Falsifikat o podrijetlu konavonskih rodova. (Forgery on the Origins of the Population of Konavle – Historical Pseudo-Science on Dubrovnik) Dubrovnik: Zavod za povijesne znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosit i umjetnosti u Dubrovniku, 1997. (136 p.)

     Few historical disciplines influence political events as much as historical science. This fact is understandable, and there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, history deals in large part with the analysis of politics in the past and is consequently a basic starting point from which one begins the consideration of present-day politics and the prediction of political activity in the future.

     A problem occurs, however, when historical science becomes unnaturally yoked to politics, when it becomes an instrument of politics. Then, when history loses its universality, it also loses its fundamental scientific character. Instead of being a goal, it becomes a means by which a political interest can be more easily realized. Misused, historical science is thus fumed into the arm of politics that we would call historical pseudo-science.

     Historical pseudo-science has brought much misfortune to Dubrovnik. It has unfortunately not restricted itself to the laboratories. The results of pseudo- science were used in justifications of the Serbian military attack on Dubrovnik (1991), and in all probability even led to the very decision to attack the city.

     The hypertrophy of the historical pseudo-science of Dubrovnik began in the nineteenth century, when nations were beginning to form on the Balkan peninsula. These nations did not simply crop up out of nothing. Many factors religious, ethnic, linguistic, civilizational, cultural, etc.¹ influenced their creation and crystallization. Each one found in variations of these factors its own individual course of creation and movement. Still, it is crucial that each nation necessarily had its own base, critical mass, core that began it, that carried it, and out of which it further developed. The basis on which the Serbian and Croatian nations were created was religion.² For Serbs the basis lay in the Eastern Orthodox Church, for Croats, in the Roman Catholic Church.³

     Created upon these foundations, each nation has had its own specific development, its own rises and falls, its own shine, but its own delusions as well. ⁴ The Serbian nation showed its greatest aggressiveness during the Romantic period. The primary expression of this aggressiveness was Vuk Karadzic’s theory that all shtokavian speakers are Serbs. Historically, Croats have been speakers of three dialects, named chakavian, kajkavian, and shtokavian for the variants of the interrogative pronoun cha, kaj, and shto ‘what’. Serbs, on the other hand, have historically been speakers of two dialects in addition to shtokavian: Eastern shtokavian and Torlak. Early Croatian literature was written in each of its three dialects; its modem literary and linguistic standard, however, is based upon shtokavian. The acceptance of Karadzic’s theory, which ignored all other essential and decisive factors in the genesis of nations, produced the powerful expansionism of the Serbs. Serbs, that is, were not satisfied by the development of the core from which they emerged, and they attacked the foundations upon which other nations were created, including that of the Croats. This was obviously a romantic illusion that had no chances of success, but it brought misfortune to Croats and other nations, not to mention Serbs themselves.

     According to this theory, even shtokavian Dubrovnik was supposed to be a Serbian town. Even the historical context of the time was in Serbs’ favor, pushing Dubrovnik into the lap of Serbia. We must not forget that the fall of the Dubrovnik Republic after Napoleon’s shakedown of Europe, and the end of centuries of autonomy, traumatically affected the citizens of Dubrovnik. It was a shock for them to come under Austria’s rule. Psychologically, they considered themselves to be under occupation by a foreign state. Meanwhile, on the other side stood Serbia, recently freed from Turkish rule, which as such could have been a stronghold of pan-Slavism in the South Slavic region.

     Dubrovnik was also attacked internally. The fall of the Dubrovnik Republic brought with it the end of the city’s religious exclusivism. People of Orthodox confession were allowed to immigrate freely. In 1857 one percent of the population was already Orthodox, while in the twentieth century this segment of the population grew to more than seven percent.⁵ Because these newcomers settled mainly in urban areas, their influence was greater in the city of Dubrovnik. The dissatisfaction of the people of Dubrovnik with their loss of independence, coupled with their view of Austria as a foreign body and the above-mentioned changes in the demographic structure, lead to the strengthening of Slavophile currents among the Croatian people, the most extreme phenomenon of which being the so called Serb Catholics .⁶

     The wheel of history was thus turning in the advantage of the Serbs, not the Croats. In spite of all this, Dubrovnik still did not become Serbian, and for one reason alone: it did not belong to the Serbian corpus in terms of religion, culture, or civilization. There was no way that the Catholic “Latin” from the coastal Konavle region could identify with the Orthodox “Vlah” from the immediate hinterland, who had been a constant threat to his life and property for centuries. Even the townspeople of Dubrovnik, who were initially friendly toward pan-Slavism. soon “cooled off” to the idea when they sensed that the Serbs did not understand it in the same way when they figured out that behind this idea lurked expansionism. Therefore, in Dubrovnik no critical mass emerged that could successfully impose “Serbianness.” This was endorsed by Orthodox Serb arrivals and part of Dubrovnik’s intellectual elite who, under the influence of Miklosic, accepted Karadzic’s theory and in contact with Belgrade found their own advantage. But neither the common people nor the rest of the Dubrovnik intellectual elite ever accepted this idea. One very indicative report is that of Vlaho Bogdan, Court Secretary of the Habsburg Ferdinand IV, Grand Duke of Tuscany, published in Narodni list, no. 78 (October 20, 1885), in which he reviews Serb Catholic emphasis on Dubrovnik belonging to the Serbs:

     “I know very well when, and by whom, the Serbian label was attached to Dubrovnik. That which our immortal Medo Pucic wrote for Talijanska antologija in 1867 was not authoritative for many reasons, one of which is that, although his was a life of honor and uncommon virtues, he lacked that blessed consistence and sang as a ‘Slav,’ a ‘Yugoslav,’ an ‘Illyro-Slav,’ and finally, as a ‘Serb.’ This, of course, was natural for him, but neither for him nor for anyone else was it natural to name all of Dubrovnik Serbian. Organize for God’s sake a plebiscite, and then you will hear the true voice of Dubrovnik laughing at your face. If it were not for his ardent patriotism and great poetic gift, his christening of Dubrovnik with the Serbian name would bring him little eternal fame… From 1850 until 1860 and before that time, except for Medo Pucic (perhaps) and those true Serbs who came here in search of a better living, in Dubrovnik there was not a Serb to be found”.⁷

     The “Serbianness” of Dubrovnik, as an idea, already met its demise in the same century as when it was conceived, and it was destroyed in the twentieth century, in the fir
st Yugoslavian state, especially after the Croatian representative and leader Stjepan Radic was killed on the floor of the Yugosalivian parliament in Belgrade.

     But Serbian romanticism, of course, was not destroyed, but merely lost its foothold in Dubrovnik itself. Serbian politics and its product, historical pseudo- history, did not give up their claim to Dubrovnik. Since Serbia never controlled Dubrovnik legally or in the real sense not even during the period of Austrian rule, nor later in the Yugoslavian period, and since they had no positive legal basis for the acquisition of Dubrovnik, all they had left was the romantic imposition of historical criteria. Related to this was the creation of false dilemmas (Whose is Dubrovnik, Croatian or Serbian? Whose is the literature of Dubrovnik, Croatian or Serbian?) and the tactic of supporting these false dilemmas while waiting for an appropriate historical moment to change a wish into a reality.

     To be sure, it was a false dilemma, because Dubrovnik did not derive its affiliation from some romantic view of history, but from actual and legal fact. Dubrovnik is a city in the Republic of Croatia, Dubrovnik is legally a city in the Republic of Croatia Croatia did not take it from anyone else by force, Croatia did not fight a war in order to get Dubrovnik, Croatia did not occupy and conquer Dubrovnik. These are decisive facts. Dubrovnik’s place in the Croatian corpus can be confirmed by listing all of the arguments from historical proof to ethnic characteristics, just as the Serbs or any other nation have the right to search for their connections with Dubrovnik. But these arguments are not decisive; they are only explanations of particular historical events and processes, and not criteria according to which Dubrovnik could be considered Croatian, Serbian, or anyone else’s.⁸

     However, with the creation of false dilemmas, the history of Dubrovnik became politicized. Because of this, historians have not devoted their complete energy to researching the phenomenon of the Dubrovnik Republic, a small but significant state that survived in between great empires, a state that brought forth many prominent people, successful artists and scientists, a state that, thanks to its administration, has left us excellent archives, making it possible for us to follow microscopically all significant component parts of life over a long period of time beginning in the middle ages. Instead. their energies have been focused upon proving who Dubrovnik belongs to. Thus numerous Serbian historians began to search for clues proving Dubrovnik to be Serbian. Every Cyrillic letter found in the Dubrovnik Historical Archives became a proof of “Serbianness” in Dubrovnik. Individual segments of history in which the medieval Serbian state expanded toward Dubrovnik, capturing surrounding territories (but never the city itself), became decisive and even more important than the more long-term chain of events before and after this expansion. The short-lived Orthodox presence that occurred on the territory of Dubrovnik as a result of this expansion was new and further proof of Dubrovnik’s “Serbianness”, much stronger than the long-term religious affiliation of the region both before and after Evidence was seeked out in joint families, baptismal feasts. personal names, surnames, and individual statements. At the same time there was such animosity among Serbian historians toward the terms “Croatia”, “Croats”. “Croatian”, and ”Croatian language” that it would be difficult among numerous books and articles, to count on one hand the works in which at least some of these terms are mentioned even once. The basic goal was to prove that Dubrovnik is Serbian, and that, because it is Serbian, it is unjustly Croatian. Consequently, this injustice must be corrected.

     The few Croatian historians of Dubrovnik were unable to match the powerful Serbian historiographical school that developed beginning with Jorjo Tadic and the generation of skillful experts that he trained. In fact, taking into consideration Serbian historiography as a whole, this Dubrovnik group was probably one of the strongest and most noteworthy. Many important Serbian academicians built their scientific careers on the study of Dubrovnik. Croats were weaker, and only a few individuals (Vinko Foretic, Josip Lucic, Trpimir Macan, and Vladimir Koscak) succeeded in sustaining some kind of balance and preventing Dubrovnik historiography from becoming completely Serbianized .⁹

     To be sure, in such a power relationship, the Croatian historiography of Dubrovnik exposed its weakness. Because they did not have a large number of quality historians with the ability to use the power of argument and a large quantity of publications to expose the absurdity of the gross politicization in the works of some Serbian historians, the small number of Croatian historians found themselves in an unnatural defensive position. Sometimes, by joining the pointless discussion and attempting to prove the “Croatianness” of Dubrovnik, they would only strengthen the false dilemma that was imposed upon them.

     Modern Croatian historiographv should not be allowed to fall into this trap in calling upon history to prove that Dubrovnik belongs to Croatia. For Croatia and Dubrovnik this is a ridiculous and unnecessary discussion. The Serbs who imposed the discussion will have to come to terms with it by themselves until they do that until they discard their romantic view of history and politics from their historical science laboratories they will not be a serious partner to Croatian historiography. That is, however, their problem. Croatian historiography of Dubrovnik must dedicate its energy towards constructive ends: it is essential that we have more researchers of Dubrovnik’s past, that we are dedicated to the systematic and thorough study and publication of the abundant records held in Dubrovnik’s rich archives. And on the basis of this preliminary work, we must utilize the power of fact and reason in order to analyze everything that comprises the history of Dubrovnik. We must openly discuss all basic elements that follow this history. We must even explain the significance of the Serb Catholics, as well as that of the Orthodox presence in certain parts of the Dubrovnik region in the Middle Ages, etc. We should not be silent about these issues, and must not suppress them. On the contrary, it is necessary to speak out and put things in their right place, according to the strictest scientific criteria. In this way Croatian historiography of Dubrovnik will receive complete affirmation and respect, and only in this way will it be able to uncover and neutralize the one-sidedness of one segment of Serbian historiography.

     Modern Croatian historiography will exhibit its strength by just valorization of the results of Serbian historiography of Dubrovnik. It would be a great mistake to discard everything that that school has produced in the past decades. Among Serbian historians have been highly qualified scholars whose research was exclusively a product of their scientific curiosity, rather than political goals. Miodrag Popovic, to mention one, had the courage to state that the literature of Dubrovnik comprises a constituent part of Croatian literature, and that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the literatures of Dubrovnik and Serbia belonged to two completely different cultural and historical traditions.¹⁰ We must not make unnecessary generalizations and allow ourselves to hate those who we should respect. Croatian historiography must critically review the works of Serbian historians and argumentatively and impartially sift out what is good and acceptable from what is a forgery that must be rejected. *** This work is an analysis of exactly such a forgery, a book by Jovan Vukmanovic about the Konavle region. A typical example of ho
w a romantic approach to science can lead to pseudo-science, Vukmanovic’s book would not even deserve to be reviewed were it not for the fact that it bears the label of the highest scientific institution in Serbia. However, this book passed through the reviewing process of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and is printed as a publication of that institution. For this reason it is from the scientific point of view a first-class scandal.

     The purpose of this article is not to prove that the people of Konavle are Croats. They know that even without us and without Vukmanovic, who attempted to convince them that they are a “happy Yugoslavian combination”. What the people of Konavle are, and what each person from Konavle is individually, are questions to which the inhabitants of this southernmost region of Croatia can expect a two-way answer. Today: every Konavle resident is whatever he feels to be; every individual can answer that question by himself. Historically: each Konavle resident can take pride in his or her origins, whatever they may be. There is nothing better or worse about a Konavle resident who we can consider an autochton, than one whose family moved there long ago from more northern parts of Croatia, or whose ancestors left old Montenegro or Bosnia, coming to Konavle either to save their own necks or in some more peaceful or spontaneous migration. Every person who lives in the Konavle has a story, which they can be proud of. This is however a historical story and nothing more.

     The goal of this book is to separate truth from lies; to base the historical story of each Konavle resident upon truth, and not upon someone’s political whim; to ensure that behind such a story stands a reliable historical source, and not a forgery.
Authors
Translated by Alexander Hoyt

NOTES
¹ Compare Edgar Morin, “The Contents of National Feeling.” Lettre internationale 1/3-4 (1991): 16-18.

² Ivo Banac. “Vjersko ‘pravilo’ i dubrovacka iznimka: Geneza dubrovackog kruga ‘Srba katolika'” (The religious ‘rule’ and the Dubrovnik exception: The genesis of the Dubrovnik circle of ‘Serb Catholics’) Dubrovnik , New series 1/1-2, 1990: 179.

³ Ivo Banac makes an essential comment on this question: “Without going into a dissection of whether religion really divided the South Slavs into different nations or whether religious denomination simply reflected the heterogeneity of the South Slavic population that type of discussion would be difficult to carry out based upon today’s comprehension of ethnogenisis I am only warning of the fact that the religious ‘rule’ was not always so strict and that it was sometimes overlooked during clashes of ideology.” Ibid. 179.

⁴ See Wolf Dietrich Behschnitt. “O tipologiji nacionalizma u Srba i Hrvata.” (On the Typology of Nationalism Among the Serbs and Croats.) Translation: Christine Dumbovic-Reiser. Casopis za suvremenu povijest 24/3 (1992): 227-240.

⁵ Stjepan Krivosic. Stanovnistvo Dubrovnika i demografske promjene u proslosti . Dubrovnik: Institute for Historical Science in Dubrovnik, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, 1990: 70; Popis stanovnistva 1991., Narodnosni sastav stanovnistva po naseljima (The 1991 census in Croatian, Ethnic breakdown of the population by locality.) Zagreb: Republicki zavod za statistiku, Dokumentacija 881, 1992: 80.

⁶ Banac, Ibid.: 180; Trpimir Macan. “O pristupu srpskokatolickom fenomenu.” Dubrovnik 1-2 (1990): 236-237.

⁷ Niko Kisic. “Dubrovcanin Vlaho Bogdan, suradnik Narodnog lista.” Zadarska smotra 41/6 (1992): 13-15.

⁸ Nenad Vekaric. “Razmisljanje povodom ideje o otimanju Dubrovnika.”Dubrovnik (u ratu) 3/2-3 (1992): 454-457.

⁹ One very symptomatic example is Koscak’s conclusion about the “Croatian silence” in the polemic debate about the origins of the literature of Dubrovnik that was publicized in the Belgrade daily Borba during 1967: “And while on the Serbian side the president of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, the dean of the faculty, the chairman of the department, and full professors all voiced their opinions, on the Croatian side they were careful not to offend anyone, and in so doing, left the arguing to younger and less prominent scholars, who luckily carried out the task honorably. Vladimir Koscak. “Polemika o pripadnosti dubrovacke knjizevnosti.” (The 1967 Debate Over the Origin of the Literature of Dubrovnik.) Dubrovnik (u ratu) 3/2-3 (1992): 474.

¹⁰ Koscak, Ibid.: 470-472.

Croatian and Serbian – Delusions and Distortions. In collaboration with Ljiljana Saric. Zagreb: Novi Most, 1997. Pp. 172.

     Translation of the original: Miro Kacic. Hrvatski i srpski – Zablude i krivotovrine. Uz suradnju Ljiljane Saric. Zagreb: Zavod za lingviskiku Filozofskog fakulteta Sveucilista u Zagrebu, 1995.

     Available in both English and Croatian.

     This scholarly monograph deals with the history of the Croatian language and its relationship to Serbian. The Croatian edition aroused great interest and claim in Croatian and international linguistic circles. This is not a surprise because it is one of few book on this delicate subject which have recently been published in Croatia.

     As anyone interested in the study of the Croatian language knows, most of the literature on the subject which is published by Slavists and linguists abroad deals with various aspects of the so called “Croato-Serbian/Serbo-Croatian language” without being, or most often wishing to be, aware that they are two different languages. Croatian and Serbian – Delusions and Distortions is therefore invaluable both for linguists and general public. Price and mailing: $ 27.00 USA, Canada, and Australia; $ 22.00 Europe.

     “The author has collected the most important facts showing the delusions and distortions that have arisen in the study of the historical development of the Croatian literary language and the formation of the Croatian linguistic standard. This book is very welcome… because it contributes to a better understanding of the identity of the Croatian language.” Academician M. Magus, linguist, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

  Croatia: A History. Translated from the Croatian by Nikola Jovanovic. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1999. xi 281 p. Paper US $22.95 Cloth US $60.00

     “Could become a standard work…. The book is modern, written in a detached professional manner.” Chris Cviic, former editor of The World Today)

     Ivo Goldstein (born 1958) is a Professor of Medieval History at the University of Zagreb and former Director of the Institute for Croatian History of the University of Zagreb (1991-6).

     This book is a telling witness not only to the historic events that took place in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in the former communist-controlled Europe, but also a remarkable record of activities on the part of the author during that last ten years. After an insightful introduction by the author, the letters and statements are aligned chronologically and they parallel the events that were taking place in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. An extensive index is included at the end of the volume.

     Cuvalo’s latest book is a valuable primary source that will be useful to present and future historians of Croatian diaspora in the United States. It should be in every major library in the English speaking world. We urge our members, readers, and friends to order this worthy book and donate it to the library in your community, nearby college or university. Croatian organizations and lodges should consider sponsoring this and other worthwhile books so that the publisher and/or the author may send a copy of the book to various libraries on behalf of the sponsoring organization.

Removing the Mask can be ordered from:
Ante Cuvalo 19121 Wildwood Ave. Lansing, IL 60438. Tel/Fax: (708) 895-5531 email: cuv@netzero.com
Price: $10.00 plus postage.

Historical Dictionary of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Lanham, Md., Scarecrow, 1997. lvi 355p. (European Historical Dictionaries, no.25). $45.00. ISBN 0-8108-3344-1

     This historical dictionary is a welcome reference source among the numerous new works about the region’s history and political situation. Cuvalo’s work conforms to the standard arrangement of titles in the series–a lengthy introduction, a detailed chronology, and an extensive bibliography in addition to the encyclopedic entries themselves. The bulk of the text is concerned with persons, events, and places in Bosnia. The entries cover more than 200 pages and provide an excellent background (especially for recent history), and include entries for Westerners who have made an impact on Bosnian history (e.g., Cyrus Vance, General MacKenzie). Entries for broad terms (economy, literature, political parties) are as much as seven pages in length. The bibliography, almost 100 pages long, is a well-organized collection of articles and monographs published in the last few decades; it is especially worthwhile for undergraduates who will rely on these primarily English-language sources. There is no comparable reference source. Highly recommended for all libraries. I. Tomlianovich, Dickinson College CHOICE, March 1998 Vol.35 No. 7

     Historical Dictionary of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ante Cuvalo. Scarecrow Press. Lanham, MD and London 1997.lv + 353 pp. ISBN 0 81083 344 1 342 1. 42.75.European Historical Dictionaries series, no. 25. UK distribution by Shelwing Ltd, Folkestone. Keywords Bosnia and Herzegovina, History/ LCSH Bosnia and Herzegovina – history – dictionaries

      Who was it who said a country with no history is a happy country, or words to that effect? Whoever it was, he certainly knew what he was talking about. Bosnia-Herzegovina has suffered too much history, and who can be sure it is not about to suffer a lot more? But, apart from the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand in Sarajevo at the end of June 1914, the spark which ignited the First World War, but which in fact could have happened anywhere in Europe although the odds were that it would take place somewhere in the Balkans, not much of Bosnian history has directly impinged on Western Europe until December 1995, when NATO forces moved into Bosnia to enforce the Dayton peace accord. It could be said that Bosnia was less known and even further away than Czechoslovakia was at the time of the Munich crisis 50 years earlier.

     General histories of Bosnia in English are in short supply Even Noel Malcom’s (1994) authoritative work Bosnia: A Short History, a narrative history in 16 chronological and thematic chapters, now needs updating in the light of events in the last five years. So, Cuvalo’s Historical Dictionary, which brings the story down to February 1997, undoubtedly fills a gap.

     Like other titles in Scarecrow’s admirable European Historical Dictionaries series, it presents informative entries, of varying and appropriate length, on crucial events, on the influential leaders who initiate and/or profit from these events, on political institutions, and on significant locations like Mostar or Sarajevo. Inevitably, the emphasis is on the current situation and the recent past, but that is not to say earlier historical periods are neglected, there being sufficient entries to put the present into its equally eventful historical context. Economic, social, cultural, and religious affairs are also covered. As the series editor, Jon Woronoff, points out in his foreword, these only make sense when read in conjunction with other entries delving into earlier periods. Attitudes everywhere have deep roots and nowhere deeper than in the Balkans. It is here, of course, that the dictionary arrangement is in danger of collapsing but Cuvalo liberally sprinkles his pages with (qv)s to avert possible confusion. In any event he includes a 50-page Introduction dealing with Bosnia-Herzegovina’s territory, population and name, its physical features and climate, and a long historical survey from prehistory, through the medieval period and the Ottoman conquest, the Austro-Hungarian period 1878-1918, to the creation of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes at the Versailles Peace Conference (surprisingly, there is no entry for Versailles), World War II, and the turbulent history of post-war Yugoslavia. A 45-page chronology, 38 pages of which are devoted to events since 1990, help to keep track of who’s who and when through all this.

     A massive bibliography (pp. 255-353), of items in Western and Balkan languages, is arranged in 19 sub-divided form and thematic categories, including encyclopedias and handbooks, bibliographies, travel and description, regional histories, and histories of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

     Following previous comments in these columns on the standard of Scarecrow’s maps, it is pleasing to report that the four included here, Medieval Bosnia, After The Congress of Berlin 1878, After 1945, and After The Dayton Peace Accord November 1995, all have the appearance of having been specially drawn for this Dictionary, and not simply a job lot of illegible, scaled-down maps lifted from other books and atlases.

     In better, that is more substantially funded, times no doubt these historical dictionaries would be on standing order for all decent reference collections; but times being what they are… Alan Day Editor-Compiler, Walford’s Guide RR/98/51Area studies/Reference Reviews 12/1 [1998] 42-43.

     ANTE CUVALO, Historical Dictionary of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Lanham, Md., Scarecrow, 1997. lvi 355p. (European Historical Dictionaries, no.25). $45.00. ISBN 0-8108-3344-1

     Although this useful handbook is designated as an historical dictionary, it is actually much more. About one-half of the pages in this volume are devoted to entries for historical terms, persons, and events that are centrally relevant to the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The other half of the book contains materials that will be of great use to anyone studying these countries [sic]. After a brief introduction, the author provides a 50-page chronology of major events in the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina and maps relevant to this chronology. Prior to the entries of historical terms, an overview of the geography, religious orientation, and history of this region is given. Following the entries for the historical terms, Cuvalo has compiled a multilingual bibliography of Bosnia and Herzegovina that also includes regional histories and other works relevant to that history.

     This work delivers much more than the title indicates. It will be of use for anyone doing research on Bosnia and Herzegovina during any time period. ROBERT H. BURGER American Reference Books Annual (ARBA), Vol. 30, 1999/Area Studies / Europe/

     CUVALO’S BOOK RECOGNIZED Ante Cuvalo’s book, Historical Dictionary of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was selected by CHOICE magazine as an Outstanding Academic Book(OAB) of 1998. CHOICE – Current Review for Academic Libraries, a monthly published by the Association of College and Research Libraries, is the leading book review periodical used by academic librarians and the scholarly community at large. The first OAB list selected by CHOICE was published in 1965.

     The 1998 Outstanding Academic Books list was published in the January 1999 issue of CHOICE (Vol. 36, No.5). Its
editorial, among others, states: “The 1998 list of Outstanding Academic Books follows in the same honorable tradition. The 623 titles on the list were carefully selected by the CHOICE editorial staff as among the most outstanding of the 6,500-plus new titles (excluding Web resources) reviewed during the previous year. Representing roughly 9 percent of the titles reviewed by CHOICE in 1998, and less than 3 percent of the titles submitted for review, this year’s OAB finalists are truly the ‘best of the best.’ CHOICE salutes the authors and publishers of these outstanding works and congratulates them on their achievement.”

     Historical Dictionary of Bosnia and Herzegovina ($ 45.00 ) can be order from the author. Tel/Fax (708) 895-5531 or e-mail: cuv@netzero.com

Croatian Language Adviser

     Croatian Language Adviser published by the Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistics, Skolske novine and Pergamena is the work of 12 authors. The aim of this book, which has 1666 pages, is to try to solve all language problems on all language levels, from accentuation and orthography to morphological, lexical and syntactical problems. The book consists of two main parts. In the first part the authors give theoretical explanation of various problems on all language levels and explain the theoretical conception and practical solutions of the Adviser.

     The second part of the Adviser is a dictionary that has 81000 entries. It deals with all words which can present a problem for Croatian speakers, i.e. words that have orthographic problems, e.g. rendgen (not rentgen or rengen), potpredsjednik (not podpredsjednik), Madjar (better than Madzar); lexical problems e.g. words of foreign origin which can be replaced by Croatian words: informacija – obavijest, paginacija – obrojcivanje, oficir – casnik; words which do not belong to standard Croatian uslov (this sing means “must be replaced by”) uvjet, preduzetnik poduzetnik etc.; words which can be accentuated in more than one way, words which have some morphological problems e.g. kabel plural kabeli (not kablovi), Podravka dativ Podravci (if it is an enterprise) and Podravki (if it is a woman form Podravina) and syntactic problems.

     This book is very useful for all writing in standard Croatian, especially translators, writers, reporters, editors etc. It doesn’t require any specific linguistic education from its users.

     Order from Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistics, Strossmayerov trg 2, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia. Tel. 385-1-481-6215, 481-6217, 481-6218; Fax 481-6216; E-mail: ihjj@jezikoslov.ihjj.hr

Dubrovnik nakon pada Republike (1808- 1848)/Dubrovnik after the Fall of the Republic (1808-1848). Zagreb-Dubrovnik: Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniku, 1999. pp. 402. ISBN 953-154-317-8.

      Summary History of Dubrovnik 1808-1848: discontinuity and transformation

      The first half of the nineteenth century is characterized by radical social changes which marked the beginning of the history of modem bourgeois era. After exhausting Napoleonic campaigns, and despite restoration and absolutism, much of Europe witnessed the strengthening of the basic democratic tenets founded on legal equality and the proclaimed goals of the bourgeois society. Democratic processes established during the revolutionary movements of the 20’s and 30’s, culminated in the general European unrest of 1848. Technological and industrial revolution, population explosion, and the growth of agricultural industry contributed to social changes, accompanied by a major shift in political theory and practice. The principle of monarchist legality was gradually replaced by various forms of conservativism. On the other hand, all the political streams striving toward reforms were founded on the liberal political philosophy. Lastly, the development and strengthening of national consciousness in the liberal context, demanded, with its integrational power, abolition of territorial and ethnic dismemberment, constructing at the same time the framework of European power struggles.

     The Dubrovnik area, and Croatian lands in general, did not experience these processes as intensely as did most of the Western Europe. Nevertheless, the territory of the former Republic did witness reverberating effects of the global events, but in social terms, Dubrovnik was not yet ready to undergo internal political reforms. The overall European climate of change crept to the borders of the Republic, followed by repercussions of the Napoleonic wars. Rapid change of political and economic structure as well as the discontinuity in development resulting from these processes, engendered the loss of political autonomy, economic breakdown, and the dissolution of the old social structure, demarcating thus fundamentally new guidelines of Dubrovnik’s history in the first half of the nineteenth century.

     Periodization of Dubrovnik’s history following the fall of the Republic is conditioned by a series of institutional and political changes. The 1808 French abolition of the Dubrovnik Republic should be recognized as a historical turning- point. Formally speaking, it marked the disappearance of a social, political, and economic structure which kept struggling over the centuries for its maintenance in the traditional world of the Ancient regime. Dramatical period of French administration experienced two phases. The first, 1808-1809, when new government was established, even though the fate of the abolished Republic still seemed uncertain. The second phase, from 1809 to 1814, saw the annexation of the Dubrovnik area, and its becoming part of the Illyrian provinces. It was then, for the first time, that basic tenets of the bourgeois legislative were being partially introduced, which formally marked the discontinuity of the ancient aristocratic regime. This process was underlined by the complete economic paralysis resulting from the devastation of the commercial fleet, the chief element of Ragusan economic power. The profound social schism provoked the disappearance of the patricians almost overnight, together with old wealthy families whose social status was closely linked to the welfare of the Republic.

     The significance of the occurring changes can clearly be seen only in the light of the fact that in the course of the century, the territory of the Republic witnessed the shaping of an original social system with most distinctive features. Therefore, as with the fall of the Republic we are not exclusively dealing with the abolishment of sovereignty and aristocratic pattern of government, which, in part, continued to exist, but also with the folding of a whole social system bearing centuries-old attributes and tradition, so Dubrovnik-like and different from the neighboring lands. It is this perspective that contributes to the better understanding of all the details related to the political history and mentality of the nineteenth-century Dubrovnik society.

     Administrative experiments, incompleteness of the introduced social reforms, alongside myriad imposed taxes and a disastrous economic situation, were reasons enough to stir popular discontent of all the Dubrovnik classes against the French government. Contrarily, a fairly short six-year French rule, on account of its social accomplishments, remained deeply rooted in the minds of all the Dubrovnik’s social strata.

     The hope of the restoration of the Republic still present in the minds of the nobility and few citizens during the abortive anti-French uprising in 1813/1814, was brutally disillusioned by Austrian steps undertaken over its two-year temporary rule – Intendance (1814-1816). International political situation offered no ground for the Republic’s restoration, and Dubrovnik was yet unable to bear the new integrational idea, and create a real social force capable of its enforcement. Austrian rule was formally established by the resolutions of the Vienna Congress of 1815, and reinforced between the years 1817 and 1822. Being center of one of the districts of the Dalmatian Kingdom, Dubrovnik entered the long-lasting alliance with the Habsburg Monarchy. During the period of absolutism, the old order folded at once. Some patricians fled, while the remaining accepted the reality of the bourgeois society. The latter amalgamated with the well-to-do business-minded commoners, and lived on the land earnings, government and military service. Thus, the patricians were formally losing its noble status symbols, which were strictly determined by the Statutes and other laws of the abolished Republic. An identical process can be traced with Antunini and Lazarini, as the social code with these two most distinguished non-noble groups was directly related to the existence of the aristocratic system.

     Losing its previous position, the Catholic church was also experiencing a crisis. Dubrovnik archbishopric lost most of its estate during the French rule. Following the church reorganization in 1828, the Austrian authorities definitely transferred most of the church properties to the state. Ston bishopric was abolished, and Dubrovnik church district was no longer governed by an archbishop. By losing its formal status, Dubrovnik archbishopric came under the authority of the Dalmatian Metropolitan in Zadar.

     Finding itself on the outskirts of the new political and industrial landscape, the recently shaped citizen substratum advanced slowly due to the devastated economy and lack of capital. Nobility still owned the bulk of land, but with the dawn of the 19th century, citizens, and even peasants, who earned their capital in trade and shipping, emerged as landowners. The latter amassed their property by buying feudal rights from the nobility during the period of the abolition of the fideikomis institution (I811 – 1817). These new owners and businessmen, in line with the city intelligence, created a colorful substratum of the modern bourgeoisie. The rest of the urban society consisted of small- scale tradesmen, artisans, mariners, fishermen, manual workers, and the city paupers. In the smaller urban centers of the Dubrovnik district, Cavtat, Orebic, and partly Ston and Slano, as well as the City itself, there already existed groups of ship owners and business-minded men. In spite
of the anti-maritime Austrian policy, they continued with commercial pursuits in the Adriatic and Mediterranean. Thus, Dubrovnik’s shipping industry managed to preserve the basis for quicker development which was to take place in the second half of the century. Being dependent upon the conditions of the maritime market, sea-oriented businessmen tended to shift their capital in land, inheriting thus the classical landowner-tenant relationship, the latter being landless peasants. Therefore, land ownership still represented a major social problem. Introduction of the Austrian General Public Law in 1816 implied derogation of all the laws of the former Republic, apart from the issue of feudal rights which remained unsolved, and was, in practice, approached as a private legal matter on the administrative and not judicial level. This generated long-term tension in the relationship between the landowners and peasants, since the latter represented the vast majority of population.

     For fear of political dissatisfaction and resurgence of republican traditions, Austrian exertion of authority proved to be much milder in the Dubrovnik area than elsewhere in Dalmatia. In addition to advocating antiquated land ownership relations characteristic of Dubrovnik, Habsburg Monarchy aimed to win over the remainder of the patricians, old middle-class families, and peasantry by introducing a number of stimulating government measures and privileges so as to pacify the area (retirement pensions and state sinecures were granted, no liability to tax payment and military service). The City resumed its significance in the political, administrative, and strategic sense. In this respect, the District Office, civil administrator’s office, Municipal Office, inferior court, and high school were all seated in Dubrovnik. Strong military forces were also stationed there, the army having seized, reconstructed, and rebuilt all the French fortifications, notably Fort Imp rial. Several consular representatives added to the political weight of the City, particularly those of Russia and England who took most active part in diplomatic affairs.

     In addition to the production of oil and wine, modest economic results were achieved owing to the revival of the maritime commerce, and trade with the Turkish hinterland. No relation can be established between the existence of several manufacturing workshops in Dubrovnik, and the course of industrialization in Western Europe. Dubrovnik, like the rest of Dalmatia, had built its prosperity on the trade and shipping industry. Agricultural production was insufficient, and no major improvements could have been attained under the new government either, due to the absence of the basic elements of development: natural resources, capital, and market. Governmental economic measures were highly restrictive and unenterprising. On account of the antiquated Austrian mercantilist policy characterized by high taxes and export orientation through the Danube basin, south Croatian lands remained completely isolated. A series of epidemics and crop failures, plus the imposition of land tax in 1842 were to exacerbate the already gloomy prospects. It was the gradual restoration of shipping and transit commerce during the 1840’s and further that enabled Dubrovnik to maintain its central position among the Dalmatian cities.

     In the light of romanticism, the politically active population envisaged the abolition of the Republic as something ideal, contributing thus to the escape from the stem absolutistic reality. This idea, however, could not have been materialized in its integrational sense, and was subsequently replaced by contemporary forms of ethnic and national identification. Political, economic, and social lethargy engendered by the isolation and absolutistic centralism, was interrupted by occasional cultural events, such as Martecchini’s edition of Gundulic’s work, alongside other Ragusan poets who wrote in Croatian and Italian languages during the 20’s and 30’s. Publishing results were crowned by the 1841 encyclopedic edition Galleria degli Ragusei illustri. Owing to its remarkable tradition, Dubrovnik succeeded in maintaining its leading cultural and political position in Croatian terms, as it nested some of the foremost artistic and intellectual minds of the period.

     Noteworthy linguistic tradition, and Dubrovnik’s consciousness regarding the cultural integrity of the Croatian littoral, provided most favorable conditions for the spread of the Illyrian movement in Dubrovnik, and its interaction with Zagreb. The authority of old Ragusan literature and linguistic heritage were built into the very foundations of the Croat National Revival. Relationship between Dubrovnik and Zagreb was further strengthened by myriad personal contacts, correspondence, and visits by the leading figures of the Revival. The Dubrovnik circle of Croat Illyrians, notwithstanding the omnipresence of the obscure and general Slavic political idea, had most clear views of the national interests. Contributing to the Revival journals, notably to Danica and Zora dalmatinska, a number of Dubrovnik Illyrians and later advocates of the national movement promoted their ideas. The clear political view of the Dubrovnik Revival circle manifested in its determination to grasp the imperative need for the integration of the Croatian lands, and gradual recognition of the Croat name. A similar attitude was expressed in 1848 by none other than the officials of the municipal authority of the Dubrovnik area. Due to the social circumstances in the absolutistic period, many features of the political life began to manifest after the proclamation of the Constitution in 1848. The upheavals of 1848 were the result of political and social fermentation over the preceding decades, and Dubrovnik’s experience should, therefore, be primarily viewed in the sequence of the changes initiated by the 1808 fall of the Republic. Dissolution of absolutism was greeted in both Dalmatia and Dubrovnik with enthusiasm, for it was closely related to the problem of integration with Croatia, and liberal political forces emerged with the issues of land ownership and citizens’ rights. The articulation of national consciousness was one of the major developments of the 1848 revolutions, that triggered thus the publishing of two new journals generally covering democratic and national topics. Democracy and nationhood became the central concern of the future political relations.

     There were a number of reasons for the population of eastern Herzegovina to migrate to Dubrovnik: relatively open borders, possibility of gaining citizenship, poverty, and epidemic diseases. Straining to expand its influence over the Ottoman territory, Austria, for the first time, yielded to a variety of Dubrovnik-bound Orthodox immigrants, who, during the first half of the century, assimilated their own confessional integrity to a pronounced Serb national feeling. A parallel process of Croat national integration, notably in culture and literature and within the Illyrian framework, opened the issue of national relations. Although other parts of Croatia witnessed no national rivalries in 1848, Dubrovnik was experiencing the first complex ideological forms of national differentiation. The spread of Karadzic’s idea of the “linguistic Serbhood”, pro-Serbian propaganda of the Russian consul to Dubrovnik and the Orthodox priest in the City parish, as well as the financial prosperity of the Orthodox newcomers – tradesmen and businessmen – vastly contributed to the process of national differentiation in this area.

     The year 1848 saw the establishment of two National Revival circles in Dubrovnik. The ideology of the Croat circle of Dubrovnik Illyrians, all of whom belonged to the city intelligence and aristocracy, was best exhibited in the Dubrovnik’s papers Rimembranze delta settimana and L’Avvenire, founded that very year. C
ontrary to the former mainly culturo-linguistic contents, and owing to constitutionality and freedom of press, these journals opened their pages to the political demands of the Dubrovnik populists. The articles in L’Avvenire, in particular, converged with the all-Croat wants for integrity. Devoid of ethnic basis, but fanned by great many outside factors, the Serb national program found its stalwarts among several ideologists of the “Serbo-Catholic” idea. In the initial phase, the “Serb Catholics” were unable to make clear distinction between the Serb and Slavic idea in their intent to spread it in Dubrovnik and Dalmatia. Being governed by pragmatism and political goals of the Serbs in Habsburg monarchy, advocates of the “Serbo- Catholic” idea sup- ported the unity of Dalmatia with Croatia. Later, however, acting as instruments of great Serbian ideology, they held Dubrovnik to be Serbian and not Croatian. Being inconsistent, multi-character and highly dependant, the group of “Catholic Serbs” had no major influence in Dubrovnik, particularly not in the early phase.

     Disregarding the negative consequences which, after all, resulted from the overall historical processes, the first decades of the Austrian rule witnessed the reinforcement of the cultural and political bond between Dubrovnik and Croatian lands. A positive, yet latent dimension of the Austrian annexation kept hovering during the longtime process of national and territorial integration of the Croat people, perceptible both in time of the Illyrian movement in the first half of the century, and later, over the period of intense political struggle. The entire history of Dubrovnik is thus experienced as a major ideological backup of the pronounced Croat political aspirations, and an indispensable source of the culturo-historical heritage, the City being viewed as one of the centers of the Croat National Revival.

     Lovers and Madmen is dominated by two central themes: politics and love. Julienne Busic’s memoirs take the reader through the events which shaped her life with Croatian dissident husband, Zvonko — assassination attempts, threats from the Yugoslav secret police, flights from country to country, enforced poverty and deprivation — and characterize the love which led to the greatest sacrifice of all: a sentence of life in prison for the political hijacking of a TWA jet.

     Less than twenty years after that desperate act, Yugoslavia broke apart in a spasm of war and Croatia is now an independent state. The message contained in the leaflets thrown during the hijacking served as a prophesy of this disintegration and the vicious Serbian aggression, first in Croatia and Bosnia, and most recently in Albanian populated Kosovo. Julienne Busic served thirteen years in prison and was released on parole in 1989. Zvonko Busic is still incarcerated, almost 25 years later, in a maximum-security federal prison in Leavenworth, Kansas.

     To buy this book go to: Amazon.com