We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2017
It is commonly supposed that confessional adherence was the decisive element in the growth of Croat and Serb nationhood: “In the differentiation of Serbs from Croats and the rise of modern Serb and Croat national consciousness, religion played the essential role in the Serbo-Croatian linguistic area. Whereas the Catholics by rule became Croats, the Orthodox were Serbs.” This none too precise formulation assumes that, quite independently of preexisting South Slavic affinities, a homogeneous national “mass” became heterogeneous by reason of outside dispensational intervention. Without fully analyzing whether religion indeed separated the South Slavs into different nationalities or whether religious affiliation simply reflected the allogenic nature of the South Slavic settlement — such an analysis would be difficult to sustain on the basis of current ethnogenesic knowledge—I suggest that the confessional “rule” is hardly as firm as some scholars suppose and needs to be qualified.
1. Rade Petrović, Nacionalno pitanje u Dalmaciji u XIX stoljeću (Sarajevo, 1968), p. 366.
2. Aside from the works on the 1879 Croat-Serb split in Dalmatia and the polemical literature that this and subsequent incidents provoked, scholarly literature has hardly touched upon the subject of “Serb-Catholics.” The emergence of the group is mentioned in two postwar studies: Vinko Foretic\ “Prva faza hrvatskog narodnog preporoda u Dalmaciji (do sredine 19. stoljeća),” Kolo (Zagreb) 4 (1966), nos. 8-10: 167 and n. 23; Stijepo Obad, “Nacionalno pitanje u Dalmaciji 1848-1849. godine,” Jugoslovenski istoriski (asopis (Belgrade), 1969, no. 4: 66.
3. Ivan Stojanović, “Engelova povjest Dubrovaĉke Republike: Nastavak prevoditelja Ivana kan. Stojanovića,” Dubrovnik (Dubrovnik), 8 (1899), no. 42: 3.
4. For evidence on the premodern national consciousness in Dubrovnik, see Vjekoslav Klaić, “Crtice o starom Dubrovniku,” Vienac (Zagreb), 21 (1899), no. 20: 316-18. See also Vinko Foretić, “Dubrovnik u doba Marina Držića,” in Marin Drzid: Zbornik radova, ed. Jakša Ravlić (Zagreb, 1969), pp. 18-27.
5. For the most up-to-date exposition of the problem, see Dalibor Brozović, “Hrvatski jezik, njegovo mjesto unutar južnoslavenskih i drugih slavenskih jezika, njegove povijesne mijene kao jezika hrvatske književnosti,” in Hrvatska književnost u evropskom kontekstu, ed. Aleksandar Flaker and Krunoslav Pranjić (Zagreb, 1978), pp. 34-66.
6. Franjo Fancev, Dokumenti za naše podrijetlo hrvatskoga preporoda (1790-1832) (Zagreb, 1933), pp. xxxii-xxxiii.
7. Grga Novak, Prošlost Dalmacije, 2 (Zagreb, 1944): 322-25.
8. Ljudevit Gaj, “Proglas,” Danico ilirska (Zagreb), 2 (1836), no. 49: 195.
9. Vuk Stefanović Karadžić, Pismenica serbskoga iezika, po govoru prostoga naroda (Vienna, 1814), p. 105.
10. Pavel Josef Šafařik, Geschichte der slawischen Sprache und Literatur (Buda, 1826).
11. Karadžic's letter to Ignjat A. Brlić, April 25, 1826, in Vukova prepiska, 5 (Belgrade, 1910): 116.
12. In his 1826 work Šafařik divided the Slavic world into two main branches, southeastern and northwestern. The first included Russian, Serbian, and Croatian “stems.” The Serbian “stem“ included Bulgars (600,000), Hungarian and Ottoman Serbs (350,000 and 800,000, respectively), Bosnians (350,000), Montenegrins (60,000), Slavonians (500,000), and Dalmatians (300,000 in Austrian Dalmatia and 80,000 in Ottoman Hercegovina). Šafařik included the Slovenes (Wends, pop. 800,000) with the Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, and Sorbs in the northwestern Slavic branch. For a recent critical edition of this work see Dejiny slovanského jazyka a literatúry všetkých náreči, trans. Valéria Bétaková and Rudolf Beták (Bratislava, 1963), pp. 63-68. In his Slowanský národopis (Prague, 1842), Šafařik modified his views to a certain extent. He no longer included the Bulgars among the Serbs, counting them instead as one of the two separate South Slavic groups. The other, Illyrian, group included Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. In an appended statistical table, however, which was later much reproduced, Šafařik maintained his belief in the Serbian character of štokavian. There were only 801,000 Croats, all Catholics, who lived only in the kajkavian area of northwestern Croatia. By contrast, there were 1,151,000 Slovenes and 5,294,000 Serbs (including 2,880,000 Orthodox, 1,864,000 Catholics, and 550,000 Muslims). See Slovanský národopis, 4th ed. (Prague, 1955), pp. 146-48. Though Šafařik apparently believed that čakavian had somehow passed into the Serbian linguistic zone, he included a čakavian song among the examples of Croatian language (p. 159).
13. In 1803 four Ragusan senators argued that two itinerant Orthodox priests must be expelled from Dubrovnik because Saint Francis of Assisi had prophesied in 1220 that Dubrovnik would remain independent and prosperous only as long as it excluded the Orthodox. Johann Christian von Engel, Povjest Dubrovačke Republike (Dubrovnik, 1903), p. iii.
14. For an Orthodox view of Ragusan policies toward the Eastern Christians see Nikodim Milaš, Pravoslavna crkva u Dubrovniku u XVIII. i početku XIX. vijeka (Sarajevo, 1913). The conditions under which the Orthodox lived in Dubrovnik were best described by Gerasim Zelić, a Dalmatian archimandrite, after several unhappy experiences with Count Sedlniczky, a Polish Catholic who was the chief of police in Vienna: “The Poles are as much the friends of our dispensation as the Ragusans, who — while they had their republic — could not tolerate a Christian of the Eastern Church to spend even one night in their city, but now they have softened, as have Poles.” Cited in Nikodim Milaš, Pravoslavna Dalmacija (Novi Sad, 1901), p. 529, n. 40.
15. My own reconstruction of various communities listed in the Maestrello della Popolazione delta Città e Borgo, a 1799 Ragusan census compiled for the purpose of obligatory purchases from the state salt monopoly in the city of Dubrovnik and its most immediate environs, yields 10 (perhaps 12) Orthodox families with 32 (38?) members older than fourteen. This number could also include Catholic servants. All families except one lived outside the city walls and all family heads are explicitly called “Murlacco,” that is, Vlach, here taken in the Orthodox confessional sense. By contrast, at the same time there were 42 Jewish households, with 209 members, including 38 Christian servants. The total population of Dubrovnik older than fourteen was then 4,479. Under French rule in 1808 the Orthodox population of the entire former territory of Dubrovnik amounted to 68 men and 40 women. Dubrovnik Historical Archives, Acta Gallica (1810): Financije 1-150: Tavola statistica generate della Cittàdi Ragusa, e tutto it suo antico Stato per l'anno 1807.
16. Djordje Nikolajević, “Srbsko obščestvo u Dubrovniku,” Srbsko-Dalmatinski Magazin“ (Zadar), 4 (1839): 133. In 1880, there were 10,920 people in the commune of Dubrovnik. In addition to 10,186 Catholics, there were 656 Orthodox, 67 Jews, 15 Protestants, and 4 Muslims.
17. For biographies of Nikolajević see Dimitrije, Ruvarac, Životopis Djordja Nikolajevića Mitropolita Dabro-Bosanskog (Zemun, 1898)Google Scholar; DuCic, Nićifor, “Mitropolit Djordje Nikolajević,” Godišnjak Srpske Kraljevske akademije (Belgrade), 9 (1895): 370–75Google Scholar; PeroviC, Jovan L., “Gjorgje Nikolajevićkao budilac narodnog duha i prvi radenik XIX. vijeka u dubrovačkom arhivu,” Dubrovnik (Dubrovnik), 1 (1925), no. 5: 1–4 Google Scholar, and no. 11: 1-2; and Milutinović, Kosta, Vojvodina i Dalmacija, 1760-1914 (Novi Sad, 1973), pp. 51–85 Google Scholar.
18. Pavle Karanotvrtković, an Orthodox priest from western Bosnia and Nikolajević's courier, was cited as the edition's compiler. It is not clear whether Nikolajević’ tried to cover his tracks by suggesting that Karanotvrtković assume the authorship of this illicitly gathered collection or whether Karanotvrtković abused Nikolajević's trust. The provenance of the volume provoked a bitter controversy during which Nikolajević kept silent.
19. Teodor [Božidar] Petranović, “Geografićesko-statistideski pregled” Dalmacle,” Srbsko- Dalmatinski Magazin” (Zadar), 3 (1838): 40-42.
20. Djordje Nikolajević, “Spisatel'i dubrovaćki koi su Srbskim jezikom, a talianskim slovima pisali,” Srbsko-Dalmatinski Magazin”, 3 (1838): 1-7. The other three articles, under slightly different titles, appeared in 1839 (4: 5-“l3), 1840 (5: 5-14), and 1841 (6: 5-16). In the first article the following poets were explicitly identified as Serbian: Džore Držić, Šišmundo Menćetić, Mavro Vetranović, and Nikola Dimitrović; in the second: Andrija Čubranović, Marin Držić, Miho Bunić Babulinov, Frano Lukarević Burina, Dinko Ranjina, and Dominko Zlatarić. In the third article, Nikolajević’ suddenly dropped Serbian nomenclature. Thus, Ivan Gundulić, Džono (Junije) Palmotić, Vice Puciž Soltanović, Dživo Gučetić Jerov, and Baro Bettera wrote in “Slavić,” Ivan Bunić Sarov in “Ragusan,” and Dzore Palmotid and Petar BogaSinovid in “indigenous” (domorodan) language. In the last article Nikolajevid returned to his earlier usage and identified Ignjat Djurdjevid, Marija Bogašinović-Budmani, Josip Betondić, Franatica Sorkoćević, and Luko Bunić as Serb poets. The articles are full of errors in names, dates, and family relations of the poets. More of a chronology than a critical study, the work is noted for wrongheaded appraisals of various authors.
21. One such omission was Nikolajević's treatment of Dominko Zlatarić's translations of foreign classics. Though Nikolajević regularly noted that other poets translated “into Serbian,” he could not do so in the case of Zlatarić, who wrote in his subtitle of Sophocles’ Electra that this “tragedy was translated into Croatian.” Nikolajević, therefore, simply dropped his usual formula and introduced the section with the following phrase: “Having seen that Serbian poetry was flowering in his fatherland, [Zlatarić] also devoted himself to it.“
22. Nikolajević was probably exposed to Karadžić's views through the offices of Jeremija Gagić (1783-1859), a secretary of Karadjordje's State Council who entered Russian service in 1812 and served as the Russian consul in Dubrovnik from 1815 to 1856. Gagić was Karadžić's friend and correspondent and in 1834 he engaged the parish priest to collect subscribers for Karažić's book of proverbs. Nikolić, Marko, “Jedan Karadžićev ‘Prenumerant,'” Vesnik Saveza udruženja pravoslavnog sveStenstva FNRJ (Belgrade), 10 (1958), no. 206: 4 Google Scholar. Nikolajević probably made Karadžić's acquaintance in 1838, when Karadžić stayed in Gagić's home during his sojourn in Dubrovnik.
23. Jan Kollar, “Domoljubi u Mletcih,” Danica Horvatska, slavonska i dalmatinska (Zagreb),
9 (1843), no. 50: 198.
24. Bernard Stulli, “Tršćanska ‘Favilla’ i Južni Slaveni,” Anali Jadranskog instituta JAZU (Zagreb), 1 (1956): 39-40,48.
25. Medo Pucić, Pjesme (Pančevo, 1879), p. 306. The actual order of Serbian colors is red, blue, and white.
26. Vojislav J. Vučković, “Neuspela politička akcija Matije Bana 1860-1861,” Istoriski (časopis (Belgrade), 9-10 (1959): 385.
27. For accounts of Ban's political and literary activities see Bošković, Jovan in “Izvodi iz zapisnika Srpskog učenoga društva,” Glasnik Srpskoga učenog društva (Belgrade), 65 (1886): 11–35Google Scholar; Kamila, Lucerna, “U spomen Matije Bana Dubrovčanina,” Ljetopis JAZU (Zagreb), 21 (1907): 120–68Google Scholar; Skerlić, Jovan, Istorija nove srpske knjiievnosti (Belgrade, 1921), p. 199–201.Google Scholar
28. For a biography of Maslać see Agostino Giurgevich (Augustin Djurdjević), Cenni biografico-leterarii dei personaggi piu illustri della Congregazione ragusina di San Domenico (Split, 1867), pp. 31-32.
29. The most up-to-date work on this question is Jerzy Skowronek, Polityka batkanska Hotelu Lambert (1833-1856) (Warsaw, 1976); see esp. pp. 15-118.
30. Ljubomir Durković£-Jakšić\ Srbijansko-crnogorska saradnja (1830-1851) (Belgrade, 1957), pp. 66-67.
31. From a letter of Janićije Djurić, Karadjordje's former secretary, cited in Dragoslav Stranjaković, “Kako je postalo Garašaninovo ‘Načertanije,'” Spomenik SKA (Belgrade), 91 (1939): 67.
32. Jaroslav Šidak, “Hôtel Lambert i Hrvati,” Studije iz hrvatske povijesti XIX stoljeća (Zagreb, 1973), pp. 168-70. Compare Skowronek, pp. 92-93.
33. On Zach's activities among the South Slavs in the 1840s see two works by Žáček, Václav: František A. Zach (Prague, 1977), pp. 39–94 Google Scholar, and “Suradnja Ljudevita Gaja s Franti- šekom Zachom,” Radovi Instituta za hrvatsku povijest (Zagreb), 3 (1973): 139-59.
34. Stranjaković, p. 75. For historiographic views on the problem of the authorship and interpretation of Naćertanije, see Nikša Stančić, “Problem ‘Naćertanija’ Ilije Garašanina u nasoj historiografiji,” Historijski zbornik (Zagreb), 21-22 (1968-1969): 179-96.
35. Stranjaković, p. 94.
36. Ibid., p. 87.
37. Ljubomir Durković-Jakšić, Branislav: Prvi jugoslovenski ilegalni list, 1844-1845 (Belgrade, 1968), p. 41; Skowronek, p. 91.
38. Arhiv Istoriskog instituta SAN: Fond Matije Bana (hereafter AII:MB), p. 13, Letter to Aleksandar Banović, Belgrade, December 10, 1844 (O.S.).
39. AII:MB, p. 18, Letter to Stefan Herkalovic, Belgrade, January 2, 1845 (O.S.).
40. Ibid.
41. Miodrag Popovi\ Vuk Stafanović Karadžić, 1787-1864, 2nd ed. (Belgrade, 1972), pp. 315-20.
42. Stranjaković, pp. 80-81.
43. The letters were published in Radoslav Perović, ed., Gradja za istoriju srpskog pokreta u Vojvodini, 1848-1849, 1 (Belgrade, 1952); see pp. 31, 72-73, 81-82, 112-14, 131-32, 135-36, 148, 207-208, 216-17, 238-39, 274-75, 306-307, 344-45, 404-405.
44. Vućković proved this beyond any reasonable doubt. See Vu£kovic\ pp. 383-84. For example, Ban says that he met Jelattc’ and Gaj on or several days before March 31 (1848, O.S.), but this meeting cannot have occurred for both Croat leaders were then in Vienna. And if he did not meet Jelačić, it is not likely that he carried Jelačić's message to Petar II Petrović-Njegoš, the ruler of Montenegro, as he claims in a letter from Split on April 22 (O.S.). R. Perović, p. 217.
45. Stijepo Obad, “Lijeve tendencije u dubrovačkom previranju 1848-1849. godine,” Godišnjak Društva istoričara BiH (Sarajevo), 16 (1965): 91-100.
46. The words are from Ban's proclamation to the Dalmatians, distributed as a leaflet in April 1848. See “Šta treba Dalmacii?” in Perovic\ pp. 136-338. Ban expressed similar sentiments in his essay “Domovini mojoj,” Danica horvatska, slavonska i dalmatinska, 14 (1848), no. 21: 86-87.
47. R. Perović\ p. 307.
48. Matija Ban, Različne pjesme (Belgrade, 1892), p. 161.
49. Josip Horvat, Povijest novinstva Hrvatske (Zagreb, 1962), pp. 154-55.
50. Matija Ban, “Esame delle questioni politico-slave,” L'Avvenire (Dubrovnik), 1 (1849), no. 27: 105, no. 29: 115.
51. L'Avvenire, 1 (1849), no. 33: 129.
52. “O Croati, o Slavoni? Quanti siete in tutto? Senza i confini illirico-tedeschi, non arrivate a un milione, a volete voi, tra il mescersi e il riorganizzarsi di tutta quasi la razza umana, volete, dico, voi, un milione di uomini, salvare la vostra indipendenza e libertà? Persuadetevi, ciò non può essere, rimarete zero, ed altri di voi più potenti v'affibbieranno di bel nuovo la loro cifra, il loro name, l’istoria loro. Non vi rimane dunque che unirvi ad altri.” Orsato Pozza (Počić) [Medo Pucid], “Formiamo noi una nazione?” L'Avvenire, 1 (1849), no. 35: 140.
53. AII:MB, pp. 51-53, Letter to Djuro Ban, Belgrade, May 9, 1849 (O.S.).
54. Ibid. For a detailed appraisal of Ban's part in GaraSanin's agency, see Dragoslav Stranjakovii, Politiika propaganda Srbije u jugoslovenskim pokrajinama 1844-1858 godine (Belgrade, 1936), pp. 4-23.
55. Ivan August Kaznačić£, Alcune pagine su Ragusa (Dubrovnik, 1881), pp. 73-76.
56. Durković-Jakšić, Srbijansko-crnogorska saradnja, p. 108.
57. Dubrovnik Historical Archives, Protocolo-riservati 1850, nos. 36, 52, and 196.
58. Stranjaković, Politiička propaganda, pp. 25-26; Durković-Jakšić, Srbijansko-crnogorska saradnja, p. 110.
59. Dubrovnik Historical Archives, Protocolo-riservati 1850, no. 318.
60. Stranjaković, Politčika propaganda, p. 27.
61. See AII:MB, pp. 58-59, Letter to Petar II Petrović-Njegoš, Dubrovnik, May 6, 1850 (O.S.).
62. Ibid., pp. 60-61, Letter to Špiro Popović, Belgrade, August 7, 1850 (O.S.).
63. Ibid., p. 60.
64. For example, Pavle Popovic, the noted Serbian literary historian, wrote that “the Serb movement appeared in Dubrovnik around 1880. The movement was spontaneous, without any outside influence, and sprouted purely on the Ragusan soil.” See his essay “Dum Ivan Stojanovid,“ Nova iskra (Belgrade), 2 (1900), no. 10: 293.
65. Nikolajević, “Spisatel'i dubrovadki,” Srbsko-Dalmatinski Magazin”, 3 (1838): 2.
66. Matija Ban, “Materi srbskoj,” Dubrovnik: Cviet narodnog književstva (Zagreb), 2 (1851): 184-85.
67. De Administrando Imperio, chapt. 30, 11. 113-16. Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ delineation was clearly at work in Ban's project, titled the “Political Foundations of the South Slavs,” which contained these territorial provisions: “7. The following areas belong to the Croat tribe: Croatia and Slavonia with the Military Frontier; Istria with the islands, Carniola, Carinthia, and the Slavic portion of Styria; Bosnia from the dry frontier [that is, with Dalmatia] to the Vrbas and Dalmatia to the Cetina, that is, the districts of Split and Zadar, the old royal heartlands of the Croats. 8. The following areas belong to the Serb tribe: Serbia, Old Serbia with Sofia, the entire Slavic Macedonia, Zeta with the Mirdite area [of northern Albania], the districts of Kotor and Dubrovnik in Dalmatia with the adjacent islands, Montenegro, Hercegovina, Bosnia from the Vrbas to the Drina, and Srem [Srijem] with the Serbian Vojvodina. 9. All other areas belong to the Bulgarian tribe.” Durkovic- JakJid, Srbijansko-crnogorska saradnja, p. 88. It is obvious that Ban did not recognize the existence of the Slovenes. Durkovic-JakSic’ dates this project “before the rebellion of 1848.” Though I did not have an opportunity to examine this project among Ban's papers in the Serbian Academy of Sciences, the usage and similarity with the alleged Serb-Croat secret agreement for mutual cooperation of December 1860, also written by Ban, cast doubt on Durković£-Jakšić's periodization. Moreover, Vojislav J. Vučković’ has proved conclusively that the 1860 agreement was Ban's forgery and that such a document was never adopted. Vu£kovi£, “Neuspela politi£ka akcija,“ pp. 400-403. Even so, Ban's authorship does indicate his acquaintance with De Administrando Imperio, and it certainly figured among his post-1848 proofs in favor of Dubrovnik's Serbian status.
68. Stjepan R. Ban [Luko Zore?], Hrvatski razgovori i odgovori (Novi Sad, 1903), p. 7.
69. Quoted in Stojanović, Politiika propaganda, pp. 20-21.
70. Matija Ban, “Osnova sveslavianskoga jezika,” Dubrovnik, 1 (1849): 282.
71. Orsat Počić [Medo Pucid], “Plandovanja Ivana Bunila Vu£i£evi£a vlastel. dubrov. s uvodniem govorom Orsata Počidć,” ibid., p. 18.
72. Orsat Počić [Medo Pucid], “Dopisi iz Italie,” Danica horvatska, slavonska i dalmatinska, 9 (1843), no. 33: 129-30.
73. See Djordje Nikolajevid, “Osuditelj,” Danica horvatska, slavonska i dalmatinska, no. 14: 54-55.
74. Evstafij Mihajlovic\ Illiri i Srbl'i (Novi Sad, 1843), pp. 60, 71.
75. Matija Ban, “Pisma Dubrovacjca,” Zora dalmatinska (Zadar), 5 (1848), no. 23: 91-92.
76. Naučna biblioteka, Dubrovnik, Sastavci i prijepisi M. Pucića, Rkp. 58, p. 82.
77. Compare n. 19.
78. Medo Pucid, “Driavopravna pogodba,” Domobran (Zagreb), 1 (1864), no. 34: 1.
79. Ibid., p. 2. Pucić was even more explicit in ridiculing Croat claims to Ottoman Bosnia- Hercegovina as the “virtual” territory of the Triune Kingdom and the lands that should be restored to Croatia upon the end of Ottoman rule. Ibid.
80. Orsatto Pozza [Medo Pucić], La Serbia e I'lmpero d'Oriente (Florence, 1867), p. 26.
81. Matija Ban, “Osnova,” p. 292.
82. Matija Ban, “Glasu Dubrovačkomu,” Glas Dubrovački (Dubrovnik), 1 (1886), no. 14: 110.
83. 2. [Ante Starčević], “Dubrovnik cviet narodnoga književstva,” Narodne novine (Zagreb), 17 (1851), no. 230: 662.
84. S. A. Nikitin, Slavianskie komitety v Rossii (Moscow, 1960), pp. 150-51. The overture toward the Slavophiles came only five years after Ban's ode to Sultan Abdulmecit I, written at the height of the Crimean War.
85. Matija Ban, “Drugi susret sa vladikom Radom,” Politika (Belgrade), 22 (1925), no. 6248: 2.
86. Durković-Jakšić, Branislav, p. 25, n. 41.
87. AII:MB, p. 28, Letter to Ljudevit Gaj, Belgrade, February 17, 1848 (O.S.).
88. Matija Ban, “Zèrcalo poviestnice dubrovaCke,” Dubrovnik, 1 (1849): 145-46.
89. AII:MB, p. 62, Letter to Djordje Nikolajević, Belgrade, December 14, 1850 (O.S.).
90. AII:MB, p. 28, Letter to Ljudevit Gaj, Belgrade, February 17, 1848 (O.S.).
91. AILMB, p. 27, Letter to Ljudevit Gaj, Belgrade, February 17, 1848 (O.S.).
92. S. D—i, Pravoljub [pseud. Ivan Franjo Jukid], “Potomci harvatah i serbaljah u ilirskih derzavah,” Danica ilirska, 8 (1842), no. 29: 115.
93. Lujo Bakotic\ Srbi u Dalmaciji od pada Mletadke republike do Ujedinjenja (Belgrade, 1939), p. 5.
94. S. R. Ban, Hrvatski razgovori, p. 55.
95. Dragutin Prohaska, “Adam Mickiewicz i Medo PucicV’ Nastavni vjesnik (Zagreb), 24 (1916), no. 5: 356.
96. Pucic, “Plandovanja,” p. 16.
97. On this subject, see Ivo Banac, “Struktura konzervativne utopije brace Vojnovida,” in Frano Cale, ed., Radovi medjunarodnog simpozija o djelu Iva VojnovUa (Zagreb, 1981), pp. 19-49.
98. Antun Gustav Matoš, Sabrana djela (Zagreb, 1973), 14:88; 6:189.
99. Haler, Novija dubrovačka knjžievnost, pp. 88-89.
100. Milivoj Strahinić [pseud. Luko Zore], Objavljenje (Rijeka, 1889), p. 145.
