- - -

Journal of Croatian Studies, XXVIII-XXIX, 1987-88 - Annual Review of the Croatian Academy of America, Inc. New York, N.Y., Electronic edition by Studia Croatica, by permission. All rights reserved by the Croatian Academy of America.

- - -



RUĐER BOŠKOVIĆ. By Žarko Dadić. (Zagreb, Školska knjiga, 1987, pp. 208)


Much was written about Ruđer Bošković (1711-87) during his lifetime. For most of the nineteenth century he was less appreciated, but during the last eight decades interest in him has become universal and intense. This year we commemorate the two hundredth anniversary of his death. Meetings and symposia about his work have been held in various cities (e.g. Vienna, Boston Zagreb, Rome and Milan) at which the "modernity" of his penetrating thought has been examined. Some new research and interpretations have recently appeared, among them Žarko Dadić's monograph, which deserves special attention.


Dadić continues the work on Bošković by other Croatian scholars (F. Rački, V. Varićak, Br. Truhelka, St. Hondl, B. Borčić and especially Z. Marković). He has published several studies about Bošković's astronomy and given him extensive space in the first volume of his History of Natural Sciences in Croatia (Povijest egzaktnih znanosti u Hrvata, Zagreb 1982). In his monograph, Dadić describes Bošković's life and particularly the areas of study in which he distinguished himself. Dadić also gives both the original Croatian text and its English translation, and he has included pictures of the edifices and institutions in which he studied and worked, scholars who preceded him or were his contemporaries, his "dissertations" and books, documents about him as a French citizen and employee, and letters which he wrote, such as one to a Polish king begging him to protect his native city Dubrovnik from the menacing Russian navy. At the end Dadić includes a basic bibliography on Bošković (121 items). Perhaps it would have been better if the important dates of Bošković's life were also brought in with the bibliography of his works and the Index of the persons mentioned in the monograph. True, chronology is treated in the course of the narrative, but only incidentally, and it would seem desirable to see it collected at one spot.


Dadić presents Bošković somewhat differently than, for example, Ž. Marković in his generally excellent biography, R. Bošković (Zagreb 1968-69). Dadić is more interested in focusing upon Bošković as a scholar than in giving details of his turbulent life. He begins sketching three schools of natural philosophy, those of Aristotle, Descartes, and Newton, reviews science in Bošković's time. He also presents the situation in Dubrovnik because Bošković had remained in permanent contact with its prominent citizens, as well as a substantial discussion of Bošković's attitude toward the scientific ideas of his contemporaries. Dadić also reviews Theory of Natural Philosophy (Theoria philosophiae naturalis, Vienna 1758, Venice 1763, Chicago 1922, Zagreb 1974) in all its aspects, including its influence upon various scholars from the 18th century onwards. Separate chapters are devoted to Bošković's contribution to other fields of science.


Though Dadić devoted only one chapter to Bošković' life, we learn from it a great deal about the formation of his spiritual, scientific and literary physiognomy, and what led him from Dubrovnik to Rome, Paris, London, Constantinople, Milan, and again to Paris and Milan, in which last city he died exhausted by his strenuous work on Optics and Astronomy (Opera pertinentia ad opticam et astronomiam, five volumes, Bassano 1785).


In his lifetime Bošković was made most welcome in England and Scotland. His sister Anica wondered why the Englishmen, who were mainly Protestant, so much appreciated her brother, a Catholic and a Jesuit. Soon after his arrival in London in 1760, Bošković became a member of the Royal Society. He then published his best verse work on the Eclipse of the Sun and the Moon (De Solis ac Lunae defectibus) which he dedicated to this society. Later the same poem was translated into French (Les Eclipses, 1779) and dedicated to Louis XV. In its Preface the author expressed his jubilation that the Americans had declared their independence from England, since he viewed this as "the turning point in the history of mankind". During his stay in the Turkish capital during 1762 he became sick; on his way back to Rome he travelled with the English ambassador Porter through Bulgaria, Moldavia and Poland. In his travelogue (Giornale di un viaggio da Constantinopoli in Polonia, Bassano 1784) he writes that he understood the Bulgarian peasants who spoke the same Slavic tongue as his own in Dubrovnik. The English scientists had proposed that he travel as their envoy to California to observe the transit of Venus in front of the sun. He did not go there, because the Spaniards refused entrance to their domain to all Jesuits. In the course of the nineteenth century most was written about Bošković by English and Scottish scholars like M. Faraday, J.C. Maxwell, W. Thomson (known as Lord Kelvin) and J.J. Thomson. Probably the best collection of essays on Bošković, outside Croatia, was prepared by L.L. Whyte (London, 1961).


Dadić is particularly interested in ascertaining to what extent Bošković's theories are accepted nowadays and to what degree they contributed to the astonishing development of present-day science. We should mention the opinion of two prominent physicists. Niels Bohr in a symposium at Dubrovnik in 1958 recognized Bošković's major role in the development of modern science: "He made important contributions not only in the domain of mathematics and astronomy, but also, with remarkable imagination and logical power, he developed a systematic account of the properties of matter. In this respect, Bošković's ideas have exerted a deep influence on the work of the next generations of physicists". At the same symposium Werner Heisenberg pointed out that Bošković's ideas are still present in modern science: "His main work, Theoria philosophiae naturalis, contains numerous ideas which have reached full expression only in modern physics of the past fifty years, and which show how correct were the philosophical views which guided Bošković in his study of natural sciences".


Though there are scholars who have elucidated this or that aspect of Bošković's work, Ž. Marković and Ž. Dadić have treated all fields of his activity. Dadić's book excels in his logical sequence and clear prose. Though he discusses difficult ideas in mathematics, philosophy, geodesy, astronomy and architecture, even a layman can generally follow him.


Now, when the interest in Bošković is again alive, when there is an abundant literature about his multifold productivity, when the houses and institutions in which he lived and worked have been transformed into museums, when we all must know something about physics, I recommend Dadić's book as an excellent introduction not only to Bošković but also to natural philosophy from the times of the peripatetic school of Aristotle until contemporary quantum physics.



Indiana University




NATIONALISM AND FEDERALISM IN YUGOSLAVIA, 1963-1983. By Pedro Ramet. (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1985, pp. 299)


In his informative book, Nationalism and Federalism in Yugoslavia, 1963-1983, Pedro Ramet successfully applies the balance of power theory of international politics to the study of relations among national groups in Yugoslavia. Ramet argues that the Yugoslav federal system can best be understood as a system of shifting alliances in which republics, like states in the international arena, follow empirical rules of behavior designed to enhance their own interests and prevent the emergence of a "hegemonic actor." The balance of power model seems particularly apt for explaining the Yugoslav political system with its six republics, two autonomous provinces, and myriad collective institutions, and Ramet employs the model skillfully. Although it may not explain everything he claims, it nevertheless provides an innovative framework for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the Yugoslav federal system and a useful heuristic tool for the study of other multinational countries.


The book is divided into three main sections. The first section elaborates the balance of power system of Yugoslav federalism which Ramet borrows from Morton Kaplan's model of interstate relations. Ramet argues that Yugoslav federalism evolved in the mid 1960's from a loose bipolar system polarized along Serb-Croat or north-south lines, to a balance of power system in which all federal units were of roughly equal strength. By freeing himself from a dualistic view of Yugoslav politics, Ramet is better able to capture the complexity of Yugoslav politics and explain such "cross-over" alliances as support from southern republics for "northern" liberal reforms in 1965. Ramet then investigates how coalition-building among republics affects the outcome of issues like economic reforms, taxes, banking, the construction of railways and roads, and national demands for greater political autonomy. For the most part, these cases are carefully researched and presented, though some portions of the book are more thorougly documented than others. Ramet's analysis of the 1971 crisis in Croatia is especially good and may well be the best account to date of this little studied event. Finally, Ramet evaluates the effect of the balance of power system on Yugoslav politics. He concludes that despite its periodic lapses into "acerbic conflict", the Yugoslav federal system is relatively stable and effective; the balance of power system provides a flexible mechanism for regulating conflict, tempering the competition generated by republics seeking to maximize their own gains with the cooperation required to prevent any one of them from predominating.


Ramet's use of the balance of power framework to explain Yugoslav federalism is illuminating, but it has several weaknesses. Some of them are inherent in the balance of power model itself, and will be familiar to students of international politics, and others stem from Ramet's application of the model to the Yugoslav setting. Although Ramet uses the loose bipolar system as his basis of comparison, he never explains this system's features, or how it operates in Yugoslavia from 1945 to 1965. Moreover, despite claims that his model will elucidate empirical rules governing the transformation of the political system (a claim that becomes important when considering this model's useful predictive value), Ramet somewhat un-systematically treats the shift from one system to the other in the mid-sixties. He argues that economic reforms led to a decentralization of political power which, by giving more power to the four other republics (in addition to Serbia and Croatia), produced a balance of power system; this view misses the essence of the reforms and derogates the role of the communist party. Although they are the two largest republics, Croatia and Serbia did not dominate the other less powerful republics in the 1945 to 1953 period, and thus cannot be considered the two "superpowers" in a bipolar system. Rather, all the republics were equally powerless and subordinated to the centralized control of the communist party, even after limited decentralization gave the local communes more authority over economic decision making in the early fifties. The reforms a decade later produced what Ramet characterizes as a balance of power system because they devolved considerable power to all federal units for the first time, not because they strengthened several hitherto insignificant units.


A more serious shortcoming of the balance of power view of Yugoslav federal relations is that, while it can tell us a great deal about relations between federal units, it tells us little about what goes on within those units. Critics of the balance of power theory of international relations argue that its one-dimensional picture of state behavior based on calculations of national interest neglects the effects of domestic political processes on foreign policy. The same criticism can be applied to Ramet's analysis since he similarly asserts that an ethnic actor, or federal unit, can be treated as having a monolithic interest based on enhancing its economic and political position in the federation. This problematic proposition leads Ramet to assert falsely, for example, that the Ustaša and the Croat Peasant Party had virtually identical political goals in the interwar period. Moreover, the most interesting and informative part of Ramet's book, his discussion of the factional disputes leading up to the 1971 Croatian crisis and the 1980 revolt in the Kosovo, fall completely outside his analytical framework. On occasion some assumptions of the balance of power model catch Ramet in the related trap of attributing motives to "actors" that complement the model's behavioral rules. The balance of power literature often mistakenly characterizes statesmen as motivated by the desire to equilibrate power and asserts that they understand their actions in this fashion. Ramet, similarly, makes the misleading suggestion that the Communist Party of Yugoslavia created Montenegro as a concession to the balance of power (pp. 115), though Communist leaders clearly never intended Yugoslav federal arrangements to function as a balance of power system.


The conclusions we are to draw from Ramet's analysis are difficult to discern. Although he points to the generally stabilizing influence of the balance of power system in Yugoslavia, arguing for example that the system has remained almost untouched by Tito's death, Ramet is not sanguine about its future. Like many analysts of Yugoslav politics, he worries that Albanian nationalism in the Kosovo may undermine the present federal system and is skeptical that the balance of power mechanism can resolve this problem. One might justifiably ask why the Yugoslav federal system is more seriously threatened by the events in the Kosovo than the Croatian crisis in 1971. The answer, I think, leads to a different conclusion than the one above posited by Ramet. In 1971, Tito as the ultimate arbiter (or in Ramet's words the universal actor), was still strong enough to prevent the Croatian crisis from challenging the entire system. With his passing from the scene, central authority has been so weakened that it cannot intervene to set the limits of legitimate national or republic demands. The balance of power system of the 1970's Ramet describes has been fundamentally altered as a result. This is not to suggest that the Yugoslav federal system will be undone by the challenges it now faces; but one wishes that Ramet's balance of power model had provided more substantial clues about how it will evolve. Nevertheless, this well informed book contributes greatly to an understanding of Yugoslav politics and is a stimulating analysis of a balance of power politics in a multinational society.



Harvard University



WAR AND SOCIETY IN EAST CENTRAL EUROPE, vol. XIX. Béla K. Király and Nándor F. Dreisziger, eds. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), pp. 628, maps.


This is a massive book comprised of thirty-seven essays by as many different authors, and, like all collections, it is difficult to assess. There are a number of specious criticisms that could be made with regard to uniformity of treatment, lack of focus, and redundancy, but they are the sorts of observation that could be made of any collection of essays by authors as different in their background and approach as Dániel I. Szabó of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Budapest and Glenn E. Torrey of Emporia State University in Emporia, Kansas. In fact, the very diversity of authors and approaches is one of the strengths of the collection, which consists largely of essays from the XIV Conference on Society in Change, held at the Bellagio Research and Conference Center of the Rockefeller Foundation at Lake Como in September 1983. This volume, like the conference, is part of a series sponsored by Brooklyn College, and seeks, as Béla Király notes in his introduction, to move away from "a narrow focus on battles, campaigns, and leaders" and instead view "a country's military history in the context of the evolution of the entire society," since "military institutions closely reflect the character of the society of which they are a part." (p. xi) The intent therefore is to understand "how the process of social, economic, political, and technological change, as well as changes in the sciences and in international relations, influenced the development of doctrines of national defense and altered actual practice ..." The essays thus deal with both the "home front" and "military affairs," and offer data on the officer corps, the rank and file, the civilian and war economies, and "the origins of the East Central European brand of militarism," among other things.


It is therefore against the intent of the editor that this work should probably be measured, to see whether it indeed avoids too narrow a focus and approaches military questions in a broader, societal context. One way to do so is to note what is included and what omitted in the most general sense of countries and nationalities covered. Of the 37 essays, 7 totalling 75 pages are devoted to Poland; 7 totalling 99 pages to the Habsburg Empire and army; 5 for 48 pages to Hungary; 5 for 68 pages to Romania; 3 for 54 pages to Serbia; 3 for 38 pages to Bulgaria; 2 for 31 pages to the Ottoman Empire; 2 for 24 pages to the Czechs; 2 for 55 to the general topic of the "home front"; and 1 for 7 to an essay on the general military situation. But it seems odd that the Czechs rate almost as much space as the Ottomans; odder still that Romania and Serbia rate more pages, if not more articles, than Hungary. Moreover, it is troubling that there are no articles dealing with Croatia, Slovenia, Greece, Albania and Slovakia.


Why this should be is difficult to fathom, unless the editors and authors views the war retrospectively — as something that created the "successor states," and whose sole importance in "East Central Europe" was the creation of these new states. And that does seem to be the case, judging from Dreisziger's introductory piece, in which he fails to distinguish between "nations" and "states," treats the Czechs and Poles as if their roles were somehow similar to that of the Serbian state, and concludes that in East Central Europe the "supreme idea" of World War I was "national independence." (pp. 4-7, 12-13) Interestingly, Dreisziger also seems to regret the war's reinforcement of national "particularisms," and he considers "nationalistic emotions" as a "strongly negative" consequence of the war. (pp. 11, 22-23)


However, in his concluding remarks on the collection, Fischer-Galati seems to adopt a position diametrically opposed to that of Dreisziger when he notes that, "The most remarkable feature of the military actions of World War I in East Central Europe was the dedication of the rank and file to the causes for which they fought." (p. 595) In other words, the masses had little political consciousness, did not care about their "national liberation," and in Austria-Hungary, Kaisertreue "overshadowed" calls to national liberation. (p. 595) Moreover, Fischer-Galati not only stresses that "the forces supportive of national liberation of co-nationals were just as responsible" as the Germans for the war, but he notes that the "successor states" at most played an "auxiliary and subordinate" role to the major combatants, and that the military defeat of the Central Powers was not caused by "traditional social and national conflicts," since these were all "put on ice" until the war's end. Finally, he notes that the war failed to solve the "historic social, political and economic problems" of the region. (pp. 593-597) While that is also essentially the conclusion reached by Spence in his excellent essay on the Yugoslav role in the Habsburg army, it is at considerable variance with many of the other essays, which are definitely nationalistic in tone.[1]


There is a great deal of fascinating data here — for example, Erendil's observation that the Turks had to import horses to pull their artillery since their own were too small (p. 372) — but the collective impact will not be great because Dreisziger contents himself with summarizing the various essays and setting them against Arthur Marwick's model, rather than critiquing them and comparing them analytically.[2]


There is thus not enough effort to speculate, for example, on Stokes' interesting piece on the Serbian army and Milan Obrenović. Yet Stokes' observation that the Serbian officers saw themselves as the progressive element in the state and distrusted politicians is highly reminiscent of the attitude of the Latin American military, and puts the 1903 assassination of Alexander and Draga Obrenović in a wider, and more interesting, context. The creation of Narodna odbrana in 1908 and of Ujedinjenje ili smrt in 1911, and the entitling of the latter's newspaper Pijemont, is also reminiscent of the revolutionary organizations created by Mazzini and other 19th century radicals, and clearly took the Italian Risorgimento as a model — a significant choice given the militaristic cast of the Savoy monarchy and the Italian state.


Djordjević's piece on Serbia is interesting as a brief history of military operations, and noteworthy for its mini-biographies of Putnik and other Serbian leaders, as well as its discussions of Potiorek's problems in 1914. He also does a nice job of placing the Niš declaration in context, noting that it came after the military successes at Mount Cer and the Kolubara in late 1914. This somewhat clarifies Živojinović's essay, which tends to be a bit too patriotic at times, and to repeat some of the traditional points of view. Indeed, he is not only content with official Serbian casualty figures (615,290 military and 600,000 civilians), but he reiterates the traditional view that the French saved the Serbian army, even though the Italians employed 45 steamers to 25 French and 11 British; made 440 voyages, to 101 French and 19 British; and accounted for 130,000 tons to 45,000 French and 30,000 British.[3]


Not only are such questions left unasked, and some obvious connections missed as a result of the format of the collection, but the tendency to separate the book into "home front" and "military affairs" in some ways goes against the intention of the editors of integrating military history in-to a broader societal context, and also leads to a certain amount of undesirable redundancy and makes it difficult for the reader to compare essays on similar topics. For example, while Mamatey deals with the Czechs under the rubric of "home front," Kalvoda does so in the section on "military affairs." Yet both conclude that the Czechs tended to work within the context of the Habsburg Empire for state-rights and most served the Dual Monarchy loyally, despite efforts by the émigrés and Russia to use them against Austria-Hungary. (pp. 104-107, 420-432) Similarly, Torrey's two essays on Romania, of which the one dealing with the impact of Romania's entry into the war is by far the better, could probably have been combined, as could the essays on the Polish military by Ratajczyk, Dudek and Kozlowski, which repeat much of the same information, as do the essays on the Habsburg army by Decsy and Rothenberg.


On the other hand, the interesting essay on the industrial revolution in the Balkans by Berend and Ránki — who conclude that the Balkans had remained "preindustrial" — does not overlap enough with the other pieces, although there is some sense of continuity since Haselsteiner's essay on the Austro-Hungarian economy follows — but is not integrated with Pastor's on the Hungarian economy. In any event, it would have been nice had the authors made allusions regarding the effect of the war on foreign capital (and the absence of foreign capital on the war efforts of certain belligerants), of rail systems on troop movements, of weak banking and agricultural structures on feeding and arming the various armies, and so on. There are, nonetheless, fascinating bits of data, e.g., Haselsteiner's observation that by 1918 the Habsburg army was getting only 300 grams of flour and 100 grams of meat daily, and Plaschka's that the civilian population was getting only 165 grams of bread and 17 grams of meat daily. (pp. 87-89, 341-342) And Pastor notes that in Hungary women were increasingly drawn into the workforce, and even 300,000 Russian and Serbian POWs were impressed as laborers, while rent control, unemployment benefits, and "state capitalism" were all introduced as a result of the war — thus bearing out the material in Hardach's study on World War I economies.[4]


Szabó's use of jokes and songs to assess Hungarian morale is also fascinating, but his conclusion that resistance, although widespread, never became active hardly comforting, even though it reinforces Hajder's essay. (136-140, 118-119) Kozlowski's observation that Bethmann Hollweg saw the Polnische Wehrmacht as so much can-non fodder to "save the lives of a million German soldiers" and "ensure the submission of the Poles" reinforces the stereotype of the Germans (p. 471), but Noykov's essay on German blunders during the campaign in Serbia, and the German refusal to drive the Entente out of Greece, merely in order to tie more Entente troops down there — as well as German scapegoating of their allies, whether Bulgarian or Austrian — casts some doubt on the actual prowess of German arms and genius, especially given the drubbing administered Mackensen by the Romanians in 1917 during the Battle of Mărăşeşti. (pp. 403-424, 521-523, 293-294) Indeed, the essays on Romania by Ceausescu and Torrey suggest that the Romanian role has been grossly underestimated, and the pieces on Bulgaria by Noykov and Damianov that the Bulgarian role has yet to be understood.


Unfortunately, while this is an interesting collection — and essential reading for anyone intrigued by World War I — it contains very little for those seeking information on Slovenians, Croatians, Slovaks, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Ruthenians, Albanians, Greeks or Italians. Of course, an argument can be made for ignoring the Baltic peoples, given their northerly location; and another for giving short shrift to the Italians, given their Latin and Mediterranean orientation. Yet the Baltic peoples are part of East Central Europe — as the Polish-Lithuanian dispute over Vilna demonstrated — just as the Russians and Germans are. And the Italians had a vested interest in Zadar, Split, Istria, Valona, Durazzo and the Dodecanese Islands, while the Italian front became the major Austro-Hungarian front. As Farkas notes in his essay, "the flower of Hungarian manhood" perished on the Isonzo front (p. 337), and Deák (pp. 307-310), Spence (p. 363), and Rothenberg cannot ignore the Isonzo front. Indeed, Rothenberg sees the Brusilov offensive of 1916 as the "turning point" for Austria-Hungary, but the failure against Italy in June 1918 as having "deprived the army of its last hope." (pp. 293-297) Of course, the Italians are an inconvenience, and Deák ignores them, preferring to credit their victory to the "Entente" (p. 309-310), while Rothenberg considers Karl's manifesto of 16 October 1918 — not the battle of Vittorio Veneto — to have been the "final blow" (p. 297). Perhaps, but Gatti and other Italian sources would not agree with some of the easy generalizations in these essays.[5]


For those interested in Croatian history, this collection is a disappointment. Of the various articles, the most interesting in this sense is that by Spence, who examines the "Yugoslav" presence in the Habsburg army. There is relatively little new here, but his exposition is clear and interesting. If Croats were underrepresented in the army, they were over-represented in the navy, comprising 31% of the seamen and 10% of the officers — and thus important during the 1-3 February 1918 mutiny at Kotor, a subject also dealt with by Plaschka. Prior to the war Conrad had considered the Croats — along with the Slovenes, Muslims and Germans — as "completely reliable," and indeed, Croatian units from Slavonija and Muslims from Bosnia fought well against the Serbians in 1914-15, and with the Slovenes, remained loyal until 29 October 1918, when Zagreb's Narodno Vijeće undercut Borojević's efforts to establish a "Yugoslav" front on the Isonzo river. Not surprisingly, these three groups had the lowest desertion rates and the highest casualty rates per capita of population, the Slovenes losing 28 military dead per 1,000 population, the Croats from 17.1 to 25.7, and the Muslims up to 39.5 — figures that should be set against a 16.9 rate for Serbs in the Habsburg army. (pp. 355-363, 346-347, 307) It is thus clear that the Croats, Slovenes and Muslims made up the bulk of the 300,000 "Yugoslav" casualties Spence estimates were suffered during the war. And if the figures for civilian rations are taken into account, it would seem that the Croats, Slovenes, Muslims and Serbs in the Dual Monarchy suffered even more than Tomašević has estimated.[6] 6 Unfortunately, there is too little attention paid "minor" nationalities in this collection, and the focus is thus not as wide as it might be.


Overall, then, the essays do not quite come up to the standards set by the editors, but there are some excellent pieces in the collection, and if the reader takes the time to work through the individual essays there is a great deal to be learned. The editors are, in any case, to be commended for their effort to integrate military history into a broader context, and if some of the contributors contented themselves with more traditional approaches, the juxtaposition of articles gives them a breath they would not otherwise have. In short, if you are interested in Croatia, this book is of little interest; but if you are interested in the history of World War I, this is something to put on your reading list.









LES CROATES ET LA CIVILISATION DU LIVRE, Henrik Heger and Janine Matillon eds. (Paris, Presses de l' Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 1986, pp. 117)


The first international symposium of studies on Croatian culture was held at the Sorbonne in December 1983. Its theme was "Croatians and the Civilization of the Book". The second on the Croatian writer A.G. Matoš, the third on Middle Ages, and the fourth on Renaissance were also held at the Sorbonne in December 1984, 1985, and 1986.


The proceedings of the first symposium comprise nine papers. In the first one Josip Bratulić, professor at the University of Zagreb, commemorates the first Croatian book published in 1483. In portraying the precarious situation of the Croatian lands at the time of the appearance of the first Croatian printed book, which was a Glagolitic missal, the author recalls both Pop Martinac 's description of the terrible Turkish invasion at the end of the 15th century and the Germanic invasion of the Balkan Peninsula reported by Saint Jerome at the end of the 4th century. The similarity is striking. By stressing Saint Jerome's influence and stature among Croatian intellectuals through the centuries, Bartulić helps to explain the atmosphere in which the first printed book was born.


Aleksandar Stipčević, professor at the University of Zagreb, discusses the production of manuscript books during the 15th century and shows Croatia's peculiar situation as a crossroads of the Latin and Byzantine worlds and as a meeting place of the West European spirit with the Slavic nation. Following Gutenberg's invention German printers appeared in many European countries as the first printers, but in Croatian regions Croatians were the first to practice the new art, because foreigners did not know how to handle the unusual Glagolitic characters.


Franjo Šanjek, professor at the Catholic Theological School in Zagreb, examines the circulation of books in 15th and 16th century Croatia. He notes two outstanding libraries: the Dominican Library in Dubrovnik and the Archdiocesan Library in Zagreb (also known as the Metropolitan Library). The first occupies a prominent place in Croatia by its manuscripts and incunabula; the second one enjoys the privilege of being the oldest. Beside the institutional libraries there were many individuals — writers, notaries, merchants and artisans — who compiled personal libraries, especially in Dalmatian coastal cities. Among many volumes in Croatian collections, we shall mention only the treatise De sphaera mundi, written by the English mathematician and astronomer John Halifax (or Holywood translated as Sacrobosco). The author concludes that the Croatians were exceptionally familiar with West European publications.


Franjo Zenko, professor of philosophy at Zagreb University, established a connection between the printed books and the history of philosophy in Croatia. He noticed that Franjo Marković, one of his predecessors in his Department of philosophy and founder of the historiography of philosophy in Croatia, stated in 1881 that the Croatian philosophers from the 15th to the 18th century were completely disregarded. While the works of the contemporary writers became an integral part of Croatian literature, the philosophical works were not a part of the Croatian cultural patrimony. Mr. Zenko cites several historical and ideological reasons why those philosophical works had to wait for a national awakening in the 19th century, but notes that even then they were not made part of the national heritage because they were written in Latin. Perhaps these Croatian philosophers have still to wait for future better days, because philosophy is more universal than national.


Leo Košuta, librarian at the Bibliothčque Nationale of Paris, portrays the tumultuous destiny of a Latin book written by Marko Marulić, De institutione bene vivendi per exempla sanctorum (1507). During more than one hundred years the book had 45 editions and was translated into six languages. In it Marulić teaches moral principles illustrated by examples taken from the Bible and the lives of saints. For many years the book was used by the Jesuits as spiritual reading. It was very much appreciated by Saint Francis Xavier. On the other hand, some passages were censured by the Inquisition. Mr. Košuta aptly describes its ups and downs, supporting his presentation with many and extensive footnotes, which leave the impression that more can be discovered about Marulić's book. Marulić was known in Europe also for his other Latin books, which during two centuries saw more than fifty editions.


In a short report Professor Stanislav Tuksar, associated with the South Slavic Academy of Arts and Sciences in Zagreb, examines for the first time the musical scores printed in Europe between the end of the 15th century and the year 1815 and found in the Croatian archives. This study was based on the examination of 34 musical archives.


Mirko Tomasović, professor of the University of Zagreb, analyzes number of Moličre's plays translated into Croatian in Dubrovnik during the 18th century. Most of those translations were adaptations. In order to show the extent of the changes made by the translator, Tomasović compares the French original comedy Georges Dandin ou le Mari confondu with the Croatian version Ilija aliti Muž zabezožen. Not only names but local, social, and historical allusions were changed in accordance with the tradition of older comic writers in Renaissance Dubrovnik. At the same time the translator strictly adheres to the French original when it is a matter of universal human thoughts and feelings. This paper brings to life the atmosphere of an old Slavic Dubrovnik enjoying the French classical spirit more than fifty years after Moličre's death.


Professor Mirko Dražen Grmek, professor at the Parisian École des Hautes Etudes writes on the beginnings of scientific publications among the Croatians. The first such book was printed in Venice in 1507 by a physician from Zadar, Federik Grisogono-Bartulačić, and dealt with astronomy. It was written in Latin as were all other such books until the beginning of the 19th century. Such books were sporadically written in Italian or German, but not in Croatian. Latin was the language used in all Croatian schools and used for almost all scholarly activities. The only exceptions were popular medical works that were aimed at a general public. Professor Grmek presents several publications of this kind published in Northern Croatia in Kajkavian dialect and in Southern Croatia in Shtokavian-Ikavian, mostly compiled by secular or religious priests. All those books were published during the epoch of the Enlightenment, when dedicated clergy tried to educate their people. Most of them were Franciscans inspired by Andrija Kačić Miošić, who at that time published his Pleasant Instruction of the Croatian People (1756). Some of them even chose to present rules of health in verses, just as Kačić did for history.


The facsimile in color of a page taken from the Glagolitic missal of 1483 appears on the front cover of the book, while the back cover carries the facsimile also in color of a Latin manuscript in which Georges d'Esclavonie tells his French colleagues in the 15th century that his alphabet is Croatian (Istud alphabetum est chrawaticum). Thus a few centuries before the internationalism 'cravat', a word for necktie in several European languages was born (1651), one can see its origin in the ethnic Croata.


The participants of the symposium dealt with a short but distant period of time, the second part of the 15th century, under different but similar aspects. Therefore some repetitions occur here and there. All the contributions are very valuable, first of all for the high scholarly spirit in which they were composed, and then for the fact that for the first time Croatians, a dismembered nation, engulfed in bigger political entities like Austrian and Turkish Empires, Venetian Commonwealth or Yugoslav Federation, was presented in its national cultural unity. A great deal of credit is thus due to Dr. Henrik Heger who has centered these symposia around the Croatian cultural area, faire culturelle croate, and helped to show that even a small nation, in spite of tumultuous political vicissitudes, can survive through its culture for more than a millenium.





DOMOVINSKA RIJEČ, II. By Ante Kadić. (Chicago: ZIRAL, 1986, pp. 427).


The presence of Ante Kadić, Professor Emeritus of Slavic languages and literatures, has been felt in the field of South Slavic literatures for many years. After Albert Lord of Harvard University, Kadić is the most prolific scholar in that field, especially in Croatian literature, in the United States of America. His many books and even more numerous articles, in both Croatian and English, attest to his industriousness and wide erudition. Among his most notable achievements are the collections of essays From Croatian Renaissance to Yugoslav Socialism (The Hague, 1969), Domovinska riječ, I (Barcelona, 1983), Essays in South Slavic Literatures (New Haven, 1988). Even more important— perhaps the most important—is his tireless preoccupation with, and writing about, South Slavic literatures in English at the time when relatively few scholars had the ability, time, or desire to do so. In the eventual history of Yugoslavistics in the English-speaking world Kadić will be recognized as one of the most important pioneers.


Domovinska riječ, II follows the pattern of the first volume under the same title. Consisting of twenty four essays, either historical or analytical or both, the book covers the wide span of subjects: from Croatian to Bulgarian literatures; from the eighteenth century to the present; and from poets to fiction writers and playwrights. Kadić approach to writing displays a similar variety: the strictly scholarly writing is at times spelled by a less formal approach resembling travelogue that is both informative and refreshing. Many of these articles have been previously published in periodicals, most notably in Hrvatska revija, but because periodicals are not always readily accessible, the publication of these essays in one book is most welcome.


By far the largest majority of essays pertains to Croatian literature, which is not surprising since it has always been the closest to the author's heart, as he says, "Even though I am an American citizen, Croatia is my fatherland." The recipient of the greatest attention is—again, not surprising— Miroslav Krleža. In four essays Kadić deals with Lasić's Kronologija of Krleža's life and work, Krleža's writings about Križanić, the mutilated English translation of Na rubu pameti, and the author's "nocturnal conversations" with Krleža. Among other authors depicted are Matoš, A.B. Simić, Mirko Božić, Marijan Matković, Drago Ivanišević, Vlado Gotovac, and Ivan Raos. Of general themes, Kadić deals with Croatian Latinists, Croatian humor, and Croatian émigré writers' poems about the sea. Several of the essays contain autobiographical elements, especially "U Krugu je bio početak," where the author speaks of his early days, revealing not only his visceral attachment to the native soil, but also a surprising narrative facility.


It is difficult to rank these essays concerning their quality and significance. To this reviewer, "Čakavska poezija Drage Ivaniševića" and "Moji 'nočni' razgovori sa sjenom Miroslava Krleže" seem to carry the most weight; the first because of its scholarly treatment, and the second because of the original mixture of critical observation and personal, noticeably emotional reactions to the greatest contemporary Croatian writer shortly before his death. Worth mentioning is also the essay "I hrvatski emigranti su pjevali o moru", because relatively little is written about émigré writers even abroad, let alone in Yugoslavia. Other essays offer tidbits of the author's keen observations and originality. The most important judgment of this book, however, should be based on its totality, for only then can the contribution of Ante Kadič to the American scholarship concerning South Slavic literatures be fully measured. Domovinska riječ, II is an integral and significant part of that judgment.



University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill



THE WANDERING YEARS. By Zora Marov. (San Pedro, CA, Zora Marov Publishing Co., 1984, pp. 885). Translated from Croatian by Zora Marov; first written in Croatian by Zora Marov. Orders: Zora Marov Publishing Co., 1572 Stonewood Court, San Peddro, CA 90731. Price $20.00.


In this novel of almost 900 pages the writer gives an account of the seven years of her life, between the ages of eighteen and twenty six. Her main purpose is not to write a partial autobiography but to present the plight of Croatia as she herself concludes: "I have written this book for the sole purpose of letting the world know: we Croats exist." (p. 885)


Her story starts in spring 1941, when, as a senior in high school, she was studying for her matura, the final examination in a Gymnasium for girls in Zagreb. But her studies were interrupted when World War Two started in Yugoslavia on April 6, 1941. Although the war lasted about a week, the civil war that ensued lasted until the very end of WW2 in Europe, finishing only in May 1945.


A native of the town of Komiža (here called Koral) on the Island of Vis (here called Vali) in Dalmatia, she describes those four years in Zagreb, Split and Komiža: in Zagreb, the capital of the newly established Independent State of Croatia, and in Split and Komiža, as annexed territories to Mussolini's Italy. In spring 1945, fleeing before Tito's Partisans, she took refuge with her sister in Graz, Austria.


In June 1945 when communications with Communist Yugoslavia were restored, she was on the first train going home. One year later, disappointed in what she had found in the new Yugoslavia, she returned to Graz with her mother, both of them determined to start a new life as emigrants. After an adventurous crossing of the Yugoslav-Austrian border, mother and daughter arrived safely in Graz. Zora went into a refugee camp (Kellerberg), where she spent two months. Later on her mother joined her own brother in Canada.


After a three night and four day train ride through Germany with 800 other refugees, Zora crossed the Atlantic from Bremerhaven, Germany, to Puerto Cabello, Venezuela, aboard the U.S. ship "General Sturgis". With a small group of Croatians, a Slovenian, a Serbian and a Polish couple, she landed in a refugee camp (Trompillo). A short while later the group dispersed to search for work. After an adventurous two years in Venezuela, she was invited by her mother to join her in Canada. Her Sister Vinka was also about to leave Austria with her family for Canada so that the family could be together again. The writer concludes: "That was all that mattered, to be together and wait until the homeland was free of Comunism." (p. 880) Sometime in 1948 Zora boarded the plane for Canada. At that point the seven year story ends.


As far as I was able to find out, sometime later Miss Marov moved to the U.S. and settled in San Pedro, California, where she married a Croatian emigrant from her beloved Island of Vis. Today she lives in San Pedro, California.


The narration of Zora's youthful years and of the romances of her six girl friends take up the main part of the book. She herself fell in love twice: first with a Moslem from Sarajevo, then with a Dalmatian from Split. Both were killed during the civil war fought between Ustashas, Partisans and Chetniks. Zora was dominated by two main concerns: a very strained relationship between her parents and her idealized love for Croatia, her fatherland caught in the struggle among domestic and foreign factions. In the long descriptions of her girl friends' social lives, the writer tries to illustrate the advantages of traditional Croatian values. While dealing with changing political situations, she makes a point to supply the reader with pertinent historical explanations. Those digressions seem to be insufficient for the reader who is not acquainted with Croatian history. One or more detailed maps would help, particularly since the writer's geography is not very clear (cf. the travel between towns Klis-Knin-Imotski-Senj on pp. 601-606). She is very partial to the Ustasha regime and ignores its misdeeds, whereas she portrays the Chetniks and the Partisans, especially female Partisans (586), as the purest incarnation of evil.


This novel seems to be the first presentation of the turmoil of WW2 on Croatian soil from a Croatian point of view. For forty years the present Yugoslav regime has constantly blamed the Independent State of Croatia for most of the atrocities perpetrated during those dreadful four years. Aware of the well known Roman saying Vae victis (Woe to the vanquished) Miss Marov tries to compensate for the exaggerations of the victors. It explains her procedure, but does not justify it.


In speaking about her girl friends, their parents and relatives, she gives the impression that, at that time, there was a large Croatian nobility. She herself belongs rather to the bourgeois class. Although, in comparison with American society, there is a stronger class feeling among most Europeans, the Croatian old nobility is practically non existent. In Croatia the main class distinction exists mostly between peasantry and town people (seljaci i gospoda).


The relation of events is interspersed with fitting philosophical observations that illustrate the writer's personal views. There are some beautiful scenic descriptions of Dalmatian landscapes in connection with the Adriatic Sea. All of chapter 34 is a graphic account of the end of war in Graz during the arrival of the Soviet army. Here she is less biased than when she speaks of Yugoslav Partisans, calling them wild Huns.


Miss Marov impresses the reader with her well-rounded education and her knowledge of several languages. Yet the mistakes found in her foreign terms are too numerous. We shall quote just a few of them with the correct form and the page in parentheses: Bremenhaffen (Bremerhaven 772), Carobigneri (carabinieri 56...), compania (compagnia 277), corragio (corraggio 805), Daniel Darieoux (Danielle Darrieux 654), delicioso (delizioso 384), Giovani (Giovanni 116), Giuseppi (Giuseppe 649), in fragranti (in flagranti 262), Keiser Karlo (Kaiser Karl 763), Keiser Kruft (Kaiser Gruft 174), Marescialo (maresciallo 204...), morir (mourir 115), paterfamilia (paterfamilias 410), perque (perché 222), Tesere (tessere 231), torida (corrida 881)...


The author tells us that her novel was first written in Croatian and then translated into English. Generally speaking the English language in the book is idiomatic, rather colloquial, but some expressions or constructions indicate that the translator misinterpreted the Croatian original or simply anglicized the Croatian terms. We shall list a dozen of those cases with our translations and the page in parentheses with points of suspension when the term is found more than once: channelization (system of drains 154), composition (assembled railroad cars 756), desert (deserted place or uninhabited region 590...), figure (silhouette, shape 321), forest (political underground 279...), frock (tuxedo 464), index (university student's booklet 372), liquer (liqueur or cordial 329), marine officer (naval officer 125...), scriptus (notes or mimeographed course materials 372), we toasted to the celebrator with champagne (we toasted the honoree with champagne 470); `honoree' being less frequent than the Croatian equivalent svečar.


Miss Marov wrote several interesting pages about her father whom she adored and her mother whom she only respected. No matter what one thinks of her feelings and ideas, this book is a confession, a human document. In spite of her biased point of view the writer has succeeded in describing the inhuman atmosphere of a terrible civil war, the senselessness of the Italian occupation of purely Croatian lands and the deep devotion of a Croatian girl to her nation.



[1] Spence notes that, "Yugoslav disaffection did not bring down the Habsburg Monarchy, nor could Yugoslav loyalty have saved it." (p. 364)

[2] Dreisziger notes that Marwick's model is basically for the home front, but extends it to the military. The model consists of four "dimensions" under which phenomena are analyzed: (1) destructive-disruptive elements, e.g., bombing of industrial plant, disruption of transport systems and banking, etc.; (2) "tests," or those things that stress the system in whole or part; (3) "participation," e.g., the tendency to allow the "lower" classes or "inferior" ethnic groups into the officer class; and (4) "pyschological," e.g., the strengtening of ingroup loyalties. How all this works is not as clear as the model would indicate. For example, while nationalistic particularisms were supposedly exacerbated by the war, they were also put "on ice" during the conflict, exploding after the war. It would thus seem that if the Croatians were upset with the Austrians and Hungarians between 1914 and 1918, they still fought loyally for Kaiser and Kanig, then vented their anger on the Serbian state after 1919 ... But then, most authors seem to have been unaware of the model.

[3] Ministero đellaMarina, The Italian Navy in the World War, 1915-1915, Facts and Figures (Rome, 1927), passim. The Italian troops in Valona and Macedonia are also generally ignored, even though there were around 150,000 or so by 1918.

[4] Gerd Hardach, The First World War, 1914-1918 (Berkeley: University of California Pr., 1977), passim, is the best, if an incomplete, synthetic study of the economics of the major powers in World War I.

[5] One of the most vociferous defenses of the Italian war effort is Angelo Gat-ti's La parte dell'Italia. Rivendicazioni (Milan: Mondadori, 1926), esp. 126-161, for the chapter "Italiani, Francesi e Serbi in Albania."

[6] Tomašević notes about 275,000 Serbs and 25,000 Montenegrins were killed in the armed forces, plus civilian losses, especially to typhus, and he accepts Hersch's estimate of around 750,000 to 800,000 dead for Serbia and Montenegro. Tomašević estimates about 150,000 military deaths for the South Slays in the Dual Monarchy, but notes there is no data on civilian deaths. Nonetheless, given prewar birth rates , he has estimated that while Serbia "lost" 811,300 actual deaths and potential births, Croatia-Slavonia "lost" 251,200 and Dalmatia 34,000. See Jozo Tomašević, Peasants, Politics, and Economic Change in Yugoslavia (Stanford: University Pr., 1955), 222-225.