historicizing bosnia

8/13/2019 Historicizing Bosnia

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/historicizing-bosnia 1/28

• M A R I N A A N T I Ć ( M A D I S O N ) •

Historicizing Bosnia

Kosta Hörmann and Bosnia’s Encounter with Modernity

n a review of literature on the cultural legacy of Austro-Hungarian rule inBosnia and Hercegovina published prior to the dissolution of the Yugoslavstate, one name invariably appears – that of Kosta Hörmann (1850 – 1923),

the first curator of Sarajevo’s Landesmuseum . Besides his activities in the mu-seum, Kosta Hörmann was a capable and reliable administrator, moving steadilyup the bureaucratic ladder, having reached, at the height of his career, the posit-ion of the Consultant to the Throne and Department Chief in Sarajevo. Formost of the twentieth century in former Yugoslavia he was, nonetheless, bestknown as a dedicated ethnographer who collected various cultural artifacts andpreserved a significant collection of Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) oral poetry.1

Considering the central role of oral poetry in the 19 th-century movementsfor national liberation in the Balkans, it is not surprising that the legacy of Kosta

Hörmann has so far been understood in terms of his contribution to or detrac-tion from the national liberation struggles of the peoples of former Yugoslavia.Specifically, most works on the topic seem to respond to the question of KostaHörmann’s influence on the formation of Bosniak national consciousness in19th-century Bosnia and Hercegovina.

In this essay, I will begin by examining three representative works from thecanon of literature on Kosta Hörmann that present his legacy as one of con-tribution to the formation of Bosniak nationhood: Ilija Kecmanović’s essay O

jednoj neobičnoj književnoj karijeri u Sarajevu od 1878 do 1919 godine (1963), ÐenanaButurović’s study Studija o Hörmannovoj zbirci muslimanskih narodnih pjesama (1976),and Boris Ćorić’s work Nada: Knji ž evna monografija 1895 – 1903 (1978).2 As a care-ful reading of these texts will show, despite their differences in interpretation ofKosta Hörmann’s work, all three subscribe to what Srećko Dţaja has called anational/nationalistic approach to history:

I



Histor i c iz ing Bosnia 3

nia during the 1960s and 1970s, namely, the official recognition of BosnianMuslims as one of the constitutive Yugoslav nationalities.5

The contemporary and political nature of Kecmanović’s essay is partly hid-den by the fact that it was published in Prilozi za prou č avanje istorije Sarajeva [ Sara- jevo Historical Studies Supplement ] (as opposed to some more openly political jour-nal). Kecmanović also occasionally refers to »our city« in the text as if to indi-cate that Sarajevo history is the true topic of the essay. However, Kecmanović’scentral concern is Kosta Hörmann’s legacy, which, he claims, can be summedup as the »invention« of Bosniak nationhood. In turn, the argument goes, Bos-niak nationhood is nothing but an ideological trick played by the Austro-Hun-garian Monarchy in an attempt to occupy and »catholicize« Serbia.6

As I will document in detail below, Kecmanović addresses directly thequestion of recognizing or not the existence of a Bosniak nation. Furthermore,his perception of this question is formulated in distinctly 20th – rather than 19th

– century terms. And yet these arguments about Bosnian nationhood are pre-sented in his essay via a biographical sketch of Kosta Hörmann and a politicalanalysis of his position within the Austro-Hungarian government in Bosnia.

Kecmanović begins his essay with an interesting conflation of historical bi-ographical material and Ivo Andrić’s fictional portrayal of Kosta Hörmann:

The character of Kosta Hörmann, as a clerk and a man of the throne, was brought out

into the open ( osvijetljen je) with special talent by Ivo Andrić in his famous story of serf

Siman. [...] Characteristic for Kosta Hörmann, who ›served‹ Austria in Bosnia from theday it ›entered‹ Bosnia to the day it left, never forgetting what he wanted, was onedisagreement he had with the poet Tugomir Alaupović [...] All of these acts, both the one

with serf Siman and the one with Tugomir Alaupovi ć , and in fact, many others like them, were

deep inside Hörmann’s ego, obviously as a result of the conditions of his life and

personal growth as well as the places from whence he came.[emphasis MA]. 7

Continuing the biographical portrayal of Hörmann, Kecmanović proceeds todiscredit him as a poorly educated, incapable administrator of the Museum. Heberates Hörmann’s scientific achievements in archeology and downplays thesignificance of his collection of Bosniak oral poetry. Kecmanović acknowledgesthat Hörmann’s editorial position in Nada 8 was perhaps the one important posi-tion he held, but even in that capacity, Hörmann was supposedly not an inde-pendent actor, but rather »an extraordinary executor« of a particular politicalplan directed from Vienna.9 The remainder of Kecmanović’s essay is de voted toan analysis of this »political plan« and the Austro-Hungarian cultural policy ingeneral.

The central tenet of Austro-Hungarian cultural policy in Bosnia, accordingto Kecmanović, was the creation of the Bosniak nationhood for the purpose ofa »denationalization« of Bosnia and Hercegovina. As he says:

Along the lines of Kállay ’s politics in the area of culture in Bosnia and Hercegovina,

Hörmann got the assignment, as the editor of Nada , to do everything possible in the



Marin a Ant i ć 4

magazine to contribute to the denationalization of Bosnia and Hercegovina, that is, to

the creation of a new, even if artificial , Bosnian nation on the Slavic south10

All of the cultural activities Hörmann was involved in during his tenure in Bos-nia and Hercegovina are thus to be interpreted as serving the »denationa-lization« policy of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Kecmanović characterizesHörmann’s cultural activities in this way:

All these functions Hörmann fulfilled in the area of culture obviously served his

primarily political duties and assignments. Both as the director of the Landesmuseum and

as the editor of its Gazette , as well as in his role as the editor of Nada , and finally, as the

organizer of propagandistic exhibitions abroad, he had on his mind exclusively the

cultural/political interests of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in the occupied lands.11

The »cultural – political interests« in question were ones of:

Austroslavism in the Yugoslav context, which had followers among some Slovenes andCroats, and even among some Serbs, and was served, allegedly, even by Strossmeyer in

an attempt to, as the historian Ćiro Truhelka claims, ›bring the Orthodoxy into the lapof the Catholic church, into one large Slavic church community‹.12

The conclusion of Kecmanović’s argument about Kosta Hörmann’s legacy is,thus, that the creation of Bosniak nationhood (here attributed to Hörmann’scultural activities) was a product of Austrian anti-Serbian policies.

In the context of 1960s politics in former Yugoslavia, especially the risingtide of opinion in favor of recognizing Bosnian Muslims as a constitutive natio-nality, Kecmanović’s conclusions about Kosta Hörmann’s legacy work surpri-singly well as an argument against claims of Bosniak nationhood. For, if Bos-niak nationhood is a consequence of Austro-Hungarian anti-Serbian policies,

then any contemporary claims for Bosniak nationhood are mistaken about theorigin of their nationhood, or in other words, the »authority« of their nationalnarrative. The connection Ilija Kecmanović established here between KostaHörmann’s cultural activities and the claims to Bosniak nationhood in post-

World War II Yugoslavia proceeded to set the terms of and to dominate the de-bate on Kosta Hörmann’s legacy in the 1970s and beyond.

Ðenana Buturović’s 1976 study of Kosta Hörmannn’s cultural work inBosnia and Hercegovina, which I will consider next, addresses the key concernsraised by Kecmanović’s article. Studija o Hörmannovoj zbirci muslimanskih narodnih pjesama [ A Study of Hörmann’s Collection of Muslim Poetry ] is a longer and muchmore methodological study of Kosta Hörmann’s work in the cultural arena,especially in collecting Bosniak oral poetry. Buturović addresses bothKecmanović’s biographical argument against Kosta Hörmann’s work, namelythat his activities were motivated only by the desire to provide service to the

Austro-Hungarian Throne, as well as his argument that the »idea« of Bosniaknationhood came from Hörmann’s superior – Imperial Finance Minister as wellas Chief Secretary for Bosnia – Benjamin Kállay (1839 – 1903). She addresses the




former by arguing that the inspiration for Hörmann’s collection of Bosniak oralpoetry (and implicitly all his other ethnographic work on Bosniaks) came not

from above but from below:

It is only in Bosnia, among the Muslims, that Hörmann came to the idea of this collec-

tion [...] the basis of this idea was the connections Hörmann had with the Muslim

circles that allowed him to get to know this far from ordinary cultural, historical and

literary phenomenon, and to present to the world, in full, its significance and novelty.13

As to the anti-Serbian policies of the Austro-Hungarian Throne, whichKecmanović claims found their embodiment in the promotion of the idea ofBosniakness, Buturović proposes that Kállay ’s endorsement of the publicationof Bosniak poetry (and thus his implicit endorsement of Bosniakness) can beexplained by the simple fact that other »national« oral poetry collections werealready published. After citing Kállay ’s instructions to Hörmann regarding the

publication of this collection, she concludes that it is wrong to associate thepublication of this collection with »calculated« actions of »Austro-Hungariancultural politics«:

This is why Kállay insists that the introduction should point out that the majority of

Christian Bosnian oral poetry was already published in other well known collections

and recommends that other title – The Oral Poetry of Mohammedans in Bosnia and

Herzegovina – with which he proves exactly that he, like Hörmann, treats Muslims as a

separate group in the population of Bosnia and Hercegovina [in other words, he is not

claiming everybody in Bosnia is Bosniak]. With this point, these documents show that

it is also wrong to reduce the creation of this collection to a planned action of Austro-

Hungarian cultural politics and link it with the idea of Bosniakness as one of its mani-

festations.14

A key moment in the quotation above betrays the ahistorical nature of the de-bate between Kecmanović and Buturović. Namely, Buturović introduces thedistinction between the notion of Bosniakness as a national identity on par withother national identities in Bosnia and Hercegovina and the notion of Bosniak-ness as a separatist national claim. As Buturović herself points out, Hörmann

was accused by contemporaries of »creating« a Bosnian Muslim nation(ality). He was never accused of endorsing a Bosniak state. It is, on a very basic level, evenabsurd to imagine that Hörmann was arguing for a Bosniak nation – he was,after all, an Austro-Hungarian official.

Buturović here implicitly points to the fact that the anxieties around Hör-mann’s endorsement or »creation« of Bosniak nationality in 1888 and those thatpreoccupied Yugoslav intellectuals in the 1960s and 1970s (as evidenced by IlijaKecmanović’s essay) were quite different. In 1888, Serbian and Croatian wri tersand intellectuals were anxious that the creation of Bosnian Muslim nationalidentity was taking away from the Serbian and Croatian national identities asignificant number of the Bosnian population. With the decrease in nationalnumbers, they feared the appeal of the nationalist anti-colonial rhetoric would



Marin a Ant i ć 6

decrease, making it that much more difficult to overthrow Austro-Hungarianrule. In contrast, the Yugoslav intellectuals of mid-20th century were primarily

anxious that the Bosnian Muslims, as a nation, could, at least theoretically, claimBosnia and Hercegovina as their nation state.

But, there is an even more fundamental problem in the conflation of anxie-ties surrounding the idea of Bosniak nationhood Buturović points out. Namely,both Kecmanović and Buturović understand and operate with the notion of»nationhood« as a formed phenomenon, virtually unchanging in time. It is, his-torically speaking, inappropriate to debate Hörmann’s participation in the dis-course on Bosniak identity in the 1960s and 1970s because, while he might haveshared some ideas about what it means to be Bosniak with Bosniaks of the mid-20th century, what actually meant to be Bosniak in the 1880s and what it meantto be one in the 1970s are two quite different things. For, national identities arenot »closed systems« originating in mythical distances of the past and moving

through the historical continuum virtually without change.15 This closed national/nationalistic approach to history is the reason why

Kecmanović’s arguments against the validity of the Bosniak claim to nation-hood take the form of debate on the »authenticity« of Serbian and Croatianidentities and the »artificiality« of the Bosniak one. This is also why Buturović’srebuke of Kecmanović only goes so far in providing a perhaps understandable,but fundamentally inadequate corrective to Kecmanović’s Serbian nationalistposition by arguing conversely for the authenticity and richness of Bosniak cul-ture (»the extraordinary cultural, historical and literary phenomenon« of Muslimepic poetry, for example). Nevertheless, Buturović’s objections are just as firmlyimplanted in national/nationalistic views of history, especially in the sense in

which all such historiography seeks simply a confirmation of the present ideolo-

gical position in the past. Dţaja also points to this phenomenon:

The main similarity [of national historiographies] lies in their anachronistic quest for

confirmation of those things in the past considered relevant for the political present,

and in the irignoring of and an ignorant approach to different interpretations, those not

based on national myths, but on a critical approach to all known, i.e., available historical

sources.16

So, while Buturović’s objections are in some sense understandable, they wouldhave been much more effective had they pointed out the obvious ahistoricity ofKecmanović’s arguments, their basis in politics of the day, and thus their irrele-

vance for either the legacy of Kosta Hörmann or the definition of Bosniak na-tionhood. But to provide such a critique one must begin by acknowledging that

all national identities, Serbian, Croatian and Bosniak alike, are, in fact, historicaland constructed.

Neither Kecmanović nor Buturović seem ready to accept this view of thecommon past. The difference between their positions is simply whether thisone particular (Bosniak) national identity is constructed and therefore invalid




(Kecmanović ) or not constructed and therefore authentic (Buturović ). In this,they create what we can call, following Dţaja, the national/nationalistic legacy

of Kosta Hörmann.Besides this positivistic and naturalized understanding of national identity,

Kecmanović and Buturović also share in the general problems of YugoslavMarxist historiography as outlined by Dţaja in the article cited above. Thisproblem is, however, more forcefully evident in the third text on Kosta Hör-mann I chose to consider, namely Boris Ćorić’s 1978 study of Nada , a journalunder the editorship of Kosta Hörmann. In Nada: Knji ž evnoistorijska monografija1895 – 1903 [ Nada: A Literary-historical monograph 1895 – 1903 ], Ćorić argues for acertain fixity in the relationships between base and superstructure and cultureand politics. In the case of Kosta Hörmann’s cultural work, Ćorić confirmsKecmanović’s view over and against Buturović on the basis of the claim thatthe colonial hegemony established by Austria-Hungary could not, by definition,

allow for any deviance from its policies. In other words, the power of this he-gemony was such that even if Hörmann had good intentions, like Buturović suggests, he could not have possibly put them into practice. Ćorić says:

The majority of contemporary researchers of Austrian rule in Bosnia, while evaluating

its actions in the political, economic, educational and cultural field, always have in mind

Austria’s complete policy towards Bosnia. That policy had its laws dictated by the interests

of the dual monarchy and all research in any aspect of social life will show that no one went above those

dictates, and even when someone did cross that line, it was crossed for higher, therefore, even longer term

interests of Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. One of such laws was that no project implemented

in Bosnia could work against Austria-Hungary, nor in any way damage her interests, be

they Austrian or Magyar.17

The conclusion Ćorić draws is that Hörmann could not have, even in principle,acted in ways that did not, a priori , serve the Austro-Hungarian interests. Thisleads Ćorić to reject any possibility of the existence of Bosniak culture, identity,or language beyond those manifestations of it that were in service of empire.Informed by the same paradigm that defines the nation as not constructed, butsomehow originating in the mythical past, Ćorić then arrives at the same con-clusion as Kecmanović, even if he started from a slightly different point aboutimperial hegemony.

The question of political and cultural hegemony, however, is hardly thissimple. In a more developed Marxist consideration of hegemony, Raymond

Williams concludes that:

The reality of any hegemony, in the extended political and cultural sense, is that, while

by definition it is always dominant, it is never either total or exclusive. At any time,forms of alternative or directly oppositional politics and culture exist as significant ele-

ments in the society.18



Marin a Ant i ć 8

This vulnerability of hegemony holds just as true for the Austro-Hungarian rulein Bosnia as it does for any other from of cultural and political hegemonic dom-

ination. Furthermore, while we do not want to minimize the power of, in es-sence, colonial hegemony at work in Bosnia and Hercegovina under Austria-Hungary, we also do not want to deny any possibility of resistance, especiallyfrom within hegemonic structures, as was the situation with Hörmann who wasa part of the colonial regime.

In contrast, Ćorić’s claim that everything Kosta Hörmann did had to com-ply with the law of necessity that no such activity could be to the detriment of

Austro-Hungarian interests is a typically deterministic view of the cultural realmas fully dictated by socio-economic conditions. Buturović recognizes the fallacyof this view, but limits it to the specific case she is examining. She reflects atone point that »if we want to objectively review and judge the actions of KostaHörmann, we need to consider his entire activity in Bosnia and Hercegovina,

because it cannot be explained exclusively in terms of pro-Austrian politics ofits cultural mission«.19 What this argument lacks, however, is an acknowledg-ment that no modern cultural reality can ever, not just in this case, be explainedby its simple correlation to supposed political machinations outside the culturalrealm.20

This classical, or rather, reductive Marxist reading of the cultural realm andits (in)dependence from socio-economic factors goes to the heart of the prob-lem I want to address next, namely the national/ nationalistic and historio-graphic reading of Ivo Andrić that is at work in the remarkable moment whenKecmanović conflates historical biography with pure fiction, without anyoneseeming to notice. At the beginning of his essay, Kecmanović writes:

All of these acts, both the one with serf Siman and the one with Tugomir Alaupovi ć , and in fact,many others like them, were deep inside Hörmann’s ego, obviously as a result of theconditions of his life and personal growth as well as the places from whence he came.21

How are we to take Kecmanović’s conflation of the fictional encounter betweenHörmann and serf Siman and his real-life encounter with Tugomir Alaupović?22 Is it possible that Kecmanović intentionally conflated historical biography withpure fiction? Or is it that he believed in the rhetorical power of his text to suchan extent that he thought no one would notice? (It is, of course, quite interest-ing that no one, including his strongest critic Buturović, seemed to have no-ticed!) The answer to these questions lies, I believe, not with Kecmanović or hiscredentials, but rather with Ivo Andrić and how he has been read in Bosniancultural and intellectual life.

In criticizing Munib Maglajlić for a reading of Andrić that conflates litera-ture with historiography, Enver Kazaz points to a particular practice that othershave identified as well:23




Especially paradoxical is the fact that the national identity, taken as one among many possible

interpretations of history , has relied on historical arguments, which means that Andri ć’sœuvre was not even read as a literary one, but as a historiographical text which was, on one

hand accepted as the unconditional truth/scientific truth , while on the other as the uncon-

ditional lie/hatred for which there is no argument in the historical continuum.24

This practice of reading a piece of literature as history is the reason why Kec-manović can, quite unconsciously , I believe, use Andrić’s text as historical evidenceof the character of Kosta Hörmann and it is also why no one else calls him onthis obvious fallacy. As Kazaz continues to argue, such readings of Andrić’stexts work only to confirm the already ossified, ahistorical sense of nationalidentity from which they come forth in the first place:

Interpretive communities (Serbian, Croatian, Bosniak) are grounded on such a premise,

that in fact, they do not even read Andrić, but try to ground the identity of their own

historical memory as some form of metanarrative , one that will be placed above everything

else, will encompass all contexts, will be the process of verification for all other narra-tives, and in the end will impose itself as the ahistorical, holistic national identity .25

In other words, reading Andrić »nationally« or »nationalistically« is to precludediscussion of any other possible paradigm the text engages, especially sincenationalistic readings, as such, are very deterministic and one-sided. Such rea-dings of Andrić, of which Kecmanović is an example par excellence, are alsorooted in the reductive Marxist understanding of the cultural realm discussedabove, for they ignore those aspects of the cultural realm (in this case of a lite-rary text) that do not adhere to the historical (and in this case, nationalistic)readings of socio-economic conditions. It is precisely the combination of thenational/ nationalistic approach to history and the reductive Marxist reading of

culture as determined by the socio-economic realm that provides for readings of Andrić that are both nationalistic and historiographic.

In what follows I will provide my own reading of Andrić’s short story TheStory of Serf Siman that presents an alternative to the reductive, nationally condi-tioned reading. This reading elaborates the historical legacy of Kosta Hörmannin so far as, I submit, one of Kosta Hörmann’s greatest legacies resides in thefact of his appearance in Ivo Andrić’s fiction. This is so not because Hörmann

was somehow an insignificant influence on Bosnian life then or now, but be-cause it could be that the most prominent modern debates on Hörmann’s le-gacy were in part fueled by an image of Hörmann taken out of Andrić’s fiction.For, after all, it could be that Kecmanović’s resurrection of Kosta Hörmann asa figure relevant for the present, as well as the subsequent arguments for or

against Kecmanović’s assessment, were inspired precisely by his (mis)reading of Andrić’s story in the first place. In addition, Ivo Andrić’s stature in debates onBosnian identity – the realm with which Kosta Hörmann’s legacy has been soprofoundly enmeshed – was and still is both unprecedented and troubling.26



Marin a Ant i ć 10

Hörmann’s Legacy in Andrić’s The Story of Serf Siman

The Story of Serf Siman is a story about social upheaval caused by the arrival of Austria-Hungary to Bosnia in 1878. It follows the life of a Bosnian serf Siman, who mistakes the arrival of Austro-Hungarian troops in Bosnia-Hercegovinafor the arrival of the Messiah who will liberate him from the oppressive feudalrelations he has endured his entire life. As he is gradually convinced of his mis-take, the now-former-serf Siman lives out the remainder of his life in a small innat the outskirts of Sarajevo, hidden from the new order as well as from all those

who have followed it into Bosnia.Before we delve into the story itself, it is important to point out the three

different viewpoints that stand out in this narrative. The story is told, most ofthe time, from Siman’s perspective. Our sympathies are with him and his stru g-gle for liberation. The narrator, however, is a separate, distant, historical voice

whose interjections directed at the reader in the present are set off by pa-rentheses. The third point of view, that of the author of the story, can only beguessed at indirectly, but he does appear in the story, much like the director

Alfred Hitchcock would appear in his movies, barely noticed, apparent only tothe trained eye. As often occurs in literary works, the one character who enga-ges in writing can often be understood as the reflection of the author, and An-drić hints at himself in one of the most repulsive characters in the story, the Ser-bian teacher turned scribe and police informant (also a Serb turned Muslim andthen again Serb), Aleksa.27 We should keep all three in mind as we analyze thestory.

The opening lines intimate that the story is set in times of monumentalchange: »With gunfire, unlike any that the Bosnian ear has ever heard, the Aus-

trian troops entered Sarajevo on August 19th, 1878.«28 Within a few paragraphs we find out that the announced change will have something to do with thepower relations between the feudal classes that have defined Bosnian society upto this point. These relations are defined by silence (the silence which the Aus-trian troops interrupt) and by organic relations to the earth: »And so the serfand the aga lived without any major convulsions – reticent, but irreconcilable,enemies, tied with a chain, as it were, to the land which fed and attracted eachof them in his own way.«29

As the description of the quiet life of Siman and his aga shows, the powerrelations definitive of Bosnian society at the opening of the story are those of aserf and his master. Shortly after the arrival of the Austrian troops, however,

Siman tries to overturn these power relations, as the narrator tells us »much wasoverturned« in life with the arrival of the Austrians: » things shook and wereoverturned and many a thing started to change between people.«30 The first signof this »overturning« is a crucial description of Siman’s encounter with his aga.




As Siman’s rebellion begins by a direct refusal to pay his feudal oblig ation, wesee Siman from his master’s point of view:

Ibraga is watching this impudent man who against all order and custom is still lying

down and isn’t getting up before him, he cannot believe his own eyes and cannot wrap

his head around how large the serf is when he is neither contorted nor servile, but is relaxed and

spread out in all his strength and size.31

As the previous description of their relationship as bodies tied to the land im-plies, and now this passage confirms, the power relationship between the serfand the aga are here imagined and expressed through their physical bodies. Notjust Siman, but even his aga notices Siman’s newly found power as expressedthorough the serf’s body.

As Siman rebels, the relations between them change. First, the »eternal« s i-lence between them is broken by Siman’s symbolic »No!« spoken in refusal:

Siman motions with his hand, across the autumn landscape and the sky above it; he is

choking from all the harsh words, and to all of aga’s forcibly gentle and seemingly

reasonable objections, answers with a sharp and short No! in which that o breaks and

burns like a fiery whip. 32

The serf, at this point, has overturned his relationship to the master as he»flogs« him, albeit with words, but flogs him nonetheless.

At this point Siman prevails and the aga goes home empty-handed. Somedays later, Siman tries to assert his newly found freedom by trying to establish anew economic relationship with his lord, one between a buyer and a seller, in anopen marketplace, and most importantly, as if between equals . Siman tries to buy abridle from his master who, in part, works as a small merchant in town, but

Ibraga refuses him. In a last showing of an already noticeably shallow victorySiman still proudly prances in front of his master’s shop a few more times onhis little horse: » A few more times Siman trotted past Ibraga’s store, with a hap-py smile on his face and as if dancing just a little on his tiny horse.«33

The first hint of trouble in Siman’s newly found world of freedom occurs when he comes up against the new government. As he finds out, the Austriansseemed to have implemented a certain equality between serfs and landlords, butnot the one he had hoped for. He is sued by his master and taken in front of alocal court that, by Austrian order, consists of an Austrian clerk, a Muslim man(a representative of the landlords), and a Christian man (a representative of theserfs). The »equality« before the law symbolically represented here in the twolocals, to Siman seems like an inequality precisely because it does not account

for the obvious privilege the landlords have over the serfs outside the court. That is why Siman loses the case and is ordered to pay his fine.

The rest of the story follows Siman’s repeated quest for justice which, atevery turn deepens his tragedy to the point that he finally loses everything and isleft a beggar. Siman gets one last chance to make his case, or so he believes,



Marin a Ant i ć 12

when the archduke is about to visit Sarajevo.34 This is when he is arrested andtaken in front of the Sarajevo Municipal Office Trustee, Kosta Hörmann.

Before we can discuss this encounter which seemed so meaningful to Kec-manović, we have to address a far more important aspect of the narrative,namely the opposition established throughout the story between power rela-tionships based on the body and power relationships based on law. In a mannerreminiscent of Franz Kafka’s Der Prozess , Andrić describes here the creation of anew order, based not on the power of the master over the body of the serf, butrather, the power of the law that erases the master-serf feudal identities (withoutnecessarily erasing the relationships of dominance) and creates instead a newmodern order and a new, modern subjectivity.

As I argue above, Siman and his master experience their relationship interms of their physical bodies. Siman’s body »grows« in rebellion and then»shrinks« when he loses the court case. When the final sentence is pronounced

and he is deprived of his land, Siman physically deteriorates: »His face becamedarker and bloated, he lost weight, he is coughing and spitting like an ill man,but as soon as he drinks a few, he starts speaking about the land and his right ina fiery and lively manner, like he spoke that autumn morning to Ibraga in theplum orchard.«35

The articulation of the system that comes to displace the corporeal one be-gins with Siman’s reaction to the sentence depriving him of the land. Besidesbeing an »equalizer« of sorts, as evidenced by the »equal« representation of land-owners and serfs in the lower courts, the new order is inevitable and inescapa-ble. Reminiscent of Joseph K.’s predicament, but expressed through a muchsimpler, peasant worldview, Siman’s tragedy is explained: »Those are the lawsand orders! You laugh, but they get you sooner or later, certainly and without

mercy.«36 Siman also utters in drunken delirium about his troubles: »The Turk-ish law is from so many years ago – let it be damned! – but it’s like it was madejust for me this morning.«37 The narrator continues to explain Siman’s befuddle-ment before the Law: »And so with fear he thought about the web of terribleand powerful laws that is spun around all of us and that binds all and everyone;you can’t escape it, you don’t know how to untie it, the only thing you can do isto forget about it in drinking for a moment.« 38 The message becomes clear toSiman: one cannot escape the Law; it is ever present and unmovable.

The Law is also opposed to the organic notion of the Christian »czar« Si-man still holds onto. As Siman plots his plan to intercept the archduke and tellhim of his troubles, we are aware of the fundamental error he makes that, as we

already know, will prevent him from getting justice. He mistakes the archdukefor the (Slavic) benevolent czar who, if only people can reach him, will right all wrongs as a representative of Christ on Earth:

But Siman’s imagination, with the help of the brandy, already saw ›God’s doing‹ in thearrival of the czar’s uncle [...]There’s nothing simpler than to present before this man




who sits at the czar’s feet and who is capable of every thing, his rightful thing and arrive

at his ›right‹ and there is nothing more natural than the czar’s uncle immediately inter-

ceding in Siman’s thing and ordering that it should be resolved with justice. That is why

these czar’s men walk the Earth... And the main thing is that the czar’s uncle will find out what these

here must be hiding from him and what the uncle knows, the czar can’t help but know. Letthe czars know of Siman and his right! 39

The Law, however, replaces both the »czar« and the land. The scene describingSiman’s arrest is central to this change in pow er structures of Bosnian society.Here we are introduced to another character – Vaso Gengo »Policaja« – who ischarged with arresting and bringing Siman in to the Trustee, Kosta Hörmann.Confronted by Vaso and reminiscent of the feudal silence from the beginning,Siman’s words fail him:

Siman was also the kind of man who could defend himself and argue, but while he was

trying to explain himself and get an explanation – he noticed, with wonder, that he was

already walking with the police officer, in step, and that words in this case are of nohelp at all. And as they went, so their relationship changed rapidly and became all the

more determined. Between them something third and new was being created, something that is

neither Siman nor Vaso Gengo, but rule and law, like some guilt and punishment, and in the form in

which it did not exist in Ottoman times ..40

As this description of the interaction between Siman and Vaso shows, the Lawis literally being born in the moment of Siman’s arrest, as something separatefrom both of them, but something that ties them and works through themboth.

The Law that arises between them is compared to the previous system ofpower relationships first by the silence (which seems to mark oppression anddomination in Andrić’s work in general) and then by the fact that it ties Simanto Vaso in the same way Siman was tied to his aga and the land earlier in thestory: » And so these two men went, welded together by the chain of law , each withhis own thoughts and feelings, and they watched each other, on the side with anew look.«.41 The process by which this new system comes about is described

with such precision that I must cite it in full:

The man transformed right there and then, and from that new character he spoke loudly and

sharply only a few words, but as if they were a religious formula in a foreign language:

In the name of the law, advance!

And Siman started walking without objection.

Now they walk differently, tied by the law.

Between them an unanticipated dependency is forming. As if each of them has sud-

denly thrown off the innocent and careless mask of the everyday and shown a newface, so new that in the first moments neither the one nor the other could really neither

regain consciousness nor gather themselves in their new roles. Vaso is not that Vaso

The Cop that passes in the streets for a part of the city’s landscape, but some differentunknown man who became strict and dangerous, a stiff and merciless mechanism

whose every move has the force and inevitability of natural phenomena before which



Marin a Ant i ć 14

man instinctually and uselessly tries to get out of the way. And Siman is not that well

known, talkative and restless peasant from the periphery... No, he, all of a sudden be-

came ›the so-named Simo Vasković‹ who has to, in the shortest amount of time, by theshortest route to be ›brought in‹ to the chief of Sarajevo’s ›Law and Order Trustee-

ship‹.42

Here we have the culmination of several themes. First we have the ritualistic,almost religious nature of the interpellation by the new order as Vaso com-mands Siman, »in the name of the law«, uttered »as if it were some religiousformula«, for its effects are just as strong on both men.

This interaction matches the outlines of modernity as characterized by Luis Althusser’s theory of the interpellation of the (modern) subject by a State Ideo-logical Apparatus (the supreme example being religion). Siman is not taken tothe Trustee simply on account of Vaso’s physical force, but rather, in additionto responding to the force, Siman feels bound by and surrenders to the Law

that interpellates him quite literally: »In the name of the law, advance!« In this,he is »recognizing« himself as a (modern) subject, which the narrator calls hisnew »role«. It is not accidental that Althusser describes this process of the Stateinterpellating the subject precisely as arising from the law as well.43

Secondly, Vaso is also transformed. He is no longer the village idiot peoplemock calling him »Policaja«; now he has become the voice and the »mecha-nism«, the apparatus of the State. Just like the Law, Vaso is now a severe, bruteforce that, in its inevitability, resembles nature and yet seems so fundamentallyopposed to nature on account of him being a »mechanism«. And lastly, Siman’s»recognition« of himself as a subject and his submission to the Law concludesthis scene as he becomes not the peasant, but the »so-named Simo Vasković«.

In this state, Siman is brought into Kosta Hörmann’s office. There he e n-

ters a new world. It is significant that his previous encounter with Hörmann was in a different office, much humbler than is the case now. The walls and thedesk are adorned with apparatuses whose purpose Siman cannot even guess andthe cleanliness of the office is described as not of this world. The narrator says:» According to his unfortunate habit to mix important with the unimportantand not to be able to tell the difference between crucial and marginal things, Si-man thought only about this, for him unbelievable and otherworldly cleanlinessand wondrous arrangement.«44 However, as we will soon learn, Siman is quitecorrect in identifying this other-worldliness of the office as important, for KostaHörmann himself is described as non-human and otherworldly.

As Vaso and Siman enter the office, Siman compares Vaso to the other- worldliness of their new surroundings and contemptuously notes the difference:»› Heaven on Earth, a gentleman’s life‹, thought Siman. ›This is Austria!‹ and

with disgust quickly glanced at Vaso Gengo, who, clumsy and stiff, was standingat attention.«45 We will return to this point, especially Siman’s exclamation »Thisis Austria!«, but the comparison here between the three of them is important




also on another level. Not unlike in Andrić’s other works, the names of thesethree characters tell a story all on their own. The transformations we saw in

Vaso and Siman in the moment when one arrests the other »in the name of thelaw« are also symbolically represented through their names. Siman’s full name isSimo Vasković. Vasković shares »Vas« with »Vaso« as well as a common originin Vasko. As Vaso and Siman interact as the officer of the state and the arrestee,

we are told something third between them is born, a new law, and a differentorder of things. Kosta Hörmann’s name also symbolically represents this »thirdthing« borne out of their interaction.46 Siman and Hörmann share the secondpart of their name (man), while the last three letters of Vaso’s name are invertedin Hörmann’s first name, Kosta: V aso in K os ta . Furthermore, Hörmann’s namealso captures one of his crucial characteristics, namely being the »man« who»hears« (»hören« + »Mann«) in a land that is epitomized by silence47:

Doubt easily enters the head of an imperial Austrian police officer. Actually, it doesn’treally enter it because it is always already awake in his head, and when it does dose off,

it sleeps with one eye and one ear open, and the slightest sound, quieter than the

beating of a butterfly’s wings can arouse it; and even if it isn’t aroused by anything, it will, from time to time, arouse itself from the silence that seems suspicious to it. 48

Even the silence seems to have acquired a new meaning in the new, Austro-Hungarian order, as Hörmann not only hears the noises, but also hears andinterprets the silence itself as suspicious.

The actual confrontation between Hörmann and Siman is brutal. Hör-mann’s appearance is striking:

Kosta Hörmann was sitting behind his desk in a dark uniform. He wasn’t yelling, wasn’t moving, not even his little finger. His face is calm, white, with only slight colorin it, his hair is black, thick, as is his short mustache. Behind his rimless glasses darkdeep blue eyes glow, but they change color, because in the moment when the Trustee

asks questions they mix with the upper edge of his lenses and create a sharp and in-

humanly calm and penetrating gaze. 49

The calm and control exhibited here is not only personal, it is a matter of the Trustee’s essence. The »sharp and inhumanly calm and penetrating gaze« at-tributed to the Trustee is reminiscent of Foucault’s Panopticon that can pene-trate all, but is itself impenetrable and invisible: »Full lighting, and the eye of thesupervisor captured better than darkness, which ultimately protected. Visibilityis a trap.«50 The contrast between the darkness of Bosnia and the penetratinggaze of the Trustee is glaring and will be repeated once again in the story.

The questioning itself is compared to an experiment: »The Trustee put onehand onto the other, looked with even greater interest at the large, excited peas-ant, who didn’t even notice that the clerk was provoking and probing him withhis objections like an animal on whom we are performing an experiment.«51 It isclear that Siman has no hope of making his case, but the questioning persists




ment, we find a sudden increase in corporeal punishments [...] But the industrial system

requires a free market in labour and, in the nineteenth century, the role of forced labour

in the mechanisms of punishment diminishes accordingly and ›corrective‹ detention

takes its place.57

Important to keep in mind is that the change from the feudal order to the mod-ern one does not, in any sense, diminish the relationship of dominance, espe-cially in a situation in which an »Old World« empire trying to remake itself intoa colonial power, as Austria-Hungary was doing in Bosnia, merges with the old,feudal, and mercantile social relations of the Ottoman Empire. Rather, as inBritish India, the transformation is simply from a »status-based privilege« to a»contractual-based privilege«, where the change is supposed to bring about themodernization of the society in question, but not an actual change in who exer-cises the power over whom.58 Edward Said describes one such example in Indiaand the similarities with the policies of Austria-Hungary in Bosnia in late 19 th

century are striking:

[Sir Henry ] Maine’s great study Ancient Law (1861) explores the structure of law in a

primitive patriarchal society that accorded privilege to fixed »status« and could not become

modern until the transformation to a »contractual« basis took place . Maine uncannily prefigures

Foucault’s history, in Discipline and Punish , of the shift in Europe from »sovereign« to

administrative surveillance. The difference is that for Maine the empire became a sort

of laboratory for proving his theory (Foucault treats the Benthamite Panopticon in use

at European correctional facilities as the proof of his) [...] [Maine] interpreted his task

as the identification and preservation of Indians who could be rescued from »status«

and, as carefully nurtured elites, brought over to the contractual basis of British

policy.59

The tactics of Sir Henry Maine in India were perhaps more explicit than those

of Austro-Hungarian administrators, although this topic requires further re-search and elaboration, but the effect was the same – the creation of a socio-economically privileged class under Austria-Hungary, with the help of a »con-tractually based« social order, from the ashes of the old, feudal, landowningclass of the Ottoman era. The former serfs are consequently transformed intomodern subjects participating in the new system as the underprivileged class.

Furthermore, within this new, modern order there is also an objectificationof the crime and the criminal at work in the non-corporeal punishment, wherethe criminal is »designated as the enemy of all, [...] falls outside the pact, disqua-lifies himself as a citizen [...] appears as a villain, a monster, a madman, perhapsa sick, and before long, ›abnormal‹ individual.«60 This is why Siman, in this new,modern order, becomes an outcast upon his release.

Siman’s ultimate tragedy and defeat is that he has failed to integrate him selfinto the new society. He has been defeated not by his aga or Hörmann or even

Austria, but rather by the new, modern order itself. We are told he spends his



Marin a Ant i ć 18

last days in the vestiges of the old order epitomized by an inn on the outskirtsof town:

There the Sarajevo esnafs often have their parties, where, from April to October, Sara-

jevo drunks go out at night to sit in a green and cool place by the river, with brandy and

music or singing, and even then only the worst drunks who, God knows why, are at-

tracted to exactly a place like this, without a view, in the fold of steep hills, where the

sun sets early and rises late.61

But we know that the outcasts, including Siman, are attracted to a place likethat, a place »without a view« because it is the last remnant of that impenetrable,silent Ottoman Bosnia that was disrupted by all the »new people« – as Simancalls them – who have entered it since the arrival of the Austrian troops. In fact,it can be said that the inn, with Siman and Salihbeg clenched in some eternal,but at this point completely irrelevant battle (Salihbeg’s body is immovable,

»dead-drunk«), represents symbolically the remnants of the Ottoman order afterthe Austro-Hungarian modernization of Bosnia. We can see from all of the above that Andrić’s story is not so much a medi-

tation on the conflict between a serf and his aga or even between the peasantand Hörmann as Kecmanović imagined. It is certainly not an endorsement ofSerbian nationalism over and against Austria-Hungary on the one hand or Bos-nian Muslims on the other. Even the ref erences to Princip’s assassination of thearchduke are far from a glowing endorsement of the event. Rather, the story is,as I have shown, a meditation on the encounter between a Balkan peasant andmodernity itself, with dire, even deadly consequences for the former. In light ofthis fact, the end of the story is especially poignant as we are first led to believe, with the narrator, that Siman’s story perhaps does not end in this dark hole on

the outskirts of civilization:

And Siman says all sorts of things, things that never were, and as people say, never

could be, and yet that still must be – all sorts of big and rebellious things no one says,

things a man can’t even think during the day – as if it’s not the brandy speaking, but the

truth itself, wordy, prophetic and fearless truth of late evening hours, in the mute area

by the thinning river that barely murmurs.62

The implication is that Siman’s struggle will not only continue in the future, butit will be successful. The reference, of course, is to the socialist revolution that

was nearing its successful end as Andrić was writing this story. And yet, the story does not quite end there. We are given two more images

to ponder in closing. One is the intimation of Siman’s death as a man »bez reda

i ugleda« (an outcast) who will find his end in precisely such a disgraceful placeas the inn. The other image is one of the night as it falls on the city, Siman, andSalihbeg: » And so the night passes. Everything is mute , the lights go out, onlythe smallest shard of some glassy and as if wet moon still glows for some time over thedark valley .« 63 The familiar themes of silence and darkness as symbols for Bosnia




are recalled once again, but here they are, if only for a moment, penetrated bythe »glassy« moon. The moon is a reference to Hörmann’s gaze, for it is pene -

trating, deep, glassy , and enlightening. The earlier assertion of Siman’s victory isundercut here by this final, symbolic image of the interaction between darknessand enlightenment, silence and speech.

Returning to our considerations of legacies of Kosta Hörmann, we cansummarize Andrić’s treatment of this figure in the following way. Hörmann is arepresentative of Western Enlightenment. He is stark, penetrating, disciplined,and rational. He probes Siman like a scientist looking for proofs to his theories.

The »apparatuses« on the walls of his office and on his desk are further signs ofhis scientific and modern outlook. Hörmann is also the harbinger of modernityin Bosnia. He is the supreme police officer (only on the surface like Vaso theCop), and he is the representative of the new order based on contractual rights,not feudal notions of land and » prava « (right).

Hörmann’s effectiveness as the enforcer of the new regime rests in largepart on his bilingualism. On the one hand, unlike Siman or even Vaso, Hör-mann knows the function of apparatuses on the walls: he knows the law andmost importantly he knows Siman.64 On the other hand, he also speaks thelanguage of the peasant as he continually proves throughout the interrogation.Everything that we know about him otherwise – his stark looking clothes, per-fect appearance, and »the sharp and inhumanly calm and penetrating gaze« – comes into contrast with his speech. When we hear him speak, he speaksSiman’s language, that is to say, the language of the peasant, corporeal order.

That is the language of his final order to Siman as we have seen above. He isbilingual in the most crucial sense in that he understands and interprets theLaw, but he can also translate its modern meaning to a man like Siman.

In Kecmanović’s interpretation, Hörmann’s character is expressed perfectlyby Siman’s words in the story. In his article, Kecmanov ić underlines the phrase»aginski prijatelj« (aga’s friend”) without noticing that the sentence in which itappears is written in Siman’s voice, not that of the narrator, and as such shouldbe understood with deference to the story’s ambiguous, if not critical, treatmentof Siman’s judg ment. The sentence in question reads: »And the higher powerhad its say, but since then Siman has known that this gentleman Kosta is Aga’sfriend.«] [emphasis MA]«65 »Gospodin Kosta« as well as »aginski prijatelj« (aga’sfriend) betray Siman’s, not the narrator’s phraseology and view of the world.

The ambiguous conclusion to the story that leaves the fleeting image of Hör-mann’s gaze over Bosnia as the last image – the last word in the debate – should

be a warning not to take Siman’s world view as the correct or the most enduringone.But if Andrić is critical of Siman and seems to be siding with Kosta Hör-

mann here, what are we to make of the image of Hörmann in the story? What ishis legacy according to Andrić? The simplest way to answer this question is to



Marin a Ant i ć 20

say that it is as complex or as simple as Andrić’s relationship to modernity andthe West. It is clear that this is a topic well beyond the scope of this essay. How-

ever, I will here point to a moment in the story where the discourse of East and West comes up in a manner very typical of Andrić’s other works. In illustrating Andrić’s relationship to modernity and the West in however limited a manner, it will be possible to also point towards the ways in which Hörmann and Andrić are intimately related precisely in terms of modernity and interaction with the

West, and as previously mentioned, in terms of the bilingualism constitutive ofthe intelligentsia involved in the nation-forming processes in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Hörmann and Andrić: Legacies of the Bilingual

Intelligentsia in Yugoslavia

In The Story of Serf Siman Vaso Gengo »Policaja« endures within him the turmoilof fighting his »Bosnian« instinct with his new »Austrian« identity. Before Vasoutters the crucial »In the name of the law...,« he first asks Siman to come withhim. Siman, naturally, resists and tries to come up with excuses on why heshould stay behind. In order to convince him to follow, Vaso says: »Don’t try tosquiggle your way out, but come with me when I tell you... You forgot that thisis not Turkey [Ottoman Empire] – this is Austria, now going on for a fourthyear. Austria, just think!«66 To this, Siman reacts quite violently: »Oh, come on, Iknow... Austria! Austria! As if you were Austria!«67 The accusation implied bySiman’s words that Vaso is, perhaps, not so convincing in his new role as an»Austrian« police officer, sets Vaso off and in a matter of seconds he loses whatlittle »Austrian« habits he had and starts fighting with Siman. But then thenarrator tells us: »And there, as if he remembered something, Vaso suddenlyabandoned this tone of an everyday Bosnian squabble and took on some newand foreign, really ›Austrian‹ attitude, the kind Siman did not see in a man ofour kind.«68

From this point on, Siman’s anger and disappointment with the Law andthe judgment against him grow exponentionally because, as he says: »Howcould a man survive and where could he run and where could he hide, whenjust any passerby can become Austria?«69 In other words, Siman can perhapsaccept the authority of Austria-Hungary over Bosnia-Hercegovina (an amazingrecognition from a simple peasant!), but he cannot live with the idea that a sim-

ple Bosnian fool like Vaso or even himself can »take on airs« and think he couldever be »Austrian«. The successfulness of the scene as comic relief and as anintroduction to the crucial scene of Siman’s arrest ( discussed in full above), restsalso on our recognition of Vaso’s inability to ever really be »Austrian« and thecorrectness of Siman’s disgust at the very thought of it. (Upon entering Hö r-




mann’s office, Siman thinks: »›Heaven on Earth, a gentleman’s life‹, thoughtSiman. ›This is Austria!‹ and with disgust quickly glanced at Vaso Gengo, who,

clumsy and stiff, was standing at attention.« 70 )From this humorous, yet crucial moment in the story we can glean some

sense of Andrić’s positing of difference bet ween Bosnia and the West. For An-drić these are separate worlds coming together only in the colonial administra-tion’s introduction of the modern order into Bosnian society. And unlike Kec-manović, Buturović, and Ćorić who present a national/nationalistic view ofHörmann, Andrić primarily sees him as a harbinger of modernity. In the story,Hörmann is a personification of the scientific and ordering tendencies of wes-tern administration.

Andrić is, in some sense, historically speaking, correct in associating Hör-mann with modernity. Austro-Hungarian rule did, in the broadest sense, repre-sent the assimilation, or at least the introduction of Bosnian society into mo-

dern, European socio-economic system of relationships. At the same time, An-drić himself belonged to the generation that continued these modernizing pro-cesses in all of former Yugoslavia, not least through the projects of the socialistperiod.

The crucial role of both men in the debates on Bosnian identity (then as well as now) lies in the modernity and modernizing influence of both men, andespecially in Andrić’s crucial reading of Hörmann as such. That is to say, it isnot that these men are somehow constructing or promoting Bosniak (in Hör-mann’s case) or Serbian (in Andrić’s case) national identity, but rather, theysignal a crucial moment in the formation of all national identities in the region – modernity itself. As Ivo Banac argues:

As far as [Serb, Croat, and Bosniak] separate national identities are concerned, they canonly recall a common beginning in the 19 th century. Instead of a common origin, we

should direct ourselves towards the common beginning in modernity . That simply means

that the national integrations of 19th and 20th centuries have a common starting point.

At no point should we confuse premodern national formations with modern nations.

The difference between them is enorrmous.71

That is to say, we cannot speak of origins (or conversely inauthentic inventions)of national identities in reference to Serbian, Croatian, and Bosniak identities asKecmanović, Buturović and Ćorić do in their assessments of Kosta Hörmann.Rather, if we are to examine these national identities, we can and must speak oftheir common origin in modernity.

In addition, both Hörmann and Andrić belonged to an intellectual elite, ed-

ucated abroad, but returning to serve administrations at home. They both work-ed on cultural projects that came to define both the language and culture oftheir respective time periods, even though it is undeniable that Andrić is a farmore significant cultural figure than Hörmann. But most importantly, Hörmannand Andrić also share a history of engagement with the West that produced a



Marin a Ant i ć 22

pattern of identity formation, national or not, but always informed and speakingto both »Bosnia« and »Austria« within. (In Hörmann’s case, this internal divi-

sion and dialogue between East and West is evident in the unsettled debate overhis divided loyalties to the Austro-Hungarian Empire on the one hand andBosnian culture on the other. Andrić’s preoccupation with East and West, theirchasms as well as their »bridges« is well known.) Sharing this crucial in – be-tweenness, Hörmann and Andrić belong to a continuum of what, following An-derson, we can call the bilingual intelligentsia. And as Anderson convincingly ar-gues, it was precisely the bilingual intelligentsia who played a central role in na-tional identity formation in the peripheries.72

Their bilingualism and their modernizing influence, or in Anderson’s words, their membership in the bilingual intelligentsia of the 19th and 20th centu-ries, are the reasons why Hörmann and Andrić find themselves at the heart ofthe debates on Bosnian identity. This thread that connects Kosta Hörmann’s

history to Ivo Andrić’s work in a continuum of Bosnian thought on modernityand the West is also what, I believe, represents the most fruitful way of consi-dering Kosta Hörmann’s lasting influence and legacy in the South Slavic region.

Notes

1 I will be using the adjective ›Bosnian‹ to designate an inhabitant of Bosnia and Hercegovina

and the adjective ›Bosniak‹ to designate a person who identifies him/herself as what used tobe called Bosnian »Muslim by ethnicity«.

2 Kecmanović, Ilija: O jednoj neobičnoj knjiţevnoj karijeri u Sarajevu od 1878. do 1919.

godine. Prilozi za prou č avanje istorije Sarajeva . God. 1 knj. 1 (1963); Buturović, Đenana: Studija o

Hörmannovoj zbirci muslimanskih narodnih pjesama. Sarajevo: Svjetlost 1976; Ćorić, Boris: Nada.

Knji ž evnoistorijska monografija 1895-1903. Sarajevo: Svjetlost 1978.

3 Dţaja, Srećko M: Tri kulturno-političke sastavnice Bosne i Hercegovine i moderna historio-

grafija. In: Forum Bosnae 18 (2002), pp. 48 – 59, cit. p. 50 (»Nacionalni/nacionalistički pristup

povijesti gleda naciju kao primordijalnu i kvazi vječnu kategoriju. Nacija kao primordijalna

kategorija izvire iz mitskih daljina prošlosti i kreće se kroz povijesni kontinuum kao č vrst i

zatvoren sustav.« [All translations of Serbocroatian sources provided by the author of this

article, MA.])- This idea is clearly not articulated here for the first time. Any student of natio-

nalism will have encountered it in Benedict Anderson, Eric Hobsbawm and many others.

4 Anderson, Benedict: Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of

Nationalism. London: Verso 1983, p. 116.

5 I am refering hereto the well-known upheaval in both Bosnian and Yugoslav League of Commu-

nists over the increasing pressure to acknowledge and affirm the national particularity and

identity of Bosnian Muslims that culminated in their »official« recognition in 1970.

6 Kecmanović 1963, p. 191.




7 Ibid, p. 185 (»Lik Koste Hermana kao carskog čoveka i sluţbenika, sa nadarenošću svoje

vrste, osvetljen je u poznatoj Andrićevoj pripovesti o kmetu Simanu. [...]Karakterističan je za

toga čoveka, Kostu Hermana, koji je ›sluţio‹ Austriji u Bosni od dana njenog ›ulaska‹ uBosnu pa do njenog odlaska iz nje nikad ne zaboravljajući šta hoće, jedan njegov nespora-

zum sa pesnikom Tugomirom Alaupovićem... Sve ove postupke, kako one s kmetom Simanom tako

i one sa Tugomirom Alaupovi ć em , pa i mnoge druge ovima slične, Herman je nosio u sebi

očevidno kao plod uslova u kojima se nalazio i razvijao i sredine iz koje je potekao.«)

[emphasis MA]. All translations of Serbo-Croatian sources and emphases by MA.

8 Nada , as Kecmanović himself acknowledges, was the first Bosnian literary magazine compa-

rable to contemporary European literary journals. It began publication in 1895 and ended in

1903.

9 Cf. Kecmanović 1963, p. 191.

10 Ibid., p. 188 (»Po liniji Kalajeve politike u oblasti kulture u Bosni i Hercegovini, Herman je

dobio zadatak da u Nadi , kao njen odgovorni urednik, čini sve što bi doprinelo denaciona-

lizaciji Bosne i Hercegovine, odnosno stvaranju jedne nove, ma i veštač ke , bosanske nacije na

slavenskom jugu.«).

11 Ibid., p. 191 (»Sve ove funkcije koje je Herman obavljao u oblasti kulture bile su očevidnopotčinjene i sluţile su prvenstveno njegovim političkim duţnostima i zadacima. I kao direk-

tor Zemaljskog muzeja i kao urednik njegovog Glasnika , i kao urednik Nade i, napose, kao

organizator izloţbi po inostranstvu propagandnog karaktera, on je imao pred očima isklju-

čivo kulturno-političke interese Austro-Ugarske Monarhije u okupiranim zemljama.«).

12 Ibid. (»austroslavizma u jugoslovenskim okvirima koja je imala pristalica međ u nekim Slo-

vencima i Hrvatima, pa i međ u nekim Srbima, a kojoj je, navodno, sluţio i Štrosmajer, nasto-

jeći da – kako to tvrdi istoričar Ćiro Truhelka – ›privede pravoslavlje u krilo katoličke crkve,

u jednu veliku slavensku crkvenu zajednicu‹.«)

13 Buturović, Đenana: Studija o Hörmannovoj zbirci muslimanskih narodnih pjesama.

Sarajevo: Svjetlost 1976, p. 14 [»Hörmann [je] tek u Bosni međ u muslimanskim svijetom

došao na ideju o izdavanju ove zbirke, tj. [...]osnova ove ideje [je] bila u Hörmannovoj vezisa onim muslimanskim krugovima koji su mu omogućili da upozna ovu vanrednu kulturno-

istorijsku i literarnu pojavu, da predoči svijetu u punoj širini njen značaj i novinu.«].14 Ibid., p. 16 (»Zato Kállay insistira da se u predgovoru istakne da je većina pjesama bosansko-

hercegovačkih hrišćana bila već objavljena u drugim poznatim zbirkama i preporučuje onaj

drugi naslov - Narodne pjesme Muhamedovaca u Bosni i Hercegovini – čime upravo pokazuje da

Muslimane, kao i Hörmann, tretira kao zasebnu grupu stanov ništva Bosne i Hercegovine.

Time ovi dokumenti pokazuju i to da je pogrešno nastanak ove zbirke svoditi na smiš ljenu

akciju austrougarske kulturne politike i dovoditi je u vezu sa idejom bošnjaštva, kao jednomod njenih manifestacija.«).

15 See citation of Srećko Dţaja above and note 3 for elaboration on this problem.

16 Dţaja 2002, p. 52 (»Glavna sličnost [nacionalnih historiografija] jest u anakronističnom

traţenju potvrda u prošlosti za ono što se smatra relevantnim za političku sadašnjost, teignorirajućem i ignorantskom pristupu druk čijim interpretacijama, koje se ne baziraju na

nacionalnim mitovima, nega na kritičkom pristupu svim poznatim, odnosno pristupačnim

povijesnim izvorima.«).

17 Ćorić, Boris: Nada. Književnoistorijska monografija 1895 -1903. Sarajevo: Svjetlost 1978, p. 8

(»Većina suvremenih istraţivača perioda austrijske uprave u Bosni, ocjenjujući njene akcije na

političkom, gospodarskom, prosvjetnom i kulturnom polju, ima na umu uvijek austrijsku

politiku u cjelini u odnosu na Bosnu. Ta politika imala je svoje zakonitosti nametnute interesima

dvojne monarhije i sva ispitivanja i prou č avanja, odnosil a se na bilo koji od vidova društvenog ž ivota,



Marin a Ant i ć 24

pokazat će da se preko tih uzusa nije išlo, a i kad se išlo, išlo se iz viših, dakle dalekosež nijih i dugoroč nijih

interesa Austro-Ugarske monarhije . Jedno od tih pravila je da ni jedan projekat ostvarivan u

Bosni nije smio ići na štetu Austro-Ugarske, niti na bilo kakav način krnjiti njene interese,

bilo austrijske, bilo madţarske.« [emphasis MA])

18 Williams, Raymond: Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Univ. Pr. 1977, p. 113.

19 Buturović 1976, p. 11.

20 As Raymond Williams says: »cultural tradition and practice are [...]much more than

superstructural expressions – reflections, mediations, or typifications – of a formed social

and economic structure. On the contrary, they are among the basic proces-ses of the

formation itself and, further, related to a much wider area of reality than the abstraction of

›social‹ and ›economic‹ experience«. Williams 1977, p. 111.

21 Kecmanović 1963, p. 185 (»Sve ove postupke , kako one s kmetom Simanom tako i one sa

Tugomirom Alaupovi ć em , pa i mnoge druge ovima slične, Herman je nosio u sebi očevidno kao

plod uslova u kojima se nalazio i razvijao i sredine iz koje je potekao.«[emphasis MA]).

22 Serf Siman is a reference to the title character of Ivo Andrić story The Story of Serf Siman (as

Kecmanović readily acknowledges), while Tugomir Alaupović is an actual historical figure

whose encounter with Hörmann is cited in Kecmanović’s essay from archive sources.

23 Cf. also Ţanić, Ivan: Pisac na osami: upotreba Andrićeve knjiţevnosti u ratu u BiH. In:

Erasmus 18 (1996), pp. 48-57.

24 Kazaz 2001, p. 122 (»Poseban paradoks je u tome da se nacionalni identitet, izvođ en iz jedne od

mnoštva moguć ih interpretacija povijesti , pozivao na povijesne argumente, što znači da Andrićev

opus i nije čitan kao knji ž evni , već historiografijski tekst koji se, na jednoj strani, prima u formi

bezuslovne istine/znastvene ta č nosti , a na drugoj, u formi bezuslovne la ž i/mr ž nje za koju nema argu-

menta u povijesnom toku.« [emphasis in original]).

25 Ibid., p. 134 (»Interpretativne zajednice (srpska, hrvatska, bošnjačka) uspostavljene na toj

osnovi, zapravo, i ne čitaju Andrića, nego utemeljuju identitet vlastite povijesne memorije kao

neku vrstu metapripovijesti , koja hoće biti nadređ ena svemu drugom, hoće usisati sve

kontekste, biti verifikatorom svim drugim pripovijestima, i u konačnici se nametnuti kao

apovijsni, holisti č ki nacionalni identitet .« [emphasis MA])

26 Cf. Bav čić, Uzeir ed.: Andri ć i Bošnjaci: zbornik radova, bibliografija . Tuzla: Preporod, 2000;Kazaz, Enver: Egzistencijalnost/povijesnost Bosne – Interpretacija u zamci ideologije. In:

Novi izraz (Winter/Spring 2001); and Maglajlić, Munib: Ţrtva dirljive odanosti. In: Novi izraz

(Summer 2001).

27 It would be very interesting to analyze further Aleksa as Andrić’s image of himself, especiallyin comparison to other such authorial self-representations in Andrić’s œuvre. Someinteresting parallels and inversions of the national/linguistic link would emerge, i.e., how are

his national (re)identifications results of his writing/language/translation, etc.

28 Andrić, Ivo: Priča o kmetu Simanu. Znakovi . Sarajevo: Svjetlost 1976 (Sabrana djela Ive

Andrića), p. 127 (»Sa pucnjavom kakvu dotad nije čulo bosansko uho, ušle su austrijske

trupe 19. avgusta 1878. godine u Sarajevo.«).

29 Ibid., p. 128-29 (»Tako su kmet i aga ţiveli bez većih trzavica – ćutljivi, ali nepomirljivi, ne-

prijatelji, vezani, kao lancem, zemljom koja ih je, svakog na svoj način, hranila i privlačila.«)

Andrić has used this trope of silence as representative of Bosnia’s Ottoman era in otherplaces as well, most notably in The Bosnian Chronicle ..

30 Ibid., p. 127 (»Od toga se u mnogom čoveku mnogo šta potreslo i prevrnulo, i mnogo toga

počelo da se menja međ u ljudima.«).




31 Ibid., p. 130 (»Gleda Ibraga toga drskog čoveka koji mimo svakog reda i običaja leţi i ne diţe

se pred njim, ne veruje rođ enim očima i ne moţe da se načudi koliki je kmet kad nije zgr č en ni

ponizan, nego kad se opusti i raširi u svojoj punoj snazi i velič ini .« [emphasis MA]).

32 Ibid., p. 131 ( »Odmahuje Siman rukom široko, preko jesenskog predela i neba nad njim, gušise od jakih reči, i na sve agine na silu blage i naoko razloţne primedbe i opomene odgovora

oštrim i kratkim: ne! u kom ono e puca i žež e kao plameni bi č .«[emphasis MA])

33 Ibid., p. 134 (» Još je nekoliko puta projahao Siman ispred Ibragina dućana, sa srećnim

osmehom na licu i poigravajući sitno na vrančiću.«).

34 The obvious reference to that other archduke whose visit did not end as amicably for

Austria-Hungary is here underlined several times, including one of the narrators interjections

where he describes Siman’s failed attempt to destroy evidence against him by thro wing it

into Miljacka, much like Gavrilo Princip was supposed to have tried to kill himself by doing

the same: »U tom trenutku su upravo prelazili preko Latinske ćuprije. Stade da popravlja

toboţe pojas na sebi, i kada je bio već pri kraju mosta, prisloni se sasvim uz ogradu kao da

hoće da prepaše, i brzo ali nevešto izbaci hartiju preko ograde u vodu. (Ta seljačka

nespretnost je jedna od velikih slabosti u njihovoj stalnoj, čas otvorenoj, čas prikrivenoj

borbi sa gradom i građ anima)« (148). [»In that moment they were walking right across theLatin bridge. He stopped to allegedly fix his belt and when he was already at the end of the

bridge, he came up all the way to the fence, as if he was to cross over it, and quickly but

clumsily threw the paper across the fence into the water. (That peasant clumsiness is one of

the great weaknesses in their constant, at times open, at times hidden, struggle against the

city and the city dwellers.)«].

35 Ibid., p. 141 (»Potamneo je i podbuo u licu, a smršao u telu, kašlje i pljuje kao bolesnik, aličim popije, govori o zemlji i o svom pravu ţivo i vatreno, kao što je govorio onog jesenjegdana Ibragi u šljiviku.«).

36 Ibid., p. 140 (»To su ti zakoni i naredbe! Ti se smeješ, a oni te pogađ aju pre ili posle, sigurno

i neumoljivo.«).

37 Ibid., p. 141 (»Turski je zakon otprije toliko godina, a – postove mu ćaćine! – kao da je jutros

pravljen za mene.«).

38 Ibid. (»I on je sa strahom mislio o mreţi strašnih i svemoćnih zakona koja je isprepletenasvuda i sputava sve i svakog; pobeći iz nje ne moţeš, razmrsiti je ne umeš, jedino što moţeš:da je u rakiji za trenutak zaboraviš.« ).

39 Ibid., p. 142-44 (» A Simanova mašta je, kroz rakiju, već videla »boţji prst« u dolasku carevog

amidţe. [...] Ništa nije prostije nego izneti pred tog čoveka, koji sedi caru uz koleno i koji sve

moţe, svoju pravednu stvar i doći do svoje »prave«; i ništa nije prirodnije nego da se carevamidţa odmah zauzme za Simanovu stvar i naredi da se ona pravedno reši. Zato ovakvi carski

ljudi i hodaju zemljom. [...] Glavno je da ć e carev amid ža saznati sve što ovi sigur no od njega kriju , a štoon zna – to ne moţe car da ne zna. Neka znaju carevi za Simana i njegovu pravdu!« [em-

phasis MA]).

40 Ibid., p. 145 (»Ni Siman nije bio čovek koje ne ume da se brani i prepire, ali dok je on

pok ušavao da se objasni i da dobije objašnjenje – i sam je sa čuđ enjem video da već ide sa

policajcem ukorak, i da reči u ovom slučaju nikako ne pomaţu. A kako idu, tako se i njihov

međ usobni odnos brzo menja i biva sve određ eniji. Stvara se izmeđ u njih nešt o tre ć e i novo,

nešto što nije ni Siman ni Vaso Gengo, nego propis i zakon, kao neka krivica i kazna, i to u obliku ukom za turskog vremena nije ni postojalo.« [emphasis MA])

41 Ibid., p. 147 (»I ta dva čoveka idu uporedo prikovani lancem zakona , svaki sa svojim mislima i

osećanjima, i motre jedan na drugog, ispod oka, novim pogledom.« [emphasis MA]).



Marin a Ant i ć 26

42 Ibid. (»Preobrazi se čovek tu na mestu, i iz tog novog lika izgovori glasno i odsečnosvega

četiri reči, ali kao sveštenu formulu na tuđ em jeziku:

U ime zakona, naprijed!

I Siman krenu bez pogovora.

Sad drugačije koračaju, vezani zakonom.

Stvara se izmeđ u njih dotle neslućena zavisnost. Kao da je svaki od njih naglo odbacio

nevinu i bezbriţnu masku svakidašnjice i pokazao neko novo lice, tako novo da se u prvim

trenucima ni jedan ni drugi ne mogu pravo da osveste ni dobro da snađ u u novim ulogama.

Vaso nije onaj Vaso Policaja što prolazi ulicama kao deo gradskog in ventara, nego drugi

nepoznati čovek koji je postao strog i opasan, krut i neumoljiv mehanizam čiji svaki pokret

ima snagu i neizbeţnost prirodnih pojava pred kojima čovek nagonski i uzaludno nastoji da

se ukloni. A Siman nije onaj svakom dobro poznati, su više govorljivi i nemirni seljak saperiferije grada [...] Ne, on je odjednom postao »imenovani Simo Vaskovi ć«, koji treba u

najkraćem vremenu i najkraćim putem da bude »priveden« šefu sarajevskog »Redarstvenogpovjereništva«. )

43 Althusser, Luis: Lenin and Philosophy and other essays . London: New Left Books 1977, p. 160:

»Meaning, there is no ideology except for concrete subjects, and this destination for ideologyis only made possible by the subject: meaning by the category of the subject and its functioning.

By this I mean that, even if it only appears under this name (the subject) with the rise of

bourgeois ideology, above all with the ri se of legal ideology , the category of the subject (which may

function under other names: e.g., as the soul in Plato, as God, etc.) is the constitutive

category of all ideology, whatever its determination...« [emphasis MA].

44 Andrić 1976, 149 (»Po svojoj nesrećnoj navici da meša vaţno sa nevaţnim i da ne razlikuje

bitno od sporednog, Siman je mislio samo o toj za njega neverovatnoj i nezemaljskoj ćistoći i

čudesnom uređ enju.«).

45 Ibid., p. 149-50 (»›Raj na zemlji, gospodski ţivot‹, mislio je Siman. ›Ovo je Austrija!‹ Iprezrivo i kratko pogledao Vasu Gengu, koji je nespretan i krut, stajao u stavu ›mirno‹.«)

46 It could be said that these three characters also represent the three movements of the

Hegelian dialectic, culminating in Kosta Hörmann. It would be interesting to pursue this

further in terms of Andrić’s commitment to a Hegelian worldview. I’d like to thank prof. Tomislav Longinović for suggesting this avenue of potential research.

47 I would like to thank Drago Momcilovic for suggesting I look into Kosta’s German name asa source of symbolic meaning as well.

48 Andrić 1976, p. 151 (»Sumnja se, naime lako useli u glavu carskog austrijskog policajca. Zap-

ravo, ona se i ne useljava, jer je uvek u njoj i gotovo uvek budna, a kad malo pridrema, ona

spava samo na jedno oko i jedno uvo, i najmanji šum, manji od lepeta leptirovih krila, moţ e

da je probudi; a ako je niko nikako ne probudi, ona se s vremena na vreme sama budi od

tišine koja joj se čini sumnjivom.«).

49 Ibid., p. 150 (»Za stolom je sedeo Kosta Herman u mrkoj uniformi. Nije vikao, nije kretao ni

malim prstom. Lice mu mirno, belo, sa malo lakog rumenila, kosa crna, gusta, isti takvi kratki

brkovi. Iza naočara bez okvira svetle tamnomodre oči, ali one menjaju boju, jer se u trenutku

kad povjerenik postavlja pitanja mešaju sa gornjom ivicom naočara i stvaraju oštar i neljudskimiran i prodoran pogled.«).

50 Foucault, Michel: Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison . Trans. of Surveiller et Punir; Naissance de la prison (1975) by Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books 1979, p. 200.

51 Andrić, 1976, 150 (»Povjerenik stavi jednu ruku na drugu, zagleda se još ţivlje u krupnog

uzbuđ enog seljaka, koji nije ni primećivao da ga činovnik izaziva i bocka svojim primedbama

kao ţivotinju na kojoj vršimo ogled.«].




52 Ibid., p. 152 (»Ne moţe, Simane, jer ti imaš, eto, običaj da istrčavaš pred visoke ličnosti, pa

mogu se, ne daj boţe, carski konji poplašiti od tako krupna čovjeka, a tek onda ne bi valjalo.

Ovako je bolje i po tebe.«).

53 Ibid., p. 149 (»A sve tako čisto i uredno, da plaši i zbunjuje čoveka, i da seljak ne zna kuda bi

sa rukama i nogama, nego sa čuđ enjem gleda svoje ogromne okorele opanke, obraz mu gori,

i najviše bi voleo da sada neko vikne da je zabunom uveden ovde i da ga odvedu u neku

jednostavniju kancelariju.«).

54 Ibid., p. 148 [»i da komad mesa sad otkinu s njega, ne bi ga, čini mu se, zabolelo.«]

55 Foucault 1979, p. 9.

56 Andrić 1976, p. 152 (»Sve jekao pola šala – pola zbilja, ali ipak Siman je odleţao tri dana i tek

po ›nadvoj vodinom‹ odlasku pušten.«).

57 Foucault 1979, p. 24-25.

58 It is interesting to note that here the Foucaltian analysis necessarily has to be merged with an

analysis of colonial situations, on which Foucault himself was conspicuously silent.

59 Said, Edward W: Culture and Imperialism . New York: Vintage Books 1993, p. 164 [emphasis

MA].60 Foucault 1979, p. 101.

61 Andrić 1976, p. 153 (»Tu sarajevski esnafi često odrţavaju svoje teferiče, tu, od aprila pa do

oktobra meseca, izlaze pred veče mnoge sarajevske bekrije da posede na zelenu i hladovitu

mestu pored reke, uz rakiju i svirku ili pesmu, i to one najte ţe bekrije koje, ko zna zašto,

privla či upravo ovakvo mesto bez vidika u sklopu strmih bregova, na kom sunce rano zalazi i dockan

izlazi .«[emphasis MA]).

62 Ibid., p. 157 (»I svašta tako Siman govori, što nikad nije bilo, što, kaţu ljudi, biti ne moţe, a

što ipak mora biti – svašta krupno i buntovno što se ne govori, što čovek danju ni pomisliti

ne sme – kao da iz njega ne govori rakija, nego sama istina, re čita, vidovita i neustrašljivaistina kasnih noćnih sati, u gluvom predelu nad otančalom rekom koja jedva mrmori.«).

63 Ibid. (»Tako prolazi noć. Sve umukne , svetlosti se pogase, samo krnjatak nekog staklenastog i

kao vlaţnog meseca svetli još neko vreme nad mrač nom kotlinom «.[emphasis MA]).

64 Cf. Foucault 1979, p. 27: »We should admit rather that power produces knowledge (and notsimply by encouraging it because it serves power or by applying it because it is useful); that

power and knowledge directly imply one another; that there is no power relation without the

correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presup-

pose and constitute at the same time power relations.«

65 Andrić 1976, p. 149 (»I viša vlast je kazala svoje, a Siman otada zna da je ovaj gospodin Kosta

aginski prijatelj «. [emphasis MA]).

66 Ibid., p. 146 (»Ne zavrzuj, nego hajde kad ti kaţem...Ti si zaboravio da ovo nije Turska i da

je Austrija zastupila evo četvrta godina. Austrija, ej!«).

67 Ibid., p. 146 (»Ama de, znam ja. [...] Austrija! Austrija! K’o da si ti Austrija!« ).

68 Ibid. (»I tu kao da se prisetio nečeg, Vaso brzo napusti taj ton ob ič ne bosanske sva đ e i uze neki

nov i stran, zaista ›austrijski‹ stav, kakav Siman nije kod našeg čoveka nikad video

[...]«[emphasis MA]).

69 Ibid., p. 148 (»kako da čovek opstane i kuda da beţi i gde da se skloni, ako svaki od ovih štoprolaze moţe postati Austrija?«).

70 Ibid., p. 150 [ »›Raj na zemlji, gospodski ţivot‹, mislio je Siman. ›Ovo je Austrija!‹ i prezrivo ikratko pogledao Vasu Gengu, koji je, nespretan i krut, stajao u stavu ›mirno‹.«]

71 Banac, Ivo: Teret laţne povijesti. In: Forum Bosnae 18 (2002), pp. 42-47, qtd. p. 47 [»Što setiče [srpskih, hrvatskih i bošnjačkih] posebnih nacionalnih identiteta mogu se samo pozivati



Marin a Ant i ć 28

na zajedni č ki poč etak u devetnaestom stolje ć u . Umjesto zajedničkog porijekla trebali bismo se

upućivati na zajednički početak u modernosti . To naprosto znači da nacionalne integracije

devetnaestog i dvadesetog stoljeća imaju zajedničku polaznu točku. Nikada se ne smije brkati

domoderne nacionalne formacije i moderne nacije. Razlika izmeđ u njih je ogromna. «]

72 See citation of Anderson and note 4 above for further clarification.

historicizing bosnia

Documents