civilization of abundance.

The reader of this work feels very grateful to its author for taking him to the very sources of religious wisdom and putting him in direct contact with that extraordinary man who was Cardinal Stepinac.

Buenos Aires.

FRANJO NEVISTIĆ

Ante Kadić: From Croatian Renaissance to Yugoslav Socialism

(Ed. Mouton, The Hague, Netherlands, 1969, p. 301)

This volume comprises a series of essays and literary and historical studies by the Slavic scholar Ante Kadić, professor of South Slavic literatures and languages and of contemporary Russian literature at Indiana University, USA. All the included works, with the exception of *Literary Currents in Socialist Yugoslavia*, were previously published in various journals and specialized publications in North America and Europe or were presented at symposia of several congresses held in the New and Old Worlds on Slavic studies.

Professor A. Kadić's research, driven solely by a love of truth and in usam scientiae, is widely known in specialized circles and appreciated for its rigor, solid knowledge, and novel contributions. The result of his systematic study is numerous essays, critiques, notes, and references, primarily on topics of Croatian literature and culture, published in academic journals of North American universities and in newspapers of Croatian émigrés. Kadić is also the author of the following books: Modern Yugoslav Literatures (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1956, p. 212); Croatian Reader With Vocabulary (Berkeley, University of California, 1957); Contemporary Croatian Literature, 1895-1959 (Mouton & Co., The Hague, 1960, p. 96); Croatian Reader With Vocabulary (Mouton & Co., The Hague, 1960, p. 276). Contemporary Serbian Literature (Mouton & Co., The Hague, 1964, p. 104) and the book mentioned in the epigraph, published last year. It should be noted here that the well-known Dutch publisher, Mouton Publishers, enjoys a high reputation for its editions of books and studies on Slavic topics.

In the first essay of the book under review, The Croatian Renaissance (reproduced in Spanish under the title "La literatura renacentista croata" in Studia Croatica, No. 4(9), Year III, 1962, pp. 287-308), Kadić succinctly and comprehensively presents the beginnings, emergence, and flourishing of Croatian literature in the cities of the Adriatic coast during the 15th and 16th centuries, meticulously distinguishing the elements common to classical and contemporary Italian literature from the vernacular contributions.

"It must be emphasized that the best pages in Croatian Renaissance literature are precisely those in which the native language and spirit are present," concludes Kadić in his insightful work, followed by an interesting reference to Saint Francis Xavier and Marcos Marulić (1450-1524), "father of Croatian literature" and a great philosopher whose work *De Institutione bene beateque viventi* (1506) was well-known and widely read during the Counter-Reformation. It turns out that Saint Francis Xavier (1506-1552), a Spanish Jesuit known as the Apostle of the Indies, carried with him, among a few other books, the aforementioned work by the Croatian humanist when he embarked on his evangelizing mission to the Far East.

This book was delivered in 1594 to the Jesuit College of Madrid "with all its pages absolutely clean, without those marginal notes that damage so many other books, but which in this case would have further highlighted this precious gem." After 1894, the trail of this relic was lost, and some believe it was destroyed during the fire at the Jesuit Convent in Madrid in 1931.

***

The figures of George Križanić (1618-1683) and Bishop Joseph George Strossmayer (1815-1905), forerunners and apostles of the union of the dissenting Slavic Churches, are gaining greater prominence in our ecumenical era and attracting the attention of scholars due to their great vision, which transcends the borders of their homeland, Croatia. Kadić dedicates two works to these visionary and controversial figures and, based on new documents, sheds illuminating light on their intentions, their lives, and their work. It deals with Križanić's formative years—up to 1658—and the prevailing situation in Croatia at that time, reduced to the relics of the former kingdoms of Croatia, Dalmatia, and Sclavonia. It highlights his patriotic and apostolic fervor and recounts his failed attempts to bring the separated brethren back into the common fold of the Catholic Church.

In the memorandum that Kadić transcribed verbatim from the Vatican archives, addressed in 1641 to Monsignor Francesco Ingoli, secretary of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, the young Croatian priest developed his ideas and plans for his mission in Russia. Križanić approached the problem of union not only from a missionary and ecclesiastical perspective, but also from linguistic, political, socio-economic, and cultural ones.

He attributed the separation of the Russian Church to historical contingencies and maintained the importance of the Eastern rite and the use of the Slavic language in the liturgy. Two centuries later, the Russian philosopher and apostle of union, Vladimir Soloviev, would uphold the same thesis. Križanić was a precursor of Pan-Slavism, but he was a Westernizer and the first Catholic scholar to expound on the religious ties between the two Churches. He suffered countless setbacks, disappointments, and misunderstandings, but he was "one of those providential giants willing to sacrifice himself for his convictions." His vision of political development and religious destiny, along with his knowledge of the Russians, provide invaluable and useful study material.

In the essay "Vladimir Soloviev and Bishop Strossmayer," Kadić meticulously describes the relationship between the Russian philosopher, a proponent of ecclesiastical union between Catholics and Orthodox, and the Croatian prelate J. J. Strossmayer, who, following in the footsteps of Križanić and with the support of his close friend, the historian Francisco Rački, enthusiastically embraced Soloviev's ecumenical efforts.

Strossmayer did everything in his power to help Soloviev in his magnificent, albeit unrealistic, undertaking, and the failure of his plan did not diminish the mutual respect and friendship they shared. "Soloviev and Strossmayer were prophetic visionaries, concerned with how to overcome the fatal religious division of the Slavs without expecting unilateral privileges from their eventual reconciliation." Kadić places both champions of ecclesiastical reunification within their historical context, situates them in their time, refers to their personal and epistolary contacts, and underscores the countless obstacles erected against their ideas, especially by the Russian and Serbian Orthodox hierarchy.

The first volume of Soloviev's book, *The History and Future of Theocracy*, was published in Zagreb in 1887, but its distribution was banned in Russia. Strossmayer was pleased that his small nation was promoting Christian reconciliation and exclaimed proudly, "Vast and powerful Russia will one day recognize the great service that poor, long-suffering Croatia rendered it precisely at the moment when Russia was languishing in a most precarious situation."

But both Strossmayer and Soloviev were disappointed, since the crucial problem of ecclesiastical union was not understood in either the West or Russia. Soloviev's utopian conceptions earned the following judgment from Pope Leo XIII: "A beautiful idea, but beyond a miracle, it is impossible." In the introduction to his masterpiece La Russie et l'Eglise Universelle, written in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, and published in Paris in 1889, two years before his death, Soloviev says verbatim: "What is your word, peoples of the word (Slavic peoples)? Your masses do not yet know it, but powerful voices arising from among you have already revealed it.

Two centuries ago, a Croatian priest prophetically announced it, and in our day, a bishop of the same nation has repeatedly proclaimed it with admirable eloquence. What the representatives of the West Slavs, the great Križanić and the great Strossmayer, said requires only a simple "amen" from the East Slavs. "This amen I come to say in the name of the one hundred million Russian Christians, in the firm and complete confidence that they will not disavow me." Kadić concludes that Strossmayer died (1905) convinced that Soloviev's mission was providential and that one day a united Christendom would pay warm homage to this great Russian prophet and to all who shared his vision and fervor.

***

In the essay on the Croatian folk poet Friar Andrei Kadić Miošić (1704-1760), the author highlights the importance of his collection of poems, "The Antennae of the Croatian People," its rapid and sustained dissemination among the masses, and its influence on Bulgarian historiography, the anonymous author of the History of Zograf, as well as on Dositeo Obradović, founder of modern Serbian literature, and Vuk Karadžić, collector of the folk poetry of the South Slavic peoples. Thanks to Kadić Miošić, Romantic Europe, discovered the magnificent and rich Croatian folk poetry.

Kadić's literary profile of the Croatian humorist and storyteller Slavko Kolar (1891-1963), a witty and talented chronicler of Croatia's political and social scene over three decades, is very concise. He rightly asserts that a dozen of Kolar's short stories are among the best in contemporary Croatian prose.

***

Miroslav Krleža (b. 1893) is the best-known and most influential Croatian leftist writer. A multifaceted creator (novelist, short story writer, playwright, poet, critic, essayist, and polemicist) and a controversial figure, he has been translated into almost every European language. An individual with unmistakable traits, with his successive revolutionary and revisionist ideas, Krleža constitutes the true pillar of Croatian leftist literature, as Kadić aptly maintains in his thorough and impartial analysis. work entitled The Tormented Visionaries of Krleža.

Krleža did not become an atheist and materialist by reading Marx, but rather Feuerbach, Schopenhauer, Darwin, and Nietzsche. In 1939, he published a virulent diatribe against "orthodox" socialist realism, championed in Yugoslavia by, among others, Milovan Djilas, a fervent supporter of Stalinist methods. In 1952, he condemned all variants of Zhdanovism and advocated for individualism in literary creation and for "immaculate and fallible inspiration." Two years ago, he inspired and spearheaded the manifesto of Croatian writers and cultural institutions in defense of the Croatian national literary language against the arbitrary impositions of the centralist government in Belgrade.

While acknowledging his undeniable contribution to the communist cause, communist leaders consider him a stubborn and incorrigible individualist and a heretic. Kadić analyzes this in depth. Some of Krleža's works, especially those concerning historical figures, namely: Christ, Salome, Christopher Columbus, Michelangelo, and Lenin. In all these works, the protagonists are heroes, visionaries, tormented and anguished individuals who doubt the validity of their goals and the capacity of the masses to follow them.

Krleža never attributed a leading role to the proletariat, although he always demonstrates understanding and great sympathy for the workers and peasants, especially in his short stories *The Croatian God Mars* and in his book of poetry *Ballads of Pepito Kerempuh*. It is interesting to note that although Krleža is recognized as an ideologue and the first communist writer, the Belgrade government preferred to promote the Nobel Prize in Literature nomination of the novelist Ivo Andrić, former ambassador of the dictatorial monarchy, simply because in his works he maintains the thesis that Bosnia and Herzegovina are Serbian lands.

Here too, the imperialism of the ruling people in communist Yugoslavia prevailed over ideology and justice. Kadić states, "Krleža never stopped questioning, doubting, and becoming disillusioned with everything and everyone. He seems to succeed when he depicts his protagonists struggling with the tempter, but not when he places someone on the altar in place of the Christian God. Such a posture of veneration clashes with his nihilistic mindset. He is more convincing when he destroys the old temples than when he erects the new ones."

***

In his well-documented work, *The French in the "Chronicle of Travnik"*, Kadić, with enviable erudition and analytical rigor, compares the main characters of the novel *It Happened in Bosnia* (the title of its Spanish translation), by Ivo Andrić, winner of the 1961 Nobel Prize in Literature. He points out both coincidences and inaccuracies in Andrić's novel between the real, historical figures of two French diplomats sent by Napoleon to Travnik and the author's own imagination and inspiration. It is a highly commendable comparative and historical study, written with the seriousness of a true researcher.

The book we are discussing then offers an excellent overview of modernist and surrealist currents in Serbian literature. The Modernists, influenced by French literature and especially by Apollinaire, Péguy, Marinetti, Mayakovsky, Poe, Whitman, Gérard de Nerval, Rimbaud, and Mallarmé, were initially antimilitarist and had revolutionary leanings, while the younger Surrealists were purely theoretical, and their literary output was of little value. They split in 1929 when King Alexander Karageorgević proclaimed a dictatorship; the Surrealists joined the Communist Party, and the Modernists supported the dictatorship and later the Serbian chauvinist Chetnik movement. Kadić then examines each member of these two opposing groups, assesses their work, describes the prevailing atmosphere, and offers an informative and critical overview of Serbian literary production.

In the essay "Literary Currents in Socialist Yugoslavia," the author reviews the contemporary literature of each nation comprising the Yugoslav state conglomerate (Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, and Macedonia) from the establishment of the communist regime in 1945 to the present day. It is important to bear in mind that Yugoslavia is a heterogeneous state, composed of several peoples with distinct and sometimes opposing historical and cultural traditions and different languages. There are four literary languages, each with its corresponding literature and readership. During the first postwar period (1945-1950), "under Russian pressure, the doctrine of socialist realism was imposed, and literature was entirely at the service of the political aims" of the Communist Party.

Poetry and narrative adhered to the black-and-white technique, praising the "superhuman qualities" of the communist guerrillas and portraying their opponents as beasts. The second period, from 1950 to the present, is characterized by a gradual "liberalization," which does not mean that "the dogmatists have disappeared." Of course, in both periods, only writers loyal to the communist regime or with pronounced leftist leanings could write and publish.

No dissenting or opposition voices are tolerated, especially in Croatia. Recently, through "administrative measures," the monthly magazine Hrvatski književni List (The Croatian Literary Gazette), which evoked Croatian cultural traditions and defended the legitimate economic and social rights of its people—exploited as a colony for the benefit of Serbia and other "underdeveloped socialist republics"—was suppressed.

In this final chapter of his important work, Kadić provides us with an objective and concise overview of different literary movements, their representatives, and their works in Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, and Macedonia. He employs the rigorous method of a literary critic and historian. Lately, given the limited freedom afforded them by the dictatorial regime, many writers strive to follow M. Krleža's old thesis that a writer only strives for progress when he obeys the dictates of his conscience. On the other hand, we have striking contradictions.

While, for example, in Serbia, Miloš Crnjanski, a fiercely nationalist writer, was able to return from his long exile, be rehabilitated, see his books republished, and become an idol to many young Serbian writers, in Croatia, prominent patriotic writers are condemned to absolute silence, and even after their death, their works cannot be discussed. Hence the spontaneous reaction faithfully reflected by Petar šegedin when he stated in the journal Praxis (1962) that "the most sacred duty of a leftist intellectual, especially if he is a member of a small, 'threatened' nation, is to maintain close ties with and be responsible to his people."

In Kadić's opinion, the literatures of the peoples of Yugoslavia, having overcome the dark period of the immediate postwar era, are today as encouraging and promising as they were in the period 1918-1941, although it cannot be stated with certainty that they have reached the level of the prewar era.

Until now, with rare exceptions, reviews of the literatures of the Yugoslav peoples published abroad were financed by the Belgrade regimes and served political ends. Kadić adheres rigorously to scientific, aesthetic, and literary criteria and, rejecting all partisan influence, seeks the truth and presents it without prejudice or bias. Therein lies the intrinsic and objective value of his works, which, stripped of any restrictive spirit or tendency, offer a real and truthful picture of the cultural and literary life of the peoples who, against their will, form the "hybrid and heterogeneous" state community called Yugoslavia, which amounts to the servitude and individual and national exploitation of several of them.

Buenos Aires

BRANKO KADIĆ

George J. Prpić: Communism and Nationalism in Yugoslavia

Offprint from Balkan Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, Thessaloniki (Greece) 1966, pp. 23-50.

Those who for twenty years had believed the official Yugoslav propaganda that there was no longer a national problem in that country would be surprised by the decision of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, dated July 19, 1966, to dismiss Alexander Rankovic, head of Public Security; Later, the Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language, dated March 16, 1967, and finally, the meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Croatia, held in mid-January 1970, saw Miloš Šanko—one of the proponents of centralist and conservative views at the expense of the Croatian republic—excluded from the Committee, stripped of all party functions, and deprived of his seat in the Federal Assembly, where he had served as Vice-President.

Although the article "Nationalism and Communism in Yugoslavia" was written in 1968 and updated by its author for publication in 1969 with a postscript concerning events in Czechoslovakia, the journal Balkan Studies will reach its readers at an opportune moment, as this issue (vol. X, no. 17) clarifies the background to the deliberations of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Croatia in January of this year. These, in our view, constitute the most recent manifestation of "nationalist" sentiment in Croatia, despite the attacks on nationalism and chauvinism—whether Croatian or Yugoslav—by all the speakers who participated in that meeting.

In a series of subheadings, the author describes the "beginnings of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia," hinting at its initial internal struggles for or against the Leninist tactic of exploiting national issues, initially defending the people's right to self-determination and secession, before definitively adopting, in 1935, the federalist conception of Yugoslavia, rejecting the right to secession. With the establishment of the communist state through a military victory with the help of the Western Allies in May 1945, the solution to national questions was found in the organization of six republics as stipulated in the Constitution of January 30, 1946.

Meanwhile, the expulsion of the Comintern in 1948 and subsequent Western aid enabled the emergence of "national communism" and "Titoism" on the one hand, but also a degree of liberalization of the regime on the other, which in turn contributed to the reemergence of the previously suppressed national question. "The changes that took place in the 1950s and 1960s" involved the abandonment of the central socialist planning that characterized the states of the Soviet bloc and the adoption of a new type of social administration through workers' councils. In 1952, the Party's name was changed to the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, while through a constitutional reform in January 1953 (the Basic Law), Yugoslavia became a "socialist democracy."

"Reconciliation with Moscow" in 1955, Khrushchev's condemnation of Stalin and the dissolution of the Comintern in 1956, and later, the Hungarian and Polish rebellions of the same year, accelerated the disintegration of the monolithic structure of communism everywhere, giving rise to the reappearance of nationalism: Albanian nationalism, in the case of Kosovo-Metohia, and Macedonian nationalism, inspired by the Bulgarian communists.

"After the proclamation of the new Constitution" in 1963, when the "Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia" became the "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia," which, despite the expressly established right of each people to self-determination and even the right of secession, could not find a solution to the national question, open criticism began in Slovenia of the political and economic exploitation of the Republic of Slovenia and of false Yugoslavism as a type of "national mythomania," while on the Croatian side, reproaches were heard about the bureaucratism and the unfair distribution of federal funds in favor of Serbia at the expense of the two more developed republics—Slovenia and Croatia.

In the philosophical field, a group of new forces emerged in Zagreb during 1965, offering a new interpretation of Marxism—Marxist humanism—in their journal Praxis. The economic reforms, inaugurated at the same time, allowed for freer criticism not only of "national oppression" but also of "economic exploitation." At the fourth plenary meeting and thereafter, the all-powerful head of the UDBA (security service) was accused of representing Serbian chauvinism and opposing the economic reforms, and was therefore dismissed on July 1, 1966. At the fifth plenary meeting held in Belgrade on October 5, 1966, the League of Communists was reorganized, dividing its Central Committee into two bodies: a 35-member presidency and an 11-member Executive Council; the position of general secretary was abolished.

The emergence of the "Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language" is not merely a linguistic issue but a spontaneous conflict between Croatian and Serbian nationalism within the ranks of the communist movement—the author emphasizes, wondering what will happen when Tito is gone. Who will succeed him? Will they be able to maintain the country's integrity? One of Professor Prpic's concluding thoughts is: "If current trends continue, it is possible that Yugoslavia will become, in the near future, a confederation of six republics. Later, some of them may decide on full independence. This development would mean the end of Yugoslavia and of communism in that part of Europe." In any case, a peaceful solution must be sought because it is to be hoped that these peoples have learned something from their turbulent history—the author opines in his brief but very concise description of the essential moments in the existence and development of two decades of communism and nationalism in Yugoslavia.

Taking into consideration this lesson from the "turbulent past," we believe the time has come, both globally and in our homeland, for an objective account of the Second World War period—that is, for an interpretation of events in light of the political interests of the defeated adversaries, not just the victors. We believe that this period of war cannot—not even for the sake of brevity—be described as "four years of chaos, foreign occupation, and a tremendous civil war" (p. 28). This is how things appear from the perspective of the "national liberation struggle" of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and its Western allies.

This viewpoint is inaccurate and contrary to the facts. Monarchical Yugoslavia not only "disappeared after a few days," but also ceased to exist de facto and de jure, according to the interpretation of the territory, as a new subject of international law emerged with the restoration of the Independent State of Croatia. It is inadmissible to extend the concept of occupation to the presence of the German or Italian armies in Croatia, because those forces acted as allies in a friendly country (analogous to the presence of the American army in South Vietnam). Therefore, we cannot speak of the occupation of Yugoslavia in its entirety, but only of the occupation of a part of monarchical Yugoslavia. From the perspective of the existence of the Independent State of Croatia, as a subject of international law, it is inaccurate to consider the war on its territory as a civil war, since it was in reality part of the general world war.

An element of civil war in this situation could only be glimpsed in that part of the political objectives of the guerrilla or Chetnik armed forces that refers to the denial of Croatia's right to secession in 1941. But this part of the war and peace objectives of the Yugoslav forces is also encompassed by the "struggle against the occupier and its satellites," thus placing it within the broader context of the world war.

The only fact in that region that defies explanation, whether political or legal, is chaos. Its emergence and brief description were provided by Professor [name missing]. Prpic, in his article "Fifty Years of Yugoslavia" (America, Vol. 17, April 26, 1969, pp. 499-502), after describing the fall and dissolution of Yugoslavia, said: "The struggle between the guerrillas of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia ("Tito and his men appeared on the battlefield immediately after the German attack on Soviet Russia in June 1941"); the Croatian Ustaše and Domobrani; the Serbian Chetniks led by Draža Mihajlović; the Slovenian and Albanian nationalists; and, at the same time, the German, Italian (until 1943), Bulgarian, and Hungarian armies, unfolded in a truly Balkan fashion. Logically, this brief description of historical events does not always reflect the true state of affairs, but one must agree with the author when he says "that it was a true hell, worse than..." all the revolts during Turkish rule."

Nevertheless, it is impossible to agree with the author when—following the line of Yugoslav and Allied historiography—he equates Croatia with Montenegro ("Independent states were proclaimed in Croatia and Montenegro"), or Ante Pavelić with Milan Nedić, thus reducing Croatia to the same level as Serbia in the legal-state sense ("Ante Pavelić, the Croatian revolutionary, was leader of Croatia. Milan Nedić, leader (chief) of Serbia"). Indeed, in the period between 1941 and 1945, Serbia and Montenegro were not subjects of international law as Croatia was, at least not for half of the international community divided at that time. We believe that today we should take a more nuanced view of this entire complex of issues and begin by revising the judgments formulated exclusively from the perspective of only one side in the conflict from 1939 to 1945.

Milan Blažeković

Ivo Omrčanin: Diplomatische und Politische Geschichte Kroatiens

(The Diplomatic and Historical History of Croatia, Neckargemund, 1968, Kurt Vowinckel Verlag, Germany.

Ivo Omrcanin is a professor of modern languages at Indiana University, Pennsylvania. He has published several works in Italian, Latin, German, English, and Croatian. In this 190-page volume, he covers the political and diplomatic history of Croatia, beginning with the arrival of its inhabitants on the Balkan Peninsula in the 7th century BC and continuing to the present day. In presenting all these events, Dr. Omrcanin seeks to emphasize at every turn Croatia's cooperation as an independent subject of international law.

The work is divided into two parts. The first deals with the arrival of the Croats in their present homeland and the creation of that state with its own native national dynasty. The second begins in 1102, when, after their last national king perished in battle with the Hungarians, the Croats established a [unclear - possibly "unclear - un ... A special pact—the Pacta Conventa—created a political community with unique characteristics—a personal union. This section also covers the subsequent relationship with Austria, as well as the period in Yugoslavia—both monarchical and communist—and the brief period of the Second World War, when the Croats temporarily regained their independence.

For those unfamiliar with the origins of the Croats and the period since their settlement in their current historical and ethnic territory, the author recounts their arrival in the Balkan Peninsula, discusses the origin, name, and formation of Greater Croatia, and then alludes to their first contacts with Byzantium and the West, especially through their conversion to Christianity, their baptism, and a contract with the Holy See in the 7th century, emphasizing that "this important contract constitutes the basis of all Croatian state law."

The author then extensively describes the history of the Croatian state and its national kings between the 7th and 12th centuries. Reading these pages, we experience the ascent and the fall of that national dynasty and, at the same time, Croatia's increasingly complete integration into the Western world.

In analyzing the Hungarian-Croatian relationship, Dr. Omrcanin does not miss the opportunity to emphasize that it was a relationship between two independent states.

Given the space limitations of his work, the author has been obliged to condense the events of the two periods, each spanning 400 years: first within the community with the Hungarians, and later with the Hungarians and the Austrians. Despite this forced condensation, the author manages to explain all that the Croats had to endure in defending their independence within the state communities with which they had to form alliances throughout history with other nations, gradually losing their independence until they lost it completely to Yugoslavia in 1918. In this part of his work, the author devotes special attention to the Kingdom of Bosnia and the Republic of Dubrovnik, two Croatian state creations that remained separate and independent. of the other Croatian lands.

In contrast, he shows little interest in the formation of the State of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, as well as in the two-decade struggle of the Croats within Yugoslavia. The author attributes this to the fact that the Croatian people lost all vestiges of their independence and autonomy, thus falling into a condition in which they could not have an independent diplomatic and political history either.

We observe the same reticence in the chapter dedicated to the restoration of Croatia's independence in 1941. However, Omrcanin does not fail to mention the states that had recognized the existence of that country as a subject of international law.

The work ultimately addresses the situation of Croatia within communist Yugoslavia. It asserts that the communists killed 500,000 Croats and that the total human toll during and immediately after the war was around 1,000,000.

The author concludes his book with rather noble and somewhat sentimental observations: "This is the tragic story of one of the oldest civilized peoples in Europe, and of a country that has always remained independent since the time when it constituted a federal state in Iran, that is, from the 10th century BC to the present day. This people belongs, by virtue of its culture and history, to Western Europe. It asks for nothing but justice, equally for itself and for others. The Croatian people claim their independence not only on the basis of their historical right, but also on the basis of the right to self-determination, proclaimed and recognized internationally. On this point, all Croats agree."

The work boasts numerous citations that strengthen and validate the author's argument. It also includes numerous footnotes and an extensive bibliography, as well as a chronological table of Croatian kings, both those belonging to the Croatian national dynasty and others. Written with an informative and serious approach, despite certain inevitable weaknesses and debatable points, it will be of great use to anyone wishing to learn about the main events in Croatian history.

B. L.

Ivo Rojnica: Susreti i doživljaji 1938-1945 (Encounters and events experienced between 1938-1945)

Munich, 1969. Edition of the Croatian Journal Library, p. 270.

Despite the large number of Croatian politicians exiled during and after the Second World War, the political literature of the Croatian émigré community is not abundant in memoirs and autobiographies. So much so that Professor George J. Prpic of John Carroll University, in his recent bibliography of "Croatian Publications Abroad After 1939" (Cleveland, Ohio, p. 66), could not assign such works a separate chapter, listing them instead under the general heading of "Books."

Therefore, the Croatian reading public warmly welcomed the publication of the book Encounters and Events Lived Between 1938-1945, which its author—in a brief introduction (pp. 15-16)—wrote primarily for Croatian youth at home, those who are unaware of the true events of the pre-war and war periods. Through school curricula, propaganda, and a misinterpretation of documents, the communists have managed to create a deceptive image of those events and give them a distorted meaning.

Thus, the work under review, which, judging by its title, should be a memoir, turns out to be a work of history in terms of its description of the political events of a specific period in the past; a memoir, in terms of the sources of knowledge of the events and the author's personal participation in them; and finally, a work with didactic purposes, in terms of its aims. The four parts into which it is divided are preceded by a prologue (pp. 5-12), written by the Croatian journalist Ivo Bogdan, and entitled "The Scene, the Protagonist, and the Author of the Drama." This prologue explains to the reader the significance and the delicate political situation of the Dinaric-Adriatic region of southern Croatia, with Dubrovnik (Ragusa) as its center, and which is the setting for the main events described and in which the author, along with his friends and collaborators, played a rather conspicuous role.

The first part (pp. 19-52) covers the political activity of the author and his fellow Croatian nationalists during the course of political and constitutional events such as: the elections of December 11, 1938; the fall of Prime Minister M. Stojadinovic on February 4, 1939; the Macek-Cvetkovic Compromise and the creation of the "Banate of Croatia" on the eve of World War II; the outbreak of the war and its spread to Yugoslavia as a consequence of the coup in Belgrade on March 27, 1941; the collapse of Yugoslavia; and the proclamation of Croatian independence, that is, the creation of the Independent State of Croatia.

In the second part (pp. 55-101), the author describes the events and his personal experiences from the day of the proclamation of independence, that is, April 10, 1941, until September 7 of the same year, the date on which the Italian military forces began the "reoccupation" of the II and III zones of the coastal region of the Independent State of Croatia, which, in the author's opinion, meant the liquidation of the Croatian State in that region of its territory.

This section recounts the disarmament of the Yugoslav army by the Croatian people, especially the youth; the first massacres of Croatians in the village of Struge, near Čapljina, and in Ilici, near Mostar, perpetrated by Serbian Četniks on April 13, 1941 (p. 60); the arrival of German troops in Dubrovnik on the 17th of that month and of Italian troops on the same day; the first uprisings, especially after the German attack on the USSR; and the first contacts and capitulations of the Italian military authorities with the Serbian and communist insurgents.

However, it should be noted that, while the book aims to spread the truth among Croatian youth in their homeland, the author has not sufficiently explained the creation of the aforementioned zones, the provisional nature of the "occupation" of Zone II, the powers of the "occupier," and the Croatian government's participation in this entire military operation aimed at suppressing the rebellion that was spreading in those districts where Italian troops were stationed, providing protection to the insurgents.

Without a precise explanation, the impression remains that the commanders of the Italian troops, after the signing of the "Treaties of Rome" on May 18, 1941, could disregard the Croatian government, obeying only the orders received from Rome. Such an impression would be mistaken, since all the measures introduced were approved, albeit reluctantly, by the Croatian government at the request or insistence of the Italian government through diplomatic channels.

The third part (pp. 105-151) covers the period from September 7, 1941, to September 8, 1943, that is, until the capitulation of Italy. During this time, the author was in the ranks of the Croatian army and was able to closely observe the clandestine but evident alliance between Italian forces and those of the Serbian Cetniks and Yugoslav communist partisans.

This part abounds in documentary and photographic material of the aforementioned collaboration, which undermined the independence and consolidation of the fledgling Croatian state. Indeed, in order to circumvent Germany's request for aid on the Eastern Front in the winter of 1942, the Italians facilitated the partisans' free passage from Montenegro to Croatia, fomenting the rebellion and thus justifying their presence in Croatia and, consequently, their refusal of the German request.

The author describes numerous cases of the murder of Croats, especially priests, by communists and the Cetniks, mentioning the names of the victims, the place and date of the event, as well as, in several cases, the names of the commanders of the enemy units that committed the crimes. It is not surprising that there were reprisals from the Croats. Photographs of the Cetniks' collaboration with the Italians were provided to the author by Dr. E. Bodoira on June 10, 1965. Dr. Bodoira commanded a company of Bersaglieri in the Vrgorac, Makarska-Zagvozd-Biokovo region, where the Cetniks slaughtered 400 men, women, and children. This same Italian officer acknowledges that Italy is to blame for the Croatian tragedy (p. 116). On page 131, the author reproduces part of a letter from an Italian officer to his family in Padua: "We have succeeded in sowing discord between the Ustaše and the Četniks, the Ustaše and the partisans, the partisans and the Četniks, to such an extent that they are exterminating each other, so it is to be expected that very soon you will be able to move to our beautiful Dalmatia."

To counter the Italians' tactics, the author conceived the idea of organizing "Croatian insurgents," or "Croatian guerrillas," to fight the Italians and their allies within Croatia, without the constraints imposed by the official Italo-Croatian alliance, which was holding the Croatian government back. However, the idea was not accepted by either official circles or the opposition politicians of the Croatian Peasant Party, to whom the author had confided his idea.

Part Four (pp. 155-238) refers to the events marked by Italy's capitulation on September 8, 1943, and the retreat of the Croatian army and government westward, which began on May 6, 1945, and concluded with their extradition by the British to the Yugoslav communists on May 15, 1945. Between the massacres on the ground and those killed in the "death marches," this cost the Croatian nation approximately 200,000 lives.

After describing the disarmament of Italian forces as a consequence of the capitulation, which, as the author states, did not take the Croatian authorities by surprise and therefore allowed them to act without delay, this section recounts several battles with communist partisans who seized a considerable amount of Italian weaponry thanks to the aforementioned conspiracy between Italian commanders and Tito's partisans.

However, the role previously played by the Italians with respect to the Serbian Cetniks was continued by the Germans to gain their collaboration in the fight against the communists. This often provoked discontent among Croatian military personnel and even led to a severe Croatian diplomatic protest in Berlin when the Germans, together with the Cetniks, committed the massacre of some 700 Croatians in the municipality of Poljice (p. 178). On pages 218-225, the author describes the final, dramatic battle on the banks of the Ilova River, fought by the "Devil's Division" under the command of German General Reinicke and other Croatian units. This battle ended in victory, decisively preventing the communist forces from capturing the Croatian capital, Zagreb. The author expresses his hope that the Croatian people will forever cherish the memory of General Reinicke, a great friend of the Croatians, who was captured after the war, sent to Belgrade by the Allies, and executed. Many details are recounted in this chapter, some of a national or personal nature, which ultimately resulted in the deaths of many and the exile of a few, among whom was the author.

Pages 241-270 contain the author's reflections and thoughts on the problems facing the Croatian nation today, under the communist regime directed from Belgrade, both in the homeland and in exile.

Although we must disagree with the author regarding some of his generalizations or his judgments and opinions about certain figures in Croatian political life during the period under consideration, we must nevertheless agree with him regarding the identification of certain political errors, which he severely censures and criticizes in order to prevent their repetition in the future.

Ivo Rojnica's book implicitly provides us, through his personal experiences, his disappointments and humiliations, his successes and triumphs, with a picture of Croatia's political and military reality as seen from the South with projections toward the North, that is, toward the political center of Zagreb. In this sense, this book is perhaps unique in its genre within postwar Croatian political literature, and in this respect, it represents an endeavor worthy of emulation by other defenders of Croatian independence.

Milan Blažeković

Franjo Tudjman: Velike Ideje i Mali Narodi (Big Ideas and Small Nations),

Zagreb, 1969, p. 546.

The author of this book is a former guerrilla fighter under Tito, who later rose to the rank of general and finally became a professor of History at the Faculty of Political Science in Zagreb. For a time, he was president of the Institute for Historical Research on the Workers' Movement in Croatia. He has published a number of books of a historical, political, and philosophical nature. This work is more of a compilation of several essays and lectures delivered during the later years of his career, which unfolded outside the official sphere of Yugoslav communism. Dr. Tudjman is considered one of the most prominent deviationists among the intellectuals of the League of Yugoslav Communists, in its Croatian branch. The original sin of his thinking, he argued, lay in his struggle against Serbian hegemony and for the equality of the Croatian people within the conglomeration of peoples that constitute the Yugoslav state.

His former guerrilla comrade, the now-famous Milovan Djilas, before deciding to write his final work, *The Imperfect Society*, noted that he first sought a title for the ideas that tormented him during his solitary life in prison, where he was sent by the comrades with whom he dreamed and with whom he fought for a better society. Given this, it seems to us that Tudjman had to consider which title best corresponded to the essential core of his ideas and historical knowledge. Therefore, his present work is a thesis: grand political ideas served and continue to serve as the ideal pretext for powerful nations to subjugate, dominate, and exploit smaller ones.

The fracturing of communist monolithism is now commonplace, both theoretically and practically. The point of greatest friction between Soviet officialdom and deviations from that line is, precisely, communist Yugoslavia. The mutual accusations are endless. There are temporary "armistices," but with a renewed resumption of the Cold War, according to the conditions of the development of international politics.

One of the most common reproaches leveled by the Soviets against the Yugoslavs is their alleged abandonment of the class-based criteria of Marxism when judging the course of national and international politics. Tudjman's present work represents a particular topic in this regard, even though he himself points out even more serious Soviet deviations in defending their Marxist orthodoxy.

If we wanted to summarize the experience and knowledge gained from Tudjman's historical study, we could quote Nietzsche: "Do you want a word to designate this world? A solution to all its enigmas?... This world is the will to power and nothing else." This idea of the German philosopher seems to have exerted a decisive influence on Tudjman, despite his rejection of Nietzsche's philosophy as a whole.

Tudjman draws his insights from an analysis of the struggles for independence of small Slavic nations over the last century. The two major ideas are Pan-Slavism and socialism.

The former, in its two aspects—Russianism and Austro-Slavism—remained a mere dream regarding the supposed national freedom of the small Slavic countries, serving only to allow the larger nations to attempt to impose their will. Pan-Slavism arose as a reaction against German Romantic Pan-Germanism, which in turn emerged as a reaction against French nationalism in its Napoleonic form.

It was the Slovak thinkers Kollar, Šafarik, Stur, and Herkel who gave life and name to this movement, whose mission was to unite all Slavic peoples in a single, giant political entity that would counterbalance Pan-Germanism and guarantee the distinctiveness of each. Herkel coined the phrase: "Unio in literatura inter omnes Slaves sive verus Panslavismus" (Union in literature among all Slavs, or true Pan-Slavism). Hence the movement's designation as a federal union conceived for all Slavs.

The first attempt to realize this union took place at the Pan-Slavic Congress in Prague in 1848. Its promoter was a Croatian politician and historian—Ivan KukuIjević Sakcinski—and the organizers were Czech. But this first meeting also marked the first failure. The idea encountered considerable opposition, both within the Slavic world itself and from its non-Slavic surroundings. The opposition between Poles and Russians was so intense that the latter did not send delegates to the Congress. The Poles declared their solidarity with the Magyars, even opposing the union of Croatian Dalmatia with Croatia, while all the West Slavs, especially the Czechs, trembled at the prospect of the rise of a despotic, Orthodox Tsarist monarchy in Russia.

For this reason, Palacky and Havliček defended Austria to the very end, albeit in a federal form. The Poles idealized their Catholicism and considered themselves the nucleus around which the Slavs should unite against the "Mongolian" despotism of Russia. Furthermore, the historical and cultural development of the West and East Slavs made the idea of their irreconcilability evident. The Serbian-Bulgarian enmity over Macedonia, and that of the Serbs and Croats over Bosnia-Herzegovina, added to the antagonism of their national character, forged under different conditions and other historical and cultural influences.

But to deliver the final blow to this inherently contradictory endeavor, there was the German-Hungarian opposition in Austria, which refused to relinquish its hegemonic and privileged position. After the revolutionary year of 1848, this struggle led to the German-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, forming the Dual Monarchy and ratifying the supremacy of those two nationalities over the smaller Slavic peoples. From that moment on, the Austro-Slavic idea weakened, and the Russophile current took the lead. As early as 1867, the Russians convened the Second Pan-Slavic Congress. But the Poles did not attend. Homjakov, Katkov, Pogodin, and Danilevsky were its promoters and ideologues.

The Orthodox religion and the Russian language were to play a leading role within the new Pan-Slavism. Danilevsky was a particularly implacable defender of a separate "Slavic civilization," even praising the Turks who prevented the South Slavs from contacting Western civilization, which he considered detrimental to it. In Croatia, Ante Starčević vigorously opposed Pan-Slavism of all kinds, since it meant only the disintegration of smaller peoples, especially the Croatians. Bishop Strossmayer propagated the Yugoslav idea as a continuation of the Pan-Slavic idea within a limited sector. His attempts proved fruitless. Croatian Catholicism and Eastern Serbian Orthodoxy found no common ground, while politically, Yugoslav ideas found no resonance among the Slovenian, Serbian, and Bulgarian peoples.

Austro-Slavism had another current—the social-democratic one of B. Bauer, Adler, Renner, etc. This too was unsuccessful. The lack of an adequate definition of the concept of national sovereignty and the prevalence of the centralist concept were reasons why it failed to attract the Slavic peoples, among whom a modern national consciousness had not yet developed. Only in 1914 did Lenin manage to adequately define the concept of national self-determination: "By self-determination of peoples we understand their state separation from other national communities, that is to say: the formation of an independent national state." The author adds that this definition proved so precise that to this day no justifiable objection has been raised against it.

Yes, Lenin—says Tudjman—foresaw supranational formations in the sense of international proletarian solidarity, but the bourgeoisie also offered sufficient reasons for integration on a supranational level. Furthermore, he notes, the idea of proletarian integration, due to Stalinist deviationism, degenerated into the antithesis of the right to self-determination of peoples. The cases of the Soviet, Polish, and Yugoslav parties amply confirm this. The centralism of each was the main obstacle to equality and the sovereignty of peoples and national minorities, and this caused a general crisis of Marxism.

In light of this centralist idea in both the bourgeois and proletarian periods, Tudjman pays particular attention to the Slovak and Croatian cases. The victorious powers of the First World War were the organizers and defenders of the Europe of Versailles. The Czechs and Serbs were considered pillars of that unjust order. This is why the Croats joined Esteban Radić's peasant movement, while the Slovaks joined the clerical movement. The workers' movement was suffering a "serious crisis" for failing to adopt a correct Leninist position regarding the right of peoples to self-determination. Furthermore, Soviet Russia was living almost in a kind of political quarantine, unable to offer necessary aid. For this reason, the oppressed peoples—Croats, Slovaks, Slovenes, Montenegrins, and Macedonians—even against their will, had to accept the help of the revisionist powers.

Hitler's surprising victory in a clean democratic process that impressed the world was primarily due to his channeling of German national sentiments, which the communists and social democrats had failed to capitalize on. Despite the inherent danger posed by Nazi-fascist ideology and revisionism, the leaders of the oppressed peoples, especially the Croatians and Slovaks, finding themselves in a difficult situation due to the lack of support from Western democracies whose ideology they shared, were unable to count on the help of the existing democracies. The democratic powers defended the status quo, while the revisionist powers offered their assistance. After a very understandable hesitation, some of their leaders, overlooking the Nazi threat, accepted the help of the Axis powers, "considering that national interests supersede all ideological ones, or rather, that even small nations must take into account the established facts in the struggle between the great powers," as Tudjman states.

The attitude of Soviet Russia and the Third International shifted according to the international situation. Initially, they championed revisionism against the Europe of Versailles, but with the emergence of the Nazi-fascist threat, they sided with the defenders of the status quo. Of course, in the first period, hopes were awakened among oppressed peoples, especially the Slovaks and Croats (this seems to us to be pure supposition on the part of the author. S.C. Editorial Note), while in the second, such hopes turned into illusions.

It has already been demonstrated that the theoretical, dogmatic, and a priori explanation of Marxism is insufficient. It is necessary to ensure access to practical problems, starting, first and foremost, with the question of to which people or nation does a given workers' movement belong? "The Czechoslovak and Yugoslav examples clearly show that, despite the general acceptance of Lenin's theory concerning the right of peoples to self-determination, the realization of this principle within multinational states proves to be the most complex and debated problem." There were no further Leninist coincidences between the liberation struggle of peoples and the struggle for socialism.

The national movements became reserve forces of the proletarian revolution, but they can also become adversaries. The labor movements will only give their support to those of national liberation on the condition that they coincide with the interests of the proletarian revolution and socialism. Identified with Soviet Russia and its foreign policy, the labor movements of other nations found themselves in an ambiguous and extremely difficult situation.

The Hitler-Stalin pact and the consequent dissolution of the Polish Communist Party also confused the French Communist Party in the face of the German invasion. Even when Tudjman tries to justify this Soviet procedure taking into account the general international situation, he concludes that such a accumulation of facts later became a principle. "Thus revolutionary internationalism became the messianism of Soviet Russia." We could repeat here a quote from the author elsewhere in his work. The French historian Jules Michelet had written: "Yesterday it (Russia) told us: 'I am Christianity.' Tomorrow it will tell us: 'I am socialism.'" From that moment on, with the Third International dissolved, the national communist parties were considered simply aid organs of Russian-Soviet politics.

This crisis of international communism was overcome with the proclamation of the Atlantic Charter and the subsequent Soviet adhesion to it, because the peoples gathered behind the new coalition, waiting for the realization of their national ideals against the oppression already imposed by the Axis powers. But there were many disappointments. The Stalinist centralism inaugurated in the face of the Nazi danger and reinforced during the war also continued after it. But the war has precisely shown that the struggle for national liberation and that of socialism were inseparable. Up to this point there is no room to disagree much with Tudjman. Pan-Slavism and socialist internationalism remained great wishes and nothing more.

But moving to the specific case of Croatia and the role it played in the Yugoslav communist party, the author forgets many of the things said and becomes a true Marxist-class historian and an integralist Yugoslav supporter. Despite having recognized the full justification of the struggle of the Croatian people against Serbian centralism and hegemonism in monarchical Yugoslavia under the leadership of the leaders of the peasant movement, the absolute impotence of communism among the Croatian people and the semi-justification, we could even say, the complete justification of the Croatian leaders in accepting Nazi aid for reasons of national political realism, Tudjman puts forward all possible arguments to defend the actions of his party when beginning the fight against the nacifascist "occupiers" and their "quisling" collaborators.

It recognizes that Croatia had a certain state status, but the communists - 4,000 organized and 30,000 sympathizers - began the fight against the realization - precarious and weak, of course - of Croatia's independence, subordinating themselves to the most severe centralism of Stalinism and the centralism of Belgrade. Despite recognizing the fact that all the "bourgeois" leaders - Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrins, Macedonians - had accepted the definitive dissolution of monarchical Yugoslavia; The Croatian communists, together with the Serbs and Slovenes, waged war for the restoration of proletarian-socialist Yugoslavia. Against his experience - perhaps he did not have it at that time - of big ideas and small peoples, Tudjman and his co-religionists continued to believe in "big ideas": Yugoslavism and socialism, already clearly failed in the preceding era.

Perhaps believing in the original innocence of the proletariat, they accepted an extremely bloody struggle against the vast majority of their people. Grand ideas were reserved for their proletariat to realize. The actual events of the postwar period equally demonstrated the falsity of this conception. Belgrade established a politically oppressive national centralism and a socially "new class," which threatens to once again cause that state to collapse like a house of cards, and leads the Soviets to speculate about subjecting everyone to their despotic rule and eliminating all the semi-freedoms that had been achieved in the internal struggle, a struggle produced both within the communist ruling class and as a consequence of the inherent division of its peoples, formed over more than a millennium in different political and cultural environments.

Only in light of this internal struggle among Yugoslav communists, tailored to national differences and aimed at achieving ever greater independence for their nations, can we understand the glorification of a series of acts of violence in Croatia: the attacks by Croatian communists against students, the first military formations in defense of Croatian independence in 1941, the destruction of the central post office, etc., which culminated in the assertion that Croatia at that time had become the impregnable stronghold of the communist guerrilla movement, and that, currently, most of the men decorated with the highest honors in that "war of national liberation and socialism," as Tudjman calls and argues it, live in Croatia.

The section of the book dedicated to philosophical and ethical theories about war is particularly interesting. The author is not lacking in erudition, nor in the determination to demonstrate the falsity of the starting point of idealist and apriorist theories of philosophical and ethical justification for wars. However, in contrasting them with the Marxist conception, which claims the right to a scientific explanation of armed conflicts, Tudjman overlooks much of the essence of pre-Marxist theories, simplifying them to highlight what he considers specific and superior in his Marxist conception. But studying it with the objectivity and calm of a scientist, Tudjman must recognize that this scientific analysis of war, and the Marxist attempt to eliminate class divisions as well as the causes of wars, have failed. The Russo-Chinese, Russo-Yugoslav, Russo-Albanian, Serbian-Croatian, and other conflicts offer the most eloquent proof of the falsity of that Marxist conception.

Tudjman approaches the German problem with quite satisfactory objectivity, highlighting it as the central problem of Europe. If this problem once again endangers the European peoples and the world, the blame cannot be placed solely on the Germans and their traditional education, which even Thomas Mann had accepted as normal, but primarily on the victors of the Second World War, especially North America and Soviet Russia, whose ideas, ambitions, and neo-imperialism and hegemony keep not only Germany but indeed all of Europe divided.

The latter, in order to regain the hierarchy it lost in the last war during the subsequent struggle of colonial peoples for their independence, must free itself from Russian-American tutelage and forge its unity without regard for differences in systems of government or types of social organization.

It must be acknowledged that the author critically analyzes the possibility of achieving European unity. However, despite all these factors, both internal and external—internal European contrasts and Russian-American influences and ambitions—the author believes in a European future under the banner of its unity. Shared experience—attempts at mutual subjugation, the loss of colonies, the nationalism of small nations that refuse any kind of subordination and accept cooperation only on the condition of equality and sovereignty—should pave the way for European unification, elevating these nations once again to their rightful place in international politics. The growth of Chinese power, which limits Russian and American power in the Far East, also plays a role in this. His references in this regard to the future of France, for example, and of China are not without interest. The latter has every possibility of rising to become a first-rate power, while France no longer has any prospect of doing so. The same applies to each of the European nations. Such realism should propel them toward unity and the hierarchical position they must once again occupy in accordance with the new international realities. All of this, and always in accordance with the mission of the United Nations.

Upon finishing this book, which covers many topics and is written in the spirit of "active coexistence"—Marshal Tito's main refrain—one inevitably wonders, first: whether the author consciously accepted that ruler's thesis, eliminating all aspects of Croatian national politics that are not viewed through the Yugoslav-Marshal prism; or whether this exposition of the problems, even in this rather critical form regarding Serbian hegemony, is not the inevitable result of a reality that is not conducive to freedom of thought, and even less so to the actions of the Croatian people and their intellectuals. The second question that arises, at least upon finishing the reading of the last essay in this book—Europe between East and West—is whether the author still believes in the criteria of historical materialism when interpreting history in general. "But," he states verbatim, "since historical conditions are not always identical, and since irrational, decipherable, subjective, and capricious elements sometimes play a more decisive role in historical events, considerations of this kind (the future of European and world unity—Editors' Note) remain in the realm of pure conjecture and supposition..."

Despite all the author's concessions regarding the interpretation of history from a Marxist perspective, and despite the silence imposed on many points of recent Croatian history—even the case of the mysterious death of Andriy Hebrang, one of the most prominent Croatian communists who perished in Tito's prison for opposing Serbian hegemony—it is interesting to understand the author's thoughts.

Hesitant and contradictory at times, but always mindful of his ideal world, of his scholarly experience, even when he writes against grand ideas as a pretext for the subordination of small nations, he retains one or another intimate conviction that unconsciously makes him a victim of those same grand ideas. His Yugoslavism, his belief in the slogan "brotherhood and unity" in present-day communist Yugoslavia, and ultimately, in European and world union, confirm what we have been saying. While his belief in the latter two unions are projections of desires, the first—the Yugoslav one—is already a stark reality. The Yugoslav-socialist idea, as a special edition of grand ideas, has not performed well either as an idea of national liberation or as a grand idea for class liberation. The oppression of the Croatian people is total, and that of the working class in general is also complete.

FRANJO NEVISTIĆ

Dr. Kvirin Vasilj: Zašto Vjerujem? —Why do I believe?

(Madrid, 1969, p. 266)

Dr. Kvirin Vasilj is the most original, profound, and "revolutionary" philosopher and thinker of the Croatian diaspora. His work comprises several volumes that together form an opus deserving of special attention for its breadth, the enduring relevance of its ideas, and the extraordinary capacity for abstract thought of its author. We could even speak of a philosophical system unique to Dr. Vasilj. It began with the book Analysis and Synthesis of Man (Chicago, 1958, 446 pp.), followed by Trinitarian Theories Before the Judgment of Reason (pp. 131); The Foundations of the Knowledge of Reality (Madrid, 1966, pp. 714); and now, the work to which we dedicate these lines, not to mention numerous articles in various journals.

To appreciate the importance of this series of publications for their originality and innovative nature, it would be necessary to first thoroughly study *The Foundations of Knowledge of Reality*. Without delving into his theory of knowledge, Vasilj's ideas may seem to many to be unorthodox for a Franciscan and Catholic priest, and difficult to reconcile with traditional Catholic philosophy. However, despite the judgments that have been and could be made against him in this regard, we believe that Vasilj's orthodoxy is comprehensive. His faith and his passionate pursuit of its rational justification occupy and exhaust his entire personality in its many facets as a man with a profound vocation as both thinker and believer.

Indeed, the book in question constitutes the author's justification of faith, without any pretense of making it a general justification of religious belief for Christians. Attempting to wield arguments and reasons in favor of his own faith, Vasily attributes to his work an exploratory, investigative character, distancing himself from the common current of Catholic philosophy, whose fruits, he says, fall upon us like "something not our own, produced without our participation or merit."

Proceeding in this way, he emphasizes from the outset his desire to maintain independence from any authority. "Authority," he says, "is not the source of truth, but rather authority is founded on truth..." "A Christian without critical thinking can do more damage to the reputation of Christianity than a non-Christian without that critical thinking."

Recognizing the fundamental value of scientific and empirical experience, the author states: "No faith or belief that does not organically continue the knowledge of reality can be justified in the face of the demands of human reason. Under such conditions, it will end, sooner or later, as a temporary illusion."

Despite the exploratory and personal justifications of his work, the author acknowledges that he is always mindful of the objections scientists raise against Christianity. Therefore, by responding to these objections through an exposition of the general principles of knowledge of reality and Christian knowledge in particular, he indirectly defends Christianity and Christians in general. Just as in the field of physics, if someone were to speak of a phenomenon contrary to the mass-energy constant in the universe, they would be expressing an impossibility, so too would a Christian be erring if they were to assert something that contradicts the knowledge of reality in general and Christian reality in particular.

A Christian should abandon Christianity if he becomes convinced that it lacks transcendent truth, independent of our thought, but he should also embrace it if, in his investigation, he finds that transcendent truth. The author's formulation is extremely interesting when he says: "The person who defends a conception of the physical world against the Christian conception forgets that Christianity relates to the physical-material world in a way analogous to the relationship of the theory of relativity to Newton's law of gravitation. By expanding our experience, Newton's law becomes relative and loses its value in an interplanetary journey."

The difficulties begin right from this point. The author's approach is clear and seeks to eliminate all uncritical presuppositions from the path of investigation. But in attempting to erect his edifice, those difficulties arise. Or, at least, an inexperienced reader begins to feel their doubts and insecurities awakening and loses confidence in the guide through the labyrinth of such grave and decisive human problems, shrouded in obscurity and mystery.

We will attempt to clarify our own impression. The author, as we have already seen, tries to justify the Christian conception through experience and knowledge of reality because only in this way can it legitimately present itself to scientific reason. Christianity—he affirms—is based on experience, but "the principles of its experience... extend into infinity." With this, Christianity does not deny the reality of physical experience, nor its value, but rather surpasses and infinitely expands them. In this regard, Dr. Vasilj notes: "Now, the scientist's illogicality lies in not accepting, in the name of his limited experience, any possibility of another super- or meta-experience. To prove the validity of its fundamental propositions, Christianity must necessarily make use of some principles of experience. But this, by the very nature of things, is different from physical experience..." "Christianity, in its essence, is the supernatural metaphysics of man... But this does not mean separating the natural order from the supernatural, if the latter has a transcendent reality... Moreover, if the supernatural order constitutes a reality, then the natural order no longer corresponds to its immanent idea. It does not exist, just as it would not exist without its connection to the supernatural world."

But how is it possible to know this union? If Christian experience, that is, metaphysical-supernatural experience, infinitely surpasses physical experience, isn't it already a completely new experience, separate from that of physics, something specifically different and, for us, empirical-scientific men, unattainable?

Dr. Vasilj answers us provisionally, more as a theologian than a philosopher, postulating a supernatural order, both individual and collective, and acknowledging that the reality of death is humanity's tragedy. The postulation of a supernatural order, the scientist would say, does not guarantee its existence. Moreover, our author adds: "If the supernatural order constitutes a certain reality, we do not possess knowledge of it based on our personal experience. This order remains for us an object of our faith." However, Vasilj says, this order would have no meaning or value for us "if its action did not also manifest itself in the physical order. That must be the purpose of supernatural reality."

For the moment, Dr. Vasilj, assuming the interference of a supernatural element in human life, places humanity within the natural order, attributing to it the capacity "to distinguish the natural concept and the development of human nature within it from its actual growth." "From the eventual difference between these two orders... will arise the argument in favor of the reality of a supernatural order," it says verbatim.

The reader finds solace as they progress through this work. Scientific reason does not settle for mere suppositions. Dr. Vasilj knows this perfectly well. In the chapter "The Idea of Natural and Supernatural Religion," the author states: "Religion signifies the most perfect expression of the human spirit's yearning for immortality. But humankind also knows how to dream beautiful dreams and weave myths, which raises the question: If religion ultimately signifies a beautiful illusion, where does our inclination to sacrifice the physical prospects of our being for a metaphysical web "without firm content and grounding in reality" originate?

If natural religion finds its justification in the weaving of myths and illusions to more easily cope with the difficulties of real life, it becomes necessary to also examine whether we can find justification for supernatural religion, which opens up much deeper perspectives." Are there any facts in the physical order that it could invoke as confirmation of its intrinsic value?... It promises to create a new Earth and a new heaven, establishing other laws within them... Cemeteries and museums are the only immortality promised by Earth to life.

Its promise of happiness and paradise, unlike human systems of happiness, encompasses not only the man of the future, but also the present and that of the past as if he had not died. Is it illusion and a collection of empty ideas, or an order with transcendental meaning in possession of true metaphysical reality? This is the fundamental, decisive, and most far-reaching problem to which supernatural religion must respond.

But how can it do so? "Supernatural religion can only ensure its reality through the laws of super-experience, that is, through the experience of supernatural reality. Man, in turn, only knows the laws of his natural experience." If supernatural religion—the author argues—is a reality, it must somehow penetrate the physical order and be accessible to our experience.

Therefore—he emphasizes—it is necessary and important to know clearly and fundamentally "the laws of (our) natural experience" so that we can "recognize the realities of super-experience through the logic of opposites" and place supernatural events "within historical events." Seeking "the bridge" between the natural and the supernatural, if the latter has any value, Vasilj earnestly calls upon Christian theologians for the most complete and profound knowledge of natural events.

Without this, we will attribute to God what we should attribute to natural beings. This leads to the grave error of supernaturalism, which is the greatest enemy of supernatural religion. From this confusion of natural and supernatural orders have proceeded serious errors and practices since the time of Galileo, which caused Christianity a disrepute from which it has not fully recovered to this day. "Hence the strange phenomenon that in the Christian environment, non-Christians have developed (practiced) some natural virtues that, among Christians, remained in a state of stunted growth."

The supernatural presupposes nature, ennobles it, and elevates it to a new level of reality. Nevertheless, Christians, with the exception of the very beginning of Christianity, were not always the first to achieve social justice, nor to define and promote civil rights, facts that led many to reject Christianity. It is impossible to believe in humanity's supernatural vocation if the supernatural does not affirm natural values within us but, rather, negates them. It is necessary, therefore, to purify the supernatural idea and the concept of nature, because any exchange of one for the other inevitably hinders the knowledge of the supernatural, despite its transcendent value.”

The author acknowledges a legitimate role for the liturgical-pastoral movement within the ecumenical and reformist movement of the Church today, but adds that Christianity needs, above all, a scientific re-elaboration so that it can serve those ends. Without this requirement, external worship can become superstition. “I do not believe,” he then adds, “that humanity is so wounded and fragmented that, consequently, people would not accept supernatural truths if they were sufficiently convinced that these truths represent real validity.”

Vasilj opines that, in light of general scientific progress, the scientific elaboration of a traditional Christian vision of life does not satisfy modern man. Christian thinkers did not have the necessary freedom in this regard, even though the Gospel asks for and presupposes the free acceptance of its teaching. “If in Had the men of the Church shown greater sensitivity to the rights of conscience of their neighbors throughout history, they would enjoy greater prestige in the world today.

Aware of the value of freedom, Vasilj continues: "Truth is not afraid of error, because it is stronger than untruth... Neither physical force nor moral strength are good allies for truth." However, modern philosophers discovered the most perfect reasons Christianity possesses to defend freedom, a truth they did not discover before theologians. The damage caused by this attitude of the Church is serious. The Church sincerely acknowledges it today, but this freedom is still quite restricted by ecclesiastical authority in the field of theological research.

From this arises a certain theological historicism that claims Christianity has produced some exceptional geniuses who, in these two fields, had the final word without the need for further development... "It is not possible to suppose that the Gospel could cut off and halt, with its doctrine on the supernatural end of man, the natural development of humanity in its knowledge and mastery of physical forces, because the supernatural, by its very idea, expands and perfects nature without annihilating it."

For this reason, the author emphasizes, once again, that the objective of his book is to offer justifications for his personal creed, and also to immediately present arguments against the objections of contemporary scientists. In this sense, he considers Bertrand Russell to be the most representative. Through his book, Why I Am Not a Christian, the recently deceased British scholar strikes him as the most intelligent and sincere adversary of Christianity.

Analyzing Russell's case, Dr. Vasilj asks himself whether God will punish him for believing in Jesus of Nazareth, who claimed to be the son of God and God himself. According to Russell, Christ demands that we hate our own lives and our families in order to achieve some "empty" ideal; but it is impossible to see in this demand the will of God, who has fatally bound my life to the Earth. "Where would Jesus of Nazareth derive the right to elevate his will above the will of God, attempting to change the natural order according to his subjective desires and longings?"

Against Russell's anti-Christian pessimism, Vasilj asks: "Who, according to his idea, possesses a higher vision of life: the Gospel, which discovers in physical life only the germ of real life with a possibility of infinite growth and development, or Russell, who sees in life a definitively grown tree destined to die forever?..." "If I know Christ, who advised self-denial and sacrifice, I must also know the Christ who preached life and resurrection," Vasilj says.

But before believing in Christ, one must demonstrate the existence of God. In order to prepare the reader for such a difficult, arduous, and indispensable task for humankind, our author analyzes with surprising depth the relationship between real and subjective truth, briefly outlining his fundamental philosophical positions of a noetic nature. Oriented toward noetic realism, Dr. Vasilj analyzes the first act of our knowledge, which, in its unity, constitutes and encompasses the sensory perception of things and the intellectual intuition that discovers their being. The being of things and their sensible qualities, "insofar as they have real value, do not constitute two different aspects of the reality of an entity, but rather two different responses of man to the action of one and the same reality. We maintain this against the school of Aristotle.

On the other hand, the intellectual intuition of being and the sensory perception of things do not constitute two elements of the same knowledge, but rather two different responses to two different possibilities of action of one and the same reality. We maintain this against Kant and his school." Underlining the difference between intellectual knowledge and sensory perception, Vasily says, "We recognize only intellectual knowledge as true knowledge... Only because intellectual knowledge transcends sensory perceptions is man able to know the reality of some things of which he has no, or cannot have, sensory perception... Furthermore," he says, "we distinguish synthetic knowledge based on experience from systolic knowledge [49]* based on thinking, which has real value. Consequently, we do not oppose systolic knowledge to analytic judgments but to synthetic knowledge. We oppose systolic knowledge to analytic judgments but to those of two prior pieces of knowledge with real value."

Recapitulating his principles of knowledge, Vasily poses his problem as follows: "The fundamental question is whether religion in general, in its essential elements, is based on original knowledge of reality and, especially, whether so-called revealed religion can stand before the tribunal of human reason."

Modern man would not reject Christ if he knew that God was by his side or if Christ himself were God. Vasilj cites the case of the French scholar Jean Rostand, who declared that he would follow a superman and accept his doctrine if he grew as the fruit of human evolution. For this reason, our author repeatedly insists on the need for a scientific elaboration of Christianity, without hindering research or limiting the freedom to conduct it. He then turns against fanatics who adhere to a doctrine without personal intellectual effort. "If this kind of person seizes authority and power, they will persecute their adversaries as intellectual criminals. They are troubled by opposing opinions because their own rests on a choice of the will, a choice that could have been entirely contrary had they been born into different circumstances."

Therefore, we do not place our trust in anyone's convictions if, in their name, they persecute and mistreat others. A Plato, a Socrates, an Aristotle, a Pascual, or a Leibniz would never have mistreated those who did not accept their philosophy. That is why—our author adds—I view with suspicion any conception of life that relies on the sword. Truth has in itself sufficient force and value to be accepted by people of good will, without needing to seek dubious allies for that purpose. We cannot simply condemn those who do not believe in Christ without examining their reasons, nor can we do so at the moment we demonstrate the invalidity of their reasons, which, for them, subjectively, had the value of an indisputable truth. But to believe in Christ, one must demonstrate the existence of God. The mystery of Christ, God-man, can only be clarified after the existence of God has been proven. In this chapter—"The Knowledge of God"—Dr. Vasily most emphatically manifests his originality, his audacity, and his peculiarity as a thinker. He rejects the traditional proofs of St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle, considering them superseded by modern science. He also rejects the demonstration of God's existence derived from the actions of beings in the world, especially the argument from the "unmoved mover." He calls theologians who accept this argument, as well as the argument from the purpose of the physical or moral world within man, "theologians." Physicists who attribute the activity of physical factors to God, or who take for granted what they should first demonstrate—the purpose of the universe.

Our author has only one rational argument for the existence of God. Everything that can be produced synthetically, that is, one event after another, carries within it the character of finitude and has its beginning in time. Conversely, everything that we cannot accomplish in this synthetic way represents an eternal event. "If the action... of natural beings is inseparable from their existence, and if the totality of events in the world is finite, it necessarily follows that the being of natural agents has its beginning in time. In other words, natural entities were created in their being by a Being-in-itself..." "This is the only argument I can offer my readers and myself," says Father Vasilj. He then analyzes its validity with extraordinary subtlety. "We possess two fundamental categories for our knowledge of natural beings: 1) Every being has its own being, and 2) every being acts with the totality of its being... The principle of the action of natural beings has a general value...

The action of natural beings is directly founded on their being. Therefore, until I can demonstrate the position that the very being of natural beings has its principle in time, I have no logical or real right to explain events in nature, to invoke the existence of God... In other words, it is necessary to demonstrate the temporal finitude of natural beings in their being.

From this arises the inevitable need to analyze with the utmost care the concept of finitude and the idea of infinity. Without an analysis of these two ideas/concepts, metaphysics as a science is not possible. The prophysical principle of causality: Every real change of a being presupposes a dynamic contact of this being with another, and the position on the finitude of all synthetic quantities, are two fundamental pieces of knowledge upon which the metaphysics."

Of course, we cannot delve into the details of our author's deductions. We would need more space for that. However, we cannot omit our author's refutation of the Aristotelian position, when he says: "We base the first premise for demonstrating the existence of God on the position that every being acts with its entirety. This position is opposed, by default, by Aristotle's principle of motion: 'everything that is moved is moved by something else,' and, by excess, by dialectical materialism: 'everything constitutes an inseparable unity of contradictory elements.' Therefore, we subject the validity of these principles to analysis here. If there is even one certain fact of experience that contradicts them, they lack real validity."

Against the philosophers and theologians who still consider the Aristotelian position valid, Father Vasilj cites the physical principle of inertia. Any body moves indefinitely in free space or remains relatively immobile, unless an external force changes its state…” This principle contradicts the Aristotelian position. To avoid capitulating to this opposition, the followers of the Stagirite's philosophy declare that the Aristotelian law of motion is a metaphysical law, while the law of inertia is a physical law. Dr. Vasilj concludes: “…It is not possible to follow Aristotle's philosophy and not accept his physics, just as it would not be logical to follow his physics and reject his philosophy… It is futile to attempt to salvage Aristotle's philosophy of nature by proclaiming its principles as 'metaphysical principles'—as if they had validity in the realm beyond the reach of experience—while in the realm of experience they are worthless, given that the purpose and function of the philosophy of nature is to elaborate the most general principles of knowledge of reality.”

Consequently: If a more general ontological principle is not valid for the knowledge of physical agents, it also has no real value in general.

"If everything that moves is moved by another," then movement could not have a principle. However, movement in the world is a fact, therefore the principle: "Everything that moves is moved by another," lacks real value. If the Aristotelian principle has no value, what can we say about the contradictory principle, formulated by dialectical materialists, that everything that moves moves by itself? This is the law called "autokinesis." According to it, all beings are the "field" of an opposition of contradictory elements.

But this principle—says our author—is in direct conflict with the principle of physics: any body moves indefinitely in a certain direction in free space or remains relatively motionless, unless acted upon by an external force. This principle—Vasilij says—has general validity: for the cart that cannot move without a horse and for the automobile that cannot move without fuel; whereas the principle of dialectical motion cannot be applied to either case.

Vasilij acknowledges the existence of internal movements, but these do not signify a change in entities, while external movements produce their mutation. In the first case, an entity retains its identity; in the second, it does not. Dialecticians confuse the relative meaning of the concept of entity with its absolute meaning, which in turn leads to confusion regarding the actions of entities, stemming from different planes of their activity.

Indeed, according to our author, the Aristotelian doctrine prolongs the immersion of the being in the external world of beings in an infinite way and, in the case of dialectical materialism, this infinite immersion occurs in the interior of the being, which is evidently impossible, because in the first case we would look for the principle of movement in the infinity of the external world, and in the second, in the internal infinity because, in order to move to the smallest particle of the material world, the existence of opposites from infinity is needed, which is again impossible.

Furthermore, our author, by attributing all activity in the universe to natural beings, believes he has achieved two objectives: God is not reduced to the category of a natural agent; if God is absolute goodness, then the evil we find in the world should be attributed neither to Him nor to a malevolent god. The entities of the world act spontaneously according to their nature taken in its entirety. But the inevitable question arises: Isn't it the same whether God created entities with a nature that acts spontaneously and produces evils in the universe, or whether God set entities and their being in motion, as Aristotle opined?

Dr. Vasilj says that evil arises from the union or separation of entities according to a union or separation that is not appropriate for them. But where does this abuse come from if entities act according to the laws of their being and existence, created by a force entirely external and beyond their reach, even pre-existing their appearance in time? Perhaps the author of these lines has not grasped the essence of Dr. Vasilj's thinking on this matter.

Having established the existence of God, the author demonstrates the spirituality and immortality of the human soul, finding in it a special being, specifically distinct from the material world. This is why humankind almost instinctively yearns for eternity, as it is inherent in its nature. He then addresses humanity's ultimate goal, which can only be a metaphysical one, suited to its spiritual and personal nature.

Taking the New Testament as authentic, the sole historical source for knowledge of Christ's doctrine, Vasilj, in a detailed debate with Bertrand Russell, demonstrates Christ's divinity and the authenticity of his metaphysical and supernatural doctrine. He devotes particular attention to the problem of the Trinity, developing a new doctrine, which we cannot discuss further here. With the subtle distinctions he makes between the natural and personal elements in the personality of Christ, it seems to us that Dr. Vasilj facilitates a less hesitant approach for those unfamiliar with this mystery-filled doctrine of Christianity.

The problem of the relationship between faith and knowledge is another topic to which we must devote more attention. Some assert, he says, that the certainty of faith must be stronger than that of knowledge gained through experience. Father Vasilj does not accept this assertion. We know the physical world through intellectual intuition, while we attain knowledge of God's existence through systolic judgments, a series of judgments that have real, transcendent value.

To the objection that an ordinary person could not have knowledge of God, Vasilj replies: "It does not follow from this that the knowledge of the ordinary person would lack the original and true character of knowledge." Life transcends science, and not only the vital processes in the body. We "know" how to digest food despite not knowing the chemical processes of digestion. Similarly, spontaneous knowledge in each person leads to scientific knowledge. Logic did not create logical thinking, but rather logical thinking and logic. Such is the case with all other sciences.

Father Vasilj resolves the problem of the scientific character of theology with the answer to this question: "Is theology possible as a science? In every science," he says, "one must distinguish its internal logical component from its transcendent value. Even pure ideas can become objects of scientific inquiry... If a supposed theology maintains the internal coherence of its ideas, it possesses a formal scientific character. If, moreover, it is able to demonstrate the real validity of its principles and the synthetic data it uses, then it also possesses material and real validity."

Since he believes he has demonstrated the existence of God, spirituality, and the immortality of the human soul, it is natural and logical for the author that any human endeavor addressing these issues should adopt a scientific approach.

Regarding the relationship between religion and civilization, Father Vasilj illuminates the problem with a very apt insight: "If the metaphysical world exists, it is related to the physical world as the Sun is to the Earth. Life on Earth possesses a certain autonomy. But, despite everything, it depends entirely on solar energy in its physical dimension." Living exclusively in physical form is a grave error that produces disastrous consequences. Denying religion, despite its real validity, is the greatest, the most egregious evil that humankind can commit.

From this, our author draws ideas of great relevance today. Christians should not persecute dialectical materialists, nor should the latter persecute Christians. "The law of respect for human dignity demands that we present our reasons calmly and with dignity. If mine contain the truth, they will prevail over falsehood. But the mere fact that someone uses the sword to prove the validity of their conviction demonstrates that they are not a person of goodwill."

"To the reproach leveled against religious men who did not sufficiently rebel against injustice, trusting in reparations in another world, Vasilj counters: "Sometimes, this sentiment made them unenthusiastic fighters for the realization of that postulate. It is possible that they unnecessarily suffered hardships, persecutions, and poverty as a result; consequently, while we acknowledge to some extent a lack of development of this legal sentiment in some religious men who, believing in eternal justice, thought that the legal order should be realized in the physical order without their efforts and labor, we also point out that the second alternative of an exclusively human justice is much more dangerous and more terrible, because it represents an unattainable ideal for humankind..." The Aristotelian image of human justice is well known. He compares it to a spider's web that entangles flies but allows large birds to pass through. "If man takes it upon himself to achieve justice in the world, by this very fact he exposes himself to the danger of committing countless injustices. One need only consider the crimes committed by dialectical materialists who have seized physical power."

The author then emphasizes the fact that Western "freethinkers" tend to sympathize more with dialectical materialists than with Christians. "These," the author says, "give proof that they think 'freely,' but not that they think 'truly and genuinely.' Furthermore, an irreligious person considers their own good to be the supreme good, while for a religious person, this good transcends humanity, giving it an absolute and sacred character. People without religion thus elevate selfishness to the pedestal of the supreme norm of their actions."

The book under review also addresses the problems discussed in the encyclical Humanae Vitae. The fundamental criterion for navigating this complex set of issues must be the dignity of the human person. Conflicting opinions should delve deeply into this concept to determine whether such dignity is of divine origin or purely physical. This understanding will offer a completely different perspective in favor of a Christian conception of dignity. But Christians, especially their dignitaries, must be careful not to impose their authority simply by virtue of being prelates, but rather by striving to feel Christian and practice their Christianity.

Our author's assertion is absolutely correct in refuting B. Russell's claim that modern astronomy has disproven the traditional conception of man as the supreme being and the internal objective of the universe, since it has revealed his smallness and weakness. "But astronomy," says Dr. Vasilj, "does not exist independently of astronomers. It logically follows that man, in discovering the grandeur of the universe, also discovers his own grandeur." The discoverer is in no way less than what is discovered. The universe does not know itself. The human spirit is not a product of natural agents. It is a being in itself and not a product, a change of another being. Consequently, the author rejects the theory of evolution as a dialectical hypothesis regarding the appearance of life on Earth in general.

Natural agents and humankind cannot and will not be able to produce life synthetically, because life is a new being entirely distinct from matter. Humankind can and will be able to change conditions and introduce modifications to life forms, but cannot create life. The artificial synthesis of the Phi X 174 virus is not an argument against this assertion. First, there is doubt about the nature of the virus; second, it is known with certainty that viral replication depends on contact with living organisms.

Life, humankind, the human spirit are new beings that we discover in the visible world, but beings whose existence depends on an absolute being who created them. Nature and humankind themselves will never be able to create anything. Creation is reserved for God in an absolute sense. This is the fundamental teaching of Dr. Vasilj, founded on the reasons of passionate, profound, and unsettling research by a high-minded thinker with a genuine vocation as a philosopher. It is a pity that his work, written in Croatian, is not accessible to the wider international public interested in this kind of study. The experts, we are sure, would confirm our opinion that this is a work and an author that don't come along every day.

F. M. N.

X Ordinary General Assembly of the Croatian Latin American Institute of Culture

El 12 de febrero de 1970 se efectuó la décima Asamblea General Ordinaria del Instituto Croata Latinoamericano de Cultura en Buenos Aires, oportunidad en que fue elegida la siguiente Comisión Directiva:

Presidente: Dr. Francisco Nevistić; vicepresidente: Juan Rojnica; secretario: Milan Rakovac; tesorero: Dr. Božidar Latković; vocales: Dr. Radovan Latković, Dr. Pedro Vukota y Branko Kadić; Comisión Revisora: Dr. Milan Blažeković y Dr. Ivo Hühn.

[1] F. Heer, Religious Terror, Political Terror (Barcelona 1965, p. 7): "Indeed, the entire history of terror can be understood, according to one of its characteristic features, as an attempt to transfer the original power of divinity into the hands of man, as an instrument of kingship."

[2] A. J. Toynbee, Christianity Among the World's Religions (Emece Editores, S.A., Buenos Aires, 1960, p. 140).

[3] K. Vasilj, Why Do I Believe? (Madrid, 1968, p. 260).

[4] Gerhard Szczesny, Faith and Unfaithfulness (Munich, 1960, pp. 22-23).

[5] F. Heer, Gehhard Szczesny, Op. cit., pp. 14-15.

[6] Arnold J. Toynbee, Civilization Put to the Test, Spanish translation (Emece Editores, Buenos Aires, 1960, p. 172, 3, 4 ff.).

[7] A. J. Toynbee, Op. cit., p. 172. See also: Aldous Huxley, Unser. Glaube, Stockholm, 1939, p. 31: "Gegen Ende der zwanziger Jahre setzte die Reaktion einweg von der leichten Philosophie allgemeiner Sinnlosigkeit und hin zu den harten, grimmigen Theologien nationalistischer und revolutionarer Götzenanbetug: Es wurde wieder Sinn in die Welt gebracht, aber nur stellenweise. Das Weltall als Ganzes blieb auch weiter sinnlos. Weltalls gedacht — "Towards the end of the second decade, the reaction began with the slogan: away from the superficial philosophy of meaninglessness and back to the harsh and furious theologies of idol worship of a nationalist and revolutionary character. Thus, meaning was restored to the world again, but only here or there. The universe, as a whole, remained meaningless. Some parts, however, such as the nation, the state, the class, the party, were covered with meaning and supreme value... We, as partners, have believed ourselves to be communities of the highest meaning in the midst of a A senseless universe—deified nations, deified classes, and who knows what else. And precisely because we have thought this way, rearmament is in full swing, economic nationalism is ever harsher, the propaganda battle is ever more fierce, and a general war appears ever more plausible.

[8] A. J. Toynbee, Civilization Put to the Test (p. 179).

[9] Here Toynbee, without mentioning Nikolai Berdyaev, repeats his ideas, formulated in the book: The Meaning of History (Der Sinn der Geschichte), Tybengen, 1947; p. 17, where the author says that all historical catastrophes, with a sharp turn, incited people to think more deeply, to seek new explanations of history. Thus, for example, Saint Augustine wrote his philosophy of history after the fall of the Roman Empire. Likewise, the first philosophy of history we know of—the book of the prophet Daniel—is intimately linked to the catastrophe of the Jewish world.

This same process occurred after the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. For his part, Raymond Aron, in his great work Peace and War Among Nations, repeats the same idea: “Times of unrest incite meditation. The crisis of the Greek city-state bequeathed to us Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics. The religious conflicts that tore apart 17th-century Europe gave rise, with Leviathan and the Political Treatise, to the theory of the neutral state… In the century of the English Revolution, Locke defended and clarified civil liberties…,” etc. (p. 19).

[10] A. J. Toynbee, Civilization… (p. 187, 8).

[11] M. Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics (Tübingen, 1953, p. 1): “Everyone will at some point be struck by the power of this question, without quite knowing what is happening. In a moment of despair, for example, when all the weight of things disappears and all meaning is obscured, this question arises.” Or see: M. Heidegger, Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, Spanish translation (Mexico, 1954, p. 204, 5): "Is it possible to develop finitude in being-there, even as a problem, without a 'supposed' infinity? What is the nature of this 'supposition'? What does infinity thus 'posited' mean? Will the question that inquires about being manage to emerge from this problem with all its elemental importance and breadth? Or are we perhaps victims of the madness of organization, agitation, and speed to such a degree that we can no longer be friends with the essential, the simple, and the constant—'friendship (philia) which is the only thing that orients us toward being as such, and from which arises the question about the concept of being (sophia), which is the fundamental question of philosophy'?"

[12] Sofía Vanni Rovigni, Heidegger (Brescia, 1945) : "Heidegger's philosophy is a negazione dell'intelligibilità dell'essere o una rinnuncia ad affermarla?... L'instinto conosce solo sotto l'aspetto di utile — harmful, l'intelletto le conosce per quello che SONO. Ora, per conoscere le cose in se stesse, ocorre mettere in certain way fra parentesi il significato que esse assumono per noi... apunto per che il significato purely instrumentale delle cose è proiettato da noi". Philosophy begins when the world amazes us by silencing our impulses, when we almost leave it looking at it in the face in its "pure entity," says S. Vanni. Then he adds: "On the other hand, the entity is totally unintelligible, there is no stupor because it is totally unknown. This stupor is something that is manifest, but it only ends at a certain point that hides behind the mystery's anchor; ancora, più chiara luz" (pages 97, 98, 100).

[13] E. Cassirer, Individual and cosmos in the philosophy of the Renaissance (Buenos Aires, 1960, page 115).

[14] Nicola, Abbagnano, Philosophy, Religion, Science, Spanish translation, (Buenos Aires, 1961, pages 62, 3, 4 and 5).

[15] Nicolai Berdiaeff, Der Sinn der Geschichte (The Sense of History), German edition (Tubingen, 1949, pp. 269, 291 et seq.)

[16] G. Barraclough, Introduction to Contemporary History (Madrid, 1965, page 291)

[17] Eugen Beluhan, Stepinac Govori (Stepinac Speaks), Valencia, 1967, p. 20, 21.

[18] E. Beluhan, Op. cit. p. 23: "Comparatively examining the dates, it will be seen that the Salonika offensive took place on September 2 and 3, 1918, when the Austrian army was withdrawing from Serbia, and that on December 14, the 'Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes' was proclaimed and recognized by the Allies. Stepinac was released from the Nocera Umbra camp on December 6 and transferred to Macedonia, from which we can conclude that he never fought against his compatriots of the Dual Monarchy on the Salonika front." We highlight this because in Studia Croatica, No. 1, p. 31, it was written: "Many Serbian ultra-patriots who follow the former king Peter Karageorgevic and label Stepinac an enemy of the Serbian people were out of danger and well-paid while he was fighting in the trenches of the Salonika front." Father Beluhan does not indicate the source of his information, and this prevents us from knowing for sure which of the two statements is accurate: his or Ivo Bogdan's.

[19] E. Beluhan, Op. cit., p. 25, 6.

[20] E. Beluhan, Op. cit., p. 42.

[21] E. Beluhan, Op. cit., p. 47, 8.

[22] E. Beluhan. Op. cit., p. 309, 10, 11 and 12.

[23] E. Beluhan, Op. cit., p. 314.

[24] E. Beluhan, Op. cit., p. 456, 78.

[25] Cyrus L. Sulzberg, A Long Row of Candles, where we also find the following: “Orthodox Serbs of all party affiliations approached me murmuring: ‘Stepinac must be hanged. He was the one who approved the killing of thousands of Serbs.’ The Croats—in reality, all homogeneously Roman Catholic—led me to safe corners whispering to me: ‘You must know before you see the archbishop, regardless of what they say about him, that we admire him; he is a great hero of the people, and you must not believe any of the denigration they are throwing in his face. He is our martyr.’ Quoted from B. Radica, Bitter Memories, in Croatian Voice, No. 47, 1969, Winnipeg, Canada. We believe it is not possible to better characterize the atmosphere. The Orthodox Serbian hatred, partially disguised by Communism was the supreme criterion according to which the last war with the Cardinal and his Croatian people was concluded.

[26] For all these citations, see: Studia Croatica, number 1, pp. 39, 41, 44.

[27] Herbert Butterfield, Christianity and History, Buenos Aires, 1957, on page 43, states verbatim: "The truth is that if certain fragile barriers are removed from society, many men who have been respectable throughout their lives will be completely transformed upon discovering the things they could do with impunity. The weak, who formerly kept in line due to a certain social equilibrium, will not hesitate to resort to crime. Such a state of affairs will arise that people who never felt any desire to steal will dedicate themselves without qualms to looting and pillaging." A prolonged police strike, a revolutionary situation... the rejoicing at the conquest of an enemy country, reveal the worst side of human nature in people who, until then, had been guided and tempered by the influences of normal social life, and who had only ever shown a respectable face to the world."

[28] E. Beluhan, Op. cit., pp. 78, 79, 80.

[29] Studia Croatica, No. 1, p. 41, 1960.

[30] Fiorello Cavalli, Il Card. Luigi Stepinac, Arcivescovo di Zagabria nel decimo anniversario del pio transito, in L'Osservatore Romano, No. 34, p. 3, February 11, 1970.^[31] B. POLONIJO: B. Nikola Tavelić i njegovo doba (El Beato Nicolós Tavelić y su época, Zagreb 1939.

D. MANDIĆ: Documenta Martyrii b. Nicolai Tavelić et sociorum cies Ordinis Minorum, Rome 1958;

A. CRNICA: Historico-iuridica dilxeidatio vitae, martyrii et gloriae Beati Nicolai Tavelić, incuti martyris Ordinis Minarum, splendoris et protectoris gentis Croatorum, canonization eius aequipolenti dicata recursive triplici anniversario a diffusione cultus eius et gloriae, Rome 1958.

* Another small Croatian town in Dalmatia.

** In said Vatican publication, the authors refer to Document XIV of their previously mentioned official publication, where the part of Zavorovich's text referring to the topic in question is analyzed and it can be seen that this author also indirectly admits that b. Tavelić belonged to the Sebenico monastery. — (Note from the S. C. Network).

[32] A. CRNICA:Op. cit., p. 24 and s.

[33] B. POLONIJO: Op. cit., page. 22 and s.

[34] F. A. GALVANI: Op. cit., Vol. I, page. 199 et seq.

[35] A. CRNICA: Op cit., p. 13-17.

[36] Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, Vol. XXXV, p. 110.

[37] Ibidem, p. 207.

[38] Regionem ab Histria usque ad Albaniam et a mari Adriatico usque ad Danubium saec. VII-XIV Slavoniam appellant. Ab ea prima Fratrum Minorum in paeninsula Balcanica province nomen accepit, cf. P. Čapkun, De organizatione curiae pastoralis Franciscanorum apud Croatorum gentem, Sebenico 1940, p. 22 et seq.; D. Mandić, Documenta martyrii, p. 36, No. 6.

[39] A. CRNICA: Op. cit., page. 36-42.

[40] De hac haeresi iam multi scripserunt, sed quid revera fuerit adhuc no est clarum, cf. A. Chronicle, Oz. cit., p. 45-58. (We recommend for this purpose: Dominik .Mandić, Bogumilska Crkva Bosanskih Krstjana (The Bogumila Church of the Christians of Bosnia), Chicago 1962. (This, monumental work of 500 pages, it seems to us, has definitively elucidated the character of this heresy. — (Note by the Editors of Studia Croatica).

[41] I. RUPČIĆ: Entstehung der Franziskanerpfarereien in Bosnien und Herzegovina und ihre Entwiecklung bis zum Jahre 1878, Breslau 1937, p. 18 and s.

[42] E. FERMEDŽIN: Acta Bosniae 1892, p. 22, No. 123.

[43] Analecta Franciscana, Vol. III, Ad Claras Aquas 1897, p. 528; Fermediin: Chronicon Observantis provinciale Bosnae Argentinae S. Francisci Seraphici, Zagreb 1890, p. 6 and s.

[44] Analecta Franciscana, Vol. III, page. 529; I. B. RUPČIĆ: Op. cit., p. 25 ff.

[45] D. MANDIĆ: Bl. Nikola Tavelić i njegovo proglašenje svecem, in Hrvatski Kalendar (Croatian Calendar), Chicago 1952, pp. 81-92.

[46] A. CRNICA: Op. cit., p. 42.

*** See: Studia Croatica, Vol. 32-35/69: D. Žanko, Dominik Mandić: The Personality and His Cultural Work, pp. 16-42.

* Dr. Ivan Supek is the rector of the University of Zagreb, the capital of Croatia.

[47] Miroslav Krleža is currently the most renowned writer in Croatia. Many of his works have been translated into several languages: German, French, English, Italian, etc.

[48] "šjor" in southern Croatia (Dalmatia) means "signor" in Italian, "sir" in English.

** Recently booed by Croatian students during the performance of her latest play, which was conformist to the Party and Belgrade.

* — Do the people and the homeland prevail over the State? Yes, chronologically and historically, but no, not axiologically. The homeland lacks the authority, that is, the power and strength necessary to ensure the preservation and promotion of all the values that constitute the national identity. The nation-state is the most perfect form of a people's life. The Church cannot remain at a lower level. (Editor's Note)

** The author is referring here to the imposition of the Serbian language on the Croats; see Studia Croatica, No. 24-27, 1967, pp. 3-31 — (Editor's Note).

* * A small type of "Fiat" automobile manufactured in Serbia.

** Dalmatia was an integral part of the Dual Monarchy after the fall of Napoleon. Franz Joseph I did not incorporate it into the other Croatian provinces despite Croatian historical and ethnic rights.

* Nickname of a faction of the Party of Right, headed by Dr. Joseph Frank (1844-1911) from 1890.

[49] The author calls "systolic judgments" (syn stellein from the Greek), what Kant calls synthetic a priori judgments. Vasilj considers that this kind of judgment can never be totally a priori. They always turn out to be partly a posteriori and partly a priori.