STUDIA CROATICA

Year XI – July - December 1970 – Vol. 38-39

ON LIMITED SOVEREIGNTY

LIFE AND WORK OF JORGE DRAGIŠIĆ

ETHNOGRAPHY AND FOLKLORE OF CROATIA

CROATIA AND THE SOUTH SLAVS

Documents

THE HOLY SEE - THE 1966 PROTOCOL AND NATIONAL INTERESTS IN YUGOSLAVIA

THROUGH THE WINDOW OF "YUGOSLAV SOCIALIST" REALITY

Chronicles, News, and Commentary

THE RESUMPTION OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN THE HOLY SEE AND THE YUGOSLAVIC COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT

TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF STUDIA CROATICA

"FREIE PRESSE" ON "STUDIA CROATICA"

TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CROATIAN MAGAZINE

ON THE UNIFICATION OF THE "ITALIAN" PROVINCES

MICRON NEWS

Book review

Juan Maler, Die Grosse Rebellion — Studienreise durch cine Welt am Abgrund

Ernest Bauer: Glanz und Tragik der Kroaten, Ausgewählte Kapitel der kroatischen Kriegsgeschichte

Zvonimir Kulundžić: Tragedija Hrvatske Historiografije - O falzifikatorima, negatorima, birokratima, itd., itd. hrvatske povijesti

Stanko Vujica: "The Humanist Marxism in Croatia - An Agonizing Reappraisal of Marxist Dogma and Practice"

Franjo Trogrančić: Narratori Croatian - Moderni e Contemporanei

Branko Bruckner: Yugoslavia - Self-management in the Economy

Edgar Hoesch: Geschichte der Balkanländer

Der Donau - Baum, Zeitschrift des Forschungsinstitutes für den Donauraum

Vladimir Markotić: "The Kinship Systems from Yugoslavia"

ON LIMITED SOVEREIGNTY

Communist Yugoslavia and the Brezhnev Doctrine

FRANJO NEVISTIĆ

Is it necessary to give or quote a definition of sovereignty? The French revolutionaries formulated in June 1789: "The assembled nation cannot receive orders..." To say anything more would be almost redundant. Even though the concept of sovereignty constitutes one of the most serious and debated problems in legal science, as well as in political science and sociology, this concept has become familiar to everyone, to all individuals and peoples of our time. Upon uttering the word sovereignty, an approximate idea arises in everyone's mind that tells us something about the supreme power in a political community. We usually call this the State. The sovereign, then, would be the State, precisely its power. Sovereignty, in the opinion of jurists, would be one, indivisible, and unlimited. Starting from such a familiar idea, the problem becomes simple.

But explaining the concept and reality of sovereignty and sovereignty, both genetically and historically, in a clear way, is another matter entirely. It is a difficult subject. A subject that involves a series of endless problems, opening up historical horizons of a very distant past, of the present, and even offering glimpses into the future. If we were to merely attempt it, we would be overstepping our bounds. It would simply exceed the scope of this article. Moreover, this concept is a product of modern political science and history. Extending it to earlier phenomena could contribute to confusion rather than clarification.[1]

Since that time, national sovereignty has been increasingly asserted up to the present day, as the latest Afro-Asian colonies, one after another, proclaim their national independence and sovereignty. Initially, the phenomenon was asserted at the expense of the disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire, which divided the nation-state along with its territory and power, and now at the expense of colonial empires. From this arose a nationalist doctrine: the concept of sovereignty in opposition to the concept of empire. "It was revealed that nations were stable and subsisting groupings, formed by geography and history, and that they aspired to autonomy: from then on, the main task of politics was to procure for each (nation) the form of sovereignty that best suited them by law and was most appropriate to their individual character" [2].

But is the power of the nation-state a specific power, different in its essence from other powers in society, or is it merely the concentration of those powers, a result, a synthesis of them? Are social powers convergent or divergent and centrifugal? Who are those who make the centripetal forces prevail over the centrifugal forces of society? Who concentrates them, and how, to form a supreme and sovereign power? What is the relationship between these forces—seemingly opposed, some defeated and others victorious? What is the main task of sovereign power, and how does it exercise it?

These are the fundamental legal, political, and social problems in general, intimately linked to the concept of sovereignty. The true problem of the current political crisis, in the limiting sense of the word and the concept of politics, lies within them.[3]

Indeed, from Aristotle, to begin with a firm starting point, to the present day, the most varied theories parade before our eyes, reflecting both historical and social realities as well as the thinking of the most enlightened minds, all attempting to describe, grasp, and even explain these problems inherent to sovereignty. Many are of the opinion that the form of the State and the entire society at a given historical moment depends on the conditions and forms in which the sovereign is determined. Even more so than, according to Marxist doctrine, the form of society depends on the mode of its production and economic distribution.[4]

Consequently, if we wish to grasp the meaning of the self-determination of peoples without delving into legal definitions, without seeking abstract determinations, but rather by analyzing the historical and economic presuppositions of national movements, we will inevitably arrive at the following conclusion: By the concept of the self-determination of peoples, we understand their state separation from other national communities, we understand the formation of their independent state" [7].

To rely on this Leninist definition, however accurate, would mean great disillusionment and grave disappointment. For communists, the concepts of law do not have the sense of a superior, metapolitical norm. Their deontological power would be purified, liberated, and deprived of all connection to and influence from extra-legal sources of obligation. In this respect, the communist theory of law would constitute the continuation and extreme extension of Kelsen's "purifications" of law.

As is well known, the primary concern of the Viennese school was to ensure the scientific autonomy of law, freeing it from all religious "contaminations." Theological, philosophical, or moral. The Bolsheviks, in their absolute materialist radicalism, took this concern to the extreme, suppressing all spiritual phenomena as ideologies, anti-scientific phenomena. This radicalism is so absolute and total that it crosses over to the opposite extreme, becoming a new anti-religious religion. Hence Aron's accurate conclusion that the Bolshevik state signifies a return to the "sacred" state and society, abandoning the "secular-liberal" society and state. "Everything is held in check thanks to a new psychological position that has taken the place of the old religions and convinces the masses that the mission of power consists of embodying Law, Truth, and Justice everywhere and to the fullest extent," says Ivan Kologriwof*. It would thus be a new religion born from the passionate need to negate all religion, an extremely radical rationalism that becomes irrationalism, postulating certain utopian values as truths.

The sovereign power of the State is invested with a mystical power, with a religious mission. Therefore, its law receives the binding force of this same mission. There is no other source of obligation. The mission of sovereign power is one and unique: the achievement of a classless society, without the power of the State as an instrument of class oppression. Classes will disappear, the State will wither away, the well-being and freedom of all will enter their true era, and humanity will be redeemed from exploitation and alienation. Marxism, with its power, will solve the enigma of life. In place of domination over people, the administration of things will be established.

The path to this goal is the violent seizure of state power by the proletariat, which is responsible for abolishing classes, the State, and the exploitation of man by man, of one nation by another. The objectives of the revolution and the methods for achieving them are not the product of mere hypotheses. They are the final result of a long "scientific" study of humanity and society. They are an absolute truth. And whoever possesses the absolute truth cannot allow class-based formations, factions, or parties that would defend biases and errors. This would mean walking in the dark.

Besides being an intellectual error, such a path, such a course of action, would involve a sin, the sole and true sin against the meaning of history and against its vanguard, or rather, against the Communist Party that holds power. Law is solely and exclusively what the Party, the sovereign power of the proletarian state, determines. The pseudo-religious submission of law and legal science is revealed in broad daylight. So much so that even Nelsen, who was accused of paving the way for the theory and practice of communism, had to say: "Soviet legal theory submissively adapts itself to all the changes in the policy of the Soviet government. The examination... of that theory will show the shameful decadence of a social science that is incapable of emancipating itself from politics" [8].

In these last three years, we have witnessed a new and blatant stage of the shameful submission of Soviet legal science to government policy regarding the right of peoples to self-determination. This process is particularly strange because it is taking place precisely in post-Stalinist times and when the utmost fidelity to genuinely Leninist ideas and concepts is being claimed. Brezhnev's doctrine is subjecting Lenin's to revision.

Indeed, the Bolsheviks denied their subjects from the outset the right to freely choose their form of government and to appoint individuals to exercise public power—that is, the right to self-determination—internal sovereignty. During the struggle against the Europe of Versailles, the Bolsheviks defended the Leninist position on the right to self-determination in its purest form. When the Nazi-fascist powers resumed their revisionist initiative in Europe, the Bolsheviks, without denying the principle of self-determination, inaugurated a foreign policy that practically subordinated the struggle of nations for national freedom to their own foreign policy, as far as the Kremlin's influence could reach through the respective communist movements and parties.

Thus, for example, in the case of Yugoslavia, between 1924 and 1934 the Soviets acted against monarchical Yugoslavia, considering it a creation of Anglo-French financial interests, and demanded the right to self-determination for all its peoples: first and foremost, for the Croatian people.[9] With the emergence of the revisionist and belligerent threat from the nations that would later be called the Axis powers, this right was no longer invoked, but rather the necessity of defending that hegemonic state to better resist "Nazi-fascist imperialism."

With the Second World War victoriously concluded, this policy, seemingly inspired only by transient motives, became a stable and lasting one. Self-determination of peoples, yes, but in accordance with the sovereign will of the Soviet power. The neophyte enthusiasm of the communists in the satellite states, and especially of the Yugoslav communists (Tito, Djilas, Rankovic, and Kardelj were considered Stalin's most perfect and enthusiastic students and followers), at that time bore witness to obedience, to their spontaneous submission to this Soviet will. Thus, the monolithic bloc—doctrinally and organizationally—of international communism appeared unshakeable.

But it was precisely the most zealous form of communism, Yugoslav communism, that initiated a bold rupture. What seemed a solid unity, a granite-like bloc, suddenly began to falter. Opposition, division, and fragmentation belied the dreamed-of unity. The communist "Church," headquartered in the Kremlin, found itself facing a startling heresy and, subsequently, a veritable schism. This is now known to the entire world.

Who is right? Moscow or Belgrade, Stalin or Tito? In the endless debates, marked by temporary agreements and repeated resumptions of the ideological struggle and the Cold War, Maoism, Castroism, and other ideologies also emerged. The world, which should have been an example of scientific unity and no longer of metaphysics and "mystification," scandalized both itself and its adversaries.

To avoid openly brutal procedures like those in Hungary, Poland, or East Germany, and to "scientifically" end this scandal, Brezhnev implemented his doctrine of limited sovereignty. According to her, the Czechoslovak "spring" of a socialism "with a human face" was liquidated, also opening up prospects for other similar cases such as the Romanian, the Yugoslav and even the Chinese.

The logic of this doctrine is simple and straightforward. Since the goal of history is communism, all policies contrary to this goal are detestable, worthy of being suppressed by any means. The peoples who have witnessed the proletarian revolution and the establishment of communist power have, in their historical evolution, surpassed all nations that have not had these experiences. It can certainly be accepted that Western nations are advanced in science, technology, and industry, but morally they lag behind those nations that have carried out their proletarian-socialist revolution and eliminated alienation and the exploitation of man by man.

Consequently, any attempt to renounce the gains thus achieved and to regress to pluralist-bourgeois regimes is an act of betrayal, a historical regression. It would mean renouncing the luminous prospects, truly and definitively, of history and continuing to wander in "prehistoric" darkness. The Soviet Union, as the first and strongest proletarian state, can and must, in the interest of the working class of the entire world, intervene wherever necessary to prevent this ahistorical return. True sovereignty belongs to Moscow, and other peoples or nations only possess it on the condition of submitting to the will of the communist central command.

The impact of the new doctrine was not entirely favorable to its inventors. Communists in the free world were confused and perplexed. There were near-open rebellions in Italy and France. Those in the satellite states showed clear signs of discontent, especially Romania and Yugoslavia. Terrified, these last two are seeking prevention and solutions to the danger, now once again disguised as a doctrinal, "scientific," and genuinely Leninist-Marxist approach.

And while the Romanian concerns are logical, natural, consistent, and frank, the same cannot be said of the Yugoslav ones. The Belgrade "rebellion" was never consistent or frank. We could say that the main and original motive for their rebellion was not the defense of the sovereignty of their people, but rather the self-righteousness of the nation and the maintenance of their hegemony over other non-Serbian peoples. Sovereignty in the sense of external independence, but of ruthless dictatorship internally. What was preserved in the first sense was nullified in the second. Belgrade's sovereignty, yes, but with the submission of Zagreb, Ljubljana, Sarajevo, and Skopje—that is, of the Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrins, and so on.

The dismissal of Ranković and Stefanović (in 1966), the Serbian terrorist duo, brought to light what we are saying. The omnipotence of the Serbian centralist secret police was confirmed and acknowledged by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia itself. The police apparatus's list contained 1.3 million "suspect" Croats. The persecution of the Albanians of Kosovo-Metohija had taken on appalling forms. The exploitation of the Slovenian and Croatian economies is commonplace.

But the internal battle that culminated in the formal removal of Ranković-Stefanović is not over. Serbian centralism, embodied primarily in the federal bureaucracy, the army, and the police apparatus that was not dismantled, remains entrenched, despite all the official declarations and economic reforms that could have facilitated the implementation of effective federalism and created a society of self-management and "direct" socialist democracy.

Hegemonic logic compels Belgrade to a policy of contradiction. Having rebelled against Moscow for reasons of national sovereignty, Belgrade is attempting everything possible to impose a policy of limited sovereignty within the confines of its power, mirroring what the Kremlin is doing in the orbit of its satellites. Before Moscow, independence and unlimited sovereignty; but toward its subjects, especially non-Serbian peoples, submission and limited sovereignty. This is the logic of an unpopular regime, imposed by force and thanks to circumstances favorable to one people—the Serbs—and adverse to others.

In reality, the 1963 communist Yugoslav Constitution states in its Fundamental Principles: "Based on the right of each people to self-determination, including the right of secession, on the basis of common struggle and the freely expressed will in the war of national liberation and in the socialist revolution, and in accordance with their historical aspirations, aware that the consolidation of their fraternity and unity constitutes a common interest, the peoples of Yugoslavia have united into a federal republic of free and equal peoples and nationalities and have created a socialist and federal community of workers..." Article 19 states: "The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a state of peoples voluntarily united and equal in rights and a democratic socialist community based on the power of the working people and on self-government."

Herein lies the problem. This Constitution, as formulated, is a fantastical invention of a shameless jurist or political jurist. The peoples of Yugoslavia did not unite freely or voluntarily. A communist author and Tito's general stated that at the beginning of the last war there was neither "brotherhood nor unity," nor was there any solidarity among the Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian, Macedonian, or Montenegrin working classes. Could such unity, then, have been forged during the war and the socialist revolution? The Macedonian Communist Party, or more accurately, the Macedonian communists—as Tito himself affirms—preferred to unite with the Bulgarian "fascists" rather than with the Yugoslav communist revolutionaries. The Albanians rejected and killed the Serbian "instructors" sent by Tito during the last war because their main objective was to separate Kosovo and Metohija from Albania, which had been formally integrated into the country by the Italians and especially by the Germans after the Italian capitulation.[10]

Humiliations and unfriendly treatment over national issues are not only forgotten in the Balkans: they are not forgotten anywhere in the world! Consequently, the Macedonians and Albanians—more than two million people under Belgrade's rule—never felt, least of all during and after the last war, any feelings of unity or fraternity with the communists or the Serbian people. Their lives in communist Yugoslavia were not the result of free will, nor of a shared sense of common interest with the Serbs, whether proletarian or not.

As for the Croats, it is unnecessary to speak of them. In 1941, they declared themselves "as one" (Stepinac) for their own independence. Only in the face of the imminent victory of communism and the restoration of communist Yugoslavia, assured at the Yalta Conference, did the Croats, the Slovenes, and all the other national minorities of that country participate (20%) in Tito's communist movement—a truly Serbian movement whose main objective was to seize power within the borders of monarchical Yugoslavia and reimpose its hegemony, this time of a communist nature. The national objectives of Serbia and the communist revolution coincided in their essentials.

After this irrefutable truth, who is authorized to declare, openly and solemnly, that the Yugoslav peoples have freely united and forged fraternity and unity in the revolution and the war of national liberation? The Bleiburg Tragedy, which violently wiped out the Croatian army and the core of the Slovenian and Montenegrin national armies, completely refutes the claims of the communist Yugoslav Constitution. The carnage of some and the fear instilled in others were the "cement" of the new "fraternity and unity," constitutionally guaranteeing each people the right to self-determination, "including the right of secession."

As we have stated above, the problem of sovereignty, in its socio-political aspect, is the question of who is sovereign, how they rose through the social pyramid, and how they exercise sovereign power from that position. It is readily apparent from what has already been said that sovereignty lies in Serbian hands, that their proletariat rose to power through a tremendously bloody revolution, aided morally and materially by the sinister alliance of Western democracies with Bolshevism, and that this Serbian proletariat exercises its power in an extremely discriminatory, oppressive, and totalitarian manner.

But lies and terror also have their end.[11] The national idea of the oppressed and exploited peoples could not yield. Since the fall of Ranković-Stefanović, the voices of these peoples have grown ever louder. Effective federation is the official objective, confederation the link, and separation the ultimate ideal. This spirit of opposition against Belgrade's oppressive policies matured even in the last strongholds of the most privileged Croatian, Slovenian, Macedonian, and Montenegrin communists, not to mention the Albanians.

But the terrorist minority grouped around Tito, an adventurer without national consciousness and in the service of Serbian hegemony, was frightened by the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. The sovereignty of the peoples, toward which the life of the community began to move after a hard struggle against Serbian hegemonic centralism, seemed to this minority an extremely dangerous path. The sovereignty of Ljubljana, Zagreb, Sarajevo, Titograd, and Skopje could play the same role that Belgrade is playing in relation to Moscow. The consequence: the disintegration of Yugoslavia, the end of Serbian domination, and the end of all the unjust positions of a privileged nation and its proletarian elite, whose sovereignty cost a sea of tears and rivers of blood of millions of innocents.

In search of allies

That is why they are currently frantically searching for allies throughout the world. A power completely at odds with its subjects, with a ruined economy, with pressing debts, with 750,000 workers employed in the "capitalist" world and another 360,000 unemployed within the country, cannot sleep soundly. Soviet Russia, for its part, continues to try to consolidate its western borders and eliminate Titoism, which claims unlimited sovereignty in relation to Moscow.

With this enormous burden on his elderly shoulders, Marshal Tito embarks on a tour of Western European capitals, with a visit to Washington also announced. Aware of the illegitimacy of their power, Tito and his collaborators once again begin their aimless political dance. Moscow tries to impose unlimited sovereignty in the name of international proletarian interests, while Washington tries to safeguard its part of the Yalta agreement. Tito, with his Serbian hegemons, insists on their own unlimited sovereignty in order to continue terrorizing the subjugated peoples. Speculations abound, as do illusions and expectations. From the outside, the superpowers; from within, the antagonism between the oppressor nation—Serbia—and the oppressed peoples.

Alongside Tito's travels, his most devoted followers, such as his brother-in-law Miko Tripalo (married to a cousin of Tito's wife, Jovanka, both Serbs from Croatia), sought to outline a new doctrine, defending the unlimited sovereignty of Belgrade and the limited sovereignty of other republics and peoples. In the small Croatian town of Krapinske Toplice, Tripalo said, among other things: "As is common knowledge, our development is progressing in the direction that producers, working people, will have ever greater influence in the distribution of the net product." But the Federation is the expression and "self-government of all working men who share a common class interest."

Furthermore, "no nation ever... disposed of the net product. It was always a matter of a specific class... When we speak of the distribution of the net product, we think of the working class and not the entire nation... If we were to dwell on the nation's right to dispose of the net product, we would be neglecting what is essential to our socialist development, namely, that the working class become the decisive factor in politics and the owner of the fruits of its labor."

Tripalo's ideological gap and contradictions are evident. Why is there a common class interest among the workers of Croatia, Slovenia, etc., with that of the workers of Serbia, but not with the interests of the Soviet working class? The history of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (PKJ), according to the most serious research of Tudjman, Tito's former general, demonstrates a significant difference between the interests of the Croatian and Serbian workers. Why, consequently, is Belgrade denying class solidarity with proletarian power in Moscow while affirming it with the Croatian proletariat? Only to free itself from Moscow and impose its power in Zagreb, Ljubljana, Sarajevo, Skopje, and Titograd in Montenegro.

But the elite is no longer monolithic. The "workers' movements" of each nation in Yugoslavia are increasingly emphasizing solidarity with their own nations. The same is being done by the communists in Serbia. Thus, for example, Makso Baće, a veteran Croatian communist activist, current vice-president of the Croatian Communist Diet, and former combatant in the Spanish Civil War, nicknamed "The Spaniard," holds almost the opposite political affiliation to Tripalo.

In the illustrated magazine Vijesnik u Srijedu, dated August 12, 1970, the article "The New Federation" was published, emphasizing the following: "Discussions about the political problems of the Yugoslav federation can only be fruitful on one condition: if they take place among people who have previously reached an agreement on the national question. That is to say, among people who do not dogmatically accept the Marxist doctrine of the birth and demise of the nation, and who respect the nation as a stable and historical reality, and on whose behalf it is not permissible to conduct any kind of dizzying experiments, either in theory or in practice, declaring it 'outdated' and even 'dead' at a time when it is alive with full vigor and meaning, not only in our country but throughout the world."

Tito, Tripalo, and the Serbian communists on whose behalf they both work deny the existence of nations, emphasize class divisions, and subordinate the interests of the other national proletariats in Yugoslavia to those of the Federation—that is, to the centralism and unlimited sovereignty of Belgrade. For Tito, the current conflict of nationalities is a "minor squabble," even as he acknowledges the "grave crisis" of the state. A reader of Baće's aforementioned article expresses serious doubt that it is possible to find solid foundations for a new federation after 25 years of hegemony, bureaucratic centralism, and after so many solemn but unfulfilled promises that all the peoples of communist Yugoslavia would have their own freedom and sovereignty, and even the right to secede.

For ten years, Studia Croatica repeatedly demonstrated, with documents from the very same Yugoslav communist authorities, that the Belgrade regime is politically and economically unjust, hegemonic, and tyrannical. Without delving into the legal definitions of sovereignty, "the deepest economic motives push us there," and "by analyzing the historical-economic presuppositions of national movements," said Lenin, "we arrive at the concept and the right of national self-determination and sovereignty. To have or not to have, that is the question," we could paraphrase the English poet, adapting it to the Marxist-Leninist spirit. Indeed, to the series of arguments presented in this journal, we can now add a new and more illustrative reality.

"For example, the workers of Zagreb produce 10% of the total Yugoslav national product with a profitability far exceeding the Yugoslav average, working with very outdated equipment and machinery (the functional capacity level in Yugoslavia in 1968 was 61.8%, while in Zagreb it was only 56%), and yet, despite this, the Zagreb work collective only retained 1.77 billion [currency unspecified] in 1968 69 billion new dinars invested in new equipment and machinery throughout the country, then there is not much to discuss about what all this means. Or, even better, if it is said that the economy of Zagreb... is losing annually... close to 1 billion... then things must be called by their proper name: this means putting a bureaucratic hand in the pockets of the workers of Zagreb and illegally taking money from them" (VUS, Zagreb, No. 951 of July 22, 1970).

Furthermore, in the same issue of the aforementioned illustrated magazine, Srećko Bijelić, a Serb from Croatia, president of the Zagreb Municipal Conference of the Communist League, publishes a lengthy article, analyzing the serious crisis of the Yugoslav economy, and says among other things: "Some men are determined... to alienate the money of the producer and all become richer than those who create and work well." Referring to the endless discussions that obscure the well-known reality, Bijelić continues: "Our political dictionary abounds in good and progressive positions, expressed... in an enigmatic way, which allows for arbitrary explanations... the year 1970 should mark the transition from enigmatic language to a clear and programmatic one. All the more so since the economy is in dire straits...

Especially the economy of Zagreb, where the phenomenon of disinvestment is very clear, even though—thanks to the industrial and labor tradition—productivity there is 18% higher than the Yugoslav average, its net accumulation per employed worker 23% higher, and profitability 33% higher... general hardship and illiquidity are present, as is inflation, while administrative interventions are not being abated; on the contrary, they are increasing... Herein lie the grave dangers, both today and especially for the future, because it is not unknown that material power alienated from the producer can be used against him." "Grow any other power except the power of a self-managed, socialist society in which the creators, the working class, and the working people should have the decisive and most important say."

The editorialist of that magazine, a woman of keen observation—Nela Krmpotić—analyzing the phenomenon, says: "In the new type of bureaucratic accumulation of resources lie the fundamental sources of sensitivity in relations between nationalities... Among the cardinal questions that our socialist position compels us to answer are also the following: Is it feasible to move towards development in a multinational community without 'blood transfusions,' because no one will ask to enter socialism if they must first sign up for and profess poverty, the blocking of their own development, and a return to being a backward province?

Furthermore, can one move towards development without consequences for one of the parties, to whose detriment the differences would widen, despite their own resources and with a meager wage for their labor?"

An impartial observer will easily understand why Croats make up 54% of the 750,000 Yugoslav workers employed in Western Europe, despite Croatia being one of the most developed Yugoslav republics and Croats representing only 24% of Yugoslavia's total population. This also explains the precipitous drop in the birth rate: in this respect, Croatia currently ranks last in Europe, with a steady annual decline in its population.

Drago Tović, a correspondent for "VUS," Croatia's main communist newspaper, published an article in issue 953/70 entitled "Agony with the Passport," describing the consequences of this phenomenon. Within a short time, if the current rate of emigration continues, some 200 villages in the Croatian province of Slavonia will disappear. The percentage of elderly people in Croatia is increasing. While 15% of elderly people is considered the tolerable limit for a country, Croatia currently has 26% of its total population in this category.

To illustrate the situation of those working abroad, we reproduce in part the letter from one of them, sent to and published in the same newspaper already mentioned: "This article (by Tović, n. obs.) moved me deeply, because it speaks directly to my heart. I was born into a large family (8 children) of whom only one remained in the Homeland. After five years of hard work and little savings, I decided to return to the Homeland with the resolve never to leave its soil again, hoping that at least for now, it would provide me with bread and shelter. But what a miracle! I found only a small room, with a few hundred square meters of nationalized land, for the price of 100,000 new dinars.

The tax I would have to pay was 'only' 22%, and precisely to that Homeland that could give me neither bread nor shelter! Despite my excitement at the idea of returning, I had to give up. I will stay here, as a doorman... because I would still feel like a foreigner." in my homeland. How absurd! I would have to work two more years to pay taxes to the homeland, which is my homeland in name only. I love my homeland, but I have no reason to love it. My heart compels me to return, while reason suggests I should refrain. Help me with this dilemma: Return to my homeland without work, without bread, without a home, or remain abroad with bitter bread and under a stranger's roof?

I believe any comment on this would be superfluous. "Brotherhood and unity" have failed. Socialism has too. The persistence of classes is irrefutable. The equality and freedom of nations are a pipe dream. No one, as Neda Krmpotić, a devout communist, would say, would accept their own poverty and renounce the fruits of their labor so that those who terrorize them, who politically persecute them, and who economically and culturally hold them back, could benefit.

The crisis in the Yugoslav state is perfectly logical. The country's newspapers reproduced Tito's words last September: "Much has been written abroad that Yugoslavia would disintegrate if I were to leave. Here in the country, too, there has been much speculation about who would succeed me. Therefore, I thought all this could provoke a serious crisis." Announcing the formation of a Presidium that would govern the country from then on, Tito said: "...we must take a position that should mitigate, silence the internal crises between the nationalities and the republics."

How strange! After 25 years of experimenting with what is most sacred to humankind, individually or collectively, Tito, who supposedly solved the national question in the best possible way, as his paid propagandists and fellow travelers in the free world used to repeat, is only now seeking a solution that might silence the crises between the nationalities and the republics—in reality, crises of the Yugoslav state itself for failing to resolve the national question. His recent shift toward a personal dictatorship disguised as a collective government will fail miserably, just as all his "definitive solutions" have failed in the past. Serbian hegemony has destroyed monarchical Yugoslavia, and this policy will also destroy communist Yugoslavia. The re-establishment of diplomatic relations with the Vatican, as well as Nixon's visit to Yugoslavia and Tito's planned trip to Washington, will be of no use.

LIFE AND WORK OF JURAJ DRAGIŠIĆ

A CROATIAN HUMANIST, PHILOSOPHER, AND THEOLOGIAN IN THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE

BASILIO PANDŽIĆ

The 15th century marked great progress in the historical development of the Franciscan Order, although by then the order was already divided into two distinct branches: the Observants and the Conventuals.[12] Its missionaries and preachers provided constant and remarkable support to the Popes in the defense of Christendom against the Ottoman onslaught. The Franciscan administrative units—the Holy Land, Constantinople-Kaffa, and Bosnia—were the three most critical points of the spiritual struggle between Christianity and Islam at that time.[13] In addition to missionaries and preachers, the Franciscan order then boasted a considerable number of philosophers and theologians.[14] These tended to share the Conventual leanings. Among them, a prominent place is occupied by George Dragišić (c. 1448–1520), a native of Bosnia (Croatia), known in world literature as Georgius Bonignus de Salviatis.[15]

I. The Life of George Dragišić

Some believe that J. Dragišić was born in Jajce, Bosnia.[16] They probably reached this conclusion by invoking a letter from the Republic of Florence dated 1491 to the Turkish Sultan Bashait II (1481–1512), in which Dragišić is called Jacensis.[17] But this assertion is not accurate, since Dragišić was undoubtedly born in Srebrenica, as can be unequivocally deduced from the contemporary Franciscan register, which states:

"Magister Georgius est de burgo Argentina, in provincia Bosne, quem Turci occupant" [18]. Dragišić himself refers to Srebrenica as his birthplace: "Quae quidem patria ab ingenti argenti copia Argentina nuncupata est" [19].

We do not know the exact year of his birth, but we can approximate it. In his work De natura angelica, Dragišić states that he was 23 years old when he wrote Cardinal Bessarion's defense [20] against the accusations of George of Trebizond [21]. And since this controversy took place between 1469 and 1471, it can be concluded that Dragišić was born around 1448 [22].

Dragišić was a boy when the Turks occupied his city in 1462 [23]. He managed to escape and take refuge in Dubrovnik. It is likely that he requested to join the Franciscan order there [24]; he was then sent to Italy to continue his studies. In the introductory letter to his work *De natura angelica*, he says of this: "...I, being a young man, have been sent to Italy, where I have studied the study of wisdom and knowledge" [25]. In the same work, he states that he arrived in Italy at the beginning of the papacy of Paul II, who was elected in 1464 [26].

In Italy, Dragišić began his studies in Rome, continuing them in Paris and Oxford [27]. Upon arriving in Rome, he encountered a notable group of Greeks, refugees from the Turks, who gathered around Cardinal Bessarion. Also an exile, Dragišić soon established relationships with these Greeks, especially with Cardinal Bessarion, protector of the Franciscan order.

From 1469 onward, Dragišić developed a closer relationship with the aforementioned cardinal, who that year had published *In calumniatorem Platonis* to refute Gregory of Trebizond's opinions on Plato. In response to Bessarion, Georgi wrote a work, now lost, vehemently attacking the cardinal's work and alleging, among other falsehoods, that it contained thirteen heretical statements [28].

The young Jorge Dragišić, then 23 years old, rose to the cardinal's defense. Bessarion liked his argument, he had it copied by his secretary and made public. Later recalling that episode, Dragišić says that the violent controversy that had broken out was extinguished as if by a miracle after his statement [29].

It is very likely that on that occasion Bessarion convinced Dragišić to Latinize his surname into Benignus. He says this expressly in the work De libertate et immutabilitate Dei [30]. He repeats the same thing in his book De natura angelica[31] and it is also stated by Brother Antonio Sassolini, a student of Jorge Dragišić[32]. When Croatian writers translated his Latin surname lately, they called him Dobrotić or Dobretić[33]. But his last name was Dragišić. Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) in the letter of June 10, 1490 expressly calls him Dragišić (Draghisich)[34]. The Florentine Republic, in the letter to the Turkish sultan Bajasito II of May 10, 1491, calls him Drachisic[35]. The Ragusians on August 18, 1491, in the manuscript Consilii rogatiorum (1489-1492) call him Dragisich [36].

There is no doubt that Bessarion greatly appreciated Dragišić. Remembering his powerful protector, in a letter addressed to Pope Leo X, he notes that Bessarion often told him that he would be his successor [37].

All indications lead us to believe that Dragišić, upon finishing his studies, was appointed, precisely through the intervention of that cardinal, a university professor in Urbino, where the cardinal enjoyed great respect[38]. This apparently occurred in 1472[39]. In the work De libertate et inmutabilitate Dei, written after June 19, 1471, there is no indication that he was in Urbino at that time[40]; and in the work De animae regni principe, written before Bessarion died (1472), Dragišić is described as "Urbinas novus" [41].

Whether for his ability or for his powerful protection, the young professor was highly appreciated in Urbino. The duke of the principality of Urbino entrusted him with the education of his son, Guidobaldo. We know this from his prologue to the work De animae regni principe, dedicated to the boy Guidobaldo, where among other things he says that he was his religion teacher [42].

How much esteem he enjoyed in Urbino is confirmed by the fact that a family from that city adopted him, probably so that he would not feel like a foreigner in that principality[43].

After the death of Duke Frederick of Urbino, Dragišić moved to Florence in 1482, where he remained until 1494 [44]. In that city he was appreciated as one of the most learned men of his time. In 1488 he was appointed rector of the Franciscan college in the convent of Santa Croce [45].

He was highly esteemed by the Tuscan archduke Lorenzo de Medici (1448-1492), a well-known patron of arts and sciences, therefore called the Magnificent[46].

The Hungarian Dominican Nicolaus de Mirabilibus described to us a theological discussion that took place on June 30, 1489 in the palace of Lorenzo. The greatest Tuscan writers and scholars were present. The one who stood out the most in the learned dispute was precisely Jorge Dragišić[47].

He himself, in a letter to Leo X, son of Lorenzo, enlightens us about his relations with his father[48].

On one occasion, Archduke Lorenzo posed seven difficult theological problems in a sonnet and by his secretary Francesco Berengari sent them to Dragišić for competent resolution. Citing this case to Pope Leo

When Pico della Mirandola, the renowned scholar of his time,[50] was accused of 900 doctrinal conclusions, he drafted the Defensorium of his doctrine and sent it to Lorenzo, who asked Dragišić to study it and issue a ruling on it, considering him the most competent in the matter.[51]

On one occasion, in the presence of the Franciscans Antonio Barbarinus and John of Prato,[52] Lorenzo stated that he could appoint Dragišić as bishop, but he preferred that he first be provincial of the Franciscan province of Tuscany, then general of the order, and finally cardinal.[53]

During his time in Florence, Dragišić adopted a new surname. The prestigious noble Salviati family welcomed him as one of their own, and he would subsequently use that surname regularly.[54]

In 1490, the Franciscan province of Tuscany was to elect its superiors. The general of the order, Francis Nanni Samson,[55] appointed Dragišić to prepare the provincial chapter, which elected him its superior.[56] This election was confirmed by the general of the order on April 28, 1490.[57]

While in office, Dragišić was the subject of considerable controversy within his province and the Franciscan order.[58] This controversy stemmed from Dragišić's insistence on being re-elected provincial for another three years, despite the rule that this office could only be held for a three-year term.[59]

Although Dragišić's actions were met with approval by certain civil[60] and ecclesiastical[61] circles, his successor, Peter of Fighino, was elected at the chapter meeting held in Grosseto on May 4, 1493.[62] The tense situation to which his ambition led is evidenced by the fact that the Grosseto chapter excommunicated Dragišić and his supporters.[63]

Simultaneously with his role as Franciscan provincial in Tuscany, Dragišić was a professor at the University of Pisa. He appears on the list of professors at that institution from 1491 to 1493.[64]

Before the animosity caused by Dragišić's holding such a high Franciscan office in Tuscany had completely subsided, a new situation arose in that republic. In November 1494, the Medici family, which governed the Florentine republic, had to flee as a result of a popular uprising.[65] A general persecution of those loyal to the Medici family ensued, among whom was Dragišić. The rioters chained and imprisoned him for 11 days. Dragišić surely alluded to this persecution when he wrote to Pope Leo X: "...dum simul cum patronis exsularem dumque omnibus quae Florentiae haberem soliatus fuissem et duris compedibus per eldecim dies astrictus..." [66].

Released, he evidently had to leave the republic and, consequently, his religious province. He was thus compelled to seek a monastery where he could live and work according to his abilities. In view of his recent conflict with the general of the Franciscan order, he could not take refuge in Rome and decided to return to Dubrovnik (Croatia), where he probably entered the Franciscan order.

Dragišić always maintained contact with Dubrovnik. We know that he was there around 1490, on his return from the Holy Land.[67] His stay in Dubrovnik left interesting consequences, mentioned in several documents. On that occasion, he brought the left hand of Saint John the Baptist from Jerusalem. His intention was to give it to the Florentine Republic, whose patron saint was this precursor of Jesus. But Dragišić fell seriously ill in Dubrovnik and did not believe he could recover. So he entrusted the relics to two distinguished citizens of Dubrovnik, his friends Nicolas Bunić (Bona) and Paschal Gucetić (de Guzzo), on the condition that they be returned to him if he recovered and kept if he died. However, when he recovered, he was unable to retrieve them.

Upon returning to Florence, Dragišić reported what had happened to the authorities, who directly requested the relics from the Republic of Dubrovnik. Having failed in their diplomatic efforts, they requested the Pope's intervention. There are two letters from Innocent VIII (1484-1492) addressed to the Republic of Dubrovnik on this matter. One is dated July 10, 1490,[68] and the other September 7 of the same year.[69]

Even papal intervention proved unsuccessful. The people of Dubrovnik maintained that Dragišić had given them the relics of his own free will and while in full possession of his mental faculties, and therefore it was not appropriate for them to reclaim them, especially since they were in such a precarious situation that they had no other recourse but to rely on the saint's protection and patronage.[70]

The Florentines then turned to the Turkish sultan, requesting his intervention on behalf of the Republic of Dubrovnik. In the letter addressed to the sultan, dated May 10, 1491, they refer to Dragišić as: "Brother Georgius Drachisic Jacensis, a Hungarian, a Franciscan cleric" [71].

It is unknown whether the sultan intervened, but the fact remains that the people of Dubrovnik did not yield. They tried to preserve the holy relics at all costs and attempted to resolve the dispute directly with Dragišić. On August 18, 1491, they offered Dragišić an annual lifetime annuity of 30 ducats if the matter would be settled [72]. Indeed, from then on, there is no further information regarding the disputed relics.

At the beginning of 1496, Dragišić was in Dubrovnik, where that year, according to the city's official record, he delivered the Lenten sermons "most elegantly." The people of Dubrovnik believed he was going to live with them permanently and wanted him to be the vicar general of the archdiocese and govern it in the absence of Archbishop Giovanni Sacco, then administrator of Rome.[73] In fact, he was appointed that same year,[74] but due to certain difficulties, he was unable to assume the office,[75] or perhaps the appointment was not communicated to him. He never even became the vicar general of Dubrovnik.[76]

At that time, there was great interest in literature, philosophy, theology, and other arts and sciences in Dubrovnik,[77] so Dragišić had much to do. In addition to preaching, he gave lectures and led scholarly discussions. He describes his life in the following terms to his Florentine friend Ubertino Risaliti:

"Nihil enim post Italiae atque meas calamitates mihi muneris relictum video, quam quod in urbe quietissima vacua mente et Affricano illo leisure solus et leisuresus vivam. Sed audeo dicere me munquam minus solus rninusque leisuresum vixisse" [78].

While he thus spent his days in the distant and beautiful Croatian city, perhaps thinking of ending his life there, the University of Pisa appointed him professor with a stipend of 70 florins. He was very pleased, but he could not take over the chair immediately because he had an obligation to preach in Dubrovnik during the year 1497.[79]

It is probable that Dragišić remained in Dubrovnik until 1500 [80], the year in which we locate him in Italy. After the death of the Franciscan general Francisco Nanni Sansona, which occurred on October 26, 1499 [81], after 24 years of government, Brother Egidio Delfini, who provisionally administered the Franciscan order, convened the general council in Terna for October 1500. The so-called Alexandrine Constitutions were drafted there. Among the most prominent Franciscans who prepared them is also Dragišić, who chaired the commission for drafting and publishing these constitutions[82].

He now resided in Rome, in the convent of SS. Apostles. The general council held in Troyes in 1503 appointed him on May 24 rector of the Roman seminary for three years[83].

Before finishing this function, Pope Julius II (1503-1513) appointed him bishop of Cagli on May 21, 1507[84]. This diocese was in the principality of Urbino where Dragišić had begun his teaching career.

Shortly afterwards he accompanied the papal legate Bernardino López Carvajal on an official visit to the Austrian emperor Maximilian (1493-1519) [85]. Dragišić refers to that trip in the work written in 1517 in defense of John Reuchlin[86].

While he was bishop of Cagli something very unpleasant happened. Francisco della Royere, Duke of Urbino, nephew of Pope Julius II, mortally wounded Cardinal Francisco Alidosi in 1511[87].

Dragišić held the della Royere family in high esteem, from whose bosom was also Brother Francisco della Royere, a great theologian, Franciscan general and later Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484). Dragišić therefore tended to diminish the guilt of the Duke of Urbino and, considering the case and the mitigating circumstances, came to the conclusion that it was neither a crime nor a treacherous attack. He supported this thesis in the work Apologeticon Francisci Mariae by Ruvere Urbini ducis[88]. Some criticized him for this strange attitude to justify the murder, since they believed that he had done it to ingratiate himself with the duke and perhaps with Pope Julius II himself [89].

Undoubtedly, this thesis of Dragišić did not displease the Pope and it seems that he also contributed to Dragišić being named archbishop of Nazareth in 1512 with his seat in Barletta[90].

We do not know the exact date of that appointment, but it was before December 3, 1512, since Dragišić on May 7, 1512 participated in the second meeting of the Fifth Lateran Council as bishop of Cagli[91], and in the third meeting, held on December 3, 1512, as archbishop of Nazareth[92].

After Julius II died, Juan Medici was elected Pope and took the name Leo X (1513-1521). That choice sparked Dragišić's hope of seeing himself as a cardinal. The new Pope was a child when Dragišić, as a Florentine professor, visited his father Lorenzo, who appreciated him and promised him the cardinal's purple. The election of Leo X foreshadowed the realization of such promises. He told it bluntly to the new Pope. When giving him his work De gratia, Dragišić made mention of these promises and begged Leo

Leo X did not appoint him a cardinal, but neither did he forget him. As early as July 23, 1513, he granted him certain ecclesiastical benefices in Austria that ensured him a comfortable life.[94]

It is not known whether Dragišić lived in Barletta, the seat of the Archbishopric of Nazareth. During the Fifth Lateran Council, he participated regularly in the meetings,[95] so it seems unlikely that he ever left Rome during that time (1512–1517). Moreover, in the letter he sent to Emperor Maximilian in January 1518 (perhaps 1517) along with Reuchlin's argument, Dragišić says of himself: "...nunc Romae archiepiscopus Nazarenus existens," so it seems that his permanent residence was Rome.[96] Martin Groningus, who brought this argument to Germany, also says of Dragišić: "among the divine literature of the Roman city, interpreters who are not the least learned" [97], taking into account that he also lived in Rome. Dragišić died in 1520 [98].

II. Manuscripts of Georg Dragišić

Georg Dragišić was a prolific writer, but most of his works remained in manuscript. This should not surprise us if we remember that the art of printing was in its infancy at that time. He did manage to print some books. In our review, we will first consider the manuscript works and then the printed ones.

A) Manuscripts

We should note that we have not seen all of his works. We know that some were written, but we do not know if they are still preserved; we learned about others from the catalogs of various libraries, and we were only able to hold a small portion in our hands. When mentioning each one, we also indicate its source.

1. Defensorium Bessarionis

Dragišić's first work[99] was the defense of Cardinal Bessarion against George of Trebizond. Its probable title was: Defensorium cardinalis Bessarionis. Dragišić mentions this book in the volume De natura angelica, where he also says that he took it with him to England, where he lost it[100].

2. In logicam introductorium

Dragišić mentions it in his work De libertate et inmutabilitate Dei[101], without having any other information. It is very likely that it was later reworked and included in his treatises on logic.

3. De libertate et inmutabilitate Dei

It is found in the Vatican Library, Vat. Lat. 1056; It is written on parchment and consists of 102 folios (+ 44a). Its complete text reads: Georgii Benigni Macedonis in Francisci de libertate et inmutabilitate Dei sententias ad reverendissimum Patrem et Dominum Bessarionem Patriarcham Constantinoplolitanum Sedisque Apostolicae episcopum Sabinensem cardinalem dignissimum[102].

It is written in the form of a dialogue, which took place on June 19, 1471[103], and we can maintain that it was written shortly thereafter. It was dedicated to Cardinal Bessarion.

Interestingly, the roles of Cardinal Bessarion and Cardinal Francesco della Royere (Pope Sixtus IV) were later switched; that is, their names were erased, and Francesco's name was placed where Bessarion's had been, and vice versa[104].

4. De animae regni principe

This book is kept in the Vatican Library, Urb. Lat. 995; It is written on parchment and consists of III 98 folios. Its title is: Georgii Benigni (one word deleted) Ordinis Minorum S. Theologiae professoris in Federicum de animae regni principe ad optimae indolis maximaeque spei puerum dominum Guidonem. Ubaldum comitem.

In this work, also written in the form of a dialogue, the Duke of Urbino Federico and his brother Octaviano discuss the scholastic theme of whether the human soul is dominated by will or reason. The discussion ends in favor of the will: "Quibus iam patere potest regni animae principem esse ipsam voluntatem" [105].

The advice he gives in the prologue to Guidobaldo to imitate his father Frederick is revealing for Dragišić's personality: "Sit itaque ipsa (proh Deus optime atque immortalis) veluti inclytus ille rex Macedonum Philippus, tu Alexander Magnus succedas, ego medius Aristoteles adiungar" [106].

5. De communicatione divine naturae

This work is also found in the Vatican Library, Urb. Lt. 565, written on parchment and consists of 50 pages. Its title reads: Georgii Benigni Salviati, fratris Ordinis Minorum, sacrae theologiae prof essoris in librurn de Gommunicatione divine naturae dialogus inter Sixtum IV Pont. Max. et Fridericum Urbini ducem.

In the title, after Georgii Benigni, a word was deleted and Salviati was put in its place.

It was written, most likely, in 1475, which is clear from the words that Dragišić puts into the mouth of Sixtus IV: "Nosti enim nos magna opprimi cura idque nunc potissime hoc iubilei nostri anno" [107]. We know that Sixtus IV organized the jubilee in 1475[108].

6. Angelic in nature

This manuscript is in the Biblioteca Laurenziana in Florence, Ms. Plut. XVIII, cod. XVI. It consists of 110 folios and is titled: Georgii Benigni Salviati Fratris Seraphicae Religionis ad Magnanimum Laurentium Petri Francisci Medicen in opus de Natura Angelica [109].

When Dragišić was in Dubrovnik he wrote on the same topic and his study was published in Florence in 1499.

7. Free of charge

It appears among the manuscripts of the Laurenziana Library in Florence. It is described in the printed catalog of said library[110] and is titled: Georgii Benigni Salviati, artium et sacrae theologiae professoras, in rhythmum acutissimum magni Laurentii Medices, quaestiones septem, ad sanctissimum in Christo Patrem et D. N. D. Leonem Divina Providentia PP. X [111].

The reason for this treatise was a sonnet by Lorenzo de' Medici in which he raised the principal questions concerning grace and sent Dragišić to answer them thoroughly and competently.[112] Dragišić did just that in the aforementioned work.

When Giovanni de' Medici, Lorenzo's son, was elected Pope Leo X, Dragišić presented him with this work. In the accompanying letter, he relates some details that illustrate his personality and provide interesting information about his life.[113]

8. Vexillum Christianae Victoriae

In a codex of varied content from the Capuchin monastery in Milan: Ms. 16 (59), is included Dragišić's work Vexillum Christianae Victoriae, whose full title reads: Georgii Benigni, archiepiscopi Nazareni, opus Vexilli Christianae Victoriae per tres et sexaginta contemplationes.[114] It consists of 41 folios. His work *De assumptione B. M. Virginis* is also found in the same manuscript. Dragišić calls both treatises *Contemplationes Germanicae*, and they were written during his stay in Germany while accompanying the papal legate, Cardinal Bernardino López Carvajal.[115]

In this manuscript, along with Dragišić's treatises, we find several other writings, including the *Apocalipsis nova* by the famous Friar Amadeo de Silva (d. 1482), initiator of the Amadeist movement within the Franciscan order.[116]

9. *De assumptione B. M. Virginis*

In the aforementioned manuscript from the Capuchin convent of Milan, 16 (59), on folios 201r-240r, is included Dragišić's treatise *De assumptione B. Mariae Virginis*. The preamble begins with these words: Georgii Benigni Archiepiscopi Nazareni ad magnificum Paulum vicecomitem, devotionis et omnium bonarum artium sectatorem praecipuum, in libellum de assumptione Virginis Dei Matris proemium incipit feliciter. Dum superioribus annis Germanicm lustraremus festumque Virginis Matris... [117].

Another copy of this treatise is in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan, Ms. A 30 sup. [118].

10. De excellentiis et dignitatibus B. M. Virginis

It is found in manuscript in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan, A 30 sup., and begins on folio 53. Its title is: Georgius Benignus de Salviatis episcopus Caliensis, de excellentiis B. M. Virginis theoremata. It is dedicated to Cardinal Guillermo Briconnt[119].

11. Apologeticon Francisci Mariae de Ruvere

It appears in the Magliabecchiana Library of Florence, Cl. III, cod. 9 and its full title is: Apologeticon Francisci Mariae de Ruvere Ducis agressionis in Papiensem cardinalem[120].

This work was perhaps written as early as 1511 in defense of the Duke of Urbino, nephew of Pope Sixtus IX. The Duke, in a fit of rage, struck Francesco Alidosi, Cardinal of Pavia, so severely that he died shortly afterward. Dragišić attempted to prove that such an act constituted neither a crime nor an unjust attack.

12. Commentaria in libros sententiarum

Friar Antonio Sassolini, a student of Giorgio Dragišić, in his work Coscienza Illuminata, printed in Florence in 1512, Chapter XI, Tract. 2, states that at that time he was preparing Commentaria in IV libros sententiarium for printing.[121] Nowhere else is there any mention of this treatise. It is very likely that it was never printed.

13. Liber de raptis

The Franciscan author Sbaralea found this treatise in a manuscript from the convent of San Francesco in Bologna. As an interesting novelty, he cites Dragišić's assertion that the devil who tempted Adam was the same one who tempted Jesus [122].

14. Correctio erroris qui ex aequinoctio vernali in Kalendario procere solet

This manuscript is in the Vatican Library, Vat. Lat. 8226, f. 3r-12v. Dragišić prepared it at the request of Pope Leo X during the Fifth Lateran Council when the correction of the Julian calendar was debated. He drafted and sent it through Augustin Chigi [123]. The full title is: Georgii Benigni de Salviatis archiepiscopi Nazareni, Correetio erroris que ex aequinoctio vernali in Kalendario procedere solet, ad Sanctissimum in Christo P. et D. N. D. Leonem divina providentia papam decimam et sacram synodum Lateranam.

Dragišić proposed subtracting 7 days from the month of October, that is, going directly from October 23 to November 19 to align the actual vernal equinox with that of the calendar [124]. Gregory XIII, who modified the calendar, proceeded in general terms according to Dragišić's proposal; he only stipulated that November 4 be skipped directly to the 14th [125].

15. Unknown Treatises

Dragišić surely wrote other works, now unknown. Undoubtedly, being an excellent and highly sought-after preacher, he must have written sermons that remain unknown to this day.[126]

B. Printed Works

After reviewing the manuscripts of J. Dragišić, we will refer to his printed works. Some I have seen with my eyes and others I found in different catalogs.

1. Dialectic

His first work is this logic, published on March 18, 1489 under the title: Dialectica nova secundum mentem Doctoris subtilis et beati Thomae Aquinatis aliorumque realisticum. It is dedicated to Cardinal Juan Medici, later Pope Leo X, and his brother Pedro[127].

2. Mirabilia

This book was published the same year as Dialectica[128] and is titled: Georgii Benigni Mirabilia LXXVII reperta in opusculo Nicolai de Mirabilibus. It is dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici in the following terms: "Georgius Benignus de Salviatis, Ordine Minorum Sacrae Theologiae professor ad Magnum Laurentium."

The reason for this treaty was the discussion that took place at the court of Lorenzo Medici on June 30, 1489, between the Dominican Nicholas de Mirabilibus and George Dragišić. Nicholas of Mirabilibus described the debate and published it under the title: Disputatio nuper (acta in domo Magnifici Laurentii Medices[129]. Since Dragišić disagreed with this description, he wrote this treatise to correct and complete Nicholas's.

Both works were republished by the Hungarian Abel Jenő in Irodalmtörtenéti emlékek, I, Budapest 1886, 351-426[130].

3. Propheticae solutiones

This work was written in Dubrovnik and printed in Florence on April 10, 1497, under the title: Propheticae solutiones Georgii Benigni Ordinis Minorum[131]. It was printed by Dragišić's student, Ubertino Risaliti, and is written in the form of a dialogue between Dragišić and Risaliti.

Since this book contains the defense of the celebrated Dominican preacher Girolamo Savonarola (1452-1498) is probably the best known and most widely known. All of Savonarola's biographers refer to him.[132]

4. On the Nature of Angels

Already in Florence, Dragišić devoted himself to the study of angelology. In Dubrovnik, he continued this work and wrote: On the Nature of the Heavenly Spirits, Which We Call Angels, printed in Florence in 1499, composed in the form of a dialogue in which more than 30 members of the Dubrovnik Republic participate. It is, without a doubt, Dragišić's most significant work. In Croatia, the philosopher Esteban Zimmermann commented on it extensively.[133]

He dedicated this work to the Senate of the Republic of Dubrovnik: Georgii Benigni, Orinis Minorum, professor of sacred literature, to the illustrious and religious senators of Epidaurinum and Rhacusinum in librum de natura coelestim spirituum quos angelos vocamus prooemium incipit feliciter [134]. The prologue abounds in information and biographical data about Dragišić.

5. Oratio funebris pro June Georgio inhabits

This writing on the occasion of the death of a citizen of Ragusa consists of a few pages and was printed in Florence in 1499 or 1500 [135].

6. Defender Joannis Reuchlin

He wrote it in 1517 or 1518 [136] in the form of a dialogue between Dragišić and Reuchlin. They discussed the topic: An Judaeorum libri, quos Talmud appellant, sint potius supprimendi quam tenendi et conservandi. It consists of 34 folios and is dedicated to Emperor Maximilian in the following terms: "Ad maximum Maximilianum Caesarem Romanorum imperatorem semper augustum, Georgius Benignus archiepiscopus Nazarenus."

Dragišić's first book was about logic. His last work, printed in Rome in 1520, refers to the same theme and is titled: Artis Dialecticaes praecepta vetera ac nova, miro artificio conscripta a Georgio Benigno, archiepiscopo Nazareno, omnis philosophiae inter quae centum et eo amplius praeclarissimas ennotationes, quae lahac tempestate facile principe, acutissime ac limpidissime traduntur; tuere nostra saecula diu nec in alicuius ore aut extabant opere invenies [137].

Dragišić's logic denotes the influence of the philosophical literature of his time and at the same time the independent criteria of its author. Your comment on Aristotelian principles relating to cognition is interesting. Esteban Zimmermann referred at length to this last work by his compatriot Dragišić [138].

III. The Highlights of the Life and Work of Giorgio Dragišić

Gifted by nature with exceptional abilities, through diligent and methodical study and under the patronage of the Franciscan order, J. Dragišić became one of the most outstanding figures of his time in the Italian Renaissance [139]. A professor at the universities of Urbino, Florence, Pisa, and Rome, he was respected by his students and esteemed by learned and scholarly circles.

His work was primarily in the fields of philosophy and theology. At that time, there were two main schools of thought in these fields: Thomism, supported by the Dominicans, and Scotism, supported by the Franciscans. Dragišić, although a Franciscan and educated at the Scotist school, did not adhere solely to Scotist doctrine in his works but addressed philosophical and theological problems as an independent thinker [140]. Moreover, he strove to reconcile both currents [141].

Dragišić lived during the Humanist period, which projected a new spirit and a new vision of humanity and the world. However, the religious schools did not stray from the old methods. Although he wrote within the spirit of this movement, his expositions and treatises demonstrate the influence of the humanist school: the discussion is conducted in dialogue form, and his Latin proves that he assiduously read the literature of the celebrated humanists [142].

Although he sometimes seemed to err on the side of circumspection and consideration in his dialogues, he always valued personal dignity. When he believed someone was right, he did not hesitate to acknowledge it, even in cases where it was detrimental to the individual. He believes that Savonarola is a prophet, because he, as if committing a crime, would then be useless his prayer and fasting, his poor, upright, and religious man affirms it. He cannot lie, since he is wise and pure.[143] Savonarola was condemned in May 1497 and Dragišić's plea was published in April of the same year.

He took up his pen again in defense of the famous German scholar Juan Reuchlin, accused of heretical theses on Jewish books. He resorts to all his power of conviction and upon sending him the book, he declares to the Emperor Maximilian: "Ego certe, si valerem, tam divinum vatem et philosophum usque ad astra efferrem. Id beneficci quod in ipsum conferre potui, contuli: ipsum a calumniis adversarum ex ipsiusmet dictis ac scriptis aperte liberavi, tendicula ipsorum rupi, decipulas fregi. Versutiae astutiae dolique sunt quaecumque adversarii contra ipsum molintur...[144] However, in the trial initiated in Rome, Reuchlin was convicted on June 23, 1520 [145].

Perhaps the most striking feature of Dragišić's character is the change of his surname. In his writings he does not always use the same one nor do those who speak about him. In the treatise De natura Angelica refers to this fact: "Gallum me homines quandoque aut Anglum putaverunt, quia illuc gratia litterarum capscendarum acceseram, ubi plurima doctorum multitudo. Grecus, quia patronage magni viri Bessarionis, cardenalis Niceni in litteris educatus. Macedo propter patriae vicinitatem" [146].

Some have tried to explain Dragišić's conviction that, being from Bosnia (Croatia), he could not figure with proper dignity in Italian society.[147] In my opinion, his status as a foreigner and stateless person was the primary factor. As a child, he had to flee his hometown, which had been destroyed by the Turks. This sad event remained deeply etched in his memory throughout his life. Later, as an adult, due to a confluence of circumstances, he returned to Dubrovnik, the Athens of Croatia, where he had taken refuge as a child. The people of Dubrovnik welcomed him with open arms. They considered it an honor to have such a learned and celebrated man in their city. What they thought of him is revealed in the verses of Damien Beneša:

Ecce quod extremis Scotus fuit ille Britannis,

doctus quod Mauris Aureliusve suis,

quodque Dalmaticis ardens Hierronymus undis,

quod Senonum populis Ambrosiusque pus:

Illud idem nobis nunc tu, venerande Georgi,

Illyrici fateor gloria magna soli.

Intima perpetui tibi nam secreto Tonantis

et datur little angels mind cernere choros.

Your bonus, illustris sapiensque graviusque Benignus

dictus es et nostro tempore ubique pius,

tuque Fluentina cantatus in urbe Fuisti,

te similis Laurus Cosmi amavit avi,

Nicenus Sophiae te fovit amator honestae,

te dux Urbini, Martis in arte furens.

Defuit ergo nihil quod posset habere viator;

quae data sunt vivís omnia parta tibi [148]

Such a cordial welcome moved Dragišić. He was looking for a place where he could live in peace and his compatriots received him with all honor: "quam filii locum apud vos dumtaxat expetiissem, patris ac praeceptoris dignitatem summo cum honore ultro miei detulistis" [149]. In those moments he relived his distant and tragic childhood before his eyes. He began to feel what the homeland means: "Natura enim in ibabulis nostris afficimur, et loca diligere cogimur, in quibus pueri reptavimus" [150].

But that mood also did not last long. The return to his town and the vicinity of his hometown convinced him that he was "extraneus... fratribus meis et filiis matris meae peregrinos" [151]. He took advantage of the first opportunity to return to Italy where he died[152].

Rome, 1970.

(Translated into Spanish by: BRANKO KADIĆ)

ETHNOGRAPHY AND FOLKLORE OF CROATIA

ZDRAVKO SANČEVIĆ

The ethnography and folklore of the Croatians—that is, their folk arts, traditions, customs, dances, songs, and music—are of particular interest because they have been exceptionally well preserved to this day. This ethnographic and folkloric richness is all the more significant given that Croatia is a European nation that has not remained isolated from the influences and currents of modern civilization. The preservation of folk arts and traditions is primarily due to the Croatian people's deep connection to the land and their predominantly rural nature until relatively recently. This heritage of a rural, traditionalist, and conservative way of life, along with the local village economy, where everyone produced what they needed using whatever means they had available, is precisely the source of Croatia's rich ethnographic and folkloric heritage.

It must be noted, however, that in the last twenty years, the social structure of the Croatians has undergone profound changes. The significant migration of the peasantry to urban areas and the abandonment of the countryside by young people are notable. This has weakened the agricultural class, turning it into a minority and, therefore, negatively impacting ethnography and folklore.

The ethnographic heritage of the Croats stems, first and foremost, from their Slavic ancestry. In their migration south from their homelands located behind the Carpathian Mountains, the Croats brought Slavic customs to the shores of the Adriatic in the 7th century. However, upon conquering and colonizing the territory of their new homeland, they absorbed many aspects of the life and culture of the indigenous inhabitants: Romanized Illyrians and Celts, and remnants of the Roman population.

Throughout the subsequent millennium of Croatian history, new cultural influences were experienced, adding further elements to the basic ethnographic mix: those brought by the Turks from Asia (Turks, Arabs, Persians), the Balkans (Vlachs, Montenegrins, Albanians, Serbs, Macedonians, etc.), Central Europeans, and Mediterraneans. Over time, the multitude of cultural elements of diverse origins in some cases blended and were completely assimilated into the Croatian milieu, while in others, certain local particularities remained.

Ethnographers usually group the different Croatian provinces and regions into three main ethnographic-cultural areas: Pannonian or plains (Upper Croatia, Slavonia, Silmio, Baranja, and the Subotic-Sombor area in Vojvodina); Dinaric or mountainous (Croatian Krajina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and mainland Dalmatia); and the Adriatic or coastal region (Istria, Kvarner, coastal Dalmatia, and the islands). Each of these three areas is ethnographically distinct, even though their inhabitants are all equally Croatian in language, origin, and national consciousness. These ethno-cultural areas are the result of economic and social development within a particular geographical environment and are also related to adjacent territories.

National Costumes

National costumes are understood to be garments with common characteristics worn by the people of a certain region or area. In Croatia, national costumes constitute one of the greatest and most varied expressions of folk art. Until recently, national costumes were worn in daily life throughout the ethnic territory of the Croats. Today "...they are rapidly disappearing because production in the old way no longer exists, and under current conditions, it cannot. All this is true in general terms, because there are regions where the national costume is still worn daily, although this only occurs in the most isolated and remote areas of the country that have poor communications and where the overall ethnographic picture shows characteristics of cultural backwardness" (31). In some regions, these national costumes are still worn, although only on holidays.

The basic types of national costumes, like all other ethnographic material, can be classified into three groups according to the characteristics of the three ethnographic-cultural areas to which they belong.

The Pannonian or plains area, where intensive agriculture predominates (including, alongside grains, flax and hemp), is characterized by an abundance of white, ample linen and cotton garments, frequently gathered or pleated and adorned with weaving and embroidery. These garments are graceful in the simplicity of their cut and the fullness of their shapes, with the seams running in straight lines.

The pleats and gathers originated from the need to store them in chests and trunks, but later became a decorative feature. Men wear a long shirt (košulja) that falls freely and partially covers wide-legged trousers (gaće). They cover their heads with a short-brimmed, round cap or a fur hat. The women wear a white dress that is a play of gathers: a skirt, a blouse with voluminous sleeves, and an apron. The white part of the fabric (platno) is adorned with embroidery in vibrant colors (especially red) or in softer tones, predominantly featuring floral or geometric motifs. The exquisite dress of the women in Flat Slavonia (Lupanja, Vinkovci), called zlatara, is distinguished by its rich weave of gold and silk.

The old custom of married women covering their hair has evolved with the use of the populica, a small lace cap; the peča, a square shawl worn in a triangular shape and trimmed with lace; and various types of scarves, shawls, and mantillas. Both men and women wear a sleeveless vest and a thick, long-sleeved jacket or coat over their shirts. In several traditional areas, highly elaborate sandals (opanci), resembling shoes, are still worn, along with high boots, as is the case among the Hungarians.

The Dinaric or mountainous region is characterized by a predominantly pastoral economy. The national costumes, which are austere in appearance, feature many woolen garments due to the abundance of this raw material and the harsh, cold winters. Women spin the wool on their spinning wheels and weave it by hand. These woolen garments retain their natural light color or are dyed dark. The basic garment for women consists of a long tunic, dark-colored (in Dalmatia) or white (in Bosnia), whose front and sleeves are sometimes adorned with predominantly red embroidery. This tunic remains the same as in classical times, giving rise to the liturgical vestment known as the dalmatic. Women also wear magnificent aprons woven like tapestries, decorated with geometric motifs and trimmed with stripes. Over these, they wear a semi-short, sleeveless, open-fronted coat (zobun).

In certain regions, the embellishments include rows of gold or silver coins. The men wear a white shirt with puffed, or wide and open, sleeves. The trousers are thick and fitted, with narrow legs, generally dark, and sometimes with a wide, hollow bottom. They are usually cinched around the waist with a wide, red, striped, or leather belt, the folds of which serve as pouches for money, tobacco, pipes, or pistols. The men also wear a zobun and a long, sleeved coat, which in certain areas is embellished with metal decorations (toke or ilike).

These adornments, of medieval and warrior origin, add to the weight of the already heavy garments, giving them an archaic and chivalrous appearance. Characteristic throughout the region is a small, round cap (kapa, crvenkapa) made of red cloth. Only in Bosnia is a red fez (among Muslims) or a black one (among Catholics) worn instead. However, in many areas, the red cap or fez is concealed under a wool turban (saruk), predominantly red, but also green or white. Undoubtedly, the fez and turban are vestiges of Turkish influence, while the red cap likely has more ancient origins. Women also wear the red cap in certain areas of Dalmatia, while in Bosnia, the red cap is worn in some areas and the fez in others. These are often covered with scarves, with or without stripes. The opanci (sandals) are made of semi-processed leather and feature a characteristic woven front (prepletači).

In Bosnia, the Eastern elements introduced by the Turks are more noticeable, especially among the inhabitants of small towns. The materials are finer than those used by the peasants, with cotton and silk garments frequently found. Muslim women, and sometimes Catholic women, wear enormous, baggy black cotton trousers (dimije), while men, in addition to the aforementioned fez, wear wide, baggy black trousers (čakšire).

In the Adriatic or coastal area, fishing and navigation predominate; and even agriculture (vineyards, olive groves) is practiced differently than in the other two ethnographic-cultural areas. Mediterranean influences are visible everywhere here, including in the way of dressing. The garments are lighter, and the materials are more varied and refined: soft wool, linen, silk, and cotton. Despite the diversity of raw materials, simple black dresses predominate for women and young girls both on the islands and in the mainland.

Although popular tradition asserts that these black suits are worn in memory of the extinct Frankopan (a prominent Croatian family of nobles and warriors), they are most likely due to Spanish influence on 17th-century European dress. However, alongside these sober black suits, some typical multicolored costumes have been preserved (Istria, the islands of Susak, Krk, and Pag). Men wear bourgeois cuts, with the exception of the red cap, which in some areas remains the only remnant of the extinct traditional costume. In southern Dalmatia, Dinaric and coastal elements blend, resulting in the beautiful national costumes of the Dubrovnik area (Ston, Konavlje, Župa) and Kotor. In Konavlje, the women's immaculate white dress is cinched with ribbons, and the small red cap is replaced after the wedding by a starched and folded headscarf.

Throughout the country, an integral part of the attire is a type of shoulder bag (torba) in which peasants carry food, tobacco, and other items. It can be made of leather, woven wool (like a tapestry), linen, hemp, or horsehair. Also noteworthy is a leather overcoat (kožun) used in some areas as a substitute for the heavy goat-hair cloak.

Arts and Crafts

Croatian arts and crafts are creations made by peasants for their own use and by village artisans for popular consumption. They exhibit characteristics of collective creation, where the individual creator follows the traditions of artistic heritage but introduces new elements or modifies inherited ones. Peasant communities preserve these folk art and craft products or abandon them according to needs and psychological predispositions within a particular socio-economic structure (agricultural, pastoral, maritime, semi-urban, etc.). Plastic art creations are predominantly flat and only in some cases exhibit deep relief or are three-dimensional (monuments and tombstones, building decorations, human and animal forms on musical instruments, confectionery). Flat art is primarily ornamental with geometric or figurative motifs, with highly geometricized plant motifs predominating among the latter.

Among the few examples of flat, purely figurative art, we must mention the glass paintings of Zagorje in Croatia, or the motif of mosques, cypress trees, etc., in the oriental art of Bosnia. Geometric and stylized vegetal ornamentation in Croatia is very abundant and found everywhere. It also reveals a greater antiquity, having flourished in Croatia during medieval times (Paleo-Croatian art, Bogumil-Paterene art). Rich and varied, Croatian ornaments constitute not only a decorative medium but a true artistic expression.

Another way to classify art and handicrafts is by the type of material from which they are made: wood, ceramics, stone, leather, metal, textiles; and even by their decorations, as in confectionery and tattoos. National costumes and rural architecture would be included in this group, but we present them separately due to the individual importance of each.

Wood.

The production of wooden objects is widespread and highly developed due to the abundance and variety of this raw material. Spindles (preslice), cups, canteens (čuture), various boxes, wind instruments (flutes - frule, dvojnice) or stringed instruments (tambure and gusle), spindles, bobbins, washboards, chests and trunks for storing clothes, and many other utensils, cases, furniture, and toys are made from it. Besides simple knife carving, decorations are executed by engraving (paranje), grooving (dubenje), chiseling (rovašenje), perforation (proboj), pyrography (žeženje), coloring (bojenje), stippling (punciranje), and inlay (sedef among Muslims). The most frequent motifs are straight, slanted, or zigzag lines in various combinations, rosettes, simple and concentric circles, triangles, hooks, etc. Chests, trunks, and coffers in the Pannonian ethnographic area are frequently colored or covered with bronze, while those in the Dinaric area feature relief carvings of cypress trees, wavy lines, or the tree of life (of Eastern origin). Carved wood is also used in the Pannonian area to decorate houses and barns.

Pottery.

Pottery is widespread among Croatians and dates back to ancient times. Vessels of various shapes and for diverse purposes are produced, but predominantly for use in the kitchen. There are three basic types of pottery. The first and oldest comes from the Dinaric and Adriatic ethnographic areas. It is roughly worked on a hand wheel; made of earth (impure clay) mixed with limestone, fired over an open flame, never glazed, blackened, and used as kitchenware. A completely different pottery style is found in the Pannonian area. While not as ancient, it is more refined, made of pure clay, worked on a pedal wheel, and carefully decorated, colored, and glazed. The decoration consists of simple geometric motifs (zigzag and wavy lines, dots, circles, spirals) or figurative motifs, mainly plants. In addition to various types of vessels, other useful objects and toys are also made in this area. The third type is that of Central Bosnia (Kiseljak), where beautiful white objects of Arab-Islamic form and origin are painted with similarly oriental motifs in brown.

Pumpkins.

Once ripe, hollowed out, and dried, pumpkins serve as household utensils. Originally, pumpkin decoration was restricted to a part of the Pannonian region (Slavonia), but in recent years it has spread to other areas of the country. These beautiful decorations are carved with a special knife and blackened or colored by applying acids. The motifs are vegetal (oak leaves, acorns, and flowers), geometric (lines, triangles), or animal (hares, fish, and birds).

Textiles.

The weaving tradition among Croatians is extremely old. As mentioned in the description of national costumes, until recently a rich variety of fabrics were produced, ranging from fine silks and linen and cotton canvases to heavy wool and goat-hair products. These domestic textiles (svila, platno, sukno, bel, čoja, kostrijet) are disappearing as they are replaced by industrial products. The only things that persist are the weaving of stockings, slippers, shawls, gloves, sweaters, and hats, which are always more exposed to urban influences.

In contrast to the declining production of textiles, tapestry weaving has been vigorously preserved. They are used mostly on walls and over beds as a substitute for bedspreads, or to cover seats and chests or coffers. They are of two types: flat and pile.

The looms are relatively small, and therefore it is not uncommon to see tapestries made up of two or more panels joined together. The well-known tapestries of Lika and Slavonia are long-pile with large geometric motifs, little detail, and broad areas of solid colors. The most beautiful examples of the other type of tapestry are woven in Bosnia. These are fine-pointed, and can be used to create complex geometric designs (zigzag lines, angular, rhomboidal and stepped motifs) or designs of animal and plant inspiration, of oriental origin, also geometricized.

Embroidery is done on various types of fabric (platno, sukno) or on silk (reflecting Eastern influences). The most frequently embroidered textiles are handkerchiefs, towels, and parts of the national costume (sleeves, chest, collars, borders). Geometric or geometricized motifs are particularly beautiful in both the Dinaric and Pannonian regions. There are also floral designs (flowers and leaves from Upper Croatia and Slavonia) and some of Turkish-Oriental origin (among the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina). Sometimes, the embroidery is done on strips of fabric that can be sewn or unsewn each time the larger piece needs to be washed. The use of braided cords or cords decorated with leather in various colors is also common.

In both weaving and embroidery, the colors are combined according to traditional taste, resulting in harmoniously colored ensembles where red predominates. There are still regions that prefer to dye wool yarn using traditional, almost primitive techniques, instead of synthetic chemical dyes. In such cases, madder produces red; onion skin, yellow; certain herbs, green; and green walnut shells, tanged with sauerkraut, brown and black.

Lace is widespread in the Adriatic coastal area, partly due to Mediterranean influences. Among the most notable are the laces from the island of Pag and the area around Dubrovnik. In Upper Croatia, lace is used to make small women's hats (poculica), with Lepoglava being the most important center. Both the former and the latter demonstrate great technical skill and aesthetic sensibility.

It should be mentioned that in Croatia, the folk arts of weaving, tapestry, embroidery, and lacemaking are, unsurprisingly, the domain of women. Young peasant women spend long winter evenings weaving or embroidering their trousseaus, putting great care and love into their work, as these pieces will adorn and bring pride to their future homes.

Stone. The Dinaric and Adriatic ethnographic-cultural areas are characterized by an abundance of limestone, and a centuries-old tradition has contributed to the development of stone carving. Croatian stonemasons excel in construction (houses, bridges, walls, harbors) and decorative work (gravestones, gateways).

Leather. The decoration of various types of leather coats (kožuh) is characteristic of the Pannonian ethnographic area (Upper Croatia). This is largely due to Hungarian influence, judging by the predominant pattern: the tulip. Practiced in a variety of colors, it is executed by applying, securing, and layering different pieces of leather, with or without wool embroidery. In the Dinaric and Adriatic regions, leather goods bear little or no decoration, with the exception of wide belts that sometimes feature metal inlays.

Metal. Metal is most commonly used in women's clothing, some men's costumes in the Dinaric region (metal decorations, belts, etc.), and in the decoration of weapons. The beautiful hammered metalwork (kujundžije) produced by Bosnian artisans (kujundžije), who work in copper, bronze, and silver, is well known. Their products include boxes, kitchen utensils, trays, coffee sets, small metal hearths (mangale), and fetishes (hamajlije). The motifs and techniques are of Turkic-Oriental origin, and the main center is Sarajevo in Bosnia. The decoration is a combination of engraving and chiseling. Silver products made using the filigree or granulation technique in Dalmatia are also well known.

Easter Eggs and Pastries.

In Croatia, the custom of decorating Easter eggs (pisanice) with geometric or floral motifs is widespread. This secondary form of folk art has Paleo-Slavic origins and was a symbol of purification and fertility. Later, in medieval times, it became an Easter tradition. The vibrant colors of the vegetable-based paint are applied using different techniques. The most common is successive dipping, after decorative motifs have been drawn on the egg with wax. The paint does not adhere to the wax drawings, resulting in beautiful predominantly white motifs against brightly colored backgrounds. Another technique is the application of hydrochloric acid with a brush to the already painted egg. Croatian Easter eggs resemble those of Ukraine and Poland in their techniques and decorative motifs.

Also of interest from a folk art perspective is the preparation of decorated cakes (licitarije) in Upper Croatia, shaped like dolls, horsemen, hearts, and so on. The cakes are of different colors with sugar decorations, small mirrors, and printed motifs. Judging by the motifs, they appear to be Baroque influences.

Tattooing.

Tattooing is practiced among the Catholic Croats of Bosnia, especially among women. The motifs are geometric, similar to the oldest egg decorations. The most frequent are radiant suns and numerous crosses. The technique consists of preparing a mixture of soot with milk and honey, or simply using gunpowder and then applying it with a needle to the designs previously marked on the skin.

Rural Architecture.

We understand rural architecture to be construction without plans, based on experience and traditional knowledge. This type of architecture is found primarily in rural areas. The buildings are houses, stables, sheds, and so on.

In the Pannonian region of Croatia, peasant houses are single-story (with some exceptions in the west) and generally have three to four rooms. Until relatively recently, buildings were generally constructed of wood, sun-dried brick (ćerpić), and adobe (naboj), the latter two within a wooden frame. Roofs were predominantly thatched or reed, but these have been gradually replaced with tiles. Open hearths are now very rare.

Stables and sheds often consist of a wooden frame completed with wicker (pleteruša) or planks. There are also structures made from tree trunks of equal diameter or from halves cut lengthwise (brvnare). Next to the main house, smaller dwellings are sometimes built for the other families belonging to the multi-family community (zadruga). These are called komore in Upper Croatia or kiljeri in Slavonia. There is also a number of buildings in uninhabited areas for specific agricultural or livestock purposes (salaši and konaci in Podravina, stanovi in Slavonia, klijeti in Upper Croatia, zemunice in Sirmium).

In the Dinaric area, peasant houses are built of wood and wicker (brvnare and pleteruše) on a stone foundation or are built entirely of stone (towards the west). They are generally single-story, with an open hearth (ognjište) in the main room. The roofs have a steep pitch to prevent snow accumulation; they are made of small wooden planks (šindra), and instead of a chimney, they have an opening for the smoke to escape from the hearth. In very poor regions, houses often consist of only two large rooms (ognjenice, vatrenice) with the stable and shed attached to the house and under the same roof. Buildings used by herders in uninhabited areas are called katuni and pojate, and those used for agricultural purposes are called bunje or poljarice.

In the small towns and cities of Bosnia, especially among the Muslim population, two-story Turkish-Oriental style houses are very common, the second story featuring a characteristic projecting roof.

In the Adriatic area, all the houses and buildings are made of stone; they are covered with tiles or limestone slabs, have open hearths with a chimney (napa) and a grill for roasting fish (gradele). In the small coastal villages and ports, the houses are two stories; the storage room, pantry, etc., is on the ground floor, and the bedrooms and kitchen are on the second floor. Mediterranean influences are clearly visible in both the architecture and the narrowness of the streets in this area.

Popular Customs and Traditions

Croatian popular customs and traditions are so rich and varied that we must limit ourselves to the most important and widespread ones. Many of these customs originate from Paleo-Slavic and pre-Christian pagan beliefs. They are therefore limited to protective rites against magical forces or to beliefs in their influence over natural phenomena (the appearance of the sun, the end of droughts, and abundant harvests, livestock, and fish). Some of these pagan practices were later accepted or tolerated by Christianity and, subsequently, by Islam, with some modifications to their interpretation and certain details to avoid conflict with religious teachings. Here, we will focus on these customs, but not those from purely ecclesiastical sources, as the latter are not of as much ethnographic and folkloric interest.

Croatian folk customs can be divided into: 1) annual or periodic customs, which take place on a specific day, generally linked to the celebration of a saint's day; and 2) non-periodic customs, which are not tied to a particular date, such as those associated with births, weddings, deaths, or various agricultural events. and 3) chivalric games, which may or may not have a fixed date, but are distinct from other popular festivals.

Annual or periodic customs. First come those related to Christmas (Božić); these extend from the end of November until Epiphany and include elements of ancestor worship and rituals for agricultural fertility. The preparations, to mention the most important, must include a dish of sprouted wheat (pšenica), Christmas candles, a specially cut or selected log (badnjak) placed over the hearth (ognjište), green plants inside or on the house, straw or hay scattered around the house, and decorated cakes or loaves of bread.

Attending Christmas Eve Mass (ponoćka) with torches and gunfire is obligatory. A number of interesting rituals and magical interpretations are associated with the first guest of Christmas Day (položaj, polaznik). The Christmas Day meal includes suckling pig or lamb (zaoblica, pečenica, veselica), and the New Year's prediction is made using the shoulder blade bone. In several regions, groups of singers (koledari, betlehemari) go through the streets, offering their greetings with a song at each house. In gratitude, they are given food, drinks, and money. Among the greetings is mirboženje in some Dinaric regions and in Žumberak. Outside of cities, Christmas gifts are not exchanged, with the exception of strings of fruit or nuts (grotulje) in the southern regions. Offerings are also made to springs and wells in exchange for "good luck and health," as well as to domestic animals, all accompanied by the corresponding prayers. In Dalmatia, bonfires called koleda (from the Latin calendae) are lit. The familiar Christmas tree, now accepted in cities, also found its way into some rural homes in northern Croatia during the last century.

Following Christmas, due to its ethnographic importance, is Carnival (Poklade). As in so many other countries, in Croatia people also dress up in costumes (maškare), with anthropomorphic costumes predominating. Among the various carnival characters, real or imaginary, and depending on the region, the most prominent are karneval, krnjo (Dalmatia), pust (Istria, Kvarner), etc. With the straw and rag effigy representing them, a mock trial is improvised, sometimes in verse, followed by the execution, which consists of drowning or burning the sad figure. Also popular are the figures of čoroje (crow), vila (fairy), and tunca (bison) in Dubrovnik; did and baba (grandfather and grandmother) in Istria, Kvarner, Lika, and Dalmatia; and zvončari and bušari (hairy monsters) in Gorski Kotar, Slavonia, and Vojvodina. An interesting group, the orači (plowers), is composed of women who pull a plow while the rest sow grain and ashes.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, tattoos (bocanje, sicanje) are done on certain dates (Saint Joseph's Day, Easter, or Saint John's Day). Tattoos are more common among women, more frequent among Catholics and Muslims, and rare among Orthodox Christians. On Palm Sunday, it is customary to decorate wells and bless various plants or flowers, depending on the region. During Easter, the focus is on Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday, not on Maundy Thursday and Good Friday. On these days, Easter eggs (pisanice) are painted and decorated, and are given as gifts or won in a hardness test (tucanje). The Easter fire (uskrsni krijes, vazmeni oganj) and the food basket containing eggs, bread, cakes, fresh cheese, green onions, and meats are blessed. Water fights are very popular on the Monday after Easter Sunday.

For St. George's Day (Jurjevo, April 23), shepherds adorn their livestock with wreaths of spring flowers to ward off witches and demonic forces. The St. George's Day processions (jurjevski ophod) also take place, in which a group of young people (jurjaši, djurdjari) go from house to house singing songs related to the holiday. One or more young people in the group cover themselves with green branches, calling themselves zeleni Juraj (Green George). Another interesting aspect of this day is the lighting of St. George's Day bonfires (jurjevski krijesovi), which are accompanied by rituals, songs, magic, and riddles. Similar to those of St. George are the customs of May Day or the feast days of Saints Philip and James in several regions. The custom of erecting the Maypole (majus), which entered western Croatia from Austria, Slovenia, Bohemia, and Hungary, is an exception.

On Ascension Day (Spasovo) rounds called križari (crusaders) are customary in Slavonia, Sirmium and parts of Dalmatia. Apparently of pastoral origin, this custom is similar to other types of rondas. As a special feature there is the cross decorated with flowers and carried by the round.

On the occasion of Pentecost (Duhovi, Trojaki, Rusalje) we will mention the custom of naming queens or kings (kraljice, kraljevi) in Slavonia, Sirmium, Baranja and among the Croats of the Subotica-Sombor area. The young women, adorned with men's hats and wooden swords at their belts, parade singing songs and performing various ceremonies. Also on this holiday, bonfires (duhovski krijesovi) are lit in some regions.

During the summer, the main folklore date is San Juan (Ivanj dan, June 24). The secular tradition on that day centers on the St. John's bonfires (ivanjske vatre, krijesovi) practiced throughout Croatia. The lighting of those bonfires called krijes, koleda, svitnjak, is accompanied by songs, sometimes dances and jumping over the fire. In addition to bonfires, in some Pannonian regions of Croatia it is also customary to make a sung round, called ladarice, in which the words "side" or "uncle" dominate the verses.

Non-periodic customs. Among these, the magical ones (čaranje, vračanje, bajanje) predominate, which have lost their meaning and are preserved as relics or a mere persistence of old traditions, without the performers really believing in their effects. They are usually celebrated on the occasion of births, weddings or deaths; in certain agricultural tasks (plowing, sowing, praying for rain, harvesting); or in relation to livestock and beekeeping; and even with love. The ceremony is usually accompanied with magical words, formulas and incantations or with dances, music and singing.

To mention only some non-periodic customs we will refer to the šišano kumstvo (the compadrazgo with the haircut). This custom is widespread in religiously mixed areas, such as Bosnia-Herzegovina. The original purpose was to ask for the health of the child, but later it has acquired a social meaning that allows camaraderie between families of different religions and without involving a religious act in itself. Another interesting custom is Dodole (also called prporuše, čarojice), actually a prayer for rain that is practiced in various parts of the Pannonian area. A boy covered with flowers and green branches goes from house to house and is bathed with water while the accompaniment sings the implorations. In the Dinaric area, the ceremonies on the occasion of weddings range from the entire bridal party riding horses, to the custom of hiding the bride, etc.

The Knightly Games consist of entering into different competitions of strength and skill, widely practiced in the Dinaric ethnographic area: stone throwing, jumping, racing and rvanje (a kind of free wrestling).

The Alka jousts (Sinjska alka) were formerly held in various parts of the Croatian Adriatic coast, but have only survived to this day in Sinj (Dalmatia). Here it is celebrated as a great festival commemorating the victory over the Turks in 1715. The Alka, that is, the ring game, recalls the pallium of Siena for its picturesque ceremonial. It is a popular tournament that takes place on the plain at the entrance to the city. Richly dressed in the manner of ancient Croatian knights, the contestants (alkari) race on horseback with long spears three times a ring (alka) suspended above the track, presenting a brilliant spectacle. The victory celebration, which belongs to the knight with the highest number of points, becomes a truly national demonstration.

On the island of Korčula and in the town of the same name, the famous games known as Moreška or Kumpanije take place every year on July 29th, the feast day of Saint Theodore. Two armed groups, one dressed in red with blackened faces (the Moors) and the other in black, perform nine battle figures. Behind the lines of the fierce foreigners, a Moor holds captive a young woman dressed in white, a symbol of the town and a pledge of the battle to be fought. As each warrior chooses his opponent, the battle unfolds, maintaining the overall harmony and at an ever-increasing pace. The Moors finally surrender and release the captive young woman, while the victors celebrate their triumph with a dance.

Musical Folklore

To sing, play music, or dance, the Croatian peasantry takes advantage of every opportunity: outdoor gatherings in front of churches on Sundays after mass, religious festivals, fairs, evening gatherings, certain agricultural tasks (field work, harvesting, etc.), certain rituals and rounds (koledari, betlehemari, jurjaši, kraljice, ljelje, križari, ladarice), weddings, etc.

Croatian folk music is very varied, ranging from ancient, monotonous chants to melodies rich in nuances and subtle modulations that reach up to a quarter tone. While in the Pannonian ethnographic area, elements of Slavic music predominate—sometimes lively and rebellious, sometimes romantic—in the Dinaric area, musical folklore is simpler and more subdued. On the Dalmatian coast and in Bosnia, Mediterranean and East Turkish influences are evident, respectively, resulting in beautiful and highly romantic Dalmatian and Bosnian sevdalinke songs with their own specific modes.

Croatian folk melodies are divided into three styles according to their keys: G, F', and Eb. The first, in the key of G, is distinguished by its melodic stability, its beginning and return to a final G, and the predominance of monophony. It has the widest geographical reach and is further divided into six subgroups: 1) "Istrian Scale," similar to the Gregorian Phrygian mode with some altered tones (Istria, part of Zagora, Dalmatia, some Dalmatian islands, Turopolje, part of Posavina, and Herzegovina).

Songs in the chromatic scale, as well as some rozgalice, also fall into this category. 2) Gange and rere, songs with a very narrow range, sometimes heterophonic (Zagora, Dalmatia, and Herzegovina). 3) Songs with a pedal point (bourdon), that is, where a basic voice (alto or bass) maintains a pitch throughout the entire text on the pedal point. These are very old melodies, recitative in character with melismas and other celdic ornaments based on the expression "oi" (ojkanje) (Dalmatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina). 4) Melodies sung in the old ecclesiastical style, in the Dorian or Aeolian mode (scattered throughout Upper Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia). 5) Songs in the key of G major with the characteristics of the Aeolian mode and sung in unison (Upper Croatia and Kordun). 6) Monophonic songs in the anhemitonic pentatonic scale (Upper Croatia).

The second style encompasses songs in the key of F, whose melodies may be in F major or F minor and which have a final note of G. From an aesthetic and psychological point of view, they are sentimental or mournful, give the impression of being endless, frequently reflect deep emotions, have a predominantly free rhythm, and contain melismas. Sung in a group, the first voice (the melody) is carried by one singer (male or female), while the rest of the group carries the second voice "in bass" (basiraju). They are common in Slavonia, Sirmium, Baranja, Bačka, and Bosnia, and due to their great vitality, they are rapidly spreading to other areas. A special subgroup of this style is the "eastern scale," based on a single eastern tetrachord.

The third style includes songs in the key of E-flat. These are songs whose tonic is E-flat, whose tonic string is E-flat, and whose final note is G. Their scale is a major third. Apparently, a good portion of these songs previously belonged to the Phrygian mode, having become the key of E-flat under the influence of sung thirds, that is, by adding a second voice (the alto) to the soprano, sung a third lower. They can be heard in coastal Dalmatia, on the islands, in Dalmatian Zagora, and in the regions bordering Slovenia. They exhibit a great wealth of harmonic entertainment; up to five voices can be heard, with the individual scores highly decorated with melismas, acquiring elements of polyphony.

As for purpose and content, Croatian musical folklore includes songs of very diverse types: those that accompany dances, agricultural work, rituals, and rounds; Wedding and lullabies, funeral laments, lyrical, epic, war, religious, pastoral, and humorous songs, romances, and ballads.

The stories, songs, and dances are accompanied by typical musical instruments. Among the most widespread and characteristic of Croatian folk music are the tambure or tamburice, a family of metal-stringed instruments of Eastern (Persian) origin. They resemble guitars, have 4 to 8 strings, and range in size from the tiny bisernica through the brač, šargija, and bugarija to the deep berde. Playing in bands (tamburaški zbor), the tambure accompany the singing and dancing.

Two other typical stringed instruments are the gusle and the lijerica, characteristic of the Dinaric ethnographic area. A type of primitive viol, the first being the gusle (with one or two horsehair strings), is used to accompany folk epic songs, while the lijerica (with three strings and shaped like a pear) is characteristic of the Dubrovnik area. Among wind instruments, the pastoral fruit flute or dvojnice, a type of flute, is the most popular. Other wind instruments, such as the balde or dude in Slavonia, the sopile or roženice in Istria, and the zurla in Bosnia, are variations of the bagpipe with a skin bellows or high-pitched oboe-like instrument.

Folk Dances

Croatian folk dances are numerous and varied. Some still retain ancient ritual elements, but most are now danced at gatherings and festivals. They generally share the common open or closed circular form (kolo), but differ in the order and number of participants, style, steps, and figures. They are accompanied by typical musical instruments (tambure, gajde, frula, šargije, lijerica, etc.), love songs, ballads, and even epic songs (Novi Vinodol). However, there are also the so-called silent dances (nimo kolo) of Bosnia, performed without accompaniment or only sung (Vrličko kolo). These can be exclusively for women or young people (ženska, djevojačka kola), for men or boys (muška, momačka kola), or mixed.

Depending on the location, the steps and figures have names such as: balun (Istria), poskočica-kolo, tanac (Krk and Pag Islands), djikac, lindje (Herzegovina), tančec (Upper Posavina), slavonsko kolo (Slavonia), dučec (Zagorje), mista (Slavonia), dorat, ranše (Baranja), bunjevačko kolo (Subotica-Sombor), bosansko kolo (Bosnia), drmeš (Upper Croatia), etc. While the drmeš is full of almost irrational rhythms, in the bunjevačko kolo the women swirl in place while the men, wearing boots fitted with bells, improvise decorative steps by clacking their feet together. In Zagora Dalmata, women dance kolo, whose rhythm is marked only by the clattering of the pieces and jewels that completely cover their dresses.

LITERATURE

Abbreviations:

HIBZ = Hrvatski Izdavalački Bibliografski Zavod (Croatian Bibliographic Publishing Institute).

LZ = Leksikografski zavod, Zagreb (Lexicographic Institute, Zagreb).

JAZU = Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti (Southern Slavic Academy of Sciences and Arts).

MH = Matica hrvatska (Croatian Cultural and Literary Center).

1. — Die österreichisch-ungarische Monarchie im Wort and Bjld (The Austro-Hungarian Monarchy Described and Illustrated), Vienna.

2. — Fortis, A. Viaggio in Dalmazia (Journey through Dalmatia), Venice, 1774.

3. — Lovrić, I., Osservazioni sopra diversi pezzi del vjaggio Dalmatia del Signor Abate A. Fortis (Observations on Various Parts of the Journey through Dalmatia of Abbot A. Fortis), Venice, 1776.

4. — Ilić, L., Narodni slavonski običaji (Popular Customs of Slavonia), Zagreb, 1846.

5. — Ljubić, Š., Narodni običaji kod Vlahah u Dalmaciji (Popular Customs of the Wallachians in Dalmatia), Zadar, 1846.

6. — Vuletić Vukasović, V., Narodni običaji na otoku Korčuli (Popular Customs in Koréula Island), Zagreb, 1891.

7. — Radić, A., Osnova za sabiranje i proučavanje gradje o narodnom životu (The bases for the collection and study of folklore material), "Zbornik" JAZU, Vol. II, Zagreb, 1897.

8. — Hangi, A., Zivot i običaji muslimana i B.i H. (The life and customs of Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina), Sarajevo, 1907.

9. — Buconjić, N., Život i običaji Hrvata katoličke vjere u B. i H. (The life and customs of Catholic Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina), Sarajero, 1908.

10. — Haberlandt, A., Volkskunst der Balkanhinder (The art folklore of the Balkan countries), Vienna, 1919.

11. — Ćurčić, V., Starinsko oružje (Ancient Weapons), Sarajevo, 1926.

12. — Durham, M. E., Some Tribal Origins, Laws and Customs of the Balkans, London, 1926.

13. — Kus-Nikolajev, M., Expresionizmm u seljačkoj umjetnosti (Expressionism in the peasant arts), Etnoloiška biblioteka, N9 6, Zagreb, 1929.

14.— Kus-Nikolajev, M., Hrvatski seljački barok (The Croatian Peasant Baroque), Etnoloiška biblioteka, No. 7, Zagreb,. 1929.

15. — Tkalčić, V., Seljačko čilimarstvo u Jugoslaviji (Peasant tapestries in Yugoslavia), Etnička biblioteka, No. 5, Zagreb, 1929.

16. — Zbirkajugoslavenskih ornamenata (Collection of South Slavic ornaments): Ethnographic Museum of Zagreb, Vol. I, 1925; Vol. II, 1926; Vol. III, 1927; Vol. IV, 1930; Vol. V, 1931; Vol. VI, 1934.

17. — Gavazzi, M., Godina dana hrvatskih narolnih običaja (Croatian Folk Customs Throughout the Year), 2 volumes, 31H, Zagreb, 1939.

18. — Radić, A., Narod i narodosnanstveo (Ethnos and Ethnology), Seljaćka Sloga, Zagreb, 1939.

19. — Gavazzi, M., Pregled etnografije Hrvata (A Review of the Ethnography of the Croats), 2 volumes, ABC Club, Zagreb, 1940.

20. — Manković, T., Božični običaji Hrvata u Bosni i Hercegovini (Croatian Christmas Customs in Bosnia and Herzegovina), Etnografska istraživanja i gradja, Vol. II, Zagreb, 1940.

21. — Gavazzi, M., Badnjak (Christmas Eve), in Hrvatska Enciklopedija (Croatian Encyclopedia), Vol. 2, HIBZ, Zagreb, 1941.

22. — Zbirka hrvatskih ornamenata (Collection of Croatian national ornaments). Vol. I-V. Hrvatski državni etnografski muzej, Zagreb, 1941.

23. — Truhelka, Ć., Studije o podrijetlu: Etnologka razmatranja iz Bosne i Hercegovine (Studies on the origins: Ethnological investigations of Bosnia-Herzegovina).

24. — Balenović, V., Narodoznanstvo (Ethnology)., 2nd. edition, Hrv. drž. tiskara, Zagreb, 1941.

25. — Bratanić, B., Bosna i Hercegovina, Etnografski pregled (Bosnia-Herzegovina, ethnographic review), in Hrvatska Enciklopedija (Croatian Encyclopedia), Vol. 3, HIBZ, Zagreb, 1942.

26. — Gavazzi, M., Čaranje (Magic), in Hrvatska Enciklopedija (Croatian Encyclopedia), Vol. 4, HIBZ, Zagreb, 1942.

27. — Gavazzi, M., Dalmacija, Etnografija (Dalmatia, Ethnography), in Hrvatska Enciklopedija (Croatian Encyclopedia) Vol. 4, HIBZ, Zagreb, 1942.

28. — Gavazzi, M., Božićni običaji (Christmas Customs), in Hrvatska Enciklopedija (Croatian Encyclopedia), Vol. 3, HIBZ, Zagreb, 1942.

29. — Širola, B., Hrvatska narodna glazba (Croatian folk music), MH, Zagreb, 1942.

30. — Gavazzi, M., Etnografski sastav hrvatskog sela (Ethnographic constitution of the Croatian village), in Zemljopis Hrvatske (Geography of Croatia), MH, Zagreb, 1942.

31. — Symposium, Naša Domovina (Our Homeland), Zagreb, 1943.

32. — Babić, Lj., Boja i sklad (Color and Harmony), HIBZ, Zagreb, 1943.

33. — Babić, Lj., Umjetnost kod Hrvata (Art among the Croats, Zagreb, 1943.

34. — Praunsberger, M., Oružje starih Hrvata u povijesti i u narodnoj pjesmi (The weapons of the ancient Croats in history and popular poetry) MH, Zagreb, 1943.

35. — Gavazzi, M., Hrvatska narodna umjetnost (Croatian folk art), HIBZ, Zagreb, 1944.

36. — Gušić, M., The Folklore Element in Croatian National Costume, in Croatian Folk Songs and Dances, Seljačka Sloga, Zagreb, 1951.

37. — Žgamec, V. and Sremec, N., Croatian Folk Songs and Dances, Seljačka Sloga, Zagreb, 1951.

38. — Žganec, V., The Basic Styles of Croatian Folk Melodies, in Croatian Folk Songs and Dances, Seljačka Sloga, Zagreb, 1951.

39. — Žganec, V., Folk Songs of Croatian Zagorje, 2 volumes, JAZU, Zagreb, 1950 and 1952.

40. — Gavazzi, M., "The Croats" in Pomorska Enciklopedija (Maritime Encyclopedia), Vol. 3, LZ, Zagreb, 1956.

41. — Krleža, M. et al. (eds.), Enciklopedija Jugoslavije (Encyclopedia of Yugoslavia), Vol. 6, LZ, Zagreb, 1955. Contains several articles on Croatian ethnography and folklore: Folk Visual Arts, Folk Music, National Costumes, Folk Customs, Folk Dances.

42. — Marković, T., Muslim Customs 43. — Tijan, P., Christmas Customs in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Popular Customs of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina at Christmastime), Hrvatska Revija (The Croatian Magazine), No. 44, Buenos Aires, 1961.

44. — Žganec, V., Croatian Folk Songs from Koprivnice and the Surrounding Area, JAZU, Zagreb, 1962.

45. — Stepanov, S., Songs of the World, Croatia, Christian Wagner, Hamburg, 1963.

46. — Čulić, Z., Christmas Customs in Croatia Bosni i Hercegovini (National costumes in Bosnia-Herzegovina), "Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja za Bosnu i Hercegovinu", Sarajevo, 1963.

47. — Išgum, M., Narodna umjetnost Jugoslavije (Folk art in Yugoslavia) in Enciklepedija likovnih umjetnosti (Encyclopedia of plastic arts), Vol. 3, LZ, Zagreb, 1964.

48. — Marković, T., Folk Arts and Handicrafts, in Croatia: Land, People, Culture, Vol. I, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1964.

49. — Marković, T., Pučka rukotvorna umjetnost kod Hrvata in Hrvatska Revija (The Croatian Magazine), No. 56, Buenos Aires 1964.

50. — Kirin, V., Narodne nošnje i plesovi (National costumes and dances), Color y naiša djeca, Zagreb, 1965.

51. — Symposium, Naša Hrvatska (Our Croatia), Domovina, Madrid, 1968.

Periodical publications

Zbornik za narodni život i običaje Južnih Slavena

(Symposium on the life and folklore of the South Slavs). 41 volumes, Zagreb, since 1896. These publications of the JAZU (Journal of the Autonomous Slavs of Bosnia and Herzegovina) contain works on the folklore, ethnography, and ethnology of the Croats and, in part, also of the other South Slavic nations. Abstracts of works in other languages are also included.

Glasnik Zemaljskog Museja za Bosnu i Hercegovinu

(Bulletin of the National Museum for Bosnia and Herzegovina), Sarajevo, since 1889.

Ethnographic Museums

Ethnographic museums are located in Zagreb (1919), Split (1910), and Zadar (1945). Important ethnographic collections also exist in the museums of Sarajevo (Zemaljski Muzej) and Banja Luka. Some of the numerous regional and local museums also contain ethnographic sections.

Ethnographic-folkloric institutions

Institutes for Folk Art of Croatia (Zagreb), and of Bosnia-Herzegovina (Sarajevo), Lado (Zagreb), Seljačka Sloga (Peasant Union, Zagreb).

CROATIA AND THE SOUTH SLAVS

ALEJANDRO DUSSAUT

"La Prensa" of August 1st of this year published in full the text of Dr. Alejandro Dussaut's lecture, delivered the previous day at the Popular Institute of Lectures of the same major Argentine newspaper. Dr. A. Dussaut, a fearless defender of liberty, exiled several times for his political convictions and his defense of human and political freedom in general, readily grasped the reasons—historical, objective, and unjust—why the Croatian people are currently subjected to a Serbian-style communist dictatorship. The Croatian "rebellion" of 1941 against Serbian-monarchist hegemony now serves as a pretext for Serbian communists to exact revenge on the Croats, who were once again subjected to Belgrade's rule in 1945. Dr. A. Dussaut, with his keen sense of historical and synoptic exposition, elucidated the true differences between Croatia and Serbia, logically deducing the enmity and conflict between their two peoples, separated throughout their more than 1300-year history by religion, culture, politics, and national consciousness. Due to exceptional circumstances, the two peoples formed a political community for the first time in 1918, the fundamental cause of misfortune for both.

Below, we reproduce the most salient excerpts from Dr. A. Dussaut's lecture, publicly expressing our gratitude for his love of truth and his desire to help the Croatian people in their unequal struggle against a more powerful enemy, one that has at its disposal propaganda funds derived—ironically—from the pockets and sweat of Croatian workers. Likewise, our gratitude goes to "La Prensa" and the Conference Steering Committee, especially to Dr. O. Loudet, its president, through whom many truths, sometimes proscribed, come to light and reach a public seeking disinterested guidance. — (Editorial Staff of the journal STUDIA CROATICA).

When addressing the topic of the South Slavs, albeit in a biased way, integrated in 1918 into a single state, called Yugoslavia since 1929, with 20,449,000 inhabitants, it is worth remembering that it is a multinational conglomerate, the product of international conventions, but comprised of two sectors with distinct characteristics: Western Yugoslavia, headed by Croatia, and also including Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Vojvodina; and Eastern Yugoslavia, headed by Serbia and including Montenegro, Macedonia, and Kosovo Metohija, the two sectors separated by the Drina River.

Historical References

CROATIA. — The origins of the Croatian people date back to the 7th century with waves of immigration from Poland that settled in the Roman provinces of Dalmatia and Lower Pannonia. These were Slavic-speaking tribes, believed to be of Iranian origin.

They, in turn, assimilated Illyrian-Celtic populations, groups of Slavs, Goths, and others, as well as Roman and Greek colonists, and later groups of Germans and Slovenes. This ethnic mix constitutes the origin of this ancient people, with the Turkish invasion leaving behind unidentified groups.

In 1941, Ante Pavelić declared to German journalists that Croats were of Gothic, not Slavic, origin. This statement was widely disseminated at the time, although it never transcended academic discussions among Croats.

In reality, Croatia has been part of history since the coronation of the first king, Tomislav, of the national dynasty in 925, and since then has maintained not only its historical continuity but also its attributes of sovereignty. In 1102, Coloman of the Arpad dynasty was elected, and a personal union pact was established with the kings of Hungary.

In 1527, Ferdinand of the Habsburg dynasty was enthroned as King of Croatia.

After the war of 1848 and the absolutism of Bach, the political and administrative treaty with Hungary was renewed in 1868, remaining in effect until October 29, 1918, when the Croatian parliament severed all its commitments to Austria and Hungary.

By the 6th century, the Croats were already populating regions from the rivers and mountain ranges in the north, from the confluence of the Danube and Sava rivers to the Boca di Cattaro, and from the east along the Mura, Drava, and Danube rivers, to the west along the Adriatic Sea. There they settled, founded their state, and established the principles of its organization, creating their provinces (banovine) and their districts (županije), the former governed by the "ban" and the latter by the "župan." The last scion of the national dynasty that began with Tomislav, King Petar Svačić, perished on Mount Gvozd in battle in 1097. Queen Helena the Beautiful, widow of King Zvonimir, was the sister of the Hungarian King Coloman, whom she made her king in a "Pacta Conventa," although she retained her attributes of sovereignty until 1527 when the The Croatians elected Ferdinand of Habsburg as their king, under the same conditions as Hungary.

The struggles with the Turks forced Croatia to forge closer ties with Western countries. The Turks had occupied Budapest and laid siege to Vienna several times, but they failed, as the Croatians proudly boast, to "drink their horses at the holy water fountains of Zagreb Cathedral."

These terrible struggles reduced Croatia to its bare minimum, to what the parliament called "Reliquiae reliquiarum olim inclyti regni Croatiae" (the relics of the former illustrious kingdom of Croatia), and Pope Leo X, in recognition of its heroism, bestowed upon it the honorable title of "Antemurales Christianitatis" (Blankets of Christendom) around the year 1519, when they were living in a state of perpetual war.

The Croats not only had to fight against the Turks, but also against their own allies, such as the Austrians, who sometimes acted as if they were in an occupied country, committing all kinds of depredations and murders. This provoked a subversive movement led by the "ban" (viceroy), Count Peter Zrinski, and his brother-in-law, Prince Kršto Frankopan.

When the conspiracy was discovered, the king summoned them under the promise that nothing would happen to them. On the contrary, they were imprisoned and condemned to death on April 30, 1671, in Wiener Neustadt.

Towards the 18th century, Croatian nationality gained strength, the Latin language lost influence, and the national language gained ground.

Croatia took advantage of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 to declare war on Hungary, since, as with Austria, it had unresolved issues with Hungary, which sought to make Croatia a Hungarian district.

In 1861, following a failed attempt at Germanization by Vienna, Austria and Hungary signed a pact whereby Dalmatia (Croatian territory) would join Austria, and the rest of Croatia would have to align itself with Hungary. It was at this time that Ante Starčević, the greatest Croatian of the 19th century, began his public career. He was born on May 23, 1823, in the village of Žitnik near Gospić in Lika.

He completed his primary education in Klanac and in 1846 earned a doctorate in philosophy. He finished his theological studies in 1848, but did not take the priesthood, instead working as a lawyer until 1878. He served as a protonotary in Rijeka from 1861 to 1863. From 1878 onward, he dedicated himself exclusively to journalism and politics. He died unexpectedly in Zagreb on February 28, 1896, and was buried simply in the village of šstine among peasants. In the village cemetery, a short walk from the church door, Ante Starčević rests in eternal peace. On October 11, 1903, the villagers paid homage to their favorite son by erecting a monument in his memory, a work by the celebrated sculptor Iván Rendić.

He was a vigorous and combative politician, frightening anti-Croatian sentiment and stirring the patriotic fervor of the Croats. He moved Parliament and soon became a true interpreter of national sentiment, and it can be said today that he is the most important figure in Croatia. He was the soul of the people, the father of the nation.

He was always very poor, aspiring only to subsist, but the grateful people, through public subscription, acquired a magnificent residence, which was presented to him in a solemn public ceremony on July 15, 1895.

Starčević enjoyed it only briefly, but he transformed it into the headquarters of the Civic Club, the Parliamentary Club, reading rooms, and the offices of the party's newspaper, Croatian Law. This residence is still known today as the Starčević Home.

He founded the Croatian Constitutional Law Party, with its decidedly democratic orientation, which would later include Ante Pavelić, his successor and interpreter of his ideals, as well as Stjepan Radić, Vlatko Maček, and many other prominent figures.

Considered the Mazzini of Croatia, he was a mentor and invigorator of nationalism in his country, his unmistakable democratic motto being: "Political parties are the sign and proof of the freedom and strength of the State, such that where there are no parties, there is no freedom."

In a solemn document entitled "Address to the Emperor," addressed to Franz Joseph of Habsburg in 1878, Starčević told him: "Your Majesty, in states governed by the rule of law, as is the Kingdom of Croatia, sovereignty resides in the people, and if the rulers are not convinced of this truth and do not abide by it, the situation will change to their detriment."

Returning to their struggles, even reduced to its bare minimum, the Kingdom of Croatia remained recognized "de jure" and retained its title of Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia. The city of Rijeka, by decision of the Hungarian cabinet, without the presence of any Croatian representative, came under Hungarian rule (in 1868).

Bosnia and Herzegovina remained under the domination of the Ottoman Empire, the cause of continuous struggles and emigration beyond its borders to places like Moravia, Burgenland, and even Hungary, where ethnic minorities settled. Minorities who converted to Islam as a means of defending their lives and property were also incorporated into the Ottoman Empire.

The Yugoslavism presided over by Joseph George Strossmayer, a Croat who lived from 1815 to 1905, Bishop of Djakovo, a man of exceptional intellect and immense wealth from his bishopric, appears on the stage of public life, especially in literature. Despite his patronage by Emperor Franz Joseph I, Strossmayer championed a miniature version of Pan-Slavism—the idea of South Slavic unity. He maintained friendly relations with the ruling family of Montenegro, as well as with the Serbian Prince Miloš Obrenovich, and was, de jure, Bishop of Serbian Catholics. But his Yugoslavism was undoubtedly better inspired than that of the Serbs, whose propaganda and arbitrary measures betrayed their desire for domination. In contrast, Strossmayer played a prominent role through his speeches at the First Vatican Council. His ecumenism and his persistent struggle for the unity of the churches would become a source of future inspiration, the work of someone who believed that the Church in its third millennium would confront the problem in depth.

In their origins, the Croats found an ecclesiastical organization, were baptized, and assimilated the Christian doctrine of Rome, thus becoming Westernized and zealous defenders of their eastern borders.

The native alphabet, called Glagolitsa, dates from the Middle Ages, and in some dioceses along the Croatian coast, services were celebrated in the national language according to the Latin rite by privilege of the Catholic Church.

68.1% of Croatians are Catholic, 17% Eastern Orthodox Christians, 13% Muslim, and 0.9% Protestant, Jewish, etc.

Latin was the language of politics and culture for a long time, and it was the language used among the associated kingdoms, even in the Croatian Diet (Sabor), until 1848 when Croatian was adopted as the official language.

The capital of Croatia is Zagreb with 600,000 inhabitants, followed in order of importance by Sarajevo with 130,000, Rijeka with 80,000, and Split with 75,000.

In the 18th century, as in the rest of Europe, cultural and educational institutions, the visual arts, lyric poetry, folklore, crafts, modern customs, and elegance flourished. Croatia boasts classical Roman monuments, valuable works of art, and buildings in Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, and other styles. Among others, its Italian cities showcase works of art by renowned Croatian artists such as Laurana, Juan Dálmata, Julio Clović, Medulić, Metrović, and others. The history of Croatia, due to its western tendency, is more familiar to us and we know it better than that of Serbia…”

After briefly outlining the history of Serbia, the author stated verbatim:

“Reasons of race, religion, and culture explain the eastern tendency of the Serbian Slavs, who looked to Russia, the “Holy Orthodox Russia,” as their guiding light and loved it as their own. This was reinforced by reciprocal exchanges of all kinds, particularly those of Russian diplomatic employees at the Byzantine Court, as well as Serbian clergymen who acquired theological knowledge in Russia, hence the Russian support when the Serbs rose up against the Turks in 1912.

On June 28, 1914, the assassination in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, and his wife, may have been the trigger for the First World War.”

The idea of Greater Serbia and expanding nationalism, claiming all Croatian territories where Orthodox Christians resided, has deep roots. Southern Pan-Slavism is the idea that has fueled its desire for dominance, based on shared characteristics that cannot withstand even the harshest criticism.

Religious mysticism is another factor... Saint Sava, the founder of the Serbian Orthodox Church independent of the Patriarch of Byzantium, established his own religion, an enemy of Catholicism like his first cousin, King Stephen, who, after having sought and obtained the papal crown, following Saint Sava's example, turned his back on the Holy Father and the Catholic Church.

The Orthodox Patriarchate was based for centuries in the small town of Pech, until, after a failed uprising against the Turks in the 18th century, it moved to the city of Karlovci in Croatian territory, which served as its provisional seat until the Turks were expelled.

Legend fills many pages of history, and Serbia is no exception. Such is the case of Kara-George, a Serbian national figure and also a legendary character, a dark-skinned man who led the first rebellion against the Turks in 1804, becoming Karajorgjevich. His father was a Romani man from the village of Madjevo, who had to emigrate with the family after his son committed six murders between the ages of 15 and 24. Upon reaching the Sava River in the village of Ostržnica, the father stubbornly insisted on returning, and his son killed him at the instigation of his mother, Mariza Katana, around 1786. Karajorgjevich took refuge in the Croatian region of Srijem, later enlisting in the Austrian army, where he rose to the rank of corporal. He learned to read and write and returned to Serbia to lead the movement, not against Turkish rule, but against those who had rebelled against the Sultan. It was nine years of fierce struggle, at the end of which the Serbs disavowed Kara, the sultan and his army suppressed the rebellion, and Karajorgjevich fled with some companions to Bessarabia under Russian protection, which had blessed the rebellion, but he would be assassinated on July 10, 1817, after being tricked into returning to Serbia by Miloš Obrenović.

Miloš was a simple village steward who, in the service of the Turks, committed all sorts of abuses, acquiring great authority and immense wealth, transforming himself into a prince of the Bastate.

But now begins the struggle between the two dynasties, which will culminate in the Royal Palace of Belgrade in 1903 when Karajorgjevich's supporters assassinate the last of the Obrenović dynasty, King Alexander and Queen Draga, from the more capable dynasty, but like the other, they all died murdered... In 1903, King Peter ascends the throne, and the "Black Hand," a military association, gains considerable strength and, with extensive propaganda, promotes Panservism, aided by the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, facilitated by the missteps of Austro-Hungarian policy. The Muslims in Bosnia moved about naturally and even felt like Croats; however, they were irreconcilable enemies of the Serbs, who ultimately claimed their land, and whose revenge was carried out without mercy.

Corfu Manifesto

THE KINGDOM OF THE SERVANTS, CROATS, AND SLOVENS

On April 10, 1915, the Yugoslav Committee (South Slavs) was established in London, chaired by Dr. Antonio Trumbić, a Croatian lawyer from Dalmatia and national deputy in the Central Council of Vienna (at that time Dalmatia did not belong to Croatia), and composed of: Fran Supilo, a journalist and Croatian national deputy, originally from Dalmatia and expelled from the Sabor (Croatian parliament) after the famous Friedjung trial for a conspiracy against Austria, directed by Croatian and Bosnian intelligence services; Known for his talent and political intuition, he withdrew from the Committee in 1917 due to differences with the Serbian Prime Minister, Nikolai Pašić. The members included Dr. N. Županić, C. Kaminarević, Dr. Milan Srškić (a Bosnian Serb), Dr. N. Stojanović (also a Bosnian Serb), Jovan Banjanin (a Croatian Serb), Dr. Dušan Vasiljević (a Bosnian Serb), Dr. F. Potoćnjak (an Istrian Croat, who was not yet part of Croatia), Dr. J. Gazzari (a Dalmatian Croat), Professor P. Popović (a Serbian), Dr. H. Hinković (a Croatian), Ivan Meštrović (a Croatian sculptor from Dalmatia), José Jadlevski, and Dr. B. Veišnjak, Slovenian.

This Committee made contact with representatives of the Kingdom of Serbia and with those of the Allied Powers: Great Britain, France, Russia, and later Italy. Not acting in bad faith, Trumbić himself, who had trained alongside Starčević, admitted that to save Croatia from Austro-Hungarian pressure, Southern Pan-Slavism could defend its independence, given that Italy at the time intended to annex Dalmatia.

The last president of the Croatian Peasant Party, Dr. V. Maček, offered the following assessment: "History will record Trumbić's activities in the exile community, and it will do so favorably because he did what he could, taking those circumstances into account. He was the one who brought all of us Croatians together and united."

Upon his death in 1938, "the Croatian people paid him honors rarely bestowed upon other national politicians," as Bogdan Radica expressed in his article "Doctor Ante Trumbić: Belief and Disillusionment of a Yugoslav" in Studia Croatica, Year X of 1969.

Despite everything, this Committee conceived the idea of Pan-Slavism in Southeast Europe, disregarding the fact that a country cannot be organized with heterogeneous sectors—that is to say, a multinational one—much less if the aim is to create a strong state against threats from the East and West.

On July 20, 1917, they met in Corfu, the northernmost of the Ionian Islands of Greece, and it was on this date that the famous Corfu Manifesto emerged, promoting the formation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, a constitutional and parliamentary monarchy under the Karageorgevich dynasty with a single crown, a single coat of arms, and a flag combining regional emblems.

Both alphabets, Cyrillic and Latin, were recognized, and freedom of worship was established, placing Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Muslims on equal footing.

The Adriatic Sea, at the service of liberty, will be at the disposal of all nationalities of the kingdom; equality before the law and universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage for the election of authorities are established; the communal system is established, and the Constitution will emerge from the Constituent Assembly with a majority to be determined, to ultimately be submitted to the king for consideration, etc.

On June 28, 1918, the Treaty of Versailles was signed, ending the First World War and recognizing the kingdom in question. This treaty was complemented by the Treaties of Saint-Germain and Trianon, the former signed by Austria on September 10, 1919, and the latter by Hungary on June 4, 1920, with Croatia as an associated state.

This reign (1918-1941) of the South Slavs, known since 1929 as Yugoslavia, which translates to "South Slavs," united into a single state the two sectors that comprised it: the western sector, headed by Croatia and including Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Vojvodina, separated by the Drina River; and the eastern sector, presided over by Serbia and including Montenegro, Macedonia, and Kosovo Metohija, as we highlighted at the beginning.

The new state was to be constituted, as stipulated in Article 25, following the convocation of the Constituent Assembly. Instead, the process proceeded hastily, amidst the first signs of discontent. Svetozar Pribićević, a Serbian and vice-president of the National Council in Zagreb, was blamed for the delays, as were errors by Croatian delegates who, while acting in good faith, were naive about the impossibility of unification.

The Croatian territories were handed over to the King of Serbia without restrictions, a transfer that materialized on December 1, 1918, paradoxically dubbed "The Day of Union." The people were informed two days later of the dissolution of the National Council as the sovereign authority of the state in the territory of the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy. The Party of Right protested through its newspaper, Hrvatsko Pravo, which was immediately shut down, and its leaders were persecuted and imprisoned without trial.

On December 5, 1918, a rebellion of Croatian soldiers erupted, which was brutally suppressed. Many were killed, disappeared, or prosecuted, with Dr. Alexander Horvat being held responsible. He was imprisoned, subjected to a fabricated trial, and tortured.

Thus begins the wave of persecutions and arrests of honorable people such as Dr. Vladimir Prebeg, Monsignor Dr. José Pazman and Dean Esteban Vučetić among many.

A regime of terror was implemented, corporal punishment by the Serbs was the norm, and the Croats lived in that climate for years. The subjugation and humiliation were relentless, trying to erase every trace of the most expensive Croatian traditions, imposing instead everything Serbian, even the school textbooks were modified. King Alexander I increasingly imposed the rigor of the regime, since the Serbs considered themselves to have inalienable rights over the Croatians since they took credit for their release.

On June 28, 1921, the Constitution of the Kingdom was approved in Belgrade with the absence of the Croatian representation, the rest attended due to pressure and threat, triumphing by only eight votes...

The soul of Ante Starčević continued to live in the heart of every Croatian, and Stjepan Radić took up the banner and carried it high throughout the territory of Croatia, promoting a powerful movement of opinion that the people proclaimed with defiant expressions such as Long live the Republic! Long live Radić!

In 1920 there was another uprising in Čazma and Sveti Ivan Zelina, following the seizure of estates belonging to peasants, which left a large number of dead on both sides.

In February 1922, the Croatian bloc of the Zagreb Parliament sent a memorandum to all the nations of the world and to the delegates to the Geneva Conference, denouncing to the world the unjust situation that Croatia had been enduring.

All forms of arbitrariness were applied to the Croats, taxes were ten times higher than in Servia.

Until January 6, 1929, all the guarantees that were very few were abolished, regional emblems were prohibited, all political groups were dissolved and the restricted freedom of expression that existed until then was ended. The dictatorship takes concrete forms...

Radić went to Lendres to convince the politicians to no avail, he also visited Russia with the same result; but upon his return they applied the anti-communist law to him, arresting him along with numerous leaders. The government also retaliated against the people.

On March 25, 1925, in the Belgrade Parliament and changing tactics, Pavle Radić (Stephen's nephew) gave a speech on behalf of the president of the party recognizing the monarchy, the Vidovdan Constitution and everything that Belgrade wanted and did not want, which caused great surprise at such an inexplicable attitude. The Croatian Republican Peasant Party became official and Radić was appointed Minister of Public Instruction, but everything was useless. The Serbs were not fooled, before the year Radić resigned to adopt a decidedly oppositional policy.

In 1927 elections were called, Radić triumphed in all Croatian districts, except in Zagreb where Ante Pavelić triumphed.

In November of that same year, the Peasant-Democratic coalition was achieved under the presidency of Radić and Pribićević, who had become friends in the Chamber, where they were feared, because nothing could be blamed on them; they instead threatened to denounce theft and embezzlement. The pro-government newspapers attacked them and even publicly stated that they had to be killed. The Parliament sessions were tumultuous.

On the eve of the Parliament session of June 20, 1928, and amid alarming rumors, Radić was advised to abstain from attending. Despite this, he witnessed the cowardly assassination attempt against him, carried out by Puniša Raćić, a member of the Serbian government majority, who fired his weapon at the Croatian national delegation. Pavle Radić and Dr. Jorge Basarićek were killed, and Stjepan Radić, Dr. Ivan Pernar, and Ivan Grandia were seriously wounded. The latter two survived, but Stjepan Radić succumbed to his injuries 48 days later, on August 8, 1928. The Croatian people reacted violently, clashing with the police and gendarmerie. In Zagreb, there were four dead and numerous wounded. There was no alternative; conspiracy was the only way.

The opposition representatives resigned from the Belgrade Parliament, and the Peasant-Democratic coalition convened all deputies on August 1st in the historic hall of the Croatian Congress in Zagreb, presided over by Pribićević. They concluded that it was necessary to fight on any ground... Crimes against the state were severely punished. One of the most significant sentences was handed down on July 17, 1929, against Dr. Ante Pavelić and journalist Gustavo Perčević. Based on unconfirmed reports of activities aimed at achieving independence for Croatia and Macedonia, they were sentenced to death, a sentence that was never carried out...

They fabricated conspiracies to justify drastic measures, carried out arbitrary arrests, tortured, and took family members hostage to force confessions to crimes they hadn't committed. The list of crimes, persecutions, and attacks perpetrated daily by the regime is endless. Even the Orthodox Church was at the service of the dictatorial king in his endeavor to "servitize"—as they said—to dominate and subjugate, humiliating and punishing the Croats.

The First Croatian Savings Bank, the Croatian Peasant Bank, the Croatian Discount Bank, and all credit institutions with roots in Croatia were destroyed. All positions of authority, both civil and military, were held by Serbs. Even in the diplomatic service, we note the following paradox: the minister to the Holy See was an Orthodox Serb. After the assassination attempt in the Belgrade Parliament, a subversive Ustaše movement was formed, led by Ante Pavelić, which rose up in arms in 1932 but failed. Field Marshal Slavko Kvaternik, who played an important role in independent Croatia (1941-1945), served in its ranks. In 1934, King Alexander I was assassinated in Marseille, along with the French Foreign Minister, M. Barthou, a victim of a revolutionary coalition of Croats and Macedonians, was succeeded by the eleven-year-old Peter II, under the regency of Prince Paul.

With the outbreak of the Second World War, Prince Paul felt inclined to make concessions to Croatia, granting it autonomy. On March 25, 1941, in Vienna, under pressure from Hitler, Croatia was forced to join the Tripartite Pact, as it was not in a military position to resist. Furthermore, the pact stipulated that Axis troops would respect the territory of Yugoslavia.

Two days after joining the pact, and on the eve of the Axis campaign against Greece and Russia, a group of officers and politicians staged a coup in Belgrade, ending monarchical Yugoslavia. This coup is believed to have been caused by discontent with the concessions granted to Croatia by the regency, as well as by the adherence to the Tripartite Pact.

Independent Croatia

On September 19, 1939, the Blitzkrieg in Poland marked the beginning of World War II. The operations related to Croatia and the encirclement of the Axis powers unfolded in the following chronological order: Mussolini annexed Albania in 1939; on October 7, 1940, German troops entered Romania, and on the 14th, Italian troops entered Greece; Hungary, threatened with destruction, joined the Axis a few days before Antonescu signed the corresponding document in Berlin. On November 24 of the same year, Slovakia was incorporated, increasing the pressure on Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. Bulgaria signed an alliance pact on March 1, 1941, and the following day, German troops entered Sofia and Varna. On April 6, 1941, the same day as the invasion of Yugoslavia, Hitler sent several columns into Greece from the north and east. King George and the Greek government fled to Crete on April 23.

On April 10, 1941, the Croats proclaimed their national independence, which was recognized by the Axis powers, though they had no involvement in the process. This recognition allowed Croatia to survive. Hitler invaded Yugoslavia but respected Croatian status, and although troops were stationed there, it was not an occupied country. The words of dictators can never be trusted, but Croatia had no alternative. On one side were their legitimate aspirations for freedom; on the other, their enemies, the Serbs who had subjugated them since 1918, and the iron belt of Axis troops surrounding them.

On the other hand, one must not forget Croatia's Western leanings, with a predominantly Catholic population and a conscious anti-communism that warned them of the Serbian threat—an Eastern-leaning, predominantly Orthodox nation—which, with Russian support, threatened to repeat the recent past with the ruthless dictatorship of Alexander I, who drowned the legitimate aspirations of the Croats in blood.

Croatia was not in a position to choose. The Nazi threat also loomed over it; the Western powers could offer it no protection whatsoever, and its anti-communism was presented with the opportunity to combat it. This is how Croatian divisions, comprising 300,000 soldiers, fought alongside German troops between August 1942 and January 1943, against communism, including at Stalingrad...

Ante Pavelić (1889-1960) presided over the government of free Croatia. He was the leader of the Ustaše (insurgent) movement and until 1929 was a member of parliament for Zagreb representing the Croatian Constitutional Law Party, founded by Ante Starčević, Croatia's national figure and an eminent democrat, whose memory lives on in every Croatian.

Ante Pavelić was unable to establish the country's institutions on the democratic foundations that inspired him. The circumstances were entirely unfavorable...

But those who, in one way or another, helped the Germans would pay a heavy price for their adventure, like Colonel General Milan Netich (a Serb) who, during the German occupation, agreed to head the "government administration" in Belgrade. A monarchist patriot, he lived modestly with his brother, General Milutin Neditch, and his wife, who worked to support them. Both committed suicide in Tyrol after the fall of Germany.

Milan Neditch, in turn, arrested by the Americans and transferred to Belgrade in February 1946 to testify about Mihailovitch's activities, ended his days by throwing himself out of a prison window.

Siegfried Kasche, the German minister in Zagreb during the period of free Croatia, who was also transferred to Yugoslavia in 1947, was instead executed by Tito. There would be numerous examples.

The Twilight of Freedom

Meanwhile, a resistance movement was forming in Serbia, led by Draga Mikhailovich, a nationalist movement, and simultaneously by Josip Broz (Tito), a communist movement. They eventually clashed, with Tito emerging victorious. With his troops and material support from Russia, he penetrated Belgrade, proclaiming the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on November 29, 1945, and establishing a communist regime. Mikhailovich had been executed.

Croatia, invaded by Tito and Soviet troops, lost its independence on May 15, 1945, which it had won on April 10, 1941. It was once again dominated by the Serbs, formerly under the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, now by international communism through the pro-Russian faction led by Tito.

The invasion of Croatia by communist troops was carried out by sowing terror and liquidating anyone who, in any way, was perceived as opposing their sinister plans, culminating in what became known as "The Tragedy of Bleiburg" or "The Croatian Super Katyn." This refers to the retreat of 150,000 Croatian soldiers to Austria near the city of Bleiburg, which the British authorities refused to allow and repatriated. On May 15, 1945, the bulk of this army was handed over to the communists, who massacred them along with numerous political refugees, intellectuals, and peasants. No women or children were spared. It is estimated that 200,000 Croatians and 12,000 Slovenes were killed, while German minorities were either exterminated or expelled.

Many prominent figures who played important roles, but who survived the war, succumbed in the peacetime. Some took their own lives, others were executed after summary trials, or rather, at the whim of the powerful whose bloodlust they could not quench.

Colonel General Alexander Lõhr of the German troops stationed in Croatia was also transferred and executed, and German General Glaise van Horstenau, who would have suffered the same fate, committed suicide in prison.

And we must pay tribute to Cardinal Louis Stepinac, condemned to 16 years of hard labor, who, despite having acted impartially, died confined in his native village where he is venerated as a saint.

This ruthless action had well-defined political and social aims: aspirations of domination, the elimination of the ruling class, particularly the Croatian class, and intimidation of the widespread anti-Serbian sentiment. It invoked supposed ideals to mask its sinister plans, and its war criminals deserved another Nuremberg trial.

The Crimean Conference took place in Yalta from February 4 to 11, 1945. The West believed the false communist promises, claiming it would establish a democratic regime, but instead instituted a pro-Serbian centralism that persists to this day.

The Yalta Conference was harshly criticized, portrayed as "a new Munich" or "Stalin's greatest victory." The Allies won the war but lost the peace. Western countries believed in the prospects of Pan-Slavism. Churchill himself misled them when he declared in the House of Commons: "Yugoslavia has finally found its soul."

In contrast, Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1943, speaking with Sir Anthony Eden in Washington, told him: "The Croats and the Serbs have nothing in common, so it is ridiculous to insist that two such antagonistic peoples live under one government..."

The Allies considered the Croats fascists because, pressured by circumstances, they allied themselves with the Axis powers, but a fascist party never existed in Croatia. Croatia is fighting for its freedom, but at that time, in 1941, only the Axis powers could offer support, having come to realize that "It makes no difference to us who opens the doors of our prison..."

We must remember that it was a coalition of Croats and Macedonians who assassinated King Alexander I in Marseille; Ante Pavelić and Gustav Perčević were sentenced to death, although the sentences were not carried out, for activities aimed at achieving independence for Croatia and Macedonia. Regarding Slovenian separatism, we have already mentioned that Macedonian communism is closer to Bulgarian communism than to Serbian communism. (From Tito's report to the Fifth Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, held in 1948, it is easy to understand that the party has not achieved the monolithic organization that its leaders proclaim.) Indeed, in that report, Tito accuses the communist leaders of Macedonia of deviationism; and with respect to Croatia, he accuses the party secretary, Andriy Hebrang (who was murdered in prison by the regime), of being said to have "weakened Croatia's ties with Yugoslavia," and later, that "their deviation towards Croatian national separatism was evident in every step they took." It is clear that not even the Croatian communists admit their own bias. "Subordination to Serbia."

NOTE: The Slovenian newspaper Smer, published in Buenos Aires, noted that Slovenia did not recognize any "heading" by Croatia or Serbia. We appreciate this Slovenian national sentiment, which we note here. Indeed, Dr. Dussaut meant nothing to be detrimental to Slovenia. The distinguished speaker merely highlighted which parts of Yugoslavia are westernized and that Croatia, among them, ranks first in terms of land area and population. — (S.C. Editorial Staff)

Documents

THE HOLY SEE - THE 1966 PROTOCOL AND NATIONAL INTERESTS IN YUGOSLAVIA

(Memorandum from the Croatian-Latin American Institute of Culture to the Holy See on the occasion of the signing in 1966 of the Protocol between the Holy See and the communist government of Yugoslavia)

Buenos Aires, October 14, 1966

His Holiness

Pope Paul VI

VATICAN CITY

Rome, Italy

HOLY FATHER:

As part of that Croatian generation forced to wage war against the revolution and the communist invasion of Croatia, introduced from abroad and largely comprised of Serbian forces, we consider it our duty, as political exiles, democrats, and anti-communists, to submit to Your paternal consideration certain observations of ours, inspired by the signing of the Protocol on June 25 between the Holy See and the Yugoslav government with the purpose of normalizing their reciprocal relations.

Even though we had to overcome numerous emotional resistances, and not without prior intellectual effort, we consider the change in ecclesiastical diplomacy, favorable to dialogue between Christianity and Communism, to be a positive one.

Given the prevailing international situation, dialogue with Communism, which holds political power in many countries, is almost the only possible way to alleviate the lives of believers and humanize relations in general within these harshly subjugated political communities. No single ideology has ever achieved total victory, so it would be illusory to maintain a wait-and-see attitude until Christian principles and beliefs exclusively dominate the world. Consequently, the search for a compromise in real life, while preserving the integrity of principles and the purity of creeds, condensed in different systems of thought or religious creeds, seems to be the only path toward a better future, while still hoping to avoid the tremendous catastrophe of a potential nuclear conflict.

This effect of the new policy of dialogue—the improvement in the lives of the faithful and greater guarantees for peoples struggling for their freedom—should not be lacking in our homeland, Croatia. The signing of the aforementioned Protocol should inaugurate these effects precisely in that part of the world.

While we cherish the hope that this will be the case, we take the liberty, with filial trust and sincerity, of expressing certain fears and concerns regarding the possible consequences of this ecclesiastical policy for our Croatian people. For this new policy of the Vatican may not necessarily coincide with the fundamental interests of our people.

In reality, the Croatian people are resolutely opposed to the Yugoslav political community, within which they lived and continue to live in the condition of "slaves," as the late Cardinal Stepinac so aptly put it. There is ample evidence that a more comprehensive opposition to Belgrade also exists in Croatia, and that it is precisely this firm opposition that is shattering, in that part of the world, the illusion of Marxist monolithism and the supposed superiority of socialist society over the society of the free world.

All oppression, needless to say, is destroyed by the resistance of those willing to confront it. It would therefore be harmful and unjust to deny the Croatian people this service, which they also render to the free world in general, as they wage their struggle for freedom. With the inauguration of the new policy between the Vatican and Belgrade, without any visible concessions to Croatian and Slovenian Catholicism in the country, Belgrade's prestige as the center of an atheist and totalitarian government is being strengthened, giving the impression that it is prepared to guarantee freedom to Catholics, its staunch adversaries until recently. Thus, the Yugoslav communist government will be able to more easily exploit its increased prestige against the aspirations and rights to freedom of the Croatian people.

The interpretations of the Protocol made thus far by the Yugoslav press justify our observations on this matter. In its communist bias, the aforementioned press attempts to defame Croatian priests as "criminal terrorists" and deprive them of the right to participate, as intellectuals and patriots, in their people's struggle for freedom, which is the inalienable right of all peoples and the content of divine and human laws.

We sincerely regret the way in which the paragraphs of the Protocol were partially drafted, but, for the greater good, we share the reasons given by L'Osservatore Romano, which states that the unusual and astonishing wording was imposed as a "conditio sine qua non" in order to begin taking the first steps in circumstances dictated by a policy of dialogue.

Recognizing that there was pressure from the communist Yugoslav government, but vehemently rejecting the forced insinuations against our clergy, we consider it our duty to address our Mother Church with the fervent plea that, under these new circumstances, she intervene now on behalf of every Croatian priest and believer denounced and persecuted, with the full weight of her international moral authority and all the means available in the exercise of her sacred mission in the world before a communist regime that changes tactics and expresses a desire to alleviate the terror, but offers no adequate guarantees that religious and human freedom will truly be respected and, being Serbian, that it will respect the legitimate aspirations of the Croatian people to their right to self-determination. Hence, in the opinion of many, the Protocol seems intended solely to contribute to the legitimacy of Serbian power over the Croatian people.

"Veritas veritati contradicere non potest!" goes the old principle of perennial philosophy. It should be added here: Jus juri non potest! The Croatian people's right to religious freedom and the right of their Church to diplomatic freedom cannot and should not be opposed to the natural right of the same people to their freedom and self-determination, since all these rights constitute, in this specific case, a single, universal right—the Law!

The Croatian nation, which, for the most part, has remained faithful to the Catholic Church for 1300 years, firmly hopes that even today, in such difficult times, nothing and no one will be able to undermine the mutual trust between the Holy See and the Croatians. On the contrary, it is our firm conviction that the Croatian people, now more than ever, will find the paternal understanding and support of the Supreme Pontiff, not only as believers but also as a natural community, as a national and political entity, striving for its existence in these extremely difficult conditions in order to live among civilized nations.

We also welcome the ecumenical movement, deeply rooted in our own Croatian history. We know that many believe that Croatian Catholicism and Serbian Orthodoxy, coexisting within the same state, offer a fitting opportunity to attempt a new experiment in the reconciliation of Western and Eastern Christianity. However, because this idea is dear to us and because we feel ready to contribute to its realization, nothing and no one can force us to renounce our national identity, disappearing into a hybrid, nonexistent, and unnatural Yugoslav nationality. Collective suicides are sins against nature, just as individual suicides are.

We are confident that all those who safeguard the truth and the interests of faith and the freedom of peoples, and among them first and foremost our Mother Church, will consider the foregoing with the same spirit and concern as we have just expressed.

We take the liberty of sending Your Holiness the latest issue of the journal STUDIA CROATICA, in which we present our viewpoint on this matter in a more comprehensive and well-reasoned manner.

With filial devotion, we greet the Holy Father and pray that the Almighty may crown with complete success his ongoing efforts for the peace and moral and material well-being of the entire world.

ON BEHALF OF THE INSTITUTE:

Dr. M. BLAŽEKOVIĆ

President

Dr. F. NEVISTIĆ

Secretary

THROUGH THE WINDOW OF "YUGOSLAV SOCIALIST" REALITY

Mr. Makso Baće is one of the Croatian communists who participated in the Spanish Civil War, hence his nickname "Španjolac" (the Spaniard). He is currently the Vice-President of the Sabor (Communist Diet) of the Federal Republic of Croatia. As a long-standing communist and a high-ranking official in communist Croatia, he published an article in the official newspaper "VUS", No. 954/70 (Zagreb) concerning the fundamental problems and serious events that seriously affect the foundation of the federation of the communist Yugoslav state.

Esteban Perkov, a reader of the newspaper from southern Croatia (Dalmatia), comments on Mr. Baće's article, asking: "Can a new federation be expected after 27 years of navigating the waters of statism and centralist unitarianism, and after the meeting of AVNOJ (Antifašističko Vijeće Narodnog Oslobodjenja Jugoslavije — The Antifascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia), where it was proclaimed that 'all the peoples of Yugoslavia would effectively have equality assured in communist Yugoslavia'?"

“This equality,” the commentator continued, “was offered to the postwar generations primarily on the condition of the nation’s demise, with unitarianism as its ideal, under the refrain ‘Unity and Fraternity.’ Currently, we are convinced that the Federation cannot rest on this foundation and that, if we desire a true solution, we must return to its original principles…” After affirming the existence of some who had not abandoned these principles, he continued, “They are destined to create the new and sound foundations for the Federation, which will rest on political and economic equality and be a self-managed society” (VUS, July 26, 1970).

The VUS correspondent, Drago Tović, published the article “Agony with the Passport” in issue 953/1970, painting a pessimistic picture of the disappearance of Croatian villages in the Slavonia province. Their children feel compelled daily to go to work in the “capitalist” world.

Ante Mijić, a Croatian laborer in Vienna, Austria, after reading Tović's article, says: "This article touched me deeply because it speaks directly from my heart. I was born into a large family (eight children), of whom only one remained in the homeland.

"After five years of hard work and meager savings, I decided to return to my homeland, determined never to leave its soil again, hoping that, at least for now, it would provide me with bread and shelter. But what a miracle! I found a small room with a few hundred square meters of nationalized land, for the price of 100,000 new dinars. The tax I would have to pay was 'only' 22%, and to that very homeland that couldn't give me either bread or shelter! Despite my excitement at the idea of returning, I had to give up.

"I'll stay here, working as a caretaker in someone else's house and eating like a foreigner, because I would feel like a foreigner even in my own country. How absurd!" I would have to work two more years to pay taxes to the Motherland, which is my motherland in name only. I love my Motherland, but I have no reason to love it. My heart compels me to return, while reason suggests I should refrain. Help me with this dilemma: Return to the Motherland without work, without bread, without a home, or remain abroad with the taste of bitter bread and under a stranger's roof? This is the stark reality—political and socio-economic—seen by those directly affected and reflected in a Yugoslav communist newspaper. A very bitter reality, but not one invented by exiles. It goes without saying: Why was so much blood shed, and why is so much terror still being exercised in that country today, under the promise of national and social liberation for its people? (Note from the S.C. Network)

Chronicles, news and comments

THE RESUMPTION OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN THE HOLY SEE AND THE YUGOSLAVIAN COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT

Various opinions

In mid-August 1970, the Vatican and the communist government of Belgrade decided to reestablish diplomatic relations, which had been severed in 1952 following the elevation to the cardinalate of Monsignor Louis Stepinac, who had been sentenced by that government to 16 years of hard labor.

Commenting on this new and surprising development, Le Monde of Paris, in its August 16-17, 1970 issue, also stated the following: "...On June 25, 1966, the Holy See and Yugoslavia reached a modus vivendi. They exchanged 'envoys' who did not have diplomatic status. Furthermore, they decided not to deviate from this positive path.

"It would seem naive to believe that there will be no further difficulties between a regime whose leaders are drawing inspiration from an atheistic ideology and a spiritual power that wishes to bear witness to the existence of God before humankind... Paul VI had repeatedly announced that Catholics should work ever more diligently for the good of the country."

"The Belgrade government agreed to respect the rights and freedom of action of the Church. Not long ago, a large number of priests considered themselves authorized to play a civil role and were waging a struggle—invoking religion—that had nothing to do with the Gospel." As for the communist government, it guaranteed freedom of worship on the condition that priests remain within the sacristy. Little by little, positions began to converge. "Furthermore," Le Monde continues, "the Titoists realized that the Pope defends the cause of peace and the development of peoples in accordance with their own aspirations. Since the pontificate of John XXIII, the Vatican ceased to be, for them, the kitchen of imperialism, as anti-religious propaganda had claimed until then." Highlighting the current freedom of the Catholic press in that country, the Parisian daily continues: "Logically, in exchange for these concessions, the Holy See recognized in the document signed four years ago that the activity of Catholic priests in the performance of their duties must be carried out within the religious and ecclesiastical framework. With this clause, the Pope discredited those priests—in the country or in exile—who might try to use their religious ministry for political ends."

"Despite everything, the problems remain unresolved. The Yugoslav Church (sic!) is demanding the return of its nationalized property. The State considers these demands excessive." This and many other issues will be addressed by Monsignor Casaroli, who will soon travel to Belgrade. "The communist leaders," Le Monde continues, "are content with the strengthened position of the Church in Slovenia and Croatia. To the militants who are becoming angry about this, they reply that, in reality, the political influence of a Church forced to adapt to the modern world is on the decline. The Vatican and Belgrade have discovered in recent years the advantages of tolerance... The exchange of embassies to take place at the end of this year, as well as the possible visit of Marshal Tito to Paul VI, underscore this mutual respect between two powers that share ideas and are bringing their positions closer together to work for the good of humanity.

"Marshal Tito, after declaring that religious reasons had to be eliminated from social relations, emphasized: 'Of course, we will not fight against religion. Everyone is free to believe what they please. But we are building the new socialist Yugoslavia without religious or other prejudices.'" Therefore, he added, we must fight decisively against 'the class enemy,' whose activity is developing both on a religious level and in the relations between nationalities.

"These words of the Yugoslav leader were motivated especially by the existence in Bosnia-Herzegovina of the phenomenon of religious intolerance, particularly against the Muslim community. It is significant that these words were spoken shortly after the... restoration of diplomatic relations between Belgrade and the Holy See was announced..."

According to the same Parisian newspaper, the Committee for the Defense of Christian Civilization issued a statement expressing "its astonishment and concern" at the restoration of Vatican-Belgrade diplomatic relations.

L'Osservatore Romano, in its Spanish edition, No. 34(86) of August 23, 1970, referred to the event with the following commentary: "The Holy See and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, driven by the desire to further promote their existing relations, have decided to proceed with the exchange of diplomatic representations, with the rank of Apostolic Nunciature on the part of the Holy See, and of Embassy on the part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Holy See will appoint an Apostolic Pro-Nuncio residing in Belgrade, and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will appoint a resident ambassador to the Holy See... The establishment of diplomatic relations is by no means infrequent; but the resolution announced today takes on particular significance because of the context in which it is made. Four years ago in Belgrade, the delegates of the Holy See..." and the Yugoslav government signed a Protocol affirming their shared will to make an effective contribution to the solution of both general and specific problems affecting relations between the Catholic Church and the Yugoslav State. Consequently, they recognized the usefulness of direct relations in seeking appropriate solutions to problems of common interest, which include, in addition to Church-State relations in Yugoslavia, the safeguarding of peace among peoples... In order to continue and make more organic the contacts thus initiated, the Holy See and the government of the SSF of Yugoslavia have decided to proceed with the exchange of informal representatives... with the conviction that this will contribute to the improvement of mutual relations and to useful cooperation in the international arena..." This was stated in a previous official communiqué.

L'Osservatore Romano continues: "In a commentary in L'Osservatore Romano (June 26, 1966) dedicated to the Belgrade Protocol, it was stated that the agreement, already important as a starting point, could be considered even more important because of the premises it lays for future developments...

"That statement now appears to be confirmed by the facts. In 1966, the establishment of unofficial representations of the SS in Belgrade and of the SSF of Yugoslavia in the Vatican could not be considered a restoration of the relations severed in 1952... But now the establishment of regular diplomatic representations, at the level of Embassy and Apostolic Nunciature respectively, puts an end to a situation that would have lasted a long time and seals, also in terms of international law, the resumption of official relations.

"The first announcement of a 'normalization' came directly from Paul VI on June 24, 1966. Responding, on his name day, to the congratulations presented to him by the cardinals through a speech by their Dean, the Pope said: '...We place this fact in the hands of Providence so that it may produce beneficial fruits for the Church and for the peoples of that Nation...'"

"Today, more than four years after the signing of those agreements, the establishment of normal diplomatic relations between the Holy See and Yugoslavia testifies that the agreements have fulfilled the intentions that gave rise to them and the hopes they aroused. How should we interpret this event? The Church has not asked for, nor does it ask for, privileges; but it needs—and therefore requests—the vital space indispensable for the exercise of its mission.

Indeed, diplomatic relations between the Holy See and governments aim to ensure, within the respect of reciprocal sovereign prerogatives, freedom and cooperation for the integral good of peoples... Providence will bring forth from this event other beneficial fruits for the Church, for the peoples of Yugoslavia, and for the cause of peace."

"On August 24, Bishop Agostino left Rome for Belgrade." Casaroli, considered the Vatican's "foreign minister," was received there by Tito's foreign minister, Mirka Tepavac, a Serbian, communist, and Eastern Orthodox Christian (by baptism). During the dinner he hosted that same day for his distinguished guest, Tepavac said, among other things: "The Yugoslav government greatly appreciates the efforts made by Pope Paul VI and the Holy See in favor of peace, their commitment to respecting the independence and right to self-determination of all countries, and the aid given to developing nations. The basic principles that inspire the policy of the Non-Aligned Movement and the objectives of its upcoming summit conference are directed toward the same goals."

In replying to Mr. Tepavac, Archbishop Casaroli emphasized, among other points, the following: “In reality, the Holy See, interpreting the sentiments of this community (the Yugoslav Catholic community, as Archbishop Casaroli stated in a previous paragraph — Obs. of the S.C. Network) and its pastors, has not considered, and does not consider, as a limitation the principle contained in the protocol, according to which the activity of Catholic clergy, in the exercise of their functions, must be carried out within the religious and ecclesiastical sphere. For this is indeed the proper sphere of the Church’s activity, and it is its duty to remain faithful to it… Wherever the rights and legitimate interests of peoples are at stake, wherever the cause of peace with its irreplaceable principles of justice and civility is at stake, wherever economic development is at stake, the Church must be on the front lines…”

It is extremely difficult to interpret the intentions of others. Especially if we approach it with the spirit of absolute sincerity and respect for both sides, as in the present case. Thinking about it, the ideas of Father Teilhard de Chardin inevitably come to mind. Monsignor Casaroli, representative of the Catholic Church, the Church of the majority of the Croatian people, and Mr. Tepavec, a communist, express basic agreement regarding the goals of peace, the right to self-determination, the legitimate interests of peoples, etc.

An encounter, therefore, ideal for testing faith in humanity. "At this very moment," says Teilhard, "consider the two extremes around you: here a Marxist and there a Christian, both convinced of their particular doctrine, but both also, presumably, radically animated by a similar faith in humanity."

Isn't it certain—isn't this a fact of our daily experience—that these two men, insofar as they firmly believe (...) in the future of the world, experience toward each other, man to man, a fundamental sympathy—not a simple sentimental sympathy, but a sympathy based on the presentiment of God that they journey together—and in one way or another will end up meeting, despite all the differences in their approaches, on the same summit?... For (by nature, everything that is faith ascends; and everything that ascends inevitably converges).

Can we, then, agree with Thierry de Chardin? We believe we are closer to the truth if we distance ourselves somewhat from the idealism of this French priest and philosopher. Especially if we distance ourselves from the diplomatic formalities of Casaroli-Tepavac.

Scientific idealism and diplomatic politeness, especially the latter, are often far removed from reality. Tepavac belongs to the political-professional bureaucracy of a communist state, and the Serbian philosopher, also a Marxist, Mihajlo Marković, says regarding these bureaucrats: “Consequently, what was initially a typically ideological position… later becomes a cynical and hypocritical one: now the bureaucrat no longer believes in his own words, but uses them pragmatically to intentionally conceal a new form of exploitation. Thus it has been shown that, to eliminate exploitation, it is not enough to eliminate private ownership of the means of production… In short, the bureaucracy (socialist, communist — S.C. Network Notes) is the exponent of the principle of exploitation, while all other social groups of exploitation are weakened.” (The Revolt of “PRAXIS,” Longanesi & Co., pp. 36–37, Milan, 1969).

Another philosopher of Tito, of Croatian origin, Danko Grlić, emphasizes in this regard: “Who could have foreseen all these deviations from the Socialism — (Obs. of the S.C. Network), all these often very profound social deformations, national oppressions, the manifestation of the darkest passions of nationalism, genocide, the mistreatment of political and ideological adversaries far worse than common criminals, and all the other horrors of dehumanization, personal terror, the gray bureaucracy... "Moreover, today we are discovering with increasing certainty that this is not the result of a particular economic disorder, or of economic or architectural backwardness...

Indeed, if one looks closely at the contemporary socialist movement, one cannot help but think that the many outstanding problems are the result of such a disorder, accidental and momentary, and that it is possible to eliminate it through further automation and technification... Morbid personal ambitions, the lust for power, the manifestation of the leading-nation phenomenon and the economic exploitation of small peoples, the secret liquidations of those who think differently... will not be able to easily disappear in the new era..." (Cited work, pp. 17-18). National oppression, economic exploitation, manifestation of the leading nation—a whole series of vices and distortions that characterize Yugoslav multinational society. Without taking into consideration the extensive arguments that S.C. continues to publish issue after issue, it would suffice to read only the documents we publish in this issue of S.C. to see the profound "aberrations" of Yugoslav socialism in all directions after the elimination of private ownership of the means of production and the re-establishment of the policy of Yugoslav "unity and fraternity." Around 400,000 Croatian workers are performing heavier tasks in the "capitalist" world, even though their republic contributes more to the common treasury than any of its "fraternized" republics and, with fair investment, could provide work, bread, and shelter for all its children. And one of those hundreds of Thousands of Croatian workers write: "I love my homeland, but I have no reason to love it. My heart urges me to return, while reason suggests I should refrain. Help me with this dilemma: Should I return to my homeland without work, without bread, without a home, or remain abroad with bitter bread and under a stranger's roof?"

"Wherever the rights and legitimate interests of peoples are at stake, whenever the cause of peace with its irreplaceable principles of justice and charity is in question, the Church must be on the front lines," said Archbishop Casaroli in his toast to Tito's minister, the Serbian-communist Tepavac.

The Croatian nation is dying in the embrace of "unity and fraternity" with the Serbs. The rights and legitimate interests of the Croatian people are at stake, and with them, in that part of the world, are also those of the Catholic Church. Consequently, the Vatican's diplomatic representative in Belgrade, as well as Archbishop Casaroli, have grave, very grave problems on their agenda. "Various problems remain, but it can be said that there are solid foundations for finding a satisfactory solution," Monsignor Casaroli told "L'Osservatore Romano," referring to his visit to Belgrade and the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between the Vatican and the communist government of Belgrade.

Let us be allowed to seriously doubt the solidity of these foundations. The nation—the guiding force in that country, the Serbian nation—is currently trying to repair the edifice of its hegemony in order to continue with all the deviations and distortions described by its philosophers, as we have seen above. The normalization of diplomatic relations with the Vatican should serve only this purpose. Furthermore: since the national idea was established, no ideology or doctrine could supersede it. According to the Spanish edition of L'Osservatore Romano, dated September 6, 1970, three Croats participated in the talks and negotiations to re-establish these relations: Tito, Ante Drndić, and Vjekoslav Cvrije.

On the Serbian side were Tepavac, Jovičević, and M. Milovski, and on the Italian side, Monsignor Casarolli, Monsignor Cagna, and Monsignor P. Celeta. Recently, Borghese II promised to defend the integrity of Yugoslavia on behalf of Italy against a potential Soviet invasion, but under the condition: quid pro quo. We will defend the "empire" of Belgrade if it returns to us the "lost provinces" from after the Second World War. In other words, this is the Italian claim against Croatian and Slovenian lands. Doesn't the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with the Vatican ultimately also fall under the mechanisms of this policy? Why were there no Slovenians present at these negotiations? Where was the Croatian Catholic hierarchy?

Or perhaps the Croatian and Slovenian episcopate is not part of the Catholic Church, which "must be on the front lines" wherever "the legitimate interests of peoples" are at stake? We disagree that Stepinac's successor was not in a position and entitled to defend and propagate this mission of the Catholic Church, and that this did not legitimize his participation alongside Bishops Casaroli, Cagna, and Celata. After 1300 years of life within the Catholic community, we do not believe that the Croatian and Slovenian Catholic hierarchy needs total tutelage from Vatican diplomacy.

History teaches us that this diplomacy has rarely been able to detach itself from Italian interests or others more valued than those of the Croatian people. We appreciate international solidarity within the Catholic community and the aid that can be provided in emergencies, but no one can convince us that Croatian and Slovenian archbishops and bishops should confine themselves to their mission within four walls, while their Vatican counterparts can be present there and elsewhere, "especially if dangers arise or it becomes necessary to sustain and strengthen prospects of hope." We are particularly concerned about what Archbishop Cagna or Archbishop Casaroli will say regarding Tepavac's statement concerning the commitment of the Vatican and the Belgrade government to respect "the right to self-determination of all countries." Is the Croatian people also included in this solemn address?

F. N.

TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF STUDIA CROATICA

On October 24, 1970, the Latin American Croatian Institute of Culture in Buenos Aires commemorated the tenth anniversary of the journal STUDIA CROATICA. A dinner was held to honor the journal's contributors and friends. Approximately 50 contributors and special guests gathered at the Argentine Croatian Cultural Club of Buenos Aires, including the distinguished Argentines Dr. Augusto E. García, Dr. Alejandro Dussaut, Dr. Enrique de Gandia, Dr. José P. Pendas, and Dr. Rodolfo Luque (Jr.), along with their wives.

The president of the Institute, who was also the journal's editor, delivered a speech recounting the history of the publication, highlighting its successes as well as its difficulties and setbacks. Towards the end of his address, which we reproduce at the end of this article, the speaker outlined a general outlook for the future, taking into account the political and social crisis we were witnessing.

After his speech, the president presented certificates of recognition to the journal's most distinguished contributors: Dr. M. Luketa, Messrs. Ivo Rojnica, Ivo Bogdan, Branko Kadić, and Doctors Milan Blažeković and Radovan Latković.

Then, the Institute's secretary, Mr. Milan Rakovac, read the letters and telegrams received from every continent, expressing support and appreciation for those selflessly sacrificing themselves for a noble cause—the freedom and independence of the Croatian people. From North America, the Institute received greetings from the Right Reverend Dr. D. Mandić, an honorary member of the Institute; Reverend Lj. Chuvalo, editor of the Chicago weekly "Danica"; and Professor B. Radica, a prominent publicist, writer, and contributor to North American and Croatian publications, as well as a correspondent for our institution.

From university professors Dr. D. Tomašić, Dr. A. Kadić, Dr. G. Prpić, Dr. A. Belić, and Professor Dr. S. Vujica, President of the Croatian Academy of North America, as well as from his wife, Nada Kesterćanek, professor and poet. From Europe, Reverend Dr. Ivan Tomas, Dr. J. Petrićević, Dr. A. S. Pavelić, Dr. T. Radja, and Professor V. Nikolić sent their support. From Venezuela, Professor D. Žanko and his wife sent warm greetings, while Dr. Martin Aberg Cobo, a lawyer from Buenos Aires and a distinguished contributor to our journal, expressed his "deepest appreciation for the work you do," apologizing for being unable to attend the celebrations due to prior commitments. From Córdoba, Argentina, journalist F. Pušković also sent greetings and congratulations in writing. From distant Australia, Mr. M. Maglica, editor of the Croatian newspaper Hrvatski Dom (Croatian Home), also sent his praise in writing to those involved with the Institute and through its journal.

Secretary M. Rakovac finally presented a certificate of appreciation to Dr. F. Nevistić, the journal's current editor and president of the Institute.

Later, during lunch, speeches were given by Dr. A. E. Garcia, former Argentine delegate and former president of the OAS; Dr. Alejandro Dussaut, distinguished physician and former university professor; and Professor E. de Gandía, each highlighting the value of the journal and praising the work carried out by the Croatian community in Argentina.

Speaking on behalf of the Argentine Croatian Cultural Club was its secretary, Professor Anton Borozan, who, with moving and laudatory words, emphasized the importance of the journal and the patrons who support it. Finally, Father Lino Pedíšié, the spiritual director of the Croatian community in Argentina, spoke, thanking all those present, especially Argentinians, whose homeland is also the adopted homeland of many Croatians.

The Slovenian community was represented by Mr. Ruda Jurćec, writer and publicist, and Drs. D. Weblé and S. Baraga, politicians and writers. Professor Dr. Stanko Meciar, a contributor to STUDIA CROATICA, attended on behalf of the Slavic community.

Speech by the President of the Croatian-Latin American Institute of Culture

"Ten years ago, a group of Croatians in Buenos Aires, after much deliberation and consultation, decided to establish the Croatian-Latin American Institute of Culture. According to the Statutes drafted at that time, the Institute's objective is: 'The dissemination in Latin America of Croatian culture in general and information on the current political, cultural, and social reality of the Croatian nation in particular, as well as the study of past and present ties between Croatians and Latin American nations, especially with regard to the Republic of Argentina.'

Article 3 of the same Statutes states, among other things, the following: 'To achieve its objectives and purposes, the Institute will hold meetings and conferences..., promote, sponsor, and publish pamphlets, journals, books, and other publications...' without this being an exhaustive list. Today, ten years later, we can say modestly but with satisfaction that all the Institute's Boards of Directors have remained faithful and diligent in fulfilling these tasks." planned, for which I publicly thank you here.

As we have seen, the objectives also include the sponsorship and publication of journals. Indeed, almost simultaneously, that is, in 1960, the first issue of our journal STUDIA CROATICA appeared, the main reason for this meeting.

There, on the desk, you can all see the volumes of it, comprising nearly three thousand pages, speaking to us silently but insistently about the past, the present, and, if one may say so, the future of the Croatian people. Thousands upon thousands of hours of work—intellectual and physical—and millions of pesos are invested in those volumes, which have become the most faithful means of transmission and communication between the Croatian people and the Argentine people in particular, as well as between the Croatian people and the entire Hispanic American community and free nations in general.

There are few fields of interest or human activity—religious, philosophical, scientific, cultural-artistic, political, economic, or social—that have not been at least addressed by one of the The magazine's contributors over these ten years. There we have partially outlined what the Croatian people have contributed, or are contributing, within their means, to the universal heritage of culture.

But it wasn't only Croatian authors who filled the pages of our magazine. We can say with genuine pride that our contributors were able to connect with illustrious figures from other nations, and first and foremost, those from Argentina, who presented themselves and spoke from the pages of STUDIA CROATICA. Thanks to this, our magazine opened the door to a dialogue between various sectors of national culture—between Croatian national culture and the cultures of many other nations, especially those within the Hispanic American sphere.

I don't intend to list details. You have to open the magazine and read it. Along with Croatian authors, there are also Argentinians, Venezuelans, Americans, French, Slovaks, and Hungarians. The magazine's content also found an echo, modest but repeated, in the Argentine press. "La Prensa," "La Nación," "Clarín", "Freie Presse", etc. occasionally record what we communicate to the world.

Thus, for example, when our special edition "The Tragedy of Bleiburg" appeared, a heartbreaking document of barbarity and atrocities committed at the end of the last great war against the Croatian people—especially their army and youth—after the solemn presentation of this book at the City Hotel, almost all the Buenos Aires newspapers dedicated some of their precious space to the Croatian voices that, from the pages of that book, cry out for justice, pointing out those responsible.

The success of this undertaking was ensured especially thanks to our illustrious Argentine friends. Their moral and civic integrity, their personal culture, and their patriotism guarantee that what is stated in our magazine is not cheap propaganda but a tremendous reality, confirmed by historical facts, seriously and rigorously verified. It is His Excellency, Dr. Eduardo Augusto García, to whom I am referring first and to whom I express my gratitude once again, emphasizing that we will never forget this invaluable service. (Applause)

The rigor of the facts and the seriousness of the arguments in this publication are highlighted in the book: "L'Occident joue et per la Yugoslavia dans la guerre" (The West Plays and Loses Yugoslavia in War). Bernard George, its author, had enough courage and seriousness to speak many truths in support of the Croatian national cause precisely in the French environment, traditionally inclined and favorable to our most bitter enemy—official Serbian policy. You all know that the tragedy of Bleiburg, with all its antecedents and inhuman consequences that befell the Croatian people, stems directly from the Croatian-Serbian national conflict.

Serbian hegemony, imposed in Yugoslavia since 1918—the year these two peoples first formed a political community—provoked the Croatian struggle for the right to self-determination, which culminated in 1941—after decades of political persecution, economic plunder, and cultural marginalization—with a full-scale rebellion and the proclamation of Croatian independence. Our aforementioned edition marks the beginning of a thaw in this regard within the French community. Our redoubled efforts, along with those of our friends, primarily Argentinians, will contribute further. The book "Tragedy of Bleiburg" has shown us the path, arduous but certain.

The same has occurred with the publication of our special edition "Bosnia and Herzegovina." "La Prensa," this newspaper—a source of pride for journalism not only in Argentina but worldwide—noted that this book opened new perspectives and made new contributions to the serious problem of responsibility for the 1914 Sarajevo assassination and the First World War. Until now, the Serbian interpretation of that abominable act of bloodshed has predominated.

Some Serbian students at French universities at the end of the last century, such as M. Spalajković, later a Serbian minister, falsely reported in their doctoral dissertations that Bosnia and Herzegovina were Serbian provinces and, consequently, that their occupation and annexation by the Dual Monarchy would have been an act of aggression worthy of the strongest possible response from Serbia. Indeed, while Serbia officially sought to establish the most proper relations with Vienna, its paramilitary organizations—"Black Hand," for example—in collaboration with the most radical elements of the Serbian minority in Bosnia, prepared and perpetrated the Sarajevo assassination, marking the beginning of a tremendous international conflict.

The Croatian historian, Dr. D. Mandić, now a U.S. citizen, has scientifically demonstrated, among other authors, that these two provinces were and remain historically, politically, and ethnically Croatian provinces. Dr. Mandić's scientific rigor was recently endorsed by the American Biographical Institute, which included him on its list of America's most distinguished personalities in 1970. But the Serbian thesis continues to survive by inertia and thanks to the occasional injections it receives from the same pro-Serbian environment, well-nourished by money and falsehoods.

One such injection into the Serbian thesis could be the drama "Sarajevo," currently being written by Jean-Paul Sartre based on documents prepared by Tito's biographer, Vladimir Dedijer, and commissioned by Belgrade. We sent our book "Bosnia and Herzegovina" to J. P. Sartre with a letter of clarification, but our expectations and hopes were dashed by the complete silence of the famous French writer.

But it doesn't matter. We will not give up. Not everything in life is success. There are also losses and setbacks. In these ten years, we have suffered losses. Two partners and collaborators moved to other countries. Dr. A. Belić is currently a professor at an American university, and Professor V. Nikolić is active with his "Croatian Review" in Barcelona.

But we suffered even greater, irreparable losses. The poets Víctor Vida and Srećko Karaman, one dynamic and affable, the other taciturn and introverted, who strolled along the splendid avenues of Buenos Aires, dreaming of a world of shadows for ordinary people, but a world that was real for them, were called by Providence to eternity. Father Dr. Carlos Kamber, who walked the streets of Buenos Aires and ended up in Toronto, Canada, is another loss for us.

He was a priest with exceptional oratorical talent, a journalist and organizer who left behind the largest Croatian church in exile, a sports field with a conference hall, and the cemetery for our community in that city, where he, too, among the first, rests for all eternity. And Dr. Rodolfo Luque, a first-rate intellectual and publicist, editorialist for "La Prensa," one of the five or six best newspapers in the world, a Croatian friend who had Descartes' "taste and courage" to seek and discover truths. His death irreparably increases the losses of the magazine STUDIA CROATICA and of all of us, Argentinians and Croatians.

But the series of losses did not stop there. Dr. Carlos A. Erro, Argentine professor, scholar, and writer, former president of SADE, a zealous defender of human liberty, contributor to our journal, and public defender of our colleague Professor Nikolić, along with another intrepid defender of liberty, Dr. Alejandro Dussaut—at a time when he was being persecuted by the French authorities at the behest of communist Belgrade—also departed this vale of tears, leaving a profound void among our friends and in Argentine cultural life. Dr. Ernest Pezet, contributor to our journal and former president of the French inter-parliamentary commission, also passed on to eternity. Since one of the defining characteristics of humankind is to live in community with our fellow beings beyond the visible world, I ask those present to rise and, in a moment of silence, offer prayers for the eternal rest of our departed friends.

But it is not only to the dead that we owe gratitude and affection to those who live as well. There is a long discussion about the problem of who is the true promoter of the progress of history—whether the individual or the masses. The problem was also vigorously discussed among the so-called Russian populists and their Orthodox marixists. The first gave preference to individuals, to distinguished and heroic personalities, and the others to the masses. Without personally choosing one opinion or another, I want to touch on another problem, very old, but once again raised by Marxist philosophy. Does reality, especially social reality, determine human consciousness or human consciousness determine reality?

I don't want to take a definitive position here either. Nihil fit in intellectu nisi prius in sensibus (Nothing happens in the intellect if it was not first in the senses) is also a principle of perennial philosophy. But the human intellect, once formed and nourished by the sensible, introduces new elements, modifies nature, creating the field of culture. Where, according to these two premises, were our Institute and the magazine STUDIA CROATICA a little more than ten years ago? The real world didn't know them. They existed in the minds of men who dreamed of them, who communicated one's idea to others, drawing with pink colors their need, their objectives, their possibilities and means for its realization. The individual or the masses? I don't know, but in this case of ours the idea arose in the minds of individually determined men. Through insistent blows from one of them, the idea has been forged and turned into reality.

Without his unbreakable will and the sacrifice of material resources, the Croatian emigration in Argentina and in the world in general, would be much poorer, unknown. The idea and the realization and organization of our Institute and the magazine STUDIA CROATICA are favorite children of our current vice president, Mr. Juan Rojnica. If idealism also means sacrifice without reward, the sacrifices of this lord and friend refute pessimists of all kinds regarding human nature. I consider it fair, then, that we give strong and extensive applause as a reward to those who do not ask for it, but well deserve it. (Applause).

Along with Mr. Rojnica, other collaborators also stood out in the process of realizing this idea that we can rightly consider as his. Dr. Mateo Luketa; Mr. Ivo Bogdan, the first director of the magazine who gave it style, guidance and a high cultural level: Mr. Branko Kadić, its first secretary and tireless translator; Dr. Milan Blažeković, twice president of the Institute and a regular collaborator of the magazine, and Dr. Radovan Latković, who also contributes morally and materially, are the collaborators who most enthusiastically embraced the idea of our current vice president and carried it forward, transposing it into the real world. For all of them our Institute has prepared reminder scrolls of this modest but important decade of activity for us.

This is, in broad strokes, the story of the past ten years of STUDIA CROATICA. But what can we say about the future? Can we wait for it with optimism?

The reality around us is depressing. The general conditions of communities – national and international – have worsened considerably over the last ten years. The fundamental characteristic of the days in which we live are extremism and violence. Subversive action incessantly corrodes the foundations of our society, which is faltering. The worst thing is that the until now clearest minds are confused.

All systems of thinking or action, all "isms" have become suspect. Even Catholicism itself is divided into two currents, accusing each other of extreme leftism or conservatism. Violence also begins to sprout within the doctrine that was considered the doctrine of Love. "The same theologians, we could repeat with J. L. Vives, attack each other, with the anger of gladiators, while they are discussing charity."

It's logical, it's natural that we're all worried about our immediate future. Right now, in a neighboring country, a Marxist is being proclaimed president. Something that 10 or 15 years ago no one would have even considered a remote possibility. What will happen if Marxism is the greatest source of subversion in the opposition and of terror in power? What is the cause of this situation that worries and frightens us?

Here in our homeland, Argentina, the problem is also being discussed. The opinion of a respected contributor to "La Prensa" identifies the main cause of the current political and social crisis in Latin America as the degeneration of its political class. The elite is what gives life and health to the entire social body. The scientific rigor of Pareto, Mosca, or R. Michels is fundamental, and the result must also be taken seriously.

If I may offer a personal opinion, I would say that the observations of the aforementioned contributor to "La Prensa" are only partially true. It is not enough to simply acknowledge the malaise of the political class and explain it away with palliative measures. There is no need to delve into the heart of the problem. The political class is, first and foremost, a cultural phenomenon. It is necessary to seek out that Kantian numenon, that cultural numenon precisely of the political class in Latin America and the free world. This class, according to W. Roepke, entered history under the label "liberal-bourgeois." Its formal and specific distinguishing feature, in comparison with, let's say, the aristocratic-feudal class, is freedom. But freedom from what and for what purpose? These questions lead us to the field of culture. Here we are faced with the last question, which I will address only because this is a meeting of a purely cultural nature. What is culture?

To avoid further testing your patience, gentlemen, I invoke the name of André Malraux for this purpose. France remains among the leading nations in intellectual culture. A. Malraux is the key figure among its intellectuals today. In his works *The Voices of Silence* and *The Imaginary Museum of World Sculpture*, he expressed his conception of culture. Contrary to Heidegger and Sartre, who consider man as a "being-towards-death," a Belgian lecturer stated that Malraux considers him "a being-against-death."

In art, in culture, "we create images powerful enough to deny our nothingness..." We should be proud to be human because we continue to live after the death of God, in Western culture. Its humanism should offer us a substitute for the loss of God, who has died. Pure art, the world different from the one we see daily, is the world that allows us to resist and survive death. But we must turn back to the sacred art of thousands of years ago, when primitive man, with his one- and two-dimensional art, proclaimed his sacred "knowledge." Western art, too hedonistic, must re-establish a dialogue with the imaginary world of past cultures.

Their lifeless remains would speak to us silently "when neither God nor Christ exists anymore." But art is of little value if, in the end, Malraux says: "Time flows, perhaps toward eternity and certainly toward death." Furthermore, it is emphasized that Malraux considers culture to be the "heritage of the world's nobility," reserved for a "happy minority"—the happy few, as a commentator recently said, referring to the last UNESCO meeting in Venice.

Art and culture, conceived in this way, cannot withstand individual or collective demands. The individual, regardless of their social standing, wants to know where their ultimate destiny is leading them, and the masses demand access to cultural goods. Contrary to Malraux, who says that man is born when God dies, his compatriot C. Marcel emphasizes that man is dying when God dies. Indeed, European humanism, current culture, which holds true for the entire Western world, cannot answer either the individual or the masses. For the elite, "liberty is property," as Voltaire formulated it, and for the dispossessed, violence is the method of destroying the falsely free society. The clash of these positions, both in theory and, even more so, in practice, constitutes the visible and terrifying reality we witness. The traditionalists and the progressives of Father Teilhard de Chardin seem unable to understand each other.

But we must not be pessimistic. He who knows he is drowning, swims. The free world, the true leader of the world in general, is aware of the danger and is already struggling. Malraux himself, with his "coin of the absolute"—la monnaie de l'absolue—invokes the need to know which way to turn. Charles Moeller, analyzing Malraux's Opus, notes: "The crisis of European humanism, of which Malraux is a privileged witness... stems from the disappearance of the absolute in the world today, and the need to rediscover it while, moreover, it is assumed that one can no longer believe in God."

The Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset, in turn, adds that "man begins when technology begins." But doesn't this mean returning once again to a substitute for the eternal? Ortega answers: "If our existence were not from the outset the necessity of constructing, with the material of nature, the supernatural pretension that is man, none of these technologies would exist." The absolute fact, the pure phenomenon of the universe that is technology, can only occur in that strange, pathetic metaphysical combination in which two heterogeneous entities—man and the world—are forced to unify, so that one of them, man, manages to insert his otherworldly being into the other, which is precisely the world.

I modestly acknowledge, and in accordance with the opinion of many, that in this attempt to insert himself too deeply into the world, modern man, especially Western man, has forgotten his own heterogeneity, has dangerously undernourished his metaphysical roots, has clung to his society of abundance, without clearly realizing that technology, in its meaning of the absolute fact or abundance, cannot answer anything in the face of death, which is the ultimate tragedy of the individual and the universe. Sensing the heterogeneity of man and the world of absolute facts, a Croatian poet at the beginning of this century—Ante Branimir Šimić—emphatically asked, anticipating Ortega in a certain sense: “Who "He placed us together with this foreigner?" referring to his own body. Indeed, it would seem that, without this WHO? man cannot live. Culture without absolute values degenerates, dies. And man with it.

To conclude: Some of you may have thought I'm pretending to be a giant, while I'm a dwarf. I agree with that observation. The health of a large living organism has its veins and aortas, but also its capillaries. If these begin to fail, the organism becomes ill and dies. Our meeting tonight, without underestimating the gentlemen who represented the Argentine Republic in top-tier international organizations, is a capillary compared to the meetings of UNESCO, the world government of universal culture, where the most varied theories of culture are developed with great care. This is what gives me the right to play the giant, also considering our Tabor as a capillary within that great organization that is UNESCO. This is the meaning of our activity and our efforts to continue publishing STUDIA CROATICA.

Integration Culture should be understood not only horizontally, assembling collections for real and imagined museums, but also vertically, seeking the central axis, the meaning of human existence. UNESCO's pronouncements emphasize the accuracy of Malraux's conceptions of culture and its meaning. No longer the past, but the future is where we must focus our attention. Human personality must be at the center of culture. But not merely technical culture; rather, a culture that can tell us something absolute, something that will permeate the entirety of humanity's existence. We must move beyond the culture of the "hat and gloves" and strive for solidarity among all.

"FREIE PRESSE" ON "STUDIA CROATICA"

"Freie Presse," the German-language daily in Argentina published in Buenos Aires, featured an article in its September 23, 1970 edition regarding the journal STUDIA CROATICA, which we transcribe below in Spanish: "STUDIA CROATICA (Journal for political and cultural studies. Published quarterly in Buenos Aires, sponsored by the Croatian-Latin American Institute of Culture, Carlos Pellegrini 743).

"We have before us the double issue of almost 100 pages, corresponding to the third and fourth quarters (actually the first and second, according to the S.C. Network) of 1970, the eleventh of its publication, prepared in a very correct and graphically pleasing manner, with impeccable, high-quality writing.

" "The articles are all of a very high standard, with numerous citations and full attribution of sources. This is the case, for example, with the lead article, 'Cardinal Stepinac,' where the author, F. Nevistić, in his arguments about the life, work, and martyrdom of this Croatian ecclesiastical prince, who died in 1960 after 15 years of imprisonment imposed by the Yugoslav communist authorities, offers a substantial defense, a veritable philosophical study, supported by quotations ranging from B. Russell to M. Heidegger, to demonstrate that writing about religious topics is not 'unscientific' today.

Throughout the journal, one senses a strong Croatian nationalism with an anti-communist bent, further accentuated by Serbian oppression, as well as a distinctly Catholic-clerical stance, reflected in the authors' personal opinions." Thus, in this issue, four of the five main articles discuss religious topics, and three of the eight books presented address similar themes.

"From this perspective, the journal STUDIA CROATICA can represent for Croatians and those interested in Croatian affairs a categorically high-level and seriously valuable cultural resource." (Note signed by: JyK.)

TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CROATIAN MAGAZINE

Twenty years of existence for this cultural and literary publication mark a significant milestone and offer testimony not only to the activity and creativity of Croatian emigrants and their political and cultural awareness, but also represent a source of pride for all Croatians in their homeland. For this reason, contributors are increasingly participating in its pages, striving to achieve the goal that the Croatian Magazine (Hrvatska Revija) envisioned and established as its mission and life's work: "To serve Croatia exclusively and its struggle for Croatian national independence."

Twenty years ago, on March 9, 1951, the first issue of the magazine was published in Buenos Aires. Inviting contributions, the editors of this magazine—at that time the most representative Croatian-language publication outside of Croatia—the Croatian writers Professor Dr. Antonio Bonifačić and Professor Vinko Nikolić, also stated: The following: "We are all unanimous regarding the great need for a cultural and literary publication and its definitive realization and fulfillment, ready to make extreme sacrifices to bring to fruition a free and independent cultural voice that will be at the service only of the Fatherland, fearlessly, decisively, and clearly defending the fundamental and immutable ideals of the Croatian people."

Throughout these twenty years of its existence, Hrvatska Revija - Croatian Magazine remained faithful to the path and program thus outlined, and thanks to the enterprising spirit, dedication, and organizational talent of its editor, Professor V. Nikolić, the magazine managed to attract not only the most prominent figures in Croatian cultural and political life, but also became the common voice for all Croatians, both those who had emigrated and those who remained in the Fatherland.

Its pages feature articles, studies, essays, prose, and poetry by the most prominent authors in the emigration—politicians, economists, sociologists, historians, theologians, jurists, philosophers, publicists, poets, and storytellers—such as: Prof. Vinko Krišković, Prof. Felipe Lukas, Archbishop Ivan Šarić, Dr. Dominik Mandić, Prof. St. Ratković, Prof. Sakač, Ivan Meštrović, Dr. Kruno Draganović, Jozo Kljaković, Prof. Antonio Bonifačić, Francisco Preveden, Bogdan Radica, Ivo Bogdan, Dr. J. Petrićević, and Prof. D. Zanko, Doctors F. Nevistić, B. Perović, M. Blažeković, K. Vasilj, Ivan Tomas, Viktor Vida, Srećko Karaman, Lucijan Kordić, M. Rakovac, Ivo Lendić, Alan Horić, and so many others.

From its first issue, and under the influence of the new political conditions and a new cultural direction in the world, intimately linked to the major events and general cultural changes that occurred after the last great war, the Croatian Review, under these new conditions, subjects all the aforementioned phenomena to rigorous and objective analysis with the sole aim of correctly situating the role and place of Croats in these events and clarifying the Croatian national struggle for its national and political freedom, as well as the contribution of its representative figures in these events, whether in the strictly Croatian or international arena.

Analyzing these events objectively and within a framework of truth, each issue of the Croatian Review sparks interest and, from time to time, lively commentary and discussion not only among its readers and contributors but also in international media outlets. Consequently, because of this stance, the review increasingly exposes itself to open and sharp conflicts with those political and cultural currents opposed to the general wishes of the Croatian people—a struggle the review interprets, leading to its publication ban and the persecution and expulsion of its editor. Nevertheless, or perhaps precisely because of this, all these bans and persecutions confirm the importance and great responsibility borne by the Review: the defense and affirmation, before the world public, of the cultural values and political positions of a people with a strong sense of national identity and its past, a people temporarily deprived of its national freedom and independence.

Alongside this task, the Croatian Review and its editor also fulfill broader literary and political needs with occasional publications, including the memoirs of the world-renowned Croatian sculptor Ivan (Juan) Meštrović; a collection of historical studies by Jere Jareb; and two volumes of the same editor's work, Pred Vratima Domovine (Before the Gate of the Homeland), offering a synoptic view of the cultural and political life of Croatian emigration, gleaned from the author's personal contacts with those he visited for this purpose.

MILAN RAKOVAC

ON THE UNIFICATION OF THE "ITALIAN" PROVINCES

On November 16, 1970, a public event was held in Buenos Aires to discuss the process of Italian unification. Along with members of the Trieste Circle, which brings together natives of Friuli, Veneto, Istria, and Trieste, diplomatic and consular representatives of Italy in Argentina were also present, headed by Ambassador Dr. Giuseppe Basso and Consul Dr. Pascual Calabro. The main speaker was engineer Gianni Bartoli, former mayor of Trieste from 1949 to 1957. According to "La Prensa" on November 16, 1970, Mr. Bartoli stated that "even today, Istria and Dalmatia do not belong to the Italian nation."

Below we reproduce what ENCYCLOPEDIA ITALIANA, Volume

"Quanto alla lingua parlata della popolazione della Dalmazia, l'ultimo Austrian census 1916 dava 610,000 Croatian e Serbi contra 18,000 Italiani, cioè una repporto de 2.8% d'Italiani. Infatti gl'Italiani, che represented il 12.5% della popolazione nel census of 1865, it was officially reduced to 5.8% in 1880, to 3.1% in 1890 and to 2.6% in 1900. Second by the last census in the regno S.H.S. (1921) in Dalmazia non sarebeero rimasti addirittura che il 0.7% d'Italiani; control of 98.6% of Croatia and Serbia". Regarding religious distribution, the same source states: "Catholics 82.8%" and "Orthodox 17%." Referring to political representation in the central parliament in Vienna, the same Encyclopedia states that in 1885, before the application of universal suffrage, there were 9 deputies from Dalmatia. Two were Italian and 7 were Croatian. In the first elections after the introduction of universal suffrage (1895), 9 deputies were elected—all Croatian and none Italian. Concluding its information on the political status of Dalmatia, the aforementioned Italian Encyclopedia states: "All municipal representations, except that of Zara, were ceded to Croatians; all elementary and secondary schools were Croatianized, except those of Zara, and excluded from the Vienna parliament; the Italians were reduced to near political non-existence."

Mr. Bartoli laments The "mutilation" of the fruits of the victory achieved in World War I. If he invokes the victory of that time, Tito could invoke the victory of World War II. Ex facto oritur jus, Doctors Basso and Calabro should instruct Engineer Bartoli, clarifying that the latter fact carries more weight than the former. Furthermore, the "victory" of World War I could not grant Italians any right superior to the right of self-determination of the vast majority of Croats in Dalmatia. Ciano notes in his Memoirs that Italians have nothing to seek in Dalmatia except some Venetian stones. Consequently, what sense can Mr. Bartoli's "irredentism" possibly have?

"All that is human within us cries out that politics, however vast it may be, is intrinsically moral: a perfidy, an iniquità che si say commessa nell'interesse dello Stato, e una political colpa. La prima condicione politica di una buona politica ei d'essere giusta", thus reproduced "Osservatore Romano" Maritain's master teachings on Christian politics. Commenting on them, the semi-official organ of the Vatican adds: "A Christian concezione ed una concezione non Cristiana mella politica sono cosi inevitabilmente divise. Purtroppo esserviamo che also certi catolici rinnegano l'idea estessa di una politica vitally Christian... No credendo che alla forza ma non credendo anche se non ai cio che si vede di primo occhio, si fa di ogni grandezza a condizione che non abbia sotto terra nè fondamenta,, nè radici." (Osservatore Romano del 21 June 1970, page 3).

No podemos entender al Sr. Bartoli. Si no cree en el derecho como un principio superior que, Hesiodo ya aseguró ser un specificum del hombre frente a los animales, entonces debe aceptar el "derecho" de la fuerza brutal. Si "su" Italia democristiana no quiere reconocer el derecho de los croatas en Dalmacia, donde representan una mayoría absoluta desde más de mil años, tendrán que reconocerlo por fuerza que nos impone a todos el comunismo internacional. El "irredentismo" italiano invoca automáticamente al bolchevismo soviético que debería garantizar el derecho de una mayoría incontestable y milenaria. El Sr. Bartoli y la representación diplomática de la Italia democristiana hacen un servicio muy dudoso a la causa cristiana y a sus aliados occidentales.

En cuanto a la "italidad" de Istria, recomendamos al Sr. Bartoli el número 36-37 de 1970 de Studia Croatica, pág. 49-55.

MICRO-NEWSPAPER

- Dr. D. Mandić, an octogenarian Croatian Franciscan and internationally renowned historian, was honored by the American Biographical Institute, which included him on its list of the most distinguished personalities in the United States for 1970.

- Dr. Luis F. Leloir, an Argentine scientist, was awarded the 1970 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. The Argentine scholar distinguished himself through his discovery of sugar nucleotides and their function in the biosynthesis of carbon nitrates. The journal Studia Croatica offers its modest support to the numerous tributes paid in honor of this Argentine scholar.

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a Russian engineer and professor, was awarded the 1970 Nobel Prize in Literature. As usual, the "democratic" authorities in the Kremlin forbade the illustrious writer from attending and accepting the award. In "The First Circle," Solzhenitsyn paints the Belgrade communist clique in colors that no one can envy.

- On September 22, 1970, Dr. F. Pušković presented his work, "The Costa Rican Method for Detecting Non-Motile Vaginal Trichomonas," at the XIII Argentine Gynecological-Obstetrical Congress, held that September in the city of Córdoba. More than 1,100 delegates from various Latin American countries and the United States attended. Dr. Pušković is a Croatian gynecologist residing in the city of Paraná and very active within his national community.

- U.S. President R. Nixon visited Yugoslavia last September. In addition to the Yugoslav capital, Belgrade, Nixon also visited the Croatian capital, Zagreb, emphasizing the unusual nature of his visit. This move by Nixon coincided with the deepening of Yugoslavia's internal crisis due to the unresolved national question in that multinational country. The true motives and purposes of Nixon's visit remain unknown and are the subject of much speculation.

- Miro Gal, President of the United Croats of America, residing in New York, was appointed on September 25, 1970, by the U.S. Secretary of State, William P. Rogers, as a member of the Council's Committee on International Policy. We consider this initiative by the Secretary of State very timely. We congratulate our compatriot, confident that he will fulfill his new duty to the fullest extent and with the significance it deserves.

The Holy See and the Yugoslav communist government re-established diplomatic relations last September, with the Yugoslavs appointing an ambassador to the Vatican and the Vatican appointing an Apostolic Pro-Nuncio in Belgrade. On November 12, Pope Paul VI received the credentials of the Yugoslav ambassador, V. Cvrlje, who distinguished himself during the last world war, among other things, as a sniper targeting sacred statues—such as the Virgin Mary and the crucified Christ—breaking their hands, noses, and other parts. A visit to the Vatican by Marshal Tito, who ordered the murder of more than 400 Catholic priests during and after the last world war, is scheduled for December 12. Cardinal Stepinac is his most prominent innocent victim.

Sometimes silence can be the best form of commentary.

- Željko Franulović, law student, Yugoslavian subject - nationality imposed by force -, son of Croatia, won the international tennis championship in individual games in Buenos Aires in 1970, and received the cup from the great Argentine newspaper "La Prensa".

- "La Nueva Provincia" of May 11, 1970 noted that Pedro Tutavac, co-director of the Croatian newspaper "Svitlenik" (El Faro) had translated some stanzas of "Martin Fierro", emphasizing that this would be the first attempt to translate Creole verses into the Croatian language. The truth, too, is that Miss Mira Padjen published several stanzas of "Martín Fierro" in the "Hrvats'ka Revija" (Croatian Magazine) which is currently being published in Barcelona.

- Eng. Esteban (Stjepan) Horvat, last rector of the Croatian University of Zagreb during the independence of Croatia reestablished during the Second World War, was feted at the premises of the Croatian Argentine Cultural Club in Buenos Aires at the initiative of his personal friends on the occasion of his 75th birthday. The Croatian choir "Jadran" performed several compositions among which there was one by Mr. Horvat himself. Greeted by its president, by several speakers, representing Croatian cultural institutions in Buenos Aires, a friendship meal was offered for more than 150 people. On the same occasion, Mr. Horvat's former students gave him a reminder gift of a valuable bracelet. Mr. Horvat works at the Argentine Military Geographic Institute, standing out for his scientific work in the specialty of geodesy, which has earned him international prestige. With a measured and considered speech, Mr. Horvat thanked everyone, recommending an attachment and love for Croatia and Argentina, our two homelands to which we owe everything. The celebration took place on November 28, 1970.

Book review

Juan Maler, Die Grosse Rebellion — Studienreise durch cine Welt am Abgrund

(The Great Rebellion — A Study Trip Through a World on the Brink). Buenos Aires, 1969 (Reproduction and printing: Fotomecánica Estrada S.R.L. and Establecimiento Gráfico Typoset S.R.L.), 500 pp.

In his introduction, the author states that despite his meticulousness and rigorous source verification, the facts presented in his work may contain gaps. Therefore, the author would be grateful for any relevant observations.

Although this book does not appear to be intended for the general German-speaking public in Argentina, since the Juan Maler Publishing House in Bariloche distributes it by mail to interested parties or upon request, I will refer to the chapter "Yugoslavia" (pp. 484-490). My reasoning is not so much due to factual errors and inaccurate assertions, which I will mention as examples, but rather because of the repetition in that chapter of claims based on Yugoslav-Communist, or Serbian, propaganda. These assertions should be avoided, at least in the works of authors who believe they have discovered approaches capable of explaining past events, assessing the present, and understanding the future.

For example, the last Obrenević (Alexander) was assassinated in 1903, more for dynastic and foreign policy reasons, and not in 1906 as a result of a corruption case, as the author states.

Greek and Bulgarian historiography will surely disagree with Maler's assertion that "in the war of 1912, it was the compatriots of Peter I (Karageorgevich) who, in addition to their own homeland, Serbia, also liberated Greece, Bulgaria, and Montenegro from the Turkish yoke."

It is incorrect to claim that the Croats' parliamentary collaboration began with the death of Peter I in 1922 and the accession of Alexander I to the throne. The person of that king was never an impediment to such collaboration, as his son Alexander acted as regent in his name.

Bulgaria was not a member of the 1934 "Balkan Pact" with Yugoslavia, Greece, Romania, and Turkey, as this pact was partly directed toward Bulgaria.

The theory, which the author also shares, that King Alexander was determined to reduce Franco-British influence in the Balkans and that the separation of the Grand Orient of France was the preliminary step in this policy is highly dubious and audacious. The insinuations that Freemasonry was involved in the 1934 Marseille bombing to bring Yugoslavia under its influence represent one of the book's central ideas, but are entirely unproven. The perpetrator of this act was not a member of the Ustasha Movement, as the author claims, but rather of the Macedonian organization IMRO.

As for the man the British took prisoner and sent to Kenya, it was not King Peter II, but Prince Paul.

Regarding the events of the Second World War, it is difficult to agree with Maler on several points. His limited knowledge of the regions comprising the ethnic and historical territory of Croatia is almost surprising. The author states with astonishment: "Even regions like Boca di Catarro, Sandzak (Montenegro), Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Dalmatia are claimed." Regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina, we refer Maler to the special edition of the journal Studia Croaticn entitled "Bosnia and Herzegovina — Contributions to Clarifying the Origins of the First World War" (Buenos Aires, 1963, p. 343).

With respect to Dalmatia, we will simply mention that Croatia's diplomatic title from the 10th to the 13th centuries was Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae, and from the 13th century onward, Regnum Croatiae, Sclavoniae et Dalmatiae. Only Croatians can claim Dalmatia, the cradle of the Croatian state in the Middle Ages. When the Italians did so, and partially achieved their aims through the Rome Conventions of May 18, 1941, they provoked discontent among the Dalmatian Croats toward their own newly established state.

Their support incited the Serbian minority in Dalmatia and parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, under Italian military administration, to rebel against the Independent State of Croatia. The origins of communism, the "national liberation movement" as it was called, must be sought in the attitude of Italy and the Western Allies, along with the Soviet Union, and not in the supposed "genocide" of Serbs and the massacres of "700,000 Greek Orthodox" perpetrated by the Ustaše commandos "accompanied or led by Catholic priests and monks who, with pistols or machine guns in hand, offered 'the cross or death' to defenseless women and girls."

If this were the case, as this propaganda claims, how can one explain—to mention just one example—the fact that the Croatian government cabinet included a Bosnian Orthodox Serb (Dr. Sava Besarović), or the presence of two Orthodox generals in the Croatian army, one of whom was for a time Chief of Staff?

It is therefore surprising to what extent the author succumbed to communist or Serbian royalist propaganda (works by Viktor Novak, Edmond Paris, A. Miller, etc.), which uses horrendous casualty figures and narrates incredible episodes to cover up, or if necessary justify, its own crimes committed during and after the war, crimes that did not escape the author's attention. For Juan Maler, evidently with knowledge of the details, describes the massacres of the Croatian army near Bleiburg, which was handed over to Tito's partisans by the British after they had laid down their arms.

He also mentions the extermination of the German minority in Yugoslavia, from the elderly to infants, and severely criticizes the government of the Federal Republic of Germany for defending these Yugoslav crimes, for prohibiting the activities of Croatian organizations on German territory, and for protecting Yugoslav diplomats who had actively participated in such crimes. Furthermore, the author accuses the German government, which, in its eagerness to protect the Yugoslav criminals, never demanded any compensation for the victims of the German minority expelled from Yugoslavia.

Despite some inconsistencies and imbalances in the historical section we criticize, the author very accurately describes the current state of affairs in Yugoslavia. We doubt, however, that Freemasons had anything to do with Tito's reactions to the crisis caused by the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Milan Blažeković

Ernest Bauer: Glanz und Tragik der Kroaten, Ausgewählte Kapitel der kroatischen Kriegsgeschichte

Verlag Herold, Vienna, 1969, pp. 107 (Splendor and Tragedy of the Croats, Selected Chapters from Croatian War History).

The author of this concise account of the Croatian war hysteria was a lecturer at the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Zagreb. He went into exile in 1945 and since then has collaborated with various scientific institutes and the German-language press. He published several books, including The Croats in the Thirty Years' War.

In ten chapters, Bauer summarized the participation of the Croats on the European battlefields from their arrival on the Adriatic until the end of the First World War.

In the first chapter, he addresses the origin and first settlement of the Croats to familiarize the reader with these little-known facts abroad. He immediately emphasizes the tragic peculiarity that runs through the political process of the Croats, who, for political, historical, and geopolitical reasons, were unable to integrate their national territory into a unified whole. Because they inhabited a territory where the interests of several powers intersected, hindering their national independence, the Croats often had to defend the interests of others.

But the most tragic aspect is that the boundary between East and West, between two antagonistic cultures, ran through their national territory. Hence, some fought against others, defending the Western feudal system, Christianity, and Western culture, while others fought for the most deeply rooted traditions of Islam. The same occurred during the Hungarian dynastic wars and the Thirty Years' War, when Croats fought in the ranks of the Habsburgs or alongside French troops, or when, in the Seven Years' War, Trenk's dragoons fought against the Bosnian units of Frederick the Great, or later, when they fought in Napoleon's army against other Croats enrolled in the army of Emperor Francis I. Bauer begins his account by describing the struggles of the early Croatian princes and kings against Venice, the Arabs, and the Saracens, emphasizing that the old Croatian nation of the 8th to 11th centuries was a maritime power.

Outside its territorial waters, the Croatian fleet participated for the third time in the siege and occupation of the city of Bari, Italy. In 887, near Makarska, the Croatian fleet defeated the ships of the Venetian Doge Pietro Candiano. During the reign of Tomislav (10th century), the Croatian navy consisted of 80 large and 100 smaller ships, compared to approximately 300 large ships of the Byzantine Empire and 200 of Venice. At this time, the power of the Croatian state reached its zenith. The national dynasty soon died out, and through a personal union with the Hungarians (1102), the center of the Croatian state shifted from the south to the north.

The author then describes the struggles of the Croats against the Tatars in the 13th century, who had reached the Adriatic city of Trogir, defended by the Croatian prince Stephen Šubić, but were unable to conquer it. The author emphasizes that the Croats, "tenaciously defending the Velebit passes and the fortified belt of Dalmatian cities, demonstrated for the first time in history their mission as defenders of the world and Western culture."

Then followed, for four centuries, the incessant struggles against the Ottomans, and Bauer does not fail to emphasize here that "the Croatian national tragedy" during the Turkish wars consisted in the fact that the boundary between the two worlds—Islamism and Christianity—passed through Croatian national territory.

In these incessant struggles, the clergy also actively participated. Bernardus Zana, Archbishop of Split, recounting the Turkish atrocities in 1513, said: "It often happened to me, a poor sinner, that while celebrating Mass, I was forced to remove my chasuble and, with weapons in hand, hasten to the city gate to console and encourage the terrified people." Three canons saved the city of Sisak in 1551. In 1553, numerous Turkish troops attempted to reach Zagreb, and a decisive battle ensued involving 20,000 Turkish soldiers, commanded by... Hasan Predojević, and on the Croatian side, the garrison of Sisak, the Christian troops, composed mostly of Croats, under the command of the Croatian prorex Erdödy, and the auxiliary troops, commanded by General Count Ausperg.

Only 400 of the Turks survived. This resounding victory broke Ottoman power in that sector and aroused enthusiasm throughout the Christian world. Pope Clement congratulated the Croatian prorex in the following terms: "You achieved this feat not only with your intelligence but also with your valiant hand." King Philip II of Spain named the Croatian viceroy a Knight of the Order of the Holy Redeemer for his great merits in the defense of the West.

Croats are mentioned in many battles of the Thirty Years' War. The author also describes the weaponry and uniforms of the Croatian soldiers. In the "Theatrum europeum," a contemporary chronicle of military events, it states: "In 1631, the Croats wore belts made of gold and silver; they also wore solid gold and silver plates on their chests, foreheads, and mounted pistols and sabers."

Historians also refer to the participation of the Croats in the Seven Years' War, highlighting their bravery. To mention just one example: after a daring attack by Austrian troops against Berlin in 1757, the commander of that campaign reported on the Croatian soldiers in the following terms: "They exceeded all expectations with their courage, promptness, tenacity, and obedience."

During the Napoleonic Wars, the Croats fought both on the French side and in the opposing ranks. In a separate chapter, Bauer describes battles and fronts where the Croats fought: Aspern, Wagram, Borodino, the "Battle of the Nations" near Leipzig, and so many others, where they displayed great courage and, of course, fell by the thousands. Bauer also recounts the hopes of the Dalmatian population to unite with the other Croatian provinces after the abolition of the Republic of Venice, unaware of the secret agreement between Napoleon and Austria, according to which Dalmatia was to belong to Austria as compensation for the lost Lombardy. Thus, Dalmatia and Istria could not unite administratively and politically with the northern Croatian provinces, where Croatian national sovereignty remained through the institutions of the Prorex (ban) and the Sabor (parliament), both based in Zagreb.

In the chapter "Count Jelačić's Struggle Against the Hungarians," Bauer reviews Hungarian-Croatian relations from the time of the personal union, emphasizing that Croatia had retained its sovereign attributes and that the nobles of both countries jointly defended their interests against the interference of the Viennese emperors. But with the rise of Hungarian nationalism at the end of the 17th century, when the Hungarians tried to impose their language in Croatian schools and the Common Diet, the Croatian ban Tomáš Erdődy defined the relationship between the two states in the following terms: "Regnum regno non praescribit leges" (One kingdom does not dictate laws to the other). At the same time that the Croatian national revival began to emerge, tensions intensified, and in 1845 there were 13 victims in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia. The Magyars did not give in and their national leader Kossuth declared in the Common Diet in 1847 that for him "there was neither the name nor the Croatian people."

The French Revolution of 1848 had a profound impact on Austria, where Italians, Poles, and Hungarians rose up against Metternich's absolutism. The author notes: "In the history of every people, there are decisive moments when, it seems, the fate of the historical process lies in their hands. For the Croatians, that moment was undoubtedly 1848, with all its revolutionary potential." The Hungarians seized the opportunity and obtained significant political concessions at the expense of the Croatians. The reaction in Croatia was unanimous, and Jelačić declared war "not on the Hungarian people, but on their government." With 40,000 soldiers, he crossed the Drava River, and before defeating them, he was appointed Imperial Commissar, a position also attributed to the Austrian troops. Thus, his military triumph did not benefit Croatia but rather the crown, and Vienna, as punishment for the Magyars, imposed the new constitution in 1849, which disregarded Croatia's merits and attempted to transform it into a province of the imperial crown. All hopes placed in Jelaćić to unify all Croatian regions were thus dashed.

In the final chapter, Bauer refers to Croatia's participation in the First World War and the proclamation of the State of Croatia by the Croatian Parliament (Sabor) on October 29, 1918. Emperor Charles V handed over his entire fleet (10% of officers and 33% of sailors were Croatian), along with the arsenals and ports, to the newly proclaimed State of Croatia. Command was assumed by the Croatian Janko Vuković Podkapelski, and Croatian flags were raised on all ships. But this joy was short-lived. The fleet was divided among the Allies.

Given that this is the military history of Croatia, it is regrettable that the author did not also include the period of the Second World War, in which the Croats fought exclusively for their national independence and within their own borders. It seems that the author, after describing the bloody battles fought by the Croats under foreign flags and often for foreign interests, should have also referred to the heroic struggle that the Croatian people waged for four years to consolidate and safeguard their national independence, proclaimed on April 10, 1941. In the final chapter, Bauer retrospectively synthesizes Croatian history, examining the fundamental causes that stand in the way of the definitive achievement of Croatian independence and sovereignty. Among these, without question, is the unfavorable geographical location between two worlds: the Byzantine, with its cultural and political power of attraction, later replaced as the center of gravity by the Ottoman Empire; and the Roman, with the all-encompassing power of its religion and culture in general. Bauer also mentions some historical hypotheses that lean in the same direction, offering partially subjective interpretations that would hardly withstand criticism free from any assumptions.

Nevertheless, Bauer's book is a positive contribution to the literature on Croatia's problems. This work stands out for its meticulous presentation and interesting illustrations. The graphic material was provided to the author by the Military-Historical Museum and the Vienna State Library.

B. LATKOVIĆ

Zvonimir Kulundžić: Tragedija Hrvatske Historiografije - O falzifikatorima, negatorima, birokratima, itd., itd. hrvatske povijesti

(The Tragedy of Croatian Historiography - Of Falsifiers, Bureaucrats, Deniers, etc., etc. of Croatian History), Zagreb 1970, pp. 407 (first edition), pp. 526 (second edition) — Author's edition.

Judging by the title and subtitle of the work by the Croatian writer and bibliologist Z. Kulundžić, the reader might expect to find countless examples of falsifications of Croatian history from the earliest times to the present. However, this is not the case, neither in terms of the number of historical cases discussed nor in terms of the scholarly approach of the work.

Indeed, these are three or four cases on the basis of which the author, in a highly polemical and sometimes very aggressive tone, criticizes Croatian historians in official positions—professors Jaroslav Sidak, Vjekoslav Stefanić, Nada Klaić, and Anica Nazor, to mention only the most prominent—for failing to fulfill their duties, their lack of output, and for distorting and denying perfectly well-established Croatian cultural values. However, the mere fact that the five thousand copies of a book sold out in three days and that the author was forced to resort to a "second corrected and expanded edition" with 120 additional pages is of particular interest, justifying a reference to the main problem of the work published in Croatia, albeit in a scientific-polemical tone.

Aside from criticism for failing to celebrate the 350th anniversary of the founding of the first Croatian theater in 1612, or for overshadowing the 300th anniversary of the creation of the University of Zagreb by publishing unfavorable and biased interpretations of the diploma of Emperor and King Leopold I, dated September 23, 1669, founding said University, or for having republished Professor Ferdo Sišić's work "The Panorama of the History of the Croatian Nation" (Pregled povijesti hrvatskog naroda) from 1916, while the other nations that made up Yugoslavia published new works, the author dedicates 95% of his book to the problem of the first printing press on Croatian soil, that is, the first book published in Croatia.

The author dedicated more than ten years of research to this problem and published several works on the subject, formulating the scholarly thesis that in 1482 The first Croatian printing press existed in Kosinj, Lika, Croatia, and it was there that the Glagolitic missal of 1483 was printed, that is, the first book printed on Croatian soil. It was also from this same Kosinj press that the Breviarium was published in 1491. Both books were published without an indication of place, which led and still leads to the assumption that they came from Verona or Rome, given that it was presumed that the cultural level of 15th-century Croatia was not high enough to produce graphic art of such quality on Croatian soil. Kulundžić's thesis was almost universally accepted outside his own country. We will cite the Croatian writer in exile, Marko Japundžić OFM, who in his article "La glagolitza croata" (STUDIA CROATICA, No. 14-15, 1964, pp. 55-75), based on the article by Z. Kulundžić, in "The Problem of the Oldest Printing Press in Southeast Slavic Europe — Kosinj 1482–1483" (Narodna Knjižnica No. 1 (1959), pp. 21–28, Zagreb), states verbatim:

"When printing was invented, the first Glagolitic printing press in Croatia was established very soon after, in 1482, in Kosinj, Lika. It was founded by Prince Anz VIII Frankopan Brinjski. He probably ordered the type in Venice, and as the original, he may have used the missal of his wife's great-grandfather, Prince Novak Krbavski, who, as we have already seen, had written this missal in his own hand in 1386. The Kosinj press was the first printing press in Southeast Slavic Europe. Suffice it to say that the first Russian book was printed only in 1611. "The first printed Glagolitic missal came out of this Croatian press in 1483, which had as its model the aforementioned missal of Prince Novak." GBDKGBROZž that appear in the missal And it is. It was precisely because of this series of watermarks, visible on the six existing copies of the missal, that Kulundžić deciphered the work, clarifying the significance of the figures in the cultural life of the area around Kosinj until its destruction by the Turkish invasion at the end of the 15th century. These initials constitute the main argument for his thesis.

Another Croatian writer abroad, Antun Nizeteo, also refers to Zvonimir Kulundžić and his work "Kosinj" (Zagreb, 1960) in his article "The Printer Dobrić Dobričević (Boninus de Boninis)" (see STUDIA CROATICA No. 24-27 (1967), pp. 134-138).

Furthermore, on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of Johannes Gutenberg's death, the Gutenberg Association had invited Mr. Zvonimir Kulundžić to Mainz. Kulundžić was invited to deliver the inaugural lecture, which he did on June 21, 1968, discussing his discoveries and his thesis, which was accepted by the historians and world experts present.

However, there is no unanimity among Croatian historians and bibliographers in Croatia itself regarding the location of the printing of the 1483 Glagolitic Missal and, consequently, where the first printing press operated on Croatian soil. Historians and experts from the Institute of Old Slavic Languages (Staroslavenski Institut) and the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts (Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti) have some doubts that prevent them from accepting Kulundžić's thesis as an irrefutably proven historical fact. Therefore, they continue to maintain the old hypothesis that the Glagolitic Missal was printed in Venice. This is probably why the bibliographer Ivan Esih, who died in Zagreb in 1966, in his contribution "Development of Book Printing 1483-1940" for the symposium "Croatia - Land, People, Culture" (edited by F. H. Eterović and Ch. Spalatin, University of Toronto Press, Toronto 1970), writes: "...although it contains no indication of either the place of publication or the name of the printing house, it is definitely Venetian in origin."

However, the unusual way in which these professors and experts have treated this problem in recent years has provoked the anger and indignation of the author of "Kosinj," which for him represents "the greatest Croatian cultural treasure." Hence, the aggressive and polemical style of his work—despite several very interesting bibliographical and paleographic entries—does not fully justify the 500-page volume, which contains numerous unnecessary and tedious repetitions.

MILAN BLAŽEKOVIĆ

Stanko Vujica: "The Humanist Marxism in Croacia - An Agonizing Reappraisal of Marxist Dogma and Practice"

(Humanist Marxism in Croatia - An Agonizing Re-evaluation of Marxist Dogma and Practice); Offprint from the "Journal of Croatian Studies", Vol. IX-X (1968-69), pp. 3-40.

Yugoslav communist intellectuals, more Stalinist than Stalin himself until the expulsion of the Yugoslav Communist Party from the Cominform, began to rebel against the stagnation of Marxist dogma after 1948. They became more severe critics of Stalinist dogmatism after Stalin's death, and especially after Khrushchev's famous secret speech in 1956, which inaugurated the era of de-Stalinization and, within it, "the true revolution of the revolution in the countries governed by communists."

In this respect, the Marxist philosophers of the University of Zagreb, Croatia, gained prominence. After the first symposium in 1963 in the city of Korčula, on the island of the same name off the Croatian coast of Dalmatia, and the publication of the philosophical journal "Praxis" in 1964, they began to consider themselves not an organized movement, but a philosophical current, a school of thought, calling themselves "creative Marxists." They believed that being a Marxist did not mean blindly accepting a series of dogmas, but rather thinking "in the spirit of Marx" and "sharing his passionate vision of a more just and humane society, as is evident in his early works." Hence also the designation "humanist Marxists."

The interpretation of Marx by these thinkers was not entirely original, as they acknowledged their debt to thinkers such as Ernst Bloch, Max Horkheimer, and Georg von Goethe. Lukács, Herbert Marcuse, Lucien Goldmann, Erich Fromm, Jean-Paul Sartre, Schaff, and Kolakowski. What is original about the Zagreb group is that they expressed their ideas in a country governed by communists, the author says, and that they possess an intimate knowledge of living Marxist practice: they speak with the feeling of disillusioned believers. This is why their disquisitions, their struggles with the proofs of Marxist dogma in their confrontation with the stubborn realities of the modern era, have universal significance, Professor Vujica emphasizes.

In order to provide the general tenor and distinctive quality of these Marxist thinkers, Professor Vujica has chosen some topics as illustrative examples, which he presents and discusses under the titles: Anti-Dogmatism; Marx the Humanist; Stalinism; Alienation in Socialism; Dialectical Materialism and Marxist Eschatology, all based on articles by Gajo Petrović, Danko Grlić, Rudi Supek, Predrag Vranicki, Svetozar Stojanović, Milan Kangrga, and others published in the journal Praxis, especially in 1964 and 1965, as well as in other publications (e.g., an article by an anonymous writer that appeared in La Revista Croata, No. 24 (1966), in Paris, and was translated in STUDIA CROATICA, Nos. 32-35 (1969), under the title "Praxis, Socialist Bureaucracy, and Alienation").

In his concluding remarks, the author demonstrates that humanist Marxists had recognized that alienation has not disappeared in socialist societies and that it probably never will. "This concession confronts 'creative Marxist' philosophers with the strange logical dilemma of whether the doctrine of alienation represents the heart of Marx's doctrine, and if alienation shows no signs of disappearing under socialism, where, then, does socialism demonstrate its superiority over capitalism?"

Whether Marxist-humanists, or Engels, Lenin, and Stalin—the author continues—have correctly interpreted Marx is a matter of academic debate. It is also well known which of the two interpretations has prevailed as the official philosophy of the communist movement, Vujica says, and concludes: "Therefore, it would be more relevant to ask: Why Marx after all? Why the attachment to Marx—young or old? Why continue with the 'cult of personality' and the 'mania for quotations' that the philosophers of 'Praxis' themselves had so eloquently condemned? Why preach humanism in the name of a man whose intentions may have been noble, but whose doctrine and practice have given rise to a movement that has caused such immense human suffering?"

What our turbulent era needs is not to inquire about the young Marx, or the "authentic" Marx, but to search, above Marx and all the sages of the past, for "new solutions to the unsuspected dilemmas facing humanity in this modern civilization," concludes Professor Vujica in his highly instructive study, which, for its clarity, can serve as a guide for all those who unexpectedly encounter an issue of the international edition of the journal "Praxis" (in English, French, or German), or the recently published symposium edited by Gajo Petrović under the title: "Revolutionary Praxis - Jugoslawischer Marxismus der Gegenwart" (Verlag Rombach, Freiburg, 1970), or those who have had the opportunity to read the reports on "The Korčula Summer School," a philosophical congress dedicated this year (August 1970) to the theme "Hegel and Our Time."

M. BLAŽEKOVIĆ

Franjo Trogrančić: Narratori Croati - Moderni e Contemporanei

Roma 1969 - Biblioteca di Cultura 1/ Bulzoni Editore.

Professor F. Trongrančić shows no signs of tiring in his scientific and cultural "discovery" of the Croatian literary world to foreign audiences, or rather, to Italian audiences. His recent work, which we are reviewing, speaks for itself. This work was already announced in the same author's anthology of modern Croatian poetry. As always, Trongrančić proves himself once again to be a serious cultural worker—aesthete or essayist—as well as a literary historian.

"Half a century of the Croatian novel" is how the author characterizes this anthology in the brief preface, meaning that it covers the first half of the 20th century. He sincerely acknowledges that it was not easy to frame this work within the limits of a well-defined period and, according to this criterion, to select writers in a way that would satisfy everyone.

We would add that compiling an anthology of prose with the aim of offering a foreign audience a snapshot of a people's literary output is not an easy task in general, especially when attempting to do so within a fifty-year period, given the constant interplay of schools, trends, and ideological currents. In our Croatian case, these fifty years encompass the Romantic-Realist and Realist-Naturalist trends, an anti-war movement (a consequence of the horrors of the First World War), a social-nationalist movement, a social-leftist movement, a Croatian nationalist movement, and an international Marxist movement. They also include the emergence, in this postwar period, of two distinct trends: first, the Stalinist-inspired trend, and then, the return to reflective art as the most appropriate expression of both social and national issues.

It must be acknowledged that this is a very difficult task, especially when considering the objective of presenting prose. When dealing with poetry, the task is much simpler. By selecting a few good poems from various poets, we can easily identify their authors according to poetic merit, themes, ideas, and movements. However, when reissuing a short novel by a writer with a wide and varied body of work, it is difficult to offer a true image of the writer or their literary oeuvre.

The task becomes almost impossible if only a few excerpts from some of a writer's novels are published. It is inevitable that we must work with fragments, truncated pieces. Aware of this difficulty, Professor Trogrančić devoted special attention to it. To overcome these obstacles, the author outlines "profiles" of each writer, immediately explaining "that we cannot consider them as complete and definitive literary-critical summaries of a given writer's literary opus." Nevertheless, these profiles—in reality, sketches, essays in an abbreviated form, the only possible in similar cases—with their precise evaluation, revive the writer's literary creation, later illustrated by a more appropriate text. Thus, the picture is complete. The literary profile of the writers has thus been achieved.

This unique method of compiling this anthology gives it the full weight that allows us to say that Professor Trogrančić has achieved complete success in his endeavor.

We call this anthology of Croatian prose, which seems more accurate to us than that of novelists, since many of the writers mentioned are primarily novelists and entered Croatian literature in this capacity. For example: Begović, Budak, Cihlar, Krleža, and Andrić. It is clear that some will notice the absence of certain writers (Bonifačić, for example, or others); others, in turn, would not have selected some of the chosen writers (Esteban Mihalić), but if we consider the author's entire body of work, already justified, it is difficult to formulate criticisms and even more difficult to accept them.

It must be emphasized that Trogrančić is, on the one hand, honest to the point of professional ethics, and on the other, remarkably audacious, which is a logical consequence of those ethics. The inclusion of Dončević alongside Budak suffices as evidence of this. But, while for Trogrančić Budak is a writer, patriot, and national martyr, Dončević should learn the lesson of common cemeteries like that of Redipuglia in Italy or the Valley of the Fallen near Madrid. Despite this, Trogrančić did not deny Dončević's literary merit for the anthology.

This anthology has another advantage and value: it offers a unity of Croatian literature, also represented by a considerable number of writers from Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially Muslim writers (Kikić, Muratbegović, Nametak), thus making a statement against politics. The anti-Croatian sentiment of the current Belgrade regime is particularly evident in its forced attempt to create a "Muslim nation" and, consequently, a "Muslim literature." Professor Trogrančić's idea takes on special significance given that his work is intended for a foreign audience.

With this anthology, Professor Trogrančić once again renders a great service to Croatian literary culture, adding to his list of cultural achievements a new, serious, accurate, and worthy work, befitting a responsible and highly qualified professional.

A. GAZZARI

Branko Bruckner: Yugoeslavia - Autogestión en la Economia

Madrid, pág. 320.

After embarking on the path of independence in 1948, Yugoslav communism produced two socio-political and philosophical phenomena in which the Western world has shown particular interest: workers' self-management and the group of Marxist philosophers at the University of Zagreb, called "praxists" after the journal Praxis they publish. Given that self-management is the defining characteristic of Yugoslav communism and the praxists (creative Marxists, humanist Marxists) are among the most outspoken critics of Marxism within a communist country, this interest is quite understandable.

However, while official Yugoslav circles do not look favorably upon the spread of the Zagreb philosophical group's ideas, either domestically or internationally, they provide full support to those interested in learning about and discussing self-management. Without intending to diminish the author of this book, we believe this to be the case with Branko Bruckner, who set out "to provide the reader with the most objective picture possible of what is meant by a 'self-management' system and the framework in which this system has found its place and in which it develops," as the author states in the prologue to his book published by the University Library of Economics Collection.

The author wrote his work almost exclusively based on Yugoslav bibliography and statistics provided by professors from various faculties of the University of Zagreb and by Dr. Boris Zidarić, head of the Yugoslav Delegation in Madrid.

The author was born in Croatia in 1932, leaving during the Second World War and settling in Spain in 1943, where he completed his studies. "A Doctor of Agricultural Engineering, graduated from the Higher Technical School of Madrid, he specialized in international affairs, a field in which he works from his position at the Ministry of Agriculture, which he has represented at several international conferences (World Conference on Trade and Development, Economic Commission for Europe, etc.)," concludes the note about the author, which also explains—among other reasons—the special emphasis placed on agriculture in this book.

The work is composed of five chapters, of which Chapter IV contains the bibliography consulted (pp. 253-254) and Chapter V the 34 statistical tables with data up to and including 1967.

Chapter I, "Historical and Geopolitical Notions" (pp. 17-58), deals with the natural and human environment, the formation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and its history up to 1941, as well as its dismemberment from 1941 to 1945, a period that the author characterizes as follows: "With the invasion by the troops German, Italian, Hungarian, and Bulgarian forces were also involved, and there was an internal war between Croats and Serbs and, later, between the occupiers and the various resistance forces, as well as among the resistance forces themselves” (p. 30). Unlike Yugoslav authors who equate the legal status of Serbia and Croatia, Bruckner distinguishes them more precisely, though not entirely accurately, when he says: “Croatia formed a self-proclaimed independent state under a government overseen by the occupiers, while Serbia constituted another directly occupied state…”

The author presents the country's political and social institutions based on the Constitution in force since April 7, 1963, and amended on April 7, 1967, according to which the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia "is a federal state of freely united peoples equal in rights: it is a democratic socialist community founded on the power of the working people and on self-management. The people are the sole holders of political power and the management of social affairs. Citizens exercise social self-management directly in electoral assemblies, by way of referendum, or by other forms of direct decision-making within the organization of work, the municipality, and the other socio-political communities (autonomous province, socialist republic, federation)" (p. 31/2). It would seem that we are in the presence of a 100% democratic social order in the Western sense. However, the author warns, in rather unconvincing terms: "It is actually a system with a fairly broad democratic base where, nevertheless, political parties are outlawed" (p. 35).

With the caveat that "judging the political activity and the actual influence exerted on the life and development of the country by socio-political organizations is entirely outside the scope of this book," the author concludes the first chapter by describing: "The Socialist Alliance of Working People with more than eight million members; the League of Communists, with slightly more than one million members, which is the only permitted party and wields a political influence far exceeding that commensurate with its limited membership" (p. 51); the Confederation of Trade Unions of Yugoslavia with more than three million members; and the Union of Yugoslav Youth with more than two million members, "which exerts great influence both within the country and among young people in the developing world."

This chapter concludes with a review of Yugoslavia's economic structure (e.g., Yugoslavia, including Croatia, is the third largest bauxite producer in Europe), regarding which we must make the following observations: The author overlooked the incongruity between the 7.8 million Serbs in the ethnic distribution of Yugoslavia's inhabitants and the 7.5 million Orthodox Christians in Serbia, Macedonia, and Montenegro (p. 19). Since Macedonians and Montenegrins are also Orthodox, but not Serbs, there should be more Orthodox Christians than Serbs, not the other way around.

Regarding linguistic issues, some of the author's comparisons and judgments are not very accurate. It is absolutely wrong to say: "...apart from the multitude of Turkish words introduced into Serbian in certain regions such as Bosnia" (p. 20), since the language spoken in Bosnia is the literary Croatian language into which Turkicisms were introduced along with the Muslim religion to which the Bogomils and Croatian Catholics of Bosnia converted at a time (15th century) when the Serbian population in Bosnia was practically nonexistent.

Referring to the accession of monarchical Yugoslavia to the Tripartite Pact on March 25, 1941, the author writes that "King Peter, eighteen years old, staged a coup d'état, dismissing the government" (p. 30). This coup d'état occurred without King Peter, who was still a minor at the time, even being aware of it.

In Chapter II, the author discusses the legal and political foundations of the Yugoslav economy (pp. 59-189). Within this framework, the author defines the Yugoslav economic system, highlighting a truly hybrid system, composed of a mixture of capitalist, socialist... and communist elements at the same time.

With the sections "Economic Means of Society" (economic means of the socio-political community, contributions and taxes, economic means of Institutions and Social Funds) and "Formation and Dissolution of Companies" found in the current Constitution, which represents one of the original features of the Yugoslav economic system by seeking to "strengthen and maintain at all costs the responsibility of workers within their company" (p. 159), the author goes on to address the thorny problem of "investment policy and business financing." With excessive leniency towards the system he is discussing, the author presents this problem without touching on its political dimension, which today, due to the centralization of funds and their distribution in Belgrade, poisons relations between the republics.

With the same benevolence and optimism, the author describes "The Five-Year Plan 1966-1970," characterized by its indicative planning in contrast to the regulations in force until then, "constituting the greatest innovation introduced in a socialist country" (p. 173). If all the provisions of the new plan, those listed on p. 174, become reality, Yugoslavia will theoretically reach the level of the developed countries of Central Europe, the author says, and suddenly interjects the following judgment: "Yugoslav workers will continue to emigrate, but it will be necessary to reduce emigration, especially with regard to skilled workers and technicians, by creating new economic conditions for this purpose" (p. 181).

Although an economic analysis, such as the one presented in this section, is not concerned with the national or republican aspect of the significant emigration mentioned, it is worth noting in a review that over 54% of emigration is comprised of Croats, whose households in Croatia are occupied by individuals of other nationalities within Yugoslavia, who are undergoing internal migration within Yugoslavia.

This problem, coupled with the promotion of birth control, tends to become a sharp political issue with nationalist undertones and is therefore unsolvable within the Yugoslav state and the existing socio-economic order.

Chapter III (pp. 190-251) presents a sectoral analysis of the Yugoslav economy with a special emphasis on agricultural development and policy. First, he refers to the agrarian reforms of 1945 (expropriation without compensation of properties larger than 25 to 30 hectares not directly cultivated by their owners) and 1953 (the maximum allowed for each direct cultivator was 10 hectares, and the creation of model farms called "Kombinats"). After describing the various "socialist agrarian organizations" and individual and cooperative farms, the author emphasizes that the coexistence of the "socializing tendency alongside other markedly cooperative and simultaneously protectionist tendencies for the individual owner marks a drastic difference between Yugoslav socialism and that of the so-called people's democracies" (p. 202).

After discussing the forestry and industrial economy and the development of the service sector, the author describes the three periods of foreign trade: 1) State monopoly on foreign trade (1945-1951); The author discusses the period of liberalization of economic relations with foreign countries (1952-1960) and the current era, beginning in 1961 with the liberalization of the import regime. He makes no mention of the concentration of re-export companies in Belgrade. According to the press in that country, this parasitic phenomenon, which benefits direct producers, favors the Serbs and profoundly affects relations between the republics and nationalities.

In the final paragraph, the author addresses the prospects for the future of the Yugoslav economy in light of the Plan's tendency to promote exports in order to achieve "a reduction of the chronic deficit afflicting the country's economy" (p. 250). However, he adds that realistic observers believe that the deficit in the exchange of goods must continue to increase and that, consequently, "the balance of economic relations with foreign countries can be based, exclusively, as in the case of other countries situated in similar geographical and ecological conditions, on a massive development of the tertiary sector, especially tourism" (p. 251).

Estas perspectivas no son promisorias ni para la economía yugoeslava, ni para el sistema que "se denomina «Autogestión» y (que) es el concepto que caracteriza la esencia socio-económica de la Yugoeslavia de hoy" (pág. 67). Sin embargo, el autor, como también por ejemplo René Gabriel ("Conseils Ouvriers Yougoslaves", Revue de L'Action Populaire, N° 182, noviembre de 1964, París), para nombrar tan solo uno, se limita a describir la autogestión basándose en la legislatura y la crítica yugoeslava (autocrítica), como si se tratara de un experimento que se efectúa para el bien del mundo entero, sin comparar los resultados de este sistema económico con otros, y abrir un juicio independiente sobre la viabilidad, a la larga, de la autogestión como sistema económico. De todos modos, extrañamos la explicación de la relación entre la autogestión y la importación de capitales extranjeros por los cuales se empeñan últimamente los dirigentes yugoeslavos.

MILAN BLAŽEKOVIĆ

Edgar Hoesch: Geschichte der Balkanländer

(The History of the Balkans), W. Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart-Berlin-Cologne-Mainz, 1968, pp. 160.

Edgar Hösch, Professor of Eastern and Southeastern European History at the University of Munich, set out to provide the reader with an introduction to the varied political history of the Central Balkan countries from antiquity to the present. This is not a series of national histories of the peoples of this area—Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Bulgarians, Albanians, and Romanians—but rather the history of these peoples and their respective countries from the perspective of world history. From this perspective, the fate of these peoples appears as subject to the expansionist tendencies and power politics of the strongest powers bordering southeastern Europe: Byzantium, Hungary, Venice, and Turkey. Due to specific geographical conditions that favored regional particularisms, the aforementioned powers always managed to thwart attempts to organize state power over a wider territory and impose a foreign social and political order on the indigenous population.

"The particularism fostered by geographical conditions and powerful external influences represent the most salient characteristics in the history of the Balkan states," the author states, concluding the first chapter—"Elementary Notions and Background"—of the twelve in total, namely: 2) Tribal Particularism and Roman Imperialism; 3) The Arrival of the Slavs and the First State Forms; 4) The Bulgarian-Byzantine Struggle for Primacy in the Interior of the Balkans; 5) The Rise of Venice and the Creation of the Independent Balkan States (Serbia and Bulgaria); 6) The Ottoman Conquest and the Disappearance of the Small Balkan States of the 14th Century; 7) Southeastern Europe under the Domination of the Crescent; 8) National Renaissance; 9) Toward the Nation-State; 10) The Balkan "Irredeemable" — The Balkan Crisis; 11) The Versailles System; and 12) From National Revolution to Social Revolution.

Since this is merely an introduction to the complex history of the peoples of the Central Balkans, written from a universal historical perspective in the form of a pocket-sized book of approximately 140 pages, in which the individual histories of these peoples are outlined in general terms, we can only formulate our own general observations with regard to Croatian history alone.

Given that the author's absolute impartiality and scientific objectivity are the general distinguishing feature of his work, it is all the more regrettable that the historical works of the Croatian historian Prof. Dr. Dominik Mandić are not included in the extensive and classified literature consulted by the author. The fundamental work available to the author regarding Croatian history is that of Professor Ferdo Šišić, "Geschichte der Kroaten" (The History of the Croats), Zagreb, 1917. It is true that Professor Mandić's works, in which he made several corrections to various historical theses, were published in Croatian, and that it was only in 1969 that Professor Dušan Žanko published a review of Professor Mandić's corrections to the old Croatian history (see: Dušan Žanko: "Dominik Mandić:

The Personality and His Cultural Work." Studia Croatica, No. 32-35, Buenos Aires, 1969, pp. 16-41). However, E. Hösch's bibliography contains several recently published works in Croatian and Serbian languages, so Mandić's works such as "Crvena Hrvatska" (Croatia Rubra), Chicago 1957, "Bosna i Hercegovina" (Bosnia and Herzegovina) Volume I, Chicago 1960 and "Rasprave i Prilozi" (Studies and contributions of old Croatian history), Rome, 1963, could have been consulted by the author and consequently, the repetition of some errors already rectified could have been avoided.

For example, E. Hoesch, like Professor Šišić, treats the Croats and Serbs as if they were twins during the first centuries of their history (pp. 32, 38, etc.), which is historically inaccurate. Regarding the Christianization of the Croats, Hoesch, probably relying on Šišić, aligns himself with the "Frankish thesis," according to which the Christianization of the Croats occurred in the 9th century. On this point, Hoesch writes: "Roman-style Christianity took root in the Dalmatian cities as early as the 7th century, and in the Croatian hinterland (Dalmatian Croatia) under Frankish rule at the end of the 8th and beginning of the 9th century" (p. 49).

Mandić, on the other hand, proved that this process of Christianization was completed in three stages (according to the different regions), the first being in White Croatia in 640. After describing early Croatian history under the kings of Croatian blood, the author very aptly points out: "With the strengthening of the two neighboring powers, Venice and Hungary, the possibilities of continued development (i.e., of Croatia) were impeded" (p. 51). Following the personal union between Hungary and Croatia in 1102, the latter did not actually disappear under the name of Hungary, as this and other foreign histories make it out to be, in which Hungary and the Hungarian king appear instead of Hungary-Croatia and the Hungarian-Croatian king. And not only that, the author even designates the institution of ban (viceroy) as being of Hungarian origin when discussing the establishment of this office in Bosnia in the 12th century (p. 67), even though the institution and office of ban ('banus' in Latin) is exclusively Croatian, never having existed in Hungary and being in use only in Croatian provinces and regions.

However, referring to the beginning of the flourishing of Ragusa literature (Dubrovnik - Ragusa), the author correctly states: "Ragusa experienced its true emergence (progress) not during the Hungarian-Croatian rule (1358-1562), but only during the Turkish period..." (p. 82). Only this term, that is, "Hungarian-Croatian," aligns with the historical facts and legal relations between the two states, Hungary and Croatia.

We also doubt that it is acceptable to say that the Croatian Sabor (parliament) in Cetin (approved the Habsburg order of succession in 1527) (p. 77). Indeed, Archduke Ferdinand of Habsburg was elected King of Croatia in this parliament despite his potential succession rights stemming from succession agreements made with the Yagello dynasty. The defense against the Turks played a preponderant role in Ferdinand's election, as the author correctly suggests on p. 83. Similarly, the defense of Dalmatia against Venice was the reason for the election of the Angevin dynasty of Naples in 1301 (in reality, the Croatian ban Paul Šubić of Bribir imposed the election of this dynasty), and not the succession that brought the Hungarian-Croatian throne to this dynasty in 1308, as E. Hôsch states (p. 63).

What the author designates as, "Dalmatian literature (in the Croatian language)" (p. 82), is none other than Croatian literature and should be referred to as such.

Despite the author's distinction between "White Croatia and Red Croatia" to designate Northern and Southern Dalmatia as regions under the rule of King Tomislav (910-928) (p. 50), the regions of Dioclea, Travunia, and Zahumlje, which comprised Red Croatia, appear to be territories of the Serbian tribes and not Croatian lands, as demonstrated by Professor D. Mandić in the aforementioned works, particularly regarding the 11th and 12th centuries.

The descriptions of Bosnian history and the references to the Bogomils of Bosnia do not leave the impression that this is Croatian land and that the heresy of the Bosnian Croats, especially their nobles, is not the subject of discussion. The author attributes a "national" character to the resistance of Ban Matthias Ninoslav (1232-1250) against the unsuccessful crusade undertaken by the Croatian Ban Koloman, son of the "Hungarian" King Andrew II, against the Independent Bosnian Church (p. 68). Nor can we agree with the author when he emphasizes the rationality (what rationality?) in the Bogomil resistance, writing:

"The Bogomils' antipathy towards the Croatian and Hungarian Catholics, as well as towards the Serbian Orthodox, had long since assumed national forms and prepared the ground for the extensive Islamization of Bosnia during Turkish rule" (p. 76). However, the author contradicts himself somewhat when he correctly continues: "By massively embracing the Muslim religion, the Basnaic nobles were able to retain their properties and maintain their privileged social position for centuries to come. A subsequent immigration of Serbian Orthodox Christians, who avoided Ottoman pressure, made Bosnia the most contradictory country in Southeast Europe, where the Eastern and Western churches coexist with Islam in a very small area" (emphasis added). It is also regrettable that the works of Professor D. Mandić, "Bogomilska crkva bosanskih krstjana" (The Bogomil Church of the Bosnian Christians, Chicago 1962, p. 508) and "Etnička povijest Bosne i Hercegovine" (Ethnic History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rome 1967, p. 554), are not generally accessible to historians because they are published in Croatian, even though they are available abroad.

We could offer little or nothing in the author's assessments and syntheses of historical development from the Renaissance at the beginning of the 19th century to the present, with the exception of his opinion that Tito was more successful in resolving the national question that had paralyzed internal political development between the two wars, by declaring himself a supporter of the federal principle (p. 145). Despite federalism, we believe the situation remains the same as between the two world wars, which the author describes as follows: "The separation of an independent Croatian state in April 1941 could undoubtedly have enjoyed widespread popular support, given that relations between Serbs and Croats had become unbearably strained" (p. 137).

Professor Hösch's work, despite the observations made based on Professor Mandić's recent historical research and the book's brevity, should be recommended for its rigor, clarity, and objectivity.

MILAN BLAŽEKOVIĆ

Der Donau - Baum, Zeitschrift des Forschungsinstitutes für den Donauraum

15. Jahrgang, 1-2 Heft/1970, Vienna, lists the following articles from Studia Croatica under the heading Kroaten: Kadić, B., Cardinal Francis Šeper; Laxa, E., Esteban Radić and his peasant movement; Nevistić, F., The genocide of the Croatian people; Nevistić, F., Half a century of illegitimate power; Petrićević, J., Crisis of economic reform in Yugoslavia; Radica, B., Dr. Ante Trumbić; and Vujica, S., Croatian peasants did not want the union of Croatia with Serbia in 1918.

Furthermore, this Austrian magazine, rich in content and well-informed, publishes an article by Heinz Dieter Pohl entitled: "Die slawischen Sprachen in Jugoslawien" (The Slavic Languages in Yugoslavia). Despite the author's striding for impartiality, there are errors and omissions that are detrimental to Croatian political and cultural heritage, which we will address on another occasion. For example, the magazine states that the Kingdom of Croatia entered into a personal union with Hungary at the end of the 10th century, when in reality this union took place in 1102.

The magazine also reports on the recent economic relations of communist Yugoslavia with the Western world, especially with the European Economic Community (EEC); tourism; and foreign capital investment in that communist country. The amount of money generated by these three types of economic activity plays a very interesting role in the life of that communist country. A clear dichotomy characterizes its life: the ideology—communism and Moscow—on the one hand, and the economy, based on dollars and German marks, on the other.

The same magazine, in issue 4/69, published a review of Ivo Rojnica's book Susreti i Doživljaji (1938-1945). Ernest Bauer, a Croatian-born publicist and author of this review, emphasizes the importance of Rojnica's book because it offers a counterpoint to the theses of communist and Serbian nationalist writers who, in their works, address the tragic events that occurred during the Second World War within "Yugoslav" territory.

F. N.

Vladimir Markotić: "The Kinship Systems from Yugoslavia"

(Kinship Systems in Yugoslavia), reproduced from "Alberta Anthropologist," Vol. 2, No. 1, 1968, pp. 44-50.

While staying in Veljaci, a village in Herzegovina, during his tour of Yugoslavia in the summer of 1966, the author conceived the idea of compiling the kinship terms used in this village. He gathered another collection of kinship terms in Stara Pazova, Srijem. The first set of terms came from a Croatian Catholic informant, and the second from a Serbian Orthodox informant. Table I presents a comparative chart of kinship terms from these two regions, comparing them with terms from other regions extracted from the literature held in the University Library of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Discussing the cousin terminology "brat" and "strićević," the author refers to it as "Hawaiian terms" in Montenegro, Srijem, and Serbia; "descriptive terms" in Dalmatia and Croatian Zagorje; and "Eskimo terms" in Herzegovina and western Montenegro. He concludes by stating: "Since all these terms in cousin terminology are associated with the 'patrilineal' rule of descent, we have the Guianese (Guinean), Sudanese, and Eskimo types of social organization, respectively."

According to the author, three kinship regions can be identified based on cousin terminology: one comprising Dalmatia, the Croatian Littoral, and Croatian Zagorje; another part of western Montenegro and Herzegovina; and a third Serbia, part of Montenegro, and Srijem.

His bibliography covers eight works published between 1885 (Kraus, F. S., "Sitte und Branch der Südslawen, Vienna 1885) and 1957 (Eugene A. Hamel, "Serbo-Croatian Kinship Terminology" in Kroeber Anthropological Society Paper, No. 16, Berkeley).

M.B.

Vladimir Markotić: "Archaeological Research During the Summer 1966 in Europe"

(Archaeological Research During the Summer of 1966 in Europe). Offprint from "Alberta Anthropologist," Vol. 2, No. 1, 1968, pp. 37-44.

Thanks to financial support from the University of Calgary and the Glenbow Foundation of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Dr. Vladimir Markotić, assistant professor in the Department of Archaeology at the same university, was able to travel to Europe in the summer of 1966 to conduct archaeological research, primarily in Yugoslavia, and to attend the VII International Congress of Prehistory held in Prague, Czechoslovakia, in August of that year.

The main purpose of his trip was to study the Neolithic, or early agriculture, of southeastern Europe, especially Yugoslavia, in light of scientific advances in this field since 1962, when the author wrote his dissertation on the Neolithic cultures of Starčevo and Vinča. Therefore, the author describes the places visited and what he saw in the numerous museums of Belgrade and Zagreb, especially in the latter city, where the remains of the prehistoric man from Krapina were investigated.

From there he went to Ljubljana, Trieste, Pula, Rijeka, and the island of Krk—where the Church of St. Donatus from the early Croatian period stands out—before continuing his journey to Zadar, Knin, Solin (Salona), and Split. In this last city and its surroundings, there are many important remains and ruins from early Croatian history, such as the Church of St. Mary of Otok with the tomb of Queen Helena from 970, or the Coronation Church of the Croatian kings. "No modern inscription informs the visitor of the importance of the ruins, which clearly demonstrates the lack of concern shown towards national historical sites," says the author, without adding that in present-day Yugoslavia, only Croatian historical sites suffer the same fate, unlike those of other nations.

Passing through Herzegovina, where he studied the kinship system and collected ethnological data, he arrived in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, where he was able to examine the artifacts from the Glasinac, Butmir, and Moštani cultures in the state museum. Returning to the coast, he visited Dubrovnik, Boka Kotorska, and in Montenegro, Cetinje and Nikšć—where he examined the important archaeological material from Crvena Stijena (Red Cave). He then visited museums in the Kosovo-Metohija region, as well as those in Macedonia (Skopje, Bitola, Prilep, and štip). He returned to Belgrade, where he visited the museums in Zemun. From Zagreb he went for the second time to Krapina and finally to Varaždin.

Summarizing the results of his tour in five points, during which he visited some 30 museums and met almost 50 scientists, the author expresses his conviction that the Vinča culture represents the local development that emerged after the decline of the Starčevo culture and that it did not originate in Anatolia. The Vinča culture spread from north to south and reached Greece in its later phase, having probably originated in Romania.

M B.

[1] Jean Bodin (1529-1596) is commonly considered the father of the concept of sovereignty and the sovereign State. René Cassin, at the meeting of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences of France, held in June 1959, also said the following in this regard: "There is a lien between the renewal of the science of droit and the essence of national sovereignty, the refus of his soumettre aux rules universelles de l'ancien droit romain tel qu'il était déformé et appliqué dans le Saint Empire". Quoted by Pierre Mesnard: Le nationalisme de Jean Bodin, in the magazine La Table Ronde, March 1960, p. 69. Jean Bodin, studying the systems of law of various periods and peoples, came to the conclusion: "L'un des plus grands et peut-être le principal fondament de Républiques est d'accomoder l'Etat au natural descitoyens et les édits et ordonances a la nature des lieux, des personnes et du temps" Ibid., p. 70.

[2] Pierre Mesnard: Ob. cit., p. 70.

[3] See R. Aron: Democratie et Totalitarisme, Editions Gallimard, Paris, 1965. In this work the author makes finer distinctions of the word and concept of politics, which cover multiple meanings and realities.

[4] R. Aron, ob. cit., p. 32-35. The author convincingly explains how communist historical and economic materialism recedes before party politics, resulting in the primacy of the political over the economic, in clear contradiction to the philosophical and programmatic tenets of Marxism. See also: Ivan Kologriwof, Metaphysics of Bolshevism, Madrid, 1946: "It is no longer the economy that determines politics, but everything is regulated from above by official decrees. Politics dominates everything. Everything is maintained at the top thanks to a psychological position that has taken the place of the ancient religions and that convinces the masses that the mission of power consists in embodying everywhere and to the fullest extent Law, truth, and justice," p. 92. Quoted by Luis Díez del Corral, The Rape of Europa, Madrid, 1954, pp. 197-198.

[5] "Or a concept capable of dominating the evolution of la conscience universelle, ne peut être le fait d'une generation spontanée. Il faut nécessairement qu'il ait eu quelque amorces dans les structures dépassées avant de s'imposer a l'attention des sages. "C'est alors seulement qu'il est à peu près dégagé des leçons du ipassé, conçu dans la pureté platonicienne de l'idée, avant d'être lancé d'une main sûre dans le maître courant de l'histoire, pour en direction la marche..." says with full justification P. Mesnard in Ob. cit., page 66.

[6] Franjo Tudjman: Velike Ideje i Mali Narodi (Big Ideas and Small Towns), Zagreb 1969, p. 72: ...here it must be emphasized that the Leninist principle of national self-determination within the complex of great socialist ideas made possible, in our time, the propagation and victory of these ideas precisely through national liberation and revolutionary movements in many non-independence and colonial countries. The examples of the war of liberation and the socialist revolution of the peoples of the SFRY (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) and of many other countries have certainly introduced new elements into Marxist revolutionary theory. In all these cases, during and after the Second World War, the solution to the national question was no longer a "reserve" or "ally" of the revolution, but one of the essential and fundamental questions of the socialist revolution itself, the prerequisite for its execution and the triumph of the socialist forces.

[7] F. Tudjman: Op. cit. p. 51.

* See previous note No. 4.

[8] Hans Kelsen, Communist Theory of Law and the State, Spanish version, Buenos Aires, 1957, Emece Editores, p. 14.

[9] See: Wissenschaftlicher Dienst Sudeuropa, No. of February 1, 1960. Stalin himself said: "...that the current Yugoslav state, the result of war and terror, cannot be considered a solution, the starting point and the basis for the solution of national questions. If war or revolution breaks out in Europe, the separation of the Croats and Slovenes will likely be on the agenda."

[10] Carl G. Strohm: Between Mao and Chrushchtschow, Stuttgart 1964. On p. 55 states: "The delegate comrades," wrote the Yugoslav representatives at Hodza's general command on October 13, 1943, "at Mukaj, adopted the nationalist positions and were satisfied with complete opportunism, changing only one word. Comrade Tempo (Svetozar Vukmanović) was present at that time. We discussed the matter at length with the Central Committee... and concluded that the Manifesto must be revoked, and that the manner in which the Committee for the Salvation of Albania was organized must be rejected, and that its functions as the supreme authority in the liberation struggle must not be recognized."

This Yugoslav decision was formulated after several Albanian liberation movements—communist and nationalist—had united. It was made on August 2, 1943, in the village of Mukaj near the capital, Tirana. Commenting on this Yugoslav position (actually Greater Serbian. Note from the S.C. Network), Strohm adds: "Tito forced Enver Hodza to back down in a humiliating manner on an Albanian national question—the question of the future of Kosovo and Metohija. Something like this is not forgotten in the Balkans." Ibid., p. 56.

[11] Friedrich Heer: Religious Terror, Political Terror, Editorial Fontanella, Barcelona, 1965, p. 132: "The 'elimination' by Louis XIV of the Huguenots, Jansenists, and Quietists around Fénelon increased the terror, but to such an extent that it lost its effectiveness: the consequences are terror, then abhorrence, later disgust, and finally mockery of the increasingly visible impotence of the king, who was growing older and weaker every day."

[12] H. Holzapfel, Manuale Historíae Ordinis Fratrum Minorum, Friburgi Brisgeviae 1909, 100-120.

[13] B. Pandžić, I Francescani a servizio dell'Albania nell'epoca di Scanderbeg, in V Convegno Internazionale di Studi Albanesi, Atti, Palermo 1969, 177-202.

[14] E. d'Alençon, Frères Mineurs, in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, VI, Paris 1947, 834.

[15] We record the main works on Dragišić: F. Ughellus, Italia Sacra, 3I, Venetiis 1717, 822; VII, Venetiis 1721. 778; S. Dolci, Fasti litterario Ragusani, Venezia 1767, 24-25; A. M. Bandini, Catalogus codicum Latinorum Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentanae, t. III, Florentiae 1776, col. 214-215; A. Fabronius, Historiae Academiae Pisanae, I, Pisis 1791, 112-116; F. Fossius, Catalogus codicum saeculo XV impressorum qui in publica bibliotheca Magliabechiana Florentiae asservantur, II, Florentiae 1794, coll. 478-483; F. M. Appendini, Noticie istorico-critiche salle antichita, storia e letteratura dei Ragusei, II, Ragusa 1803, 82-84; S. Gliubich, Dizionario biografico della Dalmazia, Vienna 1856, 28; M. Breyer, Prilozi k starijoj književnoj i kulturnoj povjesti hrvatskoj, Zagreb 1904, 21-36; H. Hurter, Nomenclator litterarius, theologiae catholieae, II, Oeniponte 1906, col. 1118;

L. Wadding, Scriptores Ordinis Minorum, ed. nova, Romae 1906, 99; J. H. Sbaralea, Supplementum et punishtio ad Scriptores tritiun Ordinum S. Francisci, I, Romae 1908, 320-322; D. Prohaska, Das Kroatisch-Serbische Schriftum in Bosnien und Herzegowina, Zagreb 1911, 110-111; J. Jelenić, Kultura i Bosanski Franjevci, Sarajero 1912, 230-231; B. Rode, Necrologium Ragusinum, in Analecta Francisoanum, VI, Ad Claras Aquae (Quaracchi) 1917, 413 n. 56, 571; S. Zimmerman, Juraj Dragišić (Georgius Benignus de Salviatis) kao filozof humanizma in Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti u umjetnosti, lib. 227, Zagreb 1928, 59-79; N. Papini, Minoritae Conventuales lectors publici artium et scientiarum, in Miscellanea Francescana, 33 (1933), 243 245; L. Jadin, Benigno dei Salviati (Giorgio ou Gregorio), in Dictionaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclèsiastiques, VII, Paris 1934, coll. 1328-1329; P. O. Kristeller, Supplementum Ficinianum, II, Florentiae 1937, 350-351; A. Teetaert, Salviati, Georges Benigne de, in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, XIV-1, Paris 1939, coll. 1053-1056;

J. L. Harapin, L'evoluzione della filosofia presso i Croati, in Croazia Sacra, Rome 1943, 80-81; M. Vanino, Gli studi teologici presso i Croati, in Croazia Sacra, Rome 1943, 96; M. Breyer, Dragišić Juraj (lat. Georgius Benignus de Salviatis), in Hrvatska Enciklopedija, 5, Zagreb 1945, 234-235; M. Kombol, Poviest Hrvatske Književnosti, Zagreb 1945, 70, 71; P. Čapkun, Dragišić Giorgio, in Enciclopedia Cattolica, IV, Città del Vaticano, 1950, 1920-1921; K. Krstić, Dragišić Juraj (Georgius Benignus Argentinensis Salviatus or Salviatis), in Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, 3, Zagreb 1958, 68-69; A. Matanić, Dragišić Georges in Dictionaire d'histoire et de geographie ecclésiastiques, XIV, Paris 1960, coll. 781-782; F. Secret, Umanisti dimenticati, in Giornale della letteratura Italiana, 137 (1960), 218-22; C. Dionisotti, Umanisti dimenticati?, en Italia medioevale e umanistica, 4 (1961), 289-321.

[16] Papini, Minores Conventuales lectors publici artium et scientiarum, in Miscellanea Francescana, 33 (1933), 245.

[17] D. Farlatus, Illyricum Sacrum, VI, Venetiis 1800, 191.

[18] Regesta Ordinis S. Francisci (Regesta P. M. Francisci Samsonis), in Miscellanea Francescana, 24 (1924), 165.

[19] Lib. VII, e. VI; cf. C. Dionisotti, Umanisti dimenticati?, in Italia medioevale e umanistica, 4 (1961), 306.

[20] Cf. L. Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und Staatsmann, I, Paderborn 1923.

[21] Ibidem, 384-388.

[22] C. Dionisotti, Umanisti dimenticati?, 293 n. 1.

[23] H. Šabanović, Bosanski Pašaluk (Bosnian Bejalate), Sarajevo 1959, 169.

[24] B. Rode, Necrologium Ragusinum, in Analecta Franciscana, VI, Ad Claras Aquas (Quaracchi) 1917, 413 n. 56, 571.

[25] J. H. Sbaralea, Supplementum et Castigatio ad Scriptores trium Ordinum S. Francisci, I, Rome 1908, 321.

[26] Lib. II, c. XIII. Dedicating her work De natura Angelica to the Ragusians, she states that she returned to Dubrovnik after 33 years of absence.

[27] "Quia teneris, ut dici solet, unguiculis, cum in aliis disciplinis tum in hac facultate, Romae, Parisii, Oxoniae, Florentiae, Bononiae, Papiae, Patavii, Urbini, Ferrariae et tandem iterum Romae versatus sum et, ut omnes tempestatis huius; homines sciunt, cansenui" (Artis Dialecticaes, p.

[28] Cf. A. Mercati, Le due lettere di Giorgio di Trebizonda a Maometto II, in Orientalia Cristiana Periodica, 9 (1943), 75-78.

[29] "Et prorsus, ac si parum de supernis venisset, omnis altercatio extincta est", says Dragišić himself in De natura angelica, lib. VI, c. XI; cf. F. Secret, Umanisti dimenticati, in Giornale della letteratura Italiana, 137 (1960), 222.

[30] "Aga omnia huic mea Georgio Macedoni scribenda committo, quem ego Primus Benignum votere, non absque causa, coepi", Dragišić puts in the mouth of Cardinal Bessarion, Vatican Library, Ms. Vat. Lat. 1056, f. 96v).

[31] De natura angelica, lib. Fri. XI, cf. Secret, Umianisti dimenticati, 222.

[32] "Maestro Giorgio Benigno de Salviati fu chiamato Benigno per soprannome in fine dalla b. m. del cardinal Bessarione, col quale stette nella giovinezza sua per molti anui. Et di gib, ordinava che tutta la Grecia lo chiedesse per cardinale. La morte vi si interpose, onde no'l fé" (N. Papini, Minoritae Conventuals, in Miscellanea Francescana, 33 (1933), 244.

[33] It seems that the first to call it that was S. Dolci, Fasti litterario Ragusani, Venice 1767, 24, although M. Breyer, Prilozi k starijoj književnoj i kulturnoj povjesti hrvatskoj, Zagreb 1904, 21, maintains that it was Jakov Lukarh.

[34] B. Rode, Documenti Francescani di Ragusa, in Miscellanea Francescana, 14 (1913), 190 n. 87. The Pope himself in the letter of September 7, 1490, addressed to the Republic of Dubrovnik, calls him "Dragiscich" (Farlatus, Illyricum Sacrum, VI, 192).

[35] Farlatus, Illyricum Sacrum, VI, 191.

[36] B. Rode, Documenti Francescani di Ragusa, in Miscellanea Francescana, 14 (1913), 19.2 n. 89.

[37] "...solitus erat mihi persaepe dicere: tu cris heres meus" (A. M. Bandini), Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Mediceae, III, Florentiae 1776, 215.

[38] He administered Confirmation in 1472 to Guidubaldo, son of Frederick. Cf. B. Baldi, Della vita e de fatti di Guidobaldo I da Montefeltro duca en d'Urbino, Milan 1821, 9-10.

[39] N. Papini, Lectores publici Ordinis Fratrum Minorum Conventualium, in Miscellanea Francescana, 32 (1932) 74, says that Dragišić was a professor in Urbino from 1470 to 1482.

[40] The Vatican Library, Ms. Vat. Lat. 1056.

[41] The Vatican Library, Ms. Urb. Lat. 995 f. 4v.

[42] "... Qui tibi uni, praecedente nemine, sacrum ac divinorum minister non casu quoquarn, sed magna superum providentia destinatus fuerim" (Ibidem, f. 2r).

[43] "Urbinatensi (civitate donatus) ab inclyto Federico Urbini duce, principe virtutis incomparabilis et domo Felixium non abiecta" (De natura angelica, lib. IV, e. VIII; Secret, Umanisti dimenticati, 220).

[44] "Mag. Georgius Benignus Salviati alias de Felicibus humaniores litteras, dialecticam atque ethicam docuit ab. 1483 ad 1488" (N. Papini) Lectores publici, in Miscellanea Francescana, 31 (1931), 102.

[45] Regesta Ordinis S. Francisci, in Miscellanea Francescana, 23 (1922), 54. At the same time he was "inquisitor haereticae pravitatis" (Ibidem, 55).

[46] Cf. Reumont, Lorenzo de Medici il Magnifico, I-II, Leipzig 1883.

[47] Disputatio nuper facta in domo Magnifici Laurentii Medices, Florentiae, die 27 iulii 1489.

[48] The letter, almost complete, is found in Bandini, Catalogue, III, coll. 214-216.

[49] Ibidem, col. 214.

[50] Cf. E. Garin, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Vita e dottrina, Firenze 1937.

[51] "...quia eruditiorem ac probiorem non agnosco neque esse credo, ad te dumtaxat hunc librum destiny" (Bandini, Catalogus, III, col. 215).

[52] When Dragišić wrote this letter, Brother John of Prato was archbishop in Aquileia. Cf. A. Ferrajoli, Il ruolo della corte di Leone

[53] "Sed quid? Nesciremus te ulterius provehere: actum esset apud nos tectum domus tuae. Cogitamus itaque te ad Tusciae ministeriatum, deinde ad generalatus officiurn, tandem cb scientiam et humanissimos mores, tuos ad cardinalatus dignitatem erigere" (Bandini, Catalogus, III, 215).

[54] "Florentina civitate amoenissima (donatus) et domo Salviatum, gloriosa" (De natura angelica, lib. IV, c. VIII; cf. Secret, Umanisti dimenticati, 220).

[55] P. M. Francisci Samson Min. Gen (1414-1499) notee biographicae, in Miscellaneae Francescana, 22 (1921), 152-158.

[56] Regesta Ordinis S. Francisci, in Miscellanea Francescana, 23 (1922), EB. On this occasion he calls him: Mag. Georgius of Urbino.

[57] Ibidem, 141 Now his surname is: Mag. Georgius Benignus de Salviatis.

[58] G. B. Picotti, An episode of Medici ecclesiastical politics, in Annali delle Università Toscane, 48 (1829-1930), 77-116; Idem, La giovinezza di Leone X, Milan 1928, 508.

[59] Regesta Ordinis S. Francisci, in Miscellanea Francescana, 22 (1921), 156.

[60] A. M. Bandini, Collectio aliquot monumentalum ad historiam praecipue litterariam pertinentium, Aretii 1772, 19.

[61] Regesta Ordinis S. Francisci, in Miscellanea Francescana, 24 (1924), 155-156.

[62] Ibidem, 158.

[63] Ibidem, 162, 163.

[64] C. Fidelius. Statuta Collegii theologorum almae Universitatis Pisanae anuo Domini MCCCCLXXV cum synopsi omnium lectorum ab initio collegii usque ad finem, Pisis 1910, (32).

[65] L. Pastor, Storia dei Papi, Rome 1942, 384.

[66] Bandini, Catalogus, III, 215.

[67] S. Razzi, Storia di Raugia, Lucca 1595, 64-65, says that he arrived in Dubrovnik in 1482.

[68] Rode, Documenti Francescani di Ragusa, in Miscellanea Francescana, 14 (1913), 190-191 n. 87.

[69] Farlatus, Illyricum Sacrum, VI, 192.

[70] Rode, Documenti Francescani di Ragusa, in Miscellanea Francescana, 14 (1913), 191-192 n. 88.

[71] Farlatus. Illyricum Sacrum, VI, 191-192.

[72] Rode, Documenti Francescani di Ragusa, in Miscellanea Francescana, 14 (1913), 192 n. 89.

[73] Rode, Documenti Francescani di Ragusa, in Miscellanea Francescana, 15 (1914), 50 n. 91.

[74] Farlatus, Illyricum Sacrum, VI, 196-198.

[75] Rode, Documenti Francescani di Ragusa, in Miscellanea Francescana, 15 (1914), 50 n. 92.

[76] Farlatus, Illyricum Sacrum, VI, 198.

[77] Cf. Breyer, Prilozi, 31; M. Kombol, Poviest hrvatske književnosti, Zagreb 1945, 63-70.

[78] De natura angelica, f. 2r.

[79] He answered them on January 17, 1497, and the letter was brought by his former student Antonio Sassolini (A. Fabranius, Historiae Academice Pisanae, I, Pisis 1797, 114 n. 1).

[80] C. Fidelius, Statuta Collegii, (32), says that Dragišić was a professor in Pisa in 1500.

[81] P. M. Francisci Samson, 156.

[82] M. Bihl, De editionibus Statutorum Alexandrinorum anni 1500, in Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, 17 (1924), 136-137.

[83] The General Archive OFM Conv., RO, A-2, f. 24, notes that this occurred in 1504.

[84] F. Ughellus, Italia Sacra, II, Venetiis 1717, 822; VII, Venetiis 1721, 778.

[85] Cf. Storia dei Papi, III, 728-731.

[86] "Ego qui cum Callien, essem episcopus et Sanctae Crucis cardinalis Reverendissimi Sedisque Apostalicae legati meritissimi vestigia sequerer..." he says in his dedication to Emperor Maximilian.

[87] Pastor, Storia dei Papi, III, 774-776.

[88] F. Fossius, Catalogus codicum saec. XV impressorum qui in publica Bibliotheca Magliabechiana Florentiae adservantur, II, Fiorentiae 1794, 482-483.

[89] Ughellus, Italia Sacra, II, col. 822, says: "Franciscum Mariam Roboreum, cardinalis Alidosii interfectorem defendit: adeo etiam divino doctaque pectora cupido gratine apud Principe(m) plerumque foedo invadit."

[90] During the Latin Empire the Archdiocese was founded in Nazareth, which had a temple near Barletta. When they were expelled from Nazareth, they settled next to the temple near Barletta. Cf. S. Santeramo, Canne-Nazareth-Barletta, Vescovi e Arcivescovi, Barletta, 1940, 5-6.

[91] J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, XXXII, Parisiis 1902, 709.

[92] Ibidem, 727.

[93] Bandini, Catalogus, III, col. 216.

[94] Vatican Archives, Reg. Vat., 999, ff. 68v-71v.

[95] He was a member of the Commission for Dogmatic and Moral Problems (Mansi, Sacriorum conciliorum, XXXII, 798).

[96] The letter to Emperor Maximilian is printed at the beginning of the same work.

[97] Ibid., f. 13r.

[98] Rode, Necrologium Ragusinum, 413. That year he was named his successor (C. Eubel - G. van Gulik, Hierarchia Catholica, III, Monsterii 1923, 254.

[99] See page. 2.

[100] "Quod (in text: quoad) opusculum in Anglia translatum amisi" (Lib. VI, c. XI; cf. F. Secret, Umanisti dimenticati, 222).

[101] "De his succinte Benignus noster in suo in introductory logicam" Vatican Library, Ms. Vat. Lat., 1056, f. 18r).

[102] A. Pelzer, Codices Vaticani Latini, II-1, Vatican Library 1931, 602-603.

[103] "Kalendis iunii prima et septuagesimo supra quadrigentos mille salutis anhos" (Vat. Lat., 1056, f. 2v).

[104] Pelzer believes that Dragišić did it when Bessarion died, when he wanted to give the work to Pope Sixtus IV.

[105] Vatican Library, Urb. Lat. 995, 95r.

[106] Ibidem, f. 3v.

[107] Vatican Library, Ms. Urb. Lat. 565, f. 49r.

[108] Pastor, Storia dei Papi, II, Rome 1942, 482-492.

[109] A. M. Bandini, Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae, I, Florentiae 1774, col. 468.

[110] Bandini, Catalogus, III, coll. 214-215.

[111] A copy of this work is in the Biblioteca Riccardiana in Florence no. 317 (A. López, Decriptio codicum franciscanorum Bibliothecae Ricardianae Florentinae, in Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, 2 (1909), 126; P. O. Kristeller Iter Italicum, I, London-Leiden 1963, 190.

[112] The sonnet, the origin of this work, appears in A. Fabronius, Laurentii Medicis Magnifici vita, II, Pisis, 1784, 289.

[113] Bandini, Catalogus, III, 214-216.

[114] Carlo Varischi da Milano, Catalogo dei codici della Biblioteca del convento di S. Francesco dei Minora Capuccini in Milano, in Aevum, 11 (1937), 259-261.

[115] "...Germanicas contemplationes, quarum altera de Christianae Victoriae vexillo, altera de Virginis Matris assumptione mirificos tractatus continebat, aedidi", says Dragišić in the letter to Emperor Maximilian, sending his allegation of John Reuchlin.

[116] Cf. P. Sevesi, S. Carlo Borromeo e le congregationzioni degli Amadeiti e dei Clareni, in Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, 37 (1944), 105-107.

[117] C. Varischi, Catalog, 269; P. O. Kristeller, Iter Italicum, II, 327.

[118] P. O. Kristeller, Iter Italicum, I, 327.

[119] Ibidem.

[120] F. Fossius, Catalogus, II, coll. 482-483; P. O. Kristeller, Iter Italicum, 1,122.

[121] N. Papini, Minoritae Conventuales readers, in Miscellanea Francescana, 33 (1933), 244; Sbaralea, Suplementum et punishtio, I, 322.

[122] Sbaralea, Suplementum et punishtio. I. 321.

[123] Vatican Library, Ms. Vat. Lat. 8226, f. 1r-2v; cf. P. O. Kristeller, Iter Italicum, II, 344.

[124] Vatican Library, Ms. Vat Lat. 8226, f. 10r.

[125] A iry, Manuel diplomatique, Paris 1894, 162.

[126] Sbaralea, Supplementum et punishtio, I, 322. According to P. O. Kristeiler, Supplementum Ficinianum, II, Florentiae 1937, 351, in the Royal Belgian Library in Brussels, Ms. 10783, there is the work of Dragišić: Contemplationes de B. V. Maria.

[127] Fossius, Catalog I, coll. 479-480; Sbaralea, Supplementum et punishtio, I, 321; cf. C. Dionisotti, Umanisti dimenticati?, 296.

[128] Sbaralea, Supplementum et punishtio, I, 321.

[129] Ibidem; Kristeller, Iter Italicum, I, 115.

[130] Dragišić's treatise is found on pp. 369-426.

[131] Fossius, Catalogue, II, 478.

[132] J. Schnitzer, Savonarola, I. Munchen 1924, 445-447.

[133] S. Zimmermann, Juraj Dragišić (Georgius Benignus de Salviatis) kao f'ilozof humanizma, in Rad Jugoslavenske Akademije znanosti i umjetnosti, lib. 227, Zagreb 1928, 71-78.

[134] The main part of this dedication is transcribed by Sbaralea, Supplementum et punishtio, I, 320-321.

[135] Rode, Necrologium Ragusinum, 571.

[136] He claims to have finished the work in January 1518. However, the prologue was written by Martin Groningus on August 1, 1517. In this regard, it is also worth mentioning the letter of Petrus Galatini, De Areanis Catholicae Veritis. Ortona 1518 (cf. A. Kleinbans, De vita et operibus Petri Galatini O. F. M., in Antonianum, 1 (1':!26), 175),

[137] Hrvatska Enciklopedija, 5, Zagreb 1945. 234, reproduces the photographic shot on the cover. Also Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, 3, Zagreb 1958, 68.

[138] S. Zimmermann, Juraj Dragišić, 66-71.

[139] Marsilio Ficino (+ 1499), famous translator of Plato's works, speaks in a peculiar way about Dragišić to three young friends: "Georgium Benignum cognoscitis meum, qui veritatem illam, per cuius nunc vos vestigia passim venando discurritis, iam diu est sagaciter assequutus. Qui et fratres suas, solis instar, maior “Ipse minores illustrat. (Marsilii Ficini Florentini, insigns Philosophi Platonici, Medici atque Theologi clarissimi Opera, Basileae 1576, 575).

[140] Ubertino Risaliti writes to the Ragusinos: "Quem ego ut praeceptorem meum pro patre amem a vobisque tankum žarentem amari intedigam, necesse est ut ipse quoque vos fraterno quodam amare complectar" (De natura angelica, f. 1v).

[141] Zimmermann, Juraj Dragišić, 59-79.

[142] Dionisotti, Umanisti dimenticati?, 302-306.

[143] Cf. J. Schnitzer, Savonarela, II, Munchen 1924, 648-650. Dragišić was censured for his attitude towards Savonarola. After Savanorola had been burned at the stake, he replied to his detractors: "Me ilia in re lacerare fuste potest nemo; contrarium. Quis enim a viro perito et coeliben vitam actitante tam pernitiosa mendacia excogitari potuisset. Ego itaque quod non auderem neque alios audere puto" (De natura angelica, lib. I, c. XVII); Secret, Umanisti dimenticati, 222).

[144] Defensio Joannis Reuchlin, f. 7r.

[145] L. Geiger, Johann Reuchlin, sein Leben und seine Werke, Leipzig, 1871, 451.

[146] De natura angelica, lib. IV, e. VIII: Secret, Umanisti dimenticati, 219-220.

[147] Dionisotti, Umanisti dimenticati?, 294, da; following explanation: "Vicino ai Greci il Benigno era stato ed era, ma naturally non greco. La difference deve esser tenuta ben present. Della sua origine bosniaca non aveva reason di vergognarsi, ma neppure poteva, tper ovvie ragioni, farsene un vessillo. Benche apparently convinto che "qui nequit esse de urbe erit saltem de orbe", amava in realità far collezione di cognomi e toponimici disparati, ledecarazioni cavalleresche del tempo".

[148] Angelic in nature.

[149] Ibidem, f. Cr.

[150] Ibidem.

[151] Ibidem.

[152] We believe that Dragišić continued to maintain contact with Dubrovnik, although we have no information. It is interesting to note that the bishop of Trebinje-Mrkanj Agustín Nalječković entrusted him to represent him on December 19, 1516 at the meeting of the Fifth Vatican Council: "Rev. dus P. Dominus Georgius archiepiscopus Nazarenus dedit mandatum Rev. di Domini Episcopi Tribuniensis et Macheriensis" (Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, XXXII, 975).