Maciej Czerwinski

Promatrajući prazan list papira na kojem se trebaju pojaviti slike prošlosti – rekonstrukcije utemeljene na već postojećim premisama i vlastitim promišljanjima – autor si zadaje niz pitanja. Gdje započeti priču o povijesti i kulturi Hrvatske? Treba li je započeti na počecima povijesti, kada je sve još obavijeno velom tajanstvenosti, i krenuti najočiglednijim od putova – u skladu s kronološkim redom? Ili se valja koncentrirati na probleme, a kronologiju im naprosto podrediti? (…)

No egzistencija svake zajednice – pa time i nacije – vrlo je kompleksna. Može ju se predstaviti kao rijeku koja teče od nekog izvora do nekog cilja. Taj je cilj uvijek autonomija ili nacionalna sloboda. Budući da je povijest Hrvatske izuzetno složena, valja o njoj govoriti kao o rijeci s brojnim pritokama. Da bi se shvatio glavni tok, mora se razumjeti i različite pritoke. One se napokon uključuju u matično korito rijeke, zajednički je tvoreći, namećući joj specifičan karakter – upravo onaj koji donosi iz svoga malog izvora. (…)

Hrvatska rijeka teče od 9. stoljeća u novoj domovini kada počinje dokumentirana povijest hrvatskog etnosa. Ipak, sudbina je htjela da se u glavni tok – koji je više puta mijenjao svoje korito – uključi više pritoka odnosno rječica.
Kako je sudbina glavnog korita nacionalna povijest, tako su pritoci povijest pograničja koja su obilježila hrvatsku povijest. O njima svima govori ova knjiga. (iz Uvoda)

Prijevod: Magdalena Najbar-Agičić, Damir Agičić.

Izvore većine prijepora u suvremenoj hrvatskoj kulturi treba tražiti u vrijeme hrvatskoga narodnoga preporoda. Izgleda da su dva problema vrlo važna. Prvo, tada su se hrvatski pogranični prostori definirali u okviru ambivalentnoga pojmovnoga sustava, u kojem će dvije koncepcije imati odlučujuću ulogu: jedna utemeljena na tradiciji Trojedne kraljevine, a druga na tradiciji Velike Ilirije/kraljevstva Slavena. Drugo, ideologija preporoda afirmirala je štokavsko narječje kao podlogu za književni jezik, odbacujući mogućnost da se kodificira kajkavsko narječje koje je najizrazitije izražavalo i ideologiju plemstva i zagorsku pučku kulturu. I jedno i drugo, i međusobno povezani, imat će ozbiljne posljedice za sudbinu hrvatskoga naroda u XIX. i XX. stoljeću. Ali ne samo to. Bit će i referentne točke za sve polemike u doba kulturnih i političkih previranja. Bit će i ostati čvorovi kulturnih prijepora koje će kulturni akteri pokušavati razvezati (riješiti), ali to će ih tek još više usložnjavati. O njima je u ovoj knjizi riječ.

The book is a synthetic look at Croatian history: from the migration to the Adriatic coast to independence. The narrative framework is defined by political history, yet none the less important are cultural heritage and a lexicon of concepts and ideologemes that determine the Croats’ historical mindset.

The publication stresses the socio‑political and cultural differences that have arisen across the regions of Croatia. In each one, time has measured the epochs out differently, causing several cultural borderlands to emerge. The unification of the various traditions into a single national culture in the 19th century did not push regionalism back into the shadows. On the contrary, it is embedded organically in the cultural landscape and collective vision. Similarly, the painful Yugoslav heritage remains a powerful dividing factor among the Croatian elites to this day.

Seventeenth volume in the Library of Central Europe series edited by Jacek Purchla.

Publication in Polish.

Predmetom je studija koje se nalaze u ovoj knjizi, uz neke izuzetke, fikcionalna proza o Drugome svjetskom ratu. Problem odnosa fikcije i zbilje jedan je od najkompleksnijih u teoriji književnosti, i inače u teoriji reprezentacije. Kako je moguće da fikcionalne predodžbe, koje nisu u pravom smislu istinite, koje, bolje rečeno, izmišljaju neki svoj svijet, modeliraju naše znanje i našu spoznaju o stvarnosti? Zašto književne neistine, mogući i izmišljeni svjetovi, nerijetko snažnije utječu na našu svijest i sjećanje o prošlosti nego istine koje prikazuje historiografija? Što je istina u romanu?
Tražiti odgovor na takva pitanja u teoretskom smislu značilo bi pisati zasebnu knjigu na tu temu. U ovoj ću knjizi dati prednost analizi književnosti i pokušati osvijetliti dio činjenica o istini i neistini u fikciji Drugoga svjetskog rata. Pokušat ću prikazati na koji način fikcionalna proza, stvarajući određene vizije prošlosti, utječe na modifikacije povijesnog znanja i kolektivnog sjećanja, kako se uklapa u povijesne narative, kako se sukobljava s konkurentnim narativima, kako modelira kulturni imaginarij, kako proizlazi iz postojećih imaginarija te kako, na kraju, (re)definira simboličke preokupacije nacionalne kulture, u ovom slučaju hrvatske i srpske. 
Fikcija ne govori samo neku neistinu, već i neku istinu o nama i o našem zbiljskom svijetu. Umjetnička proza laže da bi izrazila neku opću i univerzalnu istinu. Nerijetko pojedinačna sudbina – koja je najčešće tema fikcije – bolje izražava ljudsko iskustvo nego znanstvene monografije. Uz to, odmah želim naglasiti da neću pokušati, kako se to čini u naivnim interpretacijama književnosti, odgovarati na pitanje koji od likova izražava autorova mišljenja, odnosno što je mislio autor. To je od sporedne važnosti. Ne želim, pak, time reći da ne postoji autor ili da je umro, kao u Barthesovoj famoznoj konstrukciji (uostalom autorova smrt u tom eseju ima vrlo specifično značenje). Autora vidim kao kreatora fikcionalnog svijeta, mogućeg svijeta, u kojem se pojavljuju određeni kronotopi, određeni likovi, određene situacije i određene veze među njima. Autor stvara neki mogući svijet da bi taj svijet nešto nekome rekao, da bi poslužio kao model razmišljanja o stvarnosti, da bi uspostavio neku dijagnozu zbiljskog svijeta, i conditio humana.


Iz recenzije Prof. dr. Krešimira Bagića:

Knjiga DRUGI SVJETSKI RAT U HRVATSKOJ I SRPSKOJ PROZI (1945-2015) autora Macieja Czerwińskog nudi prvi sustavan opis i rafiniranu interpretaciju hrvatske i srpske prozne fikcije koja tematizira Drugi svjetski rat. Autor je pritom vodio računa o poetičkim i političkim obrascima (socrealizam i komunizam), o sučeljavanju različitih predodžbi i različitih tipova narativa o ratu (književnost, historiografija, kultura sjećanja), o reprezentacijama rata i nacionalnim imaginarijima unutar kojih se ti narativi oblikuju, napose o supostavljanju i usporedbama bitnih obilježja fikcionalizacije rata u hrvatskoj i srpskoj proznoj produkciji, tematizacijama Holokausta te o literarnim sjećanjima na rat iz vizure novog sukoba.

Rabeći stručno verificirane koncepte i pojmove poput monoglosije i heteroglosije, kanonskog i individualnog sjećanja, dominantne i rubne priče autor je oblikovao knjigu koja će biti nezaobilazna u svim budućim pokušajima opisa tzv. ratnog pisma, angažirane literature ili pak kulture sjećanja u novijoj hrvatskoj i srpskoj tradiciji.

U knjizi "Naracije i znakovi" autor je istražio velik broj knjiga koje se bave hrvatskom i srpskom poviješću, a nastale su u Hrvatskoj i Srbiji od vremena Drugoga svjetskog rata do danas. Uspoređujući jezičnu građu, on pronalazi velike razlike na semantičkoj i semiotičkoj razini što objašnjava mnogim ideološkim proturječjima u Hrvatskoj odnosno Srbiji u to vrijeme.

Monografija se sastoji od dvije cjeline. U prvoj, Semioza tematike i opći smisao nacionalnih povijesti, odgovara se na važna teorijska i tekstološka pitanja; autor se zadržao na analizi historijskih tekstova i historijskoga diskursa unutar postojećih jezičnih odnosa. U drugoj je cjelini, Kodovi i znakovi ili povijesne predodžbe i njihovi jezici, autor izvršio semiotičku analizu te se bavi "znakovima i kodovima te njihovim korelacijama u komunikaciji". Svoje je  teze  potkrijepio zanimljivim primjerima i analizom pojmova iz objavljenih sinteza hrvatske i srpske historiografije.

Autor ističe da je već površnom analizom hrvatskih i srpskih povijesnih djela, prvenstveno znanstveno-popularnih sinteza, utvrdio da je broj izdanja povijesnih monografija istih autora usporedno objavljenih u obje republike iznenađujuće malen. Iako postoji jezična sličnost i određena regionalna i kulturna bliskost među Hrvatima i Srbima, autor ističe da to ipak ne znači da će se govornici tih dvaju jezika slagati u važnim pitanjima svojih nacionalnih historija te se međusobno u potpunosti razumjeti na dubljoj razini.

Za svoje je teze Czerwinski dao brojne primjere preko pojmova kao što su Jugoslavija, domovinski rat, građanski rat... Primjerice, riječ ujedinjenje u hrvatskoj i srpskoj historiografiji imala je više različitih značenja u pojedinim povijesnim trenucima. U hrvatskom historiografskom diskursu autor pronalazi sljedeće specifične izraze: hrvatske zemlje, hrvatsko ime, kolijevka srednjovjekovne hrvatske države, dvojstvo hrvatskoga Sjevera i Juga... a u srpskim sintezama: jedinstvo srpskog življa, čuvar srpskog narodnog jedinstva, srpsko pleme.
(Fragments of the book)

In the book semiotic theory is taken into consideration. I propose my own definition of sign that is on one hand wide because enables one to use it within a concrete empirical inquiry, and – on the other – narrow since aims at grasping nuances of the acts of signification and communication. The book aims at translating the theory into the research practices, not purely linguistic/semiotic but also literary and historical – altogether within the cultural perspective. It emphasizes similarities and differences of literary and historical narratives within the space of culture and cultural memory.
The term discourse is situated between communication process and sign. It enables to put emphasis on extralinguistic circumstances and proceses of the shaping of meaning discourses. In this perspective not only discourse it understood as being composed by signs but also a discursive nature is ascribed to signs. Such an inquiry is called - a semiotic discourse analysis. Such an approach makes it possible to demonstrate that not only culture is a space of meeting of the disputable beliefs but also signs, understood dialogically, are a space giving rise to ideological disputes. The discourse analysis proposed in this book is not critical as the CDS but reversely – it is critical to Marxism in general as a methodological framework.

In my research all popular-scientific syntheses of national history, published in Croatia and Serbia from 1945 to 2011, earlier: Socialist Republics Croatia and Serbia, were taken into consideration. Only very preliminary exploration of the materials under investigation demonstrates that in the period before the break up of Yugoslavia only five books of such sort were published. Once new national states were founded there is a flourish of this genre. Such a disproportion is surprising since every ideology - including the Yugoslav ideology - aiming at the creation more or less unified cultural universe tends to supporting synthetic historical studies. This is so because they guarantee a chance to affirm the community in question and its continuous duration. Such processes are now in progress in respect with Europe, Istria, Catalonia and Silesia. Thus, the absence of the Yugoslav syntheses becomes signifiant and reflects inability to find a common basis for the unified history, and so a common language, not only historical, among Croats and Serbs.

The whole research presented in the book irrefutably prove that a historical representation is entangled in a series of unreduced levels of linguistic realization: in gist/topic influencing the structure of text (part I of the book), and in discourse giving rise to various ideologies and beliefs (part II). I demonstrated that both macro-textual level as well as micro-stylistic may be used as a tool for evoking different historical conceptions but they are not, by their own, the vehicles of such a difference. Historical imaginations are characterized by variation but this variation is realized at a distinct level - the level of discourse. Discourses represent the most relevant cultural and ideological codes that are deeply encoded in the contents of signs of the verbal languages. Contents are vehicles of the Bakhtinian set of contextual settings (called by him the aroma of contexts) and social dialogues that took place before. Generally speaking, they enable the historical consciousness of a nation to come into being and to exist but, on the other hand, they entangle this particular nation and its consciousness in different - often mutually exclusive - ideological visions. They co-exist in something Jurij Lotman called semiosphere and they imply constant activity.

The research demonstrates that a conventional way of the conceptualization of past events, that we encounter in the synthesis of national history, reflects general historical imaginations, commonly known in a society, that are formulated in a narrative form. However, the very narration about past events - implying (1) temporal sense of understanding, (2) teleology, and (3) causative hypotaxis - is not sufficient. It must be accompanied by some fundamental strategies of speaking about the past, among others there are: (1) the role of final (excellent conception of Boris Uspienski); (2) the role of subject of history in terms of main gist; (3) category of inclusiveness and semantic taxonomic relation (the mechanism that enables the constitution possessive relations versus some geographical regions and historical figures); (4) category of types and tokens making it possible to build a consciousness about repeatability of events and historical figures; (5) semiotic projection, by virtue of it is possible to grasp designates originating from other historical periods in contemporary terms (i.e. 14th century Namanjic state as Serbia, 9th century Adriatic duchy as Croatia).

The research proved that each nation has its own path on which it goes to a destination that is to say to an end that is constituted by the final. The discourses under consideration was luckily interesting because political changes, that took place at the beginning of 90. of XX century, influenced the new final of the Croatian and Serbian historical narrations. This in turn entailed the change of conceptualizations. It turned out that the new final made in the Croatian syntheses the happy ending for Croats and in the Serbian - tragic ending for Serbs.

The whole study demonstrates that every historical message is entangled in the very nature of the language. I wanted to show that the Croatian and Serbian historiography before 1990 - written, genetically speaking, in the same language - was unable to unify the two different historical conceptions. After 1990 they did not attempted anymore. The proximity of the two literary languages (some still argue that they are the same language with two varieties) does not guarantee the conflicts to be overcome. Both languages bear the imprints of old uses, the Bakhtinian aroma of contexts. Their burden is so strong that the same words sounding in the two languages similarly (and when excluding the role of accent - identically) have significantly different meanings.

It thus seems that the very creation of the common supranational history - either the Yugoslav or, currently elaborated, European - would mean not only the resignation of one's national historical conception (Croatian, Serbian, Polish or German) but also the resignation of one's language or, most properly, the reformulation of meanings of many words in this language. The implementation of such an ideal - especially according to any decision - is impossible and it could be - as proved by the Yugoslav case - radically dangerous.

Key-words: semiotics, historical discourse, discourse analysis, interpretation of history, language, Croatian language, Serbian language, narrative, narration, Croatia, Serbia, Yugoslavia

Krwawy konflikt jugosłowiański postawił przed myślą humanistyczną dylemat wymagający głębokiego namysłu: na ile obowiązuje jeszcze we współczesności przekonanie, w myśl którego historia – jako magistra vitae – może nas uchronić przed błędami z przeszłości a na ile historia ta prowadzi nas do tych samych błędów, ale popełnianych w nowych okolicznościach. Wielu obserwatorów zdarzeń w byłej Jugosławii – pod wpływem zwątpienia w jakiekolwiek pozytywistyczne systemy myślenia – uznaje, że największym winowajcą ostatniej wojny nie jest brak świadomości historycznej, lecz jej nadmiar, a ściślej mówiąc: nadmiar jej politycznej i skrajnie zideologizowanej instrumentalizacji. Można się z takim stanowiskiem zgodzić, o ile – zastrzeżmy – nie popada ono w nazbyt radykalny konstruktywizm. Wszelkie dane, jakimi dysponujemy o wojnie jugosłowiańskiej (a więc przede wszystkim liczne badania naukowe) dowodzą, że konflikt chorwacko-serbski tlił się na gruncie historiografii przez cały okres trwania państwa komunistycznego. W rezultacie, wojna została w jakimś sensie zaprojektowana przez sam sposób mówienia o przeszłości, a więc przez odpowiednio skonstruowany język historyczny.
W niniejszej książce interesuje mnie taki właśnie język – język traktujący o przeszłości narodu. Moja hipoteza brzmi następująco: uobecniane w dyskursach przedstawienia historyczne dotyczące przeszłości danego narodu są głęboko uwikłane w język etniczny tegoż narodu, a przez język – także i w jego kulturę, wskutek czego jakakolwiek próba poważniejszej modyfikacji tej czy innej świadomości historycznej pociąga za sobą poważną ingerencję nie tylko w dyskursy historyczne, ale także w system semantyczny owego języka etnicznego. Przykład jugosłowiański jest odpowiednim exemplum dla tego rodzaju badań, już choćby dlatego, że języki literackie, w jakich pisana jest historia narodowa Chorwatów i Serbów, są oparte na tych sam samym dialekcie (w sensie genetyczno-lingwistycznym są więc tym samym systemem). Jak się jednak okaże, wzajemne zrozumienie Chorwatów i Serbów na poziomie powierzchniowych znaczeń słów nie oznacza porozumienia na poziomie głębokich sensów kulturowych. Teza ta brzmi być może trywialnie dla wszystkich choć trochę obeznanych z sytuacją jugosłowiańską, ale spróbuję pokazać, w jaki sposób możemy ją kompleksowo zweryfikować. W książce niniejszej przeprowadzę Czytelnika przez analizy dotyczące różnych płaszczyzn językowej reprezentacji historycznej pokazując mu, gdzie i jak manifestuje się ów brak porozumienia. 
W monografii tej podejmuję próbę wieloaspektowego opisu płaszczyzn znaczących w popularnonaukowej syntezie dziejów narodu. Nawiązuje ona do innego opracowania, w którym rozważyłem, jakie jest miejsce tego gatunku w szerokim uniwersum komunikowania (zob. książkę pt. Semioza gatunku – semioza stylu, Czerwiński 2011b) i co z tego wynika. Ogłoszone w tej publikacji wyniki badań stanowiły część tego samego projektu, ale ponieważ inne były jej cele, wymagały wykorzystania innej metodologii. Ponieważ jednak są to ujęcia komplementarne, będę się do nich w całości odnosił .
W niniejszej książce próbuję wniknąć w tajniki tkanki dyskursów traktujących o historii narodu i skorelować je z zakodowaną w języku wiedzą oraz uzmysłowić, w jaki sposób nasze myślenie o świecie – zarówno obecnym, jak i przeszłym – odbija się w syntezie i w jaki sposób wpływa na ujmowanie przeszłości tego czy innego narodu, tutaj chorwackiego i serbskiego.
Dotychczas nie prowadzono kompleksowych badań nad tego rodzaju tekstami, ani w filologii polskiej, ani w słowiańskiej, ani – o ile mi wiadomo – w ogóle. Przeglądowe stylistyki i genologie lingwistyczne nawet nie wspominają o takim gatunku mowy. Tymczasem jest on istotny z dwóch przynajmniej powodów. Po pierwsze, reprezentuje kompleksową i wyjątkową odmianę stylistyczną. Po drugie, pełni ważną funkcję społeczną jako istotny tekst kultury: przekazuje w sposób syntetyczny i przystępny wiedzę na temat przeszłości narodu.

Problem ów, jak postaram się pokazać, ma kapitalne znaczenie dla coraz bardziej rozpowszechnionych inicjatyw tworzenia/pisania wspólnej historii dla różnych narodów, a nawet dla całej Europy. Przedstawione w tej książce badania dowiodą, że tworzenie takich ujednoliconych programów nie jest możliwe, a może być nawet niebezpieczne.

"In 1881 in Krakow the album Kraków Zagrzebiowi (Krakow to Zagreb) was published. Now, 130 years later, a bilingual (Polish and Croatian) edition of the album Krakov Zagrebu/Kraków Zagrzebiowi has come out (edited by Maciej Czerwiński and Magdalena Najbar-Agičić, Srednja Europa, Zagreb 2011). The new edition, apart from reprinting original content, includes chapters on the circumstances of the original edition, with editorial elaboration. The publication from 1881 was devoted to gathering resources to support the Croatian capital in its struggle against the devastation of the 1880 earthquake.

From the original version there are drawings by Jan Matejko, Jacek Malczewski, Seweryn Bieszczad, Edmund Herncisz, Wacław Koniuszko, Juliusz Kossak, Wojciech Kossak, Zofia z Kossaków Romańska, Józef Krzesz, Leopold Loeffler, Władysław Łuszczkiewicz, Jan Rosen, Władysław Rossowski, Ludwik Stasiak, Feliks Szynalewski.

From the original version there are texts (poetry, fragments of drama and aphorisms) by Adam Mickiewicz, Ignacy Kraszewski, Adam Asnyk, Jadwiga Łuszczewska - Deotyma, Viktor Tissot, Andrzej Fredro, Michał Bałucki, Władysław Anczyc, Bronisław Grabowski, Adam Kirkor, Edmund Krzymuski, Stanisław Smolka, Mieczysław Pawlikowski, Maurycy Straszewski, Izydor Dzieduszycki, Karol Lanckoroński, Karol Estreicher, Józef Szujski, Wincenty Rapacki, Zygmunt Przybylski, Stanisław Niedzielski, Stanisław Koźmian, Bronisław Grabowski.

There are also three essays by contemporary scholars and fragments of August Šenoa’s short essays known as Zagrebulje that describe the earthquake and its consequences (translated into Polish by Maciej Czerwiński).

Contents:
Maciej Czerwiński, As Krakow to Zagreb… A History of Polish-Croatian Relations in the Context of the Album published in 1881.
Slaven Kale, Krakow to Zagreb.
Róża Książek-Czerwińska, A Brick from Krakow Devoted to Zagreb
"

This study deals with a historical genre, so far neglected in genology and stylistics, namely popular-scientific synthesis of national history. Croatian and Serbian historiography is taken into consideration. It examines an important question how it is possible that average interlocutors when reading such books presuppose that they objectively reflect historical reality. In order to grasp this problem, conceptions of semiosis of genre and semiosis of style are introduced.

In this article, the Croatian translation of Enzo Bettiza’s autobiography, Esilio (“The Exile”), originally written in Italian, is analysed. Bettiza, himself bilingual (Italian, Croatian), was born in pre-war Split and lived in Dalmatia until 1945. His autobiographical accounts describe the Split of 1930s as a multicultural and multilingual space but at the same time, implicitly, demonstrate how multilingualism (including the use of linguonyms) can be disputed and defined as a means of nationalism and colonialism, which is proved by the analysis of fierce discussions about this book in Croatia. It is demonstrated in this article how multilingualism is represented both in the source and target languages, Italian and Croatian, and what consequences it has for the process of mediation.

The field of Translation Studies has in the last few decades developed into a very complex and heterogenous field of inquiry. Thus, the term translation has proven to be fuzzy and blurred. It could be either understood literally, as a process (and outcome) of an activity resulting in the transformation of a text written in one language (source language) into another (target language) or alternatively as a mediation process of the multicultural and multi-linguistic settings of a certain place, a city or region, in discourse. In light of this, if one takes an author, say Italo Svevo from Trieste, the term translation could be employed to his writings in two ways. In the first sense, the case is that his literature – produced in the Italian language – is translated into another language, for example English or Lithuanian. In the second sense, his own writings are taken as mere translations of themulticultural settings of Trieste. As for the former, a comparison of the source and target languages can be made (as was demonstrated by Novella di Nunzio in 2015); as for the latter, Svevo’s literature could be a point of departure for an inquiry aimed at demonstrating how his literary discourse translated a linguistically and culturally divided city (this, in turn, was envisaged by Simon 2011a; for general problems, see Tymoczko 2007). Simon (2011a) showed how, through and by Svevo’s literature, Central European and German cultural patterns and forms of subjectivity were mediated, that is translated into the Italian language and culture, which is believed to be his genuine influence on Italian literature (see Giacalone 1983, 9). While in the
former example, the mediation is carried out by a translator, a person who
translates from Italian into English or Lithuanian, in the latter case, the
author himself is considered a translator who mediates between two or
more cultural spheres. As a consequence, two languages and cultures are
put in contact, and perhaps in dialogue.

W znakomitym i wielokrotnie nagradzanym filmie macedońskiego reżysera Milcho Manchevskiego pt. Przed deszczem (1994) głównym bohaterem jest zatrudniony przez zachodnie agencje fotografik – Aleksandar Kirkov. Jako człowiek wrażliwy, i co istotne – zeuropeizowany (symbol wyrafinowania), nie potrafi się pogodzić z wojną w byłej Jugosławii. Dokumentuje ją jednak obiektywem swojego aparatu. Gdy w jego obecności zostaje zabity niewinny człowiek, co uwiecznia na kliszy, rezygnuje z profesji. Przypisuje sobie współodpowiedzialność za zbrodnię, i podejmuje decyzję o powrocie do rodzinnej wsi, znajdującej się na pograniczu albańsko-macedońskim. Tym samym nie tylko ucieka przed sobą, ale podaje również w wątpliwość możliwość udokumentowania tragedii ludzkiej, a nawet istotę fotografowania. W ojczyźnie nie znajduje jednak spokoju, lecz przemoc przeradzającą się w krwawy konflikt etniczny. Ostatecznie, stając w obronie albańskiej dziewczyny, zostaje zabity przez swoich macedońskich rodaków. 
Wojna w Jugosławii skończyła się ponad dwie dekady temu. Obecnie – po okresie lat dziewięćdziesiątych 90. poprzedniego stulecia, kiedy kultury krajów byłej Jugosławii znalazły się w potrzasku wzajemnej izolacji – coraz śmielej, i bez zbędnych kompleksów czy protekcjonizmu, próbuje się podjąć tematykę zachodzących zmian i brzemienia niedawnej przeszłości. Nowe odczytania świata urzeczywistniają się na różnych polach kultury – w literaturze, w teatrze, w sztukach plastycznych. W ramach inicjatywy pt. Następstwa. Zmiany pejzażu kulturowego  (2013), firmowanej przez Centrum Fotografii Współczesnej Photon z Lublany i inne instytucje stowarzyszone ,  swoje prace pokazało około 30 artystów. Artyści zaprezentowali własne wizje pamięci, gruntownie odbiegające od wyobrażeń oficjalnych. Omawiana wystawa jest pierwszym powojennym przedsięwzięciem artystycznym, skupiającym fotografików ze wszystkich krajów niegdysiejszego państwa. Jego rozpad skutkował zerwaniem kontaktów między artystami, a planowana na 1996 rok wystawa pt. Fictographs, jako ciąg dalszy ekspozycji z 1989 roku (na Cornell University pt. In Between – A Photographic View in Yugoslav Culture), z przyczyn politycznych nie doszła do skutku.
W niniejszym artykule tekście analizuję fotografie artystów biorących udział w wystawie, ale jako filolog sytuuję swoje rozważania w domenie semiotyki kultury. W proponowanym modelu każdy przekaz – nie tylko werbalny, ale także wizualny, taki jak fotografia czy malarstwo – traktuję je jako osobliwy tekst kultury (zgodnie z koncepcją semiotyków z Tartu, Jurija Łotmana i Borisa Uspienskiego), który uczestniczy w komunikacji społecznej, włączając się w dialog na temat żywotnych dla danego społeczeństwa światopoglądów i systemów myślenia. Świat obrazów – ikonosfera, by sięgnąć po termin Mieczysława Porębskiego (Porębski, 1972) – jest w tym ujęciu cząstką zjawiska szerszego, semiosfery, rozumianej po Łotmanowsku  (Łotman, 2008). Sztuka, jako jeden z wtórnych systemów modelujących, jest traktowana jako „język” drugiego stopnia (dla Rolanda Barthes’a byłby to system znaczeń mitologicznych, nadbudowanych nad znakami prostymi). Dzieło sztuki jawi się tutaj jako reprezentacja jakiegoś elementu świata rzeczywistego, jest więc do niego „podobne i niepodobne jednocześnie” (Łotman, 2002, 50). Sztukę traktuję jako swojego rodzaju translację, choć czasem, jak w np. na przykład w malarstwie nieprzedstawiającym, może nie odnosić się ona (wprost) do świata zewnętrznego, jak w modelu mimetycznym ukierunkowanym na przedmiot, lecz przekładać na jakiś kod wewnętrzne wrażenia artysty. W każdym dziele sztuki ścierają się z sobą elementy przedmiotowe (uobecniające coś rzeczywistego) z podmiotem (piętnem autora). Ale celem będzie zawsze chęć zastąpienia czegoś czymś innym, co umożliwi opisanie i oswojenie świata. Sposób, w jaki się to dokonuje, wyraża zawsze jakaś forma, która – jeśli jest oryginalna – może się przyczynić do nowego spojrzenia na ów świat, do jego reinterpretacji. Akt twórczy jest bowiem zawsze aktem poznawczym, zaś nieskończona suma takich aktów tworzy pamięć kulturową (Żyłko, 2002; Assmann, 2009, 101–142  ; Assmann Jan, 2009; Assmann Aleida, 2009).

The article discusses the role played in the early 1950s by M. Krleža’s essay titled The Gold and Silver of Zadar (1951), as well as the circumstances of its emergence. In addition to the text itself, the analysis also encompasses Krleža’s unpublished notes from his trip to Dalmatia, his scholarly production, journalism and political discourse of that time (in the light of Krleža’s earlier literary works and essays). The aim of the paper is to indicate the ways in which cultural heritage was processed to semioticise space (Dalmatia within Yugoslavia) in the context of articulating certain political visions.

The aim of this article is to deal with the disputable role Dalmatia played in the Croatian-Italian-Serbian borderlands, referring to the foremost Croatian and Yugoslav writer Miroslav Krleža. Although he is mostly associated with the Croatian North, i.e., historical Croatia-Slavonia, called sometimes the Panonian cultural complex, his engagement in the discourse of Dalmatia after World War Two cannot be underestimated. In the period 1950-1951 Krleža prepared two exhibitions of medieval art (one staged in Paris as L’art médiéval Yougoslave and the other in Zagreb as Zlato i srebro Zadra) and wrote two introductions to their catalogues. In them, he builds a concept of a separate “South Slavic civilisation” that “negates” the bipolarism of Roman-Byzantine competing cultural models (Slavia Romana vs. Slavia Orthodoxa, according to Picchio). Referring to the spatial approach to literature, I attempt to situate the post-war Yugoslav discourse, radically confrontational and militaristic, within historical antagonistic discourses (Croatian-Italian-Serbian).

In the article the representations of evil and guilt in Jergović’s and Andrić’s novels are
taken into consideration. The author attempts to demonstrate how this problem is
elaborated in fictional accounts and how it refers—as a metonymy—to the memory
of the Holocaust in Croatia. It is suggested that, in striving for answers on the
nature of evil, Jergović holds a deliberate dialogue with Andrić. Whilst Andrić,
however, points out more psychological foundations of evil, Jergović concentrates
predominantly on social dimensions. This is a common hallmark in Andrić and
Jergović because the authors focus on both dimensions but give one priority over
the other.

The nature of evil is one of the topics to which literature generally refers, and the
term ‘evil’ is commonly used when speaking about the Holocaust. Samuel Lederman
underlines: “The Holocaust is perceived today, at least in Western society, as the
most intensive and stunning manifestation of human evil, a kind of Archimedean
event in addressing the question of evil” (Lederman 178). In her study on the nature
of evil Eve Garrard, dealing with the term within secular frameworks, underscores
that “if there is such a thing as evil in the world, then the Holocaust was evil, and any
elucidation of the nature of evil should be applicable to it” (Garrard 43). Yet, since
‘evil’ may have various meanings and may refer to various theoretical paradigms,
as documented in Gerrard’s study, the very use of the term may provoke several
contradictions, some of them deeply counter-intuitive (as underlined by Lawrene L.
Langer, “What we consider evil was for the Nazis an expression of good, supported
by a political and moral value system totally alien to our orthodox minds”; Langer
2005: 26). The term ‘evil’ flooded scholarship on the Holocaust and was influenced
by Hannah Arendt’s second edition of her book Eichmann in Jerusalem (to which
I will refer in this paper). Although it is ‘banality’ that attracted more attention,
the term ‘evil’ gained popularity, especially when referring to the perpetrators. Forinstance, Yaacov Lozowick underlined that he had wished in his study to “recognize
evil in them [the perpetrators – M.C.]” (Lozowick vii).
In the following study I will focus on settings provided by Ivo Andrić and Miljenko
Jergović in their oeuvres in which an act of persecution during the Holocaust,
undeniably understood as wrong/evil, is committed, and in which the characters’
features are suggested as meaningful in that persecution. The term ‘evil’, in this
sense, does not refer to an abstract meaning that could be elaborated within, say,
moral theory or philosophy. It rather refers to evil acts, acts that “produce an enormous
amount of disvalue in the world” (Garrard 45) and as a man’s predilections
to perpetuate that evil act. The writers of literature, and this applies to Andrić and
Jergović, do not elaborate on this problem scientifically but, by narrating a story in
which some issues matter and some do not, draw the attention of their readers to
some problems concerning evil.

The article analyses multilingual and multicultural diversity in the narrative prose of the Croatian writer Nedjeljko Fabrio. Set in the borderlands of Dalmatia and Kvarner, Fabrio's novels evoke the lives of people belonging to different ethnic and speech communities-Croats, Italians, Austrians, Serbs, Yugoslavs, or as yet to be defined individualsfrom the beginning of the 19 th c. until today. Staging 'weak protagonists' rather than 'strong heroes' and inclining to sociolects and dialects rather than to standard language, his novels create a universe in which the characters' individual experience counters Croatian national narratives. Fabrio's narratives suggest that multilingual settings might either lead to conflicts between ethnic groups or to reconciliation between them. Ignoring social rules, individuals join other communities, moving up and down the class ladder. Such mésalliances result in complex genealogical trees out of which a hybrid culture emerges. Through allegorical transfer, the author signals the possibility of reconciliation between different conflicted communities.

Da je posrijedi čista geografija, termin Srednja Europa možda ne bi postojao. Stoga ga treba razmatrati kao kulturni konstrukt, više vezan uz imaginarnu nego običnu kartografiju, više uz vrijednosti nego uz prostorne odrednice.
Osnovne prostorne odrednice u geografiji su ravnopravne, ali u imaginarnoj nisu. One imaju svoja kulturno determinirana značenja. Kad gledamo zemljovid Europe, jasno je da su danas za razumijevanje fenomena Starog kontinenta bitnije odrednice Zapad – Istok nego Sjever – Jug jer nisu čisto prostorne kategorije nego i civilizacijske (i zato ih treba pisati velikim slovom). Kad se rađala Europa kao civilizacijska tekovina (ali ne još kao osviješten konstrukt), dakle u Antici, tada je glavna odrednica bila Jug – Sjever. Jug, kao razvijen, bio je u mogućnosti da definira prostor oko sebe, da nameće svoje imaginarne karte. Iz perspektive Juga na Sjeveru su bili barbari dakle ljudi čiji je jezik bio nerazumljiv civiliziranom to jest helenskom, a onda rimskom svijetu. A ako barbari nisu govorili razumljivo, jednako nisu imali sposobnost za definiranje svijeta, a niti za spoznavanje samih sebe. Dakle, moralo ih se definirati, nametnuti im spoznajne okvire. U to doba nastali su nazivi za raznorazna ba rbarska plemena koja su dolazila u antički svijet sa sjevera, najčešće preko limesa na Dunavu. Huni, Goti, Anti, Avari, Slaveni. Do dana današnjeg nismo posve sigurni otkud su ta imena – jesu li preuzeta od samih barbara ili su izmišljena od strane promatrača, onih koji su crtali karte. Izgleda da su ti nazivi služili za osvještavanje društvenih promjena u kasnoj Antici i u ranom Srednjem vijeku. Civilizirani svijet je zamislio Slavene – a i druga plemena – da bi razumio same sebe. Sigurno je da su ti nazivi nastali kao izraz neravnopravnog, asimetričnog odnosa snaga. Oni su odraz superiornosti centra, dakle Juga. Jer, karakteristika je centra da stvara predodžbe (imaginacije) o svijetu, da organizira sistem znanja, da stvara standarde i da ima autoritet za to (nije čudno da riječ autoritet u nekim zapadnoeuropskim jezicima ima značenje vlasti, fr. authorité).
Slabljenje dominantne paradigme Jug – Sjever dolazi do izražaja u trenutku kada Jug popada u krizu i prestaje biti plodan, kada se centar imaginacije seli negdje drugdje. Barok je zadnja epoha kulturne dominacije Juga. Pretjerana raskoš u umjetnosti i književnosti znakovi su tog propadanja. Nije stoga čudo što arhitektonski model baroka, pogotovo u sakralnoj arhitekturi i pogotovo u zapostavljenijim dijelovima Europe, trajat će čitavo 18. stoljeće, a čak i dobar dio 19. stoljeća. Reproduciranjem slavne prošlosti zavarava se sadašnjost.
Centar imaginacije – mjesto gdje se organizira sistem znanja i gdje nastaju standardi – premješta se na Zapad. To je zapečaćeno u 18. stoljeću, premda su se preduvjeti za to gradili već ranije. To je naravno povezano s ekonomskim i političkim razvojem, ali kulturna dimenzija je ovdje važnija. Sada Zapad postaje centar svijeta jer tu prvo nastaju moderni fenomeni koji dinamiziraju svijet. Na zapadu nastaje moderna nacija (i njezina pretpostavka – pad feudalizma), građanski sloj (nositelj moderniteta), industrijska revolucija, znanost. Legitimiziraju ih racionalizam, empirizam, egalitarizam, prosvjetiteljstvo. Ovdje nastaju nazivi za sve te fenomene, a stari dobivaju nova značenja. Zapad je u poziciji da može definirati svijet, a zapravo projicirati njegove obrise. Staro je loše, novo je dobro (marksizam, koji je odvjetak moderniteta, potencirat će tu paradigmu i govoriti o regresivnom i progresivnom). I tako do danas. Zapadna Europa – pojačana svojim djetetom, SAD-om – definira standarde, a svi ostali se prema njima određuju. Ne moraju ih nužno prihvatiti, ali moraju se prema njima odrediti. Ovo nije bio više u stanju učiniti umoran Jug.
Nije stoga čudo da se pojam srednja u nazivu Srednja Europa ne odnosi na paradigmu Jug – Sjever nego Zapad – Istok. Jer je i Srednja Europa pojam moderniteta, doduše zakašnjelog, ali ipak moderniteta. Srednju Europu doživljava se kao tranzicijsku zonu između Zapada i Istoka, kao prostor koji spaja i razdjeljuje Zapad i Istok, kao prostor gdje se susreću Zapad i Istok. Witold Gombrowicz u knjizi Testament o Poljskoj kaže sljedeće: “Zemlja između Istoka i Zapada, u kojoj Europa već počinje završavati, tranzicijska zemlja u kojoj se Istok i Zapad međusobno oslabljuju. Zemlja, dakle, oslabljenog oblika... Nijedan od velikih procesa europske kulture nije doista preorao Poljsku, ni renesansa, ni vjerske borbe, ni Francuska revolucija, ni industrijska revolucija; ovdje su doprli samo ublaženi odjeci” . Moglo bi se tu definiciju primijeniti i na druge zemlje Srednje Europe, ali nisu sve imale renesansu, prema tome to je samo jedan od konstrukata. No, on je bitan jer u njemu dolazi do izražaja uvjerenje o tranzicijskoj prirodi Srednje Europe, o prostoru koji filtrira i kumulira neka zapadna i istočna civilizacijska obilježja, a koji ne pripada u potpunosti ni jednom ni drugom. Kao neka tampon zona.

The topic of this paper concerns Leksykon tradycji chorwackich
(Lexicon of Croatian Traditions) by Joanna Rapacka as
a complex text, encyclopedically conceived, which synthetically
defines Croatian culture, taking literature as the starting
point in the offered interpretations. An attempt will be
made to decipher the basic premises on which the author’s
vision of Croatian culture is built and, more broadly, her
critical approach to culture as a social phenomenon, formed
spatially and temporally. The key features of Croatian specificity,
as defined by Rapacka, will be discussed, including
the relationship between regionalism and national culture
(in diachronic and synchronic terms) and the ambivalences
of Croatian proto-national and national ideologies. The
application of terminology (eg. ideologeme, codifications /
codifications) will also be considered, which in many ways
influences Rapacka’s approaches to the analysis of cultural
phenomena

Although the Golden Formula of the Croatian Language »ča-kaj-što« is a literary
concept coined by the poet Drago Štambuk, this paper departs from the
assumption that this idea refers to the extremely important and groundbreaking
concepts related to the Croatian standard language. This is so as the formula
is not only an idea that seeks to enrich the language of literature (notably
poetry), which should be derived from all the Croatian dialects, but also
aims to stimulate a discussion about the standard language and its relationship
to dialectisms (as evidenced by the 2019 Ministry of Culture and the public
appearances of Drago Štambuk). This, in turn, opens up a problem of linguistic
amalgams in general. Therefore, the paper connects the golden formula
not only with the elaborated conceptions of hybrid languages in Croatian
history (Istrian Protestants, the Ozalj circle), but especially with the polemics
led by the representatives of the Zagreb Philological School with the Croatian
‘vukovites’ (emphasizing different approaches). The article analyzes the
ambivalent attitudes of some key Croatian linguists with regard to the dialectisms
in the standard language – from the 19th century to the present day
and the possible consequences of the hybridization process.

The aim of the article is to discuss the forgotten motif of a Dalmatian wet nurse in the artistic prose of three writers: Milan Begović, Vladan Desnica and Enzo Bettiza, and attempt to situate it in the context of disputes over Dalmatia. The literary update on the motif is in line with the modeling strategies of Dalmatian hinterland referring to the vision of “noble savages” (the Morlacchis/Vlajs). They can serve in bringing about the colonisation policy (as was done in the 18th century by the Republic of Venice) as well as in defining complex relationships in this Croatian-Serbian-Italian borderlands.

The paper analyses three contemporary Croatian novels in which the figure of Judith or the Marulić’s epic Judita appears: Pokora (Penance) by Pavao Pavličić (1998), Judita (Judith) by Miro Gavran (2001) and Marulov san (Marul’s Dream) by Dino Milinović (2019). The objective is to demonstrate the main lines of the composition in the books, how the figures are presented and what literary effect is obtained as a result. The figure of Judith, then, and the epic Judita are present in Croatian literary fiction, but not in the canonical interpretation, rather encoded anew, novel kinds of imagination and stylisation thus being created. Pokora is a piece of crime fiction, a thriller, with love story elements, which focuses on the magical capacities of what is alleged to be the first (imagined, of course) edition of Judita: close contact between this book and other books results in these other works having their text erased from them. Various people and institutions are questing for this uncommon publication, including various institutions some of which are oriented in Croatian culture and politics to the local tradition, some to European culture. Judita by Miro Gavran, picking up directly from the Bible story and not from Marulić’s epic, radically recodes Judith. Having embarked on a love affair with Holofernes, becoming inward with her own womanliness, Judith examines her responsibility to her homeland. At the end she does in fact kill Holofernes, so carrying out her patriotically determined intention, but her hesitation modifies the character - she is turned from heroine into woman. The emphasis of the story is also modified: from collective to individual, from social to psychological. The ethics of Judith’s act, so crucial in the Bible and in Marulić is here tested out and made complex. The action of Milinović’s crime novel unfolds in Marulić’s lifetime, at the time that Judita was being composed. In Split, the Venetian authorities were doing their best to pillage the ancient heritage, and prevent the Split upper class from complaining about the Turks. The people of Split, including of course Marulić, are presented as patriots who honourably express their love of country, not only the municipal but also the national version. The figure of Marulić, for example, is predetermined by the roles that would be attributed to him by later generations. An important role in Milinović’s novel is played by Chakavian speech, rather, that amalgam of Chakavian and Shtokavian in which the urbolect of the time was stylised. But it is not used by Marulić and the Split patricians, only by the commoners. This Split idiom is marked as vernacular, as the language of the lower classes, which is strange, since Marulić’s poem is actually written in Chakavian. Analysis reveals that these three novels are differentiated by many of their features. In Gavran, the action is located in Biblical time; in Milinović in the age of Marulić himself; and in Pavličić in the present. The space of the action is, respectively, Bethulia, Split, Zagreb and the whole of Croatia. While the principal figure in Gavran is Judith, in Milinović it is the author of Judita, and in Pavličić, the poem’s readers. The three books have here different effects. In Gavran the figure of Judith is universalised by Judith being released from the role assigned her by Marulić or, if he had no such intention, the role ascribed her by later interpretations (there has been a neutralisation of the allegory). In Pavličić the emphasis is shifted from the character to the poem about the character, only to some extent to the Biblical Judith, the meanings of the book being accordingly investigated, a space being opened for the re-contextualisation of the imaginary geography of Croatia (it expands, from Split to the area of the whole of Croatia). Milinović, placing his action in the age of Marulić, reinforces the existing impression about Marulić, Judita and Split in the 16th century (about the Turkish threat, the arrogance of the Venetians, the honourableness of the Split elite). It is interesting that all these novels are adapted to popular genres, to the crime or the love story. The Marulić epic, which belongs to literary writing, is thus de-mythologized.

U članku se dovode u vezu tri suvremena romana kojima je nadahnuće lik Judite ili Marulićeva Judita (Pokora Pavla Pavličića, Judita Mira Gavrana i Marulov san Dina Milinovića). Autor pokušava pokazati koje su glavne kompozicijske dominante u tim knjigama, kako se prikazuju likovi te kakav se, zahvaljujući tome, postiže književni učinak, i kakav to može imati utjecaj na hrvatsku književnost i kulturu. Tematiziranje Judite i Judite pokazuje da je posrijedi tema koja je prisutna u hrvatskoj književnoj produkciji, ali ne u kanonskom čitanju, nego naprotiv u novim okvirima koji otvaraju prostor za nova kodiranja, za nove imaginacije i stilizacije. Iako se u svakom romanu postiže drukčiji učinak (u Gavranovu je posrijedi univerzalizacija lika, kod Pavličića propitivanje značenja i rekontekstualizacija hrvatske imaginarne mape, a kod Milinovića cementiranje povijesnih predodžbi), naglašava se da ih povezuje prilagodba kriminalističkom i ljubavnom žanru

Przedmiotem niniejszego artykułu jest problem pamięci kulturowej w kontekście badań nad dyskursem o nachyleniu semiotycznym. Podejmowana jest próba wykorzystania instrumentarium analiz dyskursu historycznego w refleksji nad pamięcią. Tytułowe archiwum znaków – semantycznie profilowanych w dyskursie – potraktowane zostaje jako rezerwuar wiedzy zgromadzonej i przenoszonej dzięki językowi, literaturze i sztuce.

In this article the activity and discourses of two Dalmatian public figures are taken into
consideration: the sculptor Ivan Meštrović and the journalist Bogdan Radica. They both
had an enormous influence on how the image of Italy was created and disseminated
in Yugoslavia, in particular in the 1920s and 1930s. The analysis of their discourses
is interpreted in terms of the concept of Dalmatia within a wider Mediterranean basin
which also refers to two diverse conceptualizations of Yugoslavism, cultural and political.
Meštrović’s vision of Dalmatia/Croatia/Yugoslavia was based on his rural hinterland
idiom enabling him to embrace racial and cultural Yugoslavism. In contrast, Radica, in
spite of having a pro-Yugoslav orientation during the same period, did not believe in
race, so for him the idea of Croat-Serb unity was more a political issue (to a lesser extent a cultural one).

U radu se analiziraju srodnosti između romana Vladana Desnice Proljeća Ivana Galeba i Camusovih djela, napose lirskih eseja (Pirovanje, Ljeto) te romana Sretna smrt. Autor izdvaja dva zadnja poglavlja Desničina romana kao ključ za razumijevanje njegove egzistencijalističke filozofije (to se pak tumači referirajući se na Camusov Mit o Sizifu). Strukturni se problemi analiziraju kao izraz dubinskih semantičkih i filozofskih odrednica. Odnos Desnice i Camusa nije postavljen s ciljem da se dokaže posuđivanje ili imitacija nekih literarnih koncepata, nego da se naglase izvori zajedničkih preokupacija koje se referiraju na mediteranske idiome, napose na tzv. sunčanu misao.

U radu se analiziraju članci objavljeni u kulturno-političkom časopisu Srđ iz Dubrovnika tijekom njegova izlaženja (1902. – 1908.) kojima je glavna preokupacija jezik. Autor polazi od imaginarija Srba katolika u Dubrovniku da bi pokazao kako su se jezična pitanja problematizirala, odnosno kakva su bila stajališta uredništva i autora prema dubrovačkom govoru te prema dubrovačkoj književnosti – u prošlosti i danas. Na takav se način pokušava razumjeti uloga jezika u određivanju nacionalnog identiteta grada. Analiziraju se svi članci koji su relevantni za to pitanje, napose polemike i pregledi književnosti. Autor se fokusira ne samo na iznesene teze nego i na modele argumentiranja, čime želi istaknuti neke nedosljednosti tih koncepcija te posljedice njihove primjene.

This article describes the experience of the community of Serb-Catholics living in Dubrovnik in the early twentieth century. It is based primarily on an investigation of the literary and cultural periodical Srdj (1902-08). This study focuses, fi rstly, on the conceptual ambivalence resulting from efforts to apply linguistic criteria to determine Serbian identity and, secondly, on the efforts to construct a mental map that would serve projections of Serbian symbolic territory. While the presence of the Serb-Catholic milieu in the city was short-lived (from the mid-nineteenth century to the First World War), it nevertheless left traces on the urban landscape that typifi ed the ambivalent formation of national identity along religious lines, as Croatians were associated with Catholicism and Serbs with Orthodoxy.

The article aims at addressing the question of representations of World War Two in Croatian and Serbian literature that were subversive in the sense that they queried the legend not simply by rejecting communism and affirming nationalism, but by emphasizing the uncertainty and sensibility of the human beings, a typical modern reaction to violence and, in general, modernist topoi. In this article I will focus on modernist novelistic representations of the 1960s in which the uncertainty and instability of collective warrants are foregrounded. As a result a subversive meaning is produced which contradicts not only communism and revolution but more generally war as such, including the universal features of war such as confronting loneliness, love as an expression of an individual rather than a collective sense of existence, and the impossibility of a valid representation of past events.

Osnovni je cilj ovoga rada usporedba ratnog romana Ivana Supeka, koji je 1959. godine objavljen kao Dvoje između ratnih linija, a 1995. godine doživio je novo izdanje kao Između ratnih linija. Usporedba se vrši na trima razinama jezične zbilje: (1) odnos prema jezičnim elementima koje se smatra hrvatskim/ nehrvatskim; (2) uloga narječja; (3) stilske i tekstualne modifikacije. Analiza pokazuje na koji je način modificirano jezično tkivo Supekova romana na tim trima razinama i koji su razlozi za njihovu interpretaciju. One su sve ideološki uvjetovane, no razlikuju se po tome što se referiraju na drukčije kulturne preokupacije. Istraživanje prve razine pokazuje da je Supek u pedesetima bio sklon uporabi hrvatskih elemenata, ali da je u drugom izdanju svoj jezik još više kroatizirao. Što se tiče upotrebe narječja, u prvom izdanju likovi gotovo govore jezikom pripovjedača, dok u drugom jedan od likova govori zagrebačkim idiomom (ovo se interpretira u vizuri odnosa standarda prema kajkavskom idiomu od narodnog preporoda, preko Krležinih literarnih intervencija, pa sve do proze u trapericama). Stilistička razina pokazuje da je autor intencionalno intervenirao u tekst kako bi drukčije modelirao svoj odnos prema Drugome svjetskom ratu, drukčije kodirajući ulogu Hrvata i Srba u njemu te mijenjajući u predmetnom svijetu poziciju Hrvatske seljačke stranke.

In the article a problem of mutual intertwining relationships between two Croatian short novels is taken into consideration. Although Vjekoslav Kaleb’s Glorious Dust (1954) and Antun Šoljan’s Short Excursion (1965) are set in a diff erent chronotope, namely the former in the Dalmatian hinterland during World War Two and the latter in the Istrian post- war Yugoslav reality, they possess some similar structural features. Among resemblances a motif of journey, taken allegorically as life (conceptual metaphor “life if a journey”), that binds together the two novels, is the most important. The author of this article attempts to investigate the problem of such a concept of journey referring both to the  philosophy of existentialism (notably Camus and Sartre) and literary preoccupations concerning the problem of meaningfulness and senselessness of human raison d’être.

How were processes of nation state-building and modernization reflected in early 20th century archicture? This and other questions guided a recent exhibition at the International Cultural Centre in Krákow. In tracing the 'language of architecture' across the region, the exhibit provided an interesting and original contribution to understanding the fundamental changes that marked the beginning of modern Europe.

Zašto sam u problematiziranju Mediterana izabrao baš te tri osobe, među tolikim drugim piscima, umjetnicima, političarima? Zašto baš toli-ko različite: Radica-esejist i političar, Meštrović-kipar, Fabrio-knji-ževnik kcionalne proze? Zato što ih povezuje jedna važna preokupacija vezana za doživljavanje Mediterana, naime, osvještavanje procesa stapanja, odnosno amalgamacije u jedno različitih kulturnih idioma kao posljedicu njihova susreta. Ovaj je prostor pogodno mjesto za propitivanje sinkretizama i sinteza jer su se upravo na jadranskoj obali sačuvala svjedočanstva prisutnosti različitih civilizacijskih tekovina, svjedočanstva susreta raznovr-snih kulturnih idioma. Povijesno gledano, kulturni idiomi dolazili su u dodir kao posljedica susreta etnosā. Ti etnosi su se isprva susretali i sučeljavali (civilizacija se brani od barbarstva), a naposljetku pomirivali i stapali u nove hibridne kulturne obrasce. Na takav su se način svojedobno stopili ilirski etnikum s roman-skim (te s helenskim influksom), poslije romanski sa slavenskim; antička kultura sa srednjovjekovnom; poganstvo s kršćanstvom; Bizant sa zapadnim kršćanstvom. Kao posljedica, nastali su združeni kulturni oblici. Problematiziranje ovog procesa neminovna je posljedica svjesnoga života na Mediteranu. Bogdan Radica svjedoči o Mediteranu kroz figuru zajedništva suprotnosti, Ivan Meštrović kroz h a r m o n i ju, Nedjeljko Fabrio, pak kroz m e z a l i j a n s u. Odmah napominjem: Radica i Meštrović koriste upravo takve izraze, dok je kod Fabrija mezali-jansa gura preko koje interpretiram njegovo djelo. Mediteran je u hrvatskoj kulturi simbol Zapada (utjecaja talijanske, francuske i latinske kulture), ali ne cijeloga mediteranskog kompleksa koji...

Svaki ideološki projekt ima svoj vokabular i svoje temeljne metafore jer se upravo u jeziku, i preko jezika, posreduje svjetonazor. Kanonske vizije svih ideologija dobivaju na taj način svoju reprezentaciju koja im omogućava afirmaciju nekog svjetonazorski uvjetovanog uvjerenja. U ovom prilogu želim pokazati kako se u romanima o Drugome svjetskom ratu prikazuju put i putovanje protagonista, napose partizana, kroz prostor i kroz vrijeme. Smatram da je uvjerenje o ispravnom putovanju prema zadanom cilju alegorija dogmatske vjere u komunizam, da se lutanje može alegorijski interpretirati kao sumnja, a gubitak puta kao potpuna ili djelomična negacija te vjere. Moglo bi se reći da te tri kon-cepcije puta i putovanja alegorijski oslikavaju odnos prema revoluciji. Prva izražava spoznajni optimizam, druga skepsu, a treća iznevjerene ideale i katastrofizam. Prvo je karakteristično za ranu fazu komunizma (plemenski kolektivizam), drugo za polemičku (kritički kolektivizam), a treće za dekadentnu (individualizam). Propitat ću razvojni tijek metafore putovanja u romanima s ratnom tematikom, od čvrstog ostvarenja te ideje preko lutanja sve do bespuća i gubitka puta, da bih pokazao kako se to poklapa s političkim propitivanjima komunističkih dogmi.

SOCIALIST REALISM IN LITERARY DEPICTIONS OF WAR
(THE CASE OF CROATIAN PROSE NARRATIVE)
In this article paradigms of socialist realist poetics in prose narrative on World War
Two are taken into consideration. Some key ideologemes of socialist realism and
communist worldview are underlined, such as absence of ambiguity (unequivocalness), simplifications, consistent mimeticism (truthful and historically concreto representation of reality), class awareness, militancy and heroism in war. Alongside theoretical and official directives, formulated by dogmatic theoreticians of socialist realist doctrine (like Jure Franičević-Pločar who based his understandings of literaturę on the Soviet principles, created by Zhdanov and Stalin), there are given analyses of some literary texts written by Josip Barković, Joža Horvat, Ivo Andrić i Mate Beretin. The author focuses on literary construction of characters – the prototype illegal partisans who ruthlessly struggle against the occupiers as well as chronotopic settings which enable for the action to be set within schematized conflict of good and evil. Including the new communist man, that is created during the revolution, there are given crucial political orientations concerning the canonized vision of the war, such as the principle of symmetry (meaning that all peoples’ traitors are fascists) and the vision of the liberation from fascism as the victory of the communist revolution (in this perspective, communists are depicted as the sole antifascists).

The article presents the concept of the "Croatian legal rights", which is derived from state traditions and was repeatedly used in the fight for Croatian sovereignty (mainly in the 19th century by the Illyrian Movement and the leader of the Party of Rights, Ante Starčević). The analysis focuses mainly on the discourse of Croatian communists, who reached for this concept in the fight for the federalisation of post-war Yugoslavia, and later for carrying out the project of gaining complete
independence.

There are great individuals in the life of every nation who express its spirit and traditions, though also its contradictions and ambivalences, more fully than others. In many cases they themselves also contribute to modifying those traditions and to heightening the ambivalences. And that was what Ivan Meštrović was for Croatia – her most outstandingly talented, but also most recalcitrant, insubordinate son; a sculptor whose second passion was politics. During the Great War he was an advocate of uniting all the Southern Slavs in a single state. Nonetheless, this idea of community did not in any way diminish his love for his homeland, Croatia, or his small homeland, Dalmatia, both of which he loved radically, though not egotistically. His artistic approach was the result of his obsessive quest for harmony, his desire to be able to encompass the world totally, to overcome its contradictions, and to create a space for a union of all things in one place. This desire, as romantic as it was utopian, found expression in his art, which is deep, moving, and at once monumental, messianic, and imbued with pathos.

Communist practice is foten both perceived and interpreter as a deliberate attempt at supressing national traditions or even their negation. This view arises from the assumption that the Communist ideology - thought to be essentially internationalist - is contrary to national ideologies. But, in all Eastern European countries of Real Socialism, Communist practice was directed towards the appropriation and adoption, and ulitimately the abuse of national traditions, and not towards their complete elimination.

In the article one book written by the Croatian author, Ante Kesić, is taken into consideration. The novel Black Snow, published in 1957, narrates about a Slovenian young woman, Breda, who was caught by the Germans in Ljubljana (for her contacts with communist partisans) and sent to the Dachau Concentration Camp. Although not of Jewish origins she encounters the Holocaust of the Jews in the camp and gets pregnant with a Jewish artist. The novel conceptualizes tragedy of war and the Holocaust in a very experimental way, by using a range of modernist, avant-garde or even surrealist literary techniques. The author attempts to invent a new language with a new grammar that would enable to express something that is not expressible.

There is a band from Split named TBF, with a song called "The End of the World" (Smak svita) in which there is the following verse: "And in the Parliament this morning the same imbecility, whose father was Ustasha and who is partisan, and considering that today is a cataclysm, they sent out a note to let us into Europe without waiting in line." This is a grotesque song making use of a specific sense of humour connected to the urban culture of Split. The relaxed and distanced tones contrast the claustrophobic and rather non-satirical state of affairs existing in Croatian public debate, whereby the left elites call the right-wing political programmes 'fascist' and the rightists depict the left-wing political programmes as being 'communist' and/or 'Yugoslavist'. This is a symbolic struggle over collective memory which, at times, triggers various value systems and allows for certain re-interpretations. However, neither fascism nor communism in the strictest sense, are bearing upon the political programmes in question. Croatian society as a whole, including its elites, are deeply polarized over the competing narratives of the Second World War which makes it difficult to distinguish the polemics from the real political programmes. Moreover, the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s have been framed within the imagery of the Second World War and are therefore understood either as a continuation of that war, or as the same event conducted under new circumstances. In contemporary Croatia, past conflicts are blended into one another, thus intertwining the memories of communism, fascism and the recent Yugoslav wars.

U članku se analizira dinamika demonizacije Drugog u hrvatskoj kulturi, čime se pokušava rekonstruirati hrvatska imaginarna (mentalna) mapa u 20. stoljeću te najvažnije preokupacije hrvatske kulture. U središtu pozornosti nalaze se znakovi koji se odnose na druge narode (Srbe, Talijane, Nijemce) i na druge političke orijentacije (ustaše, partizane, ljevičare, desničare). Istražuje se uglavnom hrvatska proza s ratnom tematikom – koja obuhvaća socrealističke, modernističke i postmodernističke poetike – jer u njoj najviše dolazi do izražaja stigmatizacija i demonizacija Drugog. Uz to se prikazuje način na koji se hrvatska kultura konfrontira s idejom rata, konkretno s Drugim svjetskim ratom.

Przegląd semiotycznych koncepcji znaku.

Życie człowieka jest ściśle związane z kulturą. Kultura zaś nie może istnieć bez komunikacji, a komunikacja bez zdolności do symbolizowania, jakimi człowiek dysponuje . Symbolizować znaczy w pewnym sensie tyle co reprezentować, a co za tym idzie – znaczyć i tworzyć przestrzeń kultury, o czym była mowa w rozdziale poprzednim. Teraz wypada się zmierzyć z problemem znaku i znaczenia. Ponieważ zagadnienia semantyczne są w taki czy inny sposób przedmiotem zainteresowania wszystkich dyscyplin humanistycznych, więc oczywiście nie można tutaj przedstawić całego spektrum tych zagadnień. Moim celem jest odwołanie się do kilku najważniejszych teorii znaku i wskazanie pewnych problemów szczegółowych, przede wszystkim statusu przedmiotu odniesienia i roli podmiotu. Przegląd stanowisk i naświetlenie niektórych zjawisk doprowadzi do próby praktycznego zmierzenia się z kategorią znaczenia, ale nie znaczenia systemowego (abstrakcyjnego), lecz konkretnego, aktualizowanego w kontekście. Tym sposobem z konieczności stworzymy szansę dla śmiałego pomysłu – syntezy znaku, jako najmniejszej jednostki znaczącej, z dyskursem, jako strukturą najbardziej złożoną, co stanie się przedmiotem zainteresowania w rozdziale trzecim.

Bit kulture jeste (i) u tome da se ona održava i izgrađuje zahvaljujući mogućnostima upisivanja novih sadržaja u već postojeći sistem, u postojeći imaginarijum. Štogod se novo pojavi, neki događaj ili neki protagonista, taj se novum interpretira u okvirima već postojećih interpretacija, nekih datuma. Ali u susretu starog i novog ostvaruje se i obratni uticaj: svaki novi važan događaj redefiniše stare predstave. Na takav način sadašnjost se shvata u optici prošlosti, a prošlost se interpretira preko kognitivnih sposobnosti nastalih u sadašnjosti. Nije, dakle, moguće razumevati istoriju bez sadašnjosti. Time dolazi do izražaja mehanizam koji je Hans Georg Gadamer nazvao sintezom ili stapanjem horizonata. Boris Uspenski je pokušavao da reši nedoumicu kako neki novum, koji automatski postaje poslednja karika u narativnom nizu, tzv. finale, utiče na interpretaciju starih događaja. Tumačeći taj fenomen, Uspenski se, zanimljivo, poziva na analizu snova. Ako sanjamo nepovezane slike, a budi nas tresak vratima, možemo taj zvuk povezati s pucnjem iz pištolja. Tom pucnju odmah podređujemo haotične slike iz sna, koje su se pojavile pre, i stvaramo neku koherentnu fabulu, makar o tome, na primer, da smo pred nekim bežali. Ovde se pokazuje očit i veoma izrazit paradoks: s jedne strane, čini se nesumnjivim da je cela priča koju vidimo u snu isprovocirana bukom iza-zvanom treskom vrata; s druge strane, događaji koji su do te buke doveli fabulom su s njom povezani, tj. sama buka kao da je unapred pretpostavljena. Tako su na paradoksalan način prethodni događaji isprovocirani finalom, pri čemu u fabularnoj kompoziciji kakvu vidimo u snu, finale s prethodnim događajima povezuju uzročno-posledične veze (Uspenski 1998: 25). To znači da se prošlost razlikuje od naracije o prošlosti (priče) jednim fundamentalnim mehanizmom: dok res gestae teče od početka do kraja, od nekad do danas, historia rerum gestarum ide u drugom smeru: od kraja ka početku. Paradoks je u tome što se interpretacija istorije, npr. perioda komunističke Jugoslavije, ne ostvaruje više bez intepretacije njenog ras-pada, što menja opštu predstavu o toj državi. Drugim rečima, interpre-tacija kraja nameće shvatanje toga što je bilo ranije. Sličan je mehanizam i u ličnom iskustvu. Zavisno od trenutka u kojem vršimo refleksiju nad svojom prošlošću različito razumemo događaje, slažemo ih u malo druga-čije nizove, pridajemo im drugi ili nešto drugačiji opšti smisao. Drugačije razumemo sopstvenu prošlost jer drugačije razumemo sami sebe u novim

Tytułowi ciemiężyciele to faszyści i komuniści. Nie są to oczywiście współcześnie istniejące postaci życia politycznego, choć użycie tych słów jako epitetów, swoistych słów-zaklęć, w debacie publicznej jest na porządku dziennym. Członków lewicy etykietuje się wyrazami komunista, komuch czy partyzant, zaś prawicy – (neo)faszysta, (neo)ustasza. Nie są to też konkretne postacie historyczne, lecz raczej figury zbiorowego losu narodowego, z którymi chorwacka kultura zmaga się od zakończenia drugiej wojny światowej, a usamodzielnienie się państwa na początku lat dziewięćdziesiątych ponownie ten problem wyostrzyło, nadając mu nowe, ale nie zupełnie nowe, odczytania.

In the article (here is the draft) the issue of a language of the Croatian (Yugoslav) communists – called here after Orwell the totalitarian Newspeak – is taken into consideration. It aims at analyzing the Croatian Newspeak basing on analysis of discourses of the Yugoslav dictator – Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslav historiography, the press and prose narrative.

An essay concerning the conceptualisations of World War One in the Croatian and Serbian cultures, notably literature and historiography. It demonstrates, in a popular way, how different views co-existed and how they interact both in the communist Yugoslavia and afters its collapse.

The aim of the article is a synthetic analysis of some ideologems of the Croatian Illyrian Movement that were employed in order to create its symbolic imaginary. The most important significance is devoted to political factors having cultural and sense-making properties. In this way a conceptual ambivalence of the ethnonyme/polithonyme "Croatia" (at the begining of the 19th century and in present times) is grasped. All the most relevant texts, published in journals "Danica" and "Kolo", were taken into consideration: essays, political drafts, poetry and reportage, including iconography.

Polemika o knjizi Drugi svjetski rat u hrvatskoj i srpskoj prozi (1945-2015) (III)

Bakotin u svom odgovoru na moj odgovor tvrdi da ja ipak u knjizi inzistiram na tezi da je književnost proizvela rat. To je, kako sam pokušavao argumentirati, neistina. Ako neka mjesta u tekstu podupiru Bakotinovo mišljenje (da su ‘dvosmislena’), onda to znači da on ne referira ta mjesta prema kontekstu nego ih čita izvan konteksta. Ali tako, izgleda, čita tekstove.

Polemika o knjizi Drugi svjetski rat u hrvatskoj i srpskoj prozi (1945-2015) (II)

zgleda da Bakotin i ja ne možemo uskladiti svoje interpretacije moje knjige. Ja ću dokazivati da nisam mislio što tvrdi Bakotin, a on će pronalaziti mjesta u tekstu koja služe njegovoj interpretaciji. Stoga mislim da je ovaj spor više metaspor, vođen na nekom metajeziku, moguće i na drukčijim bojišnicama, te bi mogao trajati unedogled. Htio bih podsjetiti: svaka rečenica, ili gotovo svaka rečenica, izvučena iz konteksta može značiti više stvari istodobno. Kontekstualizacija tijekom čitanja (a kontekst čine i susjedne rečenice i knjiga u cijelosti) nužna je kako bi se značenje preciziralo. Dobro da Bakotin ne tvrdi više da ja mislim da je književnost proizvela rat nego samo da je to u čitanju dvosmisleno. To je ipak neki napredak. Što se tiče političke dimenzije, on izvlači neke moje formulacije kako bi tvrdio da je knjiga politička (a podsjećam: isprva je tvrdio da joj to nedostaje). Pa naravno da se ja osvrćem na politiku jer je teško analizirati takvu prozu izvan konteksta, ali on je, ponovno naglašavam, samo pozadina. Bakotin želi da se polemika o tezama moje knjige svede na politički spor (to je i naglašeno u naslovu) te da me se možda i uvuče u komentiranje važnih političkih prijepora. A ja to ne želim jer nisam politički komentator niti to namjeravam biti.

Polemika o knjizi Drugi svjetski rat u hrvatskoj i srpskoj prozi (1945-2015) (I)

Kad sam čitao kritiku svoje knjige iz pera Jerka Bakotina, činilo mi se da se on referira na neku drugu monografiju. Bakotin je, zapravo, održao lekciju kako bi trebala izgledati knjiga o reprezentacijama Drugoga svjetskog rata u hrvatskoj i srpskoj prozi, odnosno kako bi trebalo prilagoditi postojeću književnost njegovoj zamišljenoj viziji te književnosti. Jedan je problem da književnost postoji u takvom obliku u kakvom postoji, a drugi da knjigu o reprezentacijama rata nije napisao Bakotin nego ja. Iako su neke od Bakotinovih teza važne za razmatranje odnosa fikcije i stvarnosti, autor – osim što ih je postavio – nije ponudio ništa što bi moglo doprinijeti njihovom razumijevanju. Štoviše, osvrnuo se na neke dijelove moje knjige na takav način da ti osvrti odgovaraju onome što on misli, a ne što sam ja kanio iznijeti. Budući da su njegove tvrdnje neutemeljene i pogrešne, a neke i neistinite, moram se na njih osvrnuti.

The dynamics of today’s production, circulation and reception of literature (which includes the reception of works of literature previously written) are defined by two parallel currents  in the literary field that are reducible to two conceptual paradigms: regional/national/supranational and elite/mass. These two paradigms did, of course, define the earlier previous periods of our European culture. However, each period seems to build and have its very own relationship not only between, but also within these two oppositions. It is also possible that some periods of culture and literature could be better understood through research into these oppositions. I will here try to show the way in which this dynamic is achieved today.
The Enlightenment project failed because it had hoped to create equality, egalitarianism and democracy while maintaining its elitist position. All has been accomplished except maintaining the elitist position, although state/European institutions and various foundations (still) continue to make every effort to nurture it. Indeed, today everyone can read Dostoevsky and Mann, even Dante, but they neither do nor will read them. This is not only about some people not being able to understand such writers, but also about such writers not being interesting merchandise. In today’s world, what rules is capital. The larger the print run, the better the book is considered to be. Electronic and online communication has only radicalised this phenomenon – the value of a book is decided by the number of readers who have read it.

Meštrovićeva retrospektiva veoma je zahvalna platforma za predstavljanje hrvatske kulture, ne samo zbog njegove umjetnosti nego i zato što se preko njegova djelovanja i života može ispričati povijest Hrvatske, od konca 19. stoljeća sve do razdoblja nakon Drugoga svjetskog rata

Ivan Meštrović, sculptor and architect, consistently constructed bridges that connected Croatia and its culture to Europe and the United States of America – both in his work and exhibition practice, as well as in his private life. From his early youth, when he studied in Vienna, until his final years spent in South Bend in the USA, he developed his international career retaining the awareness of his origins.



Each Croatian passport contains the image of Meštrović’s History of the Croats; this way, Croatian citizens promote the sculptor’s work in the world. It is impossible to discuss Croatian art and history of the first half of the 20th century without the reference to his works. At the same time, Meštrović has found a permanent place amongst the most distinguished Central European artists of the previous century. He is one of the greatest Croatian artists, whose talent has permanently transformed the landscape of numerous cities in Europe and overseas. He invested the consciousness of other nations with elements of heritage that had shaped him.



The 20th century revealed a dissonance between the modern abstract form – the inheritance of the avant-garde – and the natural human need for belonging and expressing the personal experience in public space. Meštrović’s continuous search for links between tradition and the present seems to anticipate the notion of the rear-guard – an antidote to the sense of alienation and threat experienced by contemporary man.



Meštrović’s art epitomises the diversity of Croatian culture, its numerous ambivalences and contradictions. Its deep-reaching roots in Western civilisation are reflected in the Mediterranean idioms, in Central European and Western European modernisation projects. However, they are also invested with elements of local culture, which draws from the tradition of syncretism of the Balkan model, where patriarchal and heroic folk culture coexists with the presence of various denominations and religions – the Orthodox Church and Islam. In a sense, Meštrović’s work is a metaphor for the history of the Croats, who found themselves on the crossroads of Europe’s major civilisational trends: Christianity and Islam, the Orthodox Church and Catholicism, elite and folk culture, the Mediterranean basin and Central Europe. All those elements clash with one another, creating a rich cultural mosaic, which cannot be defined through common traits.



The exhibition is the first Polish show of Meštrović’s work as well as the first show of Croatian art of this stature. The exhibition is organised in collaboration with Muzeji Ivana Meštrovicia: Galerija Meštrović in Split and Atelijer Meštrović in Zagreb.



The exhibition is organised under the Honorary Auspices of the President of the Republic of Poland, Dr. Andrzej Duda, and the President of the Republic of Croatia, Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović.



Ivan Meštrović (1883–1962) is the greatest Croatian artist of the 20th century and one of the most important Central European artists to have attained world renown. This is evidenced by the reception of Meštrović’s works in European countries and the United States, where he was the first living artist to be honoured with a retrospective show in the New York Metropolitan Museum. He developed a unique method of combining architecture with urban planning, antique and Byzantine heritage with Modernism, or Slavonic and Balkan culture with Mediterranean civilisation. His art is intertwined with politics and it reflects many dramatic challenges faced by Central European artists in the 20th century: he studied with Friedrich Ohmann in Vienna; he belonged to the Vienna Secession; he created his major works in his native Dalmatia; the elderly Rodin saw a brilliant continuator of his genius in him; he was socially and politically active in the most turbulent periods of European history – during World War I and the breakup of the Austro‑Hungarian monarchy (he was a member of the Yugoslav Committee); during World War II (he was imprisoned by the Ustaše in Zagreb) and the establishment of the communist regime; in 1946 he emigrated to the United States, where he was offered a professorship in sculpture at the Syracuse University, and then the University of Notre Dame; and in the 1990s, during the war in the former Yugoslavia, his works in the Dalmatian Zagora were deliberately destroyed. Meštrović is a creator of large sculptural works – iconic for Croatian culture – creations combining sculpture with architecture (Avala near Belgrade, Split, Lovćen, Otavice, Cavtat) and sculptural urban projects (Split, Zagreb, Chicago, Bucharest, Warsaw [not implemented]). This is the first presentation of Meštrović’s works – and at the same time of Croatian art of this rank – in Poland. The exhibition is being mounted in cooperation with the Muzeji Ivana Meštrovicia: Galerija Meštrović in Split and Atelijer Meštrović in Zagreb.

Curators: Łukasz Galusek, Dr Barbara Vujanović

Scientific consultation: dr hab. Maciej Czerwiński

Scientific committee: prof. dr hab. Jacek Majchrowski, dr Andrea Bekić, dr hab. Maciej Czerwiński, mec. Jacek Żuławski

The conference aims to ask questions about the presence of the members of the d'Anjou house and heritage linked to it in the cultural landscape and cultural texts of Central and Eastern Europe-both in the past and today. Krakow and Zadar are taken, imaginatively, as the most Northern and most Southern sights of their dominium. There is a sign evidencing this unified space under the Angevins, namely the Chest of Saint Simeon in the Church of Saint Simeon in Zadar. There are a few images in this magnificent piece of art that attract attention. One of them is the representation of the arrival of King Louis the Great to Zadar from the D'Anjou house. On the other his wife Elisabeth of Bosnia-the daughter of the ban of Bosnia (member of the house of Kotromanić, Stephen II of Bosnia) and Elisabeth of Kuyavia (member of the house of Polish Piast dynasty). Instytut Filologii Słowiańskiej Uniwersytet Jagielloński Zamek na Wawelu Sveučilište u Zadru She is accompanied by their three daughters, Catherine, Mery, and Hedwige. The latter will soon become the Queen of Poland, and with her marriage with the Grand Duke of Lithuania, the Jagiellonian dynasty was established, which will give rise, in the course of two centuries, to many monarchs not just for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth but also the Kingdom of Bohemia and Kingdom of Hungary (and hence the Kingdom of Croatia). This detail on the chest in Zadar is a point of departure for a discussion on one of the following topics.

1. Political aspects of the Angevins in Central Europe (dynastic bonds, state building policies, cultural expression in various texts);

2. The heritage of Central European Culture under the members of the D'Anjou dynasty (Central-European cultural trends intertwining with the Mediterranean influence; artefacts, literature);

3. The political and cultural elite of the time of the Angevins and their heirs-the Jagiellons ('national' and 'international' networks and ties, policies, overlapping between Poland, Bohemia, Hungary and Croatia/Dalmatia);

4. The heritage of the Angevins today (memory codified in historiography, language, literature, arts, and urban space). The conference accompanies the exhibition about the Jagiellonian dynasty organized by the Royal Wawel Castle. At the conference a wide public venue about the heritage of the Angevins will be held.

This conference is funded by the program Excellence Initiative – Research University at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow.

The Organizing Committee:
Professor Andrzej Betlej (Zamek Królewski na Wawelu)
Professor Maciej Czerwiński (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)
Professor Sanja Knežević (Sveučilište u Zadru)
Professor Zvjezdan Penezić (Sveučilište u Zadru)

Scientific Committee:
Professor Mladen Ančić (Sveučilište u Zadru)
Professor Julia Burkhardt (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München)
Professor Bożena Czwojdrak (Uniwersytet Śląski)
Professor Nikola Jakšić (Sveučilište u Zadru)
Professor Andrzej Marzec (Uniwersytet Jagielloński) 
Professor Divna Mrdeža-Antonina (Sveučilište u Zadru)
Dr. Antun Nekić (Sveučilište u Zadru)
Professor Stanisław Sroka (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)
Professor Katalin Szende (Central European University)
Professor Marek Walczak (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)

The Editorial Board of the scientific journal SOCJOLINGWISTYKA (ISSN: 0208-6808) is inviting papers for its newest issue no 35 which is scheduled to be published in December 2021. The deadline for submissions is 31 March 2021. Please note, that articles should be submitted via Online Submission System.

https://socjolingwistyka.ijp.pan.pl/index.php/SOCJO