Serbian History Research Articles

A New Institution for Serbian Memory

Abstract The destruction of the joint Yugoslav state was accompanied by a sharp alteration of the country’s narrative about the country’s experience of the Second World War, which shifted from a focus on the Yugoslav partisans to ethnically-classified civilian victims of war. In 1992, the Republic of Serbia founded the Genocide Victims’ Museum, which was responsible for the preservation of the memory of the victims of the genocide of Serbs, Jews, and Roma; the collection of information on war atrocities; and was also intended to fulfill the country’s obligations under the International Convention on Genocide Prevention and Punishment. This article explores the Genocide Victims’ Museum’s memory strategy in the context of contemporary Serbian history. It also analyzes the transformation of the narrative of victimhood formulated or supported by a state-sponsored institution, interpreting it as exemplary of the “shift from heroization to victimization” in the politics of memory within the European context.

Shahids and martyrs: Conflicting national narratives and places of memory in Kosovo

Kosovo Field (Kosovo Polje), the core region of the newly independent Kosovo, experienced several key historical events, each of which left important memories in the space. As political control over territory changed, different memories connected to the area became stronger, while others were pushed into the background. The first battle of Kosovo (1389) and the death of their ruler Lazar, is a key event in Serbian history, identified through spectacular landmarks in the region. Connected to this event, Turkish monuments also exist, commemorating the death of the martyr Sultan Murad I. Following independence, memorials of Albanian fighters started mushrooming as a core element of Kosovar identity building, with the martyrdom of the “legendary commander” Adem Jashari being central to this emblematic memory project. All three nations have an “official” martyr connected to the space, around which different nation-building narratives have been constructed. As the struggle over the control and influence of the region continues, so does the competition of different memories and memorials. Territorialisation and de-territorialisation of memories are ongoing projects in the country by the three nations, linked to competing nation-buildings and political power struggles.

ИСТОРИЧЕСКОЕ ЗНАЧЕНИЕ ПЕСНИ «ДЖУРДЖЕВДАН»: К ПРОБЛЕМЕ ПОДБОРА МУЗЫКАЛЬНОГО МАТЕРИАЛА ДЛЯ УЧЕБНЫХ РАБОТ

The author touches upon the issue of justification and logic of musical material (folk and/or original) used in the process of directing performances or student sketches. This aspect is emphasized in the context of the problem of upbringing and education of future directors and actors. Emphasis is placed on the need for a more careful selection of any, including world-famous, musical material in order to avoid harmful mistakes when preparing performances. Freedom of creativity does not give theater workers the right to distort history. In this article, the object of study was the song “Djurdjevdan”, the historical roots of which, according to one version, go back to the “death trains” during the Second World War, the Serbian genocide, but which is now interpreted as a song about love conflicts, out of ignorance it is performed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia “both at weddings and funerals.” The song “Djurdjevdan” became popular in Yugoslavia in 1942 after it was sung by one of the Bosnian Serbs transported to the Jasenovac concentration camp. Then other, no less tragic events from the history of Serbia were layered. The song became world famous thanks to the film by E. Kusturica “House for Hanging” (“Time of the Gypsies”), in which the key scene is the celebration of St. George’s Day (St. George’s Day), Djurdjevdan in Serbian or, in the language of the Gypsies, Ederlezi.

From Tito to Milošević: from Brezhnev to Gorbachev

S. Selinić’s monograph examines six years of Serbian history – from the death of the long-time ruler of Yugoslavia J. Broz Tito to the establishment of the new Serbian leader S. Milošević in power. This was a time of numerous crises – in the economy, politics, and in the Serbian autonomous region of Kosovo. New trends in Serbian journalism, fiction and scientific literature were especially pronounced, where a wave of criticism of Tito’s legacy began to rise. The taboo was lifted from previously prohibited topics – Ustashs, Chetniks, Naked Island. Serbian criticism of what previously was seen as the very foundation of society was similar to the perestroika that took place in the USSR in the same years, in particular with the policy of glasnost proclaimed by Gorbachev.

Some aspects of the analysis of the first world war in modern Serbian and Romanian history textbooks for junior high school

The article compares how modern Serbian elementary school history textbooks and Romanian gymnasium (lower secondary school) history textbooks portray the First World War. It examines the content and sensitive topics between 1914 and 1918, including the causes of the First World War, Romania?s role in the war (1916-1918), and the military campaign carried out by the Central Powers against Serbia in 1915. The article also looks at the role of methodological and didactic elements, as well as visual materials. Additionally, the paper analyzes how historical sources and maps are represented in history textbooks. After analyzing the textbooks, the article concludes that Serbian history textbooks place more importance on memorizing historical facts rather than promoting critical thinking among students. In contrast, Romanian history textbooks encourage students to analyze historical sources and visual material creatively. Furthermore, they offer more examples of role-playing, simulations, and debates, which are essential for developing students? critical thinking skills.

The use value of Turkish loanwords in contemporary Serbian standard and colloquıal language

Turkish loanwords are an indispensable part of the Serbian vocabulary, represented in literary language as well as in everyday communication. After the interlinguistic contact between the Serbian and Turkish language has ended, some turkisms became archaic; others remained unchanged, while some began to develop their semantic meanings according to the nature and logic of the Serbian language. The period of Serbian history as part of the Ottoman Empire has left deep traces, not only in the language, but also in the collective memory of the Serbian people. For those very reasons, the use of turkisms is of great importance for the stylistic and emotional-expressive markings of language utterances. The use values of lexemes of Turkish etymology are present at all levels of the language, and manifest itself especially in the non-standard language varieties, such as: vernacular, colloquial and slang. Also, a large number of those varieties have a slightly or completely different meaning from their equivalent in the standard Serbian language, and some of those semantic values are not even listed in dictionaries. These, and other characteristics that are outside the scope of normative standards of the Serbian language, are indicators of the complexity for the usage of turkisms and their value.

STEFAN PRVOVENČANI: PRVI SRPSKI KRALj I DRUGI SRPSKI BIOGRAF U RECEPTIVNOJ MISLI XX VEKA

In literary studies during the 20th century, special attention was paid to biographies, as the most important group of Serbian old literature. Old Serbian biographies, apart from belonging to hagiographic works, can be viewed as historic, which makes them the main monuments of the past. They contain data from both world and Serbian history, which is a valuable material for literary and artistic creativity. The literary work of the first Serbian king and the second Serbian biographer was studied in literary critiques of the 20th century. The character of the king, as well as his literary work, were established through the studies of literary critics who dealt with the king’s life and work: Pavle Popović, who was only interested in the king’s Life of Saint Simeon; Đorđe Trifunović and Dimitrije Bogdanović, who analyzed the king’s legal texts; Milan Kašanin, who noticed the ideological elements in Stefan’s description of his father’s life.

Poseta kralja Petra I Karađorđevića Carigradu 1910. godine

The visit of King Petar I Karađorđević to the Turkish sultan is one of the eight visits in modern Serbian history. Seven meetings of Serbian rulers with sultans took place in Constantinople, except for one that took place in Bulgaria. In the visits made before 1878, the Serbian rulers went as vassals. The meeting between the Serbian king and Sultan Mehmed V Rešad in 1910 was the third in a row since Serbia became an independent state. King Petar I Karađorđević spent the second half of March and the first half of April 1910 travelling. First, he visited Russia, then Constantinople, Mount Athos, and finally Thessaloniki. The trip lasted a little over 24 days, six of which he spent in Constantinople. The Serbian delegation led by the king was warmly received by the sultan, the common people, and the Christian population living in the Turkish capital. Upon their return, the members of the delegation were convinced that Turkey would remain on the path of improving Serbian-Turkish relations, friendly agreement, and strengthening of economic relations. This intention was highlighted in the official statement of the Porte published on the occasion of the visit of the Serbian king. In the announcement, it was expressly emphasized that a complete agreement was reached at the conferences of the foreign ministers of the two countries and that the Turkish side will grant Serbian wishes for strengthening economic and trade relations. It was of great importance for the Kingdom of Serbia to remove the obstacles that existed until that time regarding the construction of the Adriatic railway. In addition, practical results were achieved because Turkish officials expressed their readiness for the greatest possible benefits that would contribute to the export of Serbian goods through Thessaloniki. The visit to Constantinople brought success in the issues regarding religion as well, because after four years of resistance, the Patriarchate and the Synod, just before the king's arrival, accepted the election of the Serb Varnava Rosić as bishop of the Veles-Debar eparchy. The meeting of the two rulers received great attention in the diplomatic circles of European countries, especially Austria-Hungary. The relations between Serbia and the Ottoman Empire, apart from the economic aspect, soon fell into the shadows due to the Albanian riots and rebellions that engulfed the entire Kosovo vilayet. In that case too, the Serbian state tried not to interfere in Turkey's internal affairs.

The Mobility of Serbs in Early Modern Times. Some Remarks on the Margins of Ilona Czamańska’s New History of Serbia. Ilona Czamańska, Historia Serbii. Od pojawienia się Serbów na Bałkanach do 1830 roku [History of Serbia. From the Arrival of the Serbs in the Balkans to 1830], vol. I, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań 2021 [= Biblioteka Europy Środkowej i Południowo-Wschodniej],

The Mobility of Serbs in Early Modern Times. Some Remarks on the Margins of Ilona Czamańska’s New History of Serbia. Ilona Czamańska, Historia Serbii. Od pojawienia się Serbów na Bałkanach do 1830 roku [History of Serbia. From the Arrival of the Serbs in the Balkans to 1830], vol. I, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań 2021 [= Biblioteka Europy Środkowej i Południowo-Wschodniej],

INFORMATION ABOUT TSAR IVAN ASEN II IN THE RUSSIAN CHRONOGRAPH

Ivan Asen II is the only Bulgarian ruler to whose reign a separate paragraph in the Russian Chronograph is dedicated. The information is taken from the First Prologue Life of St. John of Rila, the Prologue and Euthymius’ Life of St. Petka and others. He is presented as one of the most powerful Slavic rulers. Attention is drawn to the news that he ordered Theodore I Laskaris to be blinded. The name of the king is also found in two paragraphs on the history of Serbia, compiled on the basis of Theodosius' life of St. Sava. The information from the Chronograph is used in the Nikon Chronicle and in some Serbian collections.

Power and History in the Serbs: Historiography after 1990

This study aims to examine the processes brought forth in Serbian historiography using the structural nature of the mutually influential relationship between power and history as data. The study focuses on the post-1990 period and examines the history, institutions, major works, and historians of Serbian historiography. The period under study includes two distinct power eras: the nationalist transition and the postmodern period. The study examines the characteristics, structures, and dynamics of these periods within this framework and attempts to determine the continuity and differences between these two periods. The study analyzes the results of Serbian historiography’s relationship to power and history by examining the Ottoman narrative in general works on Serbian history.

Power and History in the Serbs: Historiography after 1990

This study aims to examine the processes brought forth in Serbian historiography using the structural nature of the mutually influential relationship between power and history as data. The study focuses on the post-1990 period and examines the history, institutions, major works, and historians of Serbian historiography. The period under study includes two distinct power eras: the nationalist transition and the postmodern period. The study examines the characteristics, structures, and dynamics of these periods within this framework and attempts to determine the continuity and differences between these two periods. The study analyzes the results of Serbian historiography’s relationship to power and history by examining the Ottoman narrative in general works on Serbian history.

Review: Ljušić R. Prince Miloš (1783–1860). The state-making ruler. Novi Sad: Orthodox word, 2021. 923 p. ISBN 978-86-81648-15-5

In 2021, the first full biography of an outstanding figure in Serbian history — the leader of the second Serbian uprising, the ruler of the Serbian principality, and the founder of the Obrenović dynasty, Prince Miloš — was published. The author of the book is a respected historian, retired University of Belgrade professor Radosh Ljušić. This deep and grounded research fills a significant gap in Serbian historiography, as there were no studies on this subject until recently. This biography of the second Serbian ruler of the modern period is extremely comprehensive: In addition to the collections of documents, memoirs, diaries, and periodicals well-known to the scientific community, Ljušić actively used previously unpublished materials from Serbian, Russian, and Austrian archives while writing the book. It is also noteworthy that the author studied the huge amount of scientific literature while composing a biography of Miloš Obrenović. The monograph is a fairly voluminous writing (923 pages), divided into six parts: “From shepherd to leader”, “Prince”, “Outcast and returnee”, “Possessions”, “Traitor”, and “Rudnichanin”. The study is also provided with rich illustrative material and maps. For the first time in world history, the biography of a Serbian prince is presented without significant gaps and omissions. The undoubted advantage of this book is that by following the life milestones of Prince Miloš, the author does not ignore the events, customs, and social norms of that era in Serbia. This biography is written without ignoring the historical context. This article offers journal readers a brief review of this work, which is worthy of the attention of researchers and interested readers.

Dragisa Stojadinovic’s Open letter regarding Miroslav Krleza’s “Serbian themes”

This article examines the reaction of Dragisa Stojadinovic to the feuilleton ?Serbian themes? done by the writer Miroslav Krleza. Krleza?s feuilleton was being published in newspaper Politika during April, May and June of 1963. It consisted of fragments from his earlier writings organized in thematic units and concerning different topics from Serbian history. Dragisa Stojadinovic, former soldier, chief of Cinematographic section of Serbian army on Salonica front during the First World War and politician in interwar Yugoslavia, responded to Krleza?s feuilleton by writting an Open letter to the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts (Zagreb), the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (Belgrade) and the Matica Srpska (Novi Sad). Stojadinovic?s Open letter was sent on June 28th, 1963. It focused on scrutinizing Krleza?s article Pasic about the Salonika trial published in Politika on June 9th. Both informations stated by Krleza and criticism put forward by Stojadinovic are analyzed in the light of contemporary historiographical knowledge. Different interpretations presented by Krleza and Stojadinovic have their roots in opposed views on causes and results of Salonika trial. Stojadinovic defended the legitimacy of trial started by his father-in-law Ljuba Jovanovic Patak, he was involved in its organisation and later accused of witness tampering. Krleza saw trial in the light of ?counter-revolutionary? Yugoslav unification in 1918 and as an act of ?political and judicial murder?. Article also contains original documents from National Library of Serbia.

Nova knjiga Srpske enciklopedije - korak dalje u obnovi nacionalnog samopoštovanja - Grupa autora, Srpska enciklopedija, Tom III, Knjiga 2, Demokratija-Đuša, Matica srpska, Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, Zavod za udžbenike, Novi Sad, Beograd, 2021

When browsing through the recently published second book of the third volume of Serbian Encyclopaedia, which has been published since 2010, inevitable questions arise about the role and importance of each of those books and the entire project to the culture of the Serbian nation. By its basic characteristics, Serbian Encyclopaedia has the potential to open, awaken or refresh knowledge and memory of the facts about Serbian history, as well as of its up-to-dateness and perspective, i.e. to recover the national self-awareness that is so necessary to Serbs, which is not only one of the necessary prerequisites for national self-respect, but also a basic presupposition of survival and development.

Serbia on its way towards full independence

The Serbian historiography has been enriched by a book about an important period in the new Serbian history before achieving full independence. During this period, Serbia gained internal freedom and started creating the so-called first Balkan Union. This period has already been in the scope of the professional interest of several historians. The book by D. Leovac was on a par with such well-known and major works of Serbian historiography as the monographs of S. Jovanović, G. Jakšić and V. Vučković. Unlike previous works, a feature of Leovac’s book is that it is based primarily on Russian sources. The author makes a reasonable conclusion that at that time the main support to Serbian interests was coming from Russia, and not from France, as is often noted in historiography.

DVA ŠAFARIKOVA TEKSTA O SRBIMA

Pavel Jozef Šafárik (1795–1861) is one of the most prominent figures of Slovak, Czech, and Serbian history and culture. Apart from his importance as a historian, scientist, ethnographer and founder of Slavic studies, in the Serbian cultural context he is also considered the originator of the literary-historical discourse and the first bibliographer. By acting among Serbs, Šafárik had a significant impact on Serbian-Slovak cultural ties and contributed to establishing the typology of the image of Serbs in Slovak cultural consciousness. For the newly founded journal Letopis Matice srpske, he wrote the study ”The character of the Slavic people in general” (1825), with the aim of defending the Slavs from the ”incorrect claims” of numerous Western European authors, who wrote about the bad characteristics of the Slavs in their books. In the spirit of Pan-Slavism, he wrote about the Slavs as a unique people with extremely positive characteristics. In this contribution, Šafárik appears analytically, but as a biased defender of the Slavs. In the text ”Review of the latest literature of the Illyrian Slavs”, Šafárik writes critically about the Serbs

Slavic World in the Book Collection of Count G.A. Stroganov

The article examines the Russian aristocrat and diplomat G.A. Stroganov’s perception of the ideas of Slavic unity on the material of his library. Pan-Slavic ideas are presented through their interpretation in Russian, French and Common Slavic cultural consciousness as well as in the one of the collection’s owner. The authors of the books conceptualize the Russian version of Pan-Slavism as centralizing and patronizing other Slavic communities. The centripetal and centrifugal tendencies in the Slavic world are described on the material of Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Czech (Bohemian), and Serbian literature and history. The article discusses ideas of Pan-Slavism in connection with the practice of nation-building of the 19th century, the ideas of national revival in Poland and Bohemia, the awareness of the Common Slavonic and national identity of individual communities. The authors of the article reveal ideas of Russian Pan-Slavism, Polish Messianism and Czech Austro-Slavism in terms of designing the Slavic cultural community.

Philosophers Bozidar Knezevic and Branislav Petronijevic: Between myth and reality

In literature on Serbian history of philosophy it is quite usual to find a statement that Branislav Petronijevic (1875-1954), professor of philosophy at the Belgrade Faculty of Philosophy thwarted the efforts of the philosopher and historian Bozidar Knezevic (1862-1905) to become a professor at the same Faculty. It is said that Petronijevic wrote a negative official review on Knezevic?s book Principles of History. The story fits well with the negative myth of Petronijevic. To establish the facts it is important to take into account the chronology, archival materials, memoirs and other historical sources. When Knezevic applied for the position of a professor of general history at the Belgrade Faculty of Philosophy Petronijevic was a 21 years old student at the University of Leipzig (1897). Ljubomir Nedic, then a professor of philosophy at the Belgrade Faculty of Philosophy, recommended publishing Knezevic?s first volume of Principles of History (1898). In the meantime Knezevic did not apply for the position of a professor of History of Philosophy and Ethics (February, 1898). Petronijevic did not write an official review on Knezevic?s manuscript, but a review of an already published book (September, 1898). The Principal educational council of the Ministry of Education of the Kingdom of Serbia asked Nedic to write an official review of the manuscript of the second volume of Knezevic?s Principle of History (1899). Since Nedic couldn?t accept it, the newly elected professor Petronijevic wrote a review of Knezevic?s new manuscript. Although critical and analytical, the review was positive and the book was published (1901).

INOSTRANI IZVJEŠTAJI O POČETKU VELIKE ISTOČNE KRIZE U LISTU „SRPSKE NOVINE“

The Great Eastern Crisis (1875-1878) is considered one of the turning points in recent Serbian history, which occurred as a result of decades of agrarian and social dissatisfaction and the desire for the national liberation of the Christian population from the Turkish authorities. In historiography, the eastern crisis encompasses a somewhat wider chronological framework, and its beginnings are related to the uprising in the village of Krekovi, near Nevesinje, on July 9, 1875. In a short time, the uprising spread to Bosnia, and then to the Macedonian, Bulgarian and Kosovo territories. Taking into account the fact that this issue has attracted a lot of attention from the European public, the subject of this paper is the reports and announcements of the foreign press about the beginning of the Great Eastern Crisis, which “Srpske Novine” published in parts or in whole during July 1875. Due to the relatively fast flow of information and the use of telegraph services, the press was, at that time, an extremely important source. Based on the offered foreign reports and announcements, which were published almost daily by “Srpske Novine”, we analyzed the first conflicts in Herzegovina, in July 1875, in order to bring closer the way in which the appearance of the uprising was interpreted on the pages of the European press.