STUDIA CROATICA

Year XIV – January – June 1973 – Vol. 48-49

Tito, candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize - Franjo Nevistic

Ante Starcevic, ideologue of Croatian national emancipation - Branko Kadic

Antun Gustav Matos re-examined - Ante Kadic

Pablo Picasso, the painter who didn't paint Bleiburg, the super-Guernica - Lucas Fertilio

Unitarianism: mask of hegemony - Jozo Ivicevic-Bakulic

The state character of Croatia and the constitutional amendments - Sime Djodan

News and commentary

Those who speak on behalf of subjugated Croatia - By Guillermo Martínez Márquez of "La Prensa"

"Four months in paradise" - By Zeljko Ducmelic

Documents

The letter addressed to the Nobel Institute by the Croatian-Latin American Institute of Culture

A Croatian message to free men of goodwill

When the accused accuses his Accusers... From the speech of the young Croatian journalist Bruno Busic

The International League for Human Rights protested against Tito's persecutions

Micronews

Book and Magazine Reviews

Ante Ciliga: The State Crisis of Tito's Yugoslavia (Bozidar Latkovic)

Vladimir Markotic, Manuscripts referring to Croatia in the British Museum in London (Milan Blazekovic)

Zeljko Ducmelic: Four Months in Paradise (Milan Rakovac)

Ivo Omrcanin: Diplomatic and Political History of Croatia (Milan Blazekovic)

Kvirin Vasilj: Freedom and Responsibility

Ursula Tamussino: Sena Jurinac

Strategy, bimonthly magazine, Nos. 19/20, Buenos Aires

Roma Magazine, Buenos Aires, March 1973 (No. 28, Year VII)

Criterio, magazine published in Buenos Aires, numbers 1659-60, January 1973

Croatia Press, Croatian newspaper of New York

"Wissenschaftlicher dienst Sudost-Europa"

Journal of Croatian Studies, number XIII for the year 1972

Don Isidoro, Catalan and Croatian...

Tito, a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize

Franjo Nevistic

The world "without ideological barriers" or the "dying" ethical element of civilization

"In ourselves as in others, we desire nothing but vigor in productive work, and we resign ourselves to abandoning any higher ideal." (A. Schweitzer) Jacques Maritain must have died with yet another disillusionment and bitterness in the final moments of his life, if philosopher-believers can indeed experience such things. While still alive, he was able to read that both the Kremlin and London (*) had nominated Tito for the Nobel Peace Prize to be awarded in 1973. Indeed, the optimistic predictions of the recently deceased French philosopher, that the world, immediately after the victory of the democracies in the last world war, would banish Machiavellianism from both the field of national and international politics, have once again been completely refuted. Instead of eliminating Machiavellianism, the politics "without ideological barriers" is affirmed.

But isn't eliminating ideologies and adhering to pure, visible, verifiable facts, susceptible to weighing and measuring, already the elimination of Machiavellianism? For Machiavellianism, all ideologies are falsehoods, deceptions, concealments of true "princely" intentions. Consequently, doesn't eliminating ideologies also mean eliminating Machiavellianism?

Formally, it should be so, but in essence, it isn't. The de-ideologization of our life, politics, civilization, and history actually has both a positive and a negative meaning. Generalizations without further consideration often contain serious errors, and in our case, a generalization without discerning the aspects—qui bene distinguit...—would involve very serious errors. Let us see, then, if it is possible to shed some more light and clarity on what concerns us.

In reality, ever since the question of the meaning and destiny of both life, politics, and history, and of humankind within them, has been introduced, there have been, there are, and there will be "ideologies." Their meaning lies in humanity's inescapable attempt to penetrate the mysteries of existence in general, to arrive at a theory of the universe or a general conception of the world. Only from this is it possible to deduce a secure, ethical, and universal criterion for human action. The physical world, with its sciences governed by the blind law of causality, is not the source from which this criterion could be generated. Machiavellianism, by declaring all ideologies simply and plainly as falsehoods, instructing us on how to cunningly manipulate them to ensure one's own triumph and the defeat of others, commits a grave error. It does not separate the wheat from the chaff, but rather consigns both to the fire.

Certainly, Machiavellianism does not ignore the importance of ideologies. On the contrary, it does not advocate abandoning ethics but teaches us how to employ them with art and skill. The policy of complete de-ideologization currently being promoted, despite the formal appearance of an anti-Machiavellian measure, genuinely represents a further step in the Machiavellian direction.

Machiavellianism, then, in essence, is the spurious divorce of ethics and life, of ethics and politics, of ethics and civilization and history. In proceeding in this way, it does so with a certain modesty and covertly. It does not disregard ethical principles, but considers them harmful, given the conditions under which "princes" try to impose their conceptions, their interests, and their will. Adhering to ethical principles among howling, hungry wolves would be tantamount to risking being devoured without mercy.

And what about politics "without ideological barriers"? Taking into account the relative value of many ideologies, their abuse, and the wars or revolutions waged in their name, this new "ideologically barrier-free" politics rejects them and disregards the ethical character of politics and civilization, declaring them, more or less, unethical fields of human activity. It treats them as if they were natural events, governed by the inexorable law of causal necessity.

However, this is not the case. "When I enter into questions of determining what the true essential character of civilization is, I come to conclude that it is, in its ultimate consequences, ethical," says Albert Schweitzer.

Indeed, according to this author, civilization—and politics is a constitutive element of it—has two aspects, two substantial components: the domination of the forces of nature by humankind, subjugating them to its service, and, subsequently, the domination of humankind over its inclinations, over itself. The first objective is achieved by understanding physical laws—science and technology—and the second, by understanding and respecting the moral laws of human nature. The belief that one can advance permanently and satisfactorily without the other is a self-deception.

To ignore the ethical aspect of life, politics, civilization, and history—which is to say, their de-ideologization—means to attack their very essence. "In the civilizing movement that began with the Renaissance, there was simultaneously a force of material and ethical-spiritual progress operating side by side, as if fighting with each other, and this continued until the beginning of the 19th century. Then, however, something unprecedented happened: human energy vanished, while the conquests achieved by the spirit in the material sphere increased with astonishing rapidity.

Thus, for several decades, our civilization enjoyed the great advantages of its material progress while still barely feeling the consequences of the waning of the ethical movement. People continued to live in the conditions produced by that movement, without clearly seeing that their position was no longer sustainable, nor preparing themselves to face the storm brewing in international relations and within nations themselves. In this way, our own age, never having bothered to reflect, arrived at the opinion that civilization consists primarily of scientific, technical, and artistic achievements, and that it can achieve its goal without ethics or, at best, with a minimal portion of it." "It is now a common conviction, among the educated and the uneducated alike, that humanity will advance very pleasantly without the need for any theory of the universe," says our author.

We all know how pleasant our lives are and what real progress current politics, civilization, and history represent. A simple glance around us makes all argumentation unnecessary. The lack of religious, philosophical, ethical, and cultural principles in general; the personal, familial, or national insecurity of institutions, peoples, or states weighs heavily on us all. Neither the White House in Washington nor the humblest hovel in Africa or Indochina is exempt from this.

And it cannot be otherwise. Manipulating elements of life, politics, and civilization by mistaking the inessential for the essential or denying them their very essence means handling unknown, mysterious things, full of surprises and explosives. If the essence of things is not respected and actions are not taken in accordance with the laws that govern them, nothing good can be expected.

On the contrary, the historical periods that were able to "invent" great ideologies, giving life, politics, and history a higher ethical meaning, were the eras characterized by their creative energy and by the works that enriched humanity's heritage. But "when the virgin forest is felled, in the place where great trees once stood, scrubland sprouts. Whenever our great convictions are destroyed, their place is taken by smaller ones that perform the functions of the former in an inferior way."

Indeed, by eliminating large "ideological" systems—especially Judeo-Christian ethical values within the Western world—"thickets" appeared. A. Huxley speaks clearly about them. Many scientists, he says, have concluded that the scientific image of the world is only a partial one. Specialized training in mathematics, physics, chemistry, or other exact sciences prevents many from orienting themselves in aesthetic, ethical, or religious problems.

The less intelligent part of society, those who are "vulgarly enthusiastic" about external, technical successes, continues to believe that this partial image truly constitutes the unique, total, and exclusive image of the world. But, he adds, no one lives contentedly without values and meaning. That is why they continue to create their own particular values, falsely attributing to them the character of absolute values, such as the nation, the state, the class, the party, etc.

Thus, great trees felled, the thicket grew. Instead of building a civilization by striving to get ever closer to its ideals and values, we find ourselves in a period where the party, the class, the State, or the nation occupy the place of absolute values; class, party, or national ideology takes the place of a true theory of the universe or a worldview. After deicide came king-cide, then suicide, and before committing suicide, a general massacre, says Camus.

He and his compatriot Maritain agree on the following: before, when committing a crime, the criminal was aware of his guilt and tried to excuse himself or justify his weakness in one way or another. "After Machiavelli, not only the princes and conquerors of the 16th century, but also the great leaders and creators of modern states and modern history, using injustice to restore order and all kinds of useful evil to satisfy their will to power, would have had a clear conscience and would have been convinced that they had fulfilled their duty as political leaders."

A. Camus, in turn, adds: "The slave begins by demanding justice and ends up wanting the kingdom. He wants to dominate in his turn." Raising the flags of freedom over the walls of concentration camps, justifying the massacre of men for the supposed love of humanity—this is where aethical politics, the politics of scrubland ideals, ends.

Only in this spiritual atmosphere—pragmatic, utilitarian, de-ideologized—could the idea of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the Yugoslav communist dictator prosper. On pages 73-76 of this volume of Studia Croatica, we published the letter addressed by the Croatian-Latin American Institute of Culture, in Buenos Aires, to the Committee of the Nobel Peace Prize Institute in Norway. There, the absolute incongruity between Tito's actions and attitude and the true intentions of the founder of the Nobel Institute is explained, both in his country's domestic politics and in the international arena.

Here, we will simply say that a political figure, a head of state who dominates his subjects through a ruthless police-military apparatus; who allows only one party; who discriminates nationally, oppressing some of "his" peoples and supporting others until the establishment of his hegemony and a regime of colonial exploitation; This system, which enables the formation of classes, allowing some to live a life of luxury incompatible with a socialist society and forcing hundreds of thousands of proletarians to work abroad to finance the luxury and debts of the former with their remittances, deserves nothing less than condemnation from honest international opinion.

The same observations apply to Tito's international policy. With an utterly Machiavellian spirit, the Yugoslav marshal, through cunning and money, subversive advice and weapons, is aiding those who continue to see the free world as the greatest obstacle to their ambitions, which ultimately amount to "wanting the kingdom and ruling in turn," but with no ideal other than the squalor of the lowest class.

The same letter explains that a policy of this kind—distinguishing those who despise and violate the most sacred rights of man and history—is destined to fail completely. Doing evil and expecting good lacks all logic, without pointing out its ethical sense, contrary to a true civilization that longs to become the happy fruit of a true theory of the universe or the conception of the world.

Moreover, the policy of "without ideological barriers" applies only to certain sectors in the rest of the free world. The opposing bloc, the communist world, continues to adhere to its ideological values without hesitation. If personal, everyday experience is the most direct and reliable source of knowledge, this is our recent experience in this regard: The editors of Studia Croatica send their journal to a university professor in Leipzig, in the eastern zone of occupied Germany. On April 30th, we received note T. Inc. 325/73 -DC- DSI, No. 65 -R-, Buenos Aires, informing us from the Ministry of Public Works and Services, State Secretariat of Communications, that the entry of our journal into the so-called German Democratic Republic is prohibited. The document mentions a list of prohibited items, specifying that "shipments must not include: among other things, literature of any kind that is anti-democratic or directed against the maintenance of peace, obscene writings or presentations, etc."

Clearly, this concept of democracy and peace is not the same as that of the free world. Furthermore, prohibitive measures of this nature clearly demonstrate that the communist world does not operate under a policy "without ideological barriers." It is also clear that Tito, the zealous guardian of "prison peace," is a natural Soviet candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize!

In addition, Pravda, from Moscow, recently published a forceful article against all Marxists who favor dialogue with Christians, especially Catholics. "That is incompatible with communism-Marxism. All those seeking common ground between Marxist social doctrine and that of the Church are on the wrong path. Experience so far has shown that dialogues of this kind must be prohibited" (SIJ Slovenske Slobode - Dawn of Slovenian Freedom, Buenos Aires, June 1, 1973).

What can be said after all this? To whom can we turn who can and will lend an ear to our weak voice? The worldview, the "bourgeois synthesis," is disintegrating. Certainly, it is not we Croatians, and even less the author of these lines, who could frighten the Western world with our pessimism about its present and future.

That has been done by the most enlightened men within its own ranks. Moreover, a contemporary English historian says that history itself "systematically refutes" all pessimists. He also adds that in the period immediately following the last great war, "much of the experience of the preceding period was abandoned, but without a new worldview ever clearly crystallizing." He then notes: "Bolshevism has divided the world because it is a creed of a universal character."

We agree that the bourgeois image of the world is disintegrating; we also agree that the world today has not crystallized a new vision of its future, but we do not accept the idea that Bolshevism is a "creed of a universal character." If it had been said "of a general character," we could still accept the British historian's assertion. A philosophy, a synthesis of the world, a political doctrine of "one-dimensional" man is not and cannot be of a universal character.

It is, as Huxley would say, a partial image with universal pretensions. Clearly, a class-based position, even if it finds class solidarity among all peoples and states of the globe, cannot achieve universality, but rather, at best, a general ideology. Opting for the particular, the one-dimensional, cannot be universal.

Instead of a comprehensive worldview, Marxism offers us a veritable ideology of the scrubland. Thierry Maulnier, valuing the Bolshevik theory of a "heaven on earth," writes: "What greatness and what reason to live and die do you give me? What kind of humanism? It is not by the reasons of production, equality, or wealth, nor by the reasons of your myths and your lies that everything should be evaluated; it is by the reason of this thinking flesh that has the undeniable advantage over your machines to reject it. We do this for the cause of Man."

The revolutionary communist creed already has its concrete history as a political, social, and economic power. Our Croatian experience with this creed is more than tremendous. Here we accept the following opinion: "As for the claim that 'Marxism has no considerable or respectable ideological adversary,' it suffices to suggest that the true and implacable adversary of Marxism is reality. The verifiable and demonstrable facts prove that Marxism is one of humanity's greatest frustrations. Wherever Marxism prevails as a system of life, we palpably find misery, deprivation, a bleak existence, rationing, lack of freedom, persecution, and dictatorship... Marxism is defined by reality as the most dramatic frustration of our time."

Tito, the "charismatic" leader of Yugoslav Marxism, after an initial period more Stalinist than Stalin's, for Machiavellian reasons, had inaugurated another, that of socialism "with a human semblance," only to end up now in "democratic centralism" with all the consequences and phenomena that Ravines rightly mentions: misery, deprivation, a dreary life, rationing, lack of freedom, persecution, and dictatorship, to which we must add: national discrimination, exploitation of the weak by the strong, re-establishment of classes, etc. This policy, says a French newspaper, has led Tito's country to chaos, as if it were its main motto: Après nous le déligé! (After us, we are left behind!).

While not agreeing with Camus's prediction, we find his diagnosis of the current position of materialist communism perfectly accurate: "Contemporary materialism also believes it can answer all questions. But, a servant of history, it expands the scope of historical slaughter and leaves it without justification unless we accept a supposed future that also demands faith." Until this future arrives, "the innocent continue to die."

A new wave of innocent victims of Tito's regime continues to die in its prisons. Intellectuals, writers, poets, philosophers, students, and workers, especially in Croatia, are enduring their Calvary because they were the ones who felt most deeply the human dignity and suffering of their people, values in whose name they expressed their dissent. The main arguments of their discontent are revealed by many international media outlets. Our magazine, too. In this volume and in previous ones.

A group of French poets, writers, and artists—worthy of the French liberal tradition—also addressed their protests to Tito, expressing solidarity with those victims over whose imprisonment Tito raises the banner of liberty and Marxist "unity and fraternity." The United Nations League for the Defense of Human Rights also intervened publicly on behalf of the recent victims of Tito's persecution and distributed a detailed statement to news agencies worldwide and the press. But almost total silence shrouded this noble step by the League. Machiavellianism, political pragmatism, national egoism, and a shoalous ideology prevented any expression of human solidarity with those Croatian victims.

In a journalistic interview given by Gabriel Marcel, regarding the Soviet practice of declaring the regime's adversaries "mentally ill," with the inevitable internment and torture, it was said, among other things, that the following also occurred: "Numerous Soviet intellectuals have risen up and continue to rise up against such methods," the journalist said to the aforementioned French philosopher. "Yes," replied G. Marcel, "but all this is happening before an inert Western world, as if paralyzed. What kind of West do these people find before them? A world that, in reality, no longer believes in freedom..."

This inertia, this lack of faith in freedom, felt by the philosopher as one of the fundamental characteristics of the Western world at the present time, constitutes the negative aspect of the "disintegration of bourgeois synthesis." But Tito's nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize by certain organizations within the Western world is already an active-positive aspect of this disintegration or self-disintegration of the "bourgeois synthesis." This is a nihilism, justifiable only by reasons of a lower Machiavellianism and a pragmatic politics, worthy of the period of civilization that ignores "ideological barriers" and renounces an integral conception of man and the world.

But the disintegration of the "bourgeois synthesis" and its worldview is not simultaneously the disintegration of the entire Western worldview. Its ethical-religious-Judeo-Christian and authentically liberal component is not an outdated value. Simply because it is authentically universal. Rather, we believe with Schweitzer that the old tree of these values can flourish anew.

We therefore consider it our duty to insistently knock on the door of the conscience of that world so that this re-emergence may occur as soon as possible. Preventing the distinction—devised by some—of the Yugoslav dictator with the highest international award for peace would be a sign of hope. Derailing his candidacy will signal to him and his backers that the world is beginning to correctly assess their banners of freedom and peace, raised upon the walls of the prison called "Socialist Federal Yugoslavia."

Ante Starcevic, Ideologue of Croatian National Emancipation

Branko Kadic

This year marks the 150th anniversary of the birth of Ante Starcevic. In brief, we will outline the life of this "vivifier of Croatian nationalism, the national hero, the father of the nation," the most significant political ideologue to emerge on the Croatian political scene in the last century.

To better understand the significance of this outstanding figure, to appreciate his historical role, and to evaluate his ideological and political legacy, it is necessary to first place him within his physical context, then within the historical context, and finally, to consider the subsequent, current, and future implications of his actions and teachings.

Ante (Antonio) Starcevic was born on May 23, 1823, in the remote village of Zitnik, in the poor, stony, and underdeveloped region of Lika. His parents were peasants, accustomed to a very hard life, full of privations and sacrifices. He was raised in a humble but virtuous home, respectful of noble traditions and age-old customs. His life coincided with the patriotic awakening of several European nationalities, especially in Central and Southeastern Europe. Croatia was part of the multinational Habsburg Empire as an associated kingdom, along with Austria, Hungary, northern Italy, Bohemia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the western parts of Poland.

At that time, his hometown, Lika, was part of the Military Frontier, that is, a large area bordering the dying Ottoman Empire, along the Bosnian border, which stretched from the Adriatic to the Drava River and which, since the beginning of the 16th century, had generally been governed by military leaders of the Austrian army and outside the jurisdiction of the Diet (Sabor) and the Viceroy of Croatia. As the relentless Turkish incursions provoked significant migrations of the indigenous population, over time, this devastated and depopulated border region became home to a wide variety of racial and religious groups, many of them schismatic. It is this element that would so often play the role of a fifth column in Croatia, serving both Vienna and Budapest as a docile instrument to thwart Croatian rights and just claims.

Life on the Frontier was entirely militarized. Similar to the "limes" of the Roman Empire, it is the only example in history of a vast region where everyone lived like soldiers in a large barracks. Every male between the ages of eighteen and sixty was on active duty. The numerical strength of the regiments varied, but generally reached around 60,000 men. The Croatian establishment and later the Diet of Zagreb (especially the supporters of Starcevic) constantly demanded its political and administrative incorporation and unification with Croatia, particularly after the Turkish threat subsided and its existence became anachronistic and irritating. Its dissolution only occurred in 1881, when the Military March was completely demilitarized and included in the administration of the Viceroy (ban) of Croatia. Vienna took so long to dissolve it because the Military March supplied it with about a quarter of its total regular land forces—that is, the most disciplined and cheapest military force imaginable.

In the 1860s, the Military March was seething with discontent. To the political and administrative oppression must be added the growing impoverishment of the population, despite the great forest wealth, exploited by others. The "border dwellers" could not emigrate, nor buy or sell land, except within the limits of their region and under very strict conditions. Such deprivations and limitations were unbearable in the second half of the last century. The Habsburg Empire failed to adapt or transform itself in time into a multinational political-state structure flexible and adaptable enough to satisfy the human and national rights of the peoples that comprised it, thus failing to establish itself as a true plurinational community for the protection and economic well-being of all its members.

Eugenio Kvaternik, Starcevic's closest collaborator, considered in 1871 that the moment was opportune to attempt an armed revolutionary uprising in the Military March. Such was the political, administrative, and economic context of Starcevic's native region.

He completed his primary studies in Klanac and his secondary studies in Zagreb. His education was overseen by his uncle, a priest and parish priest, a man of broad horizons, knowledgeable in the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a writer, philologist, grammarian, and collector of proverbs, popular sayings, and the folkloric treasure of Croatia.

Starcevic's childhood and adulthood unfolded under rather harsh conditions. His memoir contains no false sentimentality or conventional emotions: he was not the type of man prone to embellishing his youth. Reason and intellect always governed him. He was very severe in his judgments, both with friends and adversaries. "From my childhood," he confesses, "I learned to call everything by its true name. If I can, I don't want to renounce that principle and that custom, but I will speak frankly, just as I think, and if it's not permitted, I will remain silent."

In secondary school, he was older than his classmates, a fact that earned him the nickname "Old Man" (Stari), later widely used by his followers as an expression of affection and respect.

The year 1841 marks the beginning of the first modern political parties in Croatia. The aftereffects of the French Revolution were also felt in the Habsburg Empire. In its country of origin, the French Revolution aspired to political and social equality, while in the multinational Danubian monarchy, it primarily stimulated the desire for national emancipation. After 1830, liberalism, as a legacy of the French Revolution, waged a battle throughout Europe against conservatism, counter-revolutionary reaction, and the absolutist system. In the Habsburg monarchy, liberalism took on distinctly nationalist characteristics.

The Croatian national revival of the early decades of the last century, which began primarily as a movement for cultural renewal, very quickly transformed into political action, and Croatian nationalism, in its Pan-Slavic conception, clashed with Hungarian nationalism, which increasingly identified with the Hungarian state. In Croatia, the interests of monarchical Vienna intersected and clashed with those of nationalist Budapest.

In 1845, having completed his secondary studies, he had no alternative but to enter the major seminary in Budapest. Beforehand, he had participated in political infighting and published his first literary works in verse and prose in the newspaper Danica. Starcevic soon realized that his vocation was not the priesthood and earned a doctorate in philosophy, intending to dedicate himself to teaching.

For political reasons, he was never able to teach, but instead earned a living working as a clerk in a law firm in Zagreb. He goes through several spiritual crises, but overcomes them with great composure. Even in his early literary works, he suddenly speaks like a Stoic philosopher, full of doubts, disdainful of vain human ambitions. No one in the literature of the Croatian national revival wrote in such a vigorous, rich, vivid, and dynamic language as Starcevic did when describing popular customs.

The turbulent European year of 1848 is marked by upheavals and revolutions, riots and insurrections, with social content prevailing in some cases, as in the rebellions of Paris and Vienna; in others, emancipatory and expansionist aspirations, such as the power struggle of the Hungarian leader Louis Kossuth; and in still others, the desire for liberation and national emancipation, as happened in Croatia, Italy, and Poland. In 1102, with its national dynasty extinct, Croatia entered into a personal union with Hungary, meaning they shared only the king, while in all other matters the two states remained sovereign and independent. At the beginning of the 16th century, faced with the imminent Turkish threat, both states recognized the Habsburgs as their sovereign. Throughout this long and delicate period of coexistence, Croatia had to shift its allegiance from Vienna to Budapest to overcome numerous difficult historical challenges, always remaining a kingdom with sovereign attributes, attributes it never entirely relinquished.

In 1847, the Zagreb parliament unanimously decided that Croatian would be the official language in administration, schools, and the courts, resisting attempts at Magyarization and Germanization. However, as the Hungarians persisted in their expansionist ambitions, war broke out between Croatia and Hungary in 1848. Croatian troops, under General Josip Jelacic, defeated the Hungarians. On this occasion, as he would throughout his public life in moments of action, Starcevic adopted a rather theoretical and contemplative stance, for he was first and foremost a philosopher, an ideologue, and a moralist. The absolutism of Emperor Franz Joseph I then followed. In his literary work, Starcevic sought to develop a new ideal, worthy of emulation, an ideal citizen modeled on the Roman ideal, a stoic man who indifferently accepts the blows of fate, faithful to the very end to the principles of nationality and liberty. As a writer, he became a philosopher-moralist, and as such, he aspired to be a teacher and leader of the people, notes his biographer Josip Horvat.

He wrote psychological and philosophical essays, inspired by Montaigne. He read and studied extensively. He read Greek, Latin, German, French, and Hungarian. He acquired vast knowledge of both ancient and contemporary culture. He wrote studies on childhood, youth, maturity, and old age. He abandoned poetry, which did not suit his temperament as a profound and realistic thinker, bold, ironic, and with firm and unwavering principles. He became one of the most biting satirical writers of his time. He mocked the Austrophiles and Magyarphiles, the servile race, and the opportunists and weather vanes who renounced their ideals and principles for a mess of pottage.

He also ventured into the fields of linguistics and history, tackling problems with modern approaches and a scientific spirit. He resolutely opposed—quite rightly, as later times would prove—the so-called Vienna Agreement, when a group of Croatian and Serbian linguists chose the Ijekavski dialect as the common literary language, disregarding the long Croatian literary tradition and all the differences separating the two languages.

During Bach's absolutism (1850-60), politics and literature merged, as literature was the only free field; he conceived of nationality as a collection of free individuals, such that influencing the nation was equivalent to influencing individuals. His scientific pursuits led him into the political arena, politics into philosophy, and philosophy into humanity.

Starcevic's works gradually acquired increasing philosophical importance. The fundamental idea of the French Revolution, expressed in the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen," which states that it is permissible to do anything that does not harm others—an idea in accordance with the ethics of Croatian tradition—becomes the foundation of Starcevic's philosophy of history, and from there, his political concepts.

A letter from Ante Starcevic dated 1852 survives, from which it can be inferred that at that time he had completed the translation of the Holy Scriptures into Croatian and written an original book on ethics, in addition to four dramatic works.

In his writings, published in the 1850s, he satirizes and lashes out at the fainthearted, the submissive, the scheming and selfish, the frivolous and rapacious. His satire is relentless, but his purpose was to awaken ethical and patriotic sentiment. He dedicates his life to a profound moral ideal, and in its name, he inexorably scourges vice and the vicious. Satire presupposes indignation, a high and robust moral conscience offended by the dishonesty, baseness, or stupidity of men.

Like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, his favorite author, whose verses he uses as the motto for his volume of "Memoirs," wanting to express with them the mission of his life:

"We are poor, blinded ones! Heaven, expose the impostors, and force their barbaric hearts to open themselves to the gaze of men." He rises up against the civilization that corrupts man, invoking the celestial forces to help him unmask the imposters and the deceitful.

A man of broad horizons and clear vision, a staunch democrat, Starcevic was the first to consider Bosnian Muslims as an integral and inalienable part of the Croatian people, brothers in blood, language, and traditions, separated only by religion, an aspect irrelevant to him. As a consequence of the defeats at Magenta and Solferino (1859), Emperor Franz Joseph I restored the constitution. The Croatian parliament was convened, tasked with choosing between aligning itself with Vienna or Budapest. In this difficult historical juncture, marked by capitulations and uncertainties, a new, vigorous, and unequivocal current emerged, led by Ante Starcevic and Eugenio Kvaternik.

Their motto was: neither with Vienna nor with Budapest, but Croatia alone, based on its historical and state rights, the right to national self-determination, and national consciousness. (Later, this program would be modified, as reality would force them to recognize the Habsburgs as sovereigns). Starcevic founded the Croatian Party of Law. Its supporters wanted to negotiate directly with the emperor, bypassing both Hungary and Austria. Hence their motto, "God and the Croats," meaning that neither Vienna nor Budapest, nor the Germans nor the Hungarians should govern Croatia, but only God and the Croats—that is, the sovereign people.

Starcevic, an admirer and contemporary of Mazzini and Cavour, adopted a motto similar to that of the Italian Risorgimento: Italia fará da se ene (Italy will make itself). Therefore, his motto, "God and the Croats," did not imply any kind of exclusivism, intolerance, or theocracy, but simply meant that the Croats, relying on their own strength and trusting in God, could recover their national freedom, unity, and independence.

As a consequence of the defeats at Magenta and Solferino (1859), Emperor Franz Joseph I reinstated the constitution. The Croatian parliament was convened, tasked with choosing between aligning itself with Vienna or Budapest. In this difficult historical juncture, marked by capitulations and uncertainties, a new, vigorous, and unequivocal current emerged, led by Ante Starcevic and Eugenio Kvaternik. Their motto was: neither with Vienna nor with Budapest, but Croatia alone, based on its historical and state rights, the right to national self-determination, and national consciousness. (Later, this program would be modified, as reality would force them to recognize the Habsburgs as sovereign).

Starcevic founded the Croatian Party of Law. Its supporters wanted to negotiate directly with the emperor, disregarding both Hungary and Austria. Hence their motto, "God and the Croats," meaning that neither Vienna nor Budapest, nor the Germans nor the Hungarians should govern Croatia, but only God and the Croats—that is, the sovereign people. Starcevic, an admirer and contemporary of Mazzini and Cavour, adopted a motto similar to that of the Italian Risorgimento: Italia fará da se ence (Italy will make itself). Therefore, his motto "God and the Croats" does not imply any kind of exclusivism, intolerance, or theocracy, but simply means that the Croats, relying on their own strength and trusting in God, will be able to recover their national freedom, unity, and independence.

As protonotary (general secretary) of the Rijeka Governorate and as a national deputy, Ante Starcevic defined his political position, based on historical state law and the right to national self-determination, born with the French Revolution. Not since the days of Emperor Joseph II had such a courageous voice been heard in Croatia, one that encourages and inspires the weak and the skeptical in the arduous struggle for Croatian liberation. Starcevic and Kvaternik, in their speeches in parliament, demanded:

"1) The king, no later than six months after his enthronement, must be crowned in Croatia, and on that occasion he will swear by the Croatian Constitution.

2) He will bear the title of 'King of All Croatia' (totius Croatiae rex)."

3) The Kingdom of Croatia and the Croatian Crown are independent of the Hungarian Crown. However, the Parliament (Sabor) will enter into a political alliance with Hungary for the mutual defense of the Constitution and liberty.” Advocating for this motion, Starcevic delivered his famous speech on June 26, 1861, stating, among other things:

“If we rid ourselves of the belief, imposed by Austria and Russia, that we, the supporters of Austria, are so weak that we can only live as slaves, we must tell the Croats that a slave suffers the same fate in an American republic or under Austrian or Russian despotism… We know that there are rulers today who would give their people ten times what those people demanded the day before the fall of those monarchs’ thrones.” Austria knows that the times have arrived when the people are as interested in thrones as the thrones are in the rights of the people, and that the people respond to the call of the thrones to the extent that the thrones respond when the people call upon them.”

These words reveal the perspicacity of Starcevic, who foresaw the collapse of the Habsburg throne in 1918, due to its having ignored the call of its people who demanded their inalienable national rights. Starcevic’s political program is based on Croatian historical law and the law of the people, as defined by the French Revolution, that is, that the people are the source and recipient of all power. Each people must decide its own destiny. Therefore, he demands the territorial integrity of the Croatian provinces and their unification. A regular reader of the Belgian liberal newspaper Indépendance Belge, he was a fervent supporter of the French Revolution’s motto: “The assembled nation cannot receive.” "d'ordres" (law), places law at the foundation of its struggle and its ideological-political stance. Hence also the name of its group, "Party of Law."

Esteban Radic, head of the Croatian Peasant Party and undisputed Croatian leader, treacherously assassinated in the Belgrade parliament in 1928, said that the idea of law always prevailed over the idea of force in the minds and hearts of the Croatian people. Starcevic, Franjo Nevistic emphasizes in his remarkable study on the centenary of the founding of the Party of Law, was a profound thinker and lived his reflective world within ethical-legal categories. One could say that he possessed a very pronounced formam mentis juridicam (legal mindset). Not in the sense of a legal-positivist formalism, but above all, fully convinced that law resides in the natural laws of the intellectual-ethical nature of man. As a political man, strictly speaking, he poured his entire intellectual and spiritual world into the arena. political, to public life. For this reason, he focused on and evaluated all problems within the categories of law, categories that transmit ethical and legal values.

By way of illustration, we reproduce below two passages that reflect Starcevic's political and state philosophy:

"Your Majesty, mutual trust is the foundation and core of all society and the essence of the sublime and almost divine society called the State; it is the soul of the society in which Providence manifests itself in all its perfection in the most sublime and complete way." Since trust is the daughter of sincerity, and sincerity is born only from the sacredness of purpose and its conducive means, it also happens in the life of states that, in one way or another, deviate from the course that eternal wisdom set for them through the mind and its revealed will, so that it may be the benchmark and mirror of their deeds and aspirations.”

The foundation of the state and the path that Starcevic speaks of is law. Iustitia fundamentum regnorum. We quote what Starcevic thinks of law: “I consider law to be the most serious and fundamental problem for peoples and rulers… Natural rights are as sacred as nature itself.”

If, due to misguided education, most people fail to grasp the essence of these rights and laws, they do not directly perceive their sacred nature, and thus these rights and laws remain obscure and lack the necessary force for many. The fundamental principle of these rights and laws is: the individual and the people must strive for happiness until they find it in its most perfect form, under whatever ruler they may be. No one can renounce this duty, just as no one can renounce human nature, and therefore all institutions and obligations contrary to this principle are without foundation and without value.” Since arbitrariness, injustice, coercion, and oppression had become entrenched at that time, Starcevic sought to preserve national identity in the face of forced Germanization and Magyarization.

He invoked historical state rights and privileges, appealing to the law of nations to give his party a legal basis. In a memorial addressed to Emperor Franz Joseph I in 1878, Starcevic told him, “Your Majesty, in states governed by the rule of law, and such is the Kingdom of Croatia, sovereignty resides in the people, and if the sovereigns are not convinced of this truth and do not adhere to it, the situation will change to their detriment.” On June 26, 1861, he had delivered his famous speech in Parliament, vigorously attacking Austria and laying the foundations for what would become the Party of Law. Croatian. Regarding the fate of that monarchy—he added prophetically—let Austria not mock us; lest fortune turn and the mockery fall upon it. The Croatian people, in all the misfortunes they unjustly suffer because of Austria, always retain an invaluable gift: faith in God and in their own strength.”

He returned to the subject on October 14, 1878, presenting to Parliament a note addressed to the King of Austria-Hungary, in which he demanded the total independence of Croatia, specifying: “I do not understand what those who claim that the Kingdom of Croatia, which for centuries resisted East and West, cannot live alone, independently, mean. No people can exist outside the community of other peoples. However, each village can be like an independent state.” Starcevic was a true democrat, in the modern sense of the word, for he maintained even during the era of monarchical legitimism that "political parties are the sign and proof of the freedom and strength of the state, such that where there are no parties, there is no freedom either."

He especially respected Napoleon III for having "abolished the right of conquest and introduced into international law the article according to which peoples and populations cannot be herded like cattle from one state to another without their consent."

We will limit ourselves to quoting only what he wrote in the newspaper Sloboda (Freedom) on June 25, 1879, in an article entitled "Prince Louis Napoleon" (referring to Prince Eugene Louis Jean-Joseph, the only son of Napoleon III, who died in South Africa). There Starcevic said: "We are moved by the death of Louis Napoleon, not because he was a French pretender, but because with him the noble cause lost its protector. Whether or not he ascended the throne, his sole and insistent endeavor to become a worthy heir to his family's traditions had already earned him this distinction in the struggle for the people's freedom. These traditions are contained in one of the most salutary ideas for a people that history knows.

An idea that, being inherent in human nature itself, will endure in the lives of future centuries: the idea of nationality. That which is united by the nature of its origin, by the same language and customs, by its own interests, must merge into a state unity, and if its past is not shared, its future must be. Among the texts he dictated to Count Las Cases on the island of Saint Helena, it is easy to deduce what grand plans Napoleon I harbored in this regard. And just as he wished to liberate and to unify the peoples—the Croatian and the Polish—just as his nephew helped to liberate and unify Italy. We Croats, from that wretched (Habsburg dynasty) that owes its very existence to us, can expect nothing, disunited, denationalized, and desperate, but to trust in the Napoleonic idea, and that is none other than that of the Party of Right."

For the integrity and clarity of his doctrine, for the firmness and constancy in defending his convictions, Starcevic seems to be the most inflexible and consistent Croatian politician. He persevered on the path he chose after long and mature reflection. He was withdrawn, gruff, and solitary. Austere and modest in his way of life and dress, he shunned all ostentation, and if he had any money left over after satisfying his most basic needs, he distributed it among the poor. He neither married nor started a family so that he could dedicate himself exclusively to his patriotic duties.

He was tolerant and very liberal at the same time, always respecting the opinions of others if they stemmed from honest conviction, and he was fierce against imposters and hypocrites, opportunists and the calculating. Only in those cases was he ruthless, satirical, and devastating. He was understanding and open-minded toward the opinions of others, even the divergent views of his own coreligionists. In the instructions given to his followers in 1871, Article 23 states verbatim: "Do not blame men as individuals or as government officials, but attribute all responsibility to the system and those who implemented or defend it."

He coined the new term "Slavo-Serb" to describe opportunists, traitors, henchmen, people of a servile caste without principles or convictions, and impostors. The term is composed of two Latin words: *esclavus* (slave) and *servus* (servant). He lashed out at these types, this rabble, with unprecedented vehemence, so much so that his supporters were called the "furious ones," the "enraged ones" (steklisi). The term "Slavo-Serb" signified the worst moral and human conditions. The term "Slavic-Servian caste" means "servile caste," low, vile, and does not refer to a specific people but to a certain moral category that exists in every country and in every era.

In Some Memories, Starcevic describes the Slavic Serbs in the following terms:

"Who are the Slavic Serbs? Anyone who knows Austria should also know the Slavic Serbs, the creatures who lend themselves to defending it. Anyone who knows the Slavic Serbs should equally know Austria, behind whose government they are found. The Slavic Serbs are the dregs of a people, a kind of man who sells himself to anyone and for any price, and who offers Croatia to every bidder, if nothing more can be obtained, for a mess of pottage; people whom anyone would be ashamed of, except Austria and other bad governments.

A breed of men whom a good government might perhaps assign the task of cleaning pipes; people who by their very nature are against what is good, noble, and sublime, and who seem intent on wiping the Croatian people off the face of the Earth. These Slavic Serbs, these forces, are working in Croatia for Austria." Those opposed to Croatian independence accuse Starcevic of supposed chauvinism and blind nationalism, or worse, alleged nationalist exclusivism. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the article "The Slovenes and the Serbs," written in March 1883, Starcevic says, among other things:

"In every country there are distinct groups defined by their language, religion, race, etc., and consequently, they use different national names. In Croatia, there live groups of Italians, Jews, Roma, etc. We do not believe that these designations are detrimental to the entire population or to the nation. As long as this situation persists, our position is this: neither to eliminate nor impose these names; let each person use or change them as they wish.

But there are things that can and should benefit or harm not only these groups but all the inhabitants of the nation, regardless of their name. These matters concern the entire legal system. Bad laws, the burden of excessive taxes, personal and property insecurity, etc.—these and similar issues weigh heavily not only on Catholics but also on (Orthodox) Serbs, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Jews: on all the inhabitants of Croatia." whatever their names may be.

"If these matters are properly settled, all the inhabitants of the homeland would benefit, regardless of their national names. Consequently, to properly settle these relations, all the inhabitants of Croatia must live in harmony without regard to what one or the other is called."

"Adhering to these principles, I sincerely love and consider as my brother the Serb, German, Italian, Jew, Gypsy, Lutheran, etc., all those who work for the common good and for the good of the entire nation; likewise, we fear the Croat and the Serb and all those who are against these sacred things."

Here, it is necessary to draw a brief historical comparison between two parallel lives, in the manner of Plutarch. Despite the geographical and temporal distances and the different circumstances, a great similarity of ideas and character can be found between General José de San Martín, liberator of the South American continent, Father of the Nation of the Argentine people, and Ante Starcevic, Father of the Nation for the Croatians.

Both were champions of individual and national freedoms and rights. Both were inspired by the great ideals and ideas of the French Revolution. Both fought and dedicated their lives to shaking off the yoke of foreign domination that oppressed their respective countries. Many of the judgments that Ricardo Rojas made about General San Martín in his biography, *The Saint of the Sword*, are applicable to the personality of Starcevic. Below, we also transcribe some of these judgments, which also reflect a portrait of Ante Starcevic, a Croatian hero.

"He displayed certainty in his opinions, basing his judgments on facts. He was neither arrogant in success nor did he complain in defeat. From a young age, he subjected his life to a severe discipline and found his religion in duty... The mystical aura of his heroism stems from his aptitude for sacrifice... With magnanimous seriousness, he descended into the abyss of the worst human passions and returned from them wiser and more serene... He had no desire for power, money, or lust... He endured illness, hardship, poverty, ingratitude, and slander with impressive resignation; therein lay his secular sanctity, which is one with duty and which sought neither heavenly nor earthly rewards."

The motto that guided the life of Saint Martin was: "You will be what you must be, or you are nothing," and that of Ante Starcevic: "Fulfill your duty" (Ispuniti svoje drzanstvo). For Starcevic, as for German Field Marshal Paulus von Hindenburg, "the first right of man is to fulfill his duty."

Both San Martín and Starcevic did so conscientiously and bequeathed this sublime and imperishable example to posterity. Hence the magical attraction of their personalities. The Argentine people pay well-deserved homage to the founder of their nation, and the Croatian people await with profound faith the opportunity to pay their national founder the tribute he deserves, with the faith that this lucid visionary instilled in them for a better future for Croatia despite all current adversities.

Croatian nationalism, which in our case is nothing other than an authentic and natural patriotism, rests on the basic values of European tradition. This nationalism is neither aggressive nor expansionist, nor does it arrogate to itself unrealistic missions. It merely seeks for Croatia to live as a national entity within the great Western European community, sharing its rights and duties. Therefore, it is not anachronistic, but vital and relevant. Croatia, as a distinct national entity, can only integrate into the European community to which it belongs by virtue of its culture, traditions, and mentality. Free and independent, Croatians can make a significant contribution to the combined efforts of European peoples seeking prosperity and happiness. Striving for these ideals, Croatian patriots are simply "fulfilling their duty" and paying tribute to the founder of their nation who charted this path for them.

Ante Starcevic died on February 28, 1896, at the age of 73. He was buried in the village cemetery of Sestine, near Zagreb, as he wished in his will, alongside humble Croatian peasants.

The people there paid homage to their favorite son by erecting a monument in his memory on October 11, 1911, a work by the sculptor Ivan Rendic. From then until now, despite the persecutions and sanctions, fresh flowers are never lacking, as an expression of affection and loyalty to the great ideals of the national hero.

Esteban Radic (1871-1928), Croatian martyr and democratic leader, delivered a speech on June 11, 1922, at the tomb containing the remains of Starcevic, and among other things said:

"...this glorious tomb, around which we have gathered today as men and as Croats, is a great altar to that magnificent and great idea which gives Croatian nationality its true meaning and value. This idea is the idea of right, stronger than any other power; the idea of the self-determination of a people against any kind of tyranny. O great and unwavering son of small, stony Lika! When you were laying the foundations of the people's self-determination party, the powerful rulers mocked you, suggesting they could carry all your followers in a basket over the summit of Sljeme (a mountain near Zagreb). But look! Today all of us Croats are "Pravasi," that is, followers of the right to self-determination; we are all followers of a humanist policy of peace and work... Your great and imperishable merit is that today we Croats are united spiritually and in this internal harmony we are strong and invincible."

Antun Gustav Matos re-examined

Ante Kadic

This year, as the Croatian people commemorate the centenary of Matos's birth, as his works are published in twenty volumes with scholarly annotations, as numerous studies are written about him, we are acutely aware that he still lives on and that the current generation—cultured, bold, nationalist, and rebellious—considers him one of its favorite writers.

Before 1914, Antun Gustav Matos—born in Tovarnik, Srijem, in 1873, the son of a schoolteacher—was a prominent figure in Croatian literature. Two years after his birth, his family moved to Zagreb, where Antun attended secondary school. In 1891, he went to Vienna to study veterinary medicine; unable to take his exams due to health reasons, he failed the year and was called up for military service. After eight months of service, he deserted, and after several unpleasant adventures, he arrived in Belgrade (in 1894). Matos spent more than three years in the Serbian capital, a year and a half in Geneva, and five years in Paris.

Matos was out of the country during the first decade of this century, while a bitter battle was being waged in Croatia between the old and young generations; he did not want to participate in the dispute. He had much in common with the "modernists," but he did not join them because, for him, national tradition was the foundation upon which all sound literature should be built.

Matos's time in Paris was very important for him and, consequently, for Croatian literature. For Matos, Paris was the only metropolis, and French culture, the best source of inspiration. He was captivated by Baudelaire and Verlaine. Without being a decadent or pessimist, he gradually embraced the ideals of Stendhal and Barrès. Thanks to the help of some French people (André Rouveyre and Edouard Champion) and with what he earned from his literary contributions to various Croatian and Serbian newspapers, Matos continued to live, albeit in poverty, on the banks of the Seine. No one better than Dobrísa Cesaric, in his remarkable poem "The Town Crier of the Seine" (1936), expressed Matos's singular energy, sustained by his justified conviction that he was a victim of the struggle for a worthy cause.

In 1904 he returned to Belgrade and visited Croatia several times. Finally pardoned in 1908, he returned to Zagreb. He traveled twice to Italy—to Florence in 1911 and to Rome in 1913—hoping to find a cure for his illness in the milder climate. He died in Zagreb of throat cancer in 1914.

Matos began his literary career writing short stories and sketches, published in Iverje (Splinters, 1899), Novo Iverje (New Splinters, 1900), and Umorne Price (Tired Tales, 1909). Although he later excelled in other literary genres, he continued writing short stories until his untimely death.

Matos's "Sketches and Impressions" can be divided into two groups: those relating to his native northern Croatia and those related to the intelligentsia, who were generally mentally and psychologically disturbed. The "national" series was mostly written earlier, before the author freed himself from his strictly patriotic concerns and was strongly influenced by certain Western writers (particularly Baudelaire, Poe, and Barrès).

His popular sketch "A Portrait of the Fatherland" (1895) was performed in Jelacic Square.* It is a short dialogue between two vendors, husband and wife; the Hungarian cavalry kills the wife on the spot, and the grieving husband drinks to excess, dies, and is buried with her. In just three pages, the author manages to express the Croatians' disgust with the Hungarians, who behave cruelly toward those who do not submissively obey their orders. Matos's narrative of his youthful reminiscences (A Long Time Ago... 1900) attempts, at least, to separate the themes. First, he describes his colleagues, with whom he used to visit the curia of the Catholic priest, his relative; all being fervent supporters of Kvaternik and Starcevic, they constantly discuss politics and the miserable situation of the Croatian people.

Then, the author confides, through appropriate lyrical vocabulary, how deeply interested he was in the mentally disturbed girl Smiljka, for whom he wrote his first poem in his native Kajkavski dialect (Nocturne of Hrastovec). Smiljka died while he was studying in Vienna, and five years later, in the village cemetery, he evokes her innocent and inspiring personality.

In two of these "local" tales, Matos expresses his disdain for nobles, both native and foreign: while in Best Wishes (1896), an old and imprudent nobleman, with his shameful conduct, In another story, "Frescos Prezels" (1897), a conceited German count, an army commander, loses his position due to his cruelty and dishonesty and is forced to sell candied almonds cheaply. Meanwhile, a somewhat lazy but kind-hearted and brave student-soldier, whom the count had often humiliated and even imprisoned, finds happiness by marrying a schoolteacher.

This ending is unusual for Matos, as there is so little joy in his stories, which regularly have a dramatic and unexpected conclusion.

Matos frequently depicts neurotic intellectuals at the height of their breakdown. One of his earlier stories, "The Mouse" (1899), belongs to this series: Milinovic, a young medical student in Vienna, met the very delicate and cultured governess Ljubica (Violeta) at his uncle's country house. He was bored and sought her company. He nicknamed her "my little mouse" and had He had a relationship with her, leaving her pregnant; upon returning to Vienna, he quickly forgot her and insisted she have an abortion.

Unable to suppress her maternal feelings, aware that her lover cared for neither her nor the child, Ljubica committed suicide. Although she had destroyed all evidence of their relationship, she was gradually tormented by all sorts of doubts. To forget Ljubica, he led an even more chaotic life; however, he couldn't sleep and was irritated by a mouse that made a lot of noise around his bed and danced with its eyes open in the moonlight. Utterly exhausted, Milinovic decided to set a trap for the mouse: a revolver with a string laced with plenty of bacon.

When the gluttonous mouse pulled the string, the revolver's barrel was pointed at Milinovic, and the shot killed both of them, the little victim and its murderer. All these elements—memories of Ljubica as his "little rat," the student's altered consciousness, and the real rat that alone is capable The elements of a story that can excite certain people to the point of madness are well woven into this spectral tale, which was a novelty in Croatia.

Another similar and fateful story is about the parrot Camao (1900): a handsome and virtuosic Croatian musician, Alfred Kamenski, meets a Jewish banker in Geneva. The banker not only becomes his benefactor but also introduces him to Fanny, a Polish aristocrat unhappy in her marriage to a wealthy American. They spend delightful afternoons together and become convinced that they are destined for each other; they make plans to elope and pack Fanny's suitcases, but the maid informs the absent husband, and he must rush home. When the husband returns, the maid believes that everything will be as it was before.

Then the parrot Camao begins to repeat the sweet words that Kamenski and Fanny whispered that night ("Fanny, my kitten, mystery of life... Alfred, dear Tannhauser, my soul"). When the jealous husband beats Fanny, Kamenski comes out from behind the curtain to defend her, but is easily defeated by the "American gorilla"; with broken arms, he is thrown outside. Then he sees the husband kill his wife, the maid, two dogs, and finally hang himself. The neighbors, hearing the parrot repeat the same words over and over and smelling the stench of dead bodies, call the police and together break down the iron gate of the old chalet.

The short story "Balcony" (1902) is generally considered Matos's greatest achievement. A young man, abandoned by his beloved, went abroad; the girl's parents became impoverished and, to hide their poverty, moved to a large city. Returning home, still in love with her, the unfortunate lover visits her; When they were alone, she noticed a great change in his attitude towards her and told him a story.

In it, she said that during his travels through foreign lands, he had found a solitary park with an old house and a balcony that, for some special reason, had fascinated him so much that he returned day after day to admire it. One day, a naked woman appeared on the balcony, more voluptuous than the legendary goddess; in ecstasy, he expressed his total devotion to her, but a strong man dragged her inside.

Disenchanted, he began to wander again; unable to forget the balcony, he returned, but didn't see it again until one day he found it smashed to pieces in a pile of garbage. Hearing this story, the beautiful but poor girl understood that he had compared her to the balcony, an ordinary thing that in his imagination he had elevated to an exceptional level. She replied that despite her obvious poverty, he would not see her degraded; what happened to his "ideal" balcony would not happen to her.

The same year that "The Balcony" appeared, and in the same newspaper (Nada, Sarajevo), Matos published another of his lyrical-sentimental stories, "The Flower at the Crossroads" (1902). The narrator has been traveling again, this time through the southern regions of France. In the woods, near a beautiful castle and a spring, he fell asleep.

He was awakened by delicate feminine fingers and delighted by the scent of a young woman's body; upon opening his eyes, he realized that this delicate creature was blind. He was captivated by her voice and her independent spirit, and she proposed that they stay together forever. Although he found her more attractive than he could have imagined in his dream, he knew that as a poor vagabond he could not offer her the necessary protection and that others would never understand his affection. When her father arrived, he warned her that many dangerous men were prowling the area and forcibly took her away. The protagonist was left behind and, in despair, fixed his gaze on the white castle.

Ivo Franges mentions in passing that Matos's best stories belong to his early period; although his erudition expanded over the years, his creative power diminished. I share this opinion, since Matos's later stories contain very few moving or interesting elements; many lack the novelty, structure, or lyricism so characteristic of his earlier prose.

From 1902 until the spring of 1913, when some of his last sketches appeared in Obzor (such as Paraíso, Vecino, and La galera), there is perhaps one story, Amor y Abismo (1911), that adds something to his prestige as a storyteller.

While in some of his earlier stories Matos displayed certain similarities with Poe and Baudelaire, in Amor y Abismo he speaks of the cult of energy, thus revealing the influence of his new mentor, Barrès. Although it contains an interesting plot—the falling out between two young people who cared for each other—its ending is abrupt and unconvincing; it would seem that Matos "kills off" his heroes when the intrigue reaches its climax.

A young man, very poor and ugly but intelligent and ambitious, becomes the tutor of a rich and beautiful young woman. Believing that she could not love him, he writes a letter to his friend accusing her of selfishness and cruelty. Intrigued by his secrets, the young woman enters his room, finds the letter, and when they meet, rebukes him for writing such nonsense. They both feel a bond has been formed between them. The young woman, excited and without thinking, throws her shawl into the river, and he, to prove his courage and devotion, jumps into the water and drowns. She then accuses herself of having killed her beloved.

Matos's narrative, with its strengths (vivid and ingenious descriptions) and weaknesses (unconvincing plots and exaggerations), was a novelty in Croatia in the early 1900s. Today, it seems that these stories are more appreciated by scholars of Croatian literature and stylistic innovation than by discerning readers who tend to look beneath the surface for deeper thoughts and who appreciate artistic unity, achieved through a harmonious combination of structure and substance.

II

With his books of essays, reviews, pamphlets, and travelogues (Ogledi -Essays, 1905-, Vidici i Putevi -Perspectives and Paths, 1907-, Nasi ljudi i krajevi -Our People and Regions, 1910-, Pecalba -Migrant Work, 1913), Matos had a decisive impact on Croatian literature. With his solid knowledge of Western and Slavic literatures, his innate sense of rhythm and the musicality of verse, his ability to grasp what is important, his independent spirit, and his combative zeal, Matos became the most prominent figure (after 1908) and "the rabbi" of the literary circle. Many young writers listened to his words as if they were the oracle of Delphi, remained loyal to him even after his death, and, in the period between the two world wars, published their recollections and reflections in essay collections.

Matos possessed a good knowledge of contemporary European and North American writers (for example, Poe, whom he considered the "most typical American" writer), but what he knew best was French literature.

From the day of his arrival in Geneva (1898) until the bicentenary of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's birth (1912), Matos frequently wrote about him, examining his enormous influence and the questionable value of some of his works. For him, the Nouvelle Héloïse, which gave rise to sentimental literature more than Goethe's Werther, was difficult to read and impressed "like holy water turned into soup." He believed that Rousseau, like a true commoner, reacted justifiably against city life, against civilization, and observed that Jean-Jacques, incapable of leading a normal, healthy, and virtuous life himself, preached it to others with unparalleled zeal.

From Paris (in 1901), Matos wrote a lengthy study on Stendhal. Although he judged Stendhal somewhat biased, he nevertheless believed that, due to his cult of energy, personality, and beauty, his works would always be beloved by hermits, aristocrats, and artists, as they were the best remedy against demoralizing skepticism, Hamlet-like indecisiveness, and the tyranny of the masses.

He also admired Baudelaire; he frequently referred to his work, discussing his personality, his morbid sensibility, his Catholicism, his pessimism, his aversion to conventional love, and his fascination with death. Matos was convinced that Fleurs du mal was one of the best works of the 19th century; for him, Baudelaire represented a reaction against anti-aesthetic barbarism and beautifully expressed the latent condition of modern man.

Barrès, more than Taine, Brunetière, and Lemaitre, played a crucial role in Matos's intellectual development. Initially, Matos thought Barrès lacked imagination and criticized his lack of originality, but Barrès's later theories on nationalism, regionalism (the land and the dead), and landscape became so prominent in Matos's writing that some critics accused him of plagiarism. He defended himself by claiming that he had developed certain viewpoints before reading "the new" Barrès.

Matos also wrote about Zola and Anatole France, first in connection with the Dreyfus Affair and later evaluating their respective works. While he considered Zola's naturalism a "narrow doctrine," he appreciated certain works by France, particularly his "marvelous" *Les dieux ont soif* (The Gods Are Thirsty).

Matos was not well-received in certain literary circles in Belgrade. On the contrary, because he contributed to Nada (Sarajevo) and other Croatian newspapers and magazines, he was denigrated in the worst terms and even accused of being a spy in the service of Austria. He reacted violently against these false accusations and mercilessly attacked certain Serbian writers. At the same time, he demonstrated a solid knowledge of Serbian literature, evaluating writers in most cases objectively, applying his aesthetic judgments and European criteria. Even when he ridiculed notorious cultural monopolists, his snobbery and intolerance ultimately gave them credit for their literary achievements.

Serbian literature and cultural life in general at the beginning of the 20th century were dominated by Bogdan Popovic, Jovan Skerlic, and Jovan Ducic; these three men had much in common with Matos, as they too were influenced by French culture, often admired the same French authors, and were all renowned as skilled stylists. His fundamental difference with Matos stemmed not so much from his character or nationality as from the fact that this trio represented "authority," power, and were more esteemed and influential than they deserved, while Matos was a bohemian, a foreigner who often wrote to make ends meet and who tended to support those who were unrecognized or unjustly minimized.

Matos was right when he wrote that Popovic, renowned as a professor and "causeur," was not the founder of Serbian literary criticism; firstly, because he was preceded by other critics (such as Ljubomir Nedic and Marko Car); and secondly, because he had not written much about Serbian authors.

Reviewing his famous Anthology of Serbian Lyric Poets (1911), Matos criticized him for omitting "the inspiring lyric poet" Njegos, the interesting poet Dis-Petkovic, and for including some bad but patriotic poems by Milan Curcin. While Popovic and Skerlic praised Ducic's poetry, Matos tried to find fault with it and pointed out some of his weaknesses: limited vocabulary and imagination, egocentrism, snobbery, disdain for the masses and his interest in high society, the belief that one day noble and beautiful women would fall in love with him simply by reading his poetry, and a lack of genuine love for women and his people (although on this last point Matos was mistaken, since Ducic was an ultra-Serbian nationalist).

As Mate Ujevic observed in his extremely judicious and valuable selection of Matos's writings and opinions, Skerlic and Matos did not understand each other, failing to realize how similar they were. The Serbian critic was precise, clear, and logical, but not objective, when dealing with writers of different social and political leanings. To a certain extent, the same can be said of Matos. Furthermore, they adopted different attitudes in their acrimonious relationship: while Skerlic rarely mentioned Matos by name and made his stay in Belgrade almost impossible, Matos attacked Skerlic directly, ridiculing and downplaying his significant contributions.

Skerlic was very productive and possessed (according to Matos) "stamina and energy," rare qualities in the Balkans, where intellectuals generally sit in cafes and discuss anything and everything. Skerlic regularly reviewed newly published books and later collected these writings in ten volumes (Writers and Books).

Matos did the same, but in two volumes. First, he stated that he and Skerlic were opposites: while Skerlic declared himself a socialist, "Yugoslav," and a realist, Matos declared himself a nationalist, a Croat, not a realist but a Bohemian. Then he defined him by asserting that his intelligence surpassed his taste, that he was more dogmatic than skeptical, that he understood prose better than poetry, and that his partisanship dominated his writing.

The Croatian critic expressed his judgment on the more or less important Serbian writers: for him, Lazarevic was not a realist but a lyricist of domestic life; Sremac was an uneven author, more poet than thinker; Nusic was very productive and popular, but he accused him of superficiality and sensationalism. Matos conceded that Rakic's depiction of the sky over Kosovo was as perfect as Mestrovic's statues, but pointed out his frequent borrowings from French poets; Pandurovic, generally speaking, was a good versifier; Sekulic was original and highly introspective, but Matos deplored his often bizarre style ("the dance of words")...

Matos was more direct and objective with French and Serbian writers than with Croatian ones. If an author was a good patriot and fought against foreign intruders, Matos was somewhat lenient with him: in these cases, he wavered between aesthetic values and national objectives.

When he learned of the death of August Harambasic (1911), who ended his days in an asylum, Matos wrote one of his best essays, describing the deceased with all the warmth of his heart, with the desire to awaken his slumbering compatriots, emphasizing that he was always humane and never forgot that love is stronger than any political argument. Despite his shallow thoughts, the spontaneous and tragic poet is still beloved by his readers, since (as Matos emphasizes) "freedom is man's most cherished goal since the days of the Bastille."

Matos collaborated on Kranjcevic's *Nada*, corresponded with him, and always admired this solitary figure, who, due to the originality of his thoughts and the sincerity of his cosmic pessimism, was an exceptional phenomenon. Matos went to Sarajevo (in 1908) to visit him, but found him dead. He then wrote his obituary, "In the Shadow of a Great Name," in which he compared Kranjcevic to contemporary European poets, highlighting that he was a true bridge between the Croatian past and modern times. Without being a genius, he embodied the Croatian struggle against oppressors.

The conflict between the leading modernist Milan Marjanovic and Matos was inevitable: while the former used culture as a means of propaganda, considering literature a utilitarian instrument, Matos was an aesthete who lived for his goddess "fine arts." Furthermore, Marjanovic was pragmatic, a faithful student of his mentor Masaryk, while Matos insisted that Croats should not abandon their ethnic identity in order to achieve political union with other South Slavs.

All literary historians today agree with Matos's assertion that Marjanovic was a good journalist and celebrated publicist but a poor literary critic.

Because he wrote quickly, convinced that he could immediately distinguish a literary gem from mediocre or dross productions, and unaware of such a categorical statement, Matos wrote some negative reviews of good authors and praise for those of secondary value. Thus he maintained that Vidric's poetry was that of an amateur, that his poems represented "a great attempt with very little success," that his "adjectives were banal and conventional"—all this he said about the renowned poet who was better than him. Matos knew the Mazuranic family well and was pleased that even the women of this noble lineage were active in the fine arts; that was reason enough to write a panegyric on the mediocre verses of Ivana Brlic-Mazuranic and proclaim her story The Strange Adventures of the Apprentice Hlapic as "a great, classic work."

Poor, financially dependent, physically unattractive, ill, hypersensitive, full of ideological and real contradictions, writing with unusual speed and often contradicting his own statements, Matos became the target of ridiculous vile attacks. He was partly responsible, since he frequently used vocabulary and methods beneath his level; he allowed himself to be dragged into the dirty tricks and felt provoked to launch aggressive reproaches at his adversaries. Literary polemics, diatribes, and persiflage became fashionable in both Croatia and Serbia. Those who had little or no interest in purely aesthetic discussions eagerly read pamphlets.

Although some writers praised by Matos are now forgotten, as some of their flaws are evident today, it can be said that Matos remains one of the most fascinating Croatian critics. He wrote with his blood, with passion and sincerity, with such mastery that we often forget what he said, captivated by how he said it.

III

Although he wasn't born in Zagreb, Matos considered himself a native son of the Croatian capital. When he was forced to live abroad, he believed he would be happy if he could once again stroll through Gric, the city's oldest neighborhood, where his family home was located. Upon his return, he composed numerous poems, sketches, short stories, and pamphlets about Zagreb. He loved it because it was the city of his childhood, the center of Croatian political and cultural life, the stronghold of Croatian national identity. Just as the French are proud of Paris, the Greeks of Athens, and the Americans of Washington, so too do Croatians love Zagreb, even before visiting it. Matos was convinced that one could not be "a good Croatian" who did not love Zagreb.

Since Zagreb had been politically and militarily dependent for several centuries, first on Budapest, then on Vienna, and finally on both centers, there was little high society there, no diplomatic corps, no large banking and industrial companies, no material opulence, and consequently, few opportunities for a brilliant career. Zagreb did have its medieval history, old houses and noble families (mostly foreign), reminders of the Illyrian movement and the Jelacic clan, charming hills, and a large area stretching from the gentle slopes of Mount Sljeme to the banks of the swift Sava River.

Matos painted it as it truly was: graceful in its natural contours and "the most beautiful residence among the South Slavs," yet at the same time petty and provincial, bureaucratic and militaristic, a town where foreigners occupied the key positions (commerce was in the hands of Jews, while Hungarians managed the railway and Austrians controlled the army and the secret police) and enjoyed the comfortable life of the privileged class.

Matos had often insulted Zagreb and its inhabitants, hurled bitter words at them, expressing that it would have been better to live in any other city than among them, but he loved that city, he loved it tenderly as a mother cares for her child.

In fact, he lived for Zagreb and Croatia, "and his heart would have stopped beating" had he not dedicated himself to his homeland; he only wished that he might finally witness the happy day when his people would regain their medieval status of independence and stand on equal footing with other nations. Just as Matos had compared Zagreb to other famous cities, he also often contrasted it with Belgrade. He had spent almost seven years (October 1894–January 1898; August 1904–January 1908) in the Serbian capital, the first three of which were quite happy; he had several close friends and felt at home in Belgrade, as if he were a descendant of some old Belgrade family. Returning to Serbia in 1904, he wrote that he loved that country, for it had given him his first refuge, it was free, and its king was a native son.

Comparing "the two cities," Matos had the impression that Belgrade, enclosed by two great rivers and situated on rolling hills, had a more beautiful natural position, while Zagreb was distinguished by its picturesque surroundings. At that time, Zagreb possessed more modern and elegant buildings, concert halls, and was cleaner and more orderly, while Belgrade was a "large village" with its own dynasty, which played a certain role in international politics.

Zagreb seemed like a Western city but did not enjoy freedom, and Belgrade was a typical Eastern city with its democratic government. Belgrade was a melting pot of various races, where even the Roma felt Serbian, while in Zagreb the Orthodox-born indigenous minority did not want to identify with the Croats. Belgrade was richer, and Zagreb, more civilized and elegant.

Matos frequently strolled through Zagreb and its surroundings, especially the old town of Samobor (which he compared to Tivoli, Versailles, and Schönbrunn), traveled through Hrvatsko Zagorje, and visited the castle in Lobor. Several times he traveled from Zagreb to Belgrade and admired the cathedral in Djakovo, but he was astonished that Strossmayer had done nothing for his city. He moved to Rijeka, where the common people felt Croatian, while the elite were the Italian and Hungarian minorities.

He often wrote about Croatian rivers (he liked to swim in the Sava), lakes, and forested mountains; he was enraptured watching the clouds, listening to the murmur of the water and the caress of the wind in the fields; he referred to the fragrance of the fruit and the taste of the wine, spent hours in the shade of the linden and oak trees, liked to dream, and lay down on the grass. Matos traveled through several European countries and in his letters to newspapers or in his pamphlets described his impressions of some important cities; he was more attracted to the natural beauty and old buildings than to the characteristic traits of their inhabitants.

Matos left Belgrade at the beginning of 1898 and, after a brief stay in Munich, arrived in Geneva, where he remained for a year and a half. He was fascinated by the smooth, milky surface of Lake Geneva and the giant, snow-capped mountains, "made of light." He disliked the tourists and the cosmopolitan aspect of Geneva, but he delighted in looking at the corner of the lake where the Rhône divides the old city in two. He was not drawn to Calvino, whom he found austere, but he admired the magnificent parks of Geneva and often thought of Rousseau, who was "the first to introduce nature as a character in poetry." Matos visited the chalet in Cologny where Byron, his favorite poet and hero, had lived, and the small town of Ferney, from where he wrote "a letter" praising Voltaire as a defender of rationalism, but also pointing out many of his undesirable traits, such as his servile nature, his status as a bad poet, and an even worse playwright.

During his extended stay in Paris (August 1899–July 1904), Matos wrote hundreds of letters to his family and friends, numerous pamphlets in Croatian and Serbian newspapers, several short stories and sketches portraying Paris in its daily life, with its gray houses and hardworking people, its wide boulevards but also its malodorous side streets, and in the midst of it all, the Seine moving like "A silver serpent"; only at a distance can one see Montmartre with Sacré-Coeur, shining like "an ivory chalice," and the Bois de Boulogne, green and refreshing, in contrast to the Parisian Sahara of identical rooftops.

Since Paris has a bad climate and is a meeting place for dangerous adventurers, Matos initially painted a less than flattering picture of this Babylon of modern times. But little by little, forgetting his personal problems or becoming totally immersed in cultural life, he saw in Paris the City of Light and the true universal metropolis. His admiration only increased after he left it.

He traveled through "freedom-loving" Switzerland, "primitive Tyrol," Vienna, "nest of government employees, army officers, and cafés," and Hungary, which can only boast of its aristocrats who were once coachmen, cattle drivers, and seductive girls, carriers of syphilis. Matos returned to Belgrade and soon described his journey.

He was convinced that human life outside Paris was provincial, impoverished, and empty. He wrote that if, unfortunately, Paris were destroyed by an earthquake, as Dubrovnik and Lisbon had been before, the world would lose its most beautiful crown, its most energetic cultural stimulus, and humanity would regress for several centuries to the Middle Ages.

He was not surprised that Bismarck, being German, called Paris "a madhouse inhabited by monkeys," but he remarked that he would rather be a French monkey than a German professor. His affection for Paris did not wane over the years, for he wrote in 1913 that the city was a happy combination of fine tradition and modern tendencies, of refined aristocracy and intelligent democracy; for him, it was a visible synthesis of all imaginable extremes; even the Eiffel Tower became the symbol of scientific progress.

But life goes on, and Matos discovers other cities, especially Florence and Rome. In the spring of 1911, Matos traveled, via Rijeka and Ancona, to Florence; He stayed there for less than a month. About this "city of flowers," he wrote three interesting reports, describing his arrival, his stay at the abode of Dante and Michelangelo, and his melancholy departure via Venice.

At the end of his tiring journey from Zagreb to "the red lily" (Florence), Matos discovered a miracle on the banks of the Arno, a place where "Athenian simplicity found its most perfect expression." He was captivated by the palaces, the marble—"fine, white silk"—the Ponte Vecchio, the rooftops, the cemeteries, the cypress trees, and the clouds crowning the well-formed hills. He believed that there were cities and women who, at first sight, convince one that only with that woman or in that city could one live. Florence was that city for him, something extraordinary, "a graceful lady asleep in the arms of a hero."

In Florence, his wallet was stolen, and he was afraid to walk at night through the narrow, deserted streets. The Italians (and the Greeks) seemed wretched to him compared to their celebrated predecessors. He disliked the bizarre Anglo-Saxon tourists, since they didn't travel for the love of art but because they were bored at home, had plenty of money, and could thus escape their puritanical hypocrisy. However, this "Hell" was more pleasant to him than all earthly paradises.

He was overjoyed to see that all of Florence was a vast museum, a profusion of magnificent palaces, galleries, churches, bell towers, monuments, and paintings, and he was saddened by the thought that "from now on I would see nothing more beautiful..."

Two years later, in 1913, writing in Savremenik about "this small city that is the greatest in the world," he confessed: "I believed that Paris was the crown and the wonder of the world. Now I have the impression that the French metropolis, compared to Florence, seems like an enormous, rough stone compared to a cut diamond... There is no place on Earth that speaks more eloquently of the power of human genius and its work. Florence is the school of energy and self-confidence."

Despite his enchantment with Florence, Venice seemed to him "a wonder of another world"; he had read what Théophile Gautier and other famous travelers had said about this "sea Venus," but contemplating several palaces on the Grand Canal, he inevitably found all those descriptions inadequate. And when, at dusk, he heard the echo of the bells spilling through the squares and canals, he thought he heard something Argentine, refined and pure, but very sorrowful. He disagreed with Gautier, for whom Florence was especially bleak, as he could not imagine anything as somber as "this marvelous dream of water and marble."

Matos spent almost two months in Rome (October 16 - December 13, 1913). A week after his arrival, he wrote to his sister that he felt intoxicated by the beauty and splendor accumulated there over so many centuries; he wandered through the city "where the history of the world was made," but his eight pamphlets sent from Rome to the newspaper Obzor are not among his best: being incurably ill, living in a cold room, and coughing constantly, he lacked his usual humor and enthusiasm. He did not arrive in the "Eternal City" unprepared, since from secondary school he was well acquainted with the Forum, the Capitoline Hill, and the Vatican.

He often wondered why he, who had written about the corruption and un-Christian spirit of the papal curia, still considered himself Catholic. He was proud to be a member of the Roman Church, which he saw as the custodian of tradition and culture. He knew full well that he and his people were not "particularly devout Catholics," but he believed it had a typically Catholic mindset and that for several centuries it had stood as the main bastion of Latin civilization against invasions from the east.

He was annoyed by Italian tour guides (ciceroni), pushy postcard vendors, and exorbitant entrance fees, especially to the Vatican Museums. He disliked the veneration of saints and the Virgin Mary, which reminded him of pagan times. He was outraged by the miserable conditions of the working class and peasantry living alongside the wealthy aristocrats, whose palaces (for example, Doria Pamphili, D'Este) struck him as magnificent and exquisite, and the Roman fountains, so refreshing that he considered them incomparably superior to similar French buildings.

He thought that while modern Athens was "only a ruin, with inhabitants who bear only Greek names," and Paris, the center of modern culture, had only achieved that status after the Middle Ages, Rome, on the contrary, had been from ancient times the focal point of classical civilization, which even Christianity was forced to accept in order to survive.

In his detailed descriptions, the ostentatious use of names and his sometimes completely inappropriate comparisons are jarring. However, there are passages in his travelogues that magnificently describe the character and attractive features of renowned European cities. Certain fragments of his "impressions" are written by a poet, imbued with culture, refinement, and a sense of harmony between nature and buildings, especially with the atmosphere of sunset. He felt as if the ancient builders and masters still walked and whispered around him, particularly if they were the reigning and unfortunate women.

Influenced by Taine and Barrès, Matos believed that one could recognize the character of the inhabitants through their dwellings and the soul of the people through their landscape, for to him they were one and the same.

IV

When he could no longer play the cello (for fifteen years he played in various orchestras and thus earned some money) because his right hand became stiff ("crampe à la main") due to excessive work, Matos began to write poetry regularly (in 1906 and later) to satisfy his musical needs through his verses. Although he composed two poems before 1906 ("Nocturne from Hrastovac" and "At Home," both included in his short stories), Matos began writing verse systematically after that year, when his beautiful sonnet "Solace of Hair" appeared in Savremenik.

In his dream, he sees his beloved dead; he does not weep, he accepts the sad fate and the fact that her inspiring eyes and hands are lifeless, that she no longer breathes; only her hair still lives and tenderly whispers to him: "Peace; only in death do we dream." This perfect sonnet movingly expresses the poet's deep affection and emotion, the inexorability of death, and the realization that precisely the things that symbolized life (like eyes) cease to live instantly, while her hair survives and is able to console him.

Antun Borac, not particularly enthusiastic about Matos's poetry, writes that there are few poems where the anguish is so profound and the inspiration so serene as in "Solaz del cabello" (Solace of the Hair). He believes that Matos managed to express both the mystery of death and the grandeur of the soul.

Matos was a clown with a very sensitive heart; he says so in the poem dedicated to Ljerka, daughter of his friend Milan Ogrizovic ("To the Girl Instead of a Doll," 1907): still a little girl, she doesn't understand the meaning of a sad sonnet; her innocent soul cannot imagine what might happen to her in the years to come. But one day, having danced in many carnivals, tired of Don Juans and false admirers, she will remember his verses and weep, knowing that he is already dead. The poet acknowledges here that he sometimes knows himself to be a jester.

Matos's sonnet "Autumn Evening" (1910) sparked much commentary. Although other writers (for example, the poets Vidric and Domjanic and the painter Vanka) described Croatian Zagorje, the "landscape" is superb in its precision: first we notice drowsy clouds, then the monotonous shadows on the yellow river and the houses hidden behind the damp fields; everything is dark and cold; in the gloom, the paths are barely distinguishable, immediately plunging into the blind distances of human anxiety. Only the proud poplar, with its dry leaves, whispers about life as if it were alone in the world.

Through his poetry, Matos expressed his suffering, disillusionment, loneliness, and unrequited love, as well as his ardent Croatian nationalism. In his patriotic poems, he sketched the glory and misery of Croatia's past, the Hungarian and German political oppression, the exploitation of the poor, forced to emigrate to America while foreigners settled in their land, the landscapes of Croatia, and the mystical conviction that his homeland would survive.

One of Matos's earliest patriotic poems (rejected by the editor of Savremenik and published in Hrvatsko Kolo, 1906) is "Bell": while in exile and living under strange skies (then in Belgrade), he hears a plaintive bell that reminds him of another bell that sings of the misery of his homeland.

Although he feels surrounded by darkness, his nerves frayed, and his heart about to burst, he longs with all his soul to become a tempest, a trumpet, or a bell calling for rebellion. Like most of Matos's poems, this one also begins with melancholic undertones and then suddenly expresses the poet's determination to break his chains and change his precarious situation. It is no wonder that this poem, although not among Matos's best, is included in several anthologies and is quoted by exiles.

During his second stay in Belgrade, in 1907, Matos illegally visited Zagreb; hearing the bell of St. Mark's Church in the old part of the city, he saw others going to the church, but he didn't dare, knowing that he would be easy prey for the gendarmes there. He complains "that it is difficult to be a free Croat"; for this reason, he wandered aimlessly, like the sound of the bell in the forest.

Granted amnesty, he returned to Zagreb in 1908, but his sadness did not lessen. In 1909 he wrote "The Old Song," in which he laments that the Croats are oppressed, deprived of all power, the least important of all nations, condemned to disappear without honor. That same year, one of Matos's saddest, most symbolic and effective poems, titled "1909," was published. He saw a certain lady on the gallows whose face resembled his mother's; the grave had already been dug for her body, and he jumped into the tomb and washed her face with the mortal sweat of her exhausted body.

In another poem, "In St. Stephen's Cathedral" (1910), the poet sees a woman carrying the heavy cross of an entire nation going to the cathedral to find solace; one of the former rulers (banus) insists that she must preserve national independence (regnum regno non praescribit leges), and then concludes with the famous lines: "As long as there is heart, Croatia will live." Matos loved his mother as much as his enslaved homeland, and it is no wonder that in one of his best-known and most tender poems, "Señora María" (published posthumously in 1923), he does not separate them. Rather, upon mentioning "the old, little Señora María," his thoughts spontaneously turn to Croatia.

He lists the reasons why he loves his mother so much (because she was the first to feed him, to hold his hand, to pray for him, to teach him her beautiful language...); then, suddenly, breaking the thematic unity and giving free rein to his words, he speaks of his nation, which is his true inspiration, which he loves with all his heart and which he will loyally serve until his last moment.

With this sincere outburst, Matos, a man who was unhappy but loving and visionary, wrote a fitting epitaph for himself and his work.

Matos displays in his poetry, as in other genres, his basic qualities and defects. He was so interested in the formal aspects of his lyrical compositions that some of his poems were written after he had assembled and created their external structure. Content mattered very little. Some of his poems contain disconnected images: the unity of the internal structure was never his strong suit.

Despite everything, it is not difficult to agree with Antun Barac, one of the first critics of Matos's poetry, who stated that Matos was above all a lyricist: in his heart he harbored warm feelings; all the external appearances of sarcasm, bitterness, and occasional harshness were a mask with which he wanted to protect himself, especially when he felt like crying.

There is an old saying that even the great Homer sometimes wrote bad verses (Quandoque dormitat et bonus Homerus); someone has written that in order to achieve a few lasting works, it is necessary, throughout one's life, to accumulate material from which such works will emerge. Although he died at the age of forty, having worked under extremely unfavorable conditions, often hungry and ill, and sometimes guided more by his hypersensitive temperament than by aesthetic considerations, Matos nevertheless left behind some well-constructed short stories and at least a dozen poems that rank among the best of modern Croatian literature.

He also deserves credit for having established Croatian criticism on more solid and literary foundations; he composed fascinating impressions of foreign lands and certain people, and above all, he described the Croatian landscape in such a way that, reading him, we smell the fragrance of the earth, the flowers, and the trees; we stroll through the gentle hills and contemplate the wooded mountains; we hear the rivers flowing and the waves murmuring in their affectionate contact with the coasts; above all, we see the clouds, the sun, the moon, the stars, and the different seasons, and in contact with them, we become part of the universe. In short, Matos raised the Croatian flag, compelled his compatriots to look westward, and in most of his writings left the testament of his tender soul and lyrical talent. He accomplished so much in so little time!

It is true, there is much fluff in Matos's pages, not everything is pure grain, but a discerning reader can find in his poetry verses that elevate their mind and stimulate their imagination to inhabit a better world, created by Matos and other select writers.

(Translated from the English by Branko Kadic)

Pablo Picasso, the painter who did not paint Bleiburg, the super-Guernica

Lucas Fertilio

Pablo Picasso died. At 92 years old. Almost a century. He wasn't the greatest painter of the century. Just the great mutant of artistic expression. The Promethean energy that negated 40,000 years of artistic traditions. The Dionysian passion that created an absurd, savage, and dehumanized aesthetic. An expression that scandalized half the world. Even his closest friends. Braque told him: "Looking at your paintings makes me feel like I'm drinking oil and eating tow..."

But PP, the apostle of ugliness in art, angrily proclaimed that art should scandalize, provoke, even insult and offend. Painting is the lie that tells the truth. Art has its regenerative mission. Creating formally beautiful, saccharine works of art, forms that are vulgarly pleasing, is a scandal, a hypocrisy, a sin against the Holy Spirit. Art must shake consciences, clear minds, and foster wills. PP's art (like all authentic art) is not mere manufacture, but language. His paintings are texts that convey messages, invite action, and communicate the experiences, hopes, and sorrows of our last hundred years—the most dramatic and dangerous era in world history, fraught with threats and promises, almost inconceivable to humankind.

Contemporary art expresses the anxieties and joys of this historical process. PP is its great master. This proto-Mediterranean man, Iberian and Ligurian, seems to have foreseen the Promethean feat of our generation—the generation that seized cosmic energy, ascended to the heavens, and created the artificial Adam. PP understood the terrible scope of this feat. In a moment of rage, humanity could destroy the planet, but with patience and humility, it could transform it into a garden of happiness.

The anxieties and hopes of this terrible dilemma throb in PP's art. How and how much men and things changed during PP's lifetime! When he was born, the maximum speed of our machines was the 50 km/h of the railway. In the last days of his life, a rocket bound for Jupiter was hurtling through space at 50,000 km/h. Yes, this is the tension of PP's century, and also of ours. 50: 50,000 kilometers!

The forms of traditional art could never have expressed this tension that, consciously or unconsciously, lives in all of humanity, in each one of us. Faced with such spiritual and physical dynamism, traditional art, glorious and marvelous as it is, is mute, incapable of conceiving and expressing the phenomenon. Only Leonardo, Dürer, Bosch, or Bruegel could allude to the mystery. To express the fullness of its dynamism, the forms of contemporary art are needed. Subjective, arbitrary art, which does not reproduce photographs but rather X-rays of reality. It uncovers its soul, its spirit. The forms of this new art are seemingly absurd, morbid, monstrous, as are the psychic complexes and malignant tumors that he (discovers) and that appear in his works. The cruellest reflection of reality. And the master of this new expression, beyond beauty and ugliness, is Pablo Picasso.

It has been said that his Guernica is: The Last Judgment of this Century. If Picasso had known of the massacre of 100,000 Croatian men, women, and children in Bleiburg in May 1945, he would undoubtedly have painted a Super-Guernica.

His Woman by the Sea is: The Venus of the Twentieth Century. A monster. She seems to be the embodiment of all misery, of all human evil. In her figure, the machine, the beast, and the human being have fused together. Who is she? It is the spirit of the Seven Deadly Sins that has murdered hundreds of millions of healthy, beautiful human beings in the twentieth century, beings yearning for life and joy.

No form of traditional art could have expressed such horror, all the cruelty heaped upon the noble human race. This is the meaning and value of the dehumanized and the monstrous in contemporary art. And especially in the art of PP.

There is something demonic and angelic in his passions. He resembles Shiva, the fearsome deity of the Hindu trinity. A force that can destroy a world, but cannot build anything. An irrational force that lets itself be carried away by its instincts and passions and, in passing, leaves not a single word of comfort, not a single guiding idea, so necessary in these days that decide the fate of humankind.

But the poet must be forgiven everything. So says the ancient Latin proverb. And was PP a poet? A man swept away by nostalgia for eternal and glorious beauty? Some affirm it, others deny it. Don José Camón Aznar, philosopher and art historian, who dedicated a 717-page work to PP, denies it. He says that PP, in his youth, was intoxicated by Nietzschean aphorisms and Wagnerian musical magic, and that from there comes his cult of violence and negation. Camón delivers a scathing verdict: Pablo Picasso's art is the most accomplished expression of Spanish anarchism.

However, another Spaniard, a Francoist, one of Spain's most prodigious critics, places PP on the altar of contemporary culture and civilization. Don José Galván, writing in the Madrid magazine Triunfo, says that PP is the greatest painter of all time, and that his greatness stems not from his craftsmanship but from his spirituality. Because: he destroyed to build, hated to love, denied to affirm, tyrannized to liberate.

The question then arises: Was PP the hero of a thousand faces? A question more theological than philosophical. It leads us to think with Nietzsche, who, moreover, was so averse to all religious mysticism. But an unexpected statement of his sheds light on the enigmatic PP. Nietzsche tells us: We humans are merely incarnations, means, agents of superior forces that, through us, carry out their unquestionable wills.

Was Pablo Picasso at the service of these superior and unquestionable forces and wills? It seems so, that he served them selflessly. But not only to destroy a 40,000-year-old artistic tradition, but, and much more, to change that painful historical trajectory in which human inadequacy has always struggled with the cunning and cruelty of life. It is man's struggle with destiny. The theme of all tragedies, of all myths and human efforts to overcome and reconcile oneself with the supreme will.

Pablo Picasso, relative as all things human are, fought this battle with genius and courage.

Unitarianism: mask of hegemony

Jozo Ivicevic-Bakulic ([1])

(In accordance with our promise in issue XIII, page 131 of SC, we continue publishing the most characteristic articles that appeared in Croatian communist newspapers during the period leading up to the serious crisis currently affecting communist Yugoslavia, which erupted in December 1971. The ideological positions and general content of these articles reveal the falsity of Belgrade's official propaganda accusing the Croatian communist leaders—later deposed—of counter-revolution, chauvinism, and separatism. In reality, it was a serious attempt to transform that community into a confederal state or, at least, an effective federation, guaranteeing each of its peoples the equality and sovereignty compatible with the existence and integrity of that community. Self-management in the economy should have been the indicated path for the desired reform. But everything failed thanks to Tito's neo-Stalinism—called "democratic centralism"—and Serbian hegemonic ambitions. The most prominent authors Those who were bold in expounding the ideas of reform are now atoning in prisons for their "sins" against "unity and fraternity," as interpreted by the Serbs and guarded by a relentless militaristic and police apparatus. (S.C.'s redactions)

Yugoslavia—unitary in character until 1941 (with the principle of a composite state since 1939), and since 1945 barely a federal state—after half a century of existence, and 25 years after the (communist, translator's note) revolution, finds itself once again in a situation where choices and decisions must be made.

What are the determining factors of this situation?

The state union of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, proclaimed on December 19, 1918, was a conditional war objective of the Kingdom of Serbia. Its primary and unconditional objective was the liberation and unification of the Serbian people. In a series of successive wars, which lasted for a century and were undertaken for this purpose (the first and second Serbian uprisings, then the uprising and war of 1875-1876 and the Bulgarian-Serbian War, the Balkan Wars, and finally the war of 1914-1918), the plan of national liberation increasingly and progressively assumed an almost obligatory character: to create a Greater Serbia, which was to encompass Macedonia, Kosovo and the northern part of Albania, Montenegro, southern Dalmatia, and finally Srijem (Sirmium), Slavonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as parts of southern Hungary.

Fiction of a single nationality

The state union of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was taken into account in the calculation of this Serbian plan much later and only insofar as it served to realize the idea of a Greater Serbia and within a larger territory than could be considered its own. Looking, with greater liberality, at the historical and geopolitical space of the Serbian people, the centralist organization and monarchical form of government that would guarantee a privileged and dominant position for the Serbs, or rather, for their political class, in the future state constituted the demands with which the Kingdom of Serbia conditioned this state union.

This is why Greater Serbian hegemony logically adopted the ideology of Yugoslav national unitarianism. The centralist organization of Yugoslavia can be justified—if any justification is possible—only by the principle of one nationality ("one people, one state"), that is, by maintaining the fiction of a single people (Illyrian or Yugoslav, or Serbian-Croatian-Slovenian-Macedonian, Montenegrin-Muslim).

Therefore, in the sphere of the country's internal life, this position was subjected to extensive re-examination after 1918. Despite its Croatian origin and tradition, this ideology lost support in Croatian public life, but it was This system, however, was accepted by Great Serbian nationalism as a potential ideological platform for the progressive hegemony and assimilation of non-Serbian nationalities.

By thus discriminating against the vast majority of its citizens, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (or the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes until 1929) renounced democracy. The price of Great Serbian hegemony was the collapse of the parliamentary system with the rise of military dictatorship and a subsequent return (1931) to a seemingly constitutional life, imposed by a decree-constitution.

But maintaining Macedonians, Montenegrins, Muslims, Croats, and Slovenes in a submissive position and assimilating them (while simultaneously hindering the development of national minorities, especially the Albanians) was a disproportionate objective in relation to the existing forces. Consequently, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, plagued by internal conflict, permanently unstable, demoralized, and without any possible justification, was incapable of resisting any external threat: the April War of 1941 revealed what I have just stated as an undeniable fact.

But before disappearing (Yugoslavia, Translator's Note), it sowed discord that threatened mutual destruction (of all).

Unitarism - Mask of Hegemony

Socialist action, in this historical context, would only have prospects if it could and was in a position to provide an answer to the national question. Immediately after the state unification of 1918, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, declaring itself unitarist, missed its own opportunity. By the time this error was recognized (1923-1924), it was too late: in the meantime, national movements, stirring the masses, had formed.

Detached from the national masses, the PCJ established its own national program in 1924, which from that point onward was more radical.

Considering unitarist ideology to be merely a mask for Great Serbian hegemony, the PCJ (1924) demanded the liquidation of the centralist-unitarist system based on the 1921 Constitution and the reorganization of the state along federal lines, thereby guaranteeing and protecting national equality. In a short period (1926), it took a more critical step: proving that Yugoslavia was a Great Serbian creation, which yearned for further hegemonic conquests and was therefore the main source of insecurity and unrest in the Balkans, the Party reached an extreme conclusion: it invoked the right of self-determination of peoples, declaring itself an independent Slovenian, Croatian, and Macedonian state, respectively, and at the same time demanded—applying the principle of nationality—the reunification of Kosovo with Albania and the northern part of Vojvodina with Hungary.

The Communist Party of Yugoslavia (CPJ) softened this stance somewhat, adopted in 1935-36 regarding the national question in the face of the threat of fascism in neighboring countries, which were already major powers. However, it nevertheless reaffirmed the condition that the state had to be organized as a federal state, a decision to be made by the national parliaments. From this perspective, the Communist Party of Croatia (CPJ) considered and condemned Banovina Hrvatska (the Banat of Croatia, the autonomy achieved by the Croatian Peasant Party after lengthy discussions with Belgrade in 1939) as a half-measure and an attitude with which the Croatian bourgeois class had betrayed the Croatian national movement.

This national program would have a decisive influence on the events after the fall of Yugoslavia in 1941: only with this (national) programmatic basis was the common resistance movement possible during the occupation (which the majority of Croatians did not consider an occupation but rather the realization of their right to self-determination. It is true that it occurred under wartime conditions hardly conducive to international recognition—almost half the world recognized it—but ultimately as liberation from the Serbian yoke). This movement ensured that not only the Serbian people but also the peoples who had been subjugated and oppressed in pre-war Yugoslavia could participate.

The possibilities of this movement depended on this, and, in the most extreme analysis, so did the socialist revolution (without the simultaneous support of Russia and the Western allies, this revolution could not have succeeded either. - Editor's Note).

Under these conditions, the Yugoslav community was renewed, necessarily renewed as a community of equal and sovereign peoples: after the experience of the pre-war centralist state and after its fall, a Yugoslavia organized as a unitary community had no prospect of being accepted.

These fundamental principles upon which the Yugoslav community was dissolved in the war—national sovereignty and equality, and the right to self-determination—were subsequently reaffirmed in post-war Constitutions of the Federation, namely the 1946 Constitution (partially amended by a 1953 constitutional law), the 1963 Constitution (still in force today), and all the Constitutions of the Republics (referring to the six federal republics and their respective Constitutions, which many international humorists cite as one of the absurdities of our time: six republics, five nations, four languages, three religions, two alphabets, and one Party. Translator's note).

A decisive example

But these principles were largely distorted, and the cause lies in State Socialism, gradually shaped by Soviet theory and practice, whose essence is an unparalleled monopoly of power—a monopoly of power, property, and ideology. The Soviet example, especially that of the Stalin era, was decisive for the international communist movement as a whole; this was also true in the Yugoslav case.

By seeking socialism through a perfect state monopoly and in a totally centralized state, everything else followed naturally and inevitably: bureaucratization and the strengthening of authoritarian characteristics—in the political, social, and ideological sectors; the revival of unitarism and hegemony—in the field of relations between nationalities.

The idea of self-management socialism, which emerged as an anti-Stalinist alternative as early as 1948 and as an alternative to socialism with a "human face," had been gaining ground in Yugoslavia and is currently gaining strength (the author wrote before December 19, 1971, when Tito decisively steered his regime toward re-Stalinization. Translator's note) in a dramatic power struggle with its opponents. In a real union, and often also in personal unions, the bureaucratic and partisan elements, bound to the previous order by a dogmatic ideology and by their social position, along with the forces of hegemonic centralism of grand Stalinism, are adversaries of any change when it comes to the unitary-centralist organization of the State. (A more flexible sector of these forces would conditionally abandon the tactical form of the unitary-centralist idea if it were possible to achieve the same objective—through a common market, for example—and after having secured for themselves beforehand, thanks to state aid, financial and commercial preponderance; that is, maintaining old relationships and new forms).

National sovereignty: an unconditional demand

The pressure exerted by the unitarist, bureaucratic-conservative, and hegemonic forces—whose most visible part was condemned at the Brioni meeting by the Central Committee of the Communist League of Yugoslavia (the Party) in 1966—was directed primarily, and by virtue of their power in Yugoslavia, against the Croatian people. The best confirmation of what I have just said is the phenomenon that the movement in favor of social reform in Croatia acquired the proportions and characteristics of a national movement.

"The revolutionary national movement in Croatia was genuinely and profoundly interested in the new anti-statist course. The Croatian people felt firsthand—as did other peoples—all the horrors of bureaucratic, police, centralist, unitarist, and hegemonic systems. We can say that the suffering of the Croats was greater than that of other peoples. Indeed, all the dominant groups within these systems were well aware of the economic, political, and cultural importance of the Croatian people, thus starting from a rather simple calculation: the defeat of the Croatian emancipatory current and its movement would simultaneously mean the collapse of those of other nationalities" (Nerkez Smailagic. He is a professor of political science at the Croatian University of Zagreb. This Bosnian Croat Muslim, for expressing his national belonging to the Croatian people, was dismissed and forced into silence during Tito's neo-Stalinist purges. Translator's note).

Unitarianism, which amounts to genocide for non-Serbian peoples, is also dangerous for the Serbian people, as it threatens to isolate them, provokes revanchism, exposes Yugoslavia to external threats, and consequently, this policy promises the Serbian people the same thing it gives to other peoples: a dictatorship like that of January 6 (1929, proclaimed by Alexander Karageorgevic; translator's note) or one of the bureaucratic-Stalinist type, or both at once.

But, above all, this path leads nowhere: causing only misfortunes of catastrophic proportions in the last half-century, unitarianism has achieved only one thing: the definitive formation of the peoples of Yugoslavia. To make democracy possible in Yugoslavia—which is in the great interest of all its peoples as a whole and of each of them individually, regardless of their nationality—to free relations between nationalities from the burdens that push us and keep us far below the acceptable level in our contemporary era, and, finally, for the Yugoslav community to exist—at a time when national sovereignty is the demand of the last people of the last colony in Africa—we are left, after all, with only one path: to reorganize Yugoslavia according to the principles upon which it was planned, that is, as a community of truly sovereign and fully equal peoples.

In this we see the possible meaning of the imminent constitutional reform, and only insofar as it contributes to this objective will it signify real progress.

(Translated by: fn)

The statehood of Croatia and the constitutional amendments

Sime Djodan $

The State is an emanation of national being. A people without its own State is not a historical people, not a subject but the object of another's will, a means of promoting foreign interests. An individual can be included in any State, even elevate their interests to the highest level in the service of a foreign State and people, but a people can only be securely incorporated into its own State, the instrument for protecting its interests.

Consequently, a people cannot promote its interests—and secure its future—if it is not organized as a subject within its national State. Such a people can expect nothing good if it is subjugated by another people. This is the fundamental difference between the individual and the people.

The State is the apparatus of power through which certain national interests are protected against foreign States and peoples. On the domestic level, the State is a form of class domination. It is logical, then, that a struggle for power is not possible, and that power cannot be conquered, without controlling the apparatus of power (the State). Consequently, the assertion that communists are fighting for power and not for the state is a fallacy. This is not to say that one can also come to power in a foreign state, like a kind of Janissary; but in this case, those fighting for such power are not revolutionaries of any kind; they are vulgar careerist opportunists and even traitors.

Much has been written about the state. The theory of the state currently constitutes the fundamental science of society. Many philosophers, legal theorists, and political theorists have addressed its problems. From Plato to Lenin, attempts have been made to discover the essence of the state. Among current theories, we highlight those whose elements we consider truly correspond to the essence of contemporary states.

The organic theory, based on the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, and recently reworked by H. Spencer and L. World, considers the state to be the most important social institution, that is, the brain of social organization. It highlights the functional aspect of the State and not necessarily its aspect of violence exercised by one social group over another. This functional aspect must also take into consideration the self-managed society.

In its time, the social contract theory had a great political influence on society and on the gestation of the bourgeois revolution. According to this theory, free-born individuals form the State through a contract in order to achieve certain common objectives and, first and foremost, the security of each individual within the organization.

It is undeniable that the elements of this theory regain their importance in the self-managed society, where class antagonism must increasingly disappear and the homogenization of society must be strengthened on the basis of solidarity and the effective effort of all members of the community capable of work. The renowned sociologist L. Gumplowicz formulated the force theory and considered the State as the result of a racial struggle; that is, one, superior race, commonly the nomadic race, subjugates another, usually the agrarian race, and dominates it, thus founding the State as a phenomenon of force and domination. Consequently, force would be the only intervening factor in the formation of the State.

It is interesting to note that Gumplowicz, to confirm his theory, takes as an example precisely the birth of the medieval Croatian State, even though this event remains a controversial episode in historical scholarship. There is also another theory, the evolutionary one, regarding the birth of the Croatian State at the beginning of the Middle Ages.

According to Gumplowicz, the Croats already had their State in the 7th century; That is, upon arriving in the Adriatic and Roman Illyria from White Croatia (the area around Krakow) as a militarily organized people, they founded Adriatic Croatia in old Roman Dalmatia, the Illyrian state of 624. According to some of our historians with Slavophile leanings (Rackí and Wic), the Croatian state was formed in 852, and its birth was evolutionary and organic, not by force. Contemporary Croatian medievalists mostly favor the idea that the Croatian state was formed through the conquest of western Illyria, that is, Roman Pannonia and Dalmatia.

In the second half of the 19th century, sociological theory emerged according to which the State underwent a transformation into a supra-class organization. This theory, however, argues that by mitigating class conflicts for a common interest, the State is not inherently class-based. Essentially, I believe this view is inaccurate, as the State is always a form of class domination, although some supra-class elements exist in the modern State, dependent on the interaction of forces from different classes within society.

It is undeniable that the State, in certain aspects, acts on behalf of the entire society and protects the interests of the whole. This idea took firm root especially in interstate relations, where each State defends its territory, protects its citizens, etc., which constitutes a common interest of society. Similarly, all States respect a minimum of general interpersonal norms, prohibit the destruction of essential social assets, and protect the lives of their citizens, which is also considered a further aspect of the State's general role in society. Theorists of scientific socialism defend the evolutionary theory of the State. According to them, the State, as one of the forms of human society, did not exist from time immemorial. It only developed within primitive society as its productive forces grew and when private property, individual ownership, appeared. The polarization of society is generated on the basis of private property.

The best producers become owners of the means of production and thus subjugate others to extract the surplus value of their labor. This coercive exploitation requires organized power, which is the State. In all exploitative societies, the essence of the State does not change. The socialist organization of society accepts the State with its apparatus of coercion from capitalist-bourgeois society, but from that moment on, the State is no longer the instrument of oppression and exploitation.

From now on, the State must serve as an instrument for the revolutionary realization of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the liquidation of the remnants of the old society, and the construction of a new social order. In the socialist order of society, the apparatus of the capitalist-bourgeois State and its functions are being progressively dismantled, transferred simultaneously to socialist society and the working class. In this way, the State in socialism gradually dies, to disappear completely in the distant future—in communist-humanist society.

At that time, it will not dominate people but rather administer things. I consider this theory to be accurate in its essence, but by taking into account only the fundamental relationships, and considering only the case of the capitalist State, it overlooked different forms of State evolution and different historical conditions and circumstances. Therefore, it is obvious to consider, for the real conditions of the contemporary state, elements of both organic and sociological theory, and, in a certain sense, also elements of the social contract, but to a greater degree for the self-managed society than for the state.

The socialist state, according to Marx and Engels, and, we can assert, also according to Lenin, is in reality the apparatus inherited from the bourgeois state, just as socialist law is bourgeois law along with the system of production of goods. These are conditionally socialist phenomena. The socialist state is the state that is in the process of extinction and not a bureaucratic creation that subjugates the entire society.

Therefore, the Stalinist state signifies the degradation of the socialist revolution, and so-called revolutionary statism is a discontinuity of the revolution, even a bureaucratic counter-revolution where such a dictatorship replaces the workers' dictatorship, and the workers are all those who live by their labor without any other means of subsistence. In accordance with this, any intensification of the class struggle in socialism tends toward strengthening bureaucratic power over society and the working class. The class struggle in socialism weakens, and in communist society all class differences between people disappear. This signifies the transition to the humanist era of history, or, more precisely, the departure from prehistory and the entry into history.

The theory of the intensification of class struggle in socialism takes us back to a society that is objectively reactionary. The way this manifests in each socialist country depends on specific historical circumstances and on what is understood by socialist society. Marx's concepts regarding the withering away of the state should not be understood in a vulgar and mechanical sense. Marx also spoke of the liquidation of labor, but at the same time emphasized that labor in socialism would become the supreme need of humankind.

It is evident that when he spoke of the withering away of labor, he meant labor for others, labor that creates surplus value for them, conditioned by the division of labor that keeps some in the sphere of material production, or other types of production, while for others it reserves functions in the superstructure and the administrative-political sphere. Similarly, when Marx spoke of the State, he referred to the extinction of the class character of the organization of society we call the State, and he envisioned the extinction of class domination, not the extinction of the functions that a coordinating body must perform in society. That is to say, not all the functions of the State disappear—they are assumed by the self-organization of society. The same occurs with the extinction of law. It ceases to exist as the will of the dominant class, because classes also disappear. But for this reason, social norms of conduct do not disappear, nor do the mechanisms that adopt and implement them.

What kind of ideas do "Praxis" and "The Communist" offer us?

In our country, the vulgarization of these concepts triumphs, especially the idea of the extinction of the State, which was launched by certain theorists of unitarianism, condemning in advance the state character of our republic. For this type of person, any theory is valid if it defends their interests. Thus, some of them simultaneously demand the revitalization of the Communist League of Yugoslavia (Party), organized in a centralist manner, and of so-called democratic centralism, as well as the strengthening of the unitary central state, proclaiming the extinction of nations and their states, that is, of our socialist republics. It is evident that these theories do not advocate the death of all states, but rather defend the strengthening of the unitary state of Yugoslavia, which, according to historical experience, can only be Greater Serbia.

It is extremely interesting that after the acceptance of the amendments to the federal Constitution, there is an urging for a revitalization of centralism within the SKJ (Party) and its return to the classic character of a party that must regain its monopoly on power and function based on democratic centralism (which may be logical within a unitary state), thereby nullifying the federal character of Yugoslavia. That is to say, to transform multinational Yugoslavia, which, according to the Constitution, is a league of equal republics, by some detour into a quasi-federation, and thus further reinforce unitarist political practice. This position was recently defended by contributors to "Praxis" and is now also appearing in "The Communist." At one time, we labeled ideologues of this kind "Marxists of Saint Sava"* for having so accurately captured the essence of this ideology.

It is, in essence, a unitarist-Greater Serbian ideology. Here (in Croatia, translator's note) they profess it in various forms without, we might say, consequence, because centralism is mildly criticized and is actually allowed to spread its views without any difficulty. That is why we maintain that unitarist ideology, mixed with Stalinism, is a dangerous and systematic attack on the freedom of the Croatian people. All sorts of arguments and quasi-arguments are brandished to demonstrate the extinction of existing nationalities in Yugoslavia, defending a supernational community that, logically, speaks Serbian and appears as the Serbian nation.

The arguments of these ideologues regarding the extinction of nations are quite comical. They are particularly bothered, and first and foremost, by the Croatian nation, because it obstructs the path to realizing Garasanin's "Nacrtanija" (National Liberation), and thus, if the Croats could be "assimilated," the rest would be easy to accomplish. These ideologues forget the fact that their arguments, brandished in the name of a higher interest of socialism and the need for small peoples to sacrifice themselves for it—especially the Croatian people—sound utterly hollow at a time when two superpowers—who consider themselves beacons of world socialism—are framing the dialectical discussion in terms of a cannon duel on the distant eastern borders.

I am referring to Soviet Russia and China, fighting over the position of a small island. That is to say, for them, that small island of Chempao is more important than world socialism. And we Croats are being asked, in their name, to become extinct and turn ourselves into rabbits for global experimentation, for our homeland to become a global laboratory for testing this type of extinction.

Indeed, "Praxis" wisely demands this, as do some other newspapers. But we must disabuse them of this notion and tell them openly that we Croats are not prepared to die before the Russians, the Chinese, and the others, who so eagerly propagate the idea of the extinction of nations, die!

When we speak of the State, it is not enough for us to speak only of its legal-philosophical aspect. It is necessary to say when and how an organized human community, a nation, appears in its external and legal-functional form as a State. For a State to be considered a subject of international law, it requires effectiveness, that is, the real existence of a community with its own defined territory, population, and power structure, independent of any other State. However, the State does not perish even in the case of the complete occupation of its territory by its enemy, if the government or the people wage war against the enemy. This struggle can also be waged from the outside.

In summary: for a State to be recognized as such, it needs territory, population, and sovereign power. Sovereignty signifies supreme power, the attribute of state power, legally the highest, to which all other powers within its territory are subordinate. Logically, sovereignty is not absolute due to its correlation with other sovereign regions. States are interdependent, but it is possible to imagine an absolutely sovereign State, without any limitations, where its sovereignty would appear absolute. Looking inward, that is, at the level of internal affairs, this is the nature of sovereignty for all independent States. State theory considers the following three elements as essential to state sovereignty:

1) Independence of state power, meaning that the respective state power is free, in the formalization of its decisions, from any external interference; that is, it is not legally obligated to serve the commands of any external power outside its territory. Since a legal obligation cannot exist without physical force, this independence means that this power is the strongest within its territory and that the other coercive apparatuses of the State cannot subject it to their will.

2) The supremacy of state power in relation to other factors or powers within the same territory, meaning that state power within its territory is higher than any other power or factor and that it can impose its will throughout its territory. This, in turn, means that everyone is legally obligated to obey its commands, and that this power is indeed the strongest of all existing powers within its sphere, as well as of those that could oppose it. 3) The legal limitation of state power, which in practical terms means that state power can order acts and legislate legal norms; that is, there are no limits to its power (except natural limits and the political limits that this power imposes on itself).

Sovereignty is the legal expression of physical force and signifies a relative limitation. Sovereignty is merely a term or expression for the monopoly of physical force, or the law as order that this monopoly imposes. The monopoly of physical force is limited precisely to the extent that it is possible to impose something by force in society, which means that it is relatively limited (de facto limited by natural and social forces). But it is not limited by force; that is, no one is more powerful than it in the sense of physical force, meaning that legally it is unlimited.

Economic independence is the condition of state and legal sovereignty.

Since the monopoly of physical force is the basis and source of state sovereignty, and since a monopoly arises only within a specific society where it develops in the production process, as soon as a society ceases to be independent in the economic sphere—that is, when it can no longer live off its own production, its national revenues, or its reproductive values—this society either collapses or is incorporated into another society with greater and more efficient production. Simultaneously, the state that arose within it must also lose its independence and sovereignty and become an integral part, a province, of another state.

Consequently, economic independence is the basis of state and legal sovereignty. It is understood that economic independence should not be conceived as autarky, but rather as absolute sovereignty in the disposal of national revenues and the wealth of society in general.

The bearer of sovereignty is the citizen, and its locus is the nation. Sovereign power emanates from the nation, but the nation is formed by citizens, and power arises from their will and their rights. According to natural law, every nation has the right to its own national state. Natural law is the basis of all revolutionary revolts, since only in it do they find their justification, and according to positive law they are illegal.

Indeed, throughout world history, the conflict between positive law (customary or written), which is generally conservative in nature, and natural law, which is the basis of revolution and even evolution, has persisted. When it is said that law is the will of the ruling class—or rather, of the group—one is referring to positive law. If this position were absolutized, all change would be impossible. That is why revolutionaries find their inspiration for change in natural law and not in positive law.

Who are revolutionaries? Natural law, according to the theory of this same law, exists objectively in the conscience of men, in the ethical scale of values of a human society, and each person feels it independently of positive law, and precisely in spite of it, when the latter conflicts with the principles of justice and equity. But since the scale of values itself changes, natural law is not eternal metaphysics either, which is why revolutions also fall into crisis because the positive law of revolutionary governments comes into conflict with the ideals of the revolutionary movement.

From this we can conclude, initially, that revolutionaries are only those who remain as outsiders after the revolution has taken place. The revolution is permanent precisely because of the outsiders and the non-coincidence of positive law and the ideals of the revolutionary movement. In other words, positive law, even when made by the revolutionary victors, is almost always conservative with respect to the ideas of the integral revolutionary movement, which are inspired by natural law.

The theory of natural law originated in Greece and was metaphysical in nature. However, due to the changing scale of values, which is not uniform across all societies, natural law also becomes dynamic and non-metaphysical. Regarding the content of law, the ancient Greeks already emphasized a fundamental idea and formulated an elementary concept: the State and the law must be the protection of justice. Justice itself, in turn, must be subordinate to an even higher concept: the common good.

The common good is conceived as the good of all members of society, that is, the common good of all. Roman legal theorists pointed precisely to this characteristic of law. Aristotle was the first to define the concept of justice. From a logical point of view, his definition remains valid to this day. He distinguished between two kinds of justice: distributive and commutative. The distributive principle applies to the relationships between the community and individuals and would consist of each person receiving what truly belongs to them according to their position in society, their merits and social contributions.

Similarly, each person's obligations are determined in proportion to their means and capabilities. The essence of distributive justice lies in proportionality.

Commutative justice, in turn, applies to relationships between individuals, its essence consisting in equivalence (reciprocity and equal value), and in these relationships, goods of equal value must circulate. One should not receive more from the other than what they give. If the principle of proportionality cannot be applied, the reciprocal relationship cannot be considered just. Roman jurists expressed these ideas of Aristotle's justice by defining law as "the art of the good and the just" (Ius est ars boni et aequi), arising from three fundamental imperatives: to live honestly, to not harm others, to give to each what is theirs (Iuris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere). Support from all revolutionary enterprises: Justice!

From this perspective and these concepts of justice, natural law and justice were considered eternal, as metaphysical and immutable categories. Therefore, there was a lack of understanding of social change and, consequently, also of the dynamic nature of justice, which depends on the changing scale of values in the life of societies, even though the idea of a moral foundation based on the concept of justice, enjoyed by all cultural and civilized communities of humanity, is still maintained today.

Indeed, in all systems of positive law, homicide is considered a crime. Similarly, there is a whole series of publicly protected common goods, which leads us to believe that the concept of justice is conceived equally by all civilized people in the world. Despite the non-existence of a positive and eternal law identical to the system of natural and eternal law as Cicero envisioned it (Vera lex, recta ratio, naturae congruens, diffusa in omnibus, constans, sempiterna), it remains a fact, as we have seen, that the cornerstone of all revolutionary undertakings is precisely natural law or, to be more precise, the concept of justice.

It is only in this way that we can understand people's sympathy for the liberation struggles of oppressed peoples or for the revolutionary undertakings of professional strata or social classes. If this notion of natural law, the notion of the common good, of justice, were not felt by people, a lasting tyranny founded on positive law and its character as the will of the ruling class would be feasible.

This concept has been misinterpreted because Marx has been misunderstood when he analyzes the bourgeois legal system. If Marx had absolutized this concept of law as the will of the ruling class, denying the foundation upon which natural law rests, he would not have had a basis for revolution because, according to positive law, revolution is illegal, even crimes aimed at destroying the legal order.

Nevertheless, Marx was a proponent of revolution, invoking the moral principle of justice, from which natural law arises. Starting from the principle of justice and natural law, the principle of national freedom and the right of peoples to self-determination, as well as the right to complete independence, became possible and remain so today. Since all men are equal as individuals, so too are all nations equal as sociopolitical entities, possessing the right to life and liberty.

Common existence of all nations. Political and State Independence

The nation (natio in Latin) is "an ethnically specific community, born on the basis of the social division of labor in the era of capitalism within a compact territory and within the common framework of language and pristine cultural and ethnic similarity" (E. Kardelj). Consequently, the essential characteristics of a nation are: a common and compact (continuous) territory, a shared economic life, and a shared language and culture. As a corollary, a shared psychological constitution is also formed, that is, an awareness of belonging to the community, which feels strongly united thanks to the determining factors mentioned above.

These characteristics are present in all the so-called classical nations that formed in Europe during the last century or earlier. Those nations formed organically, through a fusion of similar ethnic groups or through the co-assimilation of different ethnic elements, uniting them on the basis of their vital interests in a single community (the nation). Consequently, the theory explaining their birth is the organic, evolutionary theory.

In the case of more recent nations, the explanation is functional; that is, one can belong to a nation in a functional sense. This explanatory theory takes on special significance in the case of the many current migrations. Nations formed in this way include the United States, Canada, Argentina, etc. Here it is evident that the awareness of economic, political, cultural, and moral interests related to the division of labor binds together in a national community ethnically very different groups, elements of different cultures and religions, and groups that previously belonged to already formed nations.

The process of nation-building is not yet complete and remains active even today. The word "nation" first appeared in France in the 15th century, during the Hundred Years' War. However, it's important to remember that even earlier, in the Middle Ages, communities organized into states were formed, often encompassing ethnically and culturally similar or different peoples. Their ruling classes, in these states as well, emphasized ideas of shared interests and national tradition, which are reminiscent of contemporary national concepts.

But back then, economic self-sufficiency prevailed, and there was no pronounced need for a national market, which would later, in the bourgeois era, leave a clear and definitive mark on contemporary nations. In the formation of nations, in their protection and development, as well as in the expansion of some and the decline of others, the state played a decisive role. Through its physical, military strength, it could compensate for economic weaknesses and the overall potential of the nation in its development. Therefore, one of the fundamental demands of all nations—both during their formation and after its completion—is the demand for political and state independence, that is, the demand to have their own independent state. In past systems, as in present ones, the independent state presented the most suitable framework for the free formation and progress of nations.

The classical Marxists considered the principle of "one nation, one state" to be their own. Marx was fundamentally opposed to federalism, especially that between the former dominant nation and the subjugated peoples. He considered the freedom of oppressed nations to be in the interest of the working class of the dominant nation. Thus, for example, he pointed out that the prerequisite for the freedom of the English working class is the national liberation of Ireland.

The working class is the most important factor in national liberation.

Marx also insisted that every working class must be interested in the national freedom of its people. In "The Manifesto," he emphasized that the "proletariat" must first conquer political power, rise to the position of a national class, and constitute itself as a nation; that is, the proletariat must become the dominant class within its nation organized as a state.

It was clear to the classical Marxists that the national question is a social question, because the nation is the primary social category, the primary grouping, and if it is oppressed, its relationship to the oppressor is the same as that of the oppressed class with respect to its oppressor-owner, as that of the serf with respect to his lord, where there is neither love nor brotherhood (Hegel). For this very reason, the classical Marxists considered the national question a strategic issue in the socialist revolution and not a tactical or manipulative one.

Engels, for example, wrote the following about the national question and revolution: "The movement of the international proletariat is possible only among independent nations. That is why I am of the opinion that not only do all nations in Europe have the right, but they must be nationally independent before becoming international... They are international precisely when they are truly national." He then adds: "...effective international cooperation is possible only on the condition that each nation is completely autonomous within its own borders." Continuing along the same lines, Engels notes that "it is impossible to achieve the international union of the proletariat without first re-establishing the independence of each nation."

Thus, the classics of scientific Marxism were, in principle, proponents of the freedom of all nations and of each individual nation, or, better yet, they demanded that the proletariat of each nation become the ruling class of its nation, because they understood that without free nations there can be no internationalism. In short, they defended the following principle: one nation, one state.

Consequently, for the classical Marxists, the national question was a strategic problem, not a tactical one or a matter of manipulation. Without a solution to the national question, they could not imagine the effective realization of the ideals of the socialist revolution. This is a logical view, because they were adversaries of all forms of oppression and alienation, both of individuals and of primary social groups.

Lenin specifically points out that Marx had the habit of "testing the waters" of the socialists of the dominant nations—Russians and English—and that he was able to verify that, despite their brilliant culture, they had a very weak point with regard to oppressed peoples. They themselves understood the urgent need of oppressed peoples to be liberated, which is why, unfortunately, the international workers' movement of the First International was not immune to the hegemonic tendencies of the socialist or, respectively, communist parties of the dominant nations. Unlike the social-revisionists, Lenin defended, as a principle, the right of every nation to self-determination and the organization of its own state. For this reason, he strongly criticized the Austro-socialists, who proposed only cultural autonomy to subjugated nations as the solution to their national question. Lenin directed his scathing criticism especially against Rosa Luxemburg, an opponent of solving the national question for the divided and oppressed Poles, as well as for other subjugated peoples.

Referring to the national question, Lenin pointed to the principle: one nation, one state. Given the conditions in Russia—where many nations coexisted—he proceeded with extreme rigor toward the socialists of those nations and toward the nationalists. Thus, for example, he strongly criticized Stalin, Derzensky, and Oryonikenz for their aggression against the socialists of non-Russian peoples, whom Stalin labeled "social nationalists," while he defended their national rights, that is, the right to self-determination, and took them under his protection. Referring to the attempt to solve the national question and the relationship between nationalism and internationalism of large and small nations, Lenin wrote, among other things: "In my works on the national question, I have already stated that it is pointless to pose the problem of nationalism in general in the abstract. It is necessary to differentiate between the nationalism of the oppressor nation and that of the oppressed, between the nationalism of a large nation and that of a small one.

"In our relations with the nationalism of others, we, in the historical-practical process, the large nations, become guilty of countless acts of violence and, even more so, without realizing it, we commit acts of violence and offenses—it suffices to mention my memories of the Volga region, of how we treated the indigenous people there, how we called the Poles 'little Poles,' and how we ridiculed the Tatars by always calling them 'Duke.'" We called Ukrainians "hohol" and Prussians and other peoples of the Caucasus we called them "kavkaski celovek", the man from Kavkaso...

"Therefore, internationalism on the part of the oppressor nation, or the so-called great nation (even though it is great only because of its oppressions, great as its truncheon), must consist not only in respect for the formal equality of a nation, but also in the equality that could compensate, on the part of the great nation, for the inequality that is occurring in practical life. Whoever does not understand this does not understand the true relationship between the proletariat and the national question; the proletariat remains, in essence, from a petty-bourgeois point of view, unable to avoid its slide into a bourgeois one." (Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. XIV, pp. 576-7).

Organic domination must not be allowed to become practical hegemony.

Lenin understood very well (correctly) that the state community of a large and a small nation—even in its federal form, based on the right of self-determination and secession—effectively signifies a sacrifice for the smaller nation, since it is, in reality and a priori, an organic domination by the larger nation. Communists, therefore, must not allow—and first and foremost, the communists of the larger nation—this organic domination to become hegemonic practice.

But Lenin also did not forgive those of the smaller nation who flattered the larger nation to the detriment of their own. Referring to this problem, Lenin stated: "I consider it unnecessary to explain this more fully and clearly to the Bolsheviks, to the true communists. Thus, I consider, for example, that in the Prussian case we have a typical instance where the proletarian position demands consideration, understanding, and compromise on our part..." Therefore, it is better to add more salt alongside tolerance and leniency in the specific case of national minorities than to leave it with little salt.

That is why, in the specific case of the fundamental interest of proletarian solidarity and, consequently, of the proletarian struggle, it is required that we not only adopt a formal stance on the national question but that we always take into consideration the real difference existing between the proletarians of the oppressed (or small) nation and those of the oppressor (or large) nation” (Ibid.). Lenin, as we have already said, defended the right of the people to self-determination, and in this sense his position is extremely interesting when he says that “to deny in a capitalist state the freedom of a nation to self-determination, that is, to separate itself, means to defend the privileges of the dominant nation and the use of police methods to the detriment of those of democracy” (Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 698).

The defense of national existence is not a negative struggle. Although the national question was correctly posed in the works of the Marxist classics, as in those of Lenin, and in accordance with the principle: one nation, one state, thus As with the right to self-determination, which also entails the federation of several nations, but also their permanent right to secession and independent existence, under Stalinist influence and methods, the right of nations to self-determination was formalized and, practically speaking, liquidated, national oppression was imposed, and the dominant nation reappeared even within socialism, both within the framework of multinational socialist states and in the theory of limited sovereignty in the sphere of interstate relations among socialist countries.

Often, and supposedly more implicitly than explicitly, one can observe that the tendency to consider the nations of Yugoslavia as semi-nations, fatuously bound eternally to live with someone, like Siamese twins, and that this situation is fortuitous, is a determining factor in why they are what they are—quasi-nations, and without that they would still be small, etc.

But this opinion is extremely inaccurate. The nations of Yugoslavia are in no way less nations than any other nation in the world. Surely the Croats and Serbs are no less nations than the Bulgarians, Hungarians, Swedes, or Greeks, etc. Consequently, despite their mutual similarities, they are identical only to themselves and are bound, first and foremost, by their vital interests and not by supposedly vital relations with another nation. Therefore, they should renounce their national identity, that is, themselves and their interests, especially if we know that in international relations there are no eternal enemies or friends.

Only the struggle of each nation to survive, to safeguard its existence with a view to its own happiness and the good of the human community in general, is eternal

The nation is a unique identity, a variation of the historical being of humanity. The more nations there are, the richer the variation will be, which enriches the history of humanity. In accordance with what has been said, the defense of one's own national existence is not a negative struggle on the historical stage, since the people who defend their existence are fulfilling a duty to humanity, which needs them.

In principle, each nation represents a value of humanity, and, given that its identity is unrepeatable (singular in the absolute sense), the demolition of this identity, of the national totality, is a crime against humanity, and not only against the respective nation. In relation to what we have just said, international law, whatever its form, and the liquidation of a historical national identity constitute genocide, recognized as a crime under international law.

Meanwhile, unfortunately, genocide, despite this position of the international community, which—incidentally—functions as an interstate community because a number of nations lack their own nation-state, is a practice that disregards interstate politics, especially where the oppression and extermination of smaller nations occurs within multinational states. It therefore remains an undeniable fact that a nation lacking its own state also lacks adequate protection for its existence and development. The state, along with its other functions, is the means for the development and security of national existence and its historical identity.

Translated by F. N.

News and commentary

A series of teacher dismissals and convictions. National discrimination

"L'Esprit," of Paris, in its April 1973 issue, on pages 944-946, published the following commentary regarding the current situation in communist Yugoslavia: "Mihajlo Djuric, professor of law (University of Belgrade. Translator's note), was sentenced in Belgrade by the Supreme Court of Serbia to nine months' imprisonment for 'propaganda hostile to the unity of Yugoslavia' and 'for Serbian nationalism.'

The case dates back more than a year and a half, when Djuric expressed, during an academic discussion, his disagreement with the decentralization that the constitutional amendments were to enshrine. While his ideas, it would seem, can be summarized in the alternative: either centralism with Serbian preponderance or secession of Serbia, Djuric's aims amount to only a political opinion, and his crime, consequently, is a crime of opinion.

"The conviction of Professor Djuric—although unique of its kind so far in Serbia—is causing great concern in Belgrade, all the more so because nine more Serbian university professors are in danger of losing their positions due to their political opinions. Many of them may now regret their own approval of the oppression carried out in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina a year and a half ago."

II.

"In Zagreb, indeed, a new list of 26 more professors, whose opinions do not align with the new (partisan) leadership, will be added to a series of convictions of university professors already dismissed. "Normalization" continues, and four convictions for extremely serious crimes of opinion have been handed down: Marko Veselica and Sime Djodan, both young professors of Political Economy, as well as José Ivicevic-Bakulic, historian and university professor, and Vlado Gotovac, poet and philosopher, were sentenced to 7, 6, 5, and 4 years in prison, respectively, and to 4 years of public inactivity after the expiration of their sentences." The six-year sentence imposed on one of them, Mr. Djodan, is tantamount to a death sentence: this former resistance fighter, the most popular professor at the University of Zagreb, suffers from a serious lung injury, nervous hypertension, kidney damage, and a fractured leg—physical problems that arose after his imprisonment…

“Another trial in Zagreb is unknown in France: a professor from Lyon of Croatian origin, Mr. Mirko Vidovic, is appearing in court again. Already sentenced to four years in prison for publishing a book of poetry (“hostile to the unity of Yugoslavia”), this French citizen is now accused of allegedly participating in discussions among Croatian intellectuals exiled in Switzerland. Married to a French woman and the father of five children, Vidovic risks a considerable worsening of his situation. (According to the latest information we have, the four-year sentence was increased to six. Translator’s note.) It is strange to learn that the The French consul in Zagreb did not pay him a single visit during the 19 months since his arrest. It is equally strange that the French public and intellectuals know nothing of his fate.

III.

"After the Zagreb coup of December 1971, 'normalization' and 'the new takeover' of the reins have been underway in the Republic of Serbia since last October. Invoking, among other things, collaboration with Belgrade's big capital (banks and foreign trade companies), the old marshal demanded the resignation of the Serbian (party) leadership. 'Liberalism,' 'nationalism,' and obstruction of self-management were the main points of the accusation. Although he found himself in the minority during the tumultuous discussions with the Serbian leaders, the octogenarian Tito emerged victorious thanks to the support of the army and the police. The dismissals were followed by resignations and the purging of Serbian party teams, which continues to this day. Although there have been no judicial or police reprisals so far, Serbian opinion is very confused.

"The same sentiment prevails in the other republics: in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, political processes are underway; In Slovenia and Macedonia, dismissals and resignations are exacerbating general discontent. Economic difficulties are only intensifying political frustration. At the same time, the government has decided to significantly restrict political freedoms: freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, etc., while the right to a defense is being severely limited.

Deprivation of liberty has been increased from 24 hours to 3 days, and police powers in cases of "political crimes" are much broader than they were before 1966, the year in which the police chief, A. Rankovic, was dismissed. The population's response to all these measures appears to be one of passive resistance, awaiting the demise of the old marshal."

IV.

"It is interesting to note that it was Tito himself who had appointed the young teams of (partisan) leaders and who is now dismissing them in several republics. After having used them in the struggle with a sector of "old guard," Tito is now distancing himself from them because he does not want to continue the course of liberalization and decentralization inaugurated in 1966 and strongly emphasized in Croatia in the years 1970-1971." Isolated from the national parties and having lost, forever, the support of the Croatian people, the old marshal now finds himself abandoned also by the Serbs, who consider themselves "betrayed" by him. One of his most prominent lieutenants, the commander of the "First Proletarian Brigade" (during the last world war), later successively Minister of Defense and member of the Politburo, Mr. K. Popovic, denied him his support during the aforementioned meeting last October, shouting at him: "You are a dictator!" "You are a Nero!" "I no longer want to collaborate with you!"

"Now a very dangerous group is offering him collaboration: those who had and still have sympathies for the Soviets believe that the old marshal's current shift "to the right" opens the green light to their ambitions.

"Soviet economic aid (540 million dollars as initial relief), military contacts with those of the 'fraternal parties' and 'the socialist world,' Soviet films, which are replacing those from the West, and an ever-increasing number of Soviet tourists (and 'tourists')—all this encourages the enthusiasts of 'socialist bloc unity' who are waiting for their moment of revenge." "At the same time, the Croatian, Albanian, Macedonian, and other national issues remain at a standstill. In this area, Tito's attitude has always been logical: without national dissension, his role as arbiter would be meaningless, and that is why he never wanted radical and definitive solutions. The attitude of Western foreign ministries therefore seems even stranger to us: they desire the stability of Yugoslavia, considering it a 'cordon sanitaire,' but they do not hesitate to applaud the harshness and repression that dangerously exacerbate the conflict between the nations of Yugoslavia and risk jeopardizing peace in Europe, and especially in the Mediterranean basin.

"This is partly why the old marshal, the last 'of the Habsburgs,' abandoned by his own people and relying solely on the reactionary forces of the army and police, is spending his last days seeking applause from outside his overly centralist 'monarchy.'" Having received the Order of Lenin from Brezhnev, he now presents, with Moscow's support and in competition with Nixon, his candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize... After him, the deluge." (Translation F.N.)

J. M.

Marshal Tito fears the Federation will implode

Historical Traditions and Economic Differences

Bernard Feron

Le Monde Diplomatique, Paris, March 1973, published the following commentary on Yugoslav problems under the title cited above, which we partially reproduce here: "In the twilight of his life, Marshal Tito seems obsessed by a kind of panic. Most of his speeches for the past two years have been a warning to his compatriots against the dangers that, according to him, threaten Yugoslavia and its socialist regime.

In 1971, when a new constitutional reform was being prepared, he denounced the external enemies who were preparing to tear the country apart, worrying about the indifference of his citizens to such a danger. At the end of that same year, he declared war on the Croatian leaders, whom he considered too complacent with nationalism. Moreover, last September, he decided to reestablish discipline in the Party.

The new purge targeted the liberals, the technocrats, the Anarchists, the petty bourgeoisie, and, naturally, the nationalists. What was understood as democratic centralism, progressively abandoned after the break with Stalin, was rehabilitated. The League of Communists (the Party), which had been content with an advisory role, must, according to the president, reconstitute itself as the leading force, impose its policies across the country, and control the teams. The League had practically split into six parties in six republics, sometimes opposed to one another. Its members are now called upon to form a single bloc once again.

This setback can undoubtedly be explained by the marshal's own personality: isn't the aging marshal returning to the conceptions that marked his youth? In Croatia and Serbia, notably, he confronted, in recent months, much younger men who sought to govern amidst dissent.

These are no longer the times, they themselves say, when it was enough to give orders to be obeyed. Democracy tolerates and even encourages dissent. Discussions don't cause crises; they merely reveal their existence and help resolve them more effectively. One must know how to waste time to avoid tragedies. Marshal Tito did not, or no longer, hold this view. For him, authority was diluted by polemics. Consequently, it was necessary to put an end to "rotten liberalism," which paralyzed the state and aged the Party.

"The tension is all the more acute because, despite all efforts, Yugoslavia has always had serious problems in harmoniously arranging relations between its nationalities. So far, the federal government has not been able to significantly reduce the gap between the industrialized north and the underdeveloped south. Thus, within the same state, there exists Slovenia, whose annual per capita income is $1,200, and Kosovo, with only $300. This issue occupies a prominent place in the disputes." Industrialized republics are willing to cede some of their revenues to less fortunate neighbors, but consider it necessary to retain a significant portion of their own production for the modernization of their industrial infrastructure; in any case, they deny the central government the right to seize their wealth and control its distribution. The former Croatian leaders were deposed because, supported by the population, they demanded complete autonomy in this sector.

"But why do such differences exist between the regions? And why is the very existence of Yugoslavia sometimes called into question? The central authority is obsessed with separatism, which, nevertheless, remains undisclosed. No Slovene or Croat of any standing dreams of the creation of their own independent state, which would very soon fall prey to numerous ambitions. The South Slavs know they are 'condemned' to live together; unfortunately, history has taught them not to, but quite the opposite. For fifty-five years, these peoples, who for centuries had been separated and subjected to very different influences by their occupiers, have been united."

After giving a brief summary of the history of each of the peoples of Yugoslavia—not always without serious errors, it should be noted—Feron continues: “The national problem in Yugoslavia would be less explosive if each of the republics, such as Slovenia, constituted a homogeneous group. But this is not the case. In Croatia, for example, there are some 600,000 Serbs (14% of its population). To better clarify his exposition of the national problem, the author should have stated another truth: this 14% Serbian percentage maintains absolute power in Croatia; the police, for example, in the Croatian capital Zagreb, are made up of 60% Serbs and only 40% Croats; the army troops and their commander in Zagreb and in Croatia in general are Serbs; positions of decisive importance in the Party, in the state administration, or in the economy are occupied by Serbs in a way that is disproportionate and intolerable to Croats.” (Editor's Note), while in Serbia there are 200,000 Croats. (Here too, Mr. Feron should have informed his readers that none of these 200,000 Croats hold any position of importance, either in party teams or in the state. -See page ... of this issue of Studia Croatica. Editor's Note).

The most important republic in the Federation (Serbia), for its part, has problems with 700,000 inhabitants of Albanian origin and 450,000 Hungarians. (The reality, here too, is different: according to official statistics from 1961, there were 915,000 Albanians, while this minority, according to the official census of 1971, reached 1,310,000 inhabitants, and the Hungarians, 508,000.

Furthermore, the existence of 600,000 Roma (Gypsies) in Serbia, whom the official census lists as Serbs (Editor's Note). The authorities have granted status to the regions they occupy: Kosovo to the Albanians and Vojvodina to the Hungarians. However, irredentist demands and tendencies have not disappeared, especially in Kosovo. Until the fall of A. Rankovic, the former head of the police, representatives of the Serbian population exercised a policy of hegemony there.

"The situation in Kosovo is very significant. The central authorities are having the greatest difficulty in eradicating 'Serbian chauvinism.'" The Federation, by the way, constitutes the ideal solution." (The author forgets that the Yugoslav federalist ideal and its reality are no different than those of Soviet Russia: there's a long way to go between saying and doing! The Federation and centralism are in Serbian hands. That's why it's "difficult to eradicate 'Serbian chauvinism'" not only in Kosovo but throughout the country. Editor's note.) The government is trying to wage a decisive struggle (sic) against the real or perceived dangers of separatism and pan-Servianism (those who don't implement it would hardly fight against it. Editor's note.). The principles of its policy are simple, but their application raises countless difficulties, because Serbia was the essential factor in Yugoslav unification and because many Serbs believe in their historical mission." (Mr. Feron is evidently attempting to mask an unjust policy of conquest and domination over others with euphemisms—a sense of historical mission—driven by Serbian national grandiose grandiosity. Without acknowledging this truth, the author and his well-intentioned readers will understand little of that reality, which is certainly complex, intricate, and extremely dangerous for world peace. (Editor's Note)

(Translated by F. N.)

No hay nadie que piense ayudarnos

The Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung of March 9th referred to the book *The Croatian Latinists*, by Gortan-Vratovic (see *Studia Croatica* Nos. 44-45, pp. 97-98), under the title "Unsuccessful Calls to Europe" and the subtitle "Jan Pannonius and the Age of the Croatian Latinists." The article's author is Joachim Braner. Jan Pannonius (whose real Croatian name was Ivan Cesmicki) died at the age of 38 in 1472 as one of the great poets of the Renaissance. A contemporary of Pope Pius II (Silvio Piccolomini), with whom he corresponded, and of Cosimo de' Medici, the latter wrote of Cesmicki: "I have not seen such a wise and ingenious young man anywhere else in the mountains." He is especially known as a poet of numerous elegies and epigrams (around 400). He studied in Italy, returned to Croatia where he became a bishop, then an advisor to King Matthias Corvinus (Hungarian-Croatian king).

Sensing the looming Ottoman threat to his homeland, Croatia, Cezmicki appealed to the Western world for aid for Croatia and Christendom. In one of his elegies, he puts these words in the mouth of King Matthias: "There is no one under heaven who intends to help me in my cause. France is asleep, Spain is unconcerned about Christians, England is suffering from a rebellion of nobles. Neighboring Germany is wasting time on senseless chatter."

Having participated in a sedition of nobles against the king's autocracy, Cezmicki had to flee from Hungary to Croatia, where he died five hundred years ago near the Croatian capital, Zagreb. Inspired by this article and by the similar tragic situation of her Croatian people, Ms. Ivona Doncevic wrote a letter to the same German newspaper, which published it in its edition of the 26th of the same month, and which we reproduce below in the Spanish version: "It is to Mr. Joachim Braner's credit that he drew the attention of German public opinion to 'the continued participation of the small Croatian people in the spiritual history of Europe.' But what is Western Europe doing now for the Croatians?

They constitute the largest number of guest workers. Incidentally, under surveillance by agents of the Yugoslav secret police, they should either earn foreign currency for their state or, failing that, prepare to take the arduous path of emigration across the sea. Almost a third of the Croatian people live outside their homeland. Croatian students, expelled from the University or student residences, are working in West Germany as construction workers so that they may, perhaps someday, resume their studies." “Ivan Cezmicki (Jan Pannonius) could still direct his cry for help to Europe today, while his spiritual successors of our century—the elite of poets and writers—are filling Yugoslav prisons.”

(For our part, thanking Ms. Doncevic for her stance, we recommend that Tito’s promoters also send this letter to the Norwegian Academy. It will “strengthen” the grounds for the proposal to award the Yugoslav communist dictator the Nobel Peace Prize!)

(F. N.)

Nobel Prize winner Heinrich Böll supports Croatian writers

In the German journal Dokumente (May 1973), Heinrich Böll, winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Literature, published a forceful protest against the persecution and imprisonment of intellectuals, regardless of whether it occurred in the East or the West. A similar protest was also published in The New York Times (November 18, 1973), under the title "Reclaiming the Right to Intervene," citing, among other examples: "In Croatia, Vlado Gotovac and Zlatko Tomicic, among others, were convicted... We writers intervened in the terrifying process that Yugoslavia was undergoing, where once again they were looking for scapegoats, where they were trying to bury hope."

The French against Tito's tyranny in Croatia

Le Monde del 27 de diciembre de 1972 ha publicado la siguiente noticia:

An appeal on behalf of the victims in the Croatian and Bosnian-Herzegovina trials was addressed to President Tito and signed by Messrs. Loleh Bellon, Jean-Marie Domenach, Serge Friedmann, Daniel Guérin, Jacques Madaule, Gilles Martinet, Claude Mauriac, Maurice Nadaud, Herri Queffelec, Jean Rousselot, Claude Roy, and Pierre Vidal-Naquet.

Without intending to interfere in the affairs of Yugoslavia, the signatories asked Tito to "put an end to this repression, which weakens the reputation of Yugoslav socialism"—"mettre fin à cette repression, qui ternit la reputacion du socialismo yugoslave," as stated verbatim in the note.

As fateful as it may be, the voice of these renowned public figures and intellectuals fell "vox clamentis in deserto" (a cry in the wilderness). Tito continues his ruthless policy of repression and democratic centralism that will bring Yugoslavia and our homeland Croatia under the absolute power of the communist Kremlin.

-

Ivo Andric, Nobel Prize in Literature laureate: Octogenarian

Ivo Andric, it seems, will definitively enter the history of Serbian literature. Despite this fact, he is of Croatian origin. Thus, a son of Croatia, distinguished with the highest international award for a writer, became the glory of Serbia, the oppressive country of his Croatian people. On the occasion of his 80th birthday in 1972 in Belgrade, Nova Hrvatska (New Croatia), London, in issue 10/72, wrote:

"Mr. Ivo Andric's eightieth birthday was celebrated in Belgrade with extraordinary solemnity. Andric appeared in 1914 as a poet in a collective book entitled: The Young Croatian Lyric Poetry. During the existence of monarchical Yugoslavia, he was a diplomatic employee. In 1935, Jean Dayret (an excellent French connoisseur of Croatian literature. Editor's note.) published the book Contemporary Croatian Prose. Andric requested the translation of his short stories for this book. During the last world war, he lived in retirement in Belgrade and wrote his most important works. In 1944, through one of his old friends—the poet Gustav Krklec—his request, addressed to the Croatian public education authorities, for a guaranteed position in Croatia, reached Zagreb. The people who received this request live Still.

After 1945, Andric identified himself as a Serbian writer. This sparked numerous controversies surrounding his (national) origins. As one result of these controversies, two photocopies were published: one of his birth certificate and the other of his university record book, both found at the University of Krakow (Poland). In both documents, Andric is listed as Croatian. The respective photocopies were published a few years ago in the Zagreb (Croatian) newspaper, The Telegram.

(The facts we are communicating to the world are highly significant, both for the writer's personality and for the Serbian "cultural" mentality. - Editorial Staff of Studia Croatica).

Is Yugoslavia in recession?

Tovy Krjebine

The French newspaper "Combat" published the following article on March 20th, which we reproduce in Spanish:

"Yugoslavia is currently experiencing a recessionary crisis without any reduction in inflation. One can question the usefulness of the austerity plan devised to counteract this situation. Is there any other economic policy in sight?

"One in four Yugoslav workers has emigrated and is currently working in the capitalist countries surrounding Yugoslavia. Only remittances from these emigrants allow the country to balance its trade and even accumulate reserves." "This reserve constitutes almost one-twelfth of the country's money supply. The weakness of the money supply in circulation is remedied by substantial borrowing at all levels. Thus, in 1971, the last year for which statistics are available, consumer debt alone represented almost half of the money supply.

"The exodus of Yugoslav workers abroad is not only justified by the higher wages offered to them overseas, but also by real unemployment in the country. Thus, according to 'Politika' of January 3, 1973, 300,000 people, out of an active population of 4.18 million workers, are registered on the list of those seeking employment, that is, 7.2% of the unemployed. But not all those seeking employment are on this official list, which means that the real unemployment rate is even higher." "But far from causing prices to fall, the Yugoslav recession is accompanied by a parallel price increase of 9% annually.

"How can this phenomenon be explained?

"The austerity plan recently proposed by the Yugoslav Prime Minister takes into account, first and foremost, the existing deficit within the industrial sector, especially in the service sector: banks, insurance companies, etc. However, self-management is employed throughout Yugoslav companies; each company has its own independent accounting and, accordingly, should have a balanced budget because they are intended to operate in a market economy.

"To understand this second anomaly, it is necessary to examine more closely how self-management functions in Yugoslav companies." "Each company is, of course, an independent entity, but there are significant interactions between its management and the management of the municipality in the region where the company is headquartered. Loss-making companies—and almost all of them are—are saved from bankruptcy by the intervention of local authorities who use public funds to approve loans to the struggling firm and keep it afloat. This creates a system of permanent corporate indebtedness, with a good number surviving thanks to the loans they receive.

"To this phenomenon must be added the system of wage setting by the councils of the self-managed companies. This system pushes for rapid wage increases, somewhat like the powerful unions in the US, which force wage increases, often dramatic, that are not in line with the economy's capacity.

"To remedy this de facto situation, the Prime Minister has proposed an austerity plan that requires companies to repay the loans they have received within six months."

"This is certainly a radical measure to oppose the rapid rise in wages. But a large number of companies are at risk of bankruptcy... It is difficult to explain how a government that can only guarantee employment for three out of every four workers in its territory, and is also facing an unemployment rate of almost 10%, can afford to further increase this unemployment...

"Furthermore, this austerity plan demands that companies reduce wages by 10%. While this measure will allow Yugoslav companies to decrease their payroll, it will primarily result in a 10% decrease in their revenue, because demand will also decrease." "To the extent that each company must face a certain number of incomprehensible charges, the resulting losses will far outweigh the benefits gained from wage reductions. This measure risks having the opposite effect of what was intended.

"By ignoring Keynes and the example of economic policies adopted in the West after World War II, Yugoslavia is exposing itself to the danger of a severe recessionary crisis, without thereby preventing the rapid rise in prices.

"It is clear that the main problem in Yugoslavia lies in unemployment.

"There is potential demand in the country, precisely in sectors where small businesses could meet it. For example, currently 20% of residential land is unpaved, not to mention drainage, running water in apartments, etc. Modernizing housing could, therefore, constitute a significant potential demand." However, Yugoslav legislation only permits the formation of artisanal enterprises with up to five workers, operating under the control of their "founder." These enterprises can also be organized as private or cooperative businesses, provided they are self-managed. The education (qualifications) of Yugoslav workers is, in fact, sufficient to technically organize their enterprises. If such enterprises are not formed, it is essentially because there is not yet sufficient demand for their products.

"The rise in prices could be combated with measures aimed at freezing prices."

"The Yugoslav difficulty becomes exceptional insofar as it is experiencing a recessionary crisis, which was expected in vain in capitalist countries, now unfolding in a socialist country." "It will be necessary for the Yugoslav leaders to no longer be content with simply documenting Western technological discoveries, but also to learn economic know-how. The problems that have taken root in Western capitalist countries appear to be decidedly more universal than previously thought."

(Translated by: F.N.)

"Rheinischer Merkur" and the Nobel Peace Prize for Tito

In the March 23rd edition of the "Reinischer Merkur," a commentary was published on Marshal Tito's nomination for the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize, proposed by the head of the Soviet Communist Party, Leonid Brezhnev.

In the form of a series of glosses, and under the title "Brezhnev's Nobel Peace Prize," the writer cleverly ridicules this ill-advised proposal, as well as Tito's subsequent awarding of the Order of Lenin.

"This solemn act attempts to seal the rotten red peace between Moscow and Belgrade, 25 years after the break between Tito and Stalin, in which Tito was anathematized like Judas.

"In reality, Tito's merits for peace consisted of the liquidation of the individualism so hated by the Kremlin, a liquidation conveniently anesthetized by a loan of two billion rubles.

This much-vaunted Yugoslav individualism has undergone such a thorough purge and revision in recent months, through deliberalization and party purges, that in the event of Tito's death, Brezhnev would be spared a fall on Belgrade, as he fell on Prague in 1968.

"It was precisely in Prague that Tito had appeared, a week before the Russian invasion, attempting to fortify Dubcek's position against Brezhnev.

"Now, as a prophylactic against invasions, he has declared the Prague issue settled.

"The euphoria of détente—which he does not share—has left him no other alternative.

"For all these reasons, Tito would actually be deserving of the 'Universal Peace Prize' of the Reds, which Stalin invented and awarded himself on December 21, 1949, after his break with Belgrade and after the blockade of Berlin."

"The editor concludes by noting that "should Tito's Nobel Prize nomination be successful, the next candidate would be Leonid Brezhnev himself." (R.M., March 23, 1973).

After reading the article in the German newspaper, Ms. Ivona Doncevic sent a letter to its editorial staff, which was published on April 13 in the same paper. Considering it a valuable complement to the "Reinischer Merkur" commentary, we reproduce it below:

"In your otherwise excellent piece, 'Brezhnev's Nobel Prize' (in issue 12), you should have also mentioned the internal political situation in Yugoslavia.

Why, above all, can a dictator who rules a multinational state built on blood and terror solely through violence be a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize?"

"When the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the German Carl von Ossietzky in 1935, it honored the fighter and martyr for peace in freedom, and that was consistent with Nobel's true intentions.

"If today, as then, the Nobel Prize Committee were to proceed with the same criteria, it would have to choose a candidate from Tito's dungeons.

"There would be no shortage of options: Croatian poets, writers, scientists, and students fill Yugoslav prisons, simply for striving for peace in freedom and self-determination for their people."

Major political scandal in Australia

Three Australian-Croatian citizens were executed and one sentenced to 20 years in prison without the Yugoslav government informing the Australian government. The three convicted and executed Croatian-Australians are: Djuro Horvat, born in 1942; Vejsil Keskic, born in 1939 (a Muslim); and Mirko Vlasnovic, born in 1932. The fourth is Ludvig Pavlovic, born in 1951. The Chicago-based Croatian newspaper Danica, with its reports on the conviction and execution of these Australian-Croatian citizens, sparked a major controversy in the Australian Parliament, the press, radio, and television. Tito's Prime Minister, Biedic, during a visit to Australia, brought a "blacklist" of Croatian "terrorists" whom the Australian government was supposed to "silence."

The accusations are false. The vilified Croatians are launching a counteroffensive. Australian Justice Minister Murphy should resign for employing Stalinist policing methods against his own loyal population. Calls are also being made for the severing of Australian-Yugoslav diplomatic relations and the expulsion of Belgrade agents who initiated, organized, and often carried out the attacks they attempted to blame on Croatian immigrants.

Below, we reproduce in Spanish two articles from the Australian press from which our readers can glean the essence of the scandal that Belgrade orchestrated both for itself and for a government that turned out to be its unwitting victim:

When were they actually killed?

The Australian magazine, News-Weekly, in its May 9, 1973 edition, published an article entitled: "When did they really die?" The author of the article is B. A. Santamaria. We reproduce the text in its entirety, as it clarifies the case that strained Australian-Yugoslav relations and caused a crisis in the Labor government in Canberra. The text of the aforementioned article continues:

"We Australians are a strange people. Three naturalized Australian citizens were executed by a foreign government, the Yugoslav government. Before the court—yes, there was one—the victims were not legally represented.

The Australian ambassador knew nothing of its existence. Therefore, he could not protect their interests. The Australian government knew nothing of the evidence—false or true—against the accused.

The Yugoslav government had supplied three different dates as the dates of their 'elimination.'

Yugoslavia, therefore, informed not the Prime Minister, but the Attorney General about their execution.

Senator Murphy informed neither the Prime Minister nor the Australian people.

If the Yugoslav government had not had to publicly defend itself for failing to inform the Australian government, what Senator Murphy knew would never have come to light.

Comparing the sequences of this event, the original Watergate affair is a fun game between cowboys and Indians.

Now the The American president dismisses his best aides and appeals to the Almighty to restore confidence in the American Constitution.

The Australian Prime Minister is more resilient.

No one was "ousted," nor did anyone resign. The Prime Minister comfortably concluded that it was a misunderstanding.

That is why it is important to examine the context of this case. The context of the internal situation in Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia is a federation of six states, among which Serbia and Croatia are by far the largest. The vast majority of Croats, rightly or wrongly, always desired their own independent state.

During 1971, even the Croatian Communist Party, Tito's creation, made demands for greater autonomy. As a result, the Central Committee of the Croatian Party was dissolved in December 1971. The purge is now extending to the Serbian party as well.

In the crisis of the regime, Tito tried to implicate those he intended to destroy. with the Ustaše forces abroad, in order to brand them as traitors. In reality, he implicated them in his domestic dispute.

The Yugoslav diplomatic service abroad—where the secret police, known as the UDBA, was well represented—was in a position to orchestrate the international campaign against the so-called Croatian terrorists, as we have seen in Germany, Austria, the United States, and Australia.

In July of last year, Yugoslav security forces claimed to have discovered and destroyed a guerrilla group that had entered Yugoslavia on June 26. Three of the naturalized Australian citizens were allegedly part of this group.

On July 28, official Yugoslav authorities reported that the last of the terrorists had been killed the day before. According to this report, all of them, including the aforementioned Australian citizens, had been killed on July 27 of last year.

Eight months later—in March of this year (1973)—the Yugoslav Prime Minister visited Australia. A climate of terror was created regarding members of the Croatian community, who were supposedly planning to kill Bijedic and then—curiously—Mr. Whitlam himself.

No one was killed. No one was arrested. Mr. Bijedic arrived and returned unmolested. But three weeks later, on April 13, the Foreign Office was informed that the three Australians had not been killed in the July operations, but had been captured, convicted, and executed. Mr. Barnard gave the execution date as December, presumably based on the information received.

Mr. Whitlam sent a formal note of protest to Yugoslavia.

The information given to him on April 13 may have surprised Mr. Whitlam. This could not have surprised Senator Murphy. For it turns out that four days earlier, on April 9, he had been privately informed of the executions by the Yugoslav embassy.

The following day—April 10—an Australian cabinet meeting was held in which the Croatian matter was thoroughly discussed in order to formulate a motion for the Royal Commission, essentially directed against Senator Murphy.

We are asked to believe that Senator Murphy was present throughout the session without informing his Prime Minister. Suddenly, another date was given for that massacre (not July, the first date), not December (the second), but March of this year.

Now the possibility arises that none of those dates are correct. News sources from Yugoslavia, as published in the prestigious Croatian weekly in Chicago, Danica (Morning Star), say that the date on which the Australian citizens were executed was April 10, Croatia's national holiday (naturally as a warning to the Croats).

An urgent verification of this assertion is necessary, whether this fourth date is correct, and whether Senator Murphy was provided with the information the day before the execution. This should drastically change the nature of the question that can be posed to Senator Murphy.

As a result of the events of these last few months—the racist attack against the Croatian minority, the dismantling of ASIO (Security Service), the execution of three Australian citizens—all Eastern European communities in Australia live in fear. Well, immigrants know what native Australians can hardly understand—that the embassies and consulates of communist Eastern Europe are known to collaborate with the secret police in their activities. Retaliation against immigrants, through actions that harm their families in Eastern Europe, is not uncommon.

The last thing a genuine Australian government should do in this situation is break off diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia and expel both the diplomats and the agents of its secret police from the country. Only this could dispel the fears of immigrant communities, convincing them that Australian naturalization deserves to be considered on its own merits.

Accordingly, all that should be done is to suggest that the Australian government itself do so on its own initiative.

(Trans. F. N.)

A report that will astound the nation

("The Observer", Australia)

In fact, the ASIO (Australian Security Service) view, regarding terrorist attacks in Australia, is that most of them are the work of maniacs or agents of the Yugoslav secret police, who are trying to provoke a hysterical Australian reaction against Croatian nationalists.

The ASIO document, received by The Observer, concludes that it is not possible that Croatian nationalist organizations "as entities, are directly involved with such violence in Australia, and that a more likely explanation lies in the activities of individuals or small groups, acting independently and without logistical support from any organization."

Senator Murphy, in his speech before the Senate, made unfounded accusations of violence and intimidation against Croatian nationalist organizations in Australia.

He gave the impression that his view was shared by the ASIO. The ASIO report we possess states:

"In conclusion, and for all these reasons, it is difficult to doubt that most of the violent incidents in Australia, similar to those that occurred previously, if indeed they were caused by Croatian nationalists, should therefore be the result of the activity of isolated individuals or very small groups.

"Certainly, the incidents themselves were of the type that do not require logistical support from an organization, but rather a bit of ingenuity on the part of an individual to obtain explosives or construct a simple detonating mechanism."

The report goes on to highlight the fact that the attacks worldwide were directed against both Croatian nationalists and Yugoslav government property.

This means that the UDBA or agents of the Yugoslav Secret Police could be involved.

It is considered noteworthy that in so many bomb attacks in Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra against Yugoslav consulates, there were never any deaths or injuries among the staff. neither Yugoslav government officials nor their families.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that these terrorist attacks were long "prefabricated" and staged within Yugoslav consulates, with the intention of pressuring public opinion against Croatian nationalists for planning activities against the Yugoslav government in Europe.

ASIO's thesis that the Yugoslav Secret Police infiltrated the very organizations of the Croatian nationalists is presented in the report that ASIO submitted to The Observer. ASIO believes that the Yugoslav Secret Police (UDBA) infiltrated this group of the Croatian Revolutionary Brotherhood (HRB) in Australia, providing the Yugoslav police with an informant.

Highly clandestine

The ASIO report states:

"The HRB* was a highly clandestine and well-indoctrinated organization that used code names and other covert procedures to maintain Absolute secrecy.

(*) "Hrvatsko Revolucionarno Bratstvo" (The Croatian Revolutionary Brotherhood)

"Indeed, the swift repression by the Yugoslav authorities, once the group crossed the border into Yugoslavia, convinced many that, despite all precautions, those involved in the incursion had been betrayed."

" The ASIO report refers to a "fascist conspiracy theory" that leftists like Senator Murphy have been quietly cultivating for many years in relation to Croatian nationalists:

"The danger to (Croats in Australia) stems largely from the fact that elements of the Yugoslav community, operating within certain Australian political organizations or in their more receptive sectors, and through university student publications or other radical channels, appear intent on promoting a fascist conspiracy theory, in which the wartime Ustasha organization is assigned the role of the dominant force within the Croatian nationalist movement in Australia."

The ASIO report continues:

"This thesis is reinforced by unfounded claims and allegations concerning the activities and purposes of numerous Croatian organizations and individuals in Australia, along with sordid stories—usually of anonymous origin—regarding supposed plots and conspiracies by Croats against Yugoslavs in Australia and elsewhere.

Division

"The purpose seems to be to accentuate the division within the Yugoslav community in Australia, exacerbating existing racial resentments and spreading fear, distrust, and suspicion within the community regarding all matters concerning the activities of Croats." "Finally, under this guise of planned publicity, specific Croatian nationalist figures or organizations—by being labeled as pro-fascist terrorists—risk being isolated and separated from Australian society, with all the consequences such a situation would entail in terms of civil liberties."

In a direct attack against anti-Croatian elements entrenched in the Department of Immigration, the ASIO report continues: "In this respect, the very fact that Srecka Rover—Australian leader of the Croatian Liberation Movement (HOP)—has been deprived of his Australian passport for unstated reasons indicates that this aforementioned planned publicity is bearing fruit."

" This ASIO report, which so thoroughly undermines the Government's protests about Croatian violence in Australia, is on the agenda for discussion at the Senate floor meeting next week.

(This article was reprinted in its original English in Croatian Voice, Canada, April 25, 1973).

Translated by: M. B.

Those who speak on behalf of subjugated Croatia

Por Guillermo Martínez Márquez, corresponsal de "la Prensa"

New York, 12. - "We speak on behalf of Croatia, because Croatia is not free and cannot speak," warn Croatians scattered throughout the world, and especially in the Americas, from Canada to Argentina.

"During a brief stay in this city on a business trip, industrialist Juan Rojnica—born in Croatia and an Argentine citizen for a quarter of a century—had the opportunity to meet with some friends from his homeland, among them Professor Dusko I. Duisin, a political science professor at Iona College in New Rochelle.

"Professor Duisin—a resident of the United States for 23 years—presides over the Croatian Academy of America, an institution dedicated entirely to disseminating Croatian history, science, and culture in North America and Canada.

"Rojnica is vice president of the Croatian-Latin American Institute of Culture, which is based in Buenos Aires." Identical Aims

"Although there is no direct, official relationship between the Academy and the Institute, broadly speaking, they share identical aims: they offer lectures, organize seminars, open art exhibitions, publish books... They are the voice of the Croatian nation abroad."

"The Academy of Croats in the United States and Canada was founded in 1953; last April it celebrated its twentieth anniversary. It has around 250 members, most of them professors or students." Duisin has presided over it since 1971.

"Although the Academy has no political affiliations, its independent judgment has irritated the rulers of Belgrade. For example, when it published a study by Professor Sime Djodan on 'the evolution of the economic system of Yugoslavia and the economic position of Croatia,' the official reaction was swift. Dr. Djodan was accused of nationalist divisionism and expelled from the League of Communists of Croatia, and from the Communist Party shortly thereafter.

"The fall of the liberal leaders of Croatian communism in December 1971, and the barbaric reaction of the Belgrade government, led to Djodan's imprisonment, accused of alleged 'counter-revolutionary activities.'" "Government officials warned that Djodan's study—which was nothing more than a Marxist analysis of the injustices of Marxism in the Croatian economy—should be considered the strongest attack on Tito's regime in recent years. The study and the arrest of its author caused a tremendous impact in universities and cultural circles across Europe. Its distribution was widespread, and it is now found in thousands of libraries, including those in Moscow and Leningrad. All of this increased the prestige of the Croatian Academy of America, which received thousands of letters of support.

"We are not attacking Tito," Duisin clarifies, "nor even socialism... What we are attacking is the lack of freedom. And we defend human rights and national self-determination."

“We are very pleased and appreciate the work carried out by the Croatian Latin American Institute of Argentina, and especially its work in the journal Studia Croatica. Although there is no official relationship between us, we support their cultural efforts and know that they are cooperating with our Academy.

We hope that in the future there will be more intellectual cooperation between our institutions, because we are both trying to achieve the same objectives: presenting Croatian reality and culture to the world.”

“Croatia cannot speak”

For his part, Juan Rojnica repeats: “We speak on behalf of Croatia, because Croatia is not free and cannot speak.”

“In the modern world, Croats do not have the opportunity to express themselves freely from their homeland, because they are subjugated by Belgrade’s domination,” Duisin adds.

And Rojnica concludes: “Now we appeal to the opinion of the free world to demand the freedom of those who were imprisoned in Zagreb for defending freedom of expression in Croatia.” (This article was published in La Prensa, Buenos Aires, on June 13, 1973).

"Four months in paradise"

By Zeljko Ducmelic

(LH Editions)

"Croatia, mired in internal political chaos, suffers amidst the crisis brought on by the Second World War, a series of conflicts exacerbated by the imposition of Tito's Yugoslav communism. The action of this novel unfolds during the confusing period from May to September 1945. The author, the protagonist of a virtual odyssey that revolved almost constantly around death, recounts everything objectively and with clear, straightforward language, filling even the most agonizing corners of the drama. He does, however, pepper the narrative with touches of humor, achieving a narrative balance that draws the reader in and carries them to the very last line with engaging and confident strokes. It is interesting to note that, despite the many hardships suffered by the author, his work is free of resentment and hatred; on the contrary, his expressions possess a genuine Christian sensibility, which It stems from a profound faith (220 pages). ("La Nación," Buenos Aires, January 21, 1973)

Documents

Letter addressed to the Nobel Institute by the Croatian Latin American Institute of Culture

The Croatian Latin American Institute of Culture, Buenos Aires, has addressed the following letter to the President of the Nobel Institute, from which we transcribe the partially abridged text:

Mr. Dr. August Show, Director of the Nobel Institute, 19 Dramenevin - Oslo

Buenos Aires, May 2, 1973.

"Dear Sir:

"Several initiatives and concrete proposals to award the Nobel Peace Prize to the President of Communist Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito, have already been submitted to the Institute under your esteemed presidency.

"However absurd such initiatives may seem, they do not surprise us; we consider them rather an almost normal phenomenon of our time, so rich in contradictions, ideological disorientation, and confusion of values. Indeed, to bestow the world's highest peace award upon a man who, without exaggeration, must be considered one of the greatest causes of death, pain, tears, and discrimination of all kinds, would be in perfect contradiction with the noble intention of the founder of that Institute.

"The Peace Prize, according to the Institute's Regulations, should be awarded to the person or institution that has most distinguished itself in the work of bringing peoples closer together and fostering fraternity, reducing armaments, and promoting contacts and conferences aimed at ensuring world peace." "Analyzing Tito's attitude and actions in light of these lofty goals, we find their complete incongruity with the intentions of the Nobel Prize founder.

"Leaving aside the communist revolutionary activity during the last world war, when Tito became one of the main culprits of the phenomenon Churchill described as 'immense human misery,' the current president of communist Yugoslavia intensified his totalitarian regime in recent years to such an extent that he annihilated even the very foundations of mutual understanding and reciprocal brotherhood among the peoples of Yugoslavia, making it, according to the most expert observers of that country's situation, the most critical point for world peace.

Indeed, since December 1, 1971, when Tito carried out a kind of silent coup and inaugurated the reestablishment of 'democratic centralism,' synonymous with the dictatorship of the proletariat in its worst Stalinist form, dozens of newspapers have been suppressed; Journalists were silenced, imprisoned, or convicted.

Many other leading intellectuals were victims of arbitrary trials, orchestrated on Tito's orders. He instructed judges not to cling to the law "like drunks to a wall," with the Party's will being the sole deciding factor. These judges condemned dozens of intellectuals to long prison sentences and subsequent disqualification from public life for several years. Thousands of students were arrested, convicted, or expelled from the university. Legal guarantees against police arbitrariness were repealed, and the rules of criminal procedure were modified—a process known as reformatio in peius. National deputies—an unprecedented practice in parliamentary law—were removed from the central parliament of this pseudo-democracy at Tito's sole totalitarian whim, while decisive power and authority were transferred to the police and the army.

"This general overview of the measures recently taken by Tito's regime would be incomplete if we did not also point out its obvious national discrimination, ensuring Serbian hegemony to the detriment of other nationalities, and primarily the Croats. These measures of terror, due to their number and severity, were applied especially in Croatia, further widening the existing chasm between the subjugated Croatian people and the Serbs who arrogate to themselves the right of domination.

Consequently, if working for fraternity and peace among peoples is a prerequisite for an international award, this effort and work must be applied above all in the area of our direct activity and responsibility. From this perspective, Tito deserves condemnation rather than an international award.

"Regarding his policy of 'neutrality,' we must point out that it has two aspects, both negative in relation to the award that some seek to bestow upon him." "Internally, Yugoslavia's neutrality was meant to guarantee Tito absolute power with very clear connotations of Serbian hegemony. The legitimate aspirations for freedom and equality of Macedonians, Albanians, Croats, Hungarians, and a considerable portion of Slovenes, within the "neutrality" of Yugoslavia, were left at the mercy of the Party, the political instrument of Serbian hegemony in the country. The sole objective of neutrality was to delimit a space and guarantee an illegitimate power the possibility of implementing a totalitarian, absolutist, neo-feudal policy characterized by grave national discrimination. The police, the army, and the Communist Party constituted the framework of Tito's power, so contrary to what we know as freedom, democracy, the right to self-determination, and social peace. Tito, therefore, was not a genuine neutralist or pacifist motivated by the love of peace. Quite the opposite!

"This is the first aspect of the problem." "On the international stage, peace conferences with 'neutral' countries serve as pure communist propaganda directed against the free world, especially the United States...

"The increasingly prominent reports concerning Tito's leniency and concessions to the Soviet army in the Adriatic, the well-known threats made by his Minister of War to the West, and the growing economic cooperation with COMECON, which will soon draw Yugoslavia into the Warsaw Pact, constitute further evidence against Tito's supposed neutrality and his desire for international peace.

His astute support for one of the parties in the conflict, precisely the one that constantly endangers the free world, is thus rewarded by the Soviets' proposal to award Tito the Nobel Peace Prize, which they themselves recently received." We are faced with a great question: How and why do the Soviets, who repeatedly forbade their own citizens, distinguished Nobel laureates, from receiving their prizes, now propose Tito for this very award? Pasternak and Solzhenitsyn* defend the most fundamental moral values of humanity in its millennia-long ascent toward a more just and free community for all the peoples of the earth.

And Tito? He is violating and suppressing the most basic and sacred human rights: the right to have an opinion and to freely express it. For this reason, his special target is Croatian writers and intellectuals who dared to disagree with Tito's totalitarian methods and advocated for greater liberalization of the regime and a reorganization of that community to implement the right to national self-determination.

His cruelty against these voices of freedom was relentless. Let's look at some examples of these recent victims of Tito who are now enjoying "prison peace" by order and will of the Nobel Peace Prize nominee: Mirko Vidovic, born in 1940, a poet, French citizen, and father of five young children, was sentenced in 1971 to four years in prison.

After 19 months, he was brought before the court again, and his sentence was increased from four to six years. Zlatko Tomicic, a poet, was sentenced in August 1972 to 4 years, and in April 1973 his sentence was increased to 6 years; Vlado Gotovac, a poet and philosopher, was sentenced to 4 years; Marko Veselica, a university professor, economist, and national deputy, to 7 years; Sime Djodan, a writer, university professor, and economist, to 6 years; Bruno Busic, a journalist, to 2 and a half years; José Ivicevic, a university professor and publicist, to 4 years; Hrvoje Sosic, a writer and economist, to 2 years; and the writers A. Sekulic, B. Babic, J. Loncarevic, and Vlatko Pavletic were sentenced to 2 to 5 years, respectively. Their crime is the "crime of opinion."

"To discriminate, therefore, between nations, powers, and blocs, giving credit and support to some and denying it to others, is neither a neutral stance nor does it serve the cause of world peace. Such an attitude promotes the cause of communist powers, which tend toward world hegemony.

"This is the second aspect of the problem that concerns us. Is it worthwhile to examine all this from a higher perspective?

"Indeed, Mr. Director, Jacques Maritain, who recently passed away, lamented the division of the world today into two groups of Machiavellians: the absolute ones (communist politicians and powers) and the moderate ones (politicians and powers of the free world). Drawing a logical conclusion from this fact, he said: 'Faced with absolute Machiavellianism, democratic states... will either continue to employ a weak Machiavellianism, exposing themselves to destruction from without, or rather will opt for an absolute Machiavellianism, possible only on the condition of submitting to totalitarian rule and spirit, and thus will self-destruct from within.'" They will not survive and will not win except on the condition of breaking with Machiavellianism of all kinds.”

“Continuing this line of thought, we can add: if the proposals and the eventual awarding of the Nobel Prize to Tito are inspired by any Machiavellian motive—to incite the dictator’s “neutralist” ambitions and thus prevent his definitive shift to the communist bloc—this policy will fail completely. It is being adopted in favor of an absolute Machiavellian. Tito’s dictatorial and hegemonic policy has led Yugoslavia to the brink of the abyss, when we can only say, terrified by its darkness, “après lui, le déluge…” as “L’Esprit” aptly put it in its April issue of this year.

"The Nobel Institute should not be guided by these biased and speculative motives. The will of its Founder is clear: to reward those who most promote the common cause of humanity. To award Tito would mean ignoring his case or deliberately misrepresenting it for reasons of a condemnable Machiavellian politics."

The Machiavellian triumph in our time can only bring the destruction of Western civilization. To the humiliating aggression of totalitarianism, we must oppose political justice, which is nothing other than the right of peoples to self-determination and the self-decision of all people, each and every one. Awarding the Nobel Prize to Tito, one of the most ruthless Machiavellians of our time, would give new impetus to the forces of destruction that are already corroding the free world, while simultaneously undermining the Nobel Prize's purpose for all peoples who love freedom and peace.

Once this period of confusion of ideas and values has passed, when we award prizes to those who raise the banner of freedom and peace from the watchtowers of their concentration camps (A. Camus), what will future generations say, those who will judge us according to the most complete information and with their most impartial spirit? "Therefore, on behalf of the members of our Institute and the journal 'Studia Croatica,' which it sponsors, we hereby express our strongest repudiation and protest against any attempt to award the Peace Prize to Tito, the greatest oppressor of the Croatian people in their thousand-year history...

"Believing that we are thus fulfilling our duty to shed some light on the paths we walk together, we hope that the voices of Tito's sponsors will be ignored and take this opportunity to greet you, Mr. Director, and the members of the Institute's Board of Directors with our highest regards."

For the Institute:

Dr. M. Rakovac, Secretary

Dr. F. Nevistic, President

A Croatian message to free men of goodwill

Jozo (Joseph) Ivicevic, former secretary of Matica Hrvatska (Croatian Cultural Center) and former director of Hrvatski Tjednik (Croatian Weekly), is one of the most outstanding figures of the current Croatian intellectual generation. (See page 46 of this volume of S. C.) We reproduce here in Spanish his final statement before the court that sentenced him to 5 years in prison for "nationalism," "chauvinism," and "counter-revolution." The words of this innocent victim of Tito's totalitarian regime can be considered a true message of profound philosophical, political, and cultural significance, matured in the painful Croatian experience and addressed to all those who have not lost their sense of freedom and human dignity.

This message, expressed in wise and penetrating concepts, reveals to us the magnitude of the human deviation that characterizes communist totalitarian regimes and the illusory faith of those who believe in their expected redemocratization and humanization. Here is the text of Mr. Ivicevic:

"I thank Dr. Ivo Glovacki, my defender, who subjected the prosecution's claims and the results of the evidentiary proceedings to a thorough re-examination. Now, it remains for me to present my own point of view regarding our social events, which motivated my activity as a publicist and my participation in the editorial staff of Hrvatski Tjednik (suppressed by Tito in December 1971. See Studia Croatica, Nos. 44-45, p. 73).

"There was a period—we all remember it—when in the socialist world there was almost no room for questions and events: in that finished world, as if there had been room only for mere repetitions." "The first issue was Yugoslavia in 1948. Then came the moment that, behind the still facade of what seemed finished, illuminated the unprecedented drama: God—this was established at the 22nd Congress of the Soviet Party—was the Devil.

"The vow of loyalty, the 'cult of personality,' arose from a living belief that the collective spirit was embodied in a single person; that, through the consciousness and will of this person, the self-awareness and the very will of collective existence were manifested." "In the 'cult of personality' and in what stemmed from it, a social being would be reborn, the integral man, a being of a higher order: a complete, metapersonal being, encompassing all things.

"From misery or discrimination, from relativism and the dissolution of the religious consciousness of man condemned to death in modern history, all this was, once again, the thirst for the absolute: through the rejection of the individual and the fusion with the general, life was invoked as that realm of identities, in which man would merge with the social totality and be guaranteed by it: with its power, its meaning, its value, and its enduring existence.

"The attempt at a dogmatic consciousness consisted of a series of identifications. First, in the identification of the individual and society. Then, in the identification of the national and the universal: to the 'projection' of man in general corresponds the projection of socialism 'in general'; unique, identical, and for all."

"Finally, this attempt was based on the identification of society with the State; the social being, inherently generic and impersonal, is personified in the political organization; the process of personification stops at the apex of the political pyramid and ends there.

"As the final result of these identifications, universal socialism manifested itself as a substitution, also universal, for a model and center of national socialism and, precisely for that reason, as its own and as a nationalism, changing its garb." "The symmetrical identification of the individual with society, and then of society with the State, revealed itself as the omnipotence of society over the individual and, finally, as the omnipotence of the State over society; the absolute government of the totality ended in the absolutism of personal power; the vision of a new and integral man ended in Stalinism.

"In the course of history, generic space as the space of the totalization of man appeared as a fleeting image, as an abyss between the idea and the work, thus renewing in dogmatic consciousness the drama of religious consciousness, an unhappy consciousness, the drama of transcendence: this was the experience of the irreducibility of the world, of its infinite and irreducible diversity, and, at the very core of the world, an experience of the individual and irreplaceable person; that upheaval of the world that escapes all kinds of generalization. Indeed, this was the experience of our condemnation to freedom." "For a dogmatic consciousness, all differentiation is suspect; striving to see man as a purely generic being, the dogmatic consciousness demands total identity and non-differentiation in all particularities, whether in the unity of aesthetic judgment, for example, or in the way one dresses.

"The yearning for renewal, springing up from all sides in the crisis of the dogmatic consciousness, pointed toward a socialism with 'the human face,' with the likeness not of man 'in general'—merely a shadow stripped of the world and of history hovering in the realms of a new transcendence—but with the likeness of living man, real man; it wanted, instead of a totalitarian and undifferentiated identity, a community without the tragic and vain sacrifice of the individual; "A community in freedom and autonomy, both personal and national."

"In my writings and my participation in the editorial staff of Hrvatski Tjednik (Croatian Weekly), I was inspired by this alternative, which also includes a critical judgment regarding everything.

"Was the right word found on each occasion, well measured? It would be strange if so. But this would constitute another matter that has nothing to do, in essence, with what interests us here.

"Now let's pay attention to the indictment! I don't simply understand it. For me, it's a Kafkaesque experience. Like that of 'The Trial' or 'The Metamorphosis.'

"The charges are identified with an awareness of the anguish of the absurd world, where there is no more certainty or security for anyone.

"It was my conviction that there is no substitute for the course of the redemocratization of our society; any other solution would be our common misfortune. This conviction of mine is now ratified by the indictment." Furthermore, I would like to add:

"In the absurd world of the accusation, I was cast in the role of the accused. I don't complain, nor do I envy the accusers.

"As for the final word, I prefer to remain silent. Judging by its vocabulary and conclusions, it is truly a legal, ethical-political, and cultural scandal. It would be pointless to discuss it."

(Translated by F.N. from Nova Hrvatska, London, No. 3/73, p. 5)

When the accused accuses his accusers...

Excerpts from the self-defense speech of the young Croatian journalist Bruno Busic

Bruno Busic, a talented Croatian journalist and publicist, was sentenced in 1972 by Tito's regime to two years in prison for "enemy propaganda." Point by point, Busic has refuted the accusation. From his own defense, we reproduce some excerpts, very characteristic of the "justice" of Tito's regime: "... The matter is perfectly clear. According to the article published in "Politika" (the Serbian newspaper of Belgrade) on March 20, 1969, which I have criticized, the president of the Electoral Commission of the Vojvodina Region (an autonomous region within the Republic of Serbia - Editor's Note), Mr. Jozef Stolzer, declared that all the peoples stipulated for the Federal Chamber were represented on the list of candidates, all peoples except the Romanians, whose number in that region reaches about 57,000. However, analyzing the data reproduced in the aforementioned "Politika" article, it is easy to verify that not a single Croat appears on that list of candidates, even though in Vojvodina, according to the official census of 1961, there are more than 145,000 Croats. It was therefore necessary and justified to ask the question about this matter to both the Chairman of the Commission and the newspaper "Politika." Both were obligated to answer and publicly clarify the issue to our entire socialist community, all the more so because, according to the Constitution of the federal and socialist Yugoslavia, all peoples of the community have the right to proportional representation in both representative and administrative bodies.

"It is evident from the text of my article that I never identified the Chairman of the aforementioned Electoral Commission or the correspondent for "Politika" with the Serbian people or with the official bodies of Serbia or Vojvodina. Unfortunately, according to the prosecution, this identification was taken as fact." "I want to clarify that 'Politika' never reacted against my article, but the newspaper's editorial staff did not hesitate to give the headline 'First Nationalist, Then Spy' to the piece by their correspondent in Zagreb—signed by D. B., behind which, plausibly, hides Dusan Basara (a Serbian, editorial note)—in which he reports that proceedings are underway against me. 'Politika Express' was even more explicit, publishing the same news item with the headline: 'A Spy for Currency.' I suppose this was 'Politika's' editorial response to my article entitled: 'A Special Electoral Aroma in Vojvodina,' and to others in which I attacked the excesses in the writings of 'Politika.' Without considering the motives that may have inspired the editors of 'Politika' and the aforementioned headlines, with which I am proclaimed guilty in advance, I point out that with this, the contributors and the editorial staff of 'Politika' are harmed." First and foremost, they themselves, because even the lowest-rated newspapers are careful to ensure their headlines and articles don't declare someone guilty before the court's decision.

"The Vojvodina Regional Committee did not overlook this disproportionate number of candidates for the Federal Assembly. The list was subjected to very severe criticism, but since it came too late, nothing could be changed."

To the accusation that Busic had falsely accused federal authorities of the economic plundering of Croatia, the accused replied: "Dr. Ivo Vinski (a renowned economic specialist -Editor's Note) has prepared a study, unique of its kind in the entire world. Indeed, he prepared a comprehensive picture from 1947 to 1951 of production and consumption in the Republic of Croatia, encompassing domestic consumption and proportional expenditures for federal expenses (army, diplomacy, etc.). After comparing total production and consumption in Croatia, he was able to verify that there were years in which the economic drain from Croatia to other republics exceeded 8% of its national income..."

"I would add," Busic continued, "that many countries do not allocate more than 8% of their national income as investments in their own development. As I said before, this is a singular work not only in our country, but in the entire world. There is not a single piece of evidence that could indicate that the drain of surplus value would run..." From the eastern regions (Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro) to the western regions (Croatia, Slovenia, etc. Editor's Note). Consequently, my journalistic piece was neither fabricated, nor malicious, nor intended to be hostile.

"I simply wanted to draw attention to the desire to accelerate the development of less developed republics through centralized draining from more developed republics, which constitutes a grave political and economic error... Excessive aid from some weakens and stifles the creative forces of those receiving it." This is how the serious problem of "political factories" originated. (A term specific to that environment, where each republic and nation sought to secure for itself everything that others possessed, without any consideration for the essential factors: raw materials, technical and administrative personnel, etc. Editor's Note). Regarding the incriminating article by Busic entitled "Some Strange Concerns and Lack of Concern," Busic himself explained: "As is evident, in that same article I took a critical stance regarding a comment in 'Politika' concerning the population census in Kosovo.

It is well known that the Committee of the Communist League of Kosovo expressed its concerns on several occasions about what 'Politika,' 'NIN,' and other publications of the 'Politika' publishing house were saying about the Kosovo population census. The writing style of these journalistic outlets reached such a level and scope that even the Committee of the Communist League in the city of Belgrade had to protest very strongly." The comrades at the editorial board of "Politika" reached an agreement with the Belgrade City Committee and published the Committee's criticisms in their publications.

"All the facts I listed in my articles are true. According to the scientific research of the well-known Serbian scientist Ruza Petrovic, the 1961 census showed that Croats in Vojvodina had a higher birth rate not only than Serbs but also than all other nationalities there. However, and in accordance with "Borba" (another Serbian newspaper. Editor's note) of June 10, 1971, there were 7,730 fewer Croats in 1971 than in 1961."

According to the final results of the 1971 census, as reported by "NIN" on May 2, 1972, there are 6,780 fewer Croats than in 1961. Taking into account the expected Croatian population growth in Vojvodina and their actual numbers, it turns out that the number of Croats there is 17% lower than expected. During the same period, the number of other nationalities whose birth rate was lower than that of the Croats increased in both absolute and relative terms.

In the intervening ten years, the number of Serbs increased by 71,419, and the number of Montenegrins by 5,827, a very high figure considering that there are only 36,416 Montenegrins in the country. Therefore, this decrease in the Croatian population demands an urgent response. I would appreciate it if everyone could clarify other reasons for the phenomenon, other than the exaggerated exodus or denationalization. The reasons for each case must be examined...

"In the first months after the Brioni plenary session of 1966 (when Rankovic, the all-powerful head of the Serbian secret police, was dismissed), and later as well, much was written that, thanks to Rankovic's attitude, the national structure of the police force did not correspond to the national structure of the population, with particular emphasis on the cases of Kosovo, Western Herzegovina (a region where the population is 100% Croatian), and the Republic of Croatia.

In Kosovo, where there were almost no Albanians in the police force, today they constitute 78%, according to the newspaper "Rilindje." There was some progress also in Western Herzegovina and Croatia. But public opinion was greatly surprised to learn of the data collected by the Medvescak Regional Committee (a district of Zagreb). According to them, in the security service..." In Zagreb, the number of Croats does not reach 40%.

"Pointing out that without changing the structure of state and party bodies in accordance with the population size of each nation, the normalization of the country cannot be achieved," Busic told the judges: "According to point 3 of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia: 'Nations and nationalities have the right to proportional representation in representative bodies or other bodies that function in the exercise of power.'

"Unfortunately, I must add that I, for having drawn attention to the presence of chauvinistic-imperialist currents, ended up in jail on December 12, 1971, and now, after long and painful months, I am sitting in the dock..." Thus, point by point, Busic refuted the accusation, proving the truth of his statements for which he was accused and sentenced to two years in prison. In referring to chauvinistic-imperialist currents in the last paragraph of this article, Busic alluded to a Serbian book that, as early as 1912, was characterized by Serbs themselves as chauvinistic because it appropriated Croatian literature from Dubrovnik as Serbian. This same book, whose author was Pavle Popovic, a Serb, was nevertheless designated as an official textbook at the University of Belgrade in 1971.

Thus we have further proof of Tito's "merit" to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts toward understanding and fraternity among nations, an indispensable element for this lofty goal.

(Translated by F. N. from Nova Hrvatska, London)

The International League for Human Rights protested against the persecutions unleashed in Croatia by Tito's regime

The Croatian weekly Danica, published in Chicago, USA, in its issues 9, 10, and 11 of 1973, released the English text of the aforementioned League's Note, addressed in December 1972 to the Tito government. Danica's correspondent in New York reports that the Note was sent to the Yugoslav Ministry of Foreign Affairs, its ambassador to the United Nations, the rectors of the universities of Belgrade, Zagreb, and Sarajevo, and was also distributed to various UN agencies, international news agencies, and newspaper editorial offices. The League was founded in 1942 and operates as an independent body, separate from all governments, but affiliated with the UN and the Council of Europe. The following is the Spanish translation of the text:

For some time now, the news coming from Yugoslavia has been unsettling. That country, which seemed to be moving towards relative economic and political liberalization, has in the last year returned to a strict communist role and old police methods.

Last year, around this same time, students at the University of Zagreb went on strike, demanding that the Republic of Croatia be allowed to retain a larger percentage of foreign currency inflows. (These inflows are paid to the Federal Treasury, which then distributes them according to its priorities.) The strike, which was peaceful—not a single window was broken or damaged, nor was a single police officer attacked—had only one distinctly Croatian character. It all ended peacefully, and the Croatian communist leadership did not condemn the strikers, who were not dispersed.

Nevertheless, this strike led Tito and other communist federal officials to condemn the Croatian communist leaders and demand their resignation. This resignation had to be submitted en masse and "voluntarily" by Party members at all levels of the Croatian government and Party, as well as in Croatian cultural and social organizations. Subsequently, mass investigations and arrests ensued. In total, more than 16,000 people were arrested and interrogated in Croatia by police or judicial authorities this year.

More than 2,000 people employed in the media were dismissed, and thousands of teachers, professors, and civil servants followed suit. Hundreds were arrested, and many of them were recently brought to trial. All these people are accused, or were accused, of wanting to secede from Yugoslavia, supposedly, but no evidence could be offered to support this.

The only accusation for which they were able to offer evidence was contact with scientists and writers—an accusation similar to that currently leveled against Russian dissidents and members of the Center for Human Rights in Russia (New York Times, December 11, 1972)—and the fact that some had read books and magazines from abroad, which were authorized to enter Yugoslavia freely a year ago. They were thus accused of reading books and magazines from abroad, an activity that was permitted, and even encouraged, because it brought hard currency into the country.

Three months ago, Zagreb was the center of hundreds of trials. Foreign correspondents were not allowed into the courts and had to rely on local reports. All the accused, even those reported in these accounts, stood firm, courageously and resolutely, and defended their right to think, speak, and write within the constitutional framework. We have included a list of the names and professional titles of those convicted*. This list only includes the most well-known figures; the names of lesser-known individuals have not been included.

(*) We omit this list, as the names of those persecuted mentioned in the Note were cited several times in S.C. (Editor's Note.)

On a similar, but much smaller scale, the same thing is happening in Belgrade, Serbia. Some professors from the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Belgrade were dismissed, others have prepared their passports, and the philosophical journal "Praxis" was banned. The professors were dismissed from the Faculty for having published articles in scientific journals that were "incompatible" with the Party's policies and ideology.

They were declared "unfit for teaching." The Belgrade magazine "Filosofija" was banned and suppressed because it published, among other things, articles by the well-known Serbian writer Dobrisa Cosic, in which he defended some of the condemned individuals, such as Professor Mihajlo Djuric, accused of being a "Greater Serbian chauvinist," that is, an extreme nationalist, and who was sentenced on July 17, 1972, to two years' imprisonment (later reduced to nine months). V. Mijanovic, known as "Vlado the Revolution," was also sentenced to two years for criticizing the regime.

Three writers (two Hungarians and one Serb) were convicted for publishing articles in the Hungarian newspaper Uj Symposin (New Symposium), published in Novi Sad as the organ of the Hungarian national minority. The first two were Sandor Rasza, sentenced to three years, and Otto Talnai, to six months. The Serbian Miroslav Mandic was sentenced to one year.

D. Cosic was dismissed from his position as president of the publishing house Srpska Knjizevna Zadruga (an institution similar to Matica Hrvatska in Croatia).

Evidence

To better understand the events mentioned above, it is helpful to know some key facts.

Students: In 1970, the students of the University of Zagreb—imitating a similar attitude among students in Western Europe and other countries—began agitating, demanding greater participation in university affairs. After lengthy discussions, they agreed to elect a student vice-rector to address student issues and serve as a liaison between the administration, students, and faculties. Initially, the elections were free, with two candidates: one appointed by the Communist Party, and the other by the students themselves - the latter was Ivan Cícak, a self-described Christian communist, who was elected by an overwhelming majority and who demonstrated great control over the students and a special ability to organize mass rallies.

Economy: Despite being the most industrialized of the six republics, Croatia's economic situation was steadily deteriorating. Croatia contributed the highest percentage of hard currency to the Soviet Union thanks to its industry and tourism, but received only a small percentage from the Federal Bank of Belgrade, forcing thousands of its young people, unable to find work in their homeland, to emigrate.

Now there are more than 500,000 young Croatians in the Western world—most in Germany, and the rest in Canada, the United States, and Australia. This constitutes a terrible loss for the country and a kind of genocide against the lives of its population. Professor Djodan, an eminent economist at the University of Zagreb, who had prepared a plan calling for greater autonomy for Croatia and attempting to end emigration by implementing public works projects—a road from Zagreb to the Adriatic Sea—to be financed largely with loans from emigrants in Germany, was subsequently removed from his professorship. (Now, ill, he is in the prison hospital, sentenced to six years in prison. Translator's note.)

Politics and Culture: At the same time, as the economic situation deteriorated, a more moderate political and cultural climate prevailed in the country. Considerable efforts were made to keep half a million workers abroad in contact with their homeland and to ensure they continued sending their hard-earned remittances of hard currency. Popular singers were authorized to travel from Zagreb to perform at gatherings of these new emigrants in Germany, Canada, and the United States.

The century-old Croatian publishing house Matica Hrvatska (there is a similar one in Belgrade, Matica Srpska, and one in Ljubljana, Matica Slovenska) was authorized to establish agencies abroad and sell its books and magazines there, mostly Croatian classics. Illustrated newspapers and magazines were efficiently prepared for these emigrants around the world. Scientists and students were granted permission to travel abroad to study or participate in conferences, school competitions, and fraternization events; scholarships were even awarded.

It was natural that these workers also made contact with some of the intellectuals from the previous wave of emigration, now well-established in universities or other institutions in Canada, America, or Australia. They read magazines, newspapers, and books published abroad and requested permission to publish certain cultural and literary journals legally permitted in that country.

One of the institutions most affected by the purges is Matica Hrvatska, which saw a complete overhaul of its staff. A grammar book published by this publishing house a year ago was destroyed solely because it was titled Croatian Grammar... In light of all this, Milovan Djilas, in an article published in Europe but not in his own country, entitled "In a Croatian Prison" (Corriere della Sera, Milan, November 1972), says, among other things: "Twenty-seven years after the victory over fascism and capitalism, veterans of the revolutionary struggles are being persecuted, as well as young people who are just beginning to bear the fruit of their artistic talent. And all this simply because they dared to think differently, had the courage to say it aloud, and tried to put their ideas into practice."

Nevertheless, the 16,000 former Party members, writers, primary school teachers, secondary and university professors, some priests—all Croatians—were arrested, investigated, arrested again, and recently released only to be arrested once more.

(Trans. F. N.)

Micro-news

General Perón's Exile Ends

After the elections of March 11th, overwhelmingly won by Peronism, and after the Peronist candidate Dr. Héctor J. Cámpora assumed the presidency on May 25th, General Perón, former President of Argentina, officially and definitively returned to his homeland, the Argentine Republic, on June 20th, after 18 years of political exile. His return coincided with a very uncertain period for the Argentine people, who had prepared a triumphant reception for him, unprecedented in world history.

Due to circumstances beyond the control of the vast majority of Argentinians, this reception could not culminate in a direct physical encounter between Perón and the people, as an armed minority, through unrest, prevented the plane carrying Perón and his entourage from reaching the designated location, where a crowd estimated at around three million people had gathered. That is why General Perón delivered a speech on the national radio and television network on the 21st, addressing the entire country. Indeed, the events at Ezeiza—the airport where he was scheduled to arrive—inspired Perón's speech, a man of extraordinary oratory skills. Here we reproduce some paragraphs from that speech, which once again underscores the great figure of the statesman that General Perón undoubtedly is:

"I arrive almost disembodied; nothing can disturb my spirit because I return without resentment or passions other than that which has animated my entire life: to serve the nation loyally. I only ask Argentinians to have faith in the Peronist government, because that will be the starting point for the long march we are beginning...

"We have a revolution to carry out, but for it to be valid, it must be one of peaceful reconstruction and without costing the life of a single Argentinian. We are not in a position to continue destroying in the face of a destiny fraught with threats and dangers." It is necessary to return to what was once the maxim of our creation: from home to work and from work to home...

"Every Argentine, regardless of their beliefs or feelings, has the inalienable right to live peacefully and in security. The government has the unavoidable obligation to guarantee it. Whoever alters this principle of coexistence, from either side, will be the common enemy we must fight relentlessly, because it cannot be achieved through the anarchy that weakness provokes or the struggle unleashed by intolerance...

"I know perfectly well what is happening in the country. Those who believe otherwise are mistaken. We are living through the consequences of a post-civil war that, although developing covertly, has nonetheless ceased to exist, compounded by the perverse intentions of hidden forces that work tirelessly from the shadows, pursuing designs that are no less real for being unconfessed." "We Peronists must return to the leadership of our movement, set it in motion, and neutralize those who seek to distort it from below or from above. We are Justicialists; we raise a banner as distant from either of the dominant imperialisms as from any other. I don't believe there is an Argentinian who doesn't know what that means. There are no new labels that qualify our doctrine or our ideology... It is not by shouting 'Life for Perón' that one builds a nation, but by upholding the creed for which we fight. We old Peronists know this. Nor do many young people who raise revolutionary banners ignore it. Those who make excuses for the unconfessable, even if they cover their false designs with deceptive cries or engage in senseless fights, cannot deceive anyone...

"To the veiled, covert, or disguised enemies, I advise them to cease their attempts, because when the people exhaust their patience, they usually unleash a thunderous reckoning." "God help us if we are capable of helping God. Opportunity often passes very quietly. Woe to those who lack the sensitivity or imagination not to perceive it..."

***

-

His Eminence Cardinal Franjo Seper, former Metropolitan of Croatia, after serving five years as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was confirmed in his high office for another five years. On February 26, 1973, in an audience granted to Croatian pilgrims in the Eternal City, Pope Paul VI, extending Cardinal Seper's term, praised our most eminent compatriot, who, the Holy Father said, reminds him, through his presence and actions, of the Croatian people and their fidelity to the Church of Christ.

Congratulating His Eminence Seper, who, from his high position at the heart of Catholicism, also defends his Croatian people, we express our deep gratitude to Pope Paul VI for recognizing the dignitary's merits and acknowledging the gravity of the situation in which the people and believers of Croatia currently live.

Jacques Maritain died in April of this year at the age of 91. Born into a small Protestant community in France, Maritain embraced Catholicism and died in retirement in a Catholic monastery, where he lived for more than ten years, after the death of his wife Raissa, of Jewish origin, who, along with him, also embraced Catholicism. Maritain is one of the greatest philosophers of our century. Despite his philosophical work, his profound religiosity, and his occupation as an educator, Maritain was an unwavering political supporter of General de Gaulle during the Second World War.

During that period, some of his works were published in the USA, hoping, with the hope worthy of a great spirit, that the postwar world would eradicate Machiavellianism from politics and would be inspired by the evangelical principles of love, justice, and fraternity among peoples. His influence on the current politics of the Catholic Church is undeniable.

Pope Paul VI, his personal friend and admirer of his philosophical ideas—based on St. Thomas Aquinas and aligned with the socialist personalism of Chardin and of our time in general—had planned to name him a lay cardinal of the Church. Providence called him before this plan could be fulfilled. Among his numerous works, it is worth highlighting *Humanisme integral*, the essays: *Religion et Culture*; *Du Régime temporel et la liberté*; *Science et Sagesse*, etc.

At the age of 91, Pablo Picasso also died in April of this year. His universally recognized artistic talent was multifaceted. Moreover, it was inspired by the philosophical and political ideas of this century. The disorder, confusion, and perversion of all values—the most characteristic feature of the 20th century—found their appropriate expression in his paintings.

Many, thinking superficially, do not understand the work of the great painter, even though it reflects, in the best possible way, our own spiritual image. Disproportions, lack of harmony, misplacement of sensory organs, etc.; his human figures characterize the disorganization of our own lives in the intellectual, moral, religious, and social spheres in general.

They say that Picasso was a Marxist, but he lived and died in the "capitalist" world. His socialist sentiments of justice did not match his artistic talent. He let one of his direct descendants be driven away by rabid dogs when he came to him seeking help, unemployed and without means of support. But his pride was almost equal to his artistic talent: "My mother," the painter recounts, "used to say, 'If you become a priest, you'll be Pope; if you join the army, you'll be a general; but I dedicated myself to painting, and I am Picasso.'" Evidently, a self-appreciation lacking modesty, which generally does not characterize great minds.

Be that as it may, Humanity was impoverished by the loss of these three nonagenarians. Maritain, Picasso, and Kelsen will be indelibly etched in the best pages of universal culture.

-

In April 1973, the World Congress of the Croatian Peasant Party in exile was held in London. Some 80 delegates from all continents, under the presidency of Dr. Juraj Krnjevic, drafted a Memorandum addressed to the Preparatory Commission of the Conference on Security and Cooperation meeting in Helsinki. Two delegates of the Party—José Paukovic and Mehmed Basic, one Catholic and one Muslim—delivered this Memorandum, which protested, first and foremost, against the presence of the Yugoslav delegation on said Commission.

Yugoslavia was neither created nor ratified by the free will of the Croatian people. The State of Yugoslavia is an artificial state that dominates many of its peoples with "brutal force," proposing that representatives of these peoples be summoned to testify about what is happening in their country and to propose a solution in accordance with the principle of self-determination of peoples. It is worth noting here that the Croatian Peasant Party, founded by Esteban Radic and his brother Antonio, remained loyal to the Western democracies during the last world war. Its current president, Dr. Krnjevic, lived in London and Washington. At the end of the war, he was unable to return to his homeland due to the brutal imposition of Tito's dictatorship and a new policy of Great Serbian hegemony.

Together with party organizations and new members who arrived in exile, Dr. Krnjevic carries out party activity in exile, fighting for the independence and sovereignty of Croatia. His immediate predecessor as party president, Dr. V. Macek, died in Washington ten years ago. Because of their firm opposition to Serbian hegemony and communism, the Belgrade authorities accuse both of them, as well as their supporters, of being "fascists" and reactionaries. For Belgrade, all Croats—and they are the vast majority—who reject Yugoslavia as a community incompatible with democracy are "fascists," a label that many misinformed people sometimes accept as truth.

The Croatian composer and conductor Ivo Degrel (recently director of the Croatian choir "Jadran") has received further recognition as a composer. At the concert on February 25th (at the San Martín Theater), the National Radio Youth Chamber Orchestra, under the direction of Washington Castro, performed his work Prelude and Fugue for Strings. The concert was broadcast by National Radio, and the program also included works by Haydn, Mozart, and Schubert.

"L'Europe en Formation," Paris, June 1972, features a lecture by Professor B. Franulic, a Croatian living in exile, on the Croatian literary language. Referring to the Yugoslav state crisis, which culminated in 1972, Guy Hiraud, author of the article, says that Franulic, with his "extraordinarily focused" work, contributes substantially to clarifying the difference between the Croatian and Serbian languages, which, to the uninitiated, may seem almost identical. Given the fundamental nature of the linguistic difference, Croats and Serbs are two distinct peoples from this perspective as well. If these peoples are to live in a political community, it must eliminate "Serbian imperialism" and become an "effective federation," according to Mr. Hiraud.

-

"Los Andes," Mendoza, December 17, 1972, reproduces two stanzas of Martín Fierro in Spanish and their Croatian version by Pedro Tutavac. It then publishes an article that the Croatian author dedicates to José Hernández on the occasion of the centenary of his death (1872).

Furthermore, Tutavac highlights a profound parallel with Croatian folk poetry. "Gaucho and pampa are two terms that in Croatian find the approximate translation of 'tezak' and 'zemlja' (the peasant and the land)." The life and work of J. Hernández are spiritually intertwined with the gaucho and his pampa... However, Martín Fierro can very well be described as universal." Hence its translation into so many foreign languages and Tutavac's fundamental reason for translating it into Croatian. Tutavac's very poor eyesight will leave his work unfinished, which is regrettable.

- Ljeposlav Perinic, the collector of international dolls, has been exhibiting his collection, which is described as a "message of international peace and understanding," for several months now at various cultural events organized in the USA. "La Prensa" of Buenos Aires, upon Perinic's departure for the United States, dedicated a warm tribute to him, while the management of Argentine Airlines gave him a considerable discount on travel expenses, recognizing the work of our compatriot in a truly international cultural mission.

- Mr. Les Show, Australia, has published the book: Trial by Slander: background to the Independent State of Croatia and an account of the Anti-Croatian campaign in Australia. In this book, which all Croats in the world should buy and give to a foreign friend, he exposes the communist and Great Serbian propaganda against Croats, both in the occupied homeland and in exile, giving irrefutable reasons to justify the Croatian struggle for the right to self-determination in their independent nation-state.

Book and magazine reviews

Ante Ciliga: La crisi di stato della Jugoslavia di Tito.

Il vero dilemma: spartizione "fifty - fifty" o confederazione con Djilas e Savka Dapcevic. Edizioni Odep- Roma, 1972, 542 pág.

When, in July 1966, Tito, feeling threatened by the Vice President of the Republic and head of the Secret Police, A. Rankovic, decided to remove him, Yugoslavia once again occupied the front pages of newspapers worldwide. This perennial "star" of international politics, as an Italian newspaper called Yugoslavia, did not disappoint onlookers, for the event in question was not only quite spectacular in its details, but also provided an opportunity to uncover the deep internal contradictions of this state. As the fearsome head of the Secret Police disappeared from the political scene, the terror and fear slowly faded as well, so that the demands for the restoration of suppressed rights and against the exploitation of the economically strong republics by the central government in Belgrade became increasingly forceful and led to greater foreign interest in this ailing nation on the Drina River. With the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Russian troops in August 1968 and the subsequent threat to Yugoslavia, this interest increased considerably.

Among the many books written about Yugoslavia, Dr. Ante Ciliga's is of particular interest because of its author's personality. Born in 1898 in the Croatian province of Istria, he participated in the anti-Austrian movement as a secondary school student (Istria was part of Austria-Hungary before the First World War).

After 1917, he turned to communism, hoping that the Russian Revolution would contribute to the liberation of Croatia (then part of Austria-Hungary). From 1922 to 1925, he was secretary of the Communist Party for Croatia. Expelled from Yugoslavia that year, he went to Austria, and at the end of 1926, he was sent to Moscow to teach at the Party School and collaborate with the Balkan Secretariat of the Comintern. Here he clashed with the leadership of the Russian party and was exiled to Siberia. He was only released in 1936 and settled in France.

When the Independent State of Croatia was restored during World War II, he returned to his homeland. He contributed to Spremnost, the most important weekly newspaper in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia. Before the war ended, he left Croatia. Since then, he has lived in Italy as a freelance writer and commentator for RAI (Italian Radio). In 1938, he published his first book, In the Land of the Great Lie (Gallimard - Paris), in which he denounced and broke with Stalinism.

This book generated considerable interest in the West at the time. A new edition appeared in 1950 under the title In the Land of the Bewildering Lie. That same year, his book Siberia - Land of Exile and Industrialization was published in Paris, and in 1952, also in Paris, his penultimate book, Yugoslavia Under Internal and External Threat, was published. In this book, he supported Tito in his rebellion against Stalin.

In the book under discussion, Ciliga denounces Serbia's hegemony over the other peoples of Yugoslavia, especially the Croats, and concludes that Yugoslavia could only survive after Tito's death if it transformed into a Confederation of eight republics with a new capital. Otherwise, it would be divided between the United States and Russia, with the dividing line running from northwest to southeast, cutting Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina in half.

Ciliga does not mention the sources from which he has drawn this dividing line, since the "fifty-fifty" agreement, made in Yalta during the Second World War between the USA and Russia, referred only to the distribution - in the aforementioned proportion - of the political influence of these two powers in Yugoslavia. "Outside the Confederation there is no hope of overcoming the current crisis of the State, of avoiding the dissolution of the common State..., of moving from the political "fifty-fifty" to the territorial one."

Ciliga acknowledges that during the war and the first four years afterward, he believed that communist Yugoslavia would have solved the national problems, since the Federative Constitution was the realization of his old project of 1923, considering himself the "spiritual father of this Constitution." Ciliga therefore believed that this Constitution was sufficient for the national question to be resolved in Yugoslavia. "Only... he had not taken into due consideration the fact that the Single Party regime... would have allowed the Titoist regime... to build in practice an extreme centralist State, so that Serbian hegemonic oppression and centralist rigor had reached at certain times a level never before reached, not even in the worst days of the dictatorship of King Alexander."

It is interesting to observe how Ciliga, despite having deep knowledge of communism in power, could think that the one-party regime in Titoist Yugoslavia would not produce the consequences according to his previous experience with communism. Has it been the idealism akin to that of his youthful years or the armor of his Marxist education that prevented Ciliga's excellent political intelligence from evaluating the inexorable consequences in the case of communist Yugoslavia?

The book is divided into six chapters, the Preface and the Postscriptum. It particularly covers the events from the invasion of Czech-Slovakia until 1972, but also refers to a large number of events and situations from previous years. The last chapter refers to Tito's biography and could be interesting for a psychoanalytic approach.

Throughout the book (like a common thread), we find the facts that demonstrate Serbian hegemony in both the first and second Yugoslavia. Both the monarchical and the communist have been able to maintain themselves only with foreign help. "Tito's Yugoslavia, left alone, without guarantee for its regime from at least one great power, had to yield to the real relationship of forces of its people," Ciliga notes.

The fall of the hated head of the Secret Police has been greeted with joy in the non-Serbian towns of Yugoslavia. There was some satisfaction in Servia herself, for she too felt oppressed. But on the other hand, this fall caused concern among the Serbs regarding the prospects of their hegemony. When the students of Belgrade in 1968 occupied the University for a few days and demanded individual and civil liberties, they did not include in this demand the fundamental problem of Yugoslavia: the equality of the peoples that constitute it. Ciliga concludes that "the obstinate silence, in this circumstance, is equivalent to the requirement of the conservation and affirmation of Serbian national hegemony."

Moving on to the struggle of the communist leaders of Croatia against state centralism and Serbian hegemony, Ciliga shows the reader how the central government and the leadership of the Belgrade Party used all means against them and against the Croatian institutions, all always with the aim of maintaining Serbian hegemony. Ciliga masterfully describes this struggle. Here, as elsewhere throughout the book, one can appreciate his profound knowledge of the way of proceeding and the tactics of the communist parties. Likewise, you can see how much Ciliga is immersed in Marxist dialectics and how freely he uses it.

In reaction to the demands of the non-Serbian republics, a bloc of three different groups has formed in Belgrade, groups that are, in part, diametrically opposed in their ultimate goals. Ciliga names them: the "new left," which wants a free and democratic Serbian state; the "neo-conformists," who intend to use this free Serbian state as a means to bring it into the Soviet camp; and the third group, the "non-communist nationalist opposition," which wishes to create "Greater Serbia" with Soviet aid and then break away from Russia with Western support.

This "Greater Serbia" should encompass all regions where Serbian minorities exist. This is the old theory of Pašić, a Serbian statesman from the beginning of the 20th century and one of the architects of Yugoslavia conceived as "Greater Serbia." "Various opposition groups (to the current regime, note n.) that predominate in Belgrade public opinion today, from communists to nationalists and non-communist democrats, are moving in the same direction," Ciliga observes. The only difference between the current conception of "Greater Serbia" and Pašić's is that the former no longer includes Macedonia, both accepting that Croatia (once reduced by seizing the provinces that would form "Greater Serbia") should constitute itself as a sovereign state, just like Slovenia.

Speaking of the attitude of the Yugoslav Communist Party regarding the problem of the nationalities that make up Yugoslavia, and especially regarding Serbian hegemony, Ciliga provides us with abundant and very interesting data. It is not possible to analyze them here, but we can say that after reading these pages there is no doubt that, in its general line, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia has shared the "Greater Serbia" orientation and that Tito has acted in the same way.

Ciliga says that the Croatian communists have lost (since 1940) their voice in the Central Committee of the Yugoslav Communist Party, and that for practically 30 years they have held the position of mere "subjects" and executors. This was the work of Tito, who in 1939 went to Moscow to accuse the Croatian communist leadership of not agreeing with the line dictated by Stalin, due to its renewed alignment with the Serbian national line.

In the context of relations between Croatian and Serbian communists, Ciliga suggests the responsibility of the Serbian group within the Politburo and of Tito himself for the deaths of Croatian "national communists" in August 1941 and of the Zagreb Committee (the capital of Croatia) in February 1942, both liquidated during operations by the Croatian police, tipped off by members of the aforementioned Politburo group.

To better illustrate the antagonism between Croatian and Serbian communists, always latent but very pronounced at certain periods, we will quote the main Serbian communist theorist of the first Yugoslavia, a political man and professor at the University of Belgrade who, already in the early years of Yugoslavia's existence and on the occasion of the discussion of the nationalities problem, justified Serbian hegemony in the following terms (in his book The National Question in the Light of Marxism, Belgrade 1923): "The Croatian and Slovenian bourgeoisie, in essence, want nothing more than equality with the Serbian bourgeoisie in the common state, since in the regime of equality they, being economically more advanced, would still enjoy a certain advantage over the lagging Serbian bourgeoisie.

"The equality demanded by the Croats and Slovenes represents only the political expression of their basic economic demand: equality of capital. Meanwhile, equality of capital would undoubtedly lead to a certain hegemony of the more developed, better organized, and more modern Croatian and Slovenian capital over Serbian capital. Therefore, the Serbian bourgeoisie is opposed to political equality and in favor of Serbian hegemony, which it uses in the competitive struggle against the Croatian and Slovenian bourgeoisie. As for the Serbian bourgeoisie, the more it rises economically, thanks to the regime of plunder practiced throughout its dictatorial rule, from unification (the creation of Yugoslavia, October-December 1918) to the present day (1923), approaching the level of the Croatian and Slovenian bourgeoisie, the more the idea of equality gradually finds an echo within its ranks as well. And when the bourgeoisie..." Serbia, thanks to its absolutism, will be so strengthened as to be able to face, on equal terms, the competitive struggle with the Croatian and Slovenian bourgeoisie; then it will undoubtedly also accept the idea of political equality with the Croats and Slovenes." We believe that Ciliga is entirely correct when he says that the cited text can be considered a classic because it faithfully reflects the thinking of the dominant circles in Belgrade. The regime of political hegemony was maintained not only during the twenty-three years of the first Yugoslavia, but also during the twenty-six years of the second, in which one can no longer speak of a competitive struggle between the bourgeoisies. In each of the chapters of his book, Ciliga refers to Tito and his actions. Thus, for example, in the Preface he defines him as "a man of practical ambitions and indifferent to abstract principles." When discussing Tito's conflict with Moscow, Ciliga says that after this conflict, Tito, having been educated in his youth in old Austria, faithfully imitated the Austro-Hungarian system of government: fundamentally, immobility, but tolerating certain progressive tendencies and those forms that did not change the existing situation.

Speaking of the Russian threat, he observes that Tito lacked sensitivity to the increasingly strong desire of the non-Serb peoples of Yugoslavia to achieve equality with the Serbs within that community.

Ciliga acknowledges that Tito, with his rebellion against Stalin, initiated "a new phase in the history of communism: the phase of decline and internal disintegration." But, he adds, it has not been uncommon in history for insignificant incidents and banal, selfish motives to provoke events of enormous importance. Thus, although the basis of Tito's rebellion was his egotism in maintaining himself as the "sovereign master" of Yugoslavia—"his little empire"—the global importance of this rebellion must be acknowledged. In another context, Ciliga emphasizes that Tito, in his actions, practiced the Stalinist method of two lines: one for the politics of the moment and the other for propaganda and psychological purposes.

It is in the last chapter of the book that Ciliga seeks an explanation for Tito's policies in his biography. Comparing him with other Croatian or Serbian political figures who have played an important role in the lives of these peoples: Stjepan Radic, Ante Pavelic (on the part of the Croatians), King Alexander, Nicolas Pasic (on the part of the Serbs), it is clear that Tito differs from them in one fundamental point: all of them have always acted in their political lives as representatives and defenders of the interests of their people of Croatian or Serbian origin, while Tito, since he entered the Yugoslav political scene in 1927/28, and although Croatian, has acted in the Serbian national line, even Greater Serbian, and in any case in the anti-Croatian line.

And Ciliga immediately asks: why did he distance himself from his original nationality and embrace the cause of pan-Serbian nationalism? Ciliga finds the answer to this question in Tito's youthful upbringing, which caused his inability to understand the essence of the Yugoslav problem, the problem of nationalities. Ciliga sees the reason for Tito's anti-Croatian sentiment in the idea from his youth that the Croatian environment was responsible for his personal hardships.

Thus, an inner estrangement from his people occurred in Tito. Ciliga believes that this estrangement also explains Tito's difficulty in speaking Croatian, and not because Tito was actually a Russian and not the Croatian Josip Broz, as some claimed. Our author concludes: "If the anational Tito—as he remained throughout his life—"feels" to some extent for a nationality, it is undoubtedly Austro-Hungarian." Ciliga describes several details of Tito's life, demonstrating that his official biography is distorted in several respects.

The book closes with a postscript where, despite his pessimism regarding the current state of the world and its general direction, Ciliga, with the help of Teilhard de Chardin, ultimately sees a glimmer of hope that the world will not self-destruct.

Ciliga writes with temperament and is often controversial. Consequently, many of his assertions must be taken with particular caution. This is especially true when he speaks of the Ustaše and, almost generally, of all Croatian exiles. He is very subjective when speaking of people with whom his personal relationships have been severed for reasons that each person undoubtedly has the right to justify from their own perspective. But there are always limits to the presentation of these justifications, especially when the person attacked is prevented by force majeure from defending themselves. As we stated at the beginning, the book's fundamental thesis is that the second Yugoslavia is like the first: a political community with Serbian hegemony. This community cannot maintain its hegemony—Ciliga defends its existence—because otherwise the Croats and Slovenes will be divided in half across their national territories.

Ciliga believes that a genuine Confederation should lead to a genuine Federation, instead of the current sham one. Milovan Djilas and Savka Dabcevic (the former president of the Communist Party of Croatia, the main victim of Tito's purge of December 1971) would be—according to him—the most suitable politicians to save Yugoslavia and lead it to a Confederation.

This personal designation of the "saviors" of Yugoslavia seems to us more of a prophecy than a realistic conclusion. On the one hand, it is not entirely clear that Savka Dabcevic would work to save Yugoslavia once the Croatian people achieved their economic, political, and military autonomy on equal footing with the Serbs within Yugoslavia. When the Croatian people acclaimed Savka Dabcevic as "the Croatian queen," they were expressing a sentiment of national independence and the restoration of a sovereign and free Croatian state within its historical borders, and certainly not a sentiment and desire to live in a "federated" republic within communist or non-communist Yugoslavia, whether federal or confederal.

As for M. Djilas, on the other hand, it is also not clear that he thinks of a Yugoslavia idealized by Ciliga, since Djilas's statements are contradictory, several of them of a Greater Serbian nature, so that Ciliga himself is forced to recognize that he cannot believe that Djilas thinks of it seriously and that his links with the Serbian political circles author of a Greater Serbia, must for this reason, be only a tactical matter.

Reading the book, one wonders why Ciliga, a Croat by birth, despite having written everything he has in this book regarding Serbian hegemony, and having also highlighted Croatia's ongoing political independence throughout its long history, finds the only positive solution for Croatia to be its incorporation into Yugoslavia. This, naturally, should—according to Ciliga—be based on the equality of peoples, but doesn't Ciliga see that everything said in the book justifies considering such a Yugoslavia as a utopia? Isn't the messianic, universalist Croatian character, in addition to the "Yugoslavism" assimilated in his youth, the basis of his stubborn pro-Yugoslav attitude?

It is a pity that the text has not been sufficiently revised, as this would have avoided many repetitions that make it unnecessarily voluminous. It would also have been more convenient for a foreign reader to omit several details. However, on the other hand, all these details constitute a valuable contribution to the political documentation of recent Croatian history. It is regrettable that instead of so vehemently defending Yugoslavia, Ciliga did not employ his intelligence, knowledge, and rhetorical skills to defend the idea of an independent state for his Croatia. It is also a pity that he did not use this considerable effort represented by this book to provide arguments that would make it easier to understand the international benefits of an independent Croatia. Since the book is written in Italian and therefore primarily aimed at Italians, Ciliga would have done more to normalize Croatian-Italian relations if he had tried to demonstrate to Italians that an independent Croatia is better for them than a Yugoslavia on the verge of disintegration at the first opportunity.

But how can we expect this from Ciliga, another Croat who does not want independence for his people? Does Ciliga think that Croatia is too weak to exist independently outside of Yugoslavia? Yet he himself tells us that Yugoslavia, as it existed from 1918 to 1972 under Serbian hegemony, could only have existed with the help of at least one major power. Without this, Yugoslavia would disintegrate due to a lack of internal cohesion. This means that its natural weakness was compensated for by the strength of the protecting state.

Following this line of reasoning, if an independent Croatia lacked the strength to defend itself, wouldn't it be able—despite this—to survive with the help of a great power? And note that Croatia would not suffer from the problem that plagued Yugoslavia: the hegemony of a minority, since in Croatia, Croats represent a large majority, and it is within this majority that state power would reside. This also needs to be said to the Italians and all others who are unfamiliar with, or insufficiently familiar with, the Croatian problem.

Despite these reservations and many others we could make, but which we refrain from doing here because we consider this an inappropriate forum for discussion, we believe that Dr. Ante Ciliga's book will not harm the Croatian nation's struggle for independence and that any objective reader will find sufficient material within it to understand this struggle and even view it with sympathy. What you will probably find difficult to understand is the author's idealized Yugoslavism.

Bozidar Latkovic

Vladimir Markotic: Manuscripts referring to Croatia in the British Museum in London

(Manuscripts relating to Croatia in the British Museum, London), offprint of "Studia Instituti Chroatorum Historici Romae", Vol. III-IV (1971), p. 263-292.

Almost simultaneously with the publication of Professor Dr. Smail Balic's bibliographic work in the journal Südostforschungen (Vol. XXX, 1971, R. Oldenburg, Munich, pp. 97-244) under the title "Deutschsprachiges archologisches und historisches Schrifttum über Bosnien und Herzegovina vom Beginn des 19 Jahrhunderts bis 1918" (see Studia Croatica No. 44-45 (1972), pp. 107-8), the Croatian Historical Institute in Rome published, in its 1971 compendium, Radovi (Works), the contribution of Professor V. Markotic of the University of Calgary, Canada, with the aforementioned title. The manuscripts held in the British Museum consist of the Original Collections, comprising the private collections acquired at its founding in 1753 or its opening in 1759—numbered 1 to 4100—and the Additional Manuscripts, acquired after 1759 and numbered 4101 to 5017. The Museum's Annual Report includes descriptions of new acquisitions between 1782 and 1835. From 1829 onwards, the Egerton Collection (Francis Henry Egerton, Earl of Bridgewater), whose manuscripts are designated with the letters "Eg" followed by the corresponding number, has been added to the Additional Manuscripts. From 1836, the indexes of the Additional Manuscripts were published irregularly, while after 1889, when the acquisitions from the period 1882-1887 were published, the indexes were published every five years.

Specifically, this work deals with approximately 200 index cards, numbered between 3,947 and 44,451, with a descriptive synopsis of the manuscripts in Latin, French, English, and Croatian, covering a wide variety of subjects related in some way to Croatia. The purpose of this work is, above all, to make the manuscripts known to interested scholars. Therefore, when registering each one, the author adds not only the corresponding number but also a brief summary and the year of acquisition so that interested parties can request the desired photocopy with greater precision. The author quite rightly included in his list manuscripts "in the Illyrian language," "Illyrian dialect," and "Slavonic language," such as "-10.032 Zaptislanius Palmota, 1672" or "-10.033 Catarina od Siene, a poem in Illyrian dialect, by Antonius Gleghievich, 1677." Also worthy of mention are the manuscripts of, or relating to, various illustrious Croatians, such as Archbishop Mare-Antonio de Dominis, the scientist Ruggiero Boscovich, and the miniaturist Giulio Clovio, as well as the correspondence of Bishop Josip Juraj Strossmayer to W. E. Gladstone, 1876–1889 (-44.451).

Milan Blazekovic

Zeljko Ducmelic: Four Months in Paradise (L. H. Editions, Buenos Aires, 1971).

"Das Jahr '45" is the title of the book published in Germany in 1970. In it, some thirty writers of outstanding importance (Thomas Mann, H. Boll, E. Funger) recount their memoirs and memories of those days of danger and horror experienced during the course of the last great war and immediately after its end.

This book was translated into Spanish under the title "1945, el año de la catastrofe" (Barral Editores S. A., Barcelona 1971). The prologue to this interesting and moving book states that the year 1945 is of immense importance and significance for the entire world and civilization in general; one of the most important years of our century.

This year—the prologue notes—marks the end of that overwhelming anguish, that infernal nightmare that had descended upon almost all the peoples of Europe, threatening them with destruction and annihilation. In the history of humanity, that year marks the end of another fall of humankind and of many moral values, impossible to revive. It marks the end of one chapter and the beginning of another that promises much, even though it has yet to deliver: the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st.

These are the approximate ideas of the Spanish prologue. However, the assertion in the aforementioned prologue regarding the end of those days of widespread massacres and destruction, which supposedly came to a close in 1945, is unfortunately of very relative value and only partially accurate.

A very brief look at what has happened since 1945 up to the present day forces us to a very different conclusion: for many, the year 1945 signifies both the end and the beginning of new horrors and massacres. Indeed, Hans Rauschning, in the epilogue of the book we mentioned, laments that the year 1945 was quickly forgotten, and only one detail in H. von Doderer's article is truly horrifying.

In the book "From Diaries, 1945," von Doderer recounts how most women in Vienna lived daily on the necessary amount of Veronal precisely in that year, 1945, the year of the supposed end to the horrors and suffering of war, due to fear of the Russians and their ungentlemanly treatment of women.

From Croatia, a contribution to this series of sad postwar chronicles is Zeljko Ducmelic's book: Four Months in Paradise.

This book, purely autobiographical in nature, is only a part of its author's tumultuous life, perhaps the most decisive and fateful part. Having finished reading the book, we recommend that readers reflect for a moment on its content, on what they have just read. If one wishes to speak of the decisive days in the life of a man or a nation, it is necessary to speak frankly and clearly; it is essential to present the problem in a simple and truthful way, just as the truth we wish to point out is simple and truthful.

In this Croatian case of ours, from everything Ducmelic tells us and from what he lived and suffered during four months in the new Yugoslav paradise, the truth could be expressed in the following terms: "What meaning does the year 1945 have in the life of Z. Ducmelic and his people? In the name of what right, ideas, or ideals should he choose that year 1945 and all that it signifies, accepting all that that date brought, if for him and his people, as for many other peoples, it signifies solely and exclusively struggle and flight in the face of evident catastrophe and death? Does the year 1945, in fact, signify for each of us the beginning of a new and better life?"

These and similar problems are raised in the book on almost every page, directly or indirectly, by our author, who narrates events from his young and painful life during those days. The series of questions he poses, which are almost like completed events, constitute a serious and public accusation against his persecutors, the oppressors of his people. This accusation stems from the feeling that everything he went through and suffered was unjust, without justification. An adversary, and standing on the other side of the barricades of his people's oppressor, Ducmelic communicates his feelings and ideas warmly, sincerely, and simply. From his book flows an irrepressible desire for a better life and a more beautiful world order, as well as for a better, just, and fitting place for his own people. His feelings are never expressed through tears, cursing, or despair. The author accompanies them with an unwavering faith in the possibility of something better, more just, and more enlightened. This book by Ducmelic is a document of its time. What he experienced and narrates coincides perfectly with the political events in Croatia. The author thus contributes to the resistance and struggle of the Croatian people in their conflict with the forces that oppose them and prevent them from living and developing in freedom alongside other peoples, in accordance with their unique national and historical identity.

M. Rakovac

Ivo Omrcanin: Diplomatic and Political History of Croatia

(The Diplomatic and Political History of Croatia), Dorrance & Company, Philadelphia, 1972, pp. 252.

After the publication of this work in 1968 in German (see Studia Croatica, Vol. 36-37, 1970, pp. 78-9), Professor I. Omrcanin enriched the already scarce literature on Croatian history in foreign languages by publishing it now in English. Although the work is not preceded by an introduction or preface from the author explaining its basic idea, it can be inferred from the distribution of the material in certain chapters that this is not a conventional historical work, but rather a history with special emphasis on the sovereignty of the Croatian nation and its restrictions and restorations through and in light of the events and occurrences that mark milestones in the constitutional and political life of the Croatians in the international community or within the multinational communities of which the Croatian people have been a part throughout their history.

This English edition is not a faithful translation of the German one. There are differences in some details and even in fundamental concepts, such as, for example, regarding the origin of the Croatians. Indeed, in the German edition, the author maintained that the Croatians are of Iranian origin, while in this edition, he changes his opinion and states that they are an indigenous people of Aryan origin, remaining so until the 5th century AD, when they were Slavicized in the empire of Magna Croatia. According to the author—who draws his arguments from the work of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus—Greater Croatia existed between the 4th and 10th centuries in the region between Leipzig, Prague, Krakow, Danzig, and Vienna. The author's interest in early Croatian history is reflected in the first six of the twenty-three chapters into which the work is divided: "The Arrival of the Croats" (I) from Great Croatia, to White Croatia, to the current Croatian national territory between the Adriatic Sea and the Drava, Sava, Danube, and Drina rivers.

The origin of the Croats is addressed by the author under the title "The Croats: A Slavic People of Indo-European Origin" (II). "The name Hrvat (Croatian)" (III), as well as the ethnic origin of the ancient Croats, traces it back from the Adriatic coast, through Magna Croatia -Tanas on the Black Sea-, Harahvatish in Afghanistan, to the Indian Ocean, simultaneously with the mutations of the name Hrvat through Horvat -Horohvat - Harahvat - Harahvaiti- Harahvatija -Harahvatish, to Sarasvati in India 2000 years BC. C.

"The Itinerary of the Croats During the Barbarian Invasion" (IV) and "The Central European Empire of Magna Croatia" (V) are the chapters that describe the relations between the Medes, Persians, Parthians, and Croats, who, defeated by the Kushans, had to abandon "beautiful Harahvaiti" forever and—retreating through the Caucasus—finally settled in the area where they founded Magna Croatia.

Summarizing what has been previously stated regarding the millennia-long migration of the Croats until their definitive settlement in the current territory, the author emphasizes in the chapter "The Croats and Their Idea of a State" (VI) that, from the moment they appeared in history, they organized their own state, although it did not always enjoy full sovereignty.

The chapter "The International Treaties of the Croats with Byzantium (circa 628-638 AD)" (VII) begins the history of the Croats in their current territory, and as a consequence of these treaties, that is, their right to occupy and take possession of the regions seized from the defeated Avars. The chapters "Beginning of Diplomatic Relations with the Holy See" (VIII) and "The Treaty of the Croats with the Holy See (680)" (IX) describe the entry of the Croats into the international community of the time, especially by virtue of the 680 treaty with Pope Agathon on non-aggression, which—according to the author—formed the basis of the Croatian state's legal system.

The diplomatic and political history of the Croatian national dynasty is recounted in the chapters "The Kingdom of Croatia from the seventh to the ninth century" (X) and "The Kingdom of Croatia from the tenth to the twelfth century" (XI), covering 500 years, from the first princes, through the first king Budimir (c. 740 - c. 790) – according to the most recent view – to the extinction of the Trpimirovic dynasty at the end of the eleventh century. It is worth noting here that, contrary to the prevailing opinion until now, the first king was not Tomislav (910-929) but the aforementioned Budimir (740-790), with Tomislav being the first king mentioned in diplomatic documents.

After briefly tracing the history of the ancient Croatian regions of Zahumlje, Travunja, Duklja, and Illiricum from 753 to the mid-15th century, under the title "The Kingdom of Southern Croatia" (XII), the political and constitutional history of Croatia during the Hungarian Árpád dynasty follows, a period of almost two hundred years in which the Croats and Hungarians formed a personal union by virtue of the treaty between the Hungarian king Koloman I and the Croatian authorities, known as the Pacta Conventa of 1102.

However, Professor Omrcanin argues that it would be more appropriate to call this pact of 1102 "The Pact of Zagreb (1102)" and titles Chapter XIII accordingly, because such a compromise could only have been agreed upon in the capitol of the bishopric of Zagreb and not on the banks of the Drava River. With this chapter, the author begins to elucidate the problems and notions of legal and constitutional order in Hungarian-Croatian, and later Austro-Hungarian-Croatian, relations, which would endure for more than 1300 years and of which the Pacta Conventa, or Treaty of Zagreb, is one of the fundamental laws, subject to transformations over the centuries.

With the extinction of the Árpád dynasty, the personal Hungarian-Croatian union dissolved for the first time in 1300, when the Croats elected the Angevin dynasty of Naples, a natural adversary of Venice, as kings of Croatia. This marked the beginning of the period "Various dynasties on the Croatian throne from 1300 to 1526" (XIV), all tasked with defending Croatian and Hungarian lands against Venetian claims and attacks by the Turks from the 15th century onward. In order to present the complete picture of the provinces that make up Croatia, the author devotes a separate chapter to the "Kingdom of Bosnia," (XV), and to "The Republic of Dubrovnik" (XVI), describing the ups and downs of their respective sovereignties and in relation to the general situation of southeastern Europe.

The author develops the 400 years of Croatian political and constitutional history under the Habsburg dynasty, that is, from 1527 to 1918, in four chapters. In the chapter "The Habsburgs on the Croatian Throne" (XVII), the author describes the election of the Habsburgs by the Croatian Diet of Cetina on January 1, 1527, as an act completely separate from the election by the Hungarian Diet, arguing that the Croatian Sabor's decision was an election and not merely a recognition of Ferdinand I as king based on the succession treaties between the Habsburgs and the Jagiellonians of 1491, 1506, and 1515. The "Pragmatic Sanction," that is, the "Family Law on the Right of Succession in the Royal Family of the Habsburgs," issued by King Charles III (Charles VI as Holy Roman Emperor) on April 19, 1713, not only represents an event of transcendental significance but is also considered the direct consequence of the Croatian Sabor's (Diet's) decision of March 11. 1712.

Indeed, a year earlier the Croatian Sabor declared it would only recognize that "female line of the august Austrian bloodline possessing not only Austria but also Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola, and residing in Austria." Furthermore—and this adds a significant factor to the Croatian Sabor's decision—it was made independently of that of the Hungarian parliament, which would only decide on the matter eleven years later.

Dr. Omrcanin dedicates Chapter XVIII – “After the Croatian Pragmatic Sanction (1712)” – to this declaration of the Sabor, which he attributes to a contractual character between the Croatians and the royal family, and to the 120 years that followed, during which the Habsburg kings did not always show their recognition of the Croatian initiative of 1712.

“Croatian Sovereignty in 1848” (Chapter XIX) is the chapter that describes Austro-Hungarian-Croatian relations during this revolutionary year in Europe. Under the outstanding political and military figure of the Ban of Croatia, Baron Joseph Jelacic, relations between Croatia and Hungary broke down, and war erupted between these two states, ultimately saving the Habsburg throne. The chapter "The Kingdom of Croatia in 1868" (XX) describes, from a constitutional perspective, the last fifty years of Croatian history within the Austro-Hungarian monarchy under the Hungarian-Croatian Compromise, imposed on the Croats in 1868 following the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. The chapter "The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in 1918" (XX) covers the period 1918-1941, during which Croatia had lost all statehood, preserved to a greater or lesser extent during the previous 800 years of its political history in community with other nations. This state collapsed shamefully in April 1941, as "none of the subjugated peoples wanted to defend their prison," the author emphasizes.

Without mentioning the "Banovina Hrvatska" (the Banate of Croatia), which existed as an autonomous but territorially truncated entity between August 1939 and April 1941, the author dedicates Chapter XXII to the "Croatian State in 1941." In just four pages, he describes the creation of the Independent State of Croatia on April 10, 1941, its diplomatic relations with the other states of one of the blocs into which the world was divided during World War II, and its defense against its main enemies: the Serbian Chetniks and the Yugoslav communists.

In the final chapter, "The Croatian Nation in 1945," which briefly describes the plight of the people after the war ended in 1945, the author characterizes the situation of the Croats as "the sad history of one of the oldest and most consistently independent European peoples, from pre-Aryan times, that is, nearly two millennia before Christ, to the present day."

The 180 pages of historical text, which we have attempted to summarize as succinctly as possible, are followed by more than 30 pages with 378 footnotes, references, and reproductions of quotations from documents in their original versions, more than 30 pages of Croatian and foreign bibliography, and sources and references. The complete table of rulers of Croatia from 2000 BC onward is also included. C. (Asian Croatia - Harahvaiti) up to Josip Broz Tito of communist Yugoslavia, divided into 14 sections or groups, facilitates the chronological orientation of Croatian history, which, in this form and along with its historical maps, deserves translations into more languages.

Milan Blazekovic

Kvirin Vasilj: Sloboda i Odgovornost (Freedom and Responsibility), Rome 1972, pp. 320, in Croatian.

There is, we can say, no other topic of such importance in our time, and yet few are as ignored and neglected as this one. If there were more freedom and more responsibility in the world, many of the fundamental problems that are burdening our society would not exist, or at least would considerably lose their dramatic and threatening character.

K. Vasilj, a Croatian Franciscan with a truly philosophical vocation, dedicates his great capacity as a thinker both to highlighting the importance of the topic and to clarifying its essence.

His philosophical opus, already voluminous, is mainly dedicated to the noetic problem, to the first of the three Kantian questions that constitute the fundamental problem of world philosophy, namely: Was kann Ich wissen? (What can I know?).

The book we are referring to now deals with the second Kantian question: Was soll Ich tun? (What should I do?), and spontaneously leads to the third: Was darf Ich hoffen? (What can I expect? as a consequence of our actions).

In the first chapter of this work, our author defines and analyzes the concept of the ethical act in general. In general terms, an act means transforming a possibility into an actual fact. Changes in nature occur according to the necessary law of causality. If all the factors for a specific and natural change are present, it necessarily and inevitably occurs.

But human action, part of the visible and natural world, is not so subject to the laws of nature. Since, as Ortega y Gasset would say, humankind is a failed attempt to incorporate into the world a being alien to it, humans do not fully accept the force of its subjugating laws. Freeing oneself from this blind and inexorable force constitutes the drama of human existence: how to act freely and responsibly in a world governed by the iron law of necessary causality.

Vasij distinguishes between natural good and ethical good. Good in nature signifies the contact and complementarity of two beings that mutually need and integrate each other, while evil signifies the opposite: the contact of beings that do not belong together. This natural occurrence, being its own necessary law, is exempt from ethical law. The latter presupposes the freedom of the agent as a co-causer of the event and, logically, their responsibility. Focusing solely on this perspective—freedom and responsibility—can we speak of an ethical act. Does human freedom, then, exist within a realm of necessity?

Before answering this question, Vasilj addresses two problems that arise for each of us when we think about and feel the repercussions of our actions both within our own hearts and in the society in which we live. How can we establish a hierarchical order of goods so that our conscience, guided by them, is logical, consistent, organized, without contradictions or conflicts within itself, providing us with inner peace and a sense of purpose in life? This is the first question we cannot avoid. The second is: How can we shape our behavior when trying to do good in society so that it does not produce conflict, disorder, and unrest?

This means that personal insecurity regarding values is projected onto objective social reality. Is it possible to find a supreme good to organize our scale of values—the sole driving force behind our actions—in such a way that everyone accepts it as an indispensable foundation for personal peace and social harmony?

Given that there are individuals and systems that deny the freedom of the human will, without which there are no free acts or responsible actors, Vasilj accepts the immediate experience of this freedom as an irreplaceable and certain argument for its existence. Here, it seems to us, the immediate experience of our freedom plays a role of profound analogy with the immediate evidence of truth—at least sensory truth—in noetics. (We are referring to Gilson's noetic realism.) The immediate experience of freedom in ethics is of primary and decisive importance, just as the immediate evidence of truth is in epistemology or noetics.

Thus assured in its existence, our freedom also entails the responsibility of the agent. Without freedom there is no responsibility, and vice versa. That is why our author says: "It is a far greater crime against man than cutting off his hands or legs, restricting or limiting his free action. Today, people are aware that one cannot physically harm an innocent person. Nevertheless, the denial of freedom—which constitutes an even worse crime—reigns as the rule in many societies and countries."

In the second part—"Metaphysical Foundations of Ethics"—the author, dismissing the possibility of finding a scale of values acceptable to all in the monistic, materialist, or immanentist world, recapitulates the most "revolutionary" part of his philosophy of knowledge, concerning the existence of God. Rejecting traditional philosophical-theological arguments of the Church, Vasily accepts only one, deduced from the contingency of the universe, but reintroducing it in a very subtle and novel way. With this, he seeks to strengthen the probative force of this argument, warning those who, with misunderstood cosmological arguments, actually fall into the grave error of identifying God with the forces acting on their own in the material world.

Thus, our author supposes, he secures the supreme, metaphysical good, the only one that satisfies both the anxieties and legitimate aspirations of humankind, as well as the foundations of a common, hierarchical ethic capable of guiding individuals and nations toward a more humane coexistence. This part of the book is of fundamental importance. Without a metaphysical, universal, and imperishable good, there is neither possibility nor prospect for the development of a universally acceptable ethic. Here, perhaps, we find ourselves at the point where we can either lose ourselves in despair through vain attempts to give meaning to our lives and civilization, or truly reshape a new, secure, and compelling image of the world. In the third chapter—"The Logic of Atheism and Its Consequences"—the author refutes the atheist "arguments" of the German philosopher and professor Walter Hollitscher. In an article published in the journal Concurrane, translated from German into English, Hollitscher denies the creation of the universe in the following terms: "The religious answer to the origin of the universe does not, it seems to us, achieve what it promises.

If the universe signifies the totality of all material processes, past, present, and future, and if the explanation of something means analyzing its structure, where it came into being under certain conditions and according to certain laws, then it is only possible to investigate births in the universe, but not the genesis of the universe."

It would exceed the space available to us to attempt to clearly define the positions of Hollitscher and our author in order to, after a lengthy analysis, choose or—what is more logical, necessary, and required—rationally accept one of them. This demands an intellectual effort that does not guarantee, for all of us, a success free from doubts and hesitations. Here, the possibility of metaphysics is reconsidered, a problem many consider solved by Kant: metaphysics is impossible. Vasilj, with uncommon audacity and certainty, refutes Kant, all his followers, and even Hollitscher himself.

Beginning with sensory impressions (cognitio sensibilis) and intellectual intuition, which constitute our experiential knowledge, we ascend, through systolic judgments, to metaphysics in synthetic notions. Intellectual notion, although partially dependent on sensory impressions, is not exhausted by them. The intellect adds new elements, transforming mere impressions into intellectual knowledge. And we do not stop there.

If we possess various intellectual knowledges, supported by experience—that is, valid for the real, material world—we can rise to metaphysical knowledge. "When we have a body of knowledge at our disposal, we can combine it into new notions without needing new experiential material. Herein lies the mystery of systolic cognitions," says our author. Thus, turning to metaphysics, we arrive at the supreme good, the principle of life, at God.

Without this, we reduce man to an "economic being." We find ourselves in "Marxist society." Its "men, who fought, according to their own conviction, for social justice when they held power, if they were strong enough, lived a life more luxurious than that of kings and emperors... Moreover, they try to possess human thought in a total way, like physical gods." That is why the cult of personality in Marxist circles is not an artificial construct but a spontaneous phenomenon. The passionate tendency to control human thought and freedom through the promise or provision of "bread" is not a sign of human progress, because this idea has preoccupied tyrants and dictators since time immemorial, Vasilj notes. In the following chapter, Vasilj confronts the ethical law and the principle of selfishness, demonstrating that all forms of utilitarianism end in inevitable degeneration. Hume's voice of the law "ought" and "ought not," according to which this constitutes new relations that are almost indeducible from the facts we affirm or deny, has its own origin, its own reality, and its own laws. "Man does not exist by and for himself but by and for the Being of himself, which created man in his being. Consequently, his supreme end is the realization of the metaphysical goal; that is, he must necessarily give proof, manifest in his actions, the perfections of that Being in itself." The author emphasizes, continuing: "The more we cultivate love, justice, and truth within ourselves, the more we will resemble God and the more fully we will achieve the supreme goal of our lives." Since the origin and goal of all people are equal, we thus establish the universal ethic that states: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

In light of this ethic, humanity is endowed with incomparable dignity. "If we call acting in accordance with this supreme goal 'the kingdom of God in the world,' we are justified in saying that even the 'least in this kingdom of God' will be greater than the greatest and most perfect in a world kingdom," Dr. Vasilj states. Only in this way is it possible to introduce harmony into our own lives, eliminating contradictions, and, logically, into the society where we all act and strive to achieve our happiness.

Otherwise, contradictions, confusion, and catastrophes arise. Our author illustrates his position with concrete examples. The Nuremberg trials were not conducted in accordance with universal ethics and law, as requested by American judge Robert Jackson. The Bolsheviks served as judges despite having attacked Poland alongside the Germans and being responsible for World War II.

Furthermore, many liberals abhorred the massacres in Indochina, but remained silent about those in Biafra; they highlight Nazi crimes, but turn a blind eye when they should condemn the communists. This is "situational ethics," a utilitarianism that undermines the foundations of ethics, law, order, and peace in the world.

Reaching the chapter "The Problem of Evil in the World," the author of these lines would prefer to remain silent. Guided by Vasily through the dense forests of the noetic problem, preparatory to a metaphysically well-founded ethics, walking along a very narrow but safe path, upon entering the realm of evil in the world, I am speechless.

I would almost raise my hands, declaring my ignorance, incompetence, and inability to say anything convincing, certain, and definitive. The reality of evil in the world is so overwhelming and omnipresent, and denying the existence of evil according to the principle of omne ens bonum (all good) astonishes me so much that I see no clear way out. Epicurus and Nietzsche confront me. I do not feel prepared to give them the decisive battle, and I cannot remain in their company. I prefer to withdraw, awaiting a more opportune moment for another confrontation with them and a sure hope of defeating them.

In chapters IX and X, "Dialectical Materialism and Ethics," Vasilj masterfully refutes the communists in both the logical and historical fields, demolishing their "arguments" about the origin and end of religion and ethics. The absurdity of the deniers of God and the world of ethical values built upon this fundamental idea is very evident in Vasilj's analyses. Unamuno said that antitheistic arguments were less convincing to him than those affirming the existence of God. Reading and, above all, studying Vasilj's present work will strengthen our theistic convictions, invigorate our awareness of our freedom and the responsibility we so desperately need at any moment in our individual lives, and especially in the collective life of this turbulent and directionless era.

Franjo Nevistic

Ursula Tamussino: Sena Jurinac

Schroff-Druck Verlagsgesellschaft mbH., Ausgsburg, 1971, pp. 210.

In this lavish and flattering artistic publication, the author has written a biography of the Croatian singer Srebrenka (Sena) Jurinac on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of her performance with the Vienna State Opera. The singer is also known to the Argentine public through her excellent interpretation of the Marschallin in R. Strauss's opera "Der Rosenkavalier," presented at the Teatro Colón during the 1969 opera season.

In the first part of the work (pages 6 to 17), Ursula Tamussino presents the "Homage to Sena Jurinac" from prominent figures in the European artistic world who, in one way or another, had the opportunity to appreciate her vocal, artistic, and human qualities: the praises of Karl Bohm, Lotte Lehmann, Günther Rennert, Walter Erich Schafer, Joseph Wechsberg, Boy Gobert, and others. In "The Biographical Sketch" (pages 21 to 91), the author refers to Sena's origins, her birth in the city of Travnik, Bosnia, her childhood, her studies in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, and her first operatic and theatrical performances. The author gives special attention to Sena Jurinac's performances at the Vienna State Opera (of which she was a permanent member), her travels around the world, and her artistic creations outside of Vienna.

From the third part, "Papers and Seasons" (pages 95 to 205), we learn that the singer starred in more than 200 operatic performances between 1946 and 1971. From 1948 onward, she gave 23 concerts and acted in 5 films. She began her career with the Croatian film "Lisinski" (Zagreb, 1943), followed by "Der Rosenkavalier" (Salzburg Festival), "Sor Angelica" (1959), and "Othello" (1965) for Austrian television, and "Wezzeck" for German television in 1970. Her voice has been recorded on 25 albums, two of which are dedicated exclusively to her: "Das Sangerportrat" (Portrait of the Singer) -Elec. E. 80805- and "Golden Voice Series" (2) -CHQM 1024-.

The beginning of Sena Jurinac's artistic career is presented in the reproduction of the poster for "La Bohème" from the Croatian National Theatre, Zagreb, dated May 16, 1942, reprinted on the inside cover of this publication, when the singer performed the role of Mimì under the baton of the renowned Croatian composer and conductor Kresimir Baranovic.

Official recognition of the singer by the Austrian artistic and state establishment is represented by the reproduction of the Austrian stamp, a special edition commemorating the centenary of the Vienna State Opera in 1969. It depicts the scene from Verdi's "Don Carlos" where Sena Jurinac and Cesare Sielpi perform as the royal couple.

This graphically impeccable edition also reproduces some 150 photographs of the artist—spanning approximately 80 pages—in her various and numerous roles.

Milan Blazekovic

Estrategia

The bimonthly magazine, Nos. 19/20, Buenos Aires, has published three articles concerning the problems of communist Yugoslavia. One is signed by J. García, and the other two by Yugoslav authors (both, it seems, Serbian): Milos Lalovic and Milos Marinovic. The latter reports on The System of Self-Management in Yugoslavia. Each of his theses is refuted either by the opinions of his compatriots—Serbian communists—or by practice itself.

To confuse the uninformed, Milos Marinovic "teaches" at the beginning of his article: "The socialist system of Yugoslavia is based on social ownership of the means of production and on workers' self-management. It is necessary to bear in mind that social ownership is not the same as state ownership. It is difficult to understand the Yugoslav system of self-management if this difference is not perceived, because the concepts of 'social' and 'state' are often confused and considered synonymous."

This author then continues with his Marxist dialectic to instruct readers on the differences between the "social" and the "state." But his "brother in Marxism," V. Rus, explains his idealized thesis: "...The means of production are not the property of the proletariat, but neither are they the property of the state apparatus. Whose are they then? No one's? Or society's? But what kind of social property can there be, property from which the working class is excluded?... However, whoever truly directs production disposes of the surplus value; he is also the de facto owner of the means of production without any regard for the legal order." (Studia Croatica, vol. cit., p. 120).

Furthermore, the autonomy of the proletariat in the economic sector is such that, according to the Public Accounting Law, which came into effect at the beginning of 1973—without the consent of the workers and against their interests—workers' wages in all enterprises unable to meet the obligations imposed by the State were reduced by 10%, while the cost of living constantly rises.

Marinovic should explain to his readers what the difference is, in that socio-political reality of his country, between "social" and "state." This same State, without regard for the legal framework, is the absolute owner of the enterprises and the means of production. To further emphasize the "working-class character" of that community, at the same time, by deducting 10% from workers' wages, the budget for "national defense" was increased from 11.3 million in 1972 to 16.00 million in 1973. The salaries of "federal administration" employees—state employees—received a 4% increase, and retired veterans a 31% increase.

The State and the Party in Yugoslavia are one and the same. Balkan-Marxist dialectics cannot change one iota of that class-based, totalitarian reality characterized by severe national and social discrimination. Thus, for example, regarding national discrimination, and according to recent information, in Croatia, where the Serbian minority constitutes 14% of the total population, 40% of management positions in industry are held by Serbs.

During 1972, investigations were opened against 92 directors of industry in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia. Among them was only one Serb, who was later released despite owning two houses in Zagreb and two villas on the Adriatic coast. The 86 Croatian directors are still imprisoned (Nova Hrvatska, No. 4/73, London).

Aren't these sufficient proofs to demonstrate the veracity of the social and national discrimination inherent in that self-management system, which Belgrade's official propaganda tries to sell as a "socialism with a human face"?

F.N.

The magazine Roma

The magazine, published in Buenos Aires in its March issue (No. 28, Year VII), features the following articles: "New Subsidy for Communism," unsigned, indicating it is an article by the magazine's editorial staff; José María Pérez: "The White Scale"; M. Roberto Gorostiaga: "The Corporate Professional Organization"; Julio Garrido: "Evolution and Molecular Biology"; Alberto García Vieyra: "More on Revelation and Catechesis"; A. Casaravilla Garzón: "Questions Concerning the True Church"; Rafael Gambra: "Rebellion Without a Goal"; Clara San Miguel: "Against Nature"; and "What the Encyclical Divini Redemptoria Tells Us Today."

Among the documents is a letter from His Eminence Cardinal Francisco Seper.

In the first article mentioned, the editorial staff severely criticizes the government of General Lanusse for the one hundred million dollar loan granted to the Marxist regime of Chilean President Allende. The columnist points out that this loan is "the largest loan Argentina has ever granted to a communist regime, burdened with debts whose refinancing it begs for... in other words, to an insolvent nation...".

To characterize the environment in which such measures occur, the editorial staff adds: "As for the silence of the driving forces, of the organizations of production, we recall Lenin's statement that if a tender were organized to buy ropes to hang capitalists, the capitalists themselves would line up to participate."

The article "Evolution and Molecular Biology," authored by Julio Garrido, is highly relevant. Analyzing the latest scientific results of Nobel laureate Monod in the field of molecular biology, in his book *Le Hasard et la Necesité* (Paris, 1971), the author refutes absolute evolutionists, reducing their theories to a much more modest volume than seemed to be accepted by the prevailing opinion of the ill-informed. Garrido, with particular emphasis, points out the little importance that J. Monod attributes to the "overly celebrated Father Teilhard de Chardin."

Based on the latest conclusions of the scientist Monod, J. Garrido concludes his article: "Evolution, the driving force behind neopaganism and de-Christianization, must be combated on its own ground, which is the scientific one. Therefore, we should welcome with jubilation the publication of these recent books that demonstrate its inconsistency." (In addition to the aforementioned book by Monod, Garrido lists and partially quotes the most salient points from the following books: Le probleme de l'âme, by C. Tresmontant, Paris, 1969; Qu'est-ce que l'âme? Réponse à Claude Tresmontant, by R. Dalahaye, Paris, 1971; Du Cosmos à Dieu, by P. Loyer, Paris, 1971; and La notion d'évolution, in "Itinéraires," no. 165, July-August 1972.) To characterize the mood in our Catholic Church, the Croatian Cardinal Seper, the highest authority of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, says in his letter, addressed last year to a priest, among other things: "I am unable to guess how long the current madness among Catholics will last. For the moment, literature on ecumenism abounds, but in reality, the Catholic doctrinal crisis is Currently a terrible obstacle to ecumenism. Last year... I had a Protestant pastor at my table... who assured me that his Dutch Protestant parishioners had no idea who their interlocutors were, since they couldn't discern who represented Catholic doctrine." Something similar happened to him when he met a Greek Orthodox professor. The journal Roma, firm in the Catholic tradition, characterized by its doctrinal unity and rigorous organizational discipline, deserves attention in these days of insecurity and confusion of ideas that afflict us all.

F.N.

Criterio, a bi-weekly Catholic magazine

Buenos Aires, in its issues 1659-60, corresponding to January 1973, published the following articles: "The Christian Facing the Elections," unsigned, which means it is the opinion of the Editorial Board; then: "The Yugoslav Experience," by Eduardo Frei Montalva; "How the Encyclical 'Quadragesimo Anno' Was Written," by Oswald Von Nell-Breuning. Among the documents, the most prominent is the Declaration of the French Episcopate, prepared at the Plenary Assembly of October 28, 1972.

We consider that Frei's article contrasts with the rest of the contributions. In issues 46-47/72 of Studia Croatica, all of Mr. Frei's theses, inspired by the official propaganda of the Yugoslav communist regime, are refuted. Of course, this refutation is not only by us, but also by the Yugoslav communist authors themselves and based on authentic documents from that regime. Thus, for example, Frei says: "As for the self-management system itself, it is generated from the ground up. The workers elect a workers' council in each business unit. This workers' council elects the so-called executive council, which ultimately has the power of direct decision-making. The executive council elects the director.

This director cannot be just anyone." In the aforementioned volume of Studia Croatica, p. 125, the answer is: "Bureaucratic groups emerge, composed of technical leaders and officials of political institutions and organizations (Communist League, trade unions, administrative bodies), sometimes also including the heads of workers' councils, usurping the power of the company or the commune. They abuse their positions and influence to gain total control of decisions and, not infrequently, certain material privileges for themselves and their friends. This procedure leads to a further passivization of the masses and, sometimes, to the demoralization of the work collectives" (M. Markovic, one of the most prominent Serbian Marxist philosophers, contributor to the well-known journal "Praxis"). Another Yugoslav author, the Slovenian Veljko Rus, says in this regard: "The organs of self-management assumed full responsibility for all decisions without possessing the necessary and specific knowledge, and without having the indispensable social power to exercise such responsibility; in this way, they have increasingly become a convenient resource for the ruling group which, hidden behind the self-management bodies, manages the company with greater or lesser irresponsibility. Thus, the ruling groups in the company become, intentionally or not, the groups that hold all the power without assuming responsibility for their actions."

Frei states: "These companies, which naturally belong to the workers who work in them, are administered by the workers' council that they themselves appoint, and their manager is the director who has the power of direction and administration, appointed by the workers who make up the factory, that is, employees, laborers, engineers, and technicians." S. Stojanovic, another Serbian Marxist philosopher from the same "Praxis" group, comments: "The proletariat does not have independent organizations that could represent it and guarantee its rights. These organizations, formally workers' organizations, are in reality state-controlled and turned into transmission belts for the state class and its Party..." (Studia Croatica, cited issues, p. 120).

F. N.

Croatia Press

A Croatian newspaper in New York, whose director is Engineer Carlos (Karlo) Mirth, celebrated 25 years of dedicated work in 1972. Engineer Mirth began in Spain and continued in the USA. With truly commendable dedication, the director of Croatia Press, setting aside personal matters, devotes his time, intellectual and moral capacities, as well as financial resources, to informing world public opinion about the current and most pressing issues of his subjugated homeland, Croatia.

Nelson Rockefeller, Governor of New York, sent a letter to Engineer Mirth on this occasion, congratulating him and wishing him continued success in his future endeavors. Engineer Mirth was granted a special audience by Governor Rockefeller. Studia Croatica joins in the congratulations that our colleague Mirth has received after 25 years of highly positive and patriotic work.

"Wissenschaftlicher Dienst Sudost-Europa"

(Scientific Service for Southern Europe) is the name of the journal published by the Sudost-Institut in Munich. With a systematic approach so characteristic of the Germans, this monthly journal reports on current and crucial issues facing the peoples of Southern Europe, now almost entirely under communist rule.

The Sudost-Institut and its journal dedicate considerable attention to Yugoslavia. Anyone needing firsthand information about the lives of the Croatian people will find it in the aforementioned "Scientific Service," an indispensable, rich, and diverse source covering cultural, political, economic, religious, and other topics. Croatia was part of Yugoslavia, and unfortunately, everything that happened in that country inevitably and fatally impacted the lives of the Croatian people.

Journal of Croatian Studies

It is the annual publication of the Croatian Academy of America, headquartered in New York. In its latest issue, number XIII for 1972, this English-language journal published, among other things of interest, a thorough and well-documented study by Professor Sime Djodan, entitled: The Evolution of the Economic System of Yugoslavia and the Economic Position of Croatia. Professor S. Djodan was sentenced to six years in prison in early 1973, accused of being a Croatian "chauvinist," "nationalist," and "separatist."

The falsity of this accusation is perfectly illustrated by a joke circulating in the Croatian capital during these tragic times for the Croatian people. The gist of it is as follows: Milka Obradovic-Planinc (born Serbian, married to a Slovenian), president of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Croatia, went for a two-block walk in the Croatian capital, heavily guarded by secret agents. Leaning against a house wall was a beggar, his hand outstretched towards the President.

The agents, because of this "suspicious" position, grabbed him to "prevent" aggression. "No, comrades," said the beggar, "all I ask for is alms." Then the President intervened and said: "Yes, comrade, I'll give it to you, if you confess that this begging isn't 'chauvinistic.'" Thus, Professor Djodan and his irrefutable arguments about the economic exploitation of Croatia by Belgrade met their "chauvinistic" fate.

Franjo Nevistic

Don Isidoro, Catalan and Croatian...

The following text was published in La Vanguardia Española on April 4, 1973, and refers to a Croatian-Catalan priest, Isidoro Macabich, who lived and acted in such a way that he left a lasting impression of his Catalan-Croatian character. Far from his homeland and in a national environment that was not entirely his own, Catalonia and Croatia also found in him a point of understanding and fraternity. (Editorial Staff of Studia Croatica).

"Reading the news here, in an outdated newspaper, in this Castilian wasteland where the horizon is a closed circle of gentle hills and the sky a vast vault releasing a silent snowfall, is absurd. I imagine Don Isidoro's funeral procession winding through the whitewashed streets of Ibiza, the sun reflecting its light on the sea... Because Don Isidoro Macabich y Llobet, canon and domestic prelate of His Holiness, has died at the age of ninety.

"I still remember the last time we saw each other, in Ibiza, on a hot day, in the shady shelter of Santa María la Major." The canon—perhaps I should even say the domestic prelate, but Don Isidoro was the canon, the quintessential "canon Macabich"—wore a threadbare cassock, black spectacles, and the last vestiges of weariness were reflected in his gaunt face, his thin, unsteady body. He spoke to me, his mouth toothless, and gazed out at the sea, his aquiline nose protruding.... Bearer of old Croatian and Catalan surnames, Don Isidoro was a disorganized, combative scholar, in whom political and linguistic contradictions followed one another, all under a powerful scepter: his Ibizan obsession, his insular entrenchment.

"In 1901 he published his first poem, "To the Immaculate Virgin"; in 1906, his first historical monograph, "Ibiza Corsairs in the 8th and 19th Centuries." In Barcelona, he kept most of his books, from the poems in "Dialectals" to the four thick, chaotic, and fascinating volumes of his "History of Ibiza," a hotbed of information. Indeed, Don Isidoro was, until his death, a relic of 19th-century erudition, voracious and self-taught. On the island teeming with bewildered hordes of tourists and economic strife, his disheveled figure seemed an anachronism...

"But I have already mentioned his merits as a historian. And I will say more: for three-quarters of a century, Don Isidoro carried out in Ibiza the most important, decisive, and essential work ever done there to understand and preserve the island's native essence." Hotels and tourists will not fill the void left by his death. Was he an anachronism, or is the present itself now? Rest in peace.

Baltasar Porcel

---

[1] Jozo (José) Ivicevic-Bakulic, ex secretario del Centro Cultural de Croacia Matica Hrvatska, es una personalidad eximia por su espíritu estudioso -se ha recibido en la Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales, en la de Filosofía y Letras y en la de la Historia- y su integridad ética verdaderamente estoica. En el período de la actual reestalinización del régimen de Tito, Ivicevic fue condenado a 5 años de prisión. En la, pág. 77-78 de este volumen de SC reproducimos las palabras de su autodefensa ante el tribunal de Tito, explicando la propia "culpabilidad". Son de gran valor interno, humano, dichas palabras. Con su sinceridad, su profundidad y su resignación de un espíritu que se siente superior a sus perseguidores, Ivicevic ilumina la situación política, cultural, nacional y humana en que trabajan los intelectuales croatas. Hay muchos observadores internacionales que, no obstante todo esto, acusan a los croatas por "fascismo" cuando intentan violentamente poner fin a esa situación. Evidentemente cometen un grave error contra los que luchan por la libertad., Para ellos la violencia croata es "fascismo" mientras la voz de protesta queda completamente desoída, permitiendo a los opresores continuar con su "arte" de persecución. El artículo arriba reproducido fue publicado en Hrvatski Tjednik, p. 4, Zagreb, 1971, suprimido por Tito en diciembre del mismo año.

$ Este artículo fue publicado en el Nº 12 del periódico Hrvatski Gospodarski Glasnik (Gazeta Económica Croata), mes octubre de 1971, Zagreb. Al final del mismo está impresa la palabra: "Continuará". Sin embargo parece que no continuó. En diciembre el periódico fue suprimido por la "soberana" voluntad de Tito. Su autor, el Dr. Sime Djodan, fue arrestado. En febrero del año en curso fue condenado a 6 años de prisión, a pesar de su grave estado de salud. "L´Esprit", París, en el número del mes de abril de 1973: " ... La pena de 6 años impuesta a... el Sr. Sime Djodan, equivale a la pena de muerte: este ex combatiente de la resistencia, el más popular de los profesores de la Universidad de Zagreb, sufre de una grave lesión pulmonar, de hipertensión nerviosa, de lesiones renales y tiene una pierna fracturada, problemas físicos aparecidos desde su entrada en la cárcel...". Ahora bien, el mismo periódico francés dice que el profesor servio Mihajlo Djuric fue condenado a nueve meses de reclusión a pesar de que había expresado públicamente su opinión en el sentido de que Yugoeslavia debía seguir centralista con la hegemonía servia o debería procederse a la separación de Servia de la misma, mientras Djodan, que pedía la reforma de Yugoeslavia en un sentido realmente federal, donde también los croatas habrían podido gozar más libertad y disponer de los frutos de sus propias manos, fue condenado a seis años. En el caso de profesor servio se trata realmente de la defensa del chovinismo y la hegemonía servios o del separatismo, "pecado mortal" formalmente para la justicia yugoeslava y, a pesar de todo, fue condenado sólo a 9 meses de prisión. En el caso del profesor croata -el Dr. Djodan fue profesor para la Economía Política en la Facultad de Derecho- por defender la unidad de Yugoeslavia mediante la igualdad política, económica y cultural de Croacia, la condena es de 6 años.

¿Necesita un lector de buena voluntad casos más claros de la discriminación nacional que se practica en la Yugoeslavia de Tito en perjuicio del pueblo croata? Si la justicia es el fundamento de los reinos, como decían los sabios, ¿puede esta injusticia servir de fundamento para la Yugoeslavia comunista de Tito? ¿Merece ese proletario aburguesado un premio internacional que no fuera vituperio y desprecio totales?