Studia Croatica
Year XII, Buenos Aires,
1971, N° 40-41
The fight for a
new Constitution and central funds
Shady accounts:
The destruction of the Croatian economy
Schism in the
power structure and ideology of Marxism-Leninism
The centenary
of Croatian opera in Zagreb (1870-1970)
Historical
overview of the Croatian literary language
The poetry of
the Croatian revival
Ivan Ratkaj,
first Croatian missionary to America (1647-1683)
Documents
Esteban Radic's
speech
Die stimme der
kroaten - The voice of the Croatians
Micronews
In memoriam to
Sava M. Stedimlija
book review
Zvonimir
Kulundzic: The Political Writings of Esteban Radic
Vladimir Maric:
Kroatische Adriaküste (Land der Tausend Inseln)
Ivan Muzic:
Hrvatska polítika ijugoslavenska ideja (Croatian politics and the Yugoslav
idea)
Der Donau-Raum,
Zeitschrift des Forschungsinstitudes für den Donauraum
Ives Ivonides:
The Martyr of the City of Kresimir, Zagreb 1970, p. 32.
The fight for a new Constitution and central funds
Franjo Nevistic
The crisis of the Yugoslav state idea and its self-management regime
Communist Yugoslavia is currently experiencing a multifaceted crisis:
political, economic, social, and cultural. Indeed, that state never had a
period of political stability, nor did it ever experience a united effort for
the common good. Simply because it never knew how to achieve
it.
With the rise of communism to power in 1945, relations between its
nations deteriorated even further. The same occurred with regard to class
relations. Communism failed to resolve the national question that has plagued
that multinational state since its inception, nor the social problem. In
addition to the general incapacity of communism in this regard, in the specific
case of Yugoslavia, there is another factor of decisively negative
significance. Serbian hegemony, its unitarism, and centralism always
represented the main obstacle to all attempts, even the most sincere, to
organize a socio-political system in that unique country that would satisfy all
its national components, not just the Serbs.
With the fall of the "famous" police chief
A. Rankovic in 1966, one phase of Serbian hegemony formally ended, though
hegemony itself did not. In place of the oppressive police apparatus, new forms
of Serbian dominance took hold. The most evident of these are the banks and
re-export companies in Belgrade. There, the financial potential of the entire
country is concentrated. The Serbian administrators in Belgrade, which is both
the Serbian and national capital, disposed of, and continue to dispose of, this
capital in a more or less arbitrary manner. Priority is given to the
development needs of Serbia and those who aid the Serbs in their policy of
oppression and hegemony.
This abnormal state of affairs was able to remain hidden while the U.S.
channeled enormous sums of aid to the regime. The latent discontent was able to
be appeased with crumbs from a table laden with other people's wealth. But with
the restriction and complete cessation of American aid, Yugoslav communism
demonstrated its true capabilities and worth. "Democratic socialism,"
"self-management society," and "democracy of the local
producers" failed to fulfill their intended role as an alternative between
liberal capitalism and Stalinist-style totalitarian socialism. Illusions,
Marxist prophecy, and faith in a rosy future have finally come to an end.
The crisis of the state concept—that is, the political unity of these
peoples, so diametrically opposed to one another—as well as the crisis of
self-management society, plunged this political community into a dire
situation. So dire, in fact, that Marshal Tito himself had to declare on
September 21st that "we cannot move forward like this," that
"the entire system" was in question, and that it was imperative to
take the necessary steps for change because "time is not on our
side." What, then, constitutes this grave crisis in communist Yugoslavia?
It is necessary to choose some elements that we consider essential in
order to understand the complex that we cannot analyze in its entirety.
The issue is primarily the national question, and secondarily the
socio-economic question. Indeed, by implementing a federal system in 1946, Tito
and his Party believed they had solved the national problem of their
multinational state. Or rather, Tito and his collaborators knew full well how
inaccurate this assumption was. To compensate for the lack of a real solution
to the national question, a considerable effort was made to convince others of
this supposed solution. And it was not without effect. A large part of world
opinion accepted as truth what was merely an appearance. Tito was repeatedly
mentioned as the man who had found the effective solution to such a complicated
and difficult issue in his country. Tito's federalism was contrasted with the
centralist unitarism of monarchical Yugoslavia.
But the truth cannot remain hidden for long. In the current debate
concerning a new (the fourth) Constitution since 1945, the truth is coming to
light. Even the leaders of Yugoslav communism acknowledge it. One need only
consider their words to see the truth that was supposedly hidden. "It
seems to me that we are building the federation again, under completely new
conditions... This is a novel arrangement between nations and nationalities...
different from that of the last twenty years, even though many believed—some
still do today—that many issues were settled once and for all..." (Croatia
in the Federation, in "VUS", Zagreb, November 1970, in a dialogue
with the president of the communist local government of the Republic of
Croatia, Mr. D. Haramija).
To complete this view, we will quote similar observations from the
Macedonian communist leader, K. Crvenkovski: "The genesis of Yugoslavia as
a state—I am referring to 1918—left deep marks that we still feel in some way
today... Monarchical Yugoslavia was formed as a centralist state with a clear
predominance of the Serbian bourgeoisie... Since the new Yugoslavia is, in a
sense, a continuation of the former... it could not free itself from this
legacy... What remains an enigma to me is that despite the last twenty years of
our development, that is, since 1950 when we proclaimed the system of
self-management and when all our intellectual concerns tended toward a
philosophy of a decentralized and self-managed society, federal statism and
centralism continued to develop in practice...
If there is a crisis in our society, it does not lie—as some would have
it—in the insistence on more space for nations and republics... but precisely
in the fact that there are forces that oppose this demand..." Responding
to the observation that granting more space to nationalities and republics
would signify historical regression, Crvenkovsky replied: "People
associate, just like national communities, to achieve their partial interests and
to chart the course of their common interests... It is not possible to
sacrifice these partial interests, which are vital to a nation, for supposedly
superior interests.
These superior interests, in the fifty-plus years of socialist history,
have always been foreign and alien to all peoples, except those who dreamed of
hegemony." To be more specific, Crvenkovski referred to the cases of
Croatia and Macedonia: "It seems to me that it is impossible to demand
that a nation renounce its national stability, just as it is even less
acceptable to accept the thesis that, by pointing out the real presence of
other nationalities in some of the republics, denies their national statehood,
as for example in the case of Croatia and Macedonia. Taking the case of these
two republics, I must be completely frank and sincere in saying: I do not see a
prospect of equality for Serbs in Croatia, or for Albanian or Turkish
nationality in Macedonia, if they continue to deny Croatian or Macedonian
statehood respectively" ("VUS", No. 972, Zagreb, December 16,
1970).
The prosecutor of the Croatian capital, Zagreb, Slobodan Budak,
emphasizing the need to rescind any idea or practice with elements of
centralism and unitarism, remarked: "Frankly speaking, with this
rescission we are not completely finished. We must do more..." After
explaining the Leninist conception of the nation, Budak continued: "I
consider it of utmost importance to know at this moment whether we, as the
League of Communists of Yugoslavia, and starting from the point of view that
each nation has the right to constitute itself as its own national, sovereign,
and republican-state community, are capable of drawing the ultimate
consequences of the positions we have reached by common agreement." One of
those decisions, according to him, would be the following:
"The republic must be organized as the sovereign national and state
community. This implies that all power, originally, belongs to the republic and
that the republics can separate and transfer a portion of this power... to the
federation." Furthermore: "The socialist state is also characterized
by the monopoly of force (violence)... But the attribute of monopoly of force
is an attribute proper to the state and, consequently, this monopoly cannot be
held by its emanation, that is, the federation, instead of the sovereign
republic. The question of who the organs of force are cannot be overlooked, as
is being attempted. In Croatia, the opinion that the police and the judiciary
should be entirely under the jurisdiction of the republics is
widespread..." (Jesmo li spremni na sve
posljedice? - Are we ready to draw all the consequences?,
in "VUS" 3/12/71).
Vladimir Bakaric, the leading communist in Croatia and one of Tito's
closest collaborators, speaking to the communists at the University of Zagreb,
also said the following: "The second group of problems includes the
question of the federation-republic relationship, or, if you prefer, the
nations-federation relationship. There have been many discussions on this.
Many precisely because these are problems that must
be unified through the State and political organizations, reconciling
differences between nations, economies, levels of development, etc. Logically, since this involves a higher structure of the fundamental
economic base, alienated from the immediate producer, positions have arisen
from the availability of surplus value without being subject to the
consideration of the immediate producer. With the creation of these centers of
power, it was natural that the differences would become increasingly
pronounced. Here we have... the site of our main disputes"
("Vjesnik," February 22, 1971, Zagreb).
Professor and economist Dr. S. Djordan, referring to the previous
constitutions of communist Yugoslavia, says: "...the federation had
assumed all essential functions: the entire economic system, that is, the whole
investment system with a monopoly on development and investment policy, a
monopoly on international economic relations, all tax and finance policy in
general... The republics were established by deduction and entrusted with the
function of tax collector for the needs of the federation, the execution of its
plans, etc., while their autonomy and independence were so limited that one
could not even speak of real federalism..." (Ekonomske Funkcije Nove
Federacije - Economic Functions of the New Federation, in "Studentski -
List Gazeta Estudiantil, No. 21, Zagreb, November 17, 1970, pp. 20-21).
Confirming the same need for reform in the aforementioned sense, the
president of the Yugoslav Communist Youth, Janez Kocijanic, Slovenian,
declared: "We are committed to turning Yugoslavia into a community of
states - a socialist community of states - which must act as bearers of
national sovereignty" (in Neue Zürcher Zeitung of February 20, 1971 in the
article: Die Schwierigkeiten beim Umbau Jugoslaviens - The Difficulties in the
Reorganization of Yugoslavia).
This would be one aspect of the current deep Yugoslav crisis. Formal
federalism failed to solve the national problem. That is why the need to
"dismantle" the Federation is currently being emphasized.
As for the socio-economic aspect, the situation seems even worse.
Economic centralism initially appeared to lead to success, even though the
standard of living was below $500 per capita. The country was devastated by
war, so demand was very high. Everything that was produced found buyers. Since
1963, things have taken a different turn. Domestic consumption decreases, and
poor-quality goods find no customers in the international market. The need for
reform of the system arises, but the centralists refuse to budge.
Professor Djodan explains: "...This is capital, concentrated in the
hands of the federation and its re-exporters, such as GENEX and the
federation's banks. The amount of this capital is estimated at around 9
trillion old dinars. If it were left at the disposal of a republic, all of
Yugoslavia would soon become the spoils of these banks and re-export companies,
and a colony of that republic. This must be stated openly to avoid any
misunderstandings later. We do not want colonial status without a fight. No one
has the right to relinquish the portion of this capital that belongs to the
Croatian working class. It must be returned to the working class of each of the
nations in proportion to their rights." Similarly, the problem of the
off-budgetary balance, which equaled the federal budget in size and whose
accounting was "worse than that of an agricultural cooperative," must
be resolved. "This fund must be liquidated and the means transferred to
the working class organized in their work communities.
The next problem is the foreign debts invested by some for their needs
and paid by others with their foreign currency. The solution must be sought
according to the principle that debts must be paid by those who created them.
The foreign exchange system is a painful issue in Yugoslav development. An
unrealistic exchange rate discourages exports, stimulating imports, which
creates an astronomical payment deficit. Through this mechanism, enormous
financial resources flow out of Croatia to other republics.
Our republic will have $300 million this year (1970) from the open
surplus and, probably once again, from private clearing and remittances sent by
our workers abroad to their families. All of this passes into the hands of the
Federation Bank (Belgrade) through an unrealistic exchange rate, while the
Croatian economy is left without the means to import production materials. If
this surplus were at our disposal, we would have sufficient means to..." "development."
Professor Diodan elaborates: "The nation that managed to proclaim
its capital as the capital of the federation also imposed the federation's team
policies, the priority of developing domestic regions, as well as the policy of
the international division of labor and our participation in it. In short:
whoever held the federation's coffers did not hesitate to take the lion's
share... Some regions were declared developed and others underdeveloped, with
the former having to pay for all the central government's mistakes, while the
latter benefited little from the new and flawed policies. Thus, widespread
discontent arose."
To expose this centralist development policy, Djodan adds: "As for
the concept of underdeveloped countries, we accept it in principle, but the degree
of underdevelopment must be reconsidered in a more complex way than has been
used until now. Up to this point, the criterion applied was the productivity of
the national economy, specifically the consumption factor; in other words, only
supply was analyzed without considering purchasing power. This procedure is an
outdated method. Today, it is not difficult to produce goods, but it is
difficult to sell them on credit. Consequently, those with more financial
capital are economically stronger.
According to production criteria and viewed through per capita income,
Yugoslavia should have had an average income of $765 in 1970. Bosnia and
Herzegovina, $513; Montenegro, $560; Croatia, $936; Macedonia, $575; Slovenia,
$1,434; Serbia, $757; Vojvodina, $827; and Nossovo, $1,000." 312. If we
consider the financial aspect, the picture changes completely. Thus, the credit
potential for every 100 dinars of national production reaches 111 dinars in
Bosnia and Herzegovina; 228 in Montenegro; 108 in Croatia; 294 in Macedonia;
121 in Slovenia; and 227 in Serbia. According to the above, Croatia, applying
the outdated criteria, would be considered developed, but applying the modern
criteria, it turns out to be underdeveloped, and the most underdeveloped of all
the republics...
Consumption is distorted. Those who produce less spend more because the
credit potential is distorted, and through this distortion, a large part of the
surplus value of some people's production flows into the hands of those with
greater credit potential. Here are the data on this: Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Slovenia, and Croatia produce about 56.6% of Yugoslavia's social product, with
a credit potential of only 38.3%, while Serbia, Macedonia, and Montenegro They
produce only 43.5% of the national product, while having access to 61.7% of the
credit.
Consequently, who is underdeveloped?" Srecko Bijelic, president of
the Communist League of Zagreb, says the following: "When we add up all
the needs and possibilities, it turns out that the city of Zagreb cannot secure
301 million dinars to finance essential activities. It cannot, because in 1970,
of its five billion, only 20.2% remained at its disposal, while the federation
took 58.2% and the Republic of Croatia 21.7%. These relations are unbearable
and must be changed..." (In "VUS" of December
1970).
The relations are truly unbearable. If we know that Croatia last year
had a surplus of nearly $600 million, which it had to sell to the Federation
Bank at the official exchange rate of 5.70 dinars, and that the bank sells it
on the parallel market for 18.20 dinars, it's clear that Zagreb cannot cover
its most basic needs, while in Belgrade, on the contrary, financial reserves
are swelling. This also explains the mass migration of Croatians abroad and a
precipitous drop in the birth rate in Croatia. Belgrade's centralist-unitary
policy, known clandestinely as a policy of "brotherhood and unity,"
thus becomes a veritable policy of genocide. The violent and sporadic reactions
of young Croatian workers, such as the two recent cases in Sweden, can surprise
anyone, knowing the reality in which the Croatian people live?
What can be expected from this struggle for a new Constitution and
systemic change? The special commission of the Belgrade Assembly has put some
twenty amendments up for public discussion. Judging by Amendment 29, which
retains the most vital political and financial functions for the federation,
not much can be expected. Under pressure from centralists—Serbs both at home
and in exile—(the London-based Nasa Rec and the Munich-based Iskra reacted
unanimously, defending Serbian supremacy), Marshal Tito gave a speech in the
small Croatian town of Bugojno, in Bosnia, where, while declaring himself a
proponent of decentralization, he strongly rejected the idea of reorganizing
the state into a confederation. Moreover, he had previously stated that the
League of Communists of Yugoslavia is a unitary and monolithic organization,
disregarding the division by republics and nationalities.
Therefore, little can be expected from the current reform, whose
campaign has already entered the phase of "organized enthusiasm." If
we add to these concrete facts the opinions of scholars and specialists in
international communist affairs, the picture becomes perfectly clear.
The question of the meaning of a constitution in a communist state is
almost superfluous. The conception of law in communist theory differs greatly
from that of the Western world. While Western doctrine and practice attribute
to it a distinct deontological force, Soviet theory and practice deny it.[1]
"Titoism," as a "special path" to socialism, does
not differ in this respect from Bolshevism. At the beginning, in 1945–1952, it
was its most zealous imitator. Soviet Russia has thus far amended three
constitutions, and communist Yugoslavia is currently debating its fourth.
Regarding the value of the constitution, to which, for example, J. Bryce
attributes a purely legal and political-philosophical function, Soviet
theorists hold the opposite view.[2]
As we have already seen, Yugoslav federalism was not even a shadow of
true federalism. Party centralism, combined with Serbian hegemony, gave the
Yugoslav communist state its fundamental characteristics. The current crisis,
brought about by these two main factors, forced a semi-official capitulation.
Keenly attuned to the pulse of "his" people, the Marshal, fearful for
the fate of his magnum opus, while accepting decentralization, emphasized Party
unity and rejected the idea of a confederation. A confederal
constitution, under the authority of Party unity, would amount to little more
than an "administrative order," as Akripov would say. But, by also
rejecting the administrative order inherent in a confederal constitution, Tito
once again submitted to Serbian hegemony and class politics, ignoring the
national question. Crvenkovski says, as we have already seen, that a class
policy, which once again denies the national dimension in Yugoslavia, is a
misguided policy.
But even admitting an ideal legal-constitutional solution, without the
dismantling of Belgrade's financial resources, it would still be a romantic
notion. So far, Belgrade remains unmoved.
We will have to wait and see whether the monolithic nature of Yugoslav
communism and Serbian hegemony will once again prevail over the legitimate
rights of the other subjugated peoples in that multinational state, which
exhibits serious fissures even within the Party and according to multinational
standards.
Shady Accounts: The Destruction of the Croatian Economy
Jure Petricevic
Hrvoje Šošić Exposes the Power and Unscrupulousness of Central
Banks and Large Re-exporters, Privileged by the State
Dr. Hrvoje Šošić and Matica Hrvatska[3]
rendered a great service to their people. Šošić's book,
Clear Accounts, published in late 1970, provides a documented picture of the
performance of Yugoslav central banks and re-export firms, to which
substantial state funds were transferred and privileged powers granted during
the economic reform. As a result, these entities now exploit and expropriate
other companies, specific economic sectors, and regions, particularly affecting
the Croatian economy. Based on carefully collected documents and data,
Šošić proves that the situation of companies in Croatia deteriorated
considerably during self-management and economic reform.
At first glance, it might seem that a rigid system of financing the
renewal of obsolete facilities and other decommissioned means of production,
and reinvestment, affects all companies and economic sectors equally, and that
it constitutes a new form of bureaucratic dirigisme supported and abused by
state power in a totalitarian system. However, if we consider that in
Yugoslavia, a multinational country, both the central state power and the
central banks and funds are in the hands of Serbs, then, given the
Croatian-Serbian conflict, the Croatian economy suffers the consequences, while
the Serbian economy benefits from the new system of financing and reinvestment.
This aspect of the problem is precisely clarified in Šošić's
exposition, so that his book is reminiscent of R. Bicanic's work published more
than three decades ago, "The Economic Basis of the Croatian Question"
[4], and arrives, in part, at identical conclusions. The difference lies in the
fact that Bicanic had encompassed all sectors of public life, while Šošić
limited himself to the financing of depreciated means of production and new
investments. In clarifying these issues, the economic and political relations
between Serbia and Croatia, and the pressing Croatian question, emerge in all
their complexity.
Šošić's exhaustive financial analysis can be summarized as follows:
Private property, confiscated and expropriated after the communists came
to power in 1945, constituted the main basis of collective enterprises. Until
1950, and partly until 1965, the State, that is, the Federal Government in
Belgrade, had direct control of these funds. The State, through a social plan,
established the development and financing of these enterprises. This procedure
remained in effect even after the introduction of economic reforms in 1965. The
administration and management of enterprises were entrusted to "work
collectives," but the function of financing renewal and investment was
reserved for the state, that is, the central banks and certain commercial
firms. The necessary funds were raised through centralized and statist methods,
without being returned to the enterprises. Thus, the enterprises could not
access most of their depreciation, which was diverted to the central
depreciation fund.
Under the old system, the state returned these funds according to
special criteria. For many enterprises, these resources were limited and
blocked, used according to political criteria in other regions, generally where
they favored the interests of Great Serbia, so much so that they were referred
to as "political factories" and "political investments."
These maneuvers severely damaged the economies of Croatia, Slovenia, and
Bosnia-Herzegovina.
During the economic reform, the old centralized system of collecting
funds for reinvestment—earmarked for the modernization of obsolete equipment
and new investments—was replaced by a new credit system. Companies can obtain
the necessary funds, but they must repay them with high interest rates, even
though these funds were drawn from the companies' own revenues. At the same
time, the government continues to retain a significant portion of company
revenues to finance new public investments.
It goes without saying that some companies do not have to repay the
invested funds, while others, by assuming the obligations of onerous loans,
become uncompetitive. One company gets everything, the other nothing. Moreover,
with the implementation of the new financing system, investments were divided
into two groups: basic funds and operating funds. Since basic investment funds
pay lower interest rates, the new system prioritizes loans for operating
funds—short-term loans, which, in turn, under unfavorable conditions, must be
used for long-term investments.
This division is an integral part of the new investment financing policy
after 1964. At that time, prior to the agrarian reform, investment funds were
eliminated and transferred to the banks. Thus, the implemented reform could not
achieve its objectives because the decision regarding amortization funds and
investments had been made a year earlier by the Serbian bureaucratic apparatus
within the Federal Government. Furthermore, the housing fund's resources were
transferred to the banks in 1966.
The banks' power was growing. The central banks, and through them, the
large export companies,[5] received free loans from
the National Bank of Yugoslavia, generated by its banknote issuances. These
loans, in turn, were extended to companies at high interest rates and under
other onerous conditions. In other words, they used the inherited funds and the
substantial free loans derived from banknote issuance without any economic
oversight or defined regulations.
Thus, the central banks and export firms in Belgrade became a powerful
force, masters of the economies, and also important political players, given
the anti-Croatian policies of the Greater Serbian federation. In the economic
sphere, these policies were implemented directly by the centralist state
apparatus until the reforms, and indirectly after 1964/65 through the banks and
re-exporters. Hence, Rankovic's fall in 1966 brought no economic relief to the
republics of Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Slovenia.
Commenting on the new financing system in comparison with the previous
one, Šošić aptly highlights a feature common to both systems: those who
decide on financing, neither then nor now, are held accountable for the
economic consequences of their actions. Decisions are made by officials, bank
employees, and large corporations without any oversight from public opinion,
without any obligation to be accountable, and therefore, without the inherent
sanctions. These Serbian officials are responsible only to their fellow
citizens and their superiors in the Communist Party, the army, and the Federal
Government.
This picture is further completed by the fact that monetary funds
remained untouched, and that all currency movements in the official, parallel,
and black markets are conducted through these same institutions. Companies
receive a tiny fraction of the foreign currency earned from their transactions
with foreign firms—on average, 7% (the so-called retention fee)—which is freely
available. Šošić, based on documents, proves that central banks and
re-exporting firms unscrupulously extract this foreign currency when
distributing loans, paying for it at the official exchange rate, and then sell
it on the black market, reaping enormous profits.
In light of the Croatian-Serbian conflict, investments placed in Serbia
with special advantages and preferences are of paramount importance. These
federal preferences benefit Djerdap (*) and the automotive industry, meaning
they receive interest-free loans and certain sums without obligation to repay,
access to foreign currency, and tax breaks, among other benefits. In this way,
Belgrade grows, while Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, stagnates. In contrast to
federal preferences for investments in Serbia, in Croatia the shipping
industry, the merchant fleet, tourism, agriculture, communications, and
manufacturing industries lag behind, lurching from crisis to crisis.
This brief overview highlights the negative consequences of the new
financing system for the economies of Croatia and Slovenia. The growing capital
of banks and privileged firms merges with the issuance of banknotes,
constituting the indivisible financial capital that has dominated the economy
since 1965. This leads to a decrease in companies' investment capacity, and
financial capital, rather than direct producers, becomes the primary factor.
The economy is increasingly dependent on financial capital, its self-financing
capacity is diminishing, and direct producers participate less and less in the
reproduction of basic and operating funds than before the reform.
In this way, the idea and the demand for greater economic participation
in profits have been thwarted. The economy does not decide on investments or on
the use of a portion of depreciation to compensate for obsolete means of
production. "Financial capital occupies such a position that more
resources are extracted from the capital of created values than from labor...
Reinvestment is not practiced according to the needs of self-managed
enterprises, but rather in a financial capital-labor relationship, where
capital plays the predominant role and, according to its degree of
participation in the production process, acquires the legitimate right to
absorb the majority of the profits."
In Croatia, there are many outdated factories. These obsolete plants are
particularly affected, and their situation is worsening. In transitioning from
the old administrative system to the new, supposedly autonomous and
self-sufficient one, the companies did not receive the value derived from the
means of production. Mandatory low depreciation shows a higher fictitious
profit on the accounting books, presenting a false picture of the companies'
success, while, in reality, there are insufficient resources to absorb the
increased costs of replacing machinery, facilities, and premises. These
outdated companies are becoming increasingly inoperative, and Belgrade is
allocating depreciation funds to other purposes.
The Yugoslav agricultural bank Poljobanka controls and exploits vast
rural areas in Croatia. Šošić demonstrates how, for years, this bank used
the funds of "Belje" and other agricultural and livestock
establishments (their deposits and foreign currency), earning enormous sums
while refusing to provide these establishments with resources to replace
machinery and implements and make essential investments. Loans are granted with
increasingly shorter repayment terms and ever more onerous conditions.
This applies not only to the aforementioned establishments but to the
entire Croatian economy. Šošić states: "This is not about excesses or
isolated cases, but rather the process of a total expropriation of the economy
by finance capital... In 1969, the entire economy of the Socialist Republic of
Croatia earned less money allocated to the operating fund than the amount of
its outstanding obligations to finance capital... It is no longer accurate to
say that finance capital lends money at usurious interest rates. Today, we must
say: this is rampant and unscrupulous theft."
Central banks and large exporting firms earn fabulous sums through
so-called "preferential interest," whereby loans in certain economic
sectors are prepaid from stable funds for a period of 25 years. For this
reason, Poljobanka invests heavily in tourism and, according to Šošić's
calculations, immediately receives 55% of the invested sum plus an additional 8
to 9% annual interest. It is therefore not surprising that Poljobanka was able
to increase its loan portfolio more than thirteenfold, from 72 to 951 million
dinars between 1964 and 1969.
Šošić cites a clear example of investment in the tourism industry.
The loan of 48 million new dinars was granted for 25 years under the following
conditions:
1) The basic interest rate is 5%, with additional interest for tourism
at 3%. Then, a 2.5% benefit interest rate, derived from federal funds and
payable in advance for a term of 25 years, must be added. For unpaid installments,
the beneficiary pays a penalty interest rate of 4% per annum.
2) The loan beneficiary must sell to Poljobanka the earned dollars,
valued at 8.9 million new dinars, according to a special agreement (i.e., at
the official exchange rate; if these dollars are unavailable, the beneficiary
must acquire them on the black market, which Poljobanka then sells on the black
market, making a substantial profit).
3) The contractor must also buy and sell convertible currency to
Poljobanka for a value of $500,000.
4) The contractor must register with said bank and deposit 1 million new
dinars, payable in five annual, non-refundable installments. 5) Within 30 days
of being awarded the contract, the contractor must deposit 5 million dinars
with Poljobanka for three years at 6% interest. If the bank does not have this
sum available, it will withhold it from the settlement of the certificates and
record it as an outstanding obligation.
The contractor and the beneficiary live in Croatia, and in this way, the
funds are transferred from one republic to another. Šošić concludes:
"This proves that financial capital holds all economic activity hostage and, every day, increasingly exploits and
expropriates it." This financial structure of Poljobanka, like that of
other central banks and financial institutions, is very complex and "will
be difficult for someone unfamiliar with accounting to understand."
Šošić cites this example of the relationship between Poljobanka and
the construction contractor. The bank had to pay a construction company one
million dinars for the work completed. He did not pay him this sum but instead
forced him to carry out said work on behalf of the bank (and not on behalf of
the tourism company) on the condition of paying for it in three years with 6% interest.
"Now Poljobanka is appearing before the state treasury and demanding
advance payment of 2.5% for 25 years on a payment of one million dinars, with
the accrued interest amounting to 330,000 dinars.
Poljobanka asserts its 'legitimate rights,' arguing that it paid the
construction company for the construction of the hotel for foreign tourists. It
justifies its failure to pay by claiming that the contractor 'voluntarily'
deposited this sum in a fixed-term account. 'It doesn't matter that the contractor
lacked funds; what matters is creating new papers (not documents, since they
are false), and based on these papers, money is taken from the state and
society.' Poljobanka will appear before the state treasury, even though the
real creditor is the construction company. 'The construction company had to
sell its rights to Poljobanka in order to secure the work,' states Šošić.
The scale of these transactions is evidenced by Ekonomska." Politika (a
well-informed magazine, in Šošić's opinion) argues that the benefits
accrued by 1970 will amount to more than 2 billion instead of the 250 million
anticipated.
The obligations undertaken by the tourism and construction company,
regarding the provision of foreign currency at the expense of the workers, mean
that "the workers will not have to go abroad but will build their own
country."
Reading Šošić's work, one is reminded of the exploitative maneuvers
carried out by the Great Serbian clique in monarchical Yugoslavia. Then, as
now, theft, fraud, plunder, and embezzlement were commonplace in Croatia. These
are methods employed by the underworld, the mafia, and gangster criminal
organizations.
An illustrative example is the re-export companies
"Generalexpor" and "Genex," which Šošić examines at
length. "Genex," with its operations, became a prime example of
Serbian exploitation in Croatia. While it grants loans at an average interest
rate of 6.45%, the terms of the foreign currency sales and the agreed-upon
loans yield an annual return exceeding 25%. To conceal its profits, it
publishes fabricated financial statements that are not recognized in accounting
theory or practice. Šošić publicly questions Genex about its profits from
foreign exchange transactions and other commercial and financial operations.
Regarding its foreign exchange profits, he states verbatim: "If this
profit is less than 30%, and if Genex proves it, I will publicly admit that I
am a liar."
But the worst part is that Genex carries out these lucrative operations
using funds from the National Bank's money issuances, without any transparency
regarding the amount of these funds. "This money allows it, through
dubious financial maneuvers, to exploit other companies that have an equal
right to access credit. Thanks to its privileged position, Genex has been able
to accumulate enormous capital, and currently the National Bank grants it
massive loans" for operational purposes that allow re-exporters to
transform their own resources into investments and extract profits from those
who provide the credit. It is obvious that this could not be done if the
National Bank suspended its loans and granted them to the companies that are
now indebted to "Genex" under the most abusive conditions.
The central banks and the large exporting firms, with the support of the
National Bank of Yugoslavia, thus created a monetary-credit monopoly, capable
of exploiting other companies and provinces, buying them up, and ruining them
economically. Šošić emphasizes that the terms exploitation and
expropriation are too mild to define this system and that new terms would have
to be invented to characterize the procedures of Yugoslav financial capital.
According to Šošić, the interests of the banks and re-exporting
firms in Belgrade lie in the following: that the economy have very limited
financial resources; that the economy's capacity to accumulate wealth is
minimized, thus reducing reinvestment; that the difference between the real
value of currencies and their official exchange rate is greater, thus enabling
greater profits and that with instruments such as, for example, the interest
rates benefited by tourism development, the fastest growth of financial capital
is facilitated.
“This unscrupulous method of exploiting the economy” is possible
“because the amounts owed and due exceed the profits of the companies and
because all the channels through which resources flow pass through the existing
network of banking institutions,” because all foreign credit, in one way or
another, must be managed through banks that “require the deposit of large sums
of foreign currency which they immediately release into the market,” and
because only banks and re-export companies can benefit from loans from the
National Bank, not the companies themselves.
Those parts of Šošić’s study that demonstrate how bank capital
necessarily leads to the bankruptcy of companies are extremely interesting.
This capital is preferentially channeled into loss-making companies, since with
their bankruptcy and losses, only the bank profits, and everyone else loses.
Such a procedure not only signifies exploitation but also leads to the
liquidation of the company, since the capital risks nothing. All the company's
profits go to the capital of banks and investment firms in the form of data and
interest; the personal income of workers and employees decreases, and legal
obligations to the municipality and the state are reduced.
Special methods are applied in foreign exchange transactions and in
granting loans. Lately, banks have been granting long-term loans for tourism
promotion on the condition that the borrowers must repay the debt according to
the exchange rate in effect at the time the contract is signed. This means that
the banks will profit from all subsequent devaluations.
Jugobanka granted a company in Rijeka a loan in cash, payable in foreign
currency over five years, with an annual interest rate of 7.5% in dinars.
According to the black market exchange rate, one dollar was worth 18.20 dinars,
meaning that the borrower pays the bank the difference of 45.6%, the difference
between the official exchange rate and the black market rate.
In another case, Genex granted a loan of 10 million new dinars at 8%
interest, on the condition that the beneficiary must sell them $800,000 at the
official exchange rate before accessing the loan. "On the black market,
one dollar is worth 18.20 dinars, meaning that the Genex loan recipient must
buy 4,560,000 dinars worth of foreign currency before using the loan."
Šošić describes this system as "fishing in murky waters."
Šošić, criticizing the discriminatory treatment of Croatian and
Serbian companies, proposes the nationalization of financial capital,
"which should be taken from banks and re-exporters without compensation
and returned to companies for use as operating funds." He also demands
that the federation transfer important economic functions to the republics and
provinces. First and foremost, he requests a complete accounting of available
resources, of debits and credits.
"This financial statement should include, in addition to the assets
and national patrimony of Yugoslavia, all debits and credits, indicating the
causes of income and debts." Everyone should start from the same point;
the contracts through which the capital of banks and re-exporters imposed the
conditions of exploitation on the economy should be reviewed, the loans of the
National Bank to banks and privileged firms should be eliminated and made
available to the economy, etc. Šošić also makes several other interesting
and logical proposals.
*** This exhaustive study by Šošić requires some marginal notes.
The proposed "third nationalization" would undoubtedly alleviate and
improve the situation of the Croatian economy. It is obvious that if current
financing methods continue, the independence of the Croatian economy is in
grave danger of becoming the property of large Serbian banks and re-exporters
with the support of state control. This would lead to Croatia's status as a
colony under the imperialist master, whose political aims are the accelerated
emigration of Croats and, in the long run, their extermination as a nation.
Given Ranković's terrorist regime under the guise of "economic
reform," the possibility of an agreement between Serbian imperialists and
Croatian reformers is questionable. Current proposals for the creation of a
"new federation" are not encouraging for the Croats. What will
Croatian reformers do if their demands are ignored? This is the first question
that arises upon reading Šošić's study.
The current methods and system of government in Belgrade do not differ
much from the discriminatory policies of monarchical Yugoslavia. Stjepan
Radić, in condemning these methods of exploitation and denationalization, fell victim to Serbian imperialism. Today, economists,
professors, and cultural and scientific institutions criticize this system,
while Tito and Bakaric, the political leaders of the communists, declare that
the Croatian national question was removed from the agenda in 1945, that it is
in principle resolved, and that only certain "class-based aspects" of
the question need to be rectified. The facts, however, clearly show that the
current tremendous exploitation and expropriation of the Croatian economy are
precisely the consequence of the unresolved Croatian national problem.
Until the Croatian communist leaders, despite the stance of Tito and
Bakaric, are convinced of this, the economic problem cannot be solved in the
sense of Šošić's postulates. Without the realization of national
self-determination and without cooperation with the anti-communist forces in
Croatia, who maintain the need for an independent and democratic Croatian
state, positive and lasting solutions in any sector of national life cannot be
expected.
Brugg, Switzerland
Schism in the power structure and ideology of Marxism-Leninism
Its impact on world politics
D.A. Tomasic
I
The original power structure of contemporary societies under communist
regimes is founded on the theoretical and ideological principles developed by
Lenin and rooted in Marxism and Russian anarchism. Lenin, following in the
footsteps of his brother Alexander, an anarchist executed for completing the
assassination of the Tsar, decided to avenge his brother by destroying Tsarism.
However, to achieve his goal, Lenin sought more efficient methods than
assassinating individual leaders, as the anarchists did.
Therefore, upon encountering Marxist socialism, Lenin accepted its basic
premises, according to which the capitalist order would be overthrown by the
massive revolutionary action of the proletariat, not through individual
terrorism. Lenin, moreover, resolved to overthrow the Tsarist system during his
lifetime and, consequently, did not want to wait for capitalism in Russia to
reach the point where the concentration of capital in the hands of a few and
the pauperization of the broad masses of people would lead to the collapse of
the capitalist system, as Marx predicted.
In Lenin's opinion, such a process would take a long time in Tsarist
Russia, which, compared to Marx's Germany, was not yet sufficiently advanced in
the industrial sphere. Industrial workers—the shock troops of the proletarian
revolution according to Marx—were few in number in Russia at that time, whose
population was largely composed of illiterate peasants.
To overcome these difficulties and shorten "the inevitable
historical process toward communism," Lenin invented a theory adaptable to
his purposes. He maintained that the Marxist theory of revolution was correct
for the capitalist system in Marx's time, since at that time in Western Europe
capitalism was in its prime, still vigorous and expansive. In the meantime,
Lenin asserted, the capitalist system had passed its zenith, was rapidly
declining, and was "moribund."
The new monopoly capitalism was mired in internal contradictions, not
only between workers and capital, but also among the capitalist countries themselves,
which were vying for control of world markets—a situation that, according to
Lenin, was leading to world wars and internal revolutions. In his view, the
inevitable course toward revolution had to be accelerated without delay in
order to develop class consciousness in the vast majority of the population.
The revolution, Lenin said, had to be carried out by a select group of
full-time professional conspirators and skilled revolutionaries, who, as
"the vanguard of the proletariat," would undermine the existing
capitalist government, confound the ruling class, discredit it in the eyes of
the people, and lead the frustrated and disorganized masses to seize power.
In Lenin's view, revolutionary experts and conspiracy specialists did
not necessarily have to be proletarians. Everyone, regardless of origin or
profession, would be welcome in the ranks of this revolutionary elite to become
leaders of the proletarian revolution, provided they accepted the interests of
the working class as their own and adopted the "strategy and tactics"
of the revolution.
According to Lenin, they must dedicate themselves entirely to the cause
of the revolution and subordinate all their personal interests, even those of
their families, to the revolutionary cause. They must work full-time as
professional agents of the revolution and, therefore, must undergo rigorous
training, more efficient than that of the Tsarist police; within the
revolutionary organization, its members must submit to iron military
discipline. Following anarchist positions and practices,
Lenin approved of ruthless, cruel, and terroristic methods in achieving
the goals of the revolution. He declared that anything done to further the
revolution was ethical and good. Like the anarchists, Lenin expected
revolutionaries to place their lives at the service of the revolutionary
leadership. Or, as Fidel Castro later declared, "The life of the
revolutionary belongs to the Party."
In Lenin's view, the proletarian revolution is the most brutal war of
extermination, a relentless struggle for life or death. Either the proletarian
revolutionaries will destroy the capitalists and the remnants of feudalism, or
they themselves will be annihilated. The question was who would destroy whom,
Lenin said. The revolution, therefore, like any other war, must be conducted by
military strategists, and all professional revolutionaries must be trained in
military strategy as well as in conspiracy and subversion. Lenin himself
studied the works of the German military strategist Clausewitz when developing
his strategic and tactical principles for the communist revolution.
Like any war, the proletarian revolution must also have a General Staff.
In the Leninist system, professional revolutionaries are organized as a
political party whose Central Committee and Politburo comprise the Supreme
Command, which directs all subversive and revolutionary activities and makes
the final decisions regarding the strategy and tactics of the revolution.
To achieve greater efficiency and ensure the success of the revolution,
the decisions of the Supreme Command must be binding on all Party members. Like
some other aspects of Leninism, the described autocratic system of organization
was modeled on the power structure of the Russian anarchists. Lenin, however,
also wished to give his system of power a democratic appearance so that he and
his movement would not be accused of dictatorial methods. Attempting to combine
the conspiratorial and military aspects of the revolution with democratic
principles, Lenin invented the slogan known as "democratic
centralism," which consisted of an autocratic system of government
disguised as a democracy.
According to this organizational principle, all Party members were
encouraged to freely discuss current issues and then make decisions through
free voting. The majority vote determined the outcome, with the understanding
that all Party members, regardless of their vote, were obligated to unanimously
support, promote, and implement the majority decision to the best of their
ability and energy. Any disagreement or attempts to form factions based on
differing opinions were strictly forbidden and were to be eradicated
immediately through "purges" and liquidations, which served as a
surgical operation on a potentially fatal tumor that would otherwise destroy
the Party.
It was this system of Party organization that allowed Stalin and later
other communist leaders to perpetuate their hold on power. The principal
instrument of this method of perpetuating himself as supreme leader of the
Party and the State constituted another principle of "democratic
centralism," according to which every subordinate body of the Party, at
all levels, must accept and implement "without dispute, promptly, and
correctly" the orders or instructions emanating from the higher level. The
same principle was used to impose on Party members each and every decision made
at the apex of Party power. Such monolithic control was achieved through a
system of conspiratorial manipulation.
Stalin, as General Secretary of the Party while Lenin was ill and
bedridden, paved the way for his own rise to power after Lenin's death by
organizing a chain of Secretariats from the bottom to the top of the Party
pyramid. The heads of the Secretariats, selected by Stalin, were personally
responsible to him and obligated to implement his personal orders and
instructions "without question, promptly and correctly," under
penalty of purge or liquidation. Knowing the rivalry of other top leaders in
the Party and aware that Lenin distrusted his tendency to accumulate power,
Stalin set up this Party machine as a tool to help him eliminate his enemies
from the Central Committee and the Politburo and then fill those high-ranking
bodies with his loyal followers.
According to the statutes of Leninist-type communist parties, the
Party's main decision-making body is the Party Congress, which meets
periodically. In the meantime, the Party is governed by the Central Committee
and the Politburo, both bodies elected by the Party Congress. Therefore, the
primary concern of the supreme Party leader, determined to perpetuate his
power, is to control the decisions of the Congress. Elections are indirect and
are held at the local, regional, provincial, and national levels. At each of
these levels, the selection of delegates to the Congress must be managed by the
respective Secretariat, in such a way as to eliminate any opposition candidates
in favor of supporters loyal to the supreme leader. In this case, as well as in
debates concerning other issues in Party forums at all levels of the party
organization, behind-the-scenes conspiracy is employed.
The use of this conspiratorial tactic allowed Party leaders at all
levels of the Party organization to impose their will and even to create the
appearance that the decision of the respective party organization was made
democratically and with the consent of all members or delegates present. The
conspiratorial aspect of this governing technique consisted of a system of
secret meetings that made final decisions. These decisions were kept secret and
then openly discussed by all members of the party forum or organization.
Therefore, when the First Secretary of the party organization receives
an order from his superior, he immediately plans how to ensure that the order
is accepted, discussing the issue and outlining the strategy with his
assistants and consultants. Once the strategy is decided in the meeting of this
"inner circle," a few trusted party members—particularly those
aspiring to the status of "cadres" or professional party officials—are
asked for assistance.
They are instructed to vigorously support, during the discussion of the
issue at the meeting of party members or delegates, the proposals made by the
party secretary and other professional party cadres. As a rule, discussions conducted
in this manner do not end until the Party meeting or the party forum
unanimously or overwhelmingly accepts the Secretary's viewpoint. Thus, at all
levels of the social organization—that is, in every social, political,
military, professional, educational, cultural, recreational, sporting, or other
institution—the party core makes the final decisions on all matters.
When the Party is not yet in power but in legal opposition, and is
composed of idealistic patriots alongside power-hungry individuals and fanatics
prone to violence, achieving unanimity can be time-consuming and requires
considerable patience to convince everyone present that the democratic
procedure was followed. However, when the Party is in power and ambitious,
careerist, and opportunistic individuals occupy key positions, the problem of
reaching unanimous decisions is simplified, following the directives of the
Party's First Secretary.
Disagreement with the Party Secretary, even at the lowest levels,
becomes an obstacle to advancement and can result in removal or purging. Thus,
"permanent purging" becomes an instrument of total regimentation of
communist parties at both the national and international levels under Stalin's
leadership of the Communist International. In such a system, opposition to the
First Secretary at lower levels of the organization is possible when a higher
authority expresses displeasure with their work, thereby providing an
opportunity for another professional Party official to replace them. In the
Stalinist model of party organization, each principal secretary at the lower
levels was assigned one of his personal rivals as a lookout and candidate for
the respective position.
Stalin would not have been able to regiment the entire communist
movement worldwide had he not managed to gain total control of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union. He did so by resorting to conspiratorial
manipulation and purges from the bottom to the top of the party pyramid, and by
manipulating the selection of delegates to party conferences and congresses
where party forums were elected and decisions were made on the main lines of
party and state policy. Following the Stalinist model, the chain of Party
Secretariats (secretarial axis) became the pillar of Party power in its
counterparts throughout the world. The loss of control of this secretarial axis
meant the loss of control of the Party, as demonstrated by the cases of
Malenkov, Khrushchev, and Mao.
II
The control system described above derives from the Leninist concept of
party leadership as a "stable and authoritative body" that acts
"in perfect harmony." However, the steady rise to the top of the
Party hierarchy of power-hungry and ambitious individuals, and the decline of
selfless humanists and patriots, made the struggle for power the central
problem at all levels of the Party hierarchy. This very aspect of development
gave rise to far-reaching events in societies under communist rule, both
nationally and internationally.
For the political machine, conceived by Lenin and perfected by Stalin,
functions smoothly as long as "perfect harmony" reigns in the supreme
bodies: the Politburo and the Central Committee. But when a power struggle
erupts within these bodies, especially in the Politburo, and when this struggle
is not resolved immediately through purges, then the entire secretarial axis
can be affected, and the power structure can disintegrate both within the Party
pyramid and the government hierarchy, as the Chinese case demonstrated.
Similarly, the Kremlin's monolithic control of the entire world
communist movement begins to crumble when the international secretarial axis,
built by Stalin, fails to function properly. As long as there were no
independent communist states, apart from the Soviet Union, monolithic Stalinism
persisted. But as soon as these states were established and conflict erupted
between their vested interests and those of the Soviet Union, the entire
international power structure built by Stalin weakened. This process of
disintegration was accelerated by the type of personalities, eager for power, who tended to rise to the top of the communist hierarchies
and due to the support they found in the broad layers of the population for the
defense of national interests against Soviet intrusion.
Before seizing power, communist parties appeal not only to power-hungry
individuals and the humanist intelligentsia, but also to the oppressed, the
discarded, the exploited, and the humiliated—both individuals and groups,
including ethnic and religious minorities, as well as adventurers, neurotics,
and other types of people. Even before and during the revolution, ambitious
leaders climb the ranks in the party hierarchy at the expense of others, thanks
to their cunning maneuvering and their ruthlessness in achieving their goals,
"trampling over the corpses of their comrades."
Before conquering power, other members can be used if they render
service to the Party, such as idealists and patriots, as well as the humanist
intelligentsia if they occupy a position of influence. These people are used to
undermine the existing system, supply useful information, or provide other
assistance that promotes the Party's aims. But, once power is seized and the
communist government consolidated, their usefulness diminishes. In this phase,
the ambitious leaders' preoccupation with consolidating their personal power
begins to alienate idealists, humanists, patriots, as well as ethnic and other
minorities. Thus, many Party cadres, members, and sympathizers withdraw into
passivity ("internal migration"). Others openly criticize the regime
for betraying the Party's proclaimed objectives and are purged or liquidated
"regardless of their merits," as ordered by Lenin.
In a totalitarian system of government, the future of the society it
controls depends largely on the composition of the core decision-making group.
If this ruling class is dominated by ambitious individuals who feel insecure
about the popular support for their regime and fear for the stability of their
power structure, their primary concern is the maintenance of their political
system. Therefore, they subordinate the needs and aspirations of the broad
popular sectors to the ends of their personal perpetuation in power.
The failure to satisfy the demands and expectations of the people leads
to widespread unrest, which intensifies the insecurity of the rulers and their
preoccupation with power, creating a vicious cycle. It is precisely at this
stage that the rule of one man and the cult of personality become necessary if
the ruling class wishes to perpetuate its hold on power. The deification of the
ruler serves as a means to foster feelings of dependence and security among the
masses, since the revered leader is "always right" and cannot err.
Any shortcomings of the regime are not attributed to the beloved leader, but
rather to the mistakes made by some of his aides, who are then
"purged" or "eliminated" to atone for the suffering of the
people.
In this way, the exalted figure and his closest collaborators can make
mistakes in their decisions without fear of criticism or the loss of power. It
was precisely this unlimited power, combined with the insecurity of the rulers, that led to a rigid regimentation of the entire
society and an emphasis on military training. This course of events also caused
the Soviet Union to fall behind the Western world in economic, social, and
intellectual terms.
III
After Stalin's death, the country's steadily worsening situation and its
growing backwardness compared to the United States forced his successors to
seek alternatives to Stalinist policies. This was essential to improve the
living standards of the masses and pacify them, as well as to ensure the
perpetuation of Stalin's personal power and maintain and expand the Soviet
Union's position as a world power.
To achieve these objectives, the new leaders were determined to reach an
agreement with the United States, which they considered the main obstacle to
their international aspirations and the most dangerous rival in the struggle
for military supremacy. It was hoped that a respite in relations with the
United States would lead to a relaxation of its rival's war preparations, thus
allowing the Soviet Union to produce more domestic consumer goods and achieve
military parity or even supremacy over the United States. At the same time, the
Soviet Union would promote "national liberation" movements in
underdeveloped countries and impose economic and military control on them
through a system of colonial dependency. This policy had already been
successfully implemented by Stalin in Eastern Europe and Asia.
It was precisely as a result of this phase of "peaceful
coexistence" in Soviet international policy that relations between the
Soviet Union and mainland China reached a breaking point. Although the Chinese
communists largely owed their military victory over the nationalists to the
Soviet Union, they considered themselves equals with Russia in world politics,
not junior members of the Soviet bloc. Impressed by the vastness of their
country and the size of its population, and very proud to be leaders of a
nation with great historical achievements, they believed the world should be
divided into two equal spheres of interest between Moscow and Beijing. But
their plans suffered a severe setback as a result of the new Soviet policy of
coexistence with the capitalist world.
Following the Soviet Union's example, the Chinese communist leaders
adjusted their economic plans to military needs. They hoped to continue their
independent policy of conquest with the economic and diplomatic support of the
Soviet Union. Mao Zedong thus saw in the policy of "peaceful
coexistence" an agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States
to divide control of the planet between them and make China a Soviet
dependency. Enraged by this prospect, Mao decided to break with the Soviet
Union and launch a new international communist movement under his leadership.
However, there were prominent leaders in mainland Chinese party circles,
in the upper echelons of the bureaucratic hierarchy, among the commanders of
the armed forces, in the management of industrial establishments, in
educational institutions, and in the journalistic, literary, and artistic
spheres who did not approve of the way Mao handled domestic and foreign
affairs.
These people were convinced that breaking with the Soviet Union and
confronting China at a time when it urgently needed economic aid from Moscow
was a disastrous policy. These Party leaders not only opposed Mao's intentions
to break with the Soviet Union but also criticized his disastrous economic
policy of excessively rapid industrialization and communization.
To confront this danger that distorted his image as an infallible leader
and to regain absolute power, Mao resorted to counterrevolution (known as the
Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution) against the Party and the government he
himself had built, and also against the intellectuals he never trusted. The
fact that Mao could not impose his will through purges—as Stalin did—was due to
his omission (or inability) to control the Party's secretarial apparatus. This
situation allowed the anti-Maoist opposition to entrench itself in high-ranking
positions in both the Party and the government.
As before, during his anti-Maoist revolution, so now in his
"Cultural Revolution," Mao relied on Leninist "strategy and
tactics," which could be summarized in the formula
"unite-divide-destroy." For this reason, he did not
immediately attack his main enemies within the ranks of the Party and the
government. In the name of "Party unity," he resigned as head of state
in favor of Liu Shaoqi, his main adversary. Mao, of course, made this
concession to gain the support of the Party's Central Committee and to remove
Peng Tehuai, commander of the armed forces and a bitter critic of his policies,
replacing him with Lin Biao, his loyal follower.
With Lin Biao's help, Mao was able to secure the support of the armed
forces for his further plans. Mao's next step was to attack his secondary
targets: the mass propaganda media and the literary and academic authorities.
He was able to eliminate some leading figures in these spheres with little
opposition. Thus, having divided his opponents and controlled the army and the
propaganda media, Mao turned his fire on the primary targets: the Party and the
anti-Maoist government apparatus.
In the civil wars against the nationalist regime, the backbone of the
revolution consisted of small and medium-sized tenant farmers and agricultural
workers to whom the Communist Party had promised the abolition of renting and
private property, the redistribution of land to those who worked it, as well as
reductions in land taxes, official assistance in agricultural production
techniques, educational opportunities, and other social benefits.
Shortly after the revolution, however, the Party reneged on these
promises, undertook agricultural collectivization, and then the total
communization of life and property. Pursuing these objectives, Mao established
a system of permanent discrimination against former landowners and former
medium and large peasants, favoring poor peasants and agricultural workers.
Mao's policy of total communization alienated all rural classes, and he
could no longer count on their support in his new revolution, having no more
promises to make to the peasants. Industrial workers, though better treated
than peasants, were also dissatisfied with the accelerated production system,
low wages, and lack of freedom to organize and strike. Mao, therefore, appealed
to the youth for support in his Cultural Revolution against the "academic
authorities" and against anti-Maoists in other social and political
institutions. He appealed to the idealism and enthusiasm of young people, but
primarily in his own self-interest.
Since the Party had made grand promises to peasants, industrial workers,
and the intelligentsia during the anti-nationalist revolution, Mao now
advocated free education without prior examinations, up to the highest levels,
for all young men and women who distinguished themselves in revolutionary
activities against their teachers and against anti-Maoists in the Party and the
government apparatus.
A thirst for knowledge, education, and study are a healthy, old, and
cherished Chinese tradition. Traditionally, educated people held high positions
of power. In general, all men of letters, with or without official positions,
even if they were poor, were highly respected and honored. Traditionally,
however, access to education was limited to a small number of candidates due to
the severity of the entrance exams, which were considered too rigorous, and
because of the lengthy and expensive studies.
Hence, the educational opportunities offered by Mao, without entrance
exams or degrees and tax-free, contingent solely on participation in the
counter-revolution, resonated strongly with millions of young people.
Furthermore, many young Chinese were predisposed to rebel against their elders
due to the rigidity and discipline of the patriarchal Chinese family system.
Mao himself was one of these rebels, and the Chinese communist movement
recruited many of its leaders and supporters from among defectors and failed
students.
After seizing power, Mao's policies continued to support this rebellion
and intensified it by fostering "class struggle" within the family.
That is, by inciting children through mass education to reject their fathers,
Mao sought to destroy traditional Chinese loyalty to the family. Instead, this
loyalty was to be transferred to the Party and the State, and especially to Mao
as the deified embodiment of the Father of the Chinese nation.
In recruiting these young fighters for his counter-revolution, Mao first
targeted the children of small and medium-sized peasants, industrial workers,
revolutionary veterans, and military personnel, known as the "Five Red
Categories." It was expected that these classes, which
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology considered prone to revolution, would provide
the revolutionary progeny. Mao also turned his attention to the youth of the
new pariahs—the outlawed classes of former feudalists and capitalists, former
landowners, wealthy peasants, and the children of "reactionaries" and
"bad elements," collectively known as the "Five Black
Categories."
The children of these newly outlawed classes and social strata had to
prove in action that they had rebelled and repudiated their parents and elders
if they wanted to be accepted into the ranks of the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution. Moreover, these young men and women, marked by the sins of their
parents, were expected to erase these black stains in a baptism of fire and
blood by excelling in the terrorist acts of the Maoist counterrevolution as
proof that their conversion was sincere and permanent. Encouraged by tens of millions of these
ardent and fanatical followers, Mao incited these "Red Sentinels" and
other young "Revolutionary Rebels" to attack their enemies.
He also stimulated these young people's tendency toward extremism by
insisting in his pronouncements that "they should fear nothing if they
make mistakes." Maoist propaganda called on them to
"exterminate" and "use as living targets" their teachers
and all officials of the Party, government, and industrial establishments
suspected of being anti-Maoist. Mao, following the ideas of Lenin and Stalin,
wanted his young followers to be "hardened in revolutionary struggle"
and thus molded into "New Men of Communism." This new type of man was
to be devoid of all selfishness, finding happiness in frugality, hard and
menial labor, working exclusively for the interests of the group. The New Man
was to be consistent, courageous, and combative. He was also not to fear death,
but to face it with bravery and self-denial.
In their eagerness to outdo one another in violence, the Red Sentinels
and other young revolutionaries first set fire to buildings and offices,
tortured, and lynched their victims. But then they splintered into numerous
factions, each claiming to be more revolutionary than the others, accusing each
other of heresy, and ultimately engaging in bloody infighting and mutual
extermination.
In such a chaotic situation, the army, which until then had trained,
armed, protected, transported, fed, and housed the revolutionaries, received
orders from Mao to prevent further unrest and bloodshed. Realizing they had
lost Mao's support, that they were no longer the cornerstone of the "Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution," and that power now lay in the hands of
the armed forces, a number of the rebel revolutionary groups refused to
surrender and continued fighting each other and the armed forces. Following
traditional patterns of Chinese rebellions, these people organized themselves
into underground bands, raided military depots to arm themselves, and turned to
banditry and guerrilla warfare until these new Janissaries were finally crushed
by the military.
IV
This resounding failure of the experiment with the revolutionary youth,
the destruction of much of the party and government apparatus—in addition to
the antagonism between the peasantry and the Party and the general apathy of
the industrial workers—forced Mao to rely on the army as the pillar of his new
regime. Thus, in place of the destroyed Party and government apparatus,
Revolutionary Committees were organized from the bottom up of the new pyramid
of power. These Committees constituted the governing bodies at the national,
regional, provincial, and local levels, and were composed of representatives of
the tripartite alliance of the army, the Maoist Party and government, and the
revolutionary youth. The military, however, assumed the leading and dominant
role in these Committees.
When, finally, Mao attempted to build a new, entirely Maoist Party, the
military again assumed the leading role, since the new Party was merely a
continuation of the Revolutionary Committees, dominated by the military. Mao
wrote that political power rested in the barrel of the rifle, but that the
Party, not the army, should hold the trigger. However, in the new power
structure, built as a consequence of the anti-Maoist counterrevolution, it was
the army, not the Party, that pulled the trigger. This rise of the military to
the pinnacle of political power in Mao's China was manifested at the new Party
Congress. This Congress, composed of delegates chosen by the Revolutionary
Committees, designated Lin Biao, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, as Mao's
successor with full powers.
The most important aspect of this rise of the military in mainland China
was the total militarization of society. Even during the anti-nationalist
revolution, one of Mao's basic strategic concepts on the home front was the complete
militarization of areas under communist control. In agriculture, industry,
education, and other social institutions, the military assumed the active and
predominant role. All activities were organized according to the military model
and military discipline. The army, under the guidance of the Party, directed
all aspects of people's lives.
After seizing power, Mao's idea was to organize mainland China in the
same way. There was, however, an essential difference between the situation
prevailing during the anti-nationalist revolution and the one that emerged in
mainland China after the communist victory. In the former case, Japanese troops
had invaded China, and Mao—following Lenin's strategy—called on all classes of
the population, regardless of their political affiliation, to unite under a
single leadership in order to successfully fight the traditional and common
enemy of the Chinese people. It was a kind of response to the real and imminent
Japanese threat that the areas under communist control could be completely
militarized.
However, after the Japanese defeat and the communist victory, the
situation changed radically. The general opinion was to take a break and get
rid of the military's control and way of life. Therefore, when the communist
rulers began regimentating the entire society, a massive backlash against this
attempt ensued, culminating in the failure of Mao's policy of collectivization,
accelerated industrialization, and communization. This failure led to the first
crack in the party leadership. Thus, when Mao regained absolute power during
his counter-revolution, he had to discover another "imminent threat to the
unity and survival of China" which he would use as an instrument for the
regimentation and militarization of the country under his leadership.
His first attempt in this direction was systematic and mass propaganda
about the imminent invasion of China by American troops. But when this threat
failed to have the expected impact on the Chinese population, Mao capitalized
on his disagreement with the Soviet Union and used frequent incidents along the
Sino-Soviet border. The concentration of Soviet troops in that area was then
used as proof of an imminent Soviet invasion of China in collusion with the
United States.
The entire population of mainland China now had to dedicate itself to
war preparations. "Every man a soldier" was the slogan, and everyone
had to work harder and consume less to build air-raid shelters, stockpile food,
and train every adult and child, man and woman, in the use of weapons, so that
the entire population could participate in the national guerrilla war when the
invasion occurred. For the purposes of a more efficient guerrilla war, each
commune, made up of a certain number of villages, had to be economically and
militarily self-sufficient, as had been the case during the anti-nationalist
revolution and the anti-Japanese resistance. In such a situation, every
citizen, regardless of age or sex, had to be not only an efficient soldier but
also an efficient producer.
Mao's personality and political thought stemmed from several sources: As
a child and adolescent, he rebelled against his father's despotism and
exploitation. He identified with folk heroes, with the rebel bandits and
warriors who had stirred the Chinese popular imagination since ancient times.
As a laborer on his father's farm, malnourished and forced to perform arduous
tasks, he identified with the farmhands, exploited by his father just as he
was.
After running away from home and enduring hardships until completing his
studies, Mao identified with the revolutionaries fighting against Manchus and
was simultaneously influenced by the socialist and anarchist ideas that were
then penetrating China. Meanwhile, he studied Chinese history and the political
ideas that dominated it. He was particularly impressed by the first emperor of
the Qin dynasty, the unifier of China; he immersed himself in the Qin system of
government and Legalist principles.
This school of thought supported and promoted Qin's despotism, providing
it with a philosophical and theoretical justification. Legalist intellectuals
believed in the deification of the emperor, the glorification of war,
territorial expansion, the regimentation and total militarization of society,
and rule by administrative decree. They advocated for limitations on education
and the suppression of writers whose works were undermining the foundations of
this autocratic and militaristic system of government. Under Qin, public
gatherings were prohibited, many books were burned, especially those of the
Confucian humanist school, and some Confucian scholars were burned alive.
Society consisted of two recognized classes: the military and agricultural
producers, while the number of merchants was restricted and their operations
were strictly controlled. The military, in addition to military campaigns, was
also in charge of public administration.
At the end of World War I, Mao, like most Chinese people, rebelled
against the Western world because of the Allies' unfair treatment of China while
favoring Japan. At that time, the Bolshevik Revolution also triumphed in
Tsarist Russia, an event that demonstrated how much a country could achieve
through revolution. Mao, influenced by the pro-Soviet ideas and writings of
some Chinese intellectuals, was captivated by Marxist-Leninist theory and
practice. He later admired Stalin and surely found many similarities between
legalistic theory and practice and that of Stalin, another empire builder. And
just as Lenin had combined Russian anarchism with Marxism, Mao applied Lenin's
theory and Stalin's practice, as well as the traditions of imperial China.
There is very little in legalistic theory and practice that we cannot
find in Maoism, which was developed from Marxist-Stalinist writings and
practices, as exemplified by the Stalinist system of government and imperial
expansion. The system of government in all these empires—the Qin, the Soviet,
and the Maoist—had a compelling need to expand through war and other forms of
conquest and domination. In these systems, the interests of the ruling minority
prevailed over the needs and aspirations of the subjugated masses.
Consequently, these societies fell behind free societies economically,
socially, and intellectually. But since this situation threatened the security
of the ruling class, given the potential for mass unrest and rebellion, wars,
territorial expansion, and the establishment of colonial dependencies were the
means to perpetuate despotic power.
Faced with two gigantic adversaries on the world stage, Mao chose the
path of global revolution under his leadership. His strategy again consisted of
the proven Leninist formula: "unite-divide-destroy," and of guerrilla
warfare, which would evolve into mobile and positional warfare as revolutionary
forces grew stronger. During this revolutionary plan, modeled on the Chinese
communist revolution, all anti-imperialist forces in Asia, Africa, and Latin
America were to seize power under Mao's guidance. Then, once the Maoist
government was consolidated in these "rural areas of the world," it
would be the turn of North America and Europe.
One of the fundamental problems of mainland China was satisfying the
growing demand for basic necessities from a population that would reach one
billion in one or two decades. The least costly and most rational way to solve
this problem would be foreign loans to industrialize China, preferably light
industries for domestic consumption and export.
This would signify a radical departure from the current war-oriented
economy. Such a shift in economic policy would imply a corresponding change in
foreign policy, requiring agreements with neighboring countries and securing
economic aid from capitalist powers. The alternative would be an alliance
between Beijing's military and the equally aggressive rulers of the Kremlin,
who, in a pact, would divide their spheres of influence in the world, in a
joint push to revolutionize the continents of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
For it is precisely in these areas, in the opinion of Maoists and social ideologues,
that hundreds of millions of "uprooted" people live, ready for global
revolution under communist guidance.
Bloomington, Indiana, USA
(Translated from English by Branko Kadic)
The centenary of Croatian opera in Zagreb (1870-1970)
Vladimir Ciprin (*)
Browsing through pages of Croatian cultural and political history, one
immediately notices the close link between cultural activity and achievements
on the one hand, and politics on the other. This is perhaps more evident than
in the lives of neighboring nations. Indeed, while Croatia was at the zenith of
its political power as a sovereign state under King Tomislav in the 10th
century, specifically in 925, with a large territory and significant military
power, by the end of the 12th century Croatia had formed a state community with
the Hungarians, following the extinction of its national kings' dynasty. In the
16th century, it formed a community with Austria, alongside the Hungarians,
only to find itself, after the First World War, in monarchical Yugoslavia, due
to the actions of irresponsible politicians acting without prior consultation
with the people. After a brief but difficult four-year period of independence,
due to the turmoil of war both within and beyond its borders, Croatia, restored
as a sovereign state in 1941, was once again incorporated into Yugoslavia in
May 1945, this time under communist rule.
Under these circumstances, particularly during the 19th century and in
the struggle against Germanization and Magyarization, numerous cultural institutions
were founded. Through these institutions, the ongoing effort to realize
national ideals—that is, to regain independence and freedom within their own
nation-state—has been increasingly emphasized. Considering that the Croatian
people faced greater difficulties and complications in the process of creating
cultural institutions than other peoples who were able to freely pursue their
cultural life, it is essential to recognize the historical significance of this
process. Much of considerable value was achieved despite the challenges,
especially those of today within the artificial state of Yugoslavia, where the
very existence of the Croatian people is threatened.
As early as the 16th century, during fierce and ongoing battles against
the Ottomans, when we were given the title "antemurale
christianitatis" (bulwark of Christendom), we Croats had our first
dramatic theater on the island of Hvar in the Adriatic, which still exists
today. There, as well as in Dubrovnik (Ragusa), permanent theater companies performed.
In Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, theatrical performances were organized in
Grić (the upper part of the old city) with secondary school students.
From 1797 to 1834, various plays by German and Italian theater companies
were performed in Zagreb's theater (now the Natural History Museum building),
culminating in the first performance in Croatian on June 10, 1840. This
performance took place in the current City Hall building, where the permanent
dramatic theater also began in 1860. Even before the establishment of the
Permanent Lyric Theater (Opera), the first Croatian national opera, "Love
and Malice," by Vatroslav Lisinski (1819-1854), was performed in 1846—just
10 years after Glinka's first Russian opera, "A Life for the Tsar"
(now "Ivan Susanjin"), and before the creation of the Czech national
opera.
The musical sense, a natural talent of the Croatian
people, who sing in times of both sorrow and joy, received a significant boost
with the founding of the Music Institute as a permanent institution in Zagreb
in 1827. All these institutions were created in resistance
to the Germanization and Magyarization attempts by the political and
administrative authorities in Croatia, who were troubled by the awakening of
Croatian national consciousness. This consciousness had vigorously emerged in
the first half of the 19th century during the Croatian national revival
("Illyrian"), when the struggle for the national language began in
all spheres of activity, along with the elimination of Latin and German.
Similarly, Croatian national theater, as a faithful reflection of the people's
living conditions, fostered, alongside its artistic and aesthetic efforts and
achievements, the enthusiasm and the need for the people to become politically
and culturally self-reliant.
Thus, on October 2, 1870, the Croatian Opera was also organized as a
permanent institution, which, with two very brief interruptions, has continued
to operate to this day. We owe a special debt of gratitude for its organization
to the Croatian composer Jan pl. Zajc (1831-1914), creator of the most popular
Croatian opera, "Nicholas Subić Zrinski."
Zajc was born in Rijeka and dedicated himself to music from a very young
age. At ten, he composed his first fantasy for violin and piano, developing the
theme of Verdi's opera "Nabucodonosor," and at twelve, he composed
his first opera, "Maria Theresa." Later, he went to Milan where he
studied music, winning an award in 1855, while his opera "La
Tirolesa," also prize-winning, was performed at the Milan Conservatory. The
renowned Ricordi publishing house intended to publish this opera, but the
intrigues and envy of other musicians thwarted the project.
When an attempt was made to offer him the position of director of La
Scala, he preferred to return to his homeland, where he was appointed conductor
of the orchestra at his hometown theater. But shortly afterward, Zajc left for
Vienna, where, through his fellow countryman von Suppé, also a composer born in
Split, he became acquainted with the musical scene and soon began composing
operettas. His works were successful and performed on Viennese stages. His
success is all the more significant because it occurred in the city of waltzes
and operettas by Johann Strauss. After great success, his operetta "Boys
on Board" was also premiered in Zagreb, and the Croatian theater
management invited him to conduct the orchestra. He accepted the invitation,
and with his arrival in Zagreb, musical life received a new and decisive boost,
also giving rise to the idea of organizing an independent opera house. Upon its
establishment, Zajc was appointed its director and music conductor.
At the grand opening of the Croatian Permanent Opera, Zajc's opera
"Mislav" was performed, featuring the finest Croatian singer of his
time, the baritone José (Josip) Kasman (1847-1925). Alongside national operas,
the program also included works by internationally renowned composers,
especially Italians, such as Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti, and above all, Verdi.
Among the national works, the greatest success was Zajc's own opera
"Nicolas Subić Zrinski," which premiered on October 4, 1876. A
couple of years later, Nicolas pl. Faller, a student
of the French composer Massenet, became the director. He shared Zajc's ideals
and practically implemented his ideas.
Even before the Opera's founding, various opera arias and songs were
sung during the intermissions, showcasing the talents of several Croatian
singers. Among them, Irma pl. Murska, née Puksec, became a worldwide celebrity.
She was a guest artist at all the renowned theaters in Europe, America, and
Australia. Bernard Shaw called her a "vocal pyrotechnician," and
Viennese critics dubbed her "Die kroatische Nachtigal" (The Croatian
Nightingale).
Later, the Croatian Milka Trnina (1863-1944) achieved universal acclaim.
She was a guest artist in Germany and also a permanent member of the
Metropolitan Opera House, Covent Garden in London, and Bayreuth. The
Metropolitan Opera's annals record her as the first New York Tosca, and Puccini
himself characterized her performance with the following words: "No other
Tosca has ever come close to Trnina." Her preferred roles were heroines
such as Wagner's Isolde, Senta, Elsa, Elizabeth, Brünnhilde, and Kundry. In
addition to these two Croatians, two other compatriots were performing in
Germany at that time. Blazenka Krnic and Thea pl. Pesc.
In 1894, the first permanent ballet company—a "corps de
ballet"—was organized and made its debut in a performance of the opera
"Nicolas Subic Zrinski." Later, in the first half of the 20th
century, a prominent ballet talent, the Croatian Mija Corak, known
internationally as Slavenska, performed with companies in Paris and New York,
where she eventually settled and founded a ballet school.
In 1895, the new theater building, the current one, was inaugurated.
According to experts, its location and design make it one of the most beautiful
theaters, surrounded by expansive grounds, flowerbeds, and gardens. On the same
occasion, and in the presence of Emperor Franz Joseph I, the theater's grand
curtain, a work by the painter Vlaho Bukovac, was also unveiled to the public.
Designed according to the ideas of the theater's director, Stjepan pl. Miletic,
it depicts the Croatian Renaissance. Few theaters possess something similar,
combining historical and national significance with considerable artistic
value. This underscores the important role the theater played in the political
and cultural life of the Croatian people.
The Zagreb Theatre is not a cold, soulless, personality-less building
like those in America and some European centers, where artistic and commercial
aspirations converge. The Zagreb Theatre possesses a completely different
character. Here, the Croatian ideal of rebellion merged with Western European
liberal ideas, synthesizing them all within an artistic framework. This mission
of the Croatian Theatre began in the previous building, the old one in the
upper part of the city, with the first arias and songs of the Renaissance,
transforming, in the new building, into a magnificent and universal protest of
the entire people against tyranny and for freedom. The style of this protest
was shaped by the verses of the poet Gundulic, as well as by the freedom-filled
poetry of Lisinski's opera "Porin," making the whole a categorical
political and cultural imperative.
Thus, in this new venue, under the expert and sure hand of the Theatre's
director, Stjepan pl. Miletic, an ideal and enthusiastic creator and reformer
of Croatian theatrical art, began the rapid and steady rise of the performing
arts. Some premieres even took place in Zagreb before Vienna. This was the
case, for example, with Smetana's opera "Dalibor" and Tchaikovsky's
"Eugene Onegin." In 1897, the first performance (43 years after the
composer's death) of Vatroslav Lisinski's opera "Porin" was held.
The event was an artistic and national success because, in addition to
its musical value (the composer wrote the work in Prague, where Lisinski was
perfecting his musical skills at the local Conservatory), the work, in keeping
with the spirit of the times, addressed the liberation of Croatia from foreign
rule. Naturally, the Austrian authorities did not remain indifferent to all of
this, and when Milka Trnina, after eight triumphant performances, greeted and
applauded by the public, publicly declared that she was Croatian and would
always be so, it became grounds for the second suppression of the Croatian
Opera.
Ban Khuen Hedervary, a Hungarian and enemy of Croatia, banned the
Opera's activities in 1902. But just as after the first suppression (1889-1894),
Zagreb continued its operatic performances. Performances were held in various
cultural and charitable associations, so despite the official suppression,
continuity was achieved. In 1909, the Opera officially resumed its activities
and has continued to this day. From 1911 to 1918, it performed throughout
Croatia. In Dubrovnik, Split, Šibenik, Opatia, and Sarajevo, and until the
opera house was established in Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, Croatian
opera was also performed in that city during 1913.
If we consider that the Zagreb theater
presented operetta and ballet alongside drama and opera, only then can we truly
appreciate the breadth and importance of that institution's cultural work.
Indeed, many specialists acknowledged that few theaters in the world made such
efforts and developed such a high level of activity, almost always achieving
artistically worthy of recognition.
After the First World War, the Zagreb Philharmonic was organized, which
in recent years has earned praise and recognition, performing abroad (Germany,
Austria, Czechoslovakia), conducted not only by Croatian masters such as Milan
Sachs, Kressimir Baranovic, Lovro Matacic, Milan Horvat, but also by
internationally renowned foreigners as guests such as Hans Knappertsbusch,
Bruno Walter, Tullo Serafin, Karl Böhm, to mention only a few of them.
During the same period, the "Zagreb Quartet" was formed,
performing throughout Europe and earning high praise. Zagreb's rich musical
culture also made possible the creation of the "Zagreb Soloists"
ensemble, which contributed to the reputation of the Croatian capital.
Unfortunately, here in Buenos Aires, during their performances, it was never
once mentioned that they were Croatian, despite the fact that all its members
were Croatian and graduates of the Zagreb Music Institute, especially during
their final performance at the Teatro Colón in 1969. Throughout this time,
particularly between the two world wars, the level of Croatian opera
productions successfully competed with the major European stages. This is
clearly demonstrated by the performances of foreign artists in Zagreb and
Croatian artists abroad. Thus, Beniamino Gigli, Lauro Volpi, Cristi Solari,
Belina Skupjevski, Burdinot, Leo Siezak, Fedor Chaliapin, Zalewski, Jurenjev,
Gino Becchi, Ema Destinova, Jarmila Noovtny, Bidú Sayao, María Caniglia,
Rosette Anday, and later, after World War II, Richard Tucker, Mario del Monaco,
Birghit Nilson, and other singers who were also guests at the Metropolitan
Opera House, the Teatro Colón, and Covent Garden, to mention only the most
renowned venues, performed in Zagreb.
Among the most famous conductors who performed in Zagreb were Bruno
Walter, Tullio Serafin, Furtwängler, Knappertsbusch, Karl Böhn, and Richard
Strauss. Considerable success and recognition for Croatian opera were achieved
with Chaliapin's performance in the opera "Boris Godunov." Chaliapin
praised the entire performance, especially the vocal and dramatic creation of
bass Toso Lesic in the role of Varlaam. Chaliapin declared it the best Varlaam
he had performed with him up to that point.
Of the foreign theaters considered in their entirety, the Dresden and
Frankfurt Operas, with soloists, chorus, orchestra, and sets, performed in
Zagreb in R. Strauss's "Der Rosenkavalier" and Beethoven's "Fidelio";
followed by Opéra-Comique in the operas "Carmen" (Bizet),
"Faust" (Gounod), and "Manon" (Massenet); the Royal Opera
of Bucharest with "Aida" and "Carmen"; as well as La Scala
of Milan and the Teatro Reale dell'Opera di Roma.
The La Scala production, with its second-rate personnel, was a failure
and received very negative reviews. The second performance by the Italian
singers of the Rome Opera was complete with the most outstanding figures such
as Gigli, Gino Becchi, and Maria Caniglia in the opera "Aida."
Singing the first aria, Gigli displayed visible fear. Later, he settled down
and was excellent, as always. At the banquet held in his honor at the
headquarters of the Mayor of Zagreb, Mr. Werner, Gigli offered unreserved
praise to the Zagreb music critics, adding that he was aware of the negative
reviews of the La Scala performance and that this was why he felt a little
apprehensive at the beginning of his role. This can also serve as evidence of
the high quality of Croatian opera, because if it were not accustomed to
high-quality performances, the La Scala critics would not have been so harsh.
Of the Croatian singers who enjoyed international acclaim, along with
the two already mentioned—Irma pl. Murska and Milka Trnina—the most well-known
is M. Trnina's student, Zinka Kunc-Milanov, a member of the Metropolitan Opera
House's resident company for 25 years and holder of the title "First Lady
of the Met."
Among her thirty or so roles, the most important are: Tosca, Turundat,
Amelia (The Masked Ball), Norma, and Luisa (Charpentier). She also participated
in the Salzburg Festivals conducted by B. Walter in Verdi's "Requiem"
and Beethoven's "Missa Solemnis" and "Ninth Symphony."
Maja Strozzi-Pecic also enjoyed great international success as a
coloratura singer, performing works by Stravinsky and contemporary Croatian
composers, accompanied on the piano by her husband, Bela pl. Pecic. Other
notable Croatian singers include Djurdja Milinkovic, a guest artist with German
opera houses; Ana Jelacic; Marjada Radev; Marta Pespisil; Vilma Nozinic;
Srebrenka Jurinac, currently a member of the Vienna State Opera; Biserka
Cvejic; Ruza Pospis; Draga Martinis; and others.
Among Croatian singers performing abroad are Tomislav Neralic (a
permanent member of the Berlin State Opera); Vladimir Pulzjak, a member of the
Hamburg State Opera and also a guest artist with the Metropolitan Opera; and
Ratko Delorko in Düsseldorf. Singers Pavao Marion Vlahovic and Marko Vuskovic
(now deceased) have also performed extensively. In addition, Marko Rothmueller
currently has his singing school in New York, as do Tino Patiera, Rodolfo Zupan
(currently in Santiago, Chile), Dragutin Sostarko (currently in Chicago), and
others.
Among the Croatian conductors who have been or are currently guests are:
Lovro pl. Matacic, the first Croatian to conduct at Bayreuth in 1959 (he also
performed at the Colón Theatre), now director of the Zagreb Philharmonic;
Kresimir Baranovic, Berislav Klobucar (who has performed at the Colón Theatre
and the Metropolitan Opera), Bailan Basic, former director of the Salzburg
Theatre, and Milan Horvat, known throughout Europe for his numerous
performances, now director of Vienna Radio.
All these reciprocal actions confirmed and elevated the level of
Croatian opera's artistic achievements, enabling it to acquire knowledge of
styles from various musical periods and the vocal techniques of its singers,
while its directors, set designers, and singers were trained to perform a wide
variety of styles in the most authentic way, enriched by extensive experience.
Thus, Croatian opera, with its already established cultural tradition, was
able, during the restoration of Croatian independence from 1941 to 1945, to
perform in its own country under the name "Croatian State Opera" and
under the direction of Professor D. Zanko, a renowned Croatian scholar in the
fields of literature, philosophy, and theater criticism, on equal footing with
other leading institutions in Europe.
During the four years of Croatia's renewed independence, despite a devastating
war, the Latin proverb "Inter armas silent musae" (between arms,
muses are silent) could not be applied to cultural activity. Cultural activity
showed constant progress. The Opera House staged both Croatian and
international works, and organized concerts with national and international
philharmonic orchestras, as if the Croatians sought to drown out the cries of
war and fire with their voices and orchestral complexities.
This, in its entirety, almost foreshadowed the tragic end of the
Croatian people in 1945. During this period, the Croatian Opera performed
abroad for the first time with its soloists, chorus, orchestra, and sets in
four European centers: in Vienna with Zajc's opera "Nicolas Subic
Zrinski," and with the comic opera "Ero of the Other World" by
the contemporary Croatian composer Jakov Gotovac in Venice, Florence, and Rome.
In Vienna, the audience witnessed the performance of R. Strauss's "Ero of
the Other World," while in Rome, the music-loving public repeatedly demanded
the repetition of entire sections, especially the final dance of the last act.
In mid-1945, Croatia, having lost its independence, found itself within
the community of federal republics of Yugoslavia. The
Opera, after a brief hiatus, resumed its work, and after a couple of years, its
singers performed in the major theaters of Europe and even in Japan (Tokyo and
Osaka), where enthusiastic audiences showered flowers upon the singers, the
orchestra, and the conductor.
Finally, the musical and dramatic festivals in Dubrovnik, held annually
in August and September, are increasingly attracting world-renowned dramatic
and musical artists, regaining their international renown and generating
excellent publicity not only for Croatian artists but also for the natural
beauty of that wonderful region. One of the friends of the Dubrovnik festivals
is the English composer Benjamin Britten. The world-renowned German director
Herbert von Karaian was so impressed with the Zagreb theater company's
performance of the opera "Boris Godunov" that he personally invited
the Zagreb theater's soloists and chorus to the
Salzburg Festival.
Unfortunately, all the performances and successes of Croatian artists
are counted as Yugoslav successes, because that is the official requirement.
Therefore, the testimonies of foreign artistic circles carry more weight in
this regard when they refer objectively and disinterestedly to Croatian
creative and artistic activity. Thus, for example, Thomas Mann, in his work
"Dr. Faust," says, among other things: "...the best of the
best... Maja de Strozzi-Pecic, Croatian, today the most beautiful soprano in
both hemispheres."
Croatian Composers
Speaking of the activity of Croatian opera, we must also mention that
Croatia has a large number of composers, both from the
previous and contemporary generations, whose works, especially those of a
symphonic or lyrical nature, have been presented or are being performed in
various European theaters.
As for the founder of Croatian opera—Jonan Pl. It must be emphasized that Zajc's opera "Nicolas Subic
Zrinski," his most popular work, is an apotheosis of the heroism of Ban
Zrinski, who, with a handful of his soldiers, prevented the Turkish invasion of
Vienna and Budapest (1666). The same is true for V. Lisinski's two operas: "Amor
e Malicia" (Love and Malice) and "Porin." Lisinski worked in
Prague, which facilitated the editing and performance of many of his vocal
works, which are still being performed in Croatia today.
Among the composers of the current generation, the best known is Jakov
Gotovac (b. 1895), author of the comic opera "Ero del
Otro Mundo" (Ero of the Other World), which has been performed some 40
times abroad (in France, England, Germany, and Italy) and even in Japan (Tokyo
and Osaka). This composer also wrote the opera "Morana," which was
also successful abroad, followed by "Kamenik," and others. His
"Symphonic Dance" enjoyed considerable success abroad due to its rich
range of popular melodies and its rhythmic, sonorous texture. A series of opuses
for choir and songs are an integral part of his extensive artistic output, a
favorite work of all Croatian choirs and of many abroad, which include them in
their programs.
The composer Blagoje Bersa (1873-1934), author of the operas
"Oganj" (The Fire) and "Postolar od Delft" (The Shoemaker
of Delft), was known abroad as a master of orchestration. He is also known as
the orchestrator of the French opera composer D'Albert and the operetta
composer Lehár. His symphonic work is "Suncana Polja" (The Sunlit
Fields).
Also worth mentioning are Antonio Dobronic (1878-1955), author of the
opera "The Widow Roslinka", and Dr. Bozidar Sirola (1889-1956), a
pioneer of modern folk trends in music, known as a musicologist and author of
many works for choirs. One of them, the oratorio "The Life of Saints Cyril
and Methodius," was a great success in Frankfurt, Germany in 1927. He is
also the author of the opera "Grabancijas Djak" (The Student
Grabancijas). Josip Stolcer-Slavenski (1896-1955) also belongs here, author of
many chamber, choral, and symphonic works, recognized as a revolutionary in
Croatian music. He was a student of Kodály and Viteslav Novak, and was also
greatly influenced by the modern folk music of Bartók. He is also known in
Germany, and some of his works were published by Schott, while his quartet was
performed in Donauschingen.
Cristobal Odak is the author of the opera "Dorica Plese" (Dora
is Dancing), conceived and inspired by purely folk motifs. Francisco Lhotka,
composer of the ballet "The Devil in the Village," which was performed
in several European theaters. From the previous generation, and who They are still alive, the best known is Boris Papandopulo
(1906) son of the renowned Croatian singer Maja Strozzi-Pecic, composer of
"Sinfonietta" also known abroad, author of two operas and a few
orchestral works, and finally Francisco Lucic (1889).
From the younger generation, we mention Stjepan Sulek (1914), author of
two operas, "Coriolan" and "Oluja" (Hurricane), and a
professor of orchestration at the Zagreb Music Academy. His student, Milko
Kelemen, is a leading figure in atonal-serial composition and organizer of the
Zagreb Biennial, which attracts creative and recreational artists from around
the world with a broad program of contemporary music. Ivan Brkanovic (1906) is
the author of the opera "Equinox," while the best-known member of the
electronic music group is Branimir Saka (1918). His work "Symphony of a
Dead Soldier" was later adapted into a ballet, which the Zagreb Opera
Ballet performed with great success in Naples. We also mention Milo Cipra
(1906), a composer of chamber and orchestral music, known even beyond the
borders of his homeland.
The Zagreb Music Institute, founded in 1827, as we have mentioned, has
been highly active in the field of pedagogy, training a large number of
excellent teachers and performers who are its greatest asset in the world
(Zagreb Soloists). The prima donna Zinka Kunc-Milanov emerged from there. After
initial instruction from Milka Trnina, she continued her studies at the Zagreb
Pedagogical Academy with Maria Kostrencic, a professor at the Music Institute
who trained a number of singers.
Professor Svetislav Stancic, the renowned virtuoso and student of F.
Busoni, who composed many works for piano, trained an entire generation of
pianists. Among them was the composer and pianist Professor Bozidar Kunc, Zinka
Kunc-Milanov's brother. Professor Kunc died some years ago in Detroit during a
concert. His violin concerto won an award in North America after being
performed by violinist Zlatko Balokovic. Professor Kunc appeared as a pianist
in numerous concerts throughout Europe and America, where, as his sister
Zinka's piano accompanist and répétiteur, he had the opportunity to experience
the diverse musical environments of the Americas.
Among Stanislay Stacibic's students, Branka Musulin (now in Germany) and
Melita Lorkovic (now in Cairo) are world-renowned.
Among Croatian musicologists, the best known is Dr. Artur Schneider
(1879-1940), and among those still living are Dr. Dragan Plamenac (1895),
currently at the University of Illinois, USA, former president of the American
Musicological Society, author of the complete compilation of the works of Ivo
Lukacic, Franciscan friar from Šibenik (1587-1648), a composer of monodian
music; and Professor José Andreis (1909), a tireless worker in his field,
author of the "History of Croatian Music," founder of the Musical
Encyclopedia, and the recently founded Society of Musicology.
Croatian opera singers at the Teatro Colón and the Metropolitan Opera
House
That Croatian singers and musical artists in general have achieved
renown beyond the borders of their homeland and Europe is also evidenced by the
Symposium published in Buenos Aires on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of
the Teatro Colón.
Through him we learned that the following Croatians performed as guests
at the Colón, the largest and most renowned theater after the Metropolitan
Opera in New York: Zinka Kunc Milanov, who spent 25 years at the Metropolitan
Opera with the title "the First Lady of the Met" and sang the most
brilliant roles in operas such as Leonora, Norma, Tosca, and Aida, a worthy
student of Milka Trinina and a product of the vocal tradition of the Zagreh
Music Institute; and the baritone Marko Rothmuller, now a voice teacher in New
York.
Following the publication of this Symposium, the following also sang at
the Colón: Djurdja pl. Milinkovic; Sena Jurinac, a permanent member of the
Vienna State Opera; Marjana Radev, a frequent guest of La Scala in Milan; and
Biserka Cvejic. Among the conductors were Lovro pl. Matacic and Berislav
Klobucar, also a guest of the Metropolitan Opera. From other countries,
permanent members and guests of the Zagreb Opera performed at the Colón: the
Russian tenors B. Skupjevski and A. Veselowski, and the bass-baritones Zalewski
and Jurenjev, as well as the Slovenian tenor Josip Rijavec, a long-time member
of the Croatian Opera.
On this occasion, we must proudly highlight that the Croatian Josip
Kasman, considered the king of baritones at that time, performed at the Metropolitan
Opera's second inaugural performance in 1883, singing in Donizetti's opera
"Lucia di Lammermoor." He was also the first protagonist in Mozart's
"Don Giovanni," the first Count Luna ("Il Trovatore"), the
first Hamlet in Thomas's opera of the same name, and the first Teiramund in
Wagner's "Lohengrin."
Among the Metropolitan Opera's guests—aside from Zinka Kunc-Milanov and
Marko Rothmuller, whom we have already mentioned—were Vladimir Ruzdjak, a
member of the Hamburg State Opera, and Ruza Pospis-Baldani, who, at just 24
years old, astonished New York audiences with her rich alto and brilliant
mezzo-soprano voices. In the field of ballet, and later choreography, Mija
Corak-Slavenska represented Croatia with distinction.
Given all this, it is understandable that Antonio Janigro, who came to
Zagreb as a young man, settled there, and served for 20 years as a cello
professor at the Zagreb Academy of Music, was able to organize the renowned
chamber ensemble "Zagrebacki Solisti" (Zagreb Soloists), of whom a respected
music critic from Buenos Aires declared them to be among the best, if not the
best, in the world. Janigro was able to do so because almost his entire
ensemble came directly or indirectly from the renowned violin school of the
Zagreb Music Academy under Professor V. Huml, a student of Sevcik. His students
also include Zlatko Balokovic and Ladislav Slik.
To commemorate the centenary of the Croatian State Opera, celebrated in
October 1970 in Zagreb in its renovated and modernized building, equipped with
state-of-the-art instruments and stage machinery, as well as a luxurious
interior, we have deemed it appropriate to offer these brief remarks on the
musical culture of the Croatian people. This will also provide an overview of
Croatia's contribution to the universal cultural heritage—specifically, to
music. Zagreb, as has been shown, is a significant center, truly a breeding
ground for musical talent.
This is a brief overview of Croatian creative and performing music,
highlighting its main features. We believe it will be sufficient to appreciate
the significance and contribution of Croatian musical creation both within
Croatia itself and in the reciprocal exchange of spiritual values
between that country and other nations.
(Translated by F.N.)
Historical overview of the Croatian literary language
Branko Franolic
At the beginning of the 7th century, on the Adriatic coast, the Croats
introduced and developed the Paleocratic language, a branch of Old Slavic,
divided into several dialects. Kajkavski predominated in the north, Caikavski
in the south and part of Bosnia, and Stokavski in the southeast.[6] There were also mixed dialects. With Christianization,
in the 9th century, the Croats adopted an Old Bulgarian dialect as their
liturgical language, which they modified and adapted to their uses and needs.
This is now called Church Slavonic or "Croatian Church Slavonic."
This language of worship and literature, written in Glagolitic script, existed
until the mid-19th century as the literary language of the Glagolitic priests
who opposed the Latinizing priests. As a liturgical language, it was still used
until our own time and was replaced, very recently, after the Council of 1965,
by contemporary Croatian literary language.
Therefore, this Slavic-Croatian was the first Croatian literary
language. The first text written in Slavic-Croatian is the Baska slab, from the
year 1100, which records the donation of land by King Zvonimir to the
Benedictine monastery on the island of Krk. Compared to Old Bulgarian, Slavic-Croatian
constitutes a Croatized Old Slavic in the areas of phonetics, morphology,
syntax, and especially vocabulary. This semi-artificial language was used in
notarial acts, in religious worship, and in Glagolitic literature, which,
moreover, was very rich at a time when the number of European writers was quite
limited.[7]
It can be assumed that, parallel to this language, a popular literary
(vernacular) language existed in the 14th and 15th centuries, used in folk
poetry of oral tradition and in poetry created by lay people for use in the
evening ecclesiastical office, that is, in "prose" for divine
worship. However, we already have documents and compilations of laws written in
vernacular Croatian from the 12th and 13th centuries, such as the Isprava
Kulina Bana, 1189 (Document of Ban Kulin) and the Vinodolski Zakonik of 1288
(Vinodol Code).
It seems that the poets who wrote versifying verses on liturgical themes
were called zacinjavci, the "intoners" [8]. It was they and other
writers who gradually introduced the vernacular into the literary sphere [9],
which allowed Kombol to observe: "Thus, in Croatian literature, from the
Middle Ages onward, the transformation that took place in Russian literature
during the time of Peter the Great and in Serbian and Bulgarian literature in
the 19th century occurred; that is to say, in Croatian literature the
vernacular already predominated at that time" (cf. M. Kombol, Povijest
hrvatske knjizevnosti do narodnog preporoda, p. 22).
Versifications [10] in the vernacular date back to the 14th century,
although Marko Marulic (1450-1524) is considered the first poet, whose poem
Judith (Istorija svete udovice Judit v versih hrvacki slozena, History of the
Holy Widow Judith composed in Croatian verse), first published in 1521, bears
the date 1501 in its introduction. At the same time, poets such as Sisko
Mencetic Vlahovic (1457-1527), Dzore Drzic (1461-1501), Marin Kristicevic (died
1531), Andrei Cubranovic, and others appeared in Dubrovnik, writing in a
modified Ragoșin, later replaced by Stokavsian Ragoșin in writers of
the 16th and 17th centuries, after the first generation, such as Gundulic,
Bunic, Palmotic, and others who wrote in Stokavski Jekavski.
While the Croatian literary language was emerging in the small republic
of Dubrovnik, Croatian literature was simultaneously developing in the
Čakavski dialect in the cities of Split, Zadar, and Hvar (Hvar Island).
Writers who succeeded Marulč, such as Hannibal Lucčić, Petar
Zoranč, Sime Budănić, Brno Krnarućić, and Juraj
Barakovčić, wrote in the Čakavski dialect.
In the 16th century, the Kajkavski dialect also appeared on the Croatian
literary scene, used by writers from northern Croatia, whose metropolis was the
city of Zagreb. The initiators and leading figures of this literature were
Antun Vramec (Kronika, 1578; Postila, 1586) and Ivan Pergosic (Tripartitum,
1574).
However, even at that time, the idea of adopting the
Stokavian dialect as the basis of the official literary language was being
considered, and this idea encouraged many Croats of those centuries to use it
in their literary works. Thus, Bartol Kasic of the island of Pag (1575-1650),
although he composed a grammar in Stokavian in 1604 (Institutionum linguae
illyricae libri duo), nevertheless chose Stokavian for his translation of the
Bible in 1622.
He believed, in effect, that the most beautiful Croatian language would
be the one based on Stokavian. The same occurred with Jakov Mikalja, who
proclaimed in his Vocabulary and Grammar (1649-1651) that the Bosnian language
(that is, Ragusan Stokavian) was the most beautiful. A. Kasic should also be
credited with the Stokavianization of the language in Palmotić. This
predominance of Stokavski Jekavski is explained by the influence that Ragusan
literature in Stokavski Jekavski exerted on Croats from the 15th to the 18th
centuries. Therefore, this dialect became the literary language of Bosnian
writers such as M. Divkovic, S. Matijevic, P. Posilovic, and P. Papic (17th
century).
At that time, Stokavski Ikavski predominated in Bosnia and Dalmatia; for
example, in F. Grabovac and A. Kacic-Miosic (1704-1760), whose poetry
collection, Pleasant Conversation of the Croatian People (1756), exerted a
great influence on all social classes. Stokavski Ikavski also spread as a
literary language in Slavonia (present-day northeastern Croatia) and was used by
writers such as A. Reljkovic, Kanizlic, and Katancic. Thus, this dialect (of
Ikavian speech), from the 15th to the 18th centuries, conquered most of the
Croatian regions, leading to the appearance of dictionaries and grammars in
Ikavian: A. Della Bella's Dizionario (in Ragusin, with quotations from Ragusin
writers, published in 1728, reprinted in 1785), F. M. Appendini's Grammatica
della lingua illyrica (1808), also in Ragusin Ikavian, as well as the
voluminous dictionaries (in 6 volumes, 4721 pages) of the Ragusin Franciscan J.
Stulli (1801, 1806, 1810).
Similar works also appeared in Slavonia and Bosnia, all in Ikavian.
During the Napoleonic occupation, even in the Croatian Littoral (Hrvatsko
primorje), the quintessential Cakovsky-speaking region, a Croatian-French
grammar (Nova ricoslovnica iliricko-franceska) by S. Starcevic and a Croatian
grammar (Nova ricoslovnica iliricka) by the same author were written in
Stokavski Ikavski and published in 1812 [11].
From the above, it can be concluded that Croatian literature written in
the Stokavski dialect dates back to the 15th century and developed until the
19th century, constantly spreading and prevailing over the two other dialectal
literatures (in Cakovsky and Kajkavski).
However, even today, literature in Cakovsky and Kajkavski remains
vibrant and rich, albeit relegated to a secondary status. Numerous poets, even
the best, continue to write in Kajkavski (Domjanic, Goran-Kovacic, Calovic,
Krleza, Pavic) or Cakavski (Nazor, Balota, Gervais, Franicevic). After the
Second World War, and also very recently, a resurgence of these regional
literatures has been observed (cf. the literary journal Kaj, one of the best
monthly periodicals published in Croatia). It would be quite accurate to
distinguish literary Croatian as Stokavski, Kajkavski, and Cakavski. Moreover,
writers who are not originally from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Slavonia, or northern
Dalmatia feel much more comfortable in their regional dialect, Cakavski or
Kajkavski, than in the Stokavski they learned in school.
As these authors sometimes write interchangeably in Stokavski and in
Cakavski or Kajkavski, there was a lot of interference between the two dialects
both in terms of grammar and vocabulary. They introduce into the literary
stokavski words and a particular phraseology, of regional uses, which generates
increasing differences between the literary Croatian, based on the speech of
Herzegovina, and the literary Serbian, based on the speeches of Vojvodina and
Sumadija.
In Croatia, tradition has had a very great influence on the formation of
the literary language of the 19th century and the evolving 20th century. The
feeling of continuity, of the past, and of ties with the writers of the 15th
and 16th centuries is very strong in contemporary Croatian authors and the link
between Marulic and Ujevic, between Vramec, Brezovacki and Krleza, between
Gundulic, Mazuranic and Nazor is evident. Whatever the alternatives suffered by
the lexicon and grammatical elements over time, it is obvious that the literary
language of the 16th century and that of the 20th century observe the principle
of linguistic continuity.
When at the beginning of the 19th century the Serbian Vuk Stefanovic
Karadzic published a small dictionary in stokavski jekavski (Srpski rjecik,
1818, reprinted in 1852, 1898, 1935) and a small grammar (Pismenica, in 1818),
this event had some importance for the Serbs who until that time wrote in the
Russified PaleoSlavic also called "the Slavic-Serbian"). But the
situation was very different for the Croats[12] under the impact of
romanticism, national and patriotic revival, the Croats proclaimed, during the
so-called "Illyric" movement, whose leader was Ljudevit Gaj, that the
literary language of Dubrovnik and other writers in Stokavski was the official
literary language, which should lead them to linguistic unity.
The Illyrians tried to renew the old literary language to unify it and
with great interest followed the parallel efforts of Vuk Karadzic (among the
Serbs). But, while with his reform of the literary language Vuk brutally and
deliberately broke with the "Slavic-Serbian" tradition and with the
past, the Croats instead sought to unify regional literary languages, based on
tradition. The action of Vuk and the Croatian "Illyrians" resulted in
the Serbs (especially those living in Austria-Hungary) and the Croats deciding
to choose the Stokavski Jekavski dialect as their common literary language. The
differences that arose from the beginning of that attempt and that largely
still exist today can be attributed to the influence of heterogeneous
civilizations.
The culmination of those efforts to create a written language common to
all Croats and all Serbs was the "Vienna Agreement" (Becki knjizevni
dogovor) in 1850. It was signed by the Croatian writers Ivan Mazuranic,
Dimitrije Demeter and Ivan Kukuljevic and by the Serbian philologists Djuro
Danicic and Vuk S. Karadzic. In the first article of said agreement it is read
"that it is not reasonable to mix dialects to create a new one that the
people do not know, but that it is better to choose from among those that have
a dialect as a written language." The second article emphasizes that it is
advisable to choose as the written language of the Croats and Serbs an
Ijekavski dialect, that of Herzegovina, writing the long
syllables -ije (bijelo) and the short ones -je (bjelina). This choice
was dictated by the great extension of the Ijekavski language, the famous
Dubrovnik Ijekavski literature and popular songs.
It could then be thought that the way was prepared for a common
Serbian-Croatian written language. But in the 19th century the Serbs and Croats
were divided into three, even four States, the principality (later kingdom) of
Servia; the monarchy of Austria-Hungary (Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, Istria,
Vojvodina); the Ottoman Empire (Bosnia and Herzegovina), while the Montenegrins
had their own principality. A uniform cultural policy was therefore not viable[13]. On the other hand, despite other important
efforts, national sentiment and the spirit of independence were becoming
stronger in Croatia every day, as in Servia. All of this played an important
role in the issue of the common language. Furthermore, it goes without saying
that in their respective attempts to reform the language, Gaj and Karadzic did
not pursue the same goal[14]. Vuk's reform was purely
Serbian and the Croats reproached him for his Serbian particularism.
The representatives of Illyrianism mainly sought to unify the written
language, while the pronunciation could vary. They considered Karadzic's language
and grammar as provincial since it took into consideration only one dialect,
the Neostokavski speech of Herzegovina, and left aside the Cakavski and
Kajkavski dialects; On the other hand, the Illyrians (Babukic, Antun Mazuranic)
also took into account in their grammars ancient forms and words from other
dialects, that is, Kajkavski, Cakavski and even Slovenian. They tried to
achieve linguistic and national union by gradually merging dialects into a
common language. Thus, in the formation of the national language and in the
development of Croatian koinę, the basis of which is the Stokavski dialect,
dialect loans (Cakavski and Kajkavski) played an important role.
The Cakavski contributed the maritime and nautical terms. Furthermore,
Cakavski was the intermediary for most Mediterranean terms and, for a long
time, for Italian words. The purpose of the Illyrian movement was to create a
language common to all Yugoslavs. On a linguistic level, its program was
eclectic and tolerated the mixing of dialects, but it was fundamentally based
on the Stokavski dialect. Therefore, Lj. Gaj, the genuine founder of the
Illyrian movement and reformer of Croatian orthography, had not signed the
famous Vienna agreement of 1850 that was to govern the written language of the
Serbs and Croats. In short, this agreement had the value of a mere declaration,
since neither the Croatian nor the Serbian press respected it.
On the other hand, the "Illyrians" did not only think about
unifying the language but felt the need to introduce many new words for use in
secondary schools and universities, science and technology. These words were
unfortunately missing from Karadzic's dictionaries, who
resorted to popular speech and folklore. Since the vocabulary, to ensure its
function, must be constantly expanding and renewed incessantly, the
"Illyrians" considered that borrowing was a normal way of lexical
enrichment, since it expands the means of expression of a dialect that tends to
become the cultural organ of a people. His selection of borrowed words to
enrich the written language corresponded to his desire to create a uniform
language for the use of all South Slavs.
For this reason, we find words from the Kajkavski dialect in the texts
of the grammarian Babukic and his contemporaries. At the same time, we notice
many loanwords from other Slavic languages, especially Czech and Russian.[15] In the German-Croatian dictionary of Mazuranic and
Uzarevic of 1842 (Njemacko-ilirski slovar), we already find many Bohemianisms
and Russisms (e.g., casopis, lucba, obzor, okolnost, tocan, tocka, etc.).
Bogoslav Sulek, the founder of Croatian terminology, proceeded in the same way
in his dictionaries. The first was titled Njemacko-hrvatski rjecnik
(German-Croatian Dictionary) of 1860, and the second Rjecnik znanstvenog
nazivlja (Dictionary of Scientific Terminology) of 1874.
The first played an important role in establishing the linguistic
standard. The second appeared under his name, but in fact, it was the joint
work of philologists from Zagreb, namely Vatroslav Jagic, Josip Torbar,
Bogoslav Sulek, Franjo Erjaveb, etc. This created the necessary conditions for
the development of the language in 1874. The lexicographer Sulek adopted words
from the Stokavian and scientific dialects (at the time of the founding of the
Croatian university), Kavski, Kajkavski, and some from Cakavski; Furthermore,
he introduced many borrowed cultural terms, bohemianisms, and Russisms, as well
as neologisms into the written language, thus enabling the vernacular to meet
the needs of literature and science. It was therefore inevitable that the
written Illyrian (or later Croatian) language would increasingly diverge from
Karadzic's language.
However, while Sulek's vocabulary should not be accepted in its
entirety, its influence on the written language was so considerable that the
importance of his contribution is still recognized today. Let us cite just a
few words: brzojav, dojam, geslo, dusik, kipar, olovka, pogon, pojam,
poduzetnik, postotak, srecka, stroj, tvornica, tvrtka, znanost, etc. But there
are other equivalents for these words in Serbian, namely: telegram, utisak,
azot, lozinka, vajar, preduzimac, loz, masina, fabrika, firma, nauka, etc.[16]
The subsequent development of written Croatian demonstrated that it was
impossible to do without a certain number of the words introduced by Sulek. In
1953, Petar Skok, a member of the Academy, described the lexicographer Sulek as
a linguistic genius who could be compared, in his great merits, to Vuk
Karadzic.
In short, all these facts related to the formation of the Croatian
language in the 19th century demonstrate that the evolution of a language
cannot be directed by a convention agreed upon by men of letters.
Moreover, neither the Serbs nor the Croats faithfully adhered to the
clauses of the 1850 Vienna Agreement. In 19th-century Serbian literature, the
Neo-Stokavian-Ekavian dialect was far more prevalent than the
Neo-Stokavian-Ijekavian dialect. Although Ijekavian is spoken in some small
regions of western Serbia, most Serbs use the Vojvodina variant of Ekavian,
because the intellectual capital of Serbia in the 19th century was Novi Sad, a
city in Vojvodina and the seat of Matica Srpska.
But this Ekavski written language developed differently from Ijekavski.
In the second half of the 19th century, it was independently enriched with
scholarly and scientific terminology, with a significant Russian contribution,
just as a new terminology was formed in Croatia under the influence of the
Czech language. Furthermore, since the Principality of Serbia opposed the
language of Vuk Karadzic until 1868, the Serbian people, both in Hungary
(Vojvodina) and in Serbia proper, using the Stokavski Ekavski dialects of
Vojvodina and Sumadija, near Belgrade, accepted Vuk's language at the end of
the 19th century, but in an altered form—that is, Stokavski Ekavski—as the
official literary language.
It was Serbian writers from the northern cultural centers (Novi Sad and
Belgrade) who established the Ekavski dialect as the basis of literary Serbian.
In this way, they distanced themselves from the language of Vuk, since good
writers are those who establish literary languages, not playwrights. Today, the
Serbian literary language constitutes a compromise between the language of Vuk
and that of the literary centers of Novi Sad and Belgrade, between reform and
the tradition of Dositej Obradovic.[17] Finally, it is necessary to point out
that Ekavski Serb has a high number of homonyms due to the influence of Old
Slavic jat. To avoid homonymous collusion, the Ekavski language resorted to new
terms, different from those used by the Croats. Thus, the differences
accumulated. Can we not then conclude that the Vienna Agreement was entirely
useless?
Indeed, the development of the written languages of the Croats and Serbs
in the 19th century was quite uneven, and its results were not exactly what Gaj
wanted or what Karadzic had foreseen. However, his work was not in vain, as
both Croats and Serbs adopted the Stokavski dialect as the basis of their
written literary languages.
The differences that arose over time are due to two factors: on the one
hand, the existence of two distinct cultural centers, Zagreb and Belgrade, and
on the other, the existence of two nations, Croatian and Serbian, each
considering its literary language an essential national characteristic. What is
sometimes simply called "the genius" of a people is often contained
in their national language, and Ferdinand de Saussure observed that
"language largely makes the nation."
These factors resulted in Croats and Serbs using a dual official
language at the beginning of the 20th century, before the breakup of
Austria-Hungary, with both using Stokavski in Croatia and Jekavski in Croatia,
a divergence that persists to this day.[18] This
difference manifests itself at the level of phonetics, morphology, syntax, and
especially vocabulary. In addition to the difference in dialects, there is also
a difference in alphabets: Cyrillic script is used by Orthodox Serbs, while the
Latin alphabet is used by Catholic Croats and Muslims in Bosnia [19].
Furthermore, the phonetic, morphological, and syntactic differences were
exacerbated by the influence of vocabulary that developed separately in the two
languages and generally originates from the higher strata of civilization:
modern scientific and technical terminology, word formation influenced by
heterogeneous civilizations (Rome-Byzantium, Catholicism-Orthodoxy), and
numerous words borrowed from Russian by Serbs and from German and Czech by
Croats.
It is precisely these differences that give the impression, both to
speakers and listeners, that these are frankly two very different communicative
structures, even though the single term "Servio-Croatian" is used to
designate the Serbian and Croatian languages and a single linguistic basis is
taken in terms of diachrony.[20] Even from the point of view of dialectical or
historical materialism, which maintains that the accumulation of material
differences must be translated into a new quality, we could speak of two
structures, since the quantitative differences between the two languages
are very important in certain contexts, although in others they
appear insignificant or minimal.[21]
Leaving aside Hegelian dialectics, we can note that in 1940 Matica
Hrvatska of Zagreb published a small, rather incomplete dictionary containing
differences between Croatian and literary Serbian [22], and that today she
promises the publication of an improved, differential Serbian-Croatian
dictionary (the first contained up to 5,000 words, and the new one will have
10,000 entries) [23]. Meanwhile, in present-day Yugoslavia, only the term
"variants" has been legalized, and there is no talk of just two
variants of the same literary language [24].
However, many Croats demand complete autonomy for the variants and that
the Federal Constitution recognize the Croatian
literary language and the Serbian literary language instead of decreeing the
ambiguous term Serbo-Croatian [25]. Perhaps in the near future we will see a
solution to these problems, which are raised with great vehemence and are
closely linked to national issues and the political situation in the country.
Indeed, in Yugoslavia, from 1918 to the present day, a constant struggle has
persisted between Serbian centralists and federalists from Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia,
Montenegro, Albania, and other countries, along with a permanent conflict
between megaloservism and opposing forces.
The linguistic convergence between the two languages was favored and
forced for political reasons by the federal government in Belgrade, which
imposed Serbian, already in use in the political, administrative, and military
spheres, as the "official language." However, cultural, national, and
social factors that oppose convergence are also intertwined. Thus, we see both
phenomena—convergence and divergence—occurring simultaneously and in the same
place.
We believe that the term "Croatian literary language" is
entirely justified: in fact, Croatian literature has undergone a specific
evolution, as we attempt to demonstrate, and, moreover, this language possesses
a phonetics, morphology, and lexicon that are often different from those of the
Serbian literary language.[26]
However, although a language is, above all, part of a cultural
heritage,[27] and although this heritage differs between Croats and Serbs, it
is worth noting that Croatian and Serbian, closely related genetically and
geographically neighbors, are increasingly intertwined, especially since these
two peoples became part of the same state (*).
(Reproduced from the renowned and specialized
journal Lingua, Vol. 25 No. 2, 1970, North-Holland Publishing Company,
Amsterdam).
Spanish version: Branko Kadic
The poetry of the Croatian resurgence
Ante Kadic
May my country achieve freedom!
Among the writers of the Illyrian-Croatian movement (*) were prose
writers (Matthias Mazuranic and Antun Nemcic published their travel memoirs),
playwrights (Ivan Kukuljevic described the fighters against the Ottomans, and
Demetrius Demeter the distant past), and literary critics (especially Stanko Vraz),
but the field in which they excelled most was epic, lyric, and sometimes
reflective poetry.
Although many wrote poetry, I will limit this study to the four most
prominent, who, while each with their own distinctive traits, together
represent Croatian Romanticism at its finest.
Ivan Mazuranic (1814–1890) was born on the Croatian Littoral and studied
in Rijeka and Zagreb. As a young man, he learned Italian, Latin, Hungarian, and
German, and later the Slavic languages, English, and French. He read extensively
and acquired a broad education. Calm and with exquisite manners, he spoke
little and controlled his feelings and emotions, which in his youth he used to
express in poetry. However, upon realizing that his individualistic verses were
not enough, he stopped writing them, and some of his shorter poems were never
published.
Since the Croats did not achieve freedom and national independence
during the revolutionary year of 1848, Mazuranic believed that in dire
circumstances, the best path to freedom was education. During his governorship
(era ban, prorex croata 1873-1880), a progressive educational system was
implemented in Croatia, and the administrative apparatus functioned perfectly.
After being removed from government, he devoted himself entirely to the study
of philosophy, mathematics, and astronomy. To this day, he remains in popular
memory as an exemplary man, deeply religious, a true patriot who contributed
with his actions and accomplishments to help the Croats resist the growing
Hungarian pressure.
As soon as Ljudevit Gaj founded the newspaper Danica (1835), Mazuranic
began publishing his poems and other contributions until 1848. Like Gundulic's
celebrated poem, Osman remained unfinished and unprinted; many tried to
complete it but without success. Matica llirska entrusted Mazuranic with this
arduous task. He did so to general satisfaction (1844) and proved himself
worthy of the greatest classical Croatian poet. Two years later, the magazine
Iskra published his epic poem Smrt Smail-age Cengic (The Death of Smail-aga
Cengic), which remains one of the masterpieces of Croatian literature. Although
he lived for more than 40 years after 1848, he wrote nothing of importance;
what he had created was done in his youth, when the politician had not yet
overshadowed the poet. He gave a great deal for having written a work that
reflects the quintessence of Croatian literature: for its style and for its
genuinely Croatian spirit!
In his youth, his teachers were classical and Italian writers, then the
Croatian Renaissance poets of Dubrovnik, followed by a fascination with folk
poetry, before finally becoming acquainted with the works of European
Romanticism. By the time he decided to compose the poem "The Death of
Smailaga Cengic" in 1845, he had already explored all these schools of
thought, learning something from each, but gradually developing his own style,
his own mode of expression, recognizable from the very first lines of the
aforementioned poem. Reflective, concise, and brimming with wisdom like folk
sayings, many of its verses are known by heart by every moderately educated
Croatian.
Since the 14th century, the South Slavs had been subject to Ottoman
rule, yet they never ceased to yearn for and await the
day of their liberation. The suffering of Christians and the encouragement to
resist and fight constitute the main themes of the best works of Croatian
literature: from Marulic's Judith (1501), through Gundulic's Osman, and up to
Kacic's The Pleasant Conversation of the Croatian People (1756), the constant
concern of the best Croatian writers was how to console the oppressed,
encourage their hopes, and tell them that a new light was dawning on the
horizon. As a member of the Illyrian Movement, Mazuiranic awaited the prompt
liberation of the unfortunate rayeh.
It so happened that in 1840, during border skirmishes, the Montenegrins
had killed the Turkish officer (aga) Cengic. This incident, one of many that
Mazuranic had read about in newspapers or heard from a traveler, was the
impetus that moved him to describe the centuries-long suffering of the
Christians, their pain but also their conviction that Turkish rule was nearing
its end. In five short cantos, all the protagonists are superbly characterized:
not only the figure of the Turkish tyrant, but also the Christian avengers.
While Smail-aga is master and lord in the Turkish barracks, cruel even
to Muslims who do not immediately obey orders or dare to question his motives,
among the Christians there is no master, but rather the community; all are
imbued with the same spirit and hope to live in freedom as equal citizens.
While it is obvious that in certain images his model was Lamartine, and
his Smailaga reminds us of Byron's heroes, there is a great difference between
them: when Mazuranic evokes heaven as a divine throne, it is not a matter of
mere biblical reminiscences but of a profound feeling of man who sees God's
presence everywhere and surrenders himself into His hands; Smailaga, though
unparalleledly brave, does not enjoy his sympathies ("brave, yes, but not
a man") since his favors go to those who will bring him death; although he
painted him convincingly, Mazuranic did so not for us to understand him but for
us to condemn him.
When the humiliated, anonymous, and suffering raise
their hands to heaven and with those same hands slit the throat of their
oppressor, the poet is exalted, for he believes that henceforth men will live
better. Mazuranic is entirely imbued with human feeling, eloquently condemning
tyrants, whether they live in tents, towers, or palaces, and toy with the fate
of their respective peoples; his words and censure can also be applied to the
current situation.
Although Mazuranic and Stanko Vraz (1810-1851) belonged to the Illyrian
Movement, were contemporaries, published in the same journal, and often read
the same authors, as both were highly cultured, there were significant
differences between them.
The former overcame the excess of his emotions, married the woman he
loved, realistically assessed the prevailing situation, and did all he could;
the latter was consumed by the fire of love, considering love the supreme good,
experienced moments of bliss with his sweetheart Ljubica, and then—when she
married another and soon died—wrote depressing and anguished verses. Even when
writing about Slavic peoples, Mazuranic never forgot his Croatia, while Vraz,
of Slovenian origin (the only Slovenian to join the Illyrian Movement),
considered the Slavic spirit the guiding principle by which everything should
be judged.
Mazuranic maintained that the renewal of Croatian literature required
drawing on both folk and Renaissance poetry, while Vraz rejected the
"exaggerated" interest in the Renaissance, which, in his opinion, was
too influenced by Italian authors. Mazuranic produced few translations (his
Croatian version of Manzoni's Cinque Maggio is admirable), while Vraz made the
best works of European Romanticism, especially those of Slavic Romantic
writers, accessible to the Croatian reading public.
Vraz's beloveds (he was very prone to falling in love) were not real
beings with whom he had shared moments of bliss, but rather longed-for beings
who, being pure, offered no joy, to whom one prayed
because they were perhaps angels. When, as a young man, he felt weary,
afflicted with tuberculosis, when his wings were broken, he expressed either
his cynicism in accomplished epigrams or his readiness to close his eyes
forever (Confession), for he would be reunited with his beloved in the
afterlife. He believed in the afterlife, because above, beyond the stars, lovers
would experience the bliss of the blessed.
Vraz was a talented poet, but due to his unfamiliarity with the
Stokavian accent, he failed to produce a significant body of work. He dedicated
his entire life to literature, employing its various forms, from the classical
sonnet to the romance and the ballad, yet he did not reach the pinnacle of
Croatian Parnassus, as his best poems exhibit linguistic irregularities.
With a group of friends, Vraz founded the literary journal Kolo in 1842,
and in its pages he repeatedly argued that literature was not the servant of
politics. He possessed a refined literary taste, and most of his judgments
remain valid even today. Vraz has more than enough credentials to be considered
the father of Croatian literary criticism. He thus contributed considerably to
the progress and enrichment of Croatian literature.
Just as Vraz began writing in Slovene, Petar Preradović (1818–1872)
wrote in German in his youth. When he met members of the Illyrian Movement in
Italy and was transferred as an Austrian officer to Zadar, he began to write in
Croatian, his native language, which he had largely forgotten.
Preradović aligns with the Western conception of the Romantic poet
not only because he composed his first poems near Vienna and because he was
intimately familiar with Western and Czech Romantics, but also because his life
was filled with lamentations. He married twice, first to an Italian woman who
committed suicide, and then to a German woman who didn't understand him, so for
him love was something otherworldly, unattainable. Since his children died and
he himself was ill, he often complained and teetered on the brink of pessimism,
or sought solace in spiritualism. Finding nothing stable in his fellow human
beings or in his own feelings, he believed that everything human was transient.
(The Human Heart; Muezzin). Because he lived mostly
outside his homeland, and therefore loved it even more, he composed poignant
patriotic poems: "Do not go, my son, my beloved treasure, do not go far
from your father's home; the foreign land shelters its own, without
understanding your sorrows, foreign love turns to its own..." (The Traveler).
Preradovic knew full well that living abroad made it difficult to
preserve the purity and expressive power of one's native language, and for this
reason, he repeatedly referred to language as the most sacred gift. He praised
the poet, who more than anyone else felt and experienced all the sufferings of
his people.
Nevertheless, this man of romantic temperament knew how to control his
feelings; he disliked a military vocation, his ideal being to become the poet
of the Slavs who would reconcile humanity, and yet he conscientiously fulfilled
his military duties, attaining the rank of general. Burning with profound
emotions, he concealed them beneath a polished facade and subjected them to the
control of his intellect, expressing them concisely.
One might say that Preradovic was crucified on his own cross: a
lyricist, he believed in the supremacy of feelings, but he realized they were
deceptive and fickle; blessed are those who do not believe them. He loved his
homeland as his own mother:
"I traveled to all parts of the world, I saw the landscapes so many
have sung of, whose glory reaches to the heavens, all are beautiful in their
splendor, all are beautiful, but all together, they are not to me what you are,
my only mother..." (Salute to the Homeland)
He knew that other peoples also feel the same way about their homeland;
everything, then, is relative. In that anguish, in that spasm of heart and
intellect, he created some poems that still captivate readers today. Croatian
emigrants feel it most keenly.
Although the Croatian national revival was crushed in 1848 and a few
years later absolutism was established in the Austrian Empire, Romanticism as a
literary movement did not cease to exist. In contrast, until the 1870s there
were writers who displayed traits akin to the Romantics; they were either
Romantic Realists (August Senoa) or Idealists (Francisco Markovic). In the
1850s, the poet Luka Botic (1830-1863) lived, embodying and reflecting the
Romantic worldview.
This citizen of Split, expelled from the theological seminary in Zadar,
traveled through Bosnia and Serbia, where he searched in vain for work. Bishop
Strossmayer employed him on his estate but dismissed him when he refused to
swear allegiance to the Emperor of Austria. He died at the age of 33, leaving
his young wife and son destitute.
Botic was the favorite poet in Croatia in the 1850s; he wrote three long
epic poems and a short story. As a student in Split and Zadar, he read
extensively the Italian authors, especially the Romantics (Manzoni, Tommaseo).
Although influenced by folk poetry, he did not blindly imitate it in either
diction or content. He did not portray, as was common practice at the time, the
Muslim Croats of Bosnia as tyrants, predators, and morally corrupt men, but
rather described them as loyal and courageous friends in the struggle. He was
among the first to proclaim that they were our blood brothers, our fellow
countrymen, and that a brother is loved regardless of religious creed. Based on
historical documents, he recounted with poignant emotion the ill-fated love
affairs between Christians and Muslims. His best-known work is Bijedna Mara
(Poor Maria) (1861). When, at the end of the 16th century, Mara Vornic of Split
fell in love with Adel of Klis, her parents confined her to a convent where she
soon died. Today, too, audiences, with tears in their eyes, witness the tragedy
of two Croats, separated by religious beliefs.
In Botic's epic narratives, his lyrical fragments stand out, while the
whole is unconvincing. He was unable to polish and refine his works because he
traveled, worked to earn a living, and was involved in politics. As a member of
parliament, he ardently defended national rights in the Croatian Sabor
(Parliament). He hoped that the Croatian people would one day see the dawn of
their national independence: "So that my homeland may attain freedom,
nothing but dust will remain of me, but this dust scattered on the grave will
vibrate when the bell of freedom tolls!"... (Poor Maria, Song to the Sun)
While Mazuranic created a masterpiece, the others wrote poems of varying
quality, either due to the difficulties of the language (Vraz, Preradovic) or
their economic circumstances (Botic). They all witnessed tyranny, injustice,
and misery around them, and yet they hoped for a better future. Mazuranic was
pragmatic, a patient builder, and therefore optimistic, while the others swung
from blind enthusiasm to despair, but always ready to subordinate individual
feelings to national interests. Great was his love for his homeland, Croatia.
This same love inspired them to write verses that even today are etched in the
memory and hearts of their compatriots. They serve as an example, in times of discouragement, that those who work for their people never
truly die.
Bloomington, Indiana
(Translated into Spanish by Branko Kadic)
Ivan Ratkaj, first Croatian missionary in America (1647-1683)
George J. Prpic
In many foreign historical sources, he is referred to as Rev. Juan María
Ratkay. Croatian historians know him as Iván Ratkaj, while in Latin documents
his name is spelled Joannes Ratkai or Rattkay. He was the first Croatian
missionary to arrive in the Americas, almost three hundred years ago. While
much has been written about him in Croatia, it hasn't been sufficient. In the
Americas and the rest of the world, much more has been written, citing more
accurate and comprehensive sources than those found in his homeland. Croatian
historiography today still knows little about this figure and does not properly
appreciate his significance. But for Croatians, he is of particular importance:
Ratkaj identified as Croatian abroad. In the most important Latin, German, and
Spanish documents related to his life, work, and tragic death, he is referred
to as Croatian.
Today, the thousands of Croatian exiles living in Spanish-speaking
countries can proudly say that almost three hundred years ago they had a
compatriot who lived, worked, and died in Mexico.
Historical Background
Ratkaj is one of the first Croatian immigrants to the American
continent. Having inhabited the eastern shore of the Adriatic for centuries and
being the first maritime Slavic people, it is quite understandable that
Croatians began migrating early on to lands across the ocean, whether
temporarily or permanently. Even before Ratkaj's arrival, several of his
compatriots came to Mexico and to different regions of the Western Hemisphere
of the Spanish Empire. Even before the first Anglo-Saxon immigrants arrived in
the Mexican province of California, many Croatian pioneers were already living
there.[28]
When focusing on Ratkaj, it is necessary to consider the political
situation of the country where he was born, as well as the influence of his
family. This will facilitate our understanding of the task.
The 16th and 17th centuries represent a profoundly tragic period in
Croatian history. After the defeat and decline of the Hungarian kingdom at the
Battle of Mohács in 1526, the remnants of Croatia, by their own free will,
submitted to Habsburg rule in 1527. For centuries, the regions of Croatia
remained divided between the Turks, the Venetians, and the Habsburgs.
The remnants of unoccupied Croatia were confined to the area around
Zagreb, that is, the ethnically Croatian northwestern regions, which gradually
became the new political, cultural, and, in modern times, also economic center
of all of Croatia. Croatian cuisine and some noble families of the ruling
class—especially the Zrinski family—found themselves caught in the crossfire of
the struggle between the powerful Turkish and Austrian empires.
This dire situation culminated in the conspiracy and rebellion of the
Croats and Hungarians against Emperor Leopold and German imperialist ambitions
in the regions bordering the Ottoman Empire. Exactly three hundred years ago,
the rebellion of Zrinski Frankopan began (1670), and the following year (1671)
they were executed in Wiener Neustadt.[29]
Thousands upon thousands of Croatian exiles then sought refuge in the
western regions of Hungary, far from Turkish power but under Habsburg rule.
Thus, for example, the Croats of Gradisce (Austria) today can trace their
ancestry back to those migratory waves. Many noble Croatian families, such as
the Zrinski and Draskovic families, owned property in Hungary and Croatia, and
some of them became prominent figures both in Croatia and in neighboring
Hungary, beyond the Drava and Mura rivers. Many Hungarian nobles, in turn, came
to Croatia, settled there, and became Croatianized.
The Ratkaj family arrived in Croatia from Hungary. Their name derives
from the town of Ratko in northern Hungary, and they were probably of Slovak
origin. They have been known in Croatia since the 16th century, and the family's
founder was Paul. They arrived there, assimilated, and gave their new homeland
warriors against the Turks, active members of the Croatian state, historians,
and missionaries. The Ratkaj's first possession and family center was Veliki
Tabor in Croatian Zagorje. Thus, they became known as Ratkay of Veliki Tabor
(Ratkaji Velikotaborski)[30]. They were first barons
and later dukes.
It is almost incomprehensible that the remnants of the Croatian state,
confined to a small and impoverished area with a sparse and poor population,
were able, despite all their misfortune, to send missionaries and pioneers to
the most remote countries of the world. It is interesting to note, as a
symbolic fact, that Ivan Ratkaj's contemporary was Juraj (George) Krizanic. A
lay priest and idealist driven by a personal vision of uniting the Russian
Orthodox people with the Catholic Church, Krizanic went to Moscow in 1659. He
arrived there incognito on his own initiative and without prior permission from
the Propaganda Fide. The Russian authorities apparently discovered his
intentions and confined him to Tobolsk, Siberia, where he spent 15 years of his
life. For his writings and works, the best known of which is Politika, Krizanic
earned the title of "Precursor of Pan-Slavism."
Our Ratkaj, similar to Krizanić in his idealism and enthusiasm, his
dreams and his energy, was a member of the Jesuit Order. Fate led him to the
opposite path from Krizanić. Nevertheless, both are typical
representatives of the messianic and missionary ideal of their people.
Speaking now of the Jesuit Order, it should be
remembered that the first Croatians entered the Jesuit Order during the
lifetime of its founder, Ignatius of Loyola. When the Order
established itself in Croatia in 1606, there were already some Croatians among
them.[31]
The Jesuits arrived in Zagreb on November 28, 1606, from the Slovak city
of Trnava, which at that time was under Hungarian rule. The following year they
inaugurated their college in Zagreb, and in 1662 they began offering academic
instruction in philosophy and theology. Emperor Leopold I granted them the
privilege, by royal decree on September 23, 1669, to provide higher education
with university status. Therefore, the 300th anniversary of university
education in Croatia was rightfully celebrated in Zagreb last year.[32]
The first known Croatian missionary to work in Asia was Nicholas Ratkaj
(Nicolaus Ratkaj, "Taborensis, Croata," as he is referred to in
several historical documents). He was born in Veliki Tabor. As a young man, he
entered the Jesuit Order, which sent him to remote and unknown regions of India
and Tibet. He died in India in 1662.[33]
We do not know if this example of John's nephew had a particular
influence on him. Another relative of John was George Ratkaj (Georgius Ratkaj:
1612–1666). He was first a Jesuit and later a lay priest in Zagreb. He is one
of the founders of modern Croatian historiography, having published the work
Memoria Regnum et Banorum Regnorum Dalmatiae, Croatiae
et Slavoniae (Vienna, 1652[34]). This historical book spurred his
contemporaries, the brothers Nicholas and Peter Zrinski, to begin the rebellion
against the Viennese government, which Peter continued after Nicholas's death.[35]
As barons since the beginning of the 16th century, the Ratkaj family,
along with Veliki Tabor, held many other properties and lands, as well as a
considerable number of serfs. The memory of the Ratkaj as feudal lords of
Veliki Tabor in Croatian Zagorje remains alive today. Peasants remember them,
according to oral tradition, as good and just lords, and until recently, the
descendants of their serfs were called "Ratkajci," meaning
"those of Ratkaj." The Ratkaj family emblem is also of interest; it
depicts a water vessel suspended by a cord. Veliki Tabor Castle, after being
renovated several times, still stands proudly today in a good state of
preservation, representing a tourist attraction in that Croatian region[36].
Life of John Ratkaj in Europe
John Ratkaj was born on May 22, 1647. Historians disagree on his birthplace;
most believe it was Veliki Tabor, while others argue that he was born in Ptuj
(Pettau in German), in neighboring Lower Styria, in Slovenia, which at that
time was under the Austrian Empire. Ptuj is located about 40 km from Veliki
Tabor. In attempting to ascertain this information, I could find nothing in
Ptuj that could be considered certain in this regard.[37]
Krmpotic, like other Croatian writers, does not mention the names of
John's parents. A handwritten letter referring to the biography of Juan Ratkai,
located in the Jesuit Archives in Rome (Vol. Vitae 68, 11, 54-57v, f. 54),
states of Juan that he was "born to the most illustrious parents, Peter
and Constance, Barons of Ratkai" [38]. In a historical document from
Zagreb, Juan's father is named "Johann III Adam, Baron Ratkai," while
his grandfather is named "Peter IV, Baron Ratkai," and his mother is
named "Constantia, Ehenlalige Gräfin Herberstein"—Constantia, former
Duchess Herberstein, who was the second wife of Peter IV Ratkai [39].
In the same document, "Peter V, Duke of Ratkai" is mentioned
with the note: "Jesuit killed in 1681 in America." The year of his
death is uncertain. All Croatian writers refer to him as Ivan Ratkaj. This
name, "Ivan," appears several times in various languages
and documents. Despite this, Jesuit documents generally call him
Joannes Ratkai or Rattkay, while the American historians Herbert E. Bolton and
Peter M. Dunne refer to him as John Maria Ratkay.
As a young man, John was received by Emperor Leopold I as a page in the
service of the Court. The exact date is unknown. This verified fact confirms
the distinction of his family. In this capacity, he had the opportunity to meet
the ruler against whom the Zrinski and Frankopan families would later rise up.
This pious young man completed his secondary studies in Vienna and then
studied law for two years. He also dedicated himself to philosophy. He entered
the Jesuit monastery as a novice on November 3, 1664. Over the years, in
addition to his native Croatian, he learned German, Latin, Italian, and some
French. Later, he learned Spanish and one of the Indian languages.
After his second year of novitiate, he continued his studies in Graz,
Austria, where he studied philosophy and other necessary subjects until 1669.
As a Jesuit scholastic, he taught for two years: from 1669 to 1671 at the
Jesuit college in Goricia. From 1671 to 1672, he taught at the Jesuit college in Zagreb. In this way, John Ratkaj is closely
linked to the beginnings of teaching at the Croatian university, founded during
that historical period. In 1672, John continued his studies in philosophy and
theology in Graz. On April 4, he was ordained a priest in the same city. In the
final stages of his Jesuit preparation, John spent 1676-1677 in the city of
Judenburg (Styria).
While preparing for the priesthood, he was already considering going to
America as a missionary. He requested permission from his superiors, and they
granted it. His letter exists in the Jesuit Archives in Rome (Jesuit
Collection, Vol. 755) in Latin, dated "datum Viennae Anno 1678 die 23
April," signed by him as Joannes Rattkay. In it, Ratkaj thanks his
superiors for having accepted his request to go to America. The document is
written in beautiful calligraphy and is of great importance.[40]
The question arises: why did Juan Ratkaj decide to go to distant America?
Without delving into the problem, it is important and interesting to know that,
after learning of his superiors' permission, he wrote in a letter: "I had
an audience graciously granted by our Most Illustrious Emperor, who told me of
his special consolation and joy for some of his people who wish to serve Christ
in such distant lands." Emperor Leopold also told him to write to him from
America and that, for his part, he would do everything possible to help him and
the Society.
For the journey, he and his five companions, Leopold gave him 100 gold
coins and another 200 to him personally. In the same letter, Ratkaj notes that
he will travel on April 26th along with six other members of his brotherhood
from Genoa, where the journey to America will begin.[41]
If he thus intended to follow the example of his relative and predecessor
Nicholas, these and other questions related to his life will probably never be
answered, as many events remain shrouded in mystery.
It is possible that John heard something about America and the
missionary work being carried out there through the reports of some Austrian,
Czech, Italian, and German missionaries. At that time, considerable numbers of
these missionaries were going to Mexico, which was part of the Spanish Empire
under the rule of the Habsburgs. According to the American historian Bolton,
many of these American missionaries "had the best European blood in their
veins," meaning that they belonged to distinguished and noble families
from various countries.[42]
Before entering the Jesuit Order, these young men grew up in comfortable
and abundant conditions, in the castles and palaces of their parents and
grandparents. In distant and unknown lands, a hard life awaited them, often an
unbearable climate, sacrifices and efforts, long and dangerous journeys, a life
of self-denial, and even eventual death from disease or Indian rebellions.
Ratkaj Prepares for the Voyage to America
His voyage to America was a long and grand adventure. Early in June
1678, along with 18 other Jesuits, he was in the Italian port of Genoa. From
there, they had to sail to Cádiz, Spain. One of Juan's companions, Reverend
José Neumann, traveled with him to the Mexican province of Tarahumara. Later,
this same Neumann would leave an important document about Ratkaj's fate. We
know the names of all the travelers.
They were Fathers Galvanese, Borgia, De Angelis, Manoker, Borango,
Tilpe, Strobach, Cuculinus, Klein, Christmann, Reidl, Fischer, Kerschpamer, and
Brother Poruhradski. It is worth noting that among them was also Reverend
Eusebio F. Kino, who later became a famous missionary and explorer of Baja
California. His work was later continued in the same province by Ratkaj's
compatriot, the Croatian Konscak.[43] Kino also
compiled a diary recounting the voyage from Genoa to Seville. The diary entries
begin on June 12, 1678 (Genoa) and end on July 27, 1678 (Seville).
All of these Jesuits—19 in total—were subjects of the Habsburgs. Because
of the black robes they wore, American historians popularly call them
"Black Robes," a term that became synonymous with Jesuit missionaries
across the Atlantic. According to data from Kino, Gerstl, and the archives in
Rome, the American historian Bolton described this interesting voyage, which
Ratkaj began on June 12 from Genoa.
Before noon on the day of their auspicious voyage, the 19 passengers of
the (Jesuit) Casa Profesa made their way to the port, accompanied by many
priests from Genoa. From the shore, they were taken by boat to the main ship,
moored four miles offshore. This was a large vessel, commanded by Captain
Francesco Columbus, whom Kino claims was a descendant of the famous Columbus.
Including staff, soldiers, and passengers, there were a total of 200 people,
including the group of Jesuits. Another ship, the "San Nicolás," was
also ready to depart along with the larger vessel.
Sea travel wasn't as bad back then as we tend to think today. The price
of the voyage to Cádiz, including food, was 60 imperials, a sum that had to be
paid immediately to the captain. This arrangement was strict, but for that
reason, "Captain Columbus provided good food" [44].
On the second day of the voyage, a great storm arose, accompanied by
thunder, lightning, rain, and turbulent seas. Some of the Jesuits became ill
from seasickness. On June 15, the sea calmed, and the travelers were in good
spirits again. The voyage continued slowly across the Mediterranean westward,
toward the Spanish coast. But on June 17, another storm occurred. The following
day, they observed several armed ships near the island of Menorca with
apprehension, initially mistaking them for pirates. But they were English royal
ships, "fully armed and provisioned." whose task was to defend those
waters "against the audacity of the Turks and pirates" [45].
Kino, born in Ingolstadt, Germany, was a born traveler, meticulously
recording everything. In his diary, he interestingly described the details of
this truly arduous journey, in which his Croatian comrade, Ratkaj, also
participated [46].
On the morning of June 25, our Jesuits arrived at the Spanish port of
Alicante. Since there was a Jesuit college in the city, two Jesuits arrived to
greet and welcome the group of 19 brothers. At seven o'clock in the evening,
Ratkaj arrived at the college with his friends, accompanied by the Spanish
brothers. Thus ended the first part of the journey [47].
This city held special importance for the Jesuits because it housed a
renowned sanctuary. Near the city was the Monastery of Saint Veronica, where
the veil of that saint, bearing the likeness of Christ's face, was kept [48].
But their stay was very dangerous, because at that time the plague broke
out in the surrounding area.
The next day they met to decide whether to continue their journey to
Cádiz by land or by sea. From this city, the Spanish fleet sailed once a year
for Veracruz in Mexico. At that time, the fleet would not depart from Cádiz
before July 10th or 12th, so they could arrive in that city in time to embark
for Mexico. After undergoing medical examinations and obtaining the required
health certificates, they set sail for Cádiz on July 3, 1678.
But bad luck followed them. The wind was too weak for their sailboat. On
July 5th, they saw the mountains covered in snow, and on July 8th, already near
the Rock of Gibraltar, the travelers saw the African coast, where the double
mountain ranges of the heights of Ceuta stood out. At that moment, they had a
serious accident. The wind blew from the west with such force that it tore the
sails of the "San Nicolás." The following morning, the sea was so
rough that neither crew could celebrate Mass. The two ships had to change
course near Málaga, and thus, in three hours, they lost the advantage they had
gained during four days of sailing.[49]
On July 13, the fog was so thick that they even lost their bearings. It
wasn't until July 14 that they entered the port of Gibraltar. Everyone was
worried about not arriving in Cádiz in time to continue their voyage to
America. That same day, the 14th, at nightfall, as they approached their
destination, "they saw the Spanish fleet, composed of 44 ships, in the
immediate vicinity. It was the fleet en route to India"
(Spanish possessions in America). In other words, they arrived too late.
Everyone was disappointed and dejected.
Due to bad weather and the threat of plague, in accordance with the
regulations in force, they had to wait four days for permission to enter the
port of Cádiz. There, Father Pedro Espinar, S.J., procurator of the Spanish
missions in Mexico and the West Indies, awaited them. He took them to the
Jesuit college. A few days later, he accompanied them
to the College of San Hermenegildo in the city of Seville, where they remained
until it was possible to embark for Mexico.[50]
Their stay in Seville was like another period of novitiate for them.
They prepared for their future work. They studied mathematics, astronomy, and
other sciences. They also made various utensils for their future needs in
Mexico. Ratkaj himself later described all of this.[51]
Indeed, they had the opportunity to study and work, because their stay
in that city lasted two years. This period was very interesting and productive
for the Jesuits "shipwrecked" in that beautiful Spanish city. An old
Spanish proverb says, "If you haven't seen Seville, you haven't seen a
marvel." The Jesuits concur in their reports about Seville. The Viennese
Gerstl, for example, says, "The cathedral is so large that St. Stephen's
Church in Vienna could fit entirely inside it." Although he left no
written record of it, Ratkaj must also have been impressed by this Spanish city.[52]
They witnessed its beauty, but also the unpleasant side of Spanish life.
On the one hand, there was great wealth, luxury in the churches, and industrial
and commercial activity by thousands of Dutch, French, and other people. They
found a large number of priests and monasteries, nuns, churches, and chapels.
But at the same time, the plague was devastating the province, killing many
people. Gerstl and his companions witnessed the extreme poverty of thousands,
encountered beggars by the thousands, and saw public executions and bullfights.[53] Despite everything, their forced stay must have caused
them much impatience. Finally, in March 1680, they returned to Cádiz, located a
few hundred kilometers south of Seville. In Cádiz, they had to wait another
three months.
At last, after so much waiting, they embarked on July 7, 1680, with all
their belongings—"mit Sack und Pack," as Ratkaj says in his report—on
the Nazareno. This ship was part of the Spanish fleet that was to sail to
Mexico that year. There were now 23 Jesuits, 18 of whom, after disembarking in
Veracruz, were to travel to the Philippines. Ratkaj and others (including
Esteban Kino and Neumann) were destined to serve in Mexico.
The new viceroy for the Spanish possessions in Mexico, Don Antonio de la
Garda, Count of Paredes, Marquis of La Laguna, also traveled on the same fleet
with his wife. On the same day, July 7, these important figures, along with a
large crew, also boarded the flagship, and salutes were fired in their honor.[54]
Because of the great haste with which they boarded the Nazareno, the
Jesuit travelers forgot the provisions necessary for the voyage at the port.
For three days they had to live on only bread and water. The following day,
boats and sailboats brought the ships out to sea, ready to sail. Ratkaj and his
companions had bad luck again. The tugboat pulling their vessel out to sea took
it by chance to a shallow, sandy area where the wind drove it against a rock.
The Nazareno was badly damaged and began to sink, causing consternation and
confusion. The men called for help, and the captain signaled for assistance by
firing a cannon. Meanwhile, the crew, completely helpless, fled to the upper
decks to save their lives. Ratkaj described all this in a letter with style and
very agile words[55].
The ship was so badly damaged that the admiral ordered it abandoned and
all passengers rescued. Lifeboats converged, picking up all the shipwrecked
travelers. In the accident, the Jesuits lost all their belongings and the items
they had prepared over two years, hoping to travel to Mexico. At 8 p.m., the
group of Jesuits, along with Ratkaj, returned to the Jesuit college.
As soon as Father Procurator learned what had happened, he threw himself
into action. Rushing to the port, he visited each of the ships, requesting that
they take in the shipwrecked passengers. The ships were already out of the
port, packed with travelers. Thanks to the viceroy's intervention, eleven of
the Jesuits managed to board various ships. At the last minute, Ratkaj almost
made it onto the ships as well, along with Kino and Gerstl.
Seeing that the Procurator was trying to get the missionaries on board
for the Philippines, Ratkaj approached him and said that "Christ shed his
precious blood not only for the Filipinos but also for the Mexicans"
living in the mission regions of "Cinalos, Tarahumara, and
California." Ratkaj's words moved the Procurator so much that he
intervened on behalf of him and his comrade, Rev. De Angelis, securing them
places on the ship San Diego. They were well received, and the captain lodged
them in his own cabin. There was another distinguished guest there, the newly
appointed bishop for the city of Manila in the Philippines, a Dominican priest.
Upon entering the cabin, overcome by hunger, exhaustion, and exertion, Ratkaj
fainted.[56]
On July 24, 1680, Ivan (John) Ratkaj left Europe for good. Twelve of his
Jesuit friends, in despair, remained behind him, unable to join him.[57] Kino will arrive in Vera Cruz in May of the following
year. In Mexico, he will become a renowned missionary and geographer of Baja
California. Some decades later, Ratkaj's compatriot—Father Konscak—driven by
the same ideals as Ratkaj, will arrive in Baja California, continue Kino's
explorations, and definitively and beyond any doubt prove that California is
not an island but a peninsula.[58]
The Atlantic Crossing
Ratkaj vividly described his voyage across the ocean to the Mexican port
of Vera Cruz in a letter he sent in November 1680 to his Province in Austria.
The letter is particularly interesting because it reveals the conditions under
which people traveled to the New World at that time.
After fainting in his cabin, Ratkaj received the attention of the Bishop
of Manila, who treated him paternally, providing him with food and everything
necessary for his recovery. Ratkaj and his colleague De Angelis were guests of
the bishop, but the pious conversations held with him were of greater comfort
to them than the excellent food." Also of great interest is the detailed
description of the order of the day of the Spanish royal fleet during its
voyage to America[59].
Ratkaj also praises the good behavior of the crew and passengers. He
then draws attention to the excellent food, which can be considered truly
exquisite compared to the missionary diet that awaited him in the Mexican
mountains. Most of the food was served on silver tableware.[60]
To show their gratitude and somehow repay all this, the Jesuits dedicated their
free time to spiritual services. Regarding this, he adds cheerfully: "Our
efforts were so successful that all our passengers received Holy Communion at
least once and thus renewed their spiritual lives."[61]
Of course, those sailing ships traveled very slowly in those days. These
waters were already known before Ratkaj's time, during his lifetime, and for a
long time afterward, by ships from Dubrovnik and other Croatian ports in
Dalmatia. Before and after Ratkaj's time, sailing ships with Croatian crews—and
in most cases, Croatian-owned—sailed the Atlantic routes toward the northern,
central, and southern coasts of the Atlantic. Many headed as far as the
southern tip of South America, Cape Horn, circumnavigating it to reach Chile,
Peru, and California. These early Croatian contacts with the American continent
have remained largely unknown until now because Croatian historians have not
sufficiently investigated them.
On the first two days of Ratkaj's voyage—July 12 and 13—the ships made
little progress. It wasn't until the 14th that Cádiz and the Spanish coast
disappeared from sight. On July 21, the admiral's ship raised its flags, turned
around, and stopped, signaling that the other ships had to gather around it. A
meeting was held on board with all the captains regarding the subsequent voyage
to Mexico and other destinations. The fleet of ships on the open sea offered a
magnificent spectacle to those present, who watched from their respective
vessels.[62]
On July 25, the feast of Saint James, protector of the Spanish Empire,
was celebrated on all the ships. As flags waved in the ocean breeze, cannons
greeted the great Spanish day with their thunderous roar. On Ratkaj's ship, the
San Diego, the Bishop of Manila celebrated a solemn sung Mass with a relevant
sermon. That same day, the fleet split up, and 17 ships set sail for Cape Verde
and other Spanish colonies.[63]
But the festivities did not end there. A few days later, on July 31, the
feast of Saint Ignatius, founder of the Jesuit Order, was celebrated. This is a
traditional feast among the members of the Order as well as among the Spanish
population. On this occasion, too, the Bishop of Manila celebrated a solemn
Mass, with a large number of passengers receiving Holy Communion.[64] On August 10, far out at sea, they were caught in a
great storm with hurricane-force winds that tossed the ships in all directions.
The tremendous tempest persisted for four days, so that even the most
experienced sailors feared being lost in the gigantic waves. The captain of the
ship on which Ratkaj was traveling ordered a large quantity of objects to be
thrown overboard. The ship listed so low that its masts almost touched the
waves. The waves crashed over the bow, and on the last day, a young man was
swept away. At that moment, the sea suddenly calmed "as if it had been
waiting for that victim." That same day, the council of captains met to
determine the distance to the West Indies.
On August 15, the Feast of the Assumption of Mary, they sighted the
islands of the West Indies in the distance. The passengers, with great joy,
greeted flocks of birds flying towards the ships.
It was customary at that time for a well-armed ship to accompany the
fleet. Sailing at the rear of the convoy, it was called the Pinta. The
escorting ships had to maintain contact with it, but because it was quite
heavy, it moved more slowly, which meant the entire convoy had to travel at the
same speed. This is what happened on this occasion, as can be seen from
Ratkaj's letter. For this reason, when they arrived at the island of Puerto
Rico on August 18, they were 10 days behind schedule. On the 22nd of the same
month they left the island, and on the 28th they reached the port of San
Domingo on the same island, and on the 30th, as Ratkaj says: "...we saw
the island of Jamaica, seized from the Spanish by the English"; in a short
time they "populated the land, introduced laws, the arts and agriculture,
building everything so that this land is not behind any European country"
[65].
On September 6th they left Cuba behind and two days later they reached a
shallow area called the Sund. There were abundant fish and turtles there.
"In half an hour," Ratkaj writes, "we brought about forty fish
on deck, each weighing between twenty and thirty fattas, and also four very large
ones called burones weighing approximately four hundred fattas" [66].
The next day they left these waters and entered the open sea again.
There they encountered a group of Spanish warships guarding Mexican waters
against the threat of enemies and pirates. Recognizing each other, the captain
of the war flotilla fired a salute in honor of the viceroy, who, as we know,
was traveling to Mexico. Two days later, on September 15, after a 65-day
voyage, they docked in the Mexican port of Veracruz. The long and arduous
journey was over. Ivan Ratkaj, the first Croatian missionary, was now in
America.[67]
In Mexico
On the evening of September 15, the Jesuits, and Ratkaj with them,
arrived at their Order's college in the city of Veracruz. They received a warm
welcome.
Soon the delegates of the Jesuit provincial in Mexico arrived, inviting
the newcomers by letter to visit him in the city of Puebla de los Ángeles
(Ratkaj calls it "Engelstadt," German for "city of angels")
to expand missionary activity in his province. Ratkaj continues: "Two of
the delegates were tasked with convincing us to accept those missions which,
due to a lack of priests, had 13 vacant positions... I felt happy to have
followed the Lord's voice to dedicate myself to this noble missionary task and,
for His love, to have left my best friends and my homeland. I
refused to listen to those who tried to make me give up" [68].
On the eighth day after their arrival, the group headed towards the town
of Puebla de los Ángeles, which was located on the route to Mexico City.
Traveling, they passed through several towns dependent on the city of Puebla.
In one of them, they found eighty thousand sheep and "many thousands of
cattle." Thus they arrived in Puebla. Early October. The provincial, with another
priest, welcomed them at the city entrance. Getting into carriages, they were
taken to the Jesuit college, where they were warmly
greeted by about forty brothers of the Order. Beforehand, they went to the
church to give thanks to God. The church was so adorned with gold that Ratkaj
admitted he had never seen anything like it in his entire life.[69]
While Ratkaj's description doesn't leave us with a very vivid and rich
image of the journey to Puebla de los Ángeles, Father M. Dunne, an American
Jesuit who excellently described the life of the "Black Cassocks" in
his works, left a very vivid account of this journey between Veracruz and
Mexico City.[70]
According to Ratkaj's testimony, the group stayed in Puebla for only
four days. Then they set out for the ancient city, the "Aztec
Capital," following the route through the region "whose
natural beauties travelers still admire today."[71] They arrived in Mexico
City on October 10, staying for the first three days at the Jesuit college. Later, they were transferred to the Jesuit
Professed House. Ratkaj himself, a traveler and writer, notes that the city is
roughly the same size as Vienna, without the suburbs, and that the buildings
are only one story high due to the frequent earthquakes.
[71] "The streets are straight. There is much gold and silver; gold
adorns almost all the churches; they are a marvel to behold. The fruits that
grow here are very inexpensive... The Spanish king gives each of the new
missionaries 300 thalers to cover their initial missionary needs. The royal
treasury pays the same sum annually to each missionary. The Professed House is
much more beautiful than the college, even though it is smaller. Currently,
there are 70 missionaries here.
The interior of the Professed House shines marvelously with gold and
beautiful paintings, the walls being practically completely covered. The
current archbishop of Mexico—who was also serving provisionally as viceroy—is a
very devout and well-known priest of the Order of Saint Benedict. From him, we
received permission to hear confessions, and he gave us the necessary authority
without any difficulty. There is also a university here, where both secular and
religious priests study. Philosophy has three degrees; the other schools are
represented by almost the double, and the number of students does not reach
1500 [72].
As for the Spaniards, they represent the dominant group, and all the
Indians are their subjects. According to their reports, the Indian population
is intelligent, easily learns various trades, and many are good painters and
engravers. Chocolate (and this Mexican word was accepted worldwide) is a
general custom, even among the poorest. Each of the missionaries received three
funtas of chocolate monthly from their superiors.
The letter—actually his itinerary—in which he left his important
testimonies for future generations, Ratkaj had actually addressed to his
Austrian Provincial, dating it in Mexico on November 16, 1680. He signed it as
"Diener in Christo Joannes Ratkay der Gesellssehaft JESU Missionarius"
(Servant of Christ, Juan Ratkay, of the Society of Jesus, missionary) [73]. The
letter was dated the last day of his Their stay in the
city was short, for as he himself says, "Tomorrow I will depart for the
mission that was assigned to me," and which is "like all the other
missions, well-supplied with everything necessary."
Ratkaj and Neumann had to go to the northwestern region of Mexico, in
the Tarahumara province, inhabited by the Tarahumara Indian tribe. It is
located in the region of Mexico now called Chihuahua.
The priests Kino and Gerstl arrived in Mexico eight months later, taking
a longer route through Panama, and "traveling with mules along the same
route that Ratkaj took on foot, Kino arrived in Mexico probably on June 1,
1681."
The group of the "Black Cassocks" dispersed throughout the
world, and "the romantic account of their personal experiences in America
and in the islands of the western seas occupies a large part of Stöcklein's
work, Der Neue Welt-Bott, considered one of the greatest adventure stories of
all time." [74] In these adventures our Ratkaj had his personal part.
Of those who departed from Italy together, ten arrived in Mexico. Some
decided to travel to the Philippines, and others to
the Mariana Islands. Reverend Gerstl was among those who preferred distant and
mysterious China. De Angelis, Ratkaj's companion across the Atlantic, later
died a martyr in the Mariana Islands.[75]
Ratkaj and Neumann had the opportunity to choose missions from among
several Mexican regions: Sinaloa, Tulia, Sonora, and Tarahumara. The provincial
in Mexico City, Bernardo Pardo, "benevolently allowed the new missionaries
to choose their preferred missions." But Ratkaj and Neumann
"instinctively," and in the spirit of Loyola, "chose regions
considered the most difficult and dangerous": the northern Tarahumara,
"which was considered, because of its inaccessibility and cold climate...
as a particularly difficult place for work."[76]
Indeed, on November 17, 1680, Ratkaj and his entourage left Mexico City.
They rode slowly with their mules. They carried with them the Provincial's
recommendation to the superior of all the Jesuits in Tarahumara, stating that,
in the superior's words, Ratkaj and Neumann "could work like twelve
men," so selfless and energetic were they. The entourage included several
servants leading the mules, guided by a trusted man. Fifteen mules and horses
carried the missionaries, their baggage, and supplies for the Indians, as well
as for missionary needs. These included ornaments, medals, necklaces, cashmere,
colored fabrics, nails, thread, rope, various utensils, as well as wine,
chocolate, and medicines.[77]
In 20 days, they covered a distance of 325 km. On December 7, the
caravan arrived in the city of Zacatecas, known for its silver mines. The next
day they continued their arduous journey and only on December 14th did they
reach the city of Guadiana, capital of Nueva Vizcaya.[78]
Ratkaj's companion, Neumann, also described this journey in a letter to a
Jesuit friend in Czechia.[79]
A few days later, the priests and their entourage, very tired, arrived
in the city of Durango. There they rested for a week at a Jesuit college along
with other brothers. Up to that point, as Ratkaj says, they
traveled without danger. The only real threat to the Indians in those
regions was Spanish deserters (former soldiers and serfs) "who, in
desperation, pillage and kill" travelers.[80]
But the real danger threatened them further north, in the region called
Tepehuán, where bands of hostile Indians gathered in the mountains. In Durango,
Ratkaj and Neumann waited for other travelers and a military detachment to join
them before setting off on the perilous northeast route. The Bishop of Nueva
Vizcaya, Bartolomé de Escańuela (a Franciscan), invited the two Jesuits to
lunch and visited them the day before their departure to bid them farewell.[81]
After celebrating Christmas in Durango, they continued their journey on
December 27. They were accompanied by twenty well-armed Spanish soldiers. In
the first two days, they covered much of the distance. They crossed the
mountainous region and descended to the plains, where the Ramos River flowed.
They arrived safely at Papasquiero, where the Jesuit mission of San Jacobo,
considered the principal mission in the Tepehuán territory, had existed for
eighty years. Here, the first group of soldiers was replaced by another. Next
they reached the place called Bocas "without danger to their lives",
having to pass through a mountain, where the Indians three days earlier had
killed a Spaniard[82].
“Between Bocas and Parral, with its many rich silver mines,” our Father
writes, “from here to Hucotislan the roads are so dangerous that it is only
possible to travel at night in groups and with armed escort” [83].
This last part of the journey covered almost 100 miles. In the mining
town of Parral, “Fathers Neumann and Ratkaj met the Governor, who had only
recently settled in this mining center” [84]. The travelers then continued
northwest. On February 1, Ratkaj and Neumann finally arrived at the Jesuit mission
called San Ignacio Coyachic, where they were received by Father Visitor Joseph
Tarda [85]. In early March, Tarda sent Neumann to his destination at the
Sisoguichic mission. After very fruitful work, Father Neumann left a
comprehensive account of his work in an excellent book, which was later used as
a manual by the Austrian Jesuits [86]. The Croatian Father in Tarahumara
Tarahumara lies southeast of the Rio Grande, which forms a long border
between Mexico and the United States. It is located east of the Gulf of
California, in the westernmost part of Mexico. Ratkaj was sent to Ypomeran on
February 2nd and mentions that this region is "near Hobas and New
Mexico" [87]. (A U.S. state in the southwest, along the Mexican border, is
now called New Mexico).
The Tarahumara or Tarhumar region belongs to the Mexican province
(officially: State) of Chihuahua and extends across its southern and
southwestern parts. It is inhabited by the Tarahumara people. Their
settlements, several centuries old, are located in the central mountainous
area, called the Mesa Central by Mexicans. The most important river is the
Conchos, and the main mountain range is the Sierra Madre.
Here, along this river and other smaller ones, the Jesuits successfully
founded many missions in the 17th century. Here they worked and built for
decades before founding their first missions in Baja California at the end of
the 16th century, on the other side of the Californian bay. In this way, the
Tarahumara missions linked their central Mexican territories with the more
distant regions of western California. While the western Tarahumara areas lay
along the Gulf of California, on the other side stretched the unknown and
desolate lands of Baja California, known to the Spanish in Ratkaj's time.
Indeed, it was not even known whether it was an island or a peninsula. The
Tarahumara, who even today remain "among the most cohesive and pure Indian
tribes in Mexico," were at that time a vigorous and independent people,
dark-skinned, upright, and swift as deer or gazelles.[88]
Ratkaj described the Tarahumara people and region in his report, dated
February 21, 1681, which appeared as Report No. 29 in Der Neue Welt-Bott,
occupying three full pages in German Gothic script in Stöklein's book. This
report is of particular value as the first known account written by one of the
early Croatian emigrants about a part of his new homeland: America. For the
history of Croatian emigration and their activity in America, this was an
interesting and exceptionally valuable document.
In it, he laments that thirteen missions had to be abandoned due to a
shortage of priests. As expected, missionary life proved very difficult. They
lived in constant danger. The missionaries ate poorly. They could not trust
their Indian guides and servants, because they would run away at will. Indians
and bandits engaged in pillaging and killed the poor missionaries. Ratkaj also
complains that the mules sometimes got stuck and left the missionaries on foot.
Furthermore, the Indians stole these animals. The lack of drinking water
was particularly keenly felt, and the missionaries—especially during their
journey—suffered from thirst and hunger. He then adds: “Unable to obtain
anything else, we had to be content with bread and water, and, on days of
fasting, with cheese and chocolate. But, after a while, we got used to
everything, because hunger adapted us to the meagerest food. Our fervent desire
to preach to the pagans made up for the lack of food. I could even say that I
felt better when I arrived here than when I left Mexico.[89]
Each mission was territorially divided into several villages, called by
Ratkaj in German “kleine Völker” (little villages). These are, in fact, small
settlements a few miles apart. In each mission there is a Jesuit, who, apart
from the church, lives in a small house with a garden and some animals,
especially mules necessary for traveling and visiting the sick.[90]
Ratkaj describes these primitive natives: “Our Indians have no culture
or civilization. They don’t even know what baked bread is, living on corn that
they burn over a fire.” They are unfamiliar with fruit trees, except for those
our Jesuit fathers imported from Europe. That's why there's little variety in
their food. If a missionary wants to eat well, he has to bring a Spanish cook
from Mexico City at his own expense and pay him handsomely. Bearing all these
dangers in mind, who would want to come to these regions, especially near New
Mexico, where last year some 30,000 Indians rebelled and killed about fifteen
Spaniards along with twenty-seven Franciscans?” Ratkaj was referring to the
great Indian rebellion of 1680 in New Mexico, which began at Mission San Juan.
It is a proven fact that the Indians killed about 400 Spaniards on that
occasion and completely destroyed 21 missions. These missions had been founded
at the beginning of the 16th century and were led and governed by Franciscans.
The entire northern part of the Santa Fe region (now within the U.S.) was
devastated, and the surviving Spaniards had to retreat to the city of El Paso
on the lower Rio Grande (now part of Texas, U.S.). The Indians to whom Father
Ratkaj had to preach Christianity were known for being cattle rustlers and
plunderers. They especially enjoyed stealing cattle, mules, and horses from the
Spanish. They didn't limit themselves to small villages, but sometimes attacked
small towns and even cities, such as Guadiana. From this city, on one occasion,
they stole about a thousand head of cattle.
But not all tribes are the same. There are differences among them in
culture and natural ability; for example, "those around Mexico City are by
nature lazy... and work for a third of the wage a Spaniard earns." It is a
fact, "and all Americans agree on this, that the Indians learn very
quickly and can do anything after seeing how it is done once, and can become
very good artisans." Thus, for example, if an Indian sees someone play the
harp once or twice, he will immediately try to imitate his teacher and will
soon surpass him. They have dark complexions and wander about almost naked;
some of them dress in a kind of cloak. They prepare a liquor
from the leaves of a tree, which they like to drink very much. They are
accustomed to getting completely drunk once a week. They call this liquor
pulque. To enjoy it, they must pay taxes to the King of
Spain" [91].
It is interesting to note that these customs still exist in the
Tarahumara today, and alcoholism is as rampant as in Ratkaj's time, without
them attaching any importance to it.[92] Ratkaj, as well as Neumann and the
other eyewitnesses, mentions the fact that the Tarahumara get drunk and
sometimes hold veritable orgies lasting for several days. Ratkaj, despite his
place of origin, where people readily drink wine, could not approve of these
alcoholic practices of the Tarahumara.
The Indians of Ratkaj's mission were very skilled hunters. They handled
arrows with such dexterity that, "when I have a gold coin between two
fingers, they are able to pull it out without injuring my fingers." Many
live in the mountains "like animals" before being persuaded to come
down to the plains to live in the towns or villages.
Ratkaj's following notes are interesting: "One thing particularly
surprises me about this North America: few people live here. Sometimes I
traveled several miles without seeing a soul. When I once encountered some of
them in the wilderness, they were quite frightened, standing still, without
saying a word, and very amazed by our presence... Many, however, work in the
gold and silver mines that abound in this mountainous, forestless region. His
Catholic Majesty, the King of Spain, receives one-fifth of all this for his
Treasury; nevertheless, this amounts to an annual income of five to six million
Spanish thalers. The mines belong to those who discover them and wish to exploit
them for themselves. The richest silver mines are located in the towns of
Parral, Zacatacas, Kanazabi, and Indike" [93].
This entire wild region was guarded by some 130 Spanish soldiers,
divided into about five small detachments. And while the Spanish military
occupiers were interested in exploiting the mines and cattle, the dedicated
missionaries strove to spread the faith and civilization.
What their compatriot says in this report about America, where so few
people live, is of interest to Croatians. He is of the opinion that "a
German general with about two thousand Germans and about 500 Croatian hussars
could conquer all of North America up to the 70th parallel north." This
would facilitate the spread of the faith and culture. It follows that Father
Ratkaj had a high opinion of the military capabilities of his fellow Croatians.
To give an idea of the vastness of the territory he refers to,
the 70th parallel north passes precisely through the northernmost tip of
present-day Canada.
Ratkaj also describes the administrative organization and distribution
of Mexico, paying attention as well to the organization and power of the
Catholic Church. The bishops and archbishops had large annual incomes. But
there were also significant differences, especially regarding salaries. For
example, while the annual salary of the Archbishop of Puebla reached 8,000
thalers, Ratkaj's superior, the Bishop of Guadiana, received only 3,000
thalers. Ratkaj complained against him for his lack of favor toward the Jesuits
and for being more concerned with imposing his strict authority than with
helping the missionaries in their arduous work.[94]
The Viceroy, on the other hand, was a great friend of the Jesuits and
all the other missionaries. Therefore, he promised to secure greater financial
support from the Spanish government, which led the Jesuit Provincial to intend
to expand the work of his brothers in the Order.[95]
Ratkaj also noted that the authority of the Jesuits in Mexico was very
considerable, much greater than in Spain itself. On some occasions in Mexico,
when enemy Indians attacked Spanish caravans, they killed all the soldiers but
freed the Jesuits. They even escorted them to the first Spanish settlement or
outpost without harming them.
Such are, for example, the Indians of the Topokán and Chichimekan
tribes, who seem to be "devils and not human beings" because they
shave their beards and paint their faces in a very ugly way. They live in
caves, watching the Spaniards from these "devil holes," as the Spaniards
call them, attacking them with tremendous shouting and countless arrows. They
slaughter everyone: both men and mules. Here, it is believed that the mules can
smell the presence of these Indians from afar, becoming frightened and
fleeing" [96].
Compared to these Indians who eat raw mule meat, even the Tarahumara are
"gentle and civilized and enjoy trade; trade is not done with money but by
exchanging objects, each having its own special value. Thus, for example, for a
needle, the Indians gave two chickens, for a knife two sheep, while a meter of
cashmere is paid for with a horse."
At the end of 1680 and the beginning of 1681, Ratkaj had the opportunity
to see a huge comet at night. Of course, everyone was frightened and amazed,
because traditionally, especially in Europe, it was believed that such a sign
foretold wars or other tragedies for humanity. Ratkaj was also worried, not
knowing how to explain the phenomenon. "The explanation of all this,"
he says, "I entrust to God. But I fear that this sign is a bad omen for
Western Europe, especially for the Spanish monarchy" [97].
Of greater comfort to him was the instruction and education of the
Indian youth. These young people were "the richest fruits harvested in
these missions." Twice daily, he taught them religion and other subjects
in his modest dwelling. The children and young people sang together, attended
Mass, received the sacraments, and helped their humble teacher and priest in
various ways.
Upon completing his report (to the provincial in Vienna), news arrived
that brought him great joy: "Three of our priests will begin their
missionary work in California and New Mexico, thus spreading the Gospel among
the pagans, a service for which I myself had recommended myself to my
superiors." According to his own words, his "only desire" was to
be sent to the unknown regions of California and there offer God his greatest
sacrifice: his own life, that is, to become a martyr for the faith.[98]
In his report, Ratkaj does not indicate the location where he wrote it.
He says only that he wrote it "in the confines of New Mexico." P. M.
Dunne, in his detailed report on the work of the Jesuits in Tarahumara,
mentions that Father Ratkaj had been sent to Carichic to replace the Basque
priest Rolandegui, who was called back to Mexico City. Dunne also states that
Ratkaj, along with Neumann, remained in the town of Coyachic "during the
month of February 1681." studying the Indian language" [99]. However,
Ratkaj himself, in his second letter of February 25, says that on the second
day he went to Ypomeran, but it is not known how long he stayed there.
A little later, Dunne recounts Neumann's journey to his village and
that, passing through Carichic, he met "Father Bernardo Rolandegui, who
had to return to the Capital shortly and who accompanied Neumann to
Sisoguichic." Ratkaj makes no mention whatsoever of his eventual stay at
that time in Carichic. Neumann, Rolandegui, and his Indian companion arrived in
Sisoguichic on March 7, 1681. Neumann would spend twenty years there. When he
arrived, this mission had already been vacant for three years. From the above,
it is easy to see that Dunne is confused and uncertain about Ratkaj's stay at
that time. Ratkaj would arrive later in Carichic, which was a new mission, only
becoming a priest in November 1675. small village.
The reason the Sisoguichic mission remained vacant lies in the fact that
in such harsh places, the native Mexicans or Creoles generally fell ill from
the unbearable climate and way of life, and many died. Paradoxically, the
European natives—despite not being accustomed to such a climate—could more
easily endure the rigors of these places. Neumann and his European friends were
"resilient, strong-willed, and determined," enduring everything, as
Father Neumann himself, who lived there for twenty years, proved to be a prime
example.[100]
His mission, Sisoguichic, was the most remote settlement in the
Tarahumara community, and he continued living and working for another
thirty-one years in the town of Carichic. In that very difficult terrain, Neumann
became a "Tarahumara apostle." Since he lived in conditions similar
to those experienced by Ratkaj, we can easily infer how Ratkaj proper fared.
Based on conflicting sources, it can be concluded that Ratkaj was soon
at the Pesiquechic mission, located between Sisoguichic and Carichic, but quite
far south of the town of Ypomeran. This town is marked on the map of the
Tarahumara missions at the northernmost point of the same province, quite far
from Carichic, which is probably why Ratkaj notes in his report of February 23,
1687, that he wrote it on the fringes of New Mexico.
It is certain that the first 20 months of Ratkaj's stay in that region
were fraught with various weather-related setbacks, hurricanes, floods, and
alarming rumors of indigenous rebellions.[101]
Later, in August 1681, Ratkaj was warned about the imminent Indian
rebellion. Alarmed by these reports, Ratkaj's friend Neumann fled Sisoguichic,
passing through Ratkaj's mission in Pesiquechic, and heading for Carichic.
Neumann learned that Ratkaj had left two days earlier "somewhere
east." After spending the night in Ratkaj's modest room,
Neumann continued on his way" [102]. We do not know why, where, or
for how long Ratkaj went, probably because of the threat of rebellion. However,
the predicted rebellion did not materialize. The missions carried out their
work with renewed rigor and greater success than before. The Croatian writer M.
D. Krmpotic, in his brief biography of Ratkaj, mentions that from the very
beginning he baptized some forty Indians and that he quickly learned the Indian
language.
We do not know where Krmpotic found these documents [103]. Allan
Christelow, in his study of Neumann, states (citing a letter from Neumann dated
February 2, 1682) that Ratkaj "was sent to a mountain mission:
Guerucarichic in the upper Sierra Madre, which is today the southwestern part
of Chihuahua." He also says that Ratkaj, because of his precarious health,
was Having moved to Carichic, the climate is somewhat
milder. Thus, the confusion surrounding Ratkaj's first stay only increases. But
it is certain that, towards the end of 1682, he arrived in the town of
Carichic, where he would remain until his death.[104]
How Ratkaj lived can be roughly reconstructed from the notes of his
neighbor Neumann, who wrote in 1682, that is, while Ratkaj was still alive.[105]
Neumann's dwelling had three rooms. The largest served as a dining room
and workshop, while another was a bedroom, and the third a kind of storage
room. The priest himself built the interior walls and doors. Like his
colleagues, Neumann, in addition to his priestly profession, was also a
carpenter, tailor, cook, altar boy, and nurse for his parishioners. He
personally washed his clothes and did all the other chores because "the
Indians neither know nor understand much about these tasks."[106]
A The missionaries
were not allowed to have servants or cooks. The regulations for these missions
permitted only the arrival once a week of an Indigenous woman who would prepare
enough tortillas for the entire week. This Mexican specialty is actually a thin dough made from unleavened corn flour, cooked on a
very hot griddle. Neumann's kitchen was a small hut some distance from his
room.
In those missions, it was also customary for two young Indians to live
with the missionary, assisting and obeying him. Neumann also had two of these
undecided children. He provided for them as if they were his own sons, feeding,
clothing, and treating them very well, knowing that otherwise the boys would
run away with their parents. They helped him in the church, served him in the
dining room, and so on. In his absence, they looked after the house, led the
congregational prayers, and also assisted in catechism and other religious
practices with their fellow countrymen. The Indians called them Temastianes.
This practice was almost common in all the missions.[107]
Although Ratkaj described these indigenous people with considerable
optimism, in reality, it was very difficult to work with them, as Father
Neumann himself testified. He described them as very cunning and treacherous
people, from whom sincerity was hard to be expected. He even calls them
"experienced hypocrites, and as a rule, the worst are those who seem the
best." In the new settlements, where they were taken from their mountain
caves, they had their own leaders. Although the Jesuits themselves chose them
as the best and most trustworthy, they were often precisely the worst and most
dangerous.[108]
In many cases, the fact that an Indian was baptized did not signify a
change of life, and he did not renounce his pagan beliefs. Thus, Neumann
complains of his converts because "they remain completely indifferent to
good, manifesting all their carnal passions and an unyielding inclination to
get drunk."[109]
As we have already mentioned, the year 1681 was very interesting in that
part of America. The foremost expert on the Tarahumara missions, Peter M.
Dunne, calls the period from February 1681 to February 1682 "the
twelve-month kaleidoscope." And so it was. Summer passed with persistent
rumors of a planned rebellion. But despite all the dangers and threats, the
missionaries had ample time for religious celebrations, such as the Assumption
on August 15. On that day, Father Neumann and six of his companions
definitively took their vows in the Society of Jesus in the town of San Rafael
Mátachic. The ceremony was witnessed by all the missionaries of the Upper
Tarahumara except Ratkaj, who had to remain at his mission "because it was
centrally located, and from there services were provided in case of emergency
to all the other organized missions" [110]. Thus, Ratkaj missed the
opportunity to make his final vows, and he would not be offered another chance
to do so.
Among the guests were also five Spaniards with Captain García, a good
friend of the Jesuits. It was a great and solemn day for the Christian groups
of the Tarahumara. To win their favor, the Jesuits entertained them with a
feast of meat, a true luxury in that year when almost exclusively fish was
eaten, for it was a year of scarcity and famine. Along with the religious
rites, a festival was also organized for the people with music and horse races,
where the Indians displayed their skill. There was no alcohol, but they danced,
sang, and shouted until dawn. Then again rumors circulated about preparations
for rebellion, but thank God, it did not occur.[111]
In 1681 the missionaries also had problems regarding ecclesiastical
jurisdiction. The bishop, based in the city of Durango, Monsignor Bartolomé de
Escańuela, was a Franciscan, and who, at his time, was very affectionate
towards Ratkaj and Neumann. Lately he was causing the Jesuits more and more
inconvenience. He assumed complete control of the missions, trying to remove it
from the Superior of the Jesuits. The governor of the province of Nueva Vizcaya
(to which Tarahumara belonged) as well as the viceroy Tomás Antonio de la Garda
y Aragón (the same one who traveled from Cádiz in the same fleet with Neumann
and Ratkaj) were faithful protectors of the Jesuits. They intervened in that
dispute, resolving it in favor of the Jesuits. Furthermore, the viceroy gave
orders to increase the number of missionaries in that region and, for this
purpose, also provided the necessary means[112].
A principios del ańo 1682, en el mes de
febrero, cayó la nieve en la Tarahumara superior como no se recuerda que en
muchos ańos atrás. Men and animals were isolated from the rest of the
world. Ratkaj and Neumann could not leave their homes for several days and
almost died of cold. Durante algunos días no tuvieron nada para el fuego y nadie pudo
visitarlos. Furthermore, they suffered "due to the lack of
several necessary elements, because until that moment nothing had been received
from the Royal Treasury of Mexico." Neumann became seriously ill and we
have no news about Ratkaj's condition. We know that, at the end of that winter,
he was already at the Carichic mission[113].
Neumann survived all these inconveniences, still working for many years.
How Ratkaj and the others who suffered the rigor of the moment fared, we do not
know. But in any case that tremendous winter had a serious impact on the
Tarahumara missions. La nieve y el frío casi exterminaron a las ovejas, vacunos, mulas y los
demás animales. But nonetheless, the missions progressed. When the
snow disappeared, the Rev. officially arrived to visit that region. father Bernardo Rolandegui, replaced at the time in Carichic
by Ratkaj. On February 14, the visitor Rolandegui made an official report on
the state of the Alta Tarahumara, as they officially called that missionary
region of Tarahumara. He also asked for some more missionaries to reinforce the
work of the seven who were carrying out their missionary work there. El número de los indios bautizados
alcanzaba la 8.000 [114].
Ratkaj's work and death
Little was written about Ratkaj's work in the years 1682 and 1683. It is
certain that the Tarahumara missions were recovering after the catastrophe of
last winter.
But the state of health of our missionary after that
cold and meager rations remains a mystery to us. According to some
reports, Ratkaj had been ill since 1681, which is why he was transferred to
Carichic, which had a more temperate climate. But whether he was actually ill
before arriving in Carichic, we cannot know for sure. In his letter of February
1681, he states that he was in good health. Therefore, the assertions about his
supposed illness before arriving in Carichic are not reliable.
According to Peter M. Dunne and his work "Early Jesuit Missions in
Tarahumara"—still the best history of Jesuit activity in that part of the
world—"the arrival of Neumann and Ratkaj and others later ensured the
permanent existence of the missions in northern Mexico" [115]. As we see,
some of this credit also belongs to this Croatian missionary.
The most important legacy Ratkaj left us in the final years of his short
life is a rather lengthy Latin manuscript. It is titled Relatio Tarahumarum
Missionum eiusque Taraumara Nationis Terresque Descriptio, and includes a map
of the region.
His Relatio Tarahumarum Missionum—as we will refer to it from now on—is
his most important written work. We do not know if any Croatian historians have
noted the existence of or written anything about this manuscript, which is
housed in the Archives of the Society of Jesus (Archivum Romanum Societatis
Iesu, Borgo Santo Spirito). For many years, the principal archivist of the
Society of Jesus in Rome was the Austrian Jesuit Josef Teschitel, who held that
position until early 1967.
I publicly thank him for making available to me the most important
documents relating to Ratkaj, among which I also found the aforementioned map
and description of the Tarahumara. If Ratkaj's "Relatio" truly went
unnoticed by our historians (even by Father Vanino himself), then we must thank
Rev. Teschitel for alerting me to this important manuscript by our compatriot
in Mexico. If the other version has not yet appeared in Croatian, it would be
the duty of the Jesuit Province of Croatia in Zagreb to translate and publish
it in both Latin and Croatian. As far as we know, the map was published in
Madrid in 1962 and in Mexico in 1967. The Relatio Tarahumarum Missionum is
written on 23 large pages. Given Ratkaj's small handwriting, the manuscript
contains approximately 12,000 words.
This is significant for Croatians because it is the first work written
by a Croatian emigrant and their first missionary on the American continent,
recounting a region of that continent. The work is also important for American
history, for the early history of Mexico, as well as for that period of European
missionary activity on that side of the Atlantic. On the first page, in the
upper left corner, as well as at the end of the manuscript, at the foot of page
23, Ratkaj indicated the date "20 Martii 1683". On the same page he
said he wrote it in Carichic. His signature is "Joannes Rattaky". He
finished it then on March 20 of the fateful year of 1683 [116].
Ratkaj used a style common in missionary reports of that era, sent from
lands across the sea. He described the region, the population, the customs, the
current missionary challenges, and offered suggestions for future work,
emphasizing everything that might be of interest to his superiors as well as
the civil authorities overseeing them.
This written work—as far as we know—is the last testimony written in
Ratkaj's hand and kept in the Society's archives, in the "Mexican"
department. How he spent the rest of that year is unknown. It was a decisive
year for Europe and the Austrian Empire, when the Turks, under the leadership
of Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa, besieged Vienna during the summer. The Polish
king, Jan Sobieski, and the Polish army saved Vienna and, probably, Austria and
Germany, preventing the Ottomans from reaching the Rhine River to water their
horses. In that battle, Juraj Krizanic, a compatriot of Ratkaj, a former
Siberian prisoner, and at that time a Dominican friar and chaplain in the
Polish army, also died in the Polish army. By the end of the same year, Ratkaj
was already dead, and his death caused more discussion and controversy than his
life. The central question in these discussions is: Did Ratkaj die of illness
or was he murdered?
According to the official obituary of the Society of Jesus in the
archives of Rome—called the "Elogium"—(where Ratkaj is listed as
"Ratkay"), written on November 3, 1684, Ratkaj died on December 26,
1683 [117]. The best historian of the Tarahumara, the American P. M. Dunne,
recounting Neumann's account, mentions that Ratkaj, after two years of work in
Carichic (which confirms that Ratkaj arrived there at the end of 1681 and not
earlier, as the uncertain Dunne claims), "died of a slow illness"
[118]. Herbert E. Bolton, whom we have cited several times, uncovering some of
his inaccuracies, says in his work that Ratkaj, whom he calls "the good
storyteller," "died soon after arriving at his mission" after
his arrival in the Tarahumara [119].
This is also inaccurate, because Ratkaj lived almost three years in the
missions before his death, and that cannot be considered either
"shortly" or "soon." The author of the study on Neumann,
Christelow, says: "There were rumors of poisoning, which Neumann
denied" [120]. It seems that this author did not carefully read Neumann's
statement in the book of Stöcklein. Because he was at the neighboring mission,
Neumann is the closest witness to the tragedy. In his letter of July 1686,
addressed to a friend in Czechia, Neumann speaks of Ratkaj's death and says
that one day an old Indian woman came to see him and told him that Ratkaj had
been poisoned by the Indians because he had forbidden their drunken orgies.
They threatened Neumann with the same death, but he remained unmoved, telling
them that he was not afraid and that he did not allow them to get drunk either.[121]
From Neumann's testimony in the book "Neue Welt-Bott," it is
not apparent that he denied Ratkaj's martyrdom. Moreover, in this same
collection of documents, a few pages after Neumann's letter, three Jesuit
martyrs of Tarahumara are mentioned, and Stöcklein here also mentions "the
Croatian-born baron" Ratkaj, who "from According to some witnesses,
he was poisoned by Indians... in Tarahumara territory" [122].
On December 26, the second day of Christmas, the indigenous people
likely celebrated and drank, following European custom. Ratkaj tried to forbid
them from drinking, and in revenge, they gave him poisoned water. Ratkaj and
his fellow missionaries had a persistent problem with this vice among the
indigenous people, especially with the "persistent sin of the
Tarahumara." It is known that in 1685, Neumann arrived at a secret place
where his parishioners were drunk, drove them out, and, disregarding the
danger, spilled the wine he found. In early 1686, he did the same after the old
indigenous woman confessed to him the cause of Ratkaj's death [123].
Before Neumann's death, Michael Bonbardi published his book on Austrian
martyrs in Graz, among whom were eight Jesuits who
died in the lands across the ocean. On page 24 is a drawn portrait of Ratkaj
with the following caption. "Father Joannes Ratkai, S.J., Croat," and
then, "poisoned in North America" [124]. This testimony
is also important because it identifies Ratkaj as Croat and considers him a
martyr. Bonardi, in turn, mistakenly records 1680 instead of 1683 as the year
of his death. This error is repeated later in some other sources. But the date
of Ratkaj's death—December 26, 1683—can now be considered certain.
In the few existing articles about Ratkaj, or his mention in other
articles and dissertations in Croatian, it is always emphasized that Ratkaj
died a violent death and was, consequently, a martyr for his faith. The
renowned Jesuit historian, Miroslav Vanino, S.J., who died in 1965 leaving the
voluminous manuscript recently published under the title Isusovci i Hrvatski
Narod (The Jesuits and the Croatian People), erroneously indicates 1684 as the
year of Ratkaj's death. All our authors agree with M. D. Krmpotic of Kansas
City, who states that Ratkaj "was poisoned by pagans, who gave him
poisoned water when he was thirsty, because he forbade them nocturnal orgies
and drunkenness... He died a martyr for his vocation"
[125].
An important Mexican work on the history of Jesuits in Mexico mentions
the Croatian Ratkaj in a list of martyrs who perished among the Indians [126].
Our compatriot, upon his death in 1683 in the town of Carichic de
Tarahunara, was only 36 years old. He died, as we have said, without having
definitively professed the solemn vows of his Order.
After his death, his successor in Carichic was an Italian Jesuit, born
in Sicily, Francisco María Piccolo. This Jesuit built a church in Carichic,
"the most beautiful in the entire province," which still exists
today. Later, Father Piccolo traveled west, passing through the Bay of
California, and joined the pioneer J. M. Salvatierri, who founded the first
Jesuit mission in Loreto in 1697. Thus, Ratkaj's successor fulfilled his dream.
In 1732, Father Fernando Koscak (Consag), a compatriot of Ratkaj, appeared here
in Baja California. He was born in the same region as Ratkaj, in the Croatian
city of Varazdin, in Croatian Zagorie.
His good friend Joseph Neumann, who traveled with him from Genoa in
1678, had a much better fate than Ratkaj. Together they arrived in the
Tarahumara mountains, becoming neighbors and
collaborators. This tireless missionary, who came to America as a member of the
Society of Jesus from the Czech province, survived all of life's adversities,
dangers, and difficulties. According to the research of the historian Dunne,
Father Neumann died in 1732 as the most well-known apostle of the Tarahumara
[127].
***
In the Croatian Historical Museum in Zagreb, there is an oil portrait of
Ratkaj, painted after his death. The artist's name is unknown. It measures 100
x 110 cm, and is reproduced here. Around the portrait, which depicts the
youthful face of a slender and refined priest, are painted four medallions,
each representing one of the four most important moments in his life. The first
illustration shows Ratkaj as a page at the imperial court of Leopold I. The
second refers to Ratkaj's entry into the Jesuit Order,
the third depicts Ratkaj's shipwreck in Cádiz, while the fourth scene presents
an indigenous man offering him a glass of water, with the Latin text above
reading: "A barbaro in odium fidei vaeneno necatur" (A barbaro in
odium fidei vaeneno necatur). This painting and the inscription on it provide
further evidence for the Jesuit authorities in Austria's belief that Ratkaj was
poisoned in Tarahumara.[128]
The Latin description of the painting below the portrait highlights that
Ratkaj was of "Natione Croata," meaning he was Croatian. It is also
stated below the portrait in the aforementioned book by M. Bonbardi that Ratkaj
was "Croatian." The title of Ratkaj's second letter, published in
Stöcklein's work *Der Neue West-Bott*, states this verbatim.
"Ein ander Brief P. Joannis Ratkay, der
Gesellschaft Jesu Missionarii aus der Oesterreichischen Provinz, an E. P.
Nicolaum Avancinum, gedachter Societät in Oesterreich und Hungarn vorgesetzten
Provincil. Geschrieben in Americanischien Landchaft New
Mexico den 25, Hornung (February) 1881. Inhalt: Reise- Beschreibung
Patris Ratkay eines gebohrenen Frey-Herrn aus dem uralten adelischen Geschlecht
der Croatischen chemaligen Baronen, nunmesr aber Grafen von Ratkay"
(Another letter from Father John Ratkaj, missionary of the Society of Jesus of
the Austrian province, addressed to R. P. Nicolás Avancino, provincial of said
Company in Austro-Hungary. [The letter] Was written in the
American town of Nueva Mexico, February 25, 1681. Contents: Description
of the voyage of Father Ratkaj, a freeborn lord, descendant of an ancient noble
family of Croatian barons and currently Count Ratkaj [129].
Consequently, there is no doubt from this historical source that Ratkaj
was a nobleman "of a very ancient Croatian noble family of former barons
and currently Counts Ratkaj." It is therefore strange that the American
historian H. E. Bolton refers to him in his works as "Hungarian,"
that is, Magyar. P. M. Dunne does the same in his work Early Jesuit Missions in
Tarahumara. In his other work—a very good one, by the way, concerning Baja
California—Black Robes in Lower California, Dunne calls Ratkaj on page 239
"Bohemian Nobleman"—a Czech nobleman—while on page 304 of the same
work he says "the Hungarian Ratkay."
These statements are ridiculous. Examples of this kind also appear in
other works by these two American historians and some of their compatriots when
referring to the two Croatian missionaries—Ratkaj and Konscak. Had they at
least read the title of Ratkaj's second letter in Der Neue Welt-Bott, they
would have known that Ratkaj was Croatian. Both assert this without reading
this or the other European and Mexican works and documents from which it is
clear that Ratkaj was Croatian. And the aforementioned Mexican work by G.
Decorme on the activities of the Jesuits in Mexico states on page 410 that
Ratkaj was "Croatian."
In the six letters I have recently received, based on Jesuit archives in
Rome, it is always repeated, and consistent with the other documents there,
that Ratkaj was Croatian. Moreover, so many centuries after his death, the
memory of Ratkaj as Croatian still survives today in his former mission of
Carichic (now Carichí). In January 1967, I wrote a letter to the Patkaj
mission, to which I received a reply dated February 15, 1967. It is signed by
Rev. Prefect Arellano, S.J. Rev. Father Arellano says that Ratkaj was a great
missionary to the Tarahumara and that he was from Croatia (sic). Currently, the
headquarters of the Apostolic Vicariate for Tarahumara is located in the city of
Carichí, and the "San José Minor Seminary" is located in the Ratkaj
mission itself. The work of Ratkaj, Piccolo, and Neumann has borne fruit, and
their sacrifices were not in vain.
Ratkaj's desire to become an American missionary and offer his life
there was fulfilled. It is a pity that this young, learned, and noble man from
a prominent Croatian family died so young. Despite his brief years of work in
Mexico, Ratkaj occupies an important place in the history written about the
activities of European pioneers in that part of the Americas.
Regardless of the fact that Ratkaj's work took place in the region that
now belongs to Mexico, Bolton and Dunne, as well as other American historians, consider him an important pioneer who, along with his
contemporaries, contributed greatly to the subsequent penetration of
civilization into the American Southwest and West. These Tarahumara missions
were links in the chain of missions and settlements that would connect, through
Sonora and Sinaloa, with Lower California and, later, also with Upper
California, that is, with present-day California in the United States. These
martyred Jesuits, in whose veins flowed European blood, paved the way for the
missionaries and pioneers who later opened the route to the peninsula and then to
the cities we know today as Los Angeles and San Francisco.
In short: Juan Ratkaj, S.J., is a Croatian contribution to Latin America
as well as to North America, a sacrifice of ours for Latin civilization and
culture, one of the earliest Croatian emigrants and pioneers on the American
continent. We consider it fitting to recognize his merits on our own behalf and
on behalf of the cultural community of both Americas.
Documents
Speech by Esteban Radic
Delivered on November 24, 1918, before the departure of a self-appointed
delegation to proclaim the union of Croatia with Serbia
"Without the people, there is no valid or justified
authority..."
"Gentlemen: As you can see, there is no public in the galleries, no
stenographers, and no secretary. It is therefore quite clear that I am not
speaking simply to make a publicity stunt, as some might think. I must also
emphasize that I do not hope to dissuade you from your decision and convince
you to accept mine. I completely agree with Deputy Hrvoj, who said he knew beforehand
that his explanation would be in vain. I speak, therefore, to fulfill my duty
and exercise a right that belongs to me, and especially to appeal to your
consciences. In this way, no one can claim that they were not warned of the
abyss into which you want to plunge the entire people, especially the Croatian
people.
A long line of speakers has passed through this chamber. But, what a
miracle!, all of them spoke, except for the
deputy." Hrvoj, as if they weren't in the heart of Croatia, as if this weren't
the center—I would even say the sanctuary—of Croatian defense, where throughout
the centuries the bold and wise voice has been heard in favor of equality and
justice, in pursuit of a better future for the Croatian people and the other
Slavic peoples.
Not only did none of the speakers remember Croatia and the Croats, but
they seemed to compete in their eagerness to harm and even destroy Croatia;
also in their quest to first oppress and then trample us Croats. But the most
serious error—an unforgivable sin—lies in the fact that none of the
aforementioned speakers seems to have learned anything from this war, as if
they knew nothing of their people, and therefore, they said precisely the
opposite of what the people want and need.
Gentlemen: You have your mouths full of words: "national
unity," "a single, unitary state," "a kingdom under the
Karageorgevich dynasty." You believe it is enough to say that we...
Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes are one people because we speak the same language,
and that's why we should also form a unitary and centralized state.
Furthermore, a kingdom, and only a kingdom, under the Karageorgevich dynasty
could save us and make us happy.
As for linguistic unity, all of us Slavs are, in reality, one people.
Ask the hundreds of thousands of our soldiers and prisoners who passed through
Galicia, Ukraine, Poland, Russia, Dobruja, Slovakia, or Serbia. They will all
tell you that in the aforementioned countries lives,
or rather, suffers, a single Slavic people. But you don't want to hear anything
about Slavism, or even about true Yugoslavism. You are obsessed with a strange
acronym SHS that means nothing to our hearts or our minds, and you are
surprised that Italians refer to this acronym as a kind of food.
Is there, perhaps, an example in history where the name of a nationality
is written with an abbreviation? Enigmatic. One can,
of course, abbreviate the name of a profession, a trade, a political party, an
organization, or even a state, but the name of a nation is not abbreviated,
just as one doesn't abbreviate a person's surname, and especially not the name
of an entire people, and certainly not in such a disingenuous way. SHS
originally stood for Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs; currently, it stands for
Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. And what will it stand for tomorrow?
Gentlemen: All the work you do in the National Council is neither
democratic nor constitutional, nor is it just or sane.
You are not democrats of any kind, because you care nothing for what
this terrible war has done to our people, especially the Croatian people. The
entire Croatian people, the peasantry in particular, hate militarism with an
almost indescribable intensity. But you are only interested in the opinion and
conviction of the people, who are even speaking of cowardice and fear because
the people do not want to join the army. You do not want to believe that our
peasantry remained dormant only very recently when the war shook them and
awakened them, making them men.
You do not understand the immense courage and wisdom of the one hundred
thousand or more Croatian peasants who, one after another, abandoned the front
lines, unwilling to return. Some fled to the forests, while others employed
every means—money, friendship, or cunning—to avoid risking their own lives in
the supposed defense of the king and the homeland, obeying foreign command.
You, gentlemen, turn a deaf ear to the fact that the peasant, especially
the Croatian peasant, wants nothing to do with king or tsar, nor with the
State, that State imposed upon him by force. Our peasant is so mature that he
knows, wherever he may be, that the State and the homeland reside in justice,
freedom, well-being, and culture. When you are beating him through the
gendarmerie and forcing him to supposedly defend us from the Italians, he says,
or at least thinks, that you are the same as the Hungarian or German
oppressors. But why? Simply because every man
understands what Deputy Hrvoj explained to you this morning when he said:
"Either Italy has the entire Entente on its side, and
then we alone cannot defend ourselves; or Italy acts on its own, in which case
we will prevail against it on the basis of our own rights. In no case will a
unitary state or anyone else save us."
You know very well, gentlemen, that neither Italy nor the Entente will
act according to Belgrade's wishes. You know very well that where the rights of
an entire people are worthless, neither will the influence of a government or a
person help.
And despite knowing all this, you are willingly and consciously telling
the lie that our people are in grave danger if they do not immediately and as
soon as possible accept a centralist kingdom, a centralist monarchy. You are
frightening our people and at the same time believing you can draw them into
your political camp. Perhaps you will succeed, I don't know, with the Slovenes;
Perhaps for a time they will succeed with the Serbs as well, but I know for
certain that they will not succeed with the Croats, and they will not succeed
because the entire rural population is against your centralism, as well as
against militarism, and at the same time they yearn for a republic and a
compromise with the Serbian people. If they want to impose centralism by force,
know what will happen: We Croats will say clearly and sincerely: well, if the Serbs
want a centralist state and government, God bless them, but we want no other
form of state organization than a federal republic.
Gentlemen, I have explained repeatedly in the meetings of this Central
Commission that the war turned our peasants into republicans and that it was
false to think that I was responsible for this and that I had led them down
this path. I already explained to you in all sincerity that I myself was
surprised—pleasantly, of course—when, at the first session of the Central
Committee Commission (in wartime), held on July 27, 1918, I noticed that all
the peasants were enthusiastically and decisively inclined toward the republic,
greeting me even before the session with cheers for the first republican,
evidently referring to my recent speech in the Sabor (Croatian Diet) in which I
attempted to demonstrate—and did demonstrate—that the Croatian Constitution of
the Banat is indeed republican, that the Banat of Croatia is the same as
republican Croatia, and that the Croatian Ban, strictly speaking, is a true
president of the republic.
But you did not believe this, just as you still do not believe it now.
And this is because for you, democracy is an empty word; Because not even in
their dreams does it cross their minds to live according to the meaning of this
word, a word that signifies the necessity, on every occasion and in every
matter of importance, of consulting the people, and that the entire life of the
state community must be governed according to the will of the majority, the
peasantry, and in no case according to the whims of an insignificant
aristocratic minority.
Gentlemen: Since you are democrats in name only, it is logical that you
do not act constitutionally; that is to say, you are not interested in laws of
any kind, nor regulations, nor customs, but rather you proceed violently and
arbitrarily. This meeting today is clear proof that you are not interested in
constitutionality, that is to say, in the most basic and decent way in which
the people should be heard.
For this reason, you have not convened the entire National Committee,
but only this Commission, knowing full well that the National Council does not
represent the people either, because it was not elected by the people; but here
at least all the parties and groups are represented, and, logically, the public
should also be here; In your presence, there can be no oligarchic arbitrariness
or arrogance.
I ask you, therefore: Why haven't you convened the full National
Committee, given the importance of this matter? Because you know you are acting
wrongly, and this would be exposed if the discussion were held publicly and in
a broader forum. But what a grave offense you are committing against the
constitution, as you are disregarding our state identity! Deputy Hrvoj spoke
well and irrefutably about this. And I don't want to repeat myself, but I warn
you that you are mistaken if you think it is possible to so arbitrarily
disregard more than a thousand years of Croatian history and the state life of
the Croatian people.
You do not value this history and this state life because, supposedly,
we Croats have lived under foreign rule, and this history is, supposedly, a
foreign history. But they are wrong, because they intentionally and consciously
refuse to acknowledge that we Croats—especially those of us on the left—fought
relentlessly against this foreign power, and that in this struggle we prevailed
so that the foreigner could never truly and completely own Croatia.
This is one thing. The other is that you, as educated men, know that history—a
thousand years of history—also has its moral value, without political
considerations. We consider a man who forgets everything he has lived through
and who does not remember his past to be insane and say that he has suffered a
mental breakdown. The Croatian people do not wish to be such a mentally ill
person and do not want to forget their past, especially since there is no
reason to do so. Well, you invoke the example of our Czech brothers. Read the
messages of your leader Masaryk—who, incidentally, wrote extensively against
historical rights—and you will see that he, too, insistently emphasizes Czech
state law, Czech historical borders, as well as the thousand-year-old Czech
political and cultural heritage.
You, your predecessors, and the political parties you represent are
currently repudiating everything you affirmed until yesterday in your speeches
and writings.
I will mention the Slovenes first. They were the ones who spontaneously
and on their own raised their voices, declaring that they were one soul with
the Croats and that they wanted to unite with us on the basis of our right to a
state. On this, everyone was unanimous, both the clericals—like Dr.
Susterčić, Dr. Krek, and Dr. Korošec—and the liberals—Dr.
Tavčar, Triller, and Hribar—and also the radicals. They all wrote about
this in their diaries, the May Declaration was signed (May 30, 1918), and,
crucially, they told their people that this was the only salvation. It was
precisely because of all this—the national and state union of the Slovenes and
Croats—that you earned the people's trust and thus have come this far.
But you will say: Well, we not only hold this idea, but we also wish to
extend the national and state unity of the Slovenes and Croats to the Serbs.
You may well say, but have you received authorization and consent from your
people for this kind of expansion? No. You have not consulted your people, nor
do you intend to, since you simply claim that the Slovenian people want what
you are proposing here, namely, a kind of national and state union with Serbia,
under which the government and the entire administration will remain in
Belgrade, while Zagreb and Ljubljana will not be at its level, but rather under
its control.
But I tell you plainly that this is not true, and furthermore, until
four days ago, you yourselves said that this was not true. Just four days ago,
Dr. Remac declared, in this Commission session, that he was in complete
agreement with Radic and that all Slovenes were republicans.
When Mr. Svetozar Pribicevic reacted forcefully, saying, "Dr.
Kramer is here too, and he and his party are not republicans," Dr. Remac,
a deputy from the Pan-Slovenian People's Party, stood up, emphasizing that he
declared "on behalf of nine-tenths of the Slovene people that they were
all republicans." Despite the fact that the Slovenes know this very well,
you nevertheless, willfully and consciously, against the will of your
people—that is, in a completely unconstitutional manner—propose a centralist
state union with monarchical Serbia. But what can I say about you, gentlemen
Dalmatians! The entirety of Dalmatia's political history for five
centuries—from the 7th to the 12th—is purely Croatian history. Dalmatia, back
then, consisted of a couple of cities and islands, as everyone knows, but
today's Dalmatia, and indeed everything up to the Kupa River, was the most
authentic Croatia.
You might say: Forget this old story! But look, for the last 50 years,
the Dalmatian Croats have politically desired nothing other than their union
with Ban's Croatia in a single, unified state. And now, when offered the
opportunity to realize this Dalmatian-Croatian national program, you, gentlemen,
decide, without the will of the people, against their will, to separate from
Croatia and, without consulting your constituents, want to come under the power
of Belgrade and into a centralist state union with Serbia. Moreover, you have
become so unconstitutional that you don't even intend to consult your people,
intending to simply impose this union with Serbia upon them.
Serbian gentlemen, Voivodians, you too have forgotten the program and
the aspirations of your leader, Svetozar Miletić: Trojednica nasa uzdanica – Unity of three, then of two, and finally of
none.
The same applies to the representatives of Bosnia. One of their leaders,
Dr. Alaupovic, said: “You Croats,” as if to make it clear that he was Croat
himself. “All of you are reneging on your previous promises, on your public
vows before the people, on everything you said or wrote, trying to create
something about which you didn’t say a single word to the people before…” I
know what you’re going to say: “The great moment has arrived, when we can finally
realize what we’ve been dreaming of for centuries, what was forbidden to dream
of under the power—or, if you prefer, the slavery—of foreigners.” Fine.
But what was it that was forbidden to dream of? Among the Serbs, what
you Serbs say is true: Serbia should grow larger,
glorious; King Peter should be crowned Tsar, renewing Dusan’s empire. The
Serbian people have no other idea—according to your opinion. But, according to
my own information, the majority in Serbia is also republican, but our Serbian
brothers are not here, and you Serbs from Croatia, Hungary, and Bosnia are all
supporters of Dušan, all enthusiasts of a great Serbian state, of a strong and
glorious empire, followers of the ideas of Kosovo, of the nine Jugovici, of
Marcos Kraljević, etc.
We Croats are not. Our Croatian peasant—nine-tenths of the Croatian
people—during the war became a complete and whole person, which means that they
no longer wish to serve anyone, to work for anyone, neither for foreigners, nor
for their brothers, nor for their own state or another's, but they do want the
state, in these momentous times, to be organized on a free, republican, and
just basis, that is to say, on a humane (social) basis. That's right! You, a
handful of men, are opposing an entire people. Opposing the free republican
desire and this just human cause, as well as the will and the needs of the
entire people—especially the Croatian people in whose name I speak—you do not
consider for a moment the injustice—and I mean no offense—the madness you are committing.
It is a tremendous injustice, and for you, the torrent of blood—you
yourselves call it heroic blood—of the Serbian, Croatian, and Slovenian martyrs
has no value, for you claim that this blood was shed for King Peter and for a
new and great reign. For you, the tears, prayers, and sighs of all our mothers,
wives, and daughters have no meaning. You are saying that tears should be the
jewels in King Peter's crown and the dazzling rays of a supposed royal glory or
greatness.
You have no idea—or you choose not to—that our entire people, especially
the Croatian people, desire, want, and demand that their spilled blood bring
them genuine and effective justice, republican justice like that felt by so
many of our men in America, and that those countless innocent tears be shed to
ensure the justice for which they are fighting and which their peasant brothers
in Russia will achieve. (Here, he was clearly mistaken, giving credence to
Bolshevism in this regard at the initial stage of its establishment in Soviet Russia.
Editor's note.)
By your extreme injustice, you also demonstrate a lack of prudence.
You have just read a telegram from those Serbian ministers who are
already in Belgrade. These ministers quite rightly say they are ready to meet
and discuss with the delegates of the National Committee and, whatever they
find in common, they would submit it for approval to the Serbian parliament,
while our delegates to the National Committee, and especially those concerning
the Croatian people, would submit it for approval to the Croatian State Sabor.
All this is not enough for you. You are in a hurry to impose your power
on the entire people as soon as possible, especially in Croatia. You don't
realize for a moment that it is madness and against all reason to act against
the people. You have learned nothing from the fall of Titza or Wilhelm. You
have become the National Committee through a supposed revolution, thinking that
this National Committee will become a new "His Majesty," but I tell
you what I have already repeated several times: that without the people there
is no stable or justified authority.
I know very well that you think you are not only part of the people but
also their representatives. But I have seen that this is not true. The entire
Croatian people stand for republican freedom and social (human) justice; you
stand for failed bureaucracy, aristocratic selfishness, and plunder. You no
longer belong to the people, nor do you represent them.
Therefore, nothing good will come of your plan. You will go to Belgrade,
create a unitary (centralist) state without the Croatian people and against
their will, and then govern without fear or shame based on the old, corrupt
Austrian and Hungarian laws, and through your old, subservient, and corrupt
officials. Perhaps you will govern without any laws at all, relying solely on
force and arbitrariness. The people will discover that you are not one of them,
and therefore they will not be with you.
Wherever you call to them, they will not listen, and they will never
give you their trust, nor will they freely condone deceit and terror. In the
event that you succeed, and the Entente is not prudent enough to aid you, even
then the people will not be with you. As soon as the first elections are held,
whatever their nature, whether for the constituent assembly or the ordinary
parliament, the people will no longer elect those who trampled all their
promises and programs and who imposed upon them, without consultation, the
violence, injustice, and plunder of the past.
The people will elect only the peasants with shovels and plows, and,
among the gentry, only those who, in this most difficult moment, have embraced
the will of the people as their own: republican liberty and social justice. I,
whom you exclude and cast out, threatening my life, I, God willing, will be at
home not only among the Croatian peasants but also among those of Slovenia and
Serbia.
Gentlemen: I will conclude by speaking about the idea you talk so much
about but think so little about and appreciate: national unity. Some of you
know very well that I defended our national unity—the unity of all Slavs, of
the South, especially Croats and Serbs—back 20 years ago, when we risked our
lives and faced the danger of being trapped.
Many of you know this very well, for in September 1902, I risked my
life, the lives of my wife and children, by publicly raising my voice against
the destruction of Serbian property in Zagreb, which left a bitter and
offensive community. And because of that inconceivable Serbian affront, written
in the Serbian "Gazeta Literaria" and reprinted in the Serbian
newspaper "Srbobran" in Zagreb, that our
mutual struggle must continue until the "extermination" of one side
or the other. From that moment on, I deepened and broadened the idea of
our national unity. I broadened it by embracing all Slavs, and I
deepened it to such an extent that I say to you now, after this tremendous war
and before it is too late:
Gentlemen: Do not be satisfied with empty words about national unity. Do
not say or write that our common language is sufficient and a strong bond for
our people. Understand once and for all that nationality is something much
deeper and broader than even the common language. Understand that nationality
is worthwhile, especially after this war, in which millions of peasants and
bourgeois participated on the front lines and in the labors at home; that from
now on, nationality is worth only insofar as it defends and develops
humanity—that is to say, only insofar as, because of your nationality, you
believe more and march more in harmony. Understand, finally, that once and for
all, the militaristic power of the gentry, of capitalism, of bureaucracy, and
of clericalism has disappeared.
Our people do not want to hear about militarism and bureaucracy, about
violence and bureaucratic arbitrariness. The entire people, especially our
Croatian people, desire, ask, want, and demand that each one feel the new
freedom and justice within themselves, in their homes, in their villages, in
their communities, and in their regions. For this to happen, all the old,
arbitrary bureaucrats and all the harmful laws and decrees must be eliminated
immediately; moreover, the people must be empowered to govern themselves. If
you do not give them this opportunity and do not recognize this right, the
people will seize this opportunity and right for themselves, without you and
against you.
Gentlemen: It is not too late yet! Do not rush headlong into the sea
like the lambs in the fable! Do not form a unitary government with the Kingdom
of Serbia, as there is no one and nothing here to advise it, except for a
telegram proposing something entirely different from what you are doing. Do not
proceed in this way, for it could later be said that you Slovenes, Serbs from
Vojvodina and Bosnia, Croats from Dalmatia, and especially Serbs from Croatia,
have all gathered here today solely to conspire against the people,
particularly against Croatia and the Croatian people.
Understand, at least, that this matter is so important and of such
consequence that the full National Committee and, naturally, the Croatian Sabor
were convened. Indeed, in accordance with your decision, you have agreed to
immediately send 26 delegates from the Central Commission to Belgrade, and
since this Commission has no more members, it is clear that everyone will claim
that the Commission delegated itself, authorized itself, to proclaim a common
government with the Kingdom of Serbia, even though this Commission clearly has
neither the authority nor the right to do so.
Gentlemen: Everyone recognizes the right to self-determination. We owe
our liberation to this right. This right to self-determination belongs to each
of our peoples in the international sense—to the Slovenes, the Croats, and the
Serbs. When state borders are determined, it is other peoples, but this right
belongs collectively to our three peoples, especially to us, the Croats of
Croatia, whether regarding the founding or the organization of the common
state.
We are three brothers: the Croat, the Slovene, and the Serb, but we are
not one. You must ask each of the brothers. There are no Serbs from Serbia
here, and everyone knows how we Croats are represented. No one and nothing is
pressuring them, except the pang of conscience that compels them to end the
matter as soon as possible, since they know full well that the Croatian people
will not approve.
Gentlemen: The most horrible thing, the most grievous sin, and the
greatest political error is to present your own people with a fait accompli,
that is, to conduct policy according to your own arbitrary, lordly whims,
without the people and against them. If this should happen, may God grant you
long enough—and it will not be long—to witness how the Croatian people, in
their republican and humanitarian conscience, will reject you the moment you
think they have resigned themselves and submitted. Long live the Republic! Long
live Croatia!
On the occasion of the centenary of the birth of this great popular
tribune, leader of the peasants and of Croatian national unity, we reproduce in
full this speech of his, so insightful politically and with such a genuinely
democratic spirit. We bow our heads before the martyrdom of this great
Croatian, who sacrificed his life for a better future for Croatia and its
people. Had his democratic ideals been heeded, the reality in that part of the
world, and especially for the Croatian people, would be very different today.
They are now "atoning" for the sins of some of their political
leaders who failed to grasp the "time of the people."
The S.C. Editorial Staff
The voice of the Croatians
"Matica Hrvatska" Takes a Stand on the Ivo Andric Case
Belgrade, November 23, 1970
"The General Assembly of 'Matica Hrvatska,' a Croatian cultural
federation, if we can call it that, gave us last Sunday a clear picture of the
restless sense of self-awareness among the Croatian intelligentsia. 'Matica,'
an organization rich in tradition, is not merely a forum for cultural and
social discussions, but a representative body of the conscious Croatian
national intelligentsia and its advocate before the political authorities. For
many years after the war, when the Croatian party leadership accepted,
admittedly against its will, but silently, Belgrade's Great Serbian-Unitarist
policies, 'Matica' was the only Croatian voice that opposed the alienation of
its language and historiography, as well as the entire culture of its people.
When, in the spring of 1967, all those who held a name and importance in
literature Croatian linguistics and linguistics experts upheld the independence
of the Croatian language and, in the now-famous "Declaration,"
reclaimed its Croatian name.
The Central Committee in Zagreb had to join the political campaign that
Belgrade had launched against the most prominent members of "Matica."
Meanwhile, the same Croatian party officials now referred to their language not
as Croatian-Serbian but simply as Croatian. On Sunday, the outgoing president
of "Matica" celebrated the "Declaration": it had a positive
effect. The document, for the first time, drew attention to the fact that the
Croatian language was being treated as the language of a subjugated people.
The consequences of the "Declaration" went even further.
"Matica," at its General Assembly, officially and definitively
suspended Croatian participation in the joint work being done on the
"Dictionary of the Serbian-Croatian Literary Language" and maintained
that a separate Croatian dictionary should now be published. The joint
dictionary being edited by the Croatian and Serbian "Matica" became a
source of discord among literary and linguistic specialists. The
two nations. The Croatian side found its language marginalized and
distorted.
In its eagerness to break all national taboos, "Matica" also
addressed the nationalistic leanings of the writer Ivo Andrić. His name
was mentioned when one of "Matica's" prominent contributors referred
to a clique of opportunists who formed in the last century in Austro-Hungarian
Croatia and who later completely distanced themselves from their people:
"They have separated themselves from us, and the people will live without
them." These words will provoke outrage throughout the country, even among
a segment of the Croatian intelligentsia, because Ivo Andrić is one of the
pillars of shared Yugoslav pride. (The author is clearly mistaken about a
supposed shared Yugoslav pride. Such a sentiment, simply put, does not exist -
Note from the Croatian Society of Authors and Composers).
"Although these words were spoken, they can only surprise someone
unaware of how much Ivo Andrić's transition to the Serbian cultural sphere
pains many Croats. The writer, the son of Croatian parents, born in the small
Bosnian town of Travnik, where he attended the school of the Croatian
Franciscans (actually Jesuits – Note from the R. of S.C.), joined, after the
First World War, the cultural circle of Belgrade, also linguistically. A career
diplomat, he became a 'Yugoslav,' which naturally implies a separation from his
Croatian origins, since Yugoslavism leads to the Serbian group. No Croat
seriously denies that Ivo Andrić deserved the Nobel Prize, but many are
bitter that the prize was not also awarded to his best writer, Miroslav Krleza."
" (The article
appeared in the "Frankfurter Allegemaine Zeitung" on November 24,
1970, and was written by Georg Reismüller.)
Spanish version: F.N.
Micro-news
On March 29, His Holiness Pope Paul VI received Marshal Tito, President
of communist Yugoslavia, in a solemn audience with all the protocol reserved
for sovereigns. On this occasion, protest leaflets were distributed in St.
Peter's Square at the Vatican, labeling the Marshal "one of the worst
tyrants of our time." We know that a large number of protests from
Croatians living in the free world also arrived for the same reason. The
Croatian-Latin American Institute of Culture in Buenos Aires also sent a letter
to the Supreme Pontiff.
In the next issue of Studia Croatica, we will publish the text of this
letter and discuss this gesture of Vatican diplomacy in greater detail, viewed
through the lens of the millennia-old relations between the Holy See and the
Croatian people. We regret having to express our disagreement with this
diplomatic act, which is causing so much confusion and bewilderment among the
faithful in general, and among Croatian Catholics in particular. The same Pope
who a year ago elevated Croatian martyr Nicholas Tavelic to the dignity of
saint, now solemnly receives Tito, the true executioner of Cardinal Stepinac
and the communist expressly excommunicated during the "infamous
trial" against the aforementioned dignitary, "an image of the Good
Shepherd," as Pope John XXIII called him. It is extremely perplexing that
the same forum—both personal and institutional—offers praiseworthy treatment
and formulates laudatory expressions for both the victim and his perpetrator.
The major Argentine newspaper "Clarín," on February 16th,
published an extensive article about a Croatian scholar, the Jesuit R.
Boskovic. Highlighting his merits as a scientist and philosopher, the
distinguished newspaper acknowledges Boskovic's true nationality—Croatian.
Serbian propagandists had falsely proclaimed his Serbian nationality.
The Croatian-Latin American Institute of Culture and the journal
"Studia Croatica" claim partial credit for this historical
correction. Under Serbian propaganda, Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier, in
their book "The Morning of the Magicians," also asserted Boskovich's
nationality as Serbian. Following an exchange of correspondence on the matter
between the Institute, the journal "Studia Croatica," and the
aforementioned authors, Mr. J. Bergier published an article in
"Planeta," No. 13, 1966, entitled: "A Mutant of the 17th
Century: Roger Boskovich," repeatedly pointing out his Croatian national
origin.
Thus, in accordance with the prestige of French intellectual culture,
the aforementioned authors corrected their error, fulfilling the promises they
made to us and following the further research we had suggested. From here, as
far as we can see, the international "re-Croatization" of Boskovic
began, dispelling one of the Balkan mystifications invented by the
less-than-altruistic fantasies of our Serbian neighbors!
The New York Times of February 10th printed an article entitled:
Croatian Nationalism Gets New Impetus. In this article, Mr. Alfred Friendly Jr.
refers to the current national conflict between Croats and Serbs. Professor J.
Juras explained to the New York newspaper's correspondent the essential
elements of the conflict—political, economic, and cultural—expressing his
belief that the Croats would soon end Serbian hegemony and take their destiny
into their own hands.
The New York Times of December 21st dedicated a laudatory note to the Croatian
singer Ruza Pospis de Baldani. Allen Hughes, the note's author, also wrote the
following: "Ms. Baldani's voice was perfectly suited to the music of
Orfeo, and her singing of 'Che farň senza Euridice' was truly the highlight of
the performance. The tone of her voice was rich and infused the lament with
heartfelt intensity." Ms. Pospis Baldani and her compatriot Liliana Sukic
sang the principal roles in the opera "Orfeo ed
Euridice" at the Metropolitan Opera House on that occasion (December
1970).
The major Buenos Aires newspaper "La Nación" published the
article "The King is Dead" in its February
16th edition. Its author, the well-known American journalist C. L. Sulzberger,
referring to the death of the former Yugoslav king Peter Karageorgevich, vividly
and aptly describes the Serbian atmosphere surrounding that shadowy Balkan
dynasty. Sulzberger also says: "He died in an atmosphere of Balkan
mystery." Referring to his will, riddled with historical errors, even
incorrectly naming his ex-wife, the American journalist adds: "The will is
so flawed in other respects that it is debatable whether the king did not
suffer from 'chronic brain injury' before signing his will (i.e., before the
illness that caused his death - Ob. of the R. of S. C.).
His death and burial sparked a very dark quarrel among various Serbian
factions, with the Croatian, Slovenian, and Macedonian emigrants showing
complete disinterest in this expressly Serbian matter. The German newspaper of
Buenos Aires, "Freie Presse," in its March 14, 1971, published for
the second time its attention to our journal, Studia Croatica. In keeping with
the German spirit of assiduous and in-depth analysis (die deutsche
Gründlichkeit), this latest note, more extensive than the one we published in
volume 38-99 of S.C., is not a routine entry, but a review that This indicates
that Mr. J. v. K., who signed it, had read the corresponding issue (38-39) of
our magazine, the primary focus of the efforts of those who are editing it. Mr.
J. v. K.'s observations are accurate. Our editorial
staff appreciates his praise as well as his observation regarding the
scheduling of the published material, which we have done according to our own
criteria, criteria that are not familiar to the author of the "Freie
Presse" article.
The Vice President of the Croatian-Latin American Institute of Culture
in Buenos Aires, Juan Rojnica, delivered a lecture on January 12 of this year
at the Rotary Club of Olivos, Buenos Aires Province, on the value of political
freedom. The Rotary meeting was held in commemoration of the Leningrad and
Burgos Trials. Mr. Rojnica, analyzing these two trials, also drew a parallel
between the Croatian struggle for independence and that of the Israeli people
for the independence of their homeland, Israel. The event was well attended by
members of the business and intellectual communities. He applauded the Croatian
speaker enthusiastically.
"Croatia Press, Review and New Bulletin", vol. XXIII, No. 3 of
1970, published in New York, gave a laudatory review of Juan Rojnica's book
"Susreti i Dozivljaji". It is a book of the author's personal
experiences covering the period between 1938 and 1945. These are explicitly
political experiences, with the author being one of the main actors. Studia
Croatica also gave its positive opinion in issues 36-37 of 1970, pp. 79-82.
The review in "Croatia Press" was written by its director,
Engineer Carlos Mirth, who says, among other things: "The period from 1941
to 1945 has been written until now from the perspective of the victors, in a
biased and propagandistic manner. Only now are great efforts being made to
present the facts more impartially. Little has been written from the
perspective of those who lost the war, which seems logical. It is, therefore,
incomprehensible that those who could write their memoirs, and could even
publish them without delay if they wished to see them published during their
lifetime, have done nothing in this regard. The importance of memoirs of this
kind is evident, as they should approach many events from a different angle.
Rojnica offered an example in this respect, and it should be imitated."
Monsignor Dr. K. Zoric, residing in Rome, the promoter of the
canonization of the first Croatian saint, Nicholas Tavelic, visited last
December. The editorial staff of S.C. After the
welcoming remarks delivered by the president of the Croatian-Latin American
Institute of Culture, the distinguished guest conversed at length with the
Institute's Board of Directors.
During the month of April (1971), Croatians residing in the free world
celebrated the thirtieth anniversary of the restoration of Croatian
independence. The Croatian-Argentine Cultural Club of Buenos Aires, a group
comprised of a considerable number of Croatian intellectuals, organized a
dinner for its members on April 10 (the exact date of the proclamation of
independence). At this event, the club's president, Dr. R. Latkovic, delivered
a speech that, due to its concepts and expressions, stood out from the usual
pronouncements made at such commemorative events.
Thanks to the unfavorable circumstances in which Croatia's independence
was proclaimed (a violent change in the European cosmos of Versailles), there
are still certain sectors of world public opinion that do not want to or cannot
see the reality that the Croatian people at that time expressed their authentic
national will to free themselves from the oppression of Belgrade and live in
freedom in accordance with the universally recognized right to
self-determination.
* * *
In memoriam to Sava M. Stedimlija
On January 25, 1971, at the age of 64, the publicist and historian Sava
M. Stedimlija died in Zagreb and was buried in the local cemetery (Mirogoj). He
was born near Podgarica (now Titograd) into an old Montenegrin family, the
Markovics. From a young age, he chose journalism as his profession, dedicating
himself, from the outset, to the study of the historical past of his native
Montenegro. He first appeared in Croatian journalism in 1928, specifically in
the newspaper "Narodni Val" (The People's Wave), condemning the
organized assassination of Croatian national deputies in the Belgrade
parliament.
Studying the folk traditions, language, and customs of the Montenegrins,
S. M. Stedimlija became convinced early on that Montenegrins were not Serbs,
based on their ethnic background, but Croats.
To elucidate this problem more clearly and freely, Stedimlija settled in
Zagreb, making use of the well-stocked library of the University and the
Academy of Sciences and Arts. From then on, he contributed to Croatian newspapers
such as "Obzor," "Jutarnji List," "Hrvatski
Dnevnik," and "Hrvatski Narod." Among his works from the period
between 1930 and 1945, the following should be mentioned:
1) "Rubra Croatia and its Cultural
Traces," in "Jadranski Dnevnik," 31/1936; 2) "Rubra
Croatia," a work edited by Matica Hrvatska, 1937; 3) "Croat-Lower
Montenegrin," in "Obzor," 1937; 4) "The Traces of Shakavism
in Montenegro and Albania," in "Obzor," 20/I/1937. 5) The Development and Growth of Rubra Croatia, "Jadranski
Dnevnik", 4/1937; 6) The Meaning of Montenegrin Nationalism, in
"Jadranski Dnevnik", 4/1937, 113, 12; 7) Following the Guidelines of
the Pope (priest) of Duclia, Zagreb; 8) The Croats and the Croatian Name in
Constantinople, in "Alma Mater Croatica", 5/1942.
S. M. Stedimlija was a friend and supporter of the Montenegrin patriot
and politician, Dr. Sekula Drljevic. Together with him, he retreated westward
in 1945, but during the journey, he was captured by the Russians and sent to
Siberia. There he suffered greatly and became ill. This illness plagued him
until his death. Upon Stalin's death, he was released from the concentration
camp where he had spent 10 years. Thus, he was able to return to Zagreb in
1955. Due to his previous pro-Croatian journalistic activity, Rankovic's UDBA
(secret police) did not allow him to remain in Zagreb and confined him to his
native village in Montenegro.
Only in 1959 did he obtain permission to return to Zagreb, but he was
forbidden from writing under his own name. He was also unable to find employment.
But no pressure could break his Montenegrin fortitude. In this new period of
his life, Stedimlija continued working in the same vein, with the same purpose
and spirit as before. Moreover, this time with greater
methodological and scientific rigor, adhering to the rules of historical
scholarship. He published a series of works under a pseudonym, and
others were published under the names of his friends. Only in the last couple
of years was he able to publish some works under his own name. Among them, the
most valuable is: Contributions to the National, Political, Economic, and
Cultural History of Montenegro, Nos. I-II, Zagreb, 1969.
His most recent work, The Kingdom of Croatia, is the Vatican text of the oldest
Croatian chronicle, provided by its introduction and explanatory notes.
According to what the recently deceased communicated to me in a letter,
he entrusted this work to Matica Hrvatska for publication. It is hoped that
Matica will publish it as soon as possible in memory of a courageous Montenegrin
and great friend of the Croatian people. S. M. Stedimlija worked for so many
years, researching and demonstrating—and for this he also suffered—that
Southern Croatia, at the beginning of the Middle Ages, extended from the Cetina
River in Dalmatia to the Drim River in present-day Albania and that,
consequently, the Montenegrin people are ethnically descended from the Croatian
people in ancient times, and not from the Serbs.
May the Lord grant eternal peace to that
beloved deceased! At the same time, our deepest and most sincere condolences to
his wife, Ljubica, and all his relatives. May the Montenegrin and Croatian
peoples preserve a clear and dignified memory of that intrepid fighter and
historical writer, Mr. Stedimlija.
Dr. Dominik Mandic
(On behalf of the S.C. Editorial Staff, we remember this exceptional man
in many ways and a great friend of the freedom of Croatia and its people. To
this end, we reproduce the article by Dr. D. Mandic, his personal friend. The
article was published in the weekly newspaper "Danica" on March 10,
1971, published in Chicago, USA. Stedimlija greatly admired Dr. Mandic,
considering him the best Croatian historian today, perhaps the best of all
Croatian historians in general.)
Book Review
Zvonimir Kulundzic: The Political Writings of Esteban Radic
Zagreb 1970, published by "Znanje", p. 620.
This year marks several anniversaries in
Croatian history. Along with the 300th anniversary of the Zrinsiki-Frankopan
tragedy, the Croatian people also commemorate the centenary of the birth of
Esteban Radic, a political figure who awakened and mobilized the peasant
masses, transforming them into a powerful political movement and who was the
first to launch a decisive resistance against Serbian hegemony between the two
world wars.
Zvonimir Kulundzic is one of the most prolific
writers in Croatian literature after the last war. Among the thirty or so
works—both voluminous and shorter—published from 1945 to the present, his three
recently published works stand out: The Assassination of Esteban Radic (Zagreb,
1967); Politics and Corruption in Monarchical Yugoslavia (Zagreb, 1968); and
The Tragedy of Croatian Historiography (Zagreb, 1970).
This last work, with its vehement and
polemical tone, has provoked debate among contemporary Croatian historians, who
have refuted or corrected Kulundzic's assertions, which are not always grounded
in reality.
It is interesting to note that Kulundzic was
one of the first to draw public attention to the discovery of the first
Glagolitic printing press on Croatian soil in the small village of Kosinij, in
the Lika province, where the first Croatian missal was printed in 1483, and the
breviary in 1491. It was believed, and many still believe today, that these
works were printed in Venice, a notion that can now be definitively disproven,
thanks to Kulundzic's scholarly work.
In his latest work, monumental in its scope,
The Political Writings of Esteban Radic, published last November in Zagreb,
with the very topical subtitle: Esteban Radic, Here and Today, the author has
compiled a veritable encyclopedia of literature on the "Croatian
Gandhi," as Romain Rolland, the French Nobel laureate, aptly called him.
Radic, a popular tribune and ideologue of the marginalized and exploited
Croatian peasantry, was equally well-known in Paris, London, Moscow, and
Vienna. The most prominent French, Swiss, and English journalists wrote of him
as a first-rate political genius, previously unknown in Eastern Europe,
especially in the Balkans, where a despotic spirit had always prevailed.
Radic's "peasant socialism" had
sound foundations. This was the main reason why the Croatian people—its peasant
masses—embraced it so ardently. Therefore, neither he nor his brother Antonio
had to impose themselves on the people. The people accepted them as they accept
their own.
Twenty years before his great Indian
ideal—Mahatma Gandhi—in a very similar fashion, he fell victim to a fatal
bullet, fired at him and his supporters in the Belgrade Parliament; the man who
proclaimed Croatian non-violence and pacifism, a merit for which Nobel Prizes
are currently being awarded. Radic was killed by a Serbian fanatic in the
service of a criminal cabal of the Serbian Karageorgevich dynasty, and Gandhi
by a Hindu political fanatic. The setting in both cases was the parliament.
Thanks to Z. Kulundzic, we now have an
enormous political legacy, compiled in a single work consisting of numerous
articles, declarations, and speeches (approximately forty of the most
outstanding), pamphlets, and so on. Radic was a politician, philosopher,
humanist, and leader of his people. His brother Antonio was possibly superior
as a writer and journalist, but the heart and intellect of the Croatian Peasant
Movement was undoubtedly Stefan Radic.
Among his speeches that opened the eyes of his exploited people and
lifted the black curtain that concealed the true problems of the Croatian
people, it is especially worth mentioning the speech delivered on October 29,
1918, in the Sabor (Croatian Parliament). Equally important are his speeches at
the assemblies in Zagreb (March 12, 1893) and in Varaždin (a Croatian city) on
April 12, 1893, dedicated to uniting the Croatian opposition. Also noteworthy
is the speech delivered on March 18, 1910, in the Sabor, and especially his
impassioned address to the members of the National Council during the evening
session of November 24, 1918, when the Council decided to unite Croatia with
Serbia, etc.
With an extensive preface by the author, numerous notes and
commentaries, eight photographs of Radic, a bibliography, and an index of all
the works of this great Croatian democratic leader, who knew how to use
tactics, think politically, and lead his people in a country devoid of justice,
as was widely considered to be monarchical Yugoslavia, the writer Z. Kulundzic
offers the Croatian people his greatest possible contribution in homage to
Esteban Radic, on the occasion of the centenary of his birth, which took place
on June 11, 1871. The Political Writings of Esteban Radic can be considered the
Croatian book of the year, deserving the full attention not only of the
homeland but also of Croatians in political exile.
M. Maglica
Vladimir Maric: Kroatische Adriaküste (Land der Tausend Inseln)
Cologne, 1968 - The Croatian Adriatic Coast (The Region of a Thousand
Islands), a book published in Cologne, Germany, in 1968. We cannot overlook the
appearance of this meticulously written book, valuable in its own right and
representative of the region. The book is dedicated to the Croatian people and
Croatia, especially its southern part, the Adriatic coast, without omitting
brief excursions into the interior. Its authors primarily use photographs, and
then also text, to inform all those who wish to learn about Croatia, the land
of a "thousand islands," as they themselves call it. The authors of
the tastefully and judiciously selected photographs include, to
name just a few: Dr. Werner Schwanke, Professor M. Crcevic, Alejandro
Kukec, Ernest Baumann, Magdalena Boric, and others, while the book's text—the
preface and introduction—was written by M. Wülfing, S. Sulek, V. Maric, and P.
Fischer.
Browsing through its pages, it becomes clear that the book is primarily
intended for tourists, that is, for all those who are still unfamiliar with
Croatia's natural beauty but wish to discover it. Beyond this apparent
objective, the rich series of photographs and the accompanying text transcend
this purpose and can serve as a source of information for anyone wishing to
learn more about Croatia, its history, and its people. Such reports are few and
far between, appearing only occasionally in ephemeral publications. It is our
impression that the authors have achieved their dual objective: to inspire a
love of travel for the sheer pleasure of visiting and getting to know a
country.
The book's colorful cover is graphically well-designed, introducing us
to a long series of artistic photographs, predominantly in black and white.
Beginning with the ancient city of Rovinj in Istria, the authors guide us
through Opatia, Novi, Rab, Senj, Zadar, Šibenik, Split, Hvar, and Korčula
to Dubrovnik. From there, they take a short excursion to Plitvice Lakes,
Mostar, Sarajevo, and Jajce, ending their imaginary journey in Zagreb, the
political and cultural center of Croatia. Each of these photographs (71 in total,
4 of which are in color) is accompanied by an explanatory text indicating its
historical or aesthetic significance. There is also a map of Croatia, which
facilitates orientation, whether for tourism or political-national purposes.
The most interesting and valuable part consists of five pages that
clearly and concisely recount the most important cultural creations of the
Croatians and their contribution to universal cultural heritage. This brief
overview begins with the accurate observation that the origins of Croatian
cultural creation date back to the 9th century, and poetry to the 15th century,
especially in Dubrovnik, Split (Marko Marulic), and Hvar (Hannibal Lucic and
Petar Hektorovic). By mentioning the first Croatian playwright—still highly
relevant today—Marin Drzic ("Dundo Maroje," his well-known comedy),
Ivan Gundulic (17th century), and the folk poet Kacic-Miosic, the author
reaches the 19th century, reporting that the center of Croatian cultural and
later political activity shifted north to Zagreb, which quickly became the
center of two Croatian cultural movements whose consequences also extended into
the political sphere: the so-called "Illyrian" movement and the
modern literary movement.
Among the most outstanding writers, August Senoa, Silvije Kranjcevic,
Milan Begovic, Ivo Vojnovic, and Anton Gustav Matos remain enduring figures,
while after Ljudevit Gaj, an enthusiastic proponent of the "Illyrian"
idea, Antun Starcevic and Stjepan Radic distinguished themselves as
politicians. The author also lists Miroslav Krleza, Tin Ujevic, and Mile Budak
as the most representative of contemporary Croatian literature, without
omitting the most visible figures of the recent generation, such as Petar
Segedin, Slavko Mihalic, Zlatko Tomicic, Vlatko Pavletic, and others.
In a few lines, readers are informed about Croatian music, mentioning
the first Croatian opera composer, Vatroslay Lisinski, and his first work,
"Love and Malice"; then Ivan pl. Zajc, the founder of Croatian Opera,
a very prolific composer whose opera "Nicolas Subic Zrinski" remains
a Croatian cultural and political symbol to this day, as well as Jakov Gotovac,
author of the very popular opera "Ero of Another World," which was a
great success in European capitals. The folk and music festivals held annually
in Zagreb, Siplit, Opatia, and Dubrovnik, which attract world-renowned artists,
are also mentioned.
The authors have devoted somewhat more space to Croatian painting,
sculpture, and architecture, which began as early as the 11th century. The text
mentions the teachers Buvina and Radovan, the painters V. Karas, Racic,
Kraljevic, Becic, and Babic, as well as, of course, Ivan Mestrovic, F. Krsinic,
A. Auguatincic, and Vanja Radaus. The final part of this cultural chapter
concludes with the contributions of Croatians to the world in the scientific
field. It mentions the philosopher Matija Vlacic (Mathias Flacius Illiricus),
the first Croatian humanist; R. Boskovic (1711–1787), the mathematician,
physicist, astronomer, philosopher, and now considered a precursor of nuclear
science; and finally, the contemporaries Andrija Mohorovicic (astronomer and
meteorologist), the physicist Nikola Tesla (1856–1943), and the Nobel laureate
Leopold Ruzicka.
The chapter dedicated to the history of Croatia recounts the most significant
political events from the 6th century BC, including the arrival in their
current homeland in the 7th century AD and the rise of the Trpimirovic dynasty,
the union with Hungary in 1102, and subsequently the union with Austria in
1527, up to more recent times such as 1928, when Croatian deputies, led by
Stjepan Radic, were assassinated in the Belgrade Parliament; then the
proclamation of Croatian independence (1941-1945) and the massacre of its
soldiers and civilians, known as the Bleiburg Massacre (Austria, 1945),
perpetrated by Tito's communists; and finally the well-known Declaration on the
Name and Function of the Croatian Language of 1967, considered a protest and
rebellion by Croatian intellectuals against the oppression under Belgrade.
This picture book of Croatia, in both image and word, will be of great
use to those who wish to learn not only about Croatia's natural beauty and
geographical location, but also as a small guide to the political and cultural
past and present of the Croatian people.
The authors' sacrifice should be rewarded by Croatian exiles. This book
should be a gift for our children, born far from their parents' homeland, as
well as a present for friends of Croatia.
Milan Rakovac
Ivan Muzic: Hrvatska polítika i jugoslavenska ideja
(Croatian politics and the Yugoslav idea)
Split 1969, pp. V-VI, 318.
As an introduction to the review of this second book by Ivan Muzic, who
is not a professional historian, we should mention that the reason for his
dedication to historical research, and therefore to his first book, Razmatranja
o povijesti Hrvata (Reflections on the History of the Croats), Split 1967, p.
70, was the articles by A. Farcic, published in the Belgrade magazine
"Republika" (Nos. 380 and 381, 1953) under the title "The Serbs
and Maritime Navigation," which Muzic labeled as malicious in the
introduction to his first book, conceived as a thesis for a larger work.
Mindful of the existing national conflict between Serbs and Croats,
which also permeated historiography, Muzic expresses the postulate—which is
also the basic idea he draws from his historical study—that "regions of
common coexistence are a common homeland, and their inhabitants must mutually
sacrifice all possible conflicts arising from different religions, political
convictions, and national sentiments, for the sake of peace, and not allow
anyone from outside to interfere in their relations so that they do not become
servants of foreigners in their own homes."
In his second work, which is not yet the announced major work, the
author conceived it as a contribution to the description of the most
influential Croatian conceptions of the Yugoslav idea from the post-Illyrian
period (1850) until the end of the Second World War, focusing solely on the
Serbs and without considering the socio-economic base.
To this end, the author divides his work into four main parts, which are
further subdivided into several chapters. The exception is the first part,
entitled "Introduction," which contains a single chapter entitled
"Illyrianism and the Serbs." This chapter is fundamental to
understanding the entire work, as it reveals the attitude of Croatian political
figures regarding the unity of the South Slavs in the first half of the 19th
century.
Indeed, the Croats have been bearers of the idea of Slavic
unity since the 16th century, substituting the name Croatian with
"Slaveni" or "Slovinci" (Vinko Pribojevic in 1526; Mauro
Orbini "Storia sul Regno degli Slavi", Pesaro 1601; Juraj Krizanic (1618-1683);
Andrija Kacic (1704-1760), with his "Razgovor ugodni naroda
slovinskoga"). In the 19th century, the Croats, under the name of
[unclear], sought to encompass all the South Slavic peoples, claiming that they
were all descendants of the ancient Illyrians, thus giving rise to the
"Illyrian movement" with its political ideology of national unity.
However, while the Croats, during the awakening of national
consciousness, sacrificed their own national name in favor of a general,
unifying name, seeking the support of their neighbors, especially Serbs, the
latter rejected it in favor of their own national name. Thus, it was under the
name "Illyrians" that the feeling of unity began, to which Ante
Starčević (1823-1896) later restored the name "Croat." But,
while the name "Illyrian" disappeared as unacceptable to the Serbs
and Slovenes, the name "Yugoslav" emerged as a synonym for Slavic
unity (Sulek, Kukuljević, Raki, Strossmayer, etc.) as a counterweight to
Germanization and Magyarization.
Thus, at the beginning of the 19th century, the Croatian nation was
politically torn between the designations "Illyrian" and
"Croatian," the latter being considered synonymous with
"pro-Hungarian" (Magyarón), and by the middle of the same century,
between the political designations "Yugoslav" and
"Croatian." This time, the designation "Croatian" was used
in the sense of Ante Starcevic, that is, as a legal and political concept
without distinction of religion, origin, or race, and as a counterweight to any
foreign subordination.
The second part, entitled "Croatian Politics in the Second Half of
the 19th Century," covers the following chapters: Serb-Croatian Relations
in the Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Strossmayer's Attitude Toward the Serbs, and Starcevic's Attitude Toward the Serbs.
The third part—"Croatian Politics at the Beginning of the 20th
Century and During the First World War"—deals with the following topics:
Equating Croatian nationalism with Catholicism; The idea of
Croatian-Serbian national unity; Bosnia and Herzegovina at the
center of events; The Yugoslav Committee; Supilo's concept of unification; The
Yugoslav idea and Pašić's diplomacy; and Radić's concept of
unification.
In Part Four—"Croatian Politics Between the Two World Wars and
During the Second World War"—the author describes: The mood after
unification; The Radić-Pribićević Compromise; The failure of
Yugoslav unitarian thought; The relationship of the Catholic Church with the
Yugoslav state; Malek's attitude toward the Yugoslav state; The Ustaša
conceptions; The Croatian Peasant Party after the collapse of Yugoslavia; The
relationship of the Catholic Church toward the Ustaša party and the Independent
State of Croatia; The plans of the Cetniks toward the Croats and Serbs; and the
national liberation movement among the Croats.
In the preface, the author expresses the hope that, based on the
material presented and discussed in his book, the reader will conclude that
"Yugoslavism" was created by the Croatian intelligentsia only in the
19th century; that is, after "Illyrianism," it began to be more
concretely programmed in the sense of Yugoslav state union, primarily as a guarantee
of Croatian protection against the claims of Slavic nations. It should also be
inferred from his book that, at the time, Yugoslavism, in the case of some
Croatians (or at least at different periods of their political life), also
manifested itself in a unitarist sense and, as such, very often represented the
negation of Croatian national individuality. In contrast to these conceptions,
the political views of Frano Supilo and Esteban Radic stand out prior to the
1918 union. They declared themselves in favor of Yugoslav state union on the
condition of preserving Croatian national identity and sovereignty.
From this work, it can also be deduced that all Croatian political
representatives and figures, with very few exceptions, began their political
careers promoting the idea of a South Slavic national community and almost
without exception ended them disillusioned with their own political
ideals—whether upon meeting Serbian political leaders or upon the formal
realization of the long-desired union of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and
Slovenes (1918–1939) or the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1929–1941).
After these experiences, they all returned to the positions of Croatian
national and state identity. As an example, we will cite the case of the Bishop
of Djakovo, J. J. Strossmayer (1815-1905), founder of the modern University of
Zagreb, the Academy of Sciences and Arts (named by the founder himself
"Yugoslav" to serve as the nucleus of the spiritual unity of the
South Slavs), and the Art Gallery. He, who in 1868 was prepared to cede Bosnia
to Serbia, wrote to his friend F. Racki on April 10, 1884: "Our people are
in a dangerous situation."
The Serbs are our bloody enemies. Markovic rightly said—I believe—that
while we are fighting the Hungarians, our Serbian brother is attacking us from
behind. If this were for their own good, fine, but the grave the Serbs are
digging for us could also be used to bury them. Foreign newspapers are already
reporting on this—that is, how the Serbs joined forces with the Hungarians solely
to annihilate us. This is the main characteristic and primary purpose of their
alliance with the Hungarians. Let us trust in God and not succumb spiritually”
(p. 28). An exception to this rule, as mentioned above, is Ante Starcevic, who
opposed Slavism, Yugoslavism, and Servism, as well as any state union other
than under the Croatian name. He considered all South Slavs to be Croats, thus
countering the quite similar ideas and teachings of the Serbian Vuk St.
Karadilc, who asserted that almost all South Slavs were Serbs. In a work with
such abundant material on a delicate and complex subject, there are numerous
assertions and formulations with which it is impossible to agree.
For example, we cannot accept Starcevic's characterization of all
Orthodox Christians who felt Serbian and who, according to him (Starcevic),
were Croats as “Slavic-Serbs” (a pejorative term for Austrian collaborators in
the annihilation of Croatia) (p. 32) Here we have a "contradictio in
adiecto" (a contradiction in terms) with the very notion of the term
"Slavic-Serbian," which, moreover, the author fails to explain.
Nor can we identify with the pale portrayal of disillusionment with
Yugoslavia by Dr. Ante Trumbic, president of the Yugoslav Committee in London
and one of the main protagonists of the union of Croats, Slovenes, and Serbs in
1918. Even less can we agree with the author regarding some of his judgments
and opinions concerning the period of the Second World War. However, the key
issue for any state community of Croats and Serbs is the problem of their
mutual relationship within that community.
Today, such a state community exists, based on the principle of
"brotherhood and unity" of the peoples of Yugoslavia under the aegis
of the Yugoslav Communist Party. These facts in themselves impose upon each
author, in their treatment of Serb-Croat relations in the past and present,
certain considerations. Limitations.
Despite certain liberalizations in cultural life in Yugoslavia after the
fall of the infamous head of the secret police, Alexander Ranković, it
seems that our past is being judged, or must continue to be judged, from the
perspective of antifascism and taking into account the aims and purposes of
"the national liberation struggle."
This is why some political groups or parties and some political or
apolitical figures among the Croats (e.g., Macek, A. Stepinac, A. Pavelic, and
the Ustaša movement) as well as among the Serbs (e.g., King Alexander and the
dynasty in general, M. Nedić, D. Mihajlović, and the Cetniks) must
necessarily be ostracized. One can write with greater historical objectivity
about politicians from the periods prior to the last ideological, political,
and social conflict, such as Dr. A. Starčević and St. J. Radić. Therefore,
it is difficult to determine the author's independent judgment. and what is the judgment subject to the limitations imposed
by the circumstances mentioned above.
The "Appendix" chapter contains a brief but very interesting
study on the Vlachs (pp. 254-270), which, if expanded upon, could shed more
light on the origins of the atrocities committed by the three warring factions
during the last war: the Ustaše, the Ketniks, and the Communists.
The nearly 40 pages of bibliography (pp. 271-309) testify to the
seriousness with which the author undertook this task and what we can expect
from Ivan Mužić in the future. We anticipate a definitive, systematic,
exhaustive, and impartial work, free from circumstantial political bias.
Milan Blazeković
Der Donau-Raum, Zeitschrift des Forschungsinstitudes
für den Donauraum
15 Jahrgang, 3-4 Helf, 1970.
This journal, which diligently addresses the problems of the nations of
the Danube basin, also pays attention to current events in Yugoslavia.
Consequently, it does not overlook the problems of Croatia, an integral part of
that communist and multinational state. In the issue referenced above, Ernesto
Bauer publishes a highly informative article, a concise study on the phenomenon
of the massive presence of workers from that "socialist" state in the
area of free nations in Western Europe.
Referring to the number of these workers abroad, the author, citing
official statistics from Belgrade, states that in 1969 it reached 595,000, adding that this number could double with the inclusion of
workers who leave the country without official intervention.
This mass of people presents a very serious problem for both the country
of origin and the host country. In Yugoslavia, the shortage of skilled labor
for its industry is becoming increasingly acute, leading to recession and a
decline in the quality of its products. While Yugoslavia's labor force departs
in the following proportions: 14% unskilled, 27% skilled,
and 55% skilled, Italy, the second largest source of workers in Europe, has the
following proportions: 48% unskilled, 37% skilled, and 13% skilled.
Despite this negative consequence, the Yugoslav authorities, due to
their economic crisis and external balance of payments deficit, consider the
phenomenon, at least provisionally, providential. Remittances and savings from
workers significantly alleviate this situation. From January 1st to July 31st,
1970 alone, remittances reached $227 million. Furthermore, in 1969, the savings
accounts of the Bank for Foreign Trade of Yugoslavia held $5,661,326. It is assumed that these workers hold a total of $500
million in banks in the countries where they work.
An investigation in a Croatian district of
Bosnia—Livno—has demonstrated, according to statements from local authorities
in Livno, Glamoc, and Kupres (Bosnia) and Imotski (Dalmatia), that these
districts, without the contributions of workers abroad, would be unable to
cover municipal expenses, nor could they make investments for the development
of these regions.
But, as Bauer states verbatim, "the flip side
of these processes is the dramatic drop in the birth rate, especially in
Croatia," and that there is already talk of a "biological danger to
the Croatian people," and with good reason. The percentage of Croatia's
population within the total population of Yugoslavia was 23.1% in 1954 and 19%
in 1969, while the natural growth rate declined from 11.5 per thousand (the
1950-1954 average) to 5.1 per thousand in 1969. The Yugoslav press was already
reporting that the population of some islands in Dalmatia was gradually dying
out.
But this phenomenon also became a political
problem. First, it provided emigration with a strong argument against the
economic and social policies of the Belgrade government, and second, it worried
the political leaders of that communist country themselves. Thus, for example,
the president of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Croatia, Dr.
Savka Dabcevic-Kucar, spoke of the danger of Croatia's depopulation and, at the
Committee's 10th session, expressly stated that "the League of Yugoslav
Communists was not sufficiently concerned to "To create a satisfactory
state for the Croatian people."
To better understand this anomaly, it should be
added that the percentage of Croatians within that mass of people working
abroad exceeds 50% of the total Yugoslavian population. The regime is clearly
pursuing a discriminatory policy to the detriment of Croatians.
In his book, *The Situation of the Catholic Church
in Yugoslavia*, Dr. Drago Matkovic writes the following, after providing an
overview of the relations between the Catholic Church in Yugoslavia, which went
through several, sometimes very serious, trials: "On June 25, 1966, after
two years of negotiations, a Protocol was signed by Monsignor Casaroli, in his
capacity as representative of the Vatican, and Milutin Moraca, president of the
Federal Commission for Religious Affairs.
The Yugoslav government was obligated to guarantee
the rights of freedom of conscience, belief, and equality for religious
communities, as stipulated in the Yugoslav Constitution. The Vatican, for its
part, accepted the obligation to pressure the clergy to abstain from all
political activity. This agreement was the subject of much controversy and
criticism. Broad ecclesiastical circles saw in the Protocol the possibility
granted to the State to interfere in internal ecclesiastical affairs. Cardinal
Seper never gave his consent to the Protocol, because he wanted more guarantees
for the Catholic Church in Yugoslavia.”
Matkovic, summarizing the relations, rightly says:
“The relationship between the State and the Catholic Church in Yugoslavia can
be characterized more as ‘tolerance’ than ‘religious freedom’.”
However, after the resumption of diplomatic
relations between the Vatican and Belgrade and in view of Pope Paul VI’s visit
to Yugoslavia, scheduled for September 1971 for the International Marian
Congress in the Croatian capital, Zagreb, the author assumes complete
normalization and reconciliation between the Yugoslav State and the Vatican.
For our part, we disagree with the author of the
article. Such reconciliation would only be possible on the condition of a
Marxist state renouncing its totalitarianism, which is improbable.
Franjo Nevistic
Ives Ivonides: The Martyr of the City of Kresimir,
Zagreb 1970, p. 32.
The author of this visually striking booklet is the
current religious affairs editor of the monthly magazine Veritas, published in
Zagreb. The martyr around whom this publication revolves is Nicholas Tavelic
(1341-1391), solemnly canonized on June 21, 1970, as the first Croatian saint,
a native of Šibenik, the city founded in 1066 by the Croatian king Krešimir IV.
The author's name is a pseudonym.
In the 32 pages of this pocket-sized booklet, the
reader will find no more biographical information about the saint than that
contained in the 5-page article "The Franciscan Nicholas Tavelic: First
Croatian Saint," which appeared in Studia Croatica, No. 36-37 (1970), p.
Pages 25-30 contain a rather unusual biography: personal details, already
scarce, are explained in light of the historical events of the period and
elucidated through interpretations of the nature and inescapable destiny of a
martyr.
The booklet comprises four chapters: "From
Childhood to Priesthood," with historical information about the city of
Šibenik and the Franciscan order, founded in 1209, and its first convent in
Šibenik in the 13th century. "Missionary in Bosnia" contains a
historical outline of this Croatian province and the rise of Bogomilism, to
which the majority of the Croatian people in Bosnia belonged under the name
"Bosniak Christians," from the 11th century until their disappearance
at the end of the 15th century, with the embrace of Christianity or Islam.
In this environment, Tavelic spent twelve years before
moving to Jerusalem to attempt the conversion of the highest Turkish authority
there to Christianity, and—as was to be expected—he met his martyr's death. A voluntary death? It seems so, as the third chapter,
"Sacrifice for the Muslim Brothers," fascinatingly describes,
explaining the imperative of self-sacrifice, praising "the actions of the
qadi of Jerusalem," and thus absolving him of all responsibility for the
fate of Nicholas Tavelic and his three companions, who died "out of love
for their enemies." This explanation is all the more commendable given
that one-fifth of the Croatian nation is comprised of Muslims from Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
"Glory After
Death" is the fourth and final chapter of the work, describing the
attempts at canonization following the beatification in 1889. Among others, the
author highlights, seemingly for the first time, the extraordinary merits of
Monsignor Dr. Kreso Zoric, postulator of the cause of Blessed Nicholas Tavelic,
for the success of the canonization, stating: "It happened that the stars
eclipsed the sun." The same applies to the Bishop of Sibenik, Monsignor
Josip Arneric. To both of them, too, we extend our recognition and gratitude.
Milan Blazekovic
[1] B. M. Guetzevich: La Theorie générale de l'Etat
sovietique, Paris, 1928. In the Preface Prof. G. Jčze says: "L'Etat
sovietique est une dictature extrajuridique. La classe dominante, celle qui a la plus grande force
materielle, se sert du Droit pour regler, dans son interest propre, la conduit
de tous les members of the society. The author Guetzevich in turn says
"L'Etat sovietique ignores all contrainte juridique. Il considčre que le proletariat
-minorité révolutionarie active- est historiquement prédestiné ŕ s'amparer du
pouvoir, que'il possčde a priori le droit ŕ la violence. L'unité de
classe ignore les norms du droit superieur, qui domine l'Etat et commande a l'Etat..." as taught, for example, by
León Duguit, p. 8.
[2] Thus, for
example, Stuckha clarifies: "Dans I'impossibilité oů l'on est de distinguish oů finit la loi et oů commence
l'ordonance administrative, cette opposition n'est que'une pure fiction de la
science et de la practique bourgoise." Akripov for his part says:
"Nous croyons que la formula juridique la most adequate a
l'ideal que Lenin se fesait du droit révolutionaire, serait le suivant: le
decret, révolutionaire est une administrative directive", Op. cit. p. 80.
[3] Hrvoje
Šošić, Za ciste racune (for the clear accounts), Zagreb, 1970, p. 180.
[4] Rudolf
Bicanic: Ekonomska podloga hrvatskog pitanja. Ed. Dr. Vladko Macek, Zagreb,
1938, p. 224.
[5] The
dominant role is played by three large Belgrade export firms:
"Interxport," "Generalexport," and "Progres"
(Vjesnik, February 2, 1971, Zagreb: How Much Do Our Re-exporters
"Weigh"?).
* The
Yugoslav-Romanian Dam on the Danube.
* The author of
this article was a music critic in Zagreb from 1931 to 1945.
[6] These
dialects are named according to the interrogative pronoun "what": kaj
in the homonymous dialect, ca in Kakavski, and sto in Stokavski. The Sltokavski
dialect, as a reflection of Old Slavic Jat, split into the Ikavski, Ekavski,
and Ijekavski dialects, while Kajkavski is mostly Ekavski and Cakavski is
Ikavski where it is not Ikavski-Cakavski.
[7] On the
evolution of Croatian Slavic, see J. Hamm, Hrvatski tipcrkvenoslavenskog
jezika, Slovo Staroslavenskog instituta 133, 1963, pp. 43-67; Vj. Stefanic.
Tisucu i sto godina od moravske misije, ibid., 5-42 and A. Nazor, Jezicni
kriteriji pri odredjivanju donje granice crkvenoslavenskog jezika u
hrvatskoglagoljskim tekstovima, ibid., 68-86. On literature in Slavic-Croatian,
cf. S. lvsic's material in M. Kombol, Povijest hrvatske knjizevnosti do
narodnog preporoda, 1945, first chapters.
[8] Cf. P. Skok
in Prilozi za knjizevnost, jezic, filologiju i folklor 18; F. Fancev in
Nastavni vjesnik 48 and Gradja JAZ 15. Concerning the
"intoners" of the temples cf. K. Moskatelo in Danica istarska, 1952.
Cf. also Korablja zacinjavaca, Antologija cakavske poezije, Rijeka, 1969.
[10] Regarding
what follows, concerning Croatian literature of the preceding centuries, see M.
Kombol, op. cit. c., passim, with the bibliography at the end of the book (also
in the zevnosti du XIX st. in Encicklopedija Jugoslavije vol. IV. p. 520-521,
a. 1960; cf. articles by Mate Hraste, Kajkavski knjizevni jezik, p. 525-526.
The work of M. Kombol and the aforementioned articles contain the bibliography
of this subject; cf. also in history of Croatian and Serbian lexicography by V.
Putanec in Enciclopedija Jugoslavije, Vol. V (1962), pp. 503-511.
[11] Cf. P.
Skok. La littérature croate sous Napoléon, Annales de l'Institut français de
Zagreb, VIII (1944) No. 24-25, p. 71-83.
[12] Regarding
the history of the constitution of the modern literary language between the
Croats and the Serbs see: A. Vaillant, La formation de la langue littéraire
serbo-croate, R. E. S. XXVIII (1951). p. 8092; Ljudevit
Jonke. Die Entstehung der neuren Schriftsprache bei den Kroaten und Serben
im 19 Jahrhundert (Aus der Geisteswel der Slaves) Mélanges Erwin Koschmieder,
1967, p. 5567.
[13] "The
Serbs and Croats have lived separately until the First World War, developing
their cultural activity and literature in parallel and not jointly" (A. Vaillant,
ibid., p. 91).
[14] Cf. Lj.
Jonke, op. cit., p. 57-68.
[15] Cf. Lj.
Jonke, Ceski jezicni elementi u hrvatsko-srpskom knjizevnom jeziku. Radovi
Zavoda za Slavensku Filologiju, Zagreb 1963, No. 5, p. 35-46.Tomo Maretic,
Ruske i ceske rijeci u knjizevnom hrvatskom jeziku, Rad JAZ, Zagreb, 1892, ps.
68-98.
[16] Cf. Lj.
Jonke, Knjizevni jezik u teoriji i praksi, Zagreb, 1965, 2nd edition, p. 138,
150.
[17] "A
historian of Serbian literature like Skerlic does not notice the break between
the literary language of the beginning of the 19th century and the literary
language modern: he sees it as a language that has been progressively refined
as Serbian literature developed" (A. Vaillant, ibid., p. 87).
[18] Cf. Z.
Vince, Filoloske skole 19. stoljeca u razvoju
hrvatskog knjizevnog jezika, in Radovi Zavoda za slavensku filologiju 10, 1968,
pp. 159-174 and Lj. Jonke, Razvoj hrvatskog knizevnog jezika u 20. stoljecu, ibid., pp. 99-110.
[19]
"There is an identity of writing and religion, an identity of religion and
national sentiment, since religious sentiment among the Slavs was always
intimately linked to national sentiment... But the dualism of alphabets, of
scripts, remains, which results always as troublesome in practice as linguistic
diversity... Which produces the division that remains quite
deep in that country where Yugoslav sentiment and the will for unity are
evident." (A. Vaillant, L'écriture et la psychologie des peupues, Paris 1964, p.
307). Regarding the dualism of scripts, Simeon Potter
stated: "Currently, then, the dividing line runs between Belgrade and
Zagreb, splitting Yugoslavia in two. In fact, the entire
Slavic world is divided by this significant problem" (Modern Linguistics,
London 1957, p. 57).
[20] Cf. S.
Babic, Htijenja i ogtvaienja Novosadskog dogovora, "Jezik", 15,
1967-68, p. 313; M. Mogus, Varijante prelaze puke okvire komunikativnosti,
"Jezilk" 16, 1968-69, p. 13; Z. Malie, Pismeno i usmeno
komuniciranje, "Jezik" ibid, p. 6-7.
[21] The
article by S. Babic, cited in the preceding note,
Jezik 15.
[23] Cf. B.
Vancik, in Hrvatski knjizevni list (1969), No. 10, January 31, 1969.
[24] The
struggle for the freedom of "variants" is evident in the articles
published in the journal Jezik, edited by the Croatian Philological Society of
Zagreb, which is published annually in five installments. It is essential to
consult especially the years 13, 14, and 15, where many articles on the problem
can be found, including resolutions issued by clubs, societies, and executive
committees of the Communist Party.
[25] a) See the
famous declaration on the name and status of the Croatian literary language,
dated March 15, 1967: Deklaracija o nazivu i polozaju hrvatskog knjizevnog
jezika; b) Cf. Hrvatski knjilevni jezik i pitanje varijanata (The Croatian
Literary Language and the Question of Variants), Zagreb, 1969; e) Cf. The
discussion on the status of the Croatian literary language held within the
Society of Croatian Writers and published in Telegram, Zagreb, October 1969,
No. 463, March 14, 1969; d) cf. Thornas Magner, "Language and Nationalism
in Yugoslavia," Canadian Slavic Studies, Vol. 1, No. 3, Fall 1967; e) Cf.
D. Brozovic, Rjecnik jezika ili jezik Rjecnika? Varijacije na
temu varijanata, Zagreb, 1969.
[26] The
lexical differences between literary Croatian and Serbian amount to about two
thousand words; eighty-five phonetic phenomena represent the phonetic
differences; likewise, we could cite hundreds of cases regarding word formation
and a number of rules relating to syntax, declension, and conjugation that
differ in the two languages. (See the article by Bozidar Vancik
in Bilten Interstena, Varazdin, No. 22, September 1967.)
[27] According
to Weisgerbeor, "...language is the supra-individual cultural product, the
heritage of past generations" (cf. Robert Lord, Comparative Linguistics,
London, 1966, p. 241).
* On the
current state, see: The Voice of the Croats, p. ... of this volume.
* This was a
movement of natural scale, initiated around 1830 and led by Ljudevit Gaj, which
aimed at the linguistic, literary, political-administrative, and territorial
union of all the Croatian provinces that were then separate. This movement is
also considered a precursor to the "Yugoslav" political and cultural
idea, harshly refuted by life and reality. -- Editor's Note.
[28] On the
emigrants from the Republic of Dubrovnik and the other regions of Adriatic
Croatia, as well as on the relations and first contacts of the Croats with
America, see: George J. Prpic, Early Croatian Contacts with America and the
Mystery of the Croatians in Journal of Croatian Studies, Vol. I (New York,
1960), p. 6-24.
[29] Ferdo
Sisic, Pregled Povijesti Hrvatskov Naroda, Matica Harvatska edition, Zagreb,
1962, p. 268-270, as well as: Stanko Guldescu: History of Medieval Croatia
(Hague: Mouton 1964) period until 1526.
[30] Emilij Laszowski, Rod Ratkaja Velikotaborskih
in Vitezovic vol. II, No. 2-3 (Zagreb, 1905), p. 26-31, and Poradica Ratkaja in Prosvjeta,
Vol. III (Zagreb, 1895), No. 5, p. 146-149; No. 6, page. 176-179; No. 7, page. 203-207; and
No. 8, page. 239-241. Hungarians call Ratkaj "Rattkay of Nagythabor".
[31] On the
Jesuits in the early period, Miroslav Vanini, S.J., wrote, "Prvi Isusovci
en Vrela i Prinosi -- Fontes et Studia Historicae
Societatis Jesu in Finibus Croatorum, No. 4 (Sarajevo, 1934), pp. 48-64."
Vanini was the best-known Jesuit historian in Croatia. Upon his death in 1966,
he bequeathed to us his principal work of some 2,000 pages, concerning the
history of the Society of Jesus in Croatia, entitled: "Isusovci i Hrvatski
Narod" (The Jesuits and the Croatian People).
[32] See the
succinct and accurate data in: Vladimir Bazala, "Stopama nase
visokoskolske povjesnice" in "Alma Mater Croatica," Vol. VII,
Nos. 9-10 (Zagreb, 1944), p. 166-1677; by the same author, 300 godina
visokoskolske nastave u Hrvatskoj, Matica, emigrants' calendar 1966 (Zagreb:
Matice Isaljenika Hrvatske, 1965) p. 47-56.
[33] M. Vanini, Duae epistolae Euphrosynae vid
Ratkai filio Nicolao (1622) in Vrela i Prinosi, Vol. I. (1932), p. 100-105. E. Laszowski,
Ratkai Velikotaborski barun Nicola, in Znameniti i Zasluzni Hrvati (Zagreb,
1925), p. 227. Ivan Bojnicic, Hrvatski Missionar XVII vijeka in Vjesnik Kr.
Drzavnog Arkiva u Zagebu, Vol. I (Zagreb, 1925), p. 97-114. Krunoslav
Draganovic, Opci Sematizam Katolicke Crkve u Jugoslaviji (Sarajevo: Regina
Apostolorum, 1939), p. 447, G. A. Patrigiani, Mononologio di Pio Memorie
d'Alcuni Religiosi della Compagnia di Gesú (Venezia: N. Pezanno, 1730), Vol. I,
p. 215-218; and Slavko Jezic, Hrvatska Knjizevnost od
Pocetka do Danas (Zagreb: A. Velzek, 1944), p. 124-126.
[34] F. Sisic,
Pregled Povijesti Hrvatskov Naroda, p. 22-23, 84, 265, 349 and 498; E.
Laszowski, Ratkaj Velikotaborski barun Djuro, in the work already cited, p.
226-227. Zvano Crnje in his dogmatic Marxist social and cultural history
Cultural History of Croatia (Zagreb, Office of Information, 1962) tries to
underestimate the significance of all Ratkaj, be they barons or priests.
[35] S. Jezic,
Hrvastka Knjizevnost (Croatian Literature), p. 126.
[36] Gjuro
Szabo, Kroz Hrvatsko Zagorje, Zagreb, 1939, p. 32-33.
[37] The
archivist of the Historical Archive of Ptuj informed me by letter dated
February 7, 1967, that he had carefully reviewed the birth records of the
parish of St. George in Ptuj from that time, as well as the index of all the
houses in the same city, but found no mention of Ratkaj. See also: M. D.
Krmpotic, Ratkai Baron Juan, the first Croatian missionary in America, in
Znameniti i Zasluzni Hrvati, Zagreb, 1925, p. 227.
[38] J. C.
Teschitel, the Jesuit archivist in Rome, his letter of October 11, 1966.
[39] The
genealogy of the Ratkaj family, on microfilm, prepared in German by N. Zmajic,
received by us from Prof. Ivan Cizmic in Zagreb in October 1966.
[40] The final
phase of preparation for Jesuit religious profession is called in Latin tertia
probatio (Tertianship). A copy of Ratkaj's 23-page letter was sent to me by
Rev. Teschitel. The original is kept in Indipetae Austriae 1914-1730, f. 294 r.
The same priest provided me with a reproduction of the "Elogium," an
8-page manuscript about Ratkaj's life. Regarding the Jesuits who went to
Mexico, Ratkaj, and his companions, one should carefully study the masterpiece:
Herbert E. Bolton: Rim of Christendom: A Biography of Eusebio Francisco Kino,
Pacific Coast Pioneer (New York: Macmillan, 1936), as well as Peter M. Dunne: Early
Jesuit Missions in Tarahumara, Berkeley, 1948.
[42] H. E.
Bolton, Wider Horizons of American History (New York: D. Appleton-Century,
1939, p. 184). Professor Bolton and his student P. M. Dunne are considered
among the best North American authors on the Jesuit missions in Mexico. Both
wrote extensively about Ratkaj, but are confused regarding his nationality.
[43] Bolton,
Rim of Christendom, pp. 40-41; Dunne, Early Jesuit Missiones in Tarahumara, p.
138.
[44] Bolton,
op. cit., p. 41.
[45] Ibid., p.
43-44.
[46] Ibid., p.
43-44.
[47] Ibid., p.
45.
[48] Ibid., p.
46.
[49] Ibid., p.
47-48 noting the measurements of the flagship.
[50] Ibid., p.
48-50. Our dates are from Bolton.
[51] The letter
of Juan Ratkaj, dated November 6, 1780, written in Mexico City, addressed to
his Provincial rev. Nicolaus Avancinus and reproduced in: Joseph Stöcklein:
Allerhand... Brief Schriftum und Reis-Beschreibungen welche
von denen Missionariies der Gesellschaft Jesu aus Beyde Indienund andern über
Meer geiegenen Laendern seit An. 1642, bis auf das Jahr 1726 in Europa
angelangt seynd, Vol. I, 8 parts (Augsburg und Gratz: Verlang Philips
und Veith, 1726), p. 79. Boilton, Dunne, and other authors, including Croatian
ones, cite these published reports on the Jesuit missions in various parts of
the world in the abbreviated form "Der Neue Welt-Bott," mit allerhand
Nachrichten der Missionariorum Soc. Jesu. -- Rev. F. Ivekovic published the
Croatian translation of these interesting and very valuable documents with
extensive information concerning Stöcklein and Avancinus in "Katolicki
List," Vol. LVII, Zagreb 1907, No. 38, pp. 441-444; No. 39, pp. 453-457.
[52] The
letters of Rev. Gerstl to his father from June 30, 1678, to July 14, 1681, in
Stöcklein, De Neue Welt-Bott, Vol. I, No. 31.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Ratkaj to
Avicinus, in letter of December 16, 1680 in works cited by Stöcklein, Bolton
and Dunne.
[55] Der Neue Welt-Bott, Vol. I, p. 77-78.
[56] Ibid., p.
78; Bolton, op. cit., p. 65-66; Dunne, Early Jesuit Missions, p. 139.
[57] Bolton,
op. cit., p. 54-65.
[58] P. M.
Dunne, Lower California an Island, "Mid-America", Vol. 35, No. 1,
1953, p. 37-66.
[60] Ratkaj,
op. cit., p. 79.
[61] Ibid.
[62] Bolton,
Rim of Christendom, p. 67; Ratkaj, op. cit., p. 79.
[63] Ratkaj,
op. cit., p. 79.
[64] Ibid.
[65] Ibid., p.
79-80. Here I have compared texts and found many Bolton errors.
[66] Ratkaj,
op. cit., p. 80.
[67] Ibid.,
Bolton in turn in Rim of Christendom, p. 68 says: "they arrived (in Vera
Cruz) on September 25 after 65 days of travel", Ratkaj however says in his
letter published in Der Neue Welt-Bott: "Den 15. Abends
sind wir zu Vera Cruz glücklich angelangt."
[68] Ratkaj, op.
cit., p. 80.
[69] Ibid.;
Bolton, op. cit., p. 69-70.
[70] Dunne,
Early Jesuit Missions..., p. 139-140.
[71] Bolton,
op. cit., p. 70, Dunne in Early Jesuit Missions..., p. 249 notes that Bolton
reworks the content of Ratkaj's letter into a "tasty tale."
[72] Ratkaj,
op. cit., p. 81; Bolton, op. cit., p. 71.
[73] Ratkaj,
op. cit., p. 81.
[74] Bolton,
op. cit., p. 72. On the same page, Bolton concludes with our missionary:
"Ratkaj, a good storyteller, died shortly after arriving at his
mission," without telling us when or how his death occurred.
[75] Ibid.;
Dunne, Early Jesuit Missions..., p. 140. De Angelis was a descendant of the
Piccolomini Dukes of Naples by birth.
[76] Dunne, op.
cit., p. 140.
[77] Dunne, op.
cit., pp. 140-141.
[78] Ratkaj in
Stöcklein's work, p. 81. Ratkaj notes the distance in miles ("Meil"),
actually thinking of leagues, which are larger in English, almost 5 km. A
comparison between Ratkaj's and Neumann's mileage figures can cause confusion
if this difference is not kept in mind.
[79] Dunne,
Early Jesuit Missions..., p. 141.
[80] Ratkaj,
op. cit., p. 81.
[81] Dunne, op.
cit., p. 141.
[82] Ratkaj,
op. cit., p. 82; Dunne, op. cit., p. 141.
[83] Ratkaj,
op. cit., p. 82.
[84] Dunne, op.
cit., p. 141.
[85] Ratkaj,
op. [86] Dunne, op. cit., p. 82; Dunne, op. cit., pp. 141-142, notes that they
had arrived at Coyachic and "remained there during the month of February
studying the (Indian) language," which cannot be accurate regarding
Ratkaj, because, according to his own letter, he left Coyachic the following
day.
[87] Dunne, op.
cit., p. 149. The map is untitled, but the Preface is dated April 15, 1724.
[88] Ratkaj,
op. cit., p. 82.
[89] Ratkaj,
op. cit., p. 82.
[90] Ibid.; On
the Indian rebellion, see: Dunne, Early Jesuit..., p. 160.
[92] Dunne,
Early Jesuit..., p. 6.
[93] Dunne,
Early Jesuit..., p. 83.
[94] Ibid.;
Viceroy Count of Paredes "was Viceroy of Mexico for six years: 1680-1686.
The period of his government was characterized by attacks by the English and
French pirates, who pillaged Veracruz in 1683, and Tampico and Campeche in
1684," as Bolton writes in Rim of Christendom, p. 53.
[95] Ratkaj,
op. cit., p. 83. Here it must be emphasized that Spain had already repealed the
prohibition on the entry of foreign missionaries in 1664, thus enabling the
arrival of many foreigners, including our Ratkaj. On this matter, see: P.
Dunne, Jacobo Sedelmayn (Arizona Pioneers: Historical Society, 1945), p. 1.
[96] Ratkaj,
op. cit., p. 84.
[97] Ibid.;
Kino observed this coment in Cádiz in December 1680.
[98] Ratkaj,
op. cit., p. 84. It seems that this news was premature because it was only in
1697—that is, 16 years later—that Rev. Juan María Salvatierra, S.J., founded
the first permanent settlement and mission in inland California, in Loreto.
[99] Dunne,
Early..., p. 142.
[100] Ibid., pp. 142–143.
[101] Ibid., p. 152.
[102] Ibid., p. 157; although a few pages earlier, Dunne says that
Carichic was Ratkaj's first locality, and now claims that Ratkaj first served
in Pesiquechic.
[103] Martin P.
Krmpotic, Znameniti i Zasluzni Hrvati, p. 227.
[104] A.
Christelow, Father Joseph Neumann, Jesuit Missionary to the Tarahumares in The
Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. XIX, No. 4, 1939, p. 426.
[105] Neumann's
letter of February 2, 1682, cited by Dunne in Early..., p. 145.
[106] Ibid.
[107] Ibid., p. 146. At that time, there were 74 Christian
families in Sisoguichic, comprising 179 souls. A number of such settlements
were called villages or head towns and constituted a district.
[108] Ibid., p. 149.
[109] Neumann's
letter to Rev. Stowasser, dated July 29, 1986, published in Stöklein, op. cit.,
Vol. I, Report, No. 31.
[110] Dunne,
Early..., pp. 155-156.
[111] Ibid., op. cit., pp. 156-159.
[112] Neumann, his aforementioned letter, and
Dunne, op. cit., pp. 160-161.
[113] Neumann, the same letter, Dunne, op. cit., p.
161.
[114] Dunne,
op. cit., p. 261.
[115] Ibid, p.
149.
[116] A copy of the letter and the manuscript are
in my possession; the manuscript of the work "Relatio" is signed by
Rev. Teschitel as "Mexic. 17"; Neue Signatur fol.
494r–505r; Alte Sign. rechte bzw. linke oben 1–23"—Mexic. 17—the new signature fol.
494r–505r; the old signature, right or left respectively, above 1–23.
[117]
"Elogium de P. Joannes Radkay" (November 1684), Archivum Romanum
S.I., Vitae 168, ff. 54—Eight pages of the text.
[118] Dunne, Early Jesuit Missions, p. 163.
[119] Bolton, Rim of Christendom, p. 72. Bolton and
Dunne state in their works that Ratkaj died of illness, but both authors also
contain numerous other inaccuracies.
[120] Christelow, Father Joseph Neumann..., p. 426.
[121] Stöcklein, op. cit., p. 105.
[122] Ibid., pp. 115–116.
[123] Dunne, Early..., pp. 165–166.
[124] M.
Bonardi, Undeni Graecenses Academici suo sanguine Porpurati, Graz, 1927, p.
124, and Ratkaj's biography on pp. 125–136. The author obtained a copy courtesy of the Graz
University Library. See also the portrait of Ratkaj that appears in this study.
It was reproduced in the book: A. Hammy, Galerie Illustrée de la Compagnie de
Jesús, an album of 400 portraits (Paris, 1892). Ratkaj and his death
are also mentioned in: Elesban de Guilhermy, Mónologe de la Compagnie de Jésus
(Paris, 1898), p. 505-508; Giuseppe A. Patrignani, Monologio de Pie Memorie
d'alcuni Religiosi della Compagnie de Gesú (Venezia: N. Pezzana, 1730), p.
215-218.
[125] Krmpotic on Ratkaj in Znameniti i Zasluzni
Hrvati, p. 227. Krunoslav Dragonovic in his work Opci Sematizam Katolice Crkve
u Jugoslaviji, Sarajevo 1939, p. 447 also mentions Ratkaj as a martyr.
[126] Gerard Decorme, The Work of the Mexican
Jesuits (2 vols., Mexico: José Porrúa, 191), Vol. I,
p. 410.
[127] Dunne, "Early Jesuit Missions..., p.
197.
[128] I obtained the reproductions and negatives of
Ratkaj's portrait courtesy of the Croatian Historical Museum and through the
mediation of Prof. Rodojko Karaman, S.J. None of the American authors who wrote
about Ratkaj are familiar with this portrait or the text I am mentioning.
[129] Stöcklein, op. cit., p. 81.