sotirovic balcania english language articles 2013

7/27/2019 Sotirovic BALCANIA English Language Articles 2013

1/229

Vladislav B.

Sotirovi

.

BBAALLCCAANNIIAA

SSCCIIEENNTTIIFFIICC AARRTTIICCLLEESS IINN

EENNGGLLIISSHH

Vlad

islavB.

Sotirovi

BALCANIA


2/229

Vladislav B. Sotirovi

BALCANIAScientific articles in English

Vilnius 2013


3/229


4/229

Vladislav B. Sotirovi

BALCANIAScientific articles in English

Publisher & editorYUGOSLAVOLOGY

An Independent Research Centre for the Yugoslav Studieshttp://www.jugoslavologija.eu

Cover & design

Vladislav B. Sotirovihttp://www.sotirovic.blog.com

2013 by Vladislav B. Sotirovi & YUGOSLAVOLOGY AnIndependent Research Centre for the Yugoslav Studies

All rights reserved

50 exemplars

First edition

Printed by Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences PressEdukologija

T. evenkos g. 31, LT-03111 Vilnius, Lithuania

Paper book ISBN 978-609-408-473-7

Electronic book ISBN 978-609-408-474-4UDK 949.7 So-121

Online book presentationhttp://balcanica.webs.com

http://www.jugoslavologija.eu

Contact

[email protected]


5/229

Contents:

1. THE CULT OF SERBIAN PRINCE LAZAR HREBELJANOVI KOSOVOSGREAT MARTYR

____________________________________________________ p. 5

2. THE CROATIAN NATIONAL REVIVAL MOVEMENT (THE ILLYRIAN

MOVEMENT) AND THE QUESTION OF LINGUISTIC-NATIONAL

DETERMINATION OF THE SOUTH SLAVS, 18301847

____________________________________________________ p. 27

3. THE IDEA OF A GREATER CROATIA IN THE 17th CENTURY

____________________________________________________ p. 61

4. THE NATO WORLD ORDER, THE BALKANS AND THE RUSSIAN

NATIONAL INTEREST

____________________________________________________ p. 110

5. KOSOVO AND THE CAUCASUS: A DOMINO EFFECT

____________________________________________________ p. 130

6. NATIONAL IDENTITY: WHO ARE THE ALBANIANS? THE ILLYRIAN

ANTHROPONYMY AND THE ETHNOGENESIS OF THE ALBANIANS

____________________________________________________ p. 142

7. THE BALKAN VLACHS AN EXTINGUISHING ETHNOLINGUISTIC

GROUP

____________________________________________________ p. 189


6/229

Vladislav B. Sotirovi ______________________BALCANIA

5

THE CULT OF SERBIAN PRINCE LAZARHREBELJANOVI KOSOVOS GREAT MARTYRTHE BATTLE AND THE NATION

The consciousness of a distinct Serbian ethnic identity hadbeen present among the Serbs since the times of the founder ofindependent mediaeval Serbian state, veliki upan Stefan Nemanja(11661196). These consciousnesses were further strengthened

when Serbia became Kingdom in 1217 and with the establishmentof an autocephalous Archbishopric in 1219 as a national

independent church. However, the Battle of Kosovo (June 28th

,1389) which Serbs lost to the Ottoman Turks and the death ofSerbian ruler, Prince Lazar Hrebeljanovi (13711389), during the

battle had up to nowadays the most powerful impact to the Serbianconsciousness about independent state, independent church andawareness of ethnic separateness from other members of SouthSlavic community.

After the battle, tradition has developed the motif ofheroism and the cult of Prince Lazar who was proclaimed by thechurch to be Kosovos great martyr and in the following centuriesthe crucial national task of the Serbs became to revenge to theMuslim Turks for the lost battle, independent state and the deathof Prince Lazar. This consciousness of revenge for Kosovostragedy is revived in recent times as Kosovo is still considered asoccupied national soil of the Serbs, but now by Muslim

Albanians. This feeling became more stronger after February 17th,2008 when Kosovos Albanians unilaterally proclaimed statesindependence that is recognized by a part of internationalcommunity. Nevertheless, in both cases when national revenge

was directed towards Muslim Turks and now when it is directedtowards Muslim Albanians (who settled Kosovo from Northernand Central Albania after 1689) the cult of Prince Lazar Kosovos great martyr had a crucial impact to the Serbian mind,national feelings, aims and pride. A real importance of KosovosBattle, Kosovos Myth, Kosovos Legend and the cult of PrinceLazar for the Serbs can be seen from the fact that Serbs aredividing the whole period of national history into two parts: 1)

before Kosovos tragedy and 2) after that.


7/229


6

Public announcement in Serbia by the Government and the Parliament to attent nationalprotest-meeting against separation of Kosovo from the rest of Serbia under the slogan Kosovo

is Serbia. The meeting was held on February 21st, 2008 in Belgrade in front of the House ofParliament and attended by 500.000 citizens

THE WRITTEN DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE CULT

There are ten survived written documents upon the cult ofPrince Lazar. All of them are originating between 1389 and1419/20. They are:

1. The Prologue hagiography of Prince Lazarwritten byunknown writer;

2. The Letter concerning Prince Lazar written byPatriarch Danilo III;

3. The Hagiography concerning Prince Lazar writtenby unknown writer;

4. The Praise to Prince Lazar written by Jefimia;5. The Hagiography and office of Prince Lazar written

by unknown writer;

6. The Service to Prince Lazar written by unknownwriter;


8/229


7

7. The Praise's letter to Prince Lazar written byunknown writer;

8. The Inscription on the marble column in Kosovowritten by unknown writer;

9. The Letter concerning saint Prince Lazar written byAndonie Rafail; and

10. The Letter concerning Prince Lazar written byunknown writer.1

Unfortunately, Balkan historians from the 19th century(most of them have been romanticists) did not use these writtendocuments as a historical source for the very reason that accordingto their opinion these documents presented a false chronology of

real historical events. However, these documents as historicalreports in fact are directly challenging their writings upon theBalkan history of the time during the Ottoman conquest of thepeninsula (13541521). On the other hand, Russian writer

Alexander Gilferding had the most severe criticism of thesedocuments because, according to him, those documents had a lotof the locus comunis and the general phrases. He thought thatchronology was totally absent in these documents.2 Mainly thesame opinion about them had also and P. J. afaik, . Danii, V.

Jagi and Lj. Kovaevi. Nevertheless, according to their commonopinion neither Prince Lazar nor the battle against the Turks havenot been satisfactory described and presented in the Serbianliterature and Balkan historiography of their time. They urged thatthese ten written documents upon the cult of Serbian Prince Lazarhad to be scientifically investigated and used as historical source.

It is necessary to notice that these written documents, ingeneral, did not use a historical chronology at all because the aimof their writers was not a historical detail or to give us detailed

description of historical fact. However, they are of double validity:1) for the events which they described; and 2) for the time whenthey are made. In this case, the validity of these documents is notof the same value for the time before and after the Battle of Kosovo(in the year of 1389 according to the Christian time-counting, in6897 year according to the creation of the world time-counting,

1. Trifunovi, Srpski srednjovekovni spisi o Knezu Lazaru i Kosovskomboju, Kruevac, 1968, pp. 451452; Slovo o svetom knezu Lazaru Andonija

Rafaila,Zbornik istorije knjievnosti SANU, Vol. 10, 1976, pp. 147179.2 A. F. Giljferding, Putovanje po Hercegovini, Bosni i Staroj Srbiji, Sarajevo,1972, p. 241.


9/229


8

and in 879 year according to the Muslim calendar). The documentsin regard with Prince Lazars cult among the Serbs did not traceand did not back the hagiographies dedicated to the saint Serbianruling mediaeval familythe Nemanjis. Until the time of

Grigorije Camblak, in hagiographies of the Nemanis there werenot descriptions of the martyrs death. However, writers of thecults documents concerning Prince Lazar put the main stressexactly on Princes martyrs death which was the chief point ofmany literal works. Therefore, the cults written documentsdedicated to Prince Lazar were in fact the martyrs hagiographiesand based on the idea of a continuation of the Bible.1

Almost all writers of the cults documents dedicated toPrince Lazar were contemporaries either of him, i.e. of the

Kosovos Battle or of the time of translation of the Princes relicsafter the battle. The last of these ten documents was written byAndonie Rafail (The Letter concerning saint Prince Lazar) in1419/20. The rest of them were written earlier and they are morecloser to the time of the Serbian-Turkish fighting in the KosovoField. The documents which are emphasising the Serbian military

victory are oldest because the first reports with regard to theresults of the battle were telling about the Serbian victory, mainly

because of the death of the Turkish sultan Murat I during thebattle. However, in the most recent documents, like The Letterconcerning saint Prince Lazar by Andonie Rafail, Prince Lazar

was also winner, but this victory had a spiritual meaning, but notthe real military-political one.2 The oldest document, The

Prologue hagiography concerning Prince Lazar telling us aboutthe bright victory of Prince Lazar. The use of term bright

victory revealing us primarily a spiritual meaning of the term. Themost historically written document concerning the cult of PrinceLazar is The Letter concerning Prince Lazar by Serbian PatriarchDanilo III. In this document there are more historical eventspresented than in others. In the rest of the cults documents there

were chosen only historical facts which are appropriate to the aimsof the cult and its ideals. The most information given in this

Letter, which are referring to the feudal families, can be used ashistorical truth for the sake that Patriarch Danilo was in very closeand friendly relations to the court of Prince Lazar and his family.

1 D. Bogdanovi, Stara srpska biblioteka,Letopis Matice srpske, Vol. 408/5,

1971, pp. 408432.2. Trifunovi, Srpski srednjovekovni spisi o Knezu Lazaru i Kosovskomboju, Kruevac, 1968, pp. 365371.


10/229


9

It is very interesting note given by Patriarch Danilo that theBattle of Kosovo was finished in the way that both of the armiesstopped to fight because they were totally exhausted. PatriarchDanilo is clearly telling us that the Lazarevis family originated

from the Nemanjis dynasty, a ruling Serbias dynasty from 1166to 1371. This information is partially correct because Prince Lazarswife (Milica) really traced her origin from Vukan, the oldest son ofthe founder of the Nemanjis dynastyStefan Nemanja(11661196). In comparison with Patriarch Danilos report, theorigin of the Lazarevis family is so ambiguous in the rest of thecults written documents.

The authors of the cults documents presented also and thePrinces warship oration before the battle. This oration is

preserved in three documents: The Letter concerning Prince Lazarby Patriarch Danilo, The Hagiography concerning Prince Lazarand The Letter concerning Prince Lazar. The last two of them are

written by unknown authors. The longest warship oration is thatone presented in the Patriarch Danilos work. In this work thecrucial dramatical point is not the battle itself. It is the eve of the

battle in which the Princes warship oration had the main role forthe future national pride of the Serbs who are choosing theHeavenly instead of the Earthly Empire.

We can conclude using the methodology of the textcomparison that the authors of the Prince Lazars cults documentsknew about the chronicles of Georgie Chamartol and ConstantinManas, as well as about The Alexandrida and TheHistory of the

Jewish War written by Joseph Flavius.1 It is obvious that theheroic sentences with regard to the warship orations in The

Alexandrida, given by Alexander the Great and in The Letterconcerning Prince Lazar, given by the Serbian ruler are verysimilar. From political point of view, the warship oration in the

work by Patriarch Danilo belongs to Kosovos ideology. Generally,

the number of real historical facts for the before-Kosovo epoch andfor Kosovos Battle in written documents concerning the PrinceLazars cult are very modest. On the other hand, the cultsdocuments are very appropriate sources for researching the statesideology, the cultural history and ethnic identity.

1ibid., p. 343.


11/229


10

Crucified Kosovo in 21st c.

AN ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CULT

The canonisation, or the solemn proclamation of the saints,was introduced in Europe in the 11th c.1 In the Roman CatholicChurch a decision regarding the canonisation from the 17thcentury had to be given only by the Pope. However, the GreekOrthodox Church was allowing the canonisation of the local cults

by bishops and metropolitans alongside by the Patriarch. In theRussian Orthodox Church the right for canonisation had both the

Patriarch and the Emperor.2 However, the process ofcanonisation in the mediaeval Serbian state is not researched inhistoriography and we do not know exactly how this process wasgoing on.

In the mediaeval Serbia the church cult was reserved onlyfor the ruling Nemanjis dynasty and for the church archpriests.The genealogies of the Nemanjis dynasty are presented in three

1 . Mitrovi, O pravu proglaavanja svetaca u staro doba, Istonik, Vol.

XXI1718, Beograd, 1907, pp. 385390.2 L. Mirkovi, Uvrtenje despota Stefana Lazarevia u red svetitelja,Bogoslovlje, II-3, 1932, p. 165.


12/229


11

important Serbian mediaeval monasteries: Graanica, Deani andin the headquarters of the Serbian Patriarchate Pe (in TurkishIpek). All three of them are located in Kosovo a territory that isthe creadle of Serbian state, culture and nation. We know from the

sources that the last Nemanjis have been stressing that theyoriginated from the holy roots. It is known that except the highchurch dignitaries who were proclaimed as the saints only themembers of the ruling dynasty had hagiographies. However, aftertwo centuries of Nemanjis rule in Serbia Prince Lazar was thefirst secular person out of the ruling dynasty who was declared to

be the saint.The interesting question is why the Serbian Orthodox

church never proclaimed as the saints two other Serbian mediaeval

rulers who also were killed in another battle against the Turks the brothers King Vukain (13651371) and Despot UgljeaMrnjavevi (13651371)? The battle in which they died, regardingthe destiny of the Byzantine Empire and other Balkan mediaevalstates, was even more important than it was Kosovos Battle. It wasthe battle in 1371 (6879 from the creation of the world) near theMaritza River in Bulgaria on September 26th. The answers could bethat:

1. This battle was far from the ancient Serbian lands incomparison with the Battle of Kosovo which was in thecore of the Serbian mediaeval state; and

2. Prince Lazar was a ruler of the lands which were thecore of Serbian Nemanjis state and in such a wayexactly he was predestined to be a successor of theNemanjis dynasty.

However, probably the crucial reason why the Mrnjavevi'swere not proclaimed as the saints was the fact that according to thefalse tradition they killed the last Nemanji Emperor Uro

(13551371), who in fact naturally died in December 1371.Therefore, their destiny and murder in the Maritza Battle was infact a punishment given by the Lord and consequently their dead

bodies have been never found.1 It is important to say that for theestablishment of the ones cult the martyr death wasindispensable, but not necessary to be and heroic one. It was themain reason for the fact that in all written documents the martyrdeath of Prince Lazar was always emphasised. The awareness

1 Lj. Stojanovi, Rodoslovi i letopisi, Sremski Karlovci: Srpska KraljevskaAkademija, XVI, 1927, pp. 208209.


13/229


12

regarding Kosovos martyr and martyrdom is still very alive amongpresent days Serbs when the whole region of Kosovo is crucified.

The Serbian orthodox monastery of Deani in Western Kosovo - Metohija (first half of the 14th

century)

The Serbian well-known theologian and historian ofthe church, Lazar Mirkovi is in opinion that Prince Lazar with hismartyr death was automatically involved into the order of thesaints because the martyrs should not be declared for the saints ortheir saintness to be investigated, because of they are eo ipso whatthey suffered for Christ.1 In the other words, their martyrdom tothe death was undoubtedly the crucial reason for their declarationfor the saints. ore Trifunovi is in opinion that Prince Lazar

became the saint without official proclamation by the Serbianchurch.2

The most dusputable question is was Lazars cultestablished as organised one by the church or it startedspontaneously? In the other words, has been the canonisation ofPrince Lazar made under church law or not? It is really beyond anydoubt that according to the authors of the cults written documents

1ibid., p. 166.2. Trifunovi, Srpski srednjovekovni spisi o Knezu Lazaru i Kosovskomboju, Kruevac, 1968, p. 204.


14/229


13

Prince Lazar became the saint on the base of his martyrdom to thedeath, but also on the bases of the facts that his relics werecomplete and spreading the holy smell (myrrh).

The most significant fact with regard to the question of an

establishment of the Prince Lazars cult is that the historicalsources are strictly telling us about organised translation of Lazarsrelics. The translation was the crucial theme in both ofLetterconcerning Prince Lazar by Patriarch Danilo III and Letterconcerning Prince Lazar by unknown author. According to severalauthors, the translation of Lazars relics was the decisive momentin the process of an establishment of his cult. Patriarch Danilonotified that a decision regarding the translation was made in thehome of the Lazarevis. The solemn procession started in

Prishtina (nowadays a capital of Kosovo) where Lazars relics wereburied firstly. From the text of the document it is obvious thatPatriarch Danilo was present in this process of translation andprobably the whole process of translation of the body wasorganised and conducted by him.1 The solemn procession wasaccompanied by both Princes son-in-law Vuk Brankovi, feudalland-lord of Kosovo, and by Vuks wife MaraPrince Lazarsdaughter. On the road from Pritina to Lazars monastery ofRavanica in Central Serbia the procession spent a night in town ofBrvenik where in monastery of Nova Pavlica the holy relics wereput beside the graves of Lazars sister Dragana and their sons-Stefan and Lazar. The procession was finished in monastery ofRavanica where Lazars relics were buried again, but now as thesaints relics. In such a way, a wish of Prince Lazarto be buried inhis endowment (memorial) monastery of Ravanica was fulfilled.

It is known that for the process of translation only one ofthe cults texts was necessary. It is beyond any suspicion that thetranslation of Lazars relics was organised and directed by the stateand the church. The Princes successors initiated this process and

Patriarch Danilo III organised and conducted it according to thepatterns of the former translations of the bodies of the Serbianrulers or the churchs archpriests and of course according to thechurchs law. For the new martyr and saint patriarch Danilo madethe cults text.2 The translation of the relics of saint Sava (died in1235)a founder of the Serbian independent church in 1219, from

1 A. Vukomanovi, O knezu Lazaru, Glasnik Drutva srpske slovesnosti,

Vol. 11, Beograd, 1859, p. 177.2 R. Mihalji, Lazar Hrebeljanovi, Istorija, kult, predanje, Beograd: BIGZ,1989, p. 152.


15/229


14

Trnovo in Bulgaria to Mileeva monastery in Serbia, thetranslation of the Simeon Nemanjas relics from monastery ofChilandar in Greece to monastery of Studenica in central Serbiaand their attachment to the order of the saints have been very well

known to Patriarch Danilo. He surely read The Hagiography ofSaint Sava written by Theodosie in the 13th century and the textsconcerning a canonisation of Simeon Nemanja written byDomentian in the same century.1

However, according to the opposite opinion, churchscouncil was not met and therefore there was not officialproclamation of Prince Lazar as the saint. Nevertheless, unknownauthor of The Letter concerning Prince Lazar strictly mentionedchurchs council held during the process of translation. We can

think that probably this council held a session without all numberof its members presented because of the fact that churchs councilsin Serbia after the death of Emperor Stefan Duan (13311355)

were held mainly as a rumpt councils. It can be concluded thatprobably in the case of Prince LazarKosovos great martyr, boththe process of translation and the process of canonisation have

been done at the same time.2

Crucified Kosovo today

1 V. orovi, Siluan i Danilo II, srpski pisci XIV-XV veka, Glas SrpskeKraljevske akademije, CXXXVI-72, 1929, pp. 95, 97.2ibid., p. 155.


16/229


15

Do not surrender! Kosovo is Serbia!

Usually and officially, a proclamation to be the saint wasdone after an exhumation. According to the opinion given byBelgrade University Professor Rade Mihalji, Prince Lazar wasproclaimed as the saint at an end of the translation, just after thesolemn procession came to Ravanica monastery and just beforeLazars relics were again buried in his memorial monastery.1 Afterfinishing both of processestranslation and canonisation, it wasestablished an annual celebration of the new saint in the churchscalendar. According to those historians who are thinking thatcanonisation was done during the translation of Lazars relics, thisprocession of translation, proclamation for the saint as well as

1ibid., p. 155.


17/229


16

canonisation of him were done very early after the Kosovo Battle,probably only one or two years after that, i. e. in 1390./1391.

A SPREADING OF THE CULT UNTIL THE GREATMIGRATION OF THE SERBS FROM KOSOVO TOHUNGARY(1690)

The cult of Prince Lazar was established with an agreementbetween the family of the Lazarevis and a hierarchy of theSerbian Church. One part of the cults texts was made by Lazarsson, successor of the Serbian throneDespot Stefan Lazarevi(13931427). The relatives of the Lazarevis dynasty have beenspreading this cultthe cult of the new saint who did not trace hisorigin from the saint Nemanjis dynasty.1 For example, nunJefimia, relative of the Duchess Milica who was a wife of PrinceLazar, wrote with a golden silk well-known The Praise to Prince

Lazar. Even in the charter written by the Lazarevis in 1395/6.and 1400. issued for the Russian monastery in Athos, the SerbianPrince was mentioned as the saint Prince. Despot Stefan Lazareviten years later gave a new charter to the monastery of Chilandar on

Athos in Grece and mentioned his father as my parent and

gentleman saint Prince.2 The same attribute Despot Stefan usedfor his father in his well-known The Mine Law. The fraternity ofmonastery Rusik on Athos, according to the signed special contract

with Despot Stefan, was obliged to give annual celebration to thesaint Prince. The family of Brankovis, the rulers of Kosovo in thesecond part of the 14th c. and the beginning of the 15th c., have beenmentioning Prince Lazar as the saint Prince particularly when thePrinces daughter Mara was alive. However, after her death Lazar

was mentioned in official documents issued by the Brankovis as

saint Prince very rarely.3 In the official documents issued byRepublic of Ragusa/Dubrovnik the Princes name wasaccompanied by the attribute saint, but only when those

1 Lj. Stojanovi, Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi, Zbornik za IJK SAN, I, 56, 175,Beograd, Sremski Karlovci, 19021926.

2 S. Novakovi, Zakonski spomenici srpskih drava srednjeg veka, Beograd,1912, p. 462.3ibid., 223.


18/229


17

documents are sent to the Lazarevis, but even in this case notalways.1

As an extraordinary event, an establishment of the PrinceLazars cult was expressed mainly in historical works: ingenealogies and chronicles. However, for the authors of the olderchronicles and genealogies Lazar was only Prince, Grand Prince orsovereign with some additional attributes, but not and withattribute saint. On the other hand, this attribute can be found inthe texts which are telling us about translation of the relics, the act

which happened just before a canonisation. The authors of theyounger chronicles and genealogies used very often together withthe name of the Prince and an attribute of saintregardless if they

were describing time before or after the canonisation. The same

case is and with some inscriptions.A spreading of Lazars cult can be presented and seen also

and on the wall-paintings at that time or later on. The saint cult ofPrince Lazar was cherished on the whole territory of the Morava(Central) Serbia and in several monasteries in the Athos during thetime of the Lazarevis dynasty. However, at the time of theLazarevis the portrait of Prince Lazar was wall-painted only once.It was in the endowment of Duchess Milica-a monastery ofLjubostinja. Also, in Serbian monastery Chilandar in Athos it can

not be found portraits of Prince Lazar from that time. However,together with his portrait in monastery of Ravanica after hiscanonisation a signatura the saintwas added.2 Serbian feudal lordStefan Musi, a founder of Nova Pavlica monastery, did not forgetto put attribute the saint to Prince Lazars title and name besidehis portrait on the wall: Blagoastivi i hristoljubivi gospodin

Stefan, sin elnika Muse i gospoe Dragane, sestre velikoga isamodravnoga gospodina Srbljem i Podunaviju, svetoga kneza

Lazara i ktitor svetoga mesta ovoga.3 The title saintcan be found

in the church of saint Nicholas in Chilandar where a portrait of theSerbian Prince Lazar along with this signature was made in 1667.It was the first Princes portrait in one of several Chilandarsmonasteries.4 In some cases, alongside with the name of Lazar and

1 Lj. Stojanovi,Stare srpske povelje i pisma,I-1, Beograd, Sremski Karlovci,1929, 1934, pp. 180, 182, 184, 186, 190193, 196, 200, 201, 216, 219, 224, 227.2 G. Babi, Vladarske insignije kneza Lazara, Beograd, p. 66.3 V. Petkovi,Starine, Beograd, p. 42.

4 D. Bogdanovi,Hilandar u srednjem veku, HilandarBeograd, 1978, pp. 46,48; S. Petkovi, Kult kneza Lazara i srpsko slikarstvo XVII veka, Zbornik zalikovne umetnosti, Vol. 7, Beograd, 1971, p. 90.


19/229


18

the attribute saint he was titled as well as the Emperor. Forexample, in the monastery of Gornjak it is written the saint

Emperor Lazar, but it is well-known that Lazar had only the titleof Prince (Duke), but never Emperor. In addition, he did not

belong to the Nemanjis dynasty. According to the opinion givenby M. Vasi, this inscription in the monastery of Gornjak datesvery after the canonisation and in fact it is a product of the popularbelief.1

With regard to the wall-paintings we can conclude thatthere was not any Princes portrait within the lands which wereunder his power for more than two centuries after the fall ofSerbian lands under Turkish overlordship in the mid-15th c. It wasthe first Lazars portrait made in Russia. The next one was made in

Orahovica in Slavonia (present day in Croatia) which at that time(1594) was under the Turkish rule.2 A revival of Lazars culthappened four centuries later, during the time of Serbian PatriarchPajsije. He restored in 1633/34 a wall-painted genealogy of thedynasty of the Nemanjis. Beside the portrait of the first SerbianKing Stefan Prvovenani (coronated in 1217), Lazars portrait waspresented as well. After two or three years later the Princesportrait was wall-painted in the next monasteries and churches:Blagovetenje Kablarsko, in the village of Jeevica nearbyaak in

Central Serbia and in the village of Brezova nearby Ivanjica inSouth-western Serbia.

Burned Serbian house in Kosovo by Albanians on March 18th, 2004

1 M. Vasi,ia i Lazarica, Beograd, 1928, p. 112.2 S. Petkovi, Kult kneza Lazara i srpsko slikarstvo XVII veka, Zbornik zalikovne umetnosti, Vol. 7, Beograd, 1971, pp. 9495.


20/229


19

One of destroyed Serbian churches in Kosovo after June 1999

In the favour of a spreading and firming the Prince Lazarscult is telling us also and several attempts done in order to prove

that some person or family could trace its own origin from theSerbian mediaeval ruling dynastythe Nemanjis. In this casePrince Lazar was the crucial link whose origin was also derivedfrom the Nemanjis. For instance, the origin of the SerbianJakis feudal family was traced back in their genealogy, that wasmade between 1563 and 1584, from Prince Lazar who waspresented as originated from the saint Nemanjis family. Thisgenealogy was made for the Russian Emperor Ivan the Terrible

who wanted to connect his own origin with the ancient Serbian

dynasty who had two Emperors ( and ). Prince Lazar and the Jakis should be the main linkbetween two dynastiesthe Nemanjis of Serbia and Ivan theTerrible of Russia.1 It is not occasionally that this genealogy wasmade at the time when Lazars cult was established in Russia.During the realm of the first Russian Emperor Lazars portrait wasdrown in the Archangel Cathedral in Kremlin which was amausoleum for the Russian Emperors. This church was painted in1564/65. Among the portraits of all Russian rulers before Ivan IV

1 S. Petkovi, Ivan Grozni i kult kneza Lazara u Rusiji, O knezu Lazaru,Beograd, 1975, pp. 312314.


21/229


20

the Terrible, in this church were also presented portraits of theByzantine emperor Michael VIII Paleologus, saint Sava of Serbia,his father Simeon Nemanji and the saint Serbian Prince Lazar.The Serbian Prince was presented in a clothing of the Russian

rulers.1For a spreading of Lazars cult the literacy was the maindistributor of it, more important than any another one. To no oneSerbian ruler who was proclaimed as the saint it was devoted sohuge number of texts as it was the case with Prince Lazar.However, the real literal campaign in the glory of Prince Lazarstarted from the time of ruling of his son Despot Stefan Lazarevi.The main number of texts dedicated to Prince Lazar in order tofirm and spread his glory and saintness was made as the liturgical

texts. It is the case, for instance, with both Jefimias inscriptionand the inscription on the marble column. The second one,according to opinions by the historians of literature, was a workordered by Despot Stefan Lazarevi. A famous Slavonic philologistPawel J. afaik thought that the marble column was erectedexactly on the place where Prince Lazar was buried immediatelyafter his death. However, this column was not erected as atombstone and also the inscription was not an epitaph.2 Thiscolumn actually was erected on the place of the Kosovos Battle

and its inscription was pointed against the Turks. It was the mainreason for the fact that this column was very early destroyed by theOttomans.3 One of the crucial literal texts with regard to thespreading of the cult was the Hagiography of Emperor Uro

written by Serbian Patriarch Pajsije in the mid-17th century. It wasin fact a revival of the cult from the literal point of view. In this

work a short history with a genealogy of Prince Lazar is written.4The most important detail is the fact that according to PatriarchPajsije, the Serbian Emperor Duan adopted Prince Lazar as a son.

At such a way, Prince Lazar was connected with the Nemanjis.The monastery of Ravanica, as the main endowment ofPrince Lazar, was the crucial centre for spreading and further

1ibid.2 R. Mihalji, Lazar Hrebeljanovi, Istorija, kult, predanje, Beograd: BIGZ,1989, p. 165.3 L. Mirkovi, ta znai mramorni stub podignut na mestu kosovske bitke ita kae natpis na ovom stubu?, Zbornik Matice srpske za knjievnost i

jezik, IXX, 19611962, pp. 56.4Stare srpske biografije, Beograd, p. 146; S. Radojii, Portreti srpskihvladara u srednjem veku, Skoplje, 1934, pp. 50, 80.


22/229


21

firming of his cult. The relics of Kosovos great martyr of PrinceLazar were kept and preserved in this monastery for the threecenturiesfrom 1390/91 till the Great Serbian Migration toHungary in 1690. In the monastery of Ravanica ancient inscription

devoted to Prince Lazar beside his portrait became more respectedafter his canonisation in the way that the attribute saint wasadded. Every year the church service devoted to its founder is heldas the crucial obligation by the monastery towards its founder uptoday.1

One of the most important points in relation to thespreading and firming of Lazars cult is the oral tradition, namelythe so-called "Kosovos Legend". This oral tradition is written inseveral texts as, for instance, in the Janiareve uspomene ili

Turska hronika by Konstantin Mihajlovi from Ostrovica, or in theworks by Benedikt Kuripei and Ludovik Crijevi Tuberon fromDubrovnik. The final version of Kosovos Legend is shaped in De

Regno Sclavorum written by Mavro Orbin from Dubrovnik in 1601that is a general history of the Slavs with particular accent to thehistory of the South Slavs with the claim that all Slavs areoriginating from the Balkans.2

Generally, the cult of Prince Lazar was more strongerduring the Lazarevis than after the death of Despot Stefan in

1427. There are no literal works devoted to Prince Lazar after thetime of Despot Stefan Lazarevi. During the first two centuries ofTurkish overlordship in the Balkans genealogies and hagiographiesare containing more facts concerning Prince Lazar as a ruler thanas a saint. Also, in tradition, Prince Lazar was presented mainly asa hero. The longest period of interruption of a spreading the culthappened in the fine arts. For example, from the period of theBrankovis it was not saved any portrait of the Prince and Princesname was absent from the genealogies of this family. A revival of

spreading of Lazars cult occured after the Great Migration of1690.

1 S. Troicki, Ktitorsko pravo u Vizantiji i nemanjikoj Srbiji, Glas SrpskaKraljevska akademija, Beograd, LXVIII, 1925, p. 121.2 M. Orbin,Kraljevstvo Slovena, Beograd, 1968, p. 101.


23/229


22

THE CULT AFTER THE GREAT MIGRATION 1690 UNTILTHE END OF THE 18TH C.

Between the fall of the Serbian lands under Turkishoverlordship in the mid-15th c. and the Serbian uprising against theTurks at the beginning of the 19th c. the Great Serbian Migration of1690 was the crucial historical event in history of the Serbs. Theimmediate outcome of the Migration was a change of the ethnicstructure of the lands south and north from the rivers of Sava andDanube. During this migration (1690) at least 60./70.000immigrants (according to some historians even c. 100.000) passedthe River Sava and settled mainly the lands of the southern part of

Hungary (this part of Hungary is now part of Serbia under thename of Vojvodina).1 Written privileges for the Serbs given by theHabsburg Emperors who were at the same time and the HungarianKings provided and guaranteed them a freedom of the faith,churchs autonomy and the right to elect a local government.

Along with a common language, faith and habits the Serbianimmigrants within the Habsburg Empire were linked to each otherin national point of view and also through a strong tradition withregarding to the same origins and history. In the process ofnational gathering of the Serbs in the Habsburg Monarchy, butalso and in linking them with the Serbs south from the River Sava,Lazars cult had one of the most important roles. In fact, revival,new spreading and firming of the cult of the saint Prince Lazar wasone of the crucial points in the process of making nationalawareness among the Serbs in all three foreign countries wherethey were living: the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Monarchyand the Republic of Venice. In this process autonomous SerbianChurch in the Habsburg Monarchy (the Metropolitanat ofKarlovci) played the most important role.

During the Great Viennese War (16831699) between theChristian aliance and the Turks in 1690 the fraternity of themonastery of Lazars Ravanica in Central Serbia left theirmonastery. Altogether with other monastery valuables thefraternity took with them before they left the monastery also andthe relics of Prince Lazar and brought them to the town of Saint

1 D. J. Popovi, Velika seoba Srba 1690., Beograd, 1954, pp. 32 - 51. About

this migration see and: S. aki, Velika seoba Srba 1689/90 i patrijarhArsenije III Crnojevi, Novi Sad: Dobra vest, 1990; R. Samardi (and others),Kosovo i Metohija u srpskoj istoriji, Beograd: SKZ, 1989, pp. 127142.


24/229


23

Andrea near Budapest in Hungary where they settled themselves.In fact, it was the second translation of Prince Lazars relics, whichactually marked at the same time and revival of his cult among theSerbs. Lazar relics, after fraternity of the monastery of Serbias

Ravanica came to Saint Andrea, were put in the newly builtwooden church named also Ravanica.1 Saint Andrea at that timewas temporary headquarters of the Serbian Church with thePatriarch Arsenije III arnojevi who led Serbian migraion fromKosovo and Central Serbia to Hungary.

Which kind of Serbia in the EU?

In May 1692 Austrian Emperor and Hungarian KingLeopold I confirmed the possessions to the church of newRavanica (in Hungary) and also put this church under imperialprotection. At the same year one small delegation of this church

went to Moscow with icons of Kosovos great martyr as thepresents. They succeeded to get a charter from the Russian

Emperors Ivan and Petar Aleksejevich according to which the1 V. Petkovi,Manastir Ravanica, Beograd, 1922, p. 12.


25/229


24

fraternity of Ravanica had a right to collect donations in Russiaevery seventh year for Lazars endowment. In this charter issued in1693 Prince Lazar was named as the saint by the RussianEmperors. Thus, the new memorial place of Prince Lazar in

Hungary was completely identified with ancient one in CentralSerbia through the cult of Kosovos great martyr. This delegationfrom the church of Ravanica in Hungary passing through Polandduring their return trip to Saint Andrea received new donations forthe endorsement of the saint Prince Lazar. This delegationprobably visited and the Polish court.1 From that time is also

wooden tablet (18,5 x 28,5 cm.) with portrait of Prince Lazar, butas keaoo(a person who is keeping in hands his own head)2and apilgrim.3 The typography was obviously well-known for the

fraternity of Ravanica. At such a way they could spread the cultcheaply and firm it among the bigger number of believers.

The relics of Prince Lazar have been for the third timetranslated to the new place in 1697 when the fraternity of the Saint

Andreas Ravanica moved themselves to the Fruka Gora in Srem(today in Northern Serbia, but at that time it was in SouthernHungary). Here the fraternity found an abandoned monastery of

Vrdnik which was now restored and renaimed into the SmallRavanica (). In historical sources those two names

are identified through Lazars cult. However, during the nextAustrian-Turkish war (17161718) the relics were again translatedto the new placeto the monastery of Futog as well in Fruka Gora(the so called Serbian Athos). Nevertheless, after this newtranslation the relics were returned back to Small Ravanica or

Vrdnik. Gradually, in the course of time, a tradition that PrinceLazar established the monastery of Vrdnik is made. In the mid ofthe 18th c. believers this tradition became a true story. This wrongtradition became a base for Serbian folk song the Building of

Ravanica.With a restoration of monastery of Vrdnik at the end of the

17th and the beginning of the 18th c. and also with a restoration ofthe ancient Ravanica after the Passarowitz () Peace

Agreement between Austria and Turkey in 1718 there were

1 St. M. Dimitrijevi, Graa za srpsku istoriju iz ruskih arhiva i biblioteka,Spomenik Srpske Kraljevske akademije, LIII, Beograd, 1922, pp. 213218.

2 During the Battle of Kosovo Prince Lazar was captured by the Turks andbeheaded.3 D. Davidov,Srpska grafika XVIII veka, Novi Sad, 1978, pp. 245246.


26/229


25

established proper conditions for a spreading of the cult on thewider territorynorth and south of the Rivers Danube and Sava.The Vrdnik monastery in fact became a centre of the cult in theHabsburg Monarchy while the original Ravanica monastery in

Central Serbia had the same role within the Ottoman Empire.However, the Monastery of Vrdnik in Hungary became moreimportant than the Monastery of Ravanica in Central Serbia withregard to a spreading of the cult because of the very fact that in

Vrdnik the relics of Kosovos great martyr were saved till thebeginning of the Second World War.

Princes popularity was rapidly growing up in the 18th c. Itcan be traced in the fine arts as the best example of this fact. Forinstance, a portrait of Prince Lazar was presented on two

reliquaries in the monasteries of Kruedol and Vrdnik in SouthernHungary. In the mid of the 18th c. a portrait of Prince Lazar waswall-painted in Kruedol along with the portraits of theNemanjis, the Brankovis and Jovan Vladimir.1 Further, inMoscow two woodcuts were made in 1757 and 1758 for theMonastery of Chilandar in Northern Greece at the Mount Athosand for the Monastery of Studenica in the Southern Serbia. On the

both of them Prince Lazar was presented along with the membersof the holy Nemanjis dynasty. On the Studenicas woodcut thesaint great Prince Lazar is holding a model of the church. Aportrait of Prince Lazar can be seen also on the cooper tablet which

was donated by Mojsej Luki from Novi Sad to the Monastery ofPiva in 1766.

The main part of Princes portraits in the 18th c. were madeon the cooper tablets. After the Second Great Migration of theSerbs from Serbia to Hungary in 1737 Prince Lazar was pictured asthe keaoop which was one of the special motives of theSerbian fine arts in the 18th c. The Serbian Patriarch Arsenije IVJovanovi-akabenda, who was a national leader of the Second

Great Serbian Migration in 1737 to the Habsburg Monarchy,ordered a cooper tablet in 1741 to Christofor efarovi and TomaMesmer. This cooper tablet was used for a making of a specialreligious-political poster. This poster was sent to the Viennesecourt as a memorandum after the Second Great Migration. Thename of this poster was: Saint Sava with the Serbian saints ofhome of the Nemanjis. However, several important members ofthis dynasty are excluded from the poster. At this cooper tablet the

1 D. Medakovi, Zidno slikarstvo manastira Kruedola, Zbornik Filozofskogfakulteta u Beogradu, XVIII2, Beograd, 1964, pp. 601616.


27/229


26

Prince is presented as the keaoop.1At the same year it wasmade by the same authors and the Stematography that was in factthe first Serbian illustrated history and some kind of a schoolbook.

Among 29 persons from the South Slavic lands two of them are

specially mentioned: Jovan Vladimir and Prince Lazar. Both ofthem are presented as the keaoop-s.2 Among several otherPrinces portraits the next two are of a special importance. First ofthem, which is not saved in original version, is a woodcut withPrince Lazar in a parade uniform. It is made by Christoforefarovi in 1746. There is an opinion that the second one,

woodcut made by Zaharije Orfelin in 1773 is completely the samewith the first one.3

CONCLUSION

The cults writings upon the Prince Lazar contain a numberof facts relevant to the post-Kosovo Battle period of the Balkanhistory, above all concerning the ideology of the rulers and thestate, the history of culture, and religious and ethnic relations. Themission of these writings did not end with the canonization ofPrince Lazar. They preserved and spread the cult of the martyr ofKosovo far outside the borders of the former state ruled by PrinceLazar. What is the most important to say is that cult of PrinceLazar as Kosovos great martyr played for centuries together withthe Kosovos Legend and Kosovos Myth a crucial role innational identification of the Serbs that is valid today too.

Deani Monastery in Metohija today

1 D. Davidov,Srpska grafika XVIII veka, Novi Sad, 1978, pp. 354371.

2 D. Davidov,Stematografija, izobraenije oruaj ilirieskih, Novi Sad, 1972,pp. 89.3 D. Davidov,Srpska grafika XVIII veka, Novi Sad, 1978, pp. 135137.


28/229


27

THE CROATIAN NATIONAL REVIVAL MOVEMENT(THE ILLYRIAN MOVEMENT) AND THEQUESTION OF LINGUISTIC-NATIONALDETERMINATION OF THE SOUTH SLAVS, 18301847

THE ORIGINS OF THE MOVEMENT

The Croatian national revival movement, which wasofficially named as theIllyrian Movement, emerged with the name

of Croatian national worker and politician of German origin1,Ljudevit Gaj in 1830. In that year Ljudevit Gaj published in Budima brochure in two languages (Croatian and German) Kratkaosnova horvatsko-slavenskoga pravopisanja/Die Kleine

Kroatische-Slavischen Orthographie [Short Foundation ofCroatian-Slavonic Orthography]). This publication marked the

beginning of the Croatian national revival movement which isconsidered in Croatian historiography as the period of Croatiannational renaissance. We can say that from 1830 starts a modern

Croatian history, but also and modern Croatian nationalism andhistory of political thoughts. The brochure Kratka osnovahorvatsko-slavenskog pravopisanja became the foundation forthe further development of the national language of the Croats andreform of orthography among the Croats. The purpose of the book

was of double nature: to modify Croatian orthography and tostress a literal unity of the Croats with other South Slavs,particularly with the Serbs who were speaking tokavian dialect.Gajs orthographic reform of Croatian writings was done according

to the pattern of the Czech orthography. This new Croatianorthography, which was accepted by the Slovenes as well, becameknown as gajica.2

In the same year (1830) a protonotar (secretary) ofCroatian Kingdom, Josip Kuevi published in the Latin language

1 His father, Johan Gay, was a German physician who came to live in northernCroatia (in Krapina) in 1786. Gajs ancestors from father side have been fromBurgundy and Slovakia. Gajs mother was Juliana Schmidt. Gajs mother

tongue was German (I. Peri.Povijest Hrvata. Zagreb, 1997, p. 151).2 D. Pavlievi. Povijest Hrvatske. Drugo, izmijenjeno i proireno izdanje. Zagreb, 2000, p. 244.


29/229


28

one of the most important political works in Croatian modernhistory: Iura municipaliaThe book is upon the special politicalrights and constitution of the Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatiaand Slavonia with the purpose to refute Hungarian claims that

after 1102 (when, according to the Croatian historiography, theKingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia joined the Kingdom ofHungary through the personal union in the person of HungarianKing) Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia (according to the Croatianstandpoint, three historical provinces of the Croats) becameordinary province within Hungary without any special politicalstatus, rights or autonomy. In the other words, Hungarianpoliticians claimed that after the year of 1102 Croatia, Slavonia andDalmatia lost any state or municipal rights and that historical

lands of the Croats became partes subjectae (subdued parts) toHungary. Contrary to such Hungarian claims, Kuevi argued thathistorical Croatian lands made a political union with Hungary andthat after 1102 Hungary and Croatia were regna socia (unitedkingdoms) with equal political rights.1 This Kuevis program

1 The conflict between Croatian and Hungarian aristocracy over historicalrights of Croatia in, according to the Croatian historiography, the joinedHungarian-Croatian political union (federation) is very similar to the conflictbetween Polish and Lithuanian aristocracy over the political position of theGrand Duchy of Lithuania within the Republic of Two Nations, i.e. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth after the Lublin Union on July 1st, 1569(Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodow). While Polish politicians claimed thatLithuania lost her statehood after 1569 and became an ordinary province ofKingdom of Poland without any special political rights, Lithuanian aristocracyclaimed that the Lublin Union was a confederal union of two indepandentstates in which the Grand Duchy of Lithuania preserved her statehood. Aboutthis problem see more in: Z. Kiaupa, J. Kiaupien, A. Kuncevius. The Historyof Lithuania before 1795. Vilnius, 2000, p. 282304; R. Bideleux, I.Jeffries.A History of Eastern Europe. Crisis and Change. London and New

York, 1998, p. 114164; N. Davies. Gods Playground: a History of Poland,vol. I, The Origins to 1795. Oxford, 1981; S. Cynarski. The Shape ofSarmatian ideology in Poland, Acta Poloniae Historica, 19, p. 617; R. L.Johnson. Central Europe. Enemies, Neighbors, Friends. New York andOxford, p. 105136; P. S. Wandicz. Laisvs kaina. Vidurio Ryt Europosistorija nuo vidurami iki dabarties. Vilnius, 1997, p. 127138. It became acommon attitude of modern western historians of non-Polish ethnic origin todescribe Republic of Two Nations as exclusively Polish due to the great extentof Polonization of Lithuanian society and culture. See for instance: A. Palmer.The Lands Between. A History of East-Central Europe since the Congress ofVienna. London, 1970, p. 4. However, there were Polish writers who

claimed that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania became an integral part ofKingdom of Poland even before the Lublin Union, i.e. after the Union of theAct of Krve (August 14th, 1385). See for instance: Jan Vislicius. Bellum


30/229


29

became the first formulation of Croatian historical rights whichlater in the 19th c. became the foundation for the programs ofseveral Croatian political parties. Among them, the mostimportant was Croatian Party of Rights, established in 1861.1

A flag of the Triune Kingdom (Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia) from 1848 to 1852

The further development of Croatian national revival wasmarked by the year of 1832 when Ivan Derkos published in the

Latin language in Zagreb Genius patriae super dormientibus siusfiliis (The genius of the motherland above its sleeping sons).Derkos with this book tried to wake up the love toward themotherland among the Croats, but as well as to promote an idea ofa single Crotian literal language composed by combination of threeSouth Slavic dialects: kajkavian (spoken by the Croats in northernCroatia and the Slovenes, at that time known as Kranjci, inSlovenia), akavian (spoken only by the Croats in northernDalmatia, Istria and Dalmatian islands) and tokavian (spoken by

all Serbs and at that time by very small number of the Croats).2However, Derkos was in opinion that all of these three South Slavicdialects were spoken exclusively by the Croats, i.e. that theCroatian language (vernacular) is consisted by kajkavian,akavian and tokavian dialects (speeches). This Derkos claim

Prutenum. 1515; M. Kromer.De origine et rebus gestis Polonarum. Basel,1555.1 A. Starevi. Izabrani politiki spisi. Zagreb, 1999; D. Pavlievi. Povijest

Hrvatske. Drugo, izmijenjeno i proireno izdanje. Zagreb, 2000, p. 245; M.Gross.Povijest pravake ideologije. Zagreb, 1973.2. . . , 1997, p. 1350.


31/229


30

became from the mid-19th c. the main framework of Croatianlinguistic nationalism which provoked Serbian and Slovenianreaction and finally alienated Serbs and Slovenes from theCroatianIllyrian ideology of Yugoslavism.1

Territory of the so-called Independent State of Croatia, which was existing from 1941 to 1945,partially based on the political ideology of the Croatian Illyrian Movement. The map is showing

the borders after Italian capitulation.

In the same year, Croatian count Janko Drakovipublished in Karlovac Disertatia iliti razgovor(Disertation or

1 About the issues of Croatian and Serbian linguistic nationalisms in the firsthalf of the 19th century see: V. B. Sotirovi. Lingvistiki model definisanjasrpske nacije Vuka Stefanovia Karadia i projekat Ilije Garaanina ostvaranju lingvistiki odreene drave Srba (Vuko StefanoviiausKaradiiaus lingvistinis serb tautos identifikacijos modelis ir Ilijos

Garaanino lingvistikai suvokiamos serb tautos valstibs sukrimoprojektas), Doctoral Dissertation, Humanitarian sciencies, Philology. Vilnius, 2002.


32/229


31

Talk) which was the first political book written in Croatianlanguage. This work was actually the political program of both theCroatian national revival movement and the Croatian nation in

which the author required political, economic, linguistic and

cultural union of all Croatian lands into a single (united) nationalstate of the Croats. His united Croatia Drakovi named as aGreater Illyria. The lands which should be incorporated intounited Croatia, according to his project, have been: Croatia,Slavonia, Rijeka/Fiume, the Military Border, Bosnia, Herzegovina,Montenegro, Dalmatia and Slovenian provinces. Such unitedGreater Croatia would stay in political union with Hungary, but

both Hungary and united Croatia would remain as the parts of theHabsurg Monarchy. In such united Croatia the official language

would be Illyrian, according to Drakovi,Croatian language oftokavian dialect. Further, the supreme authority would be in thehands of the Ban (the Governor or prorex). Also, he required amodification of the Croatian feudal system and modernization ofCroatian trade and economy.

The mentioned writers are the founders of the so-calledIllyrian Movement, which lasted until 1847 when, according toCroat authors, the national language of the Croats achieved a

victory over Germanization and Magyarization in Croatia andSlavonia and when theIllyrian name (as the common name for allSouth Slavs) was replaced with the national name of the Croats.Basically, it is the crucial period of the Illyrian Movement, but inthe larger sense of periodization the Croatian national revivalmovement can be subdivided into the following phases:

1. The period of the preparatory time from the end ofthe 18th century to 1830;

2. The first (early) period from 1830 to 1834;3. The developed period from 1835 to 1842;4. The period of the prohibition of the Illyrian name(18431845); and5. The period of a replacement of theIllyrian name with

the national name of the Croats (18461874).1

1 J. idak and co-authors.Hrvatski narodni preporod, t. I. Zagreb, 1965, p.7.


33/229


32

THEILLYRIAN MOVEMENTUNTIL THE CREATION OFTHE POLITICAL PARTIES (1841)

Certainly, the publishing of GajsKratka osnova horvatsko-slavenskoga pravopisanja/Die Kleine Kroatische-SlavischenOrthographie in 1830 marked the beginning of the Croatiannational revival movement and made Ljudevit Gaj a leading figureof it. The crucial importance of this book is that Gaj proposed acreation of one literal language for all Croats. Actually, it was reallyrevolutionary act at that time which was done, according to Gajand other leaders of the movement, for the purpose to unify whole

Croatian nation and Croatian lands, which should be, at such away, united on the language-literal base what was the crucialprecondition for the Croatian political unification in the future.Moreover, very soon after this step Gaj and his followers requiredthat Croatian national language had to be accepted as the official-

bureaucratic language in Croatia-Slavonia (two provinces underHungarian political rule).

At that time the official language in Croatia and Slavoniawas the Latin, but Hungarian magnates required that Hungarianlanguage should be only official language in Croatia and Slavonia.1Ivan Kukuljevi Sakcinski was the first Croatian politician whoopenly required (on May 2nd, 1843) an introduction of the Croatianlanguage in the Croatian feudal assembly in Zagreb (the Sabor).However, the Hungarian authorities who prohibited the usage ofLatin language by Croatian representatives in Hungarian feudalassembly (the Dieta) rejected this Croatian requirement.Moreover, Hungarian Dieta issued in the same year a conclusionthat after the next ten years only Hungarian language could be theofficial language within the whole territory of the Lands of the

Crown of St. Istvn (i.e. historical Hungary from the CarpathianMountains to the Adriatic Sea) including and Croatia and Slavonia(these two Croatian provinces were parts of Hungary whileDalmatia and Istria have been parts of Austria). This struggle overthe language issue in Croatia and Slavonia became the initial bit offire in Croatias society which very soon lead to political

bipolarisation of it into two opposite political parties: narodnjaci(supporters of the Croatian national revival movement andCroatias independence in relation to Hungary) and maaroni

1 B. ulek.Hrvatski ustav. Zagreb, 1883, p. 80.


34/229


33

(pro-Hungarians who required closer links between Croatia-Slavonia and Hungary, i.e. Croatias total incorporation into thestate of Hungary).

Population structure of Bosnia-Herzegovina a disputed land between the Serbs and theCroats according to the census of 1991: the Muslims (apropriated by both the Serbs and

the Croats as the members of their own nationality) 44%; the Serbs 31%; the Croats 17%; and the Others 8%

Theyear of 1832 was one of the most important in thehistory of the Croatian national revival movement. Among otherthings, in this year Ljudevit Gaj asked the Habsburg autorities forpermission to print Croatian national newspaper (hrvatskenovine) and wrote in the same year a song Horvatov sloga

zjedinjenje, which in the following years became the Croatiananthem. This anthem became popular under the name which wasderived from the very beginning of it: Jo Horvatska ni propala,dok mi ivimo. In the same year, the Croatian assembly (the

Sabor) elected Franjo Vlai for the Croatian Governor (the Ban)for the period from 1832 to 1840. He chose General JurajRukavina for the vice-captain of the Croatian-Slavonian kingdom.On this occasion, Rukavina gave a speech in the Sabor, butunusually not in the Latin, but rather in the Croatian language. Animportance of this act is that it was the first speech in the nationallanguage in the CroatianSabor.

As it is mentioned above, in 1832 Ivan Derkos printed oneof the most influential books of the movement, Genij domovine

nad svojim sinovima koji spavaju (Genius patriae...), that was thefirst cultural and national program of the Illyrian Movementwith


35/229


34

the purpose to create a single literal language of the Croats whoseliterature till that time was mainly written in akavian andkajkavian dialects. Josip Kundek promoted the same idea in his

workRec jezika narodnoga from 1832 where he emphasised the

old national glory of the Croats.1 However, the full politicalprogram of the movement was framed by the work of count JankoDrakovi in the same year of 1832: Disertatia iliti razgovor,darovan gospodi poklisarom zakonskim i buducem

zakonotvorcem kraljevinah nasihThis manuscript was written intokavian dialect, regardless on the fact that Drakovi waskajkavian speaker (like Ljudevit Gaj) and the work was printed inthe city of Karlovac where kajkavian dialect was spoken, but nottokavian.

It should be said that the so-called Serbo-Croatianlanguage (official name for the common language of the Serbs andthe Croats from the time of both former Yugoslavias) is dividedinto the three basic dialects according to the form of theinterrogative pronoun what: kajkavian (what = kaj), akavian(what = a), and tokavian (what = to). At the time ofIllyrian

Movement, kajkavian dialect was spoken in the northwesternparts of Croatia proper (around Zagreb and Karlovac), akavian inthe northern coast area and the islands of the eastern Adriaticshore (Istrian Peninsula, area around Zadar, Rijeka, Split) andtokavian within the area from Austrian Military Border (present-day in Croatia) in the northwest to ara Mountain (on the border

between Kosovo and Macedonia) in the southeast. The tokaviandialect (spoken in Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Herzegovina and

biggest part of the present-day Croatia) is divided into three sub-dialects (ekavian, ijekavian, ikavian) according to thepronunciation of the original Slavic vowel represented by the letter

jat.2Drakovis manuscript anyway became not only an

extensive program of theIllyrian Movement, but also and politicalprogram of the Croatian people.3 His proposal upon creation ofthe Greater Illyria (i.e. Greater or united Croatia composed by

1 D. Pavlievi. Povijest Hrvatske. Drugo, izmijenjeno i proireno izdanje. Zagreb, 2000, p. 247.2 V. Dedijer. History of Yugoslavia. New York, 1975, p. 103; B. Jelavich.History of the Balkans: Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Cambridge,

1983, p. 304308.3 J. idak and co-authors. Hrvatski narodni preporod Ilirski pokret. Zagreb, 1990, p. 210.


36/229


35

Croatia proper, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Austrian Military Border,Dalmatian city of Rijeka, Dalmatia, Slavonia, Montenegro andSlovenia) on the bases of the Crotaian state rights (iuramunicipalia) became the offical program of the Illyrian

Movement. At the same time, Drakovi supported Derkos idea ofcreation of the common literal language of the Croats, butdifferently to Derkos count Drakovi proposed only the tokaviandialect (spoken at that time by all Serbs and minority of Croats)1 asthe standardazed language of Croatian literature. This language hecalled Illyrian according to the old Croatian tradition whichaccepted the Illyrian theory upon Croatian ethno-linguisticorigin. This theory is traced back among the Croats to thehumanist from Dalmatian city of ibenik, Juraj igori, who

wrote a short history of his native city around 1477 (De situ Illyriaeet civitate Sibenici). In this work the author undoubtedly stressedthat ancient Balkan Illyrians were in fact ancestors of the modernCroats. According to his opinion, St. Jerome, a native fromDalmatia, was a Croat who invented the first Slavic alphabet. Ahalf a century later this igoris idea of Illyrian origin of theCroats and all Slavs was further developed by Dominician friarfrom Dalmatian island of Hvar, Vinko Pribojevi in his publiclecture De origine successibusque Slavorum given in the city ofHvar in 1525 and published in Venice in 1532. For him, Greekphilosopher Aristotel, Macedonian King Alexander the Great,Roman Emperors Diocletian and Constantine the Great, St.Jerome, SS. Constantine (Cyril) and Methodius were Illyrians, i.e.the Slavs. At the same time, Pribojevi was the first to claim thatthree brothers, Czech, Lech, and Rus, were expelled from theBalkans and consequently became the founders of Bohemia andthe Czechs, Poland and the Poles and Rus' and the Eastern Slavs.Like Pribojevi, Mauro Orbini, a Benedictine abbot fromDubrovnik who wrote an extensive history of Serbia (and to the

lesser extent of Croatia and Bulgaria) under the titleIl regno degliSlavi(published in Pesaro in 1601), saw the Slavs everywhere2 andthe Illyriansas as the noble Slavic race. For him, the soldiers of

Alexander the Great were the Slavs who spoke the same languagewhich is today spoken by the inhabitants of Macedonia. The truth

1 . . O . I. , 2000, p. 324; . . .

II. , 2001, p. 321326.2 A. Schmaus. Vincentius Priboevius, Jahrbcher fr GeschichteOsteuropas. 1953, p. 254.


37/229


36

is that the Muscovite annals state that the Rus' are of the same raceas have been the ancient Macedonians. Finally, Orbini advocatedthe idea that the first Slavic alphabet, called bukvica, i.e. theGlagolitic script(for him the second Slavic script the cyrillic was

invented by the saintly brothers from Salonika, Cyril andMethodius), was invented by St. Jerome, who was the Slav, sincehe was born in Dalmatia.1 Orbini repeated the old Dalmatiantradition that three Balkan Slavic tribes, led by the brothers Czech,Lech and Rus, moved northward and established three new Slavicstates, Bohemia (first ruled by Czech), Poland (first ruled by Lech)and Rus' (first ruled by Rus'). For Orbini, modern Czechs, Polesand Russians (i.e. the Eastern Slavs) likewise all South Slavsoriginated in the Balkan Illyrians.

A century later the Croat Pavao Ritter Vitezovi went onestep further: he claimed in 1700 and 1701 that all Slavs had acommon progenitors in ancient Illyrians who were in fact ethnicCroats.2 Vitezovis main programatic idea upon unification of allCroatia (totius Croatia) became a century later an official politicalprogram of the leaders of the CroatianIllyrian Movement.3

It is important that St. Jerome (Hieronimus) from Dalmatiawas as well appropriated as a Slav and later on exclusively as aCroat. Consequently, the Latin-language Bible, which was written

by St. Jerome and used by all Catholic Slavs in Europe wasrecognized by Dalmatian Catholics as achievement of the SlavicCroat. Moreover, St. Jerome was unjustifiably proclaimed as aninventor of the oldest Slavic alphabet the Glagolitic one, namedas well as Jeromes script and subsequently this alphabet becameappropriated by the Croats as their own original and nationalscript that became used and by the other Slavonic peoples.

1 M. Orbini.Kraljevstvo Slovena. Beograd, 1968, p. CXLIICXLIX.2

Eq. Pavlus Ritter [Pavao Riter Vitezovi]. Croatia rediviva; regnanteLeopoldo Magno Caesare. Zagreb, 1700. About historical development ofSlavic idea among the Croatian Baroque writers see: J. idak. Poeci politikemisli u Hrvata J. Kriani i P. Ritter Vitezovi,Nae teme, 16. 1972; T.Eekman, A. Kadi (eds.). Juraj Kriani (16181683): Russophile andEcumenic Visionary. The Hague, 1976.3 Lj. Gaj. Horvatov Szloga y Zjedinjenye, Danicza Horvatska, Slavonska yDalmatinzka. January 7th, 1935. About the problem of ideas of nationalidentification of the South Slavs from the 16th to the 19th centuries see: I.Banac. The Insignia of Identity: Heraldry and the Growth of NationalIdeologies Among the South Slavs, Ethnic Studies, Vol. 10. 1993, p. 215

237. About the ideological origins of the Illyrian Movement see: N. Stani(ed.). Hrvatski narodni preporod, 17901848: Hrvatska u vrijeme Ilirskogpokreta. Zagreb, 1985.


38/229


37

This first written Slavic language (named by the scholars asthe Old Church Slavonic), and devised in fact by Constantine(Cyril) and Methodius in the middle of the 9th century1, becameappropriated by the Croats in the Middle Ages and later on as the

Croatian national and indigenous literal language. This belieffounded ideological doctrine in the later centuries for claiming thatall people (i.e. the Slavs,) who used this language virtually

belonged to the Croatian ethnic community. In the late mediaevaltimes following a popular tradition about St. Jerome he wasassumed as spiritual progenitor of the Croatian people whotranslated Hebrew and Greek holy writings (sacre scripture) to

both Latin and Slavonic languages.2 Even the Roman CatholicChurch accepted this popular opinion that St. Jerome was a

founder of the Slavonic literacy.Derkos and Drakovi promoted tokavian dialect of theRenaissance and Baroque literature of the Republic of Dubrovnikas Croatian onean act which created among the Croats a nationalconscience upon Dubrovnik cultural heritage as a Croatian one.However, Serbian philologist Branislav Brbori is in opinion thattokavian literature of Dubrovnik belongs to the Serbian culturalheritage as this dialect is national Serbian language, but notCroatian one. According to his research, there are many

documents in theArchives of Dubrovnik, which are written in theLatin language where the language of the people of Dubrovnik(tokavian dialect) is named as lingua serviana, but there is noone document in which this language is named as lingua croata.3

1 J. Fine. The Early Mediaeval Balkans. A Critical Survey from the Sixth tothe Late Twelfth Century. Ann Arbor, 1994, p. 302.2 V. tefani. Tisuu i sto godina od moravske misije, Slovo, XIII. 1963, p. 3436.

3 Yugoslav linguist Ranko Bugarski is in oppinion that in sociolinguistic sensethe dialects are not a separate languages, but in linguistic sense they are.According to him, a dialect is a language which lost political battle, whilelanguage is a dialect which won political battle. In the other words, it isonly political decesion if one dialect will be proclaimed as a language. Forhim, in fact the most important criteria which make a difference between thelanguage and the dialect is a comprehensibility (R. Bugarski. Uvod uoptu lingvistiku. Beograd, 1996, p. 238239). Serbian philologist andacademic Ljubomir Stojanovi (18601929) was in opinion that around 20%of the South Slavic population can not be exactly classified to one linguistic-national group according to their spoken language because they are speaking

mixture of dialects of two languages. Thus, there are transitional zonesbetween the South Slavic languages (. .. , 11-I-1896.


39/229


38

B. Brbori claims further that for centuries the Dubrovnik peoplehad some Serbian national consciousness and that their spokenlanguage was/is Serbian. Among the Dubrovnik inhabitants there

was no Croatian ethno-linguistic consciousness before theIllyrian

Movementand before the time when Dubrovnik became includedinto the Catholic Habsburg Monarchy (from 1815).1 In the otherwords, from the time of Illyrian Movement the process ofCroatization of Dubrovnik, backed by the Habsburg authority,started.2 Consequently, all Catholic Serbs from Dubrovnik becamenational Croats whose language was proclaimed by the leaders ofthe Illyrian Movement as Croatian language of tokaviandialect.3 Therefore, after 1830 the Croatian national workersconsidered the people from Dubrovnik exclusively as the Croats

and Dubrovnik history and culture as the Croat one. As a result,from 1869 onwards it was published in Zagreb an edition ofStaripisci hrvatski (Old Croatian Writers) including and manyDubrovnik writers. This edition was criticized by the Serbs as aCroatian attempt to appropriate the Serbian cultural heritage ofDubrovnik with the final political aim to include the territory ofDubrovnik, which never was a part of Croatia, into united Croatiannational state (what happened for the first time in 1941 and was

verified in 1945).

Two of the most fervent defenders of the Serbian characterof Dubrovnik against the claims of the leaders of the IllyrianMovementthat this city-state belongs to the Croatian history andcultural heritage were Serb Catholic, philologist, from Dubrovnik,Milan Reetar (18601942) and Serbian Orthodox priest, DimitrijeRuvarac (18421931).

M. Reetar concluded, after the extensive research in theArchives of Dubrovnik and as person who very well knewDubrovnik literature, that: a) the people from Dubrovnik were and

are the ethnic Serbs; b) their spoken and literal language is Serbianbecause they were speaking and mainly writing in tokavian

1. . . ,II. ,2001, p. 4344, 68.2 About the genesis of the idea of Serbian national identity among theCatholic intelligentsia of Dubrovnik and Dalmatia in the 19th century see: I.Banac. The Confessional Rule and the Dubrovnik Exception: The Origins ofthe Serb-Catholic Circle in Nineteenth-Century Dalmatia, Slavic Review.American Quarterly of Soviet and East European Studies, Vol. 42, 3.

Fall 1983.3. . . , 1997, p. 1341, 412426, 466476.


40/229


39

dialect;1 c) the Dubrovnik citizens, however, did not feelthemselves as the Serbs because for them the ethnic name Serbian

was relating only to those who lived in Serbian state: as Dubrovniknever was included into Serbia for that reason the Dubrovnik

people did not call themselves as the Serbians; d) they, however,did not call themselves as Croats as well as; e) usually theDubrovnik people understood themselves as Dubrovani, i.e. asthe citizens of the Republic of Dubrovnik; f) the Serbs and theCroats do not speak the same (Serbo-Croatian/Croatian or

Serbian) language; g) Serbs and Croats are two different peoples.2D. Ruvarac claimed that after Slavic migrations to the

Balkans at the end of the 6th c. the Latin municipality (city) ofRagusium became Serbianized and as a consequence of this

process the city changed its name into Slavic-Serbian Dubrovnik.He refuted as well Croatian claims advocated by the leaders of theIllyrian Movement that all inhabitants of Croatia, Dalmatia,Dubrovnik and Slavonia can be only ethnolinguistic Croatsregardless on religion. However, Ruvarac had an opinion that

1 The spoken language of the people from Dubrovnik was always tokaviandialect, but their literature was written in four languages: Latin, Italian,akavian dialect, and tokavian dialect. The last two were domestic

languages. akavian dialect was used till mid-15th century as the mostfashionable literal language in the whole Dalmatia besides the Italian andLatin ones. However, from the mid-15th century the writers from Dubrovnikmainly wrote in tokavian dialect which became the language in which themost glorious Dubrovnik literature (the period of Baroque) was written.According to the most critics of the Slavic literature, probably, the tokavianBaroque literature of Dubrovnik gave the best examples of the Slavic Baroqueliterature.2 M. . A . , 1894; .. ,

, 50 1940; M. Reetar. Die Ragusanischen Urkunden desXIIIXV. Jahrhunderts, Archiv fr slawische Philologie; M. Reetar. Dieakavtina un deren einstige und jetzige Grenzen, Archiv fr slawischePhilologie. 1891. However, during the time of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia(19181941) Reetar corrected his stand upon the Serbs and the Croats andtheir languages. Namely, under the strong influence of the official policy ofthe integral Yugoslavism Reetar became advocate of the idea that the Serbsand the Croats have been and are speaking the same language, and thereforethey belong to the same people who just has two different names (see: .. . , 1930). Nevertheless, Reetar two years before died returned to his

original idea that the Serbs and the Croats are two different peoples whospoke two different languages and that Dubrovnik literal heritage is definitellySerbian but not Croatian one.


41/229


40

tokavian dialect is only Serbian national language which wasspoken in Serbia, Dubrovnik, Slavonia, Dalmatia, Montenegro andpart of Croatia by the Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim believers.Especially he refuted Croatian idea that Slavonia (the region

between the rivers of Sava and Drava today included into theRepublic of Croatia) is a part of Croatia because historically it wasall the time a separate province with separate provincial name

whose inhabitants were speaking Slavonian language (i.e.tokavian dialect), as it is recorded in many historical documents.However, the Illyrian Movement proclaimed that the Croatianpeople and language (i.e. kajkavian dialect which was spoken inNorthwestern Croatia only by the Catholics) and the Slavonianpeople and language (i.e. tokavian dialect which was spoken in

Slavonia by both the Orthodox and the Catholics) as one Croato-Slavonian people and language, which was very soon called byCroatian philologists as onlyCroatian people and language. Thus,

Slavonians and Slavonian language became Croats who spokeCroatian language.

For Ruvarac, the same strategy was implied by the CroatianIllyrians in the case ofDubrovnik people and their our or Slaviclanguage (how they usually called their language). The finalconsequenses of such politics by the leaders of the Illyrian

Movement was Croatization of Slavonia and Dubrovnik. D.Ruvaracs stands can be summarized into three points:

1.The Serbs are all South Slavs whose mother tongue istokavian dialect regardless on their religion;

2. The Serbian and the Croatian languages, regardlesson the fact that they are similar, are two separatelanguages; and

3. The Croats are speaking kajkavian and akavianlanguages (i.e. dialects), but not tokavian one.1

In fact, it should be stressed that according to the leading

Slavic philologists from the end of the 18th century and thebeginning of the 19th century (Serb Dositej Obradovi 17381811;Czech Pavel Josef afaik 17951861; Czech Josef Dobrovsk17531829; Slovene Jernej Kopitar 17801844; and Slovene FrancMikloi 18131891), whose works are historical source for thatperiod, genuine Croatian national language was only akavian

while kajkavian was originally only Slovenian national language,but in the course of time kajkavian speakers who lived in Croatia

1 . . , ! , 1895. This book isimportant because the author is dealing with ethnolinguistic division betweenthe Serbs and the Croats.


42/229


41

accepted Croatian national feeling.1 All opponents of politicalideology and national program of the Illyrian Movement (theSerbs and the Slovenes), concluded that the thesis of the Illyrian

Movement that the Croats are speaking three languages (i.e.

kajkavian, akavian and tokavian) should be refuted as wrongbecause the leading principle in the whole Europe from the end ofthe 18th c. onwards was/is that one nation can speak only onelanguage, but not several of them.2

The Ottoman Empire and the Reliquiae reliquiarum of Croatia in 1683

Undoubtedly, I. Derkos and J. Drakovis works andpatriotism framed the basic idea for requirement by the leaders ofthe Illyrian Movement: the political and cultural unification of all

1. . , . , 1783; P. J. afaik. Slowansky narodopis. Praha, 1842; P. J. afaik.Serbische Lesekrner. Pest, 1833; P. J. afaik. Geschichte der slawischenSprache und Literatur nach allen Mundarten. Buda, 1826; J. Dobrovsk.Geschichte der bhmische Sprache und Literatur. Wien, 1792/1818; J.Kopitar. Serbica. Beograd, 1984 (reprinted sellected works); J. Kopitar.Patriotske fantazije jednog Slovena, Vaterlndische Blter. 1810; F.Mikloi. Serbisch und chorvatisch, Vergleichende Gramatik derslawischen Sprachen. Wien, 1852/1879.

2 For instance: A. . , , ?, , 24, 25, 26. 1839; . .. , 1840.


43/229


42

Croatian lands. However, this idea was inspired by the work ofCroatian nobleman and professional writer of German origin,Pavao Ritter Vitezovi (16521713) who was the first among theCroats who advocated the concept of political unification of

historical and ethnolinguistic Croatia and promoted the idea thatancient Balkan people theIllyrians, who lived in the central andwestern parts of the Peninsula at the time of ancient Greeks andRomans, were the real ancestors ofmodern Croats and moreoverof all Slavs. In the other words, he championed an idea that theCroats are descendents of ancient Balkan Illyrians and that allSlavs originated in the Croats. His ethnonational formula was:Illyrian = Croat = Slav.

Vitezovi devided the whole world into six ethnolinguistic,

historical, cultural and geographical areas, civilizations andcultures:I) Germania, which embraced the whole German-

speaking world: Holy Roman Empire of GermanNation headed by Austria, Kingdom of Sweden(Sweden, Norway, Finland), Denmark, East Prussia,Curonian Isthmus (Kuri neria) with Curonian Bay orCourish Lagoon (Kuri Marios), Memel (Klaipda).However, Angliae regnum (Scotland, England, Wales,and Ireland) was included into Germania as well;

II) Italia cum parte Greciae (Italy with the part ofGreece) referred to the Apenninian Peninsula, Corsica,Sardinia, Sicily, Attica, Peloponnesus (Morea) and themain number of Aegean and Ionian islands, Malta andCrete;

III) Illyricum that was the whole Balkans (except Atticaand Peloponnesus with the adjoining islands),

Wallachia (Dacia and Cumania), Transylvania and

Hungary;IV) Hispania, which was composed by Spain and Portugal

and their European possessions and overseas coloniesin Africa, Asia, Latin America with Florida andCalifornia;

V) Sarmatia that was the whole territories of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (the Republic of TwoNations) with Moldavia and Muscovy (i.e. the RussianEmpire); and


44/229


43

VI) Gallia that was France.1The real ideological source for such a division of the whole

world was the Slavic idea that decisively influenced Vitezovi whorecognized that all Slavs belonged to a single ethnolinguistic

community. Nevertheless, this idea of Pan-Slavism wasmethamorphosed by him eleven years later into the idea of Pan-Croatianism and the Greater Croatia. In fact, Vitezovi claimedthat all Slavs are the Illyrians who were autochtonous inhabitats ofthe Balkan Illyricum. However, for him it was clear that ancientIllyrians in fact have been modern Croats and the ancestors of allSlavs. This ideology of Croatian-Slavic ethnogenesis Vitezovideveloped in his work Croatia redivivathat was an outline formore ambitious general history of the Croats and Croatia, i.e. the

entire Slavic population. In this work Vitezovi devided totalterritory of ethnic-historical-linguistic Croatia into two parts:I) Croatia Septemtrionalis (Northern Croatia); andII) Croatia Meridionalis (Southern Croatia).The boundary between them was the Danube River.The Northern Croatia encompassed the entire territories of

Bohemia, Moravia, Lusatia (uica or uyca in Eastern Saxonyand Southern Brandenburg), Hungary, Transylvania, Wallachia,Muscovy, Poland and Lithuania.2 The people who were living inNorthern Croatia were divided into two groups: NorthwesternCroats, called the Venedicos (Wends) and Northeastern Croats,named as the Sarmaticos (Sarmatians). The Wends consisted ofthe Czechs, Moravians, and Sorbs (Sorabi who lived in Lusatia),

whereas the Sarmatians were living in Muscovy, Lithuania andPoland,3i.e. have been the Rus', Lithuanians and Poles.

Vitezovi found that ancestors of all Northern Croats Wends and Sarmatians were the White Croats (Belohrobatoifrom the Byzantine historical sources) who lived in the earlyMiddle Ages around the upper Dnester River and upper VistulaRiver, i.e. Galicia and Little Poland. Traditional name from thesources for White Croatia was the Greater Croatia or the AncientCroatia. In the time of Vitezovis writing ofCroatia redivivathis

1 P. E. Ritter. Anagrammaton, sive Laurus auxiliatoribus Ungariae libersecundus. Vienna, 1689, p. 69117.

2 P. Ritter. Croatia rediviva: Regnante Leopoldo Magno Caesare. Zagreb,

1700, p. 10.3 P. Ritter. Croatia rediviva: Regnante Leopoldo Magno Caesare. Zagreb,1700, p. 10.


45/229


sotirovic balcania english language articles 2013

Documents