Izvorni znanstveni članak
Ideological Trends in the Croatian Culture from 1895 to 1903
Branka Pribić
Sažetak
In this essay the author works on a detailed plan of exposing the basis of the movement of the student and school young people, started in 1897 and called »Progressive Youth«; during the transition period, from 19th to 20th century, it played an important part in modernization, meaning Europeanizing, of the cultural and political life of Croatia. The »Progressive Youth« was the main supporter of the literary and art movement: »Croatian Moderna« (in literature) and »Croatian Secession« (in art). After giving a shematic description of that-time general political lines and ideology during Austro-Hungarian monarchy, the author is opening her exposition with a survey of literature on political and literary activity of the Young; she lays the stress on the fact that only a through knowledge of their exploits and works ('Theory of Literature, art of painting, the theatre in Zagreb) can give a wholesome idea of their activity from 1895 to 1903 - and that was not done until now. The author continues with an account of various ideological stimuli from home and from abroad that influenced the cultural and political movement of the Young: K. Š. Gjalski with the novel »Radmilović« H. Taine »Philosophy of Art«, Vienac (»The Wreath«, 1895), T. G. Masaryk - translations of Russian realistic writers, socialist ideas of that-time Croatia. Special stress is given to the influence of T. G. Masaryk (his real work among people; not only patriotic enthusiasm; not accepting nationalism without ethics; the meaning is brought to the history only by pan-human ethical values) on the group of those students who had burnt the Hungarian flag in the very centre of Zagreb, 1895, and therefore had been expelled from the Zagreb Univenity, and then had continued their studies in Prague; one other group was formed at the Vienna University under the influence of the eminent literary theorist H. Bahr. The third group of the movement of the Youth was formed amongst those students who remained in Zagreb. The main characteristic was to echo the outside events and stimuli in the home tradition, while common to them all was the dissatisfaction with everything that went on in Croatia. The appearance of the Youth movement brings in evidence the split that must have existed among the members of the intelligency: majority of them joined the Rights movement and worked upon the clerical ideas, not accepting the ideology of the Young, not even the ideas of T. G. Masaryk. Every author's statement on the events was proved by the analysis of the original articles in newspapers and magazines of that period and written by the leaders of the movement; the author begins with an exposition of the programme and the activity of the review »Hrvatska Misao« (»The Croatian Thought«, Prague 1897), where the discussion about the relation society-literature was put on with arcicles of M. Dežman and M. Šarić.
The author continues mentioning the opinion and estimation the Youth writen were forming of the modern Croatian writers: Kranjčević, Preradović and Kozarac and on the other side of the writers like Tresić-Pavičić and Arnold. The Youth liked the idea of the common interests of Serbs and Croats; it was even clearly expressed in the programme of the common cultural work, and cited by the Zagreb collectanea »Narodna Misao« (»The Popular Thought«, 1897), just as well as by the political weekly of the same name and from the same year. Scholl newspapers »Nova Nada« (»The New Hope«, 1897) called for the united Croatian and Slovene Youth, while the texts were printed in both languages. Mainly literary magazine from Vienna »Mladost« (»The Youth«, 1898) continued the same ideological path in the contents at well as in the form: there were articles in Slovene and in cirilic writing. The same was true for the magazine »Novo Doba« (»The New Era«, Prague 1898) that appeared after the »Hrvatska Misao« had been prohibitted in Croatia. This magazine did not approve of the ideas on the literary and art values of the circle around the Viennese »Mladost«, reasoning that they were decadent, estranged from the people, sterile imitators of the West. With regards to the »Mladost«, the magazine »Novo Doba« counterclaimed that the »education of people« was to be achieved only if there be the unity of Serbs, Croats and Slovene on the field of the culture. Ivo Pilar, representative of the Young, discussed on the modernistic tendencies in painting (articles in »Vienac«, 1898, then, a brochure too); he explained them to be an »expression of dissatisfaction with the existing in art«, or even to be a new stream welcome to the sensitive mentality of the Croats, and more, to represent the tendency to bring are to all tbh levels of society. Pilar's ideas brought about an art exposition in Zagreb - an exposition of art masters of different trends. Their search for expression as well as the tendencies of the Young in general in art were given due consideracion in a review, published to this occasion by M. Dežman, »Hrvatski Salon« (»Croatian Salone«); they were accompanied with reproductions of the exposition works. M. Dežman commended the frankness of the new art movement, the tendencies to the originality but still conformed to the life and necessities of the people. M. Cihlar-Nehajev and Gjalski were positively reacting to this »coming-out« of the young writers, painters and sculptors.
The author goes on explaining the reasons of the point of view of those writen who did not agree with the ideas of the Young: A. Radić thought that those new tendencies in art jeopardized the nacional interests; F. F. Kuhač was talking of exposing of the moral interests, while S. Korenić pointed to the jeopardizing of the religious interests. The discussions about the Secession brought in some other eminent people like: J. Frank, I. Kršnjavi, A. Tresić-Pavičić etc. In 1900, painters and writers started to publish a review »Život« (»The Life«). The author gives a through report on it. »Život« stood against dilettantism, hiding behind the patriotism, it fought for the cultural development, the essential means in people's struggling for subsistence (B. Livadić), it critized the publishing monopoly and narrow-mindedness of Matica Hrvatska (Dežman-Ivanov). »Život« also declared its point of view with regards to the event of the First Catholic Congress (1900), which proclaimed to be against the movement of the Young. The contributor of »Život«, Čedomil Jakša, a priest, tried to reconcile the generations over the cultural problem. Also in »Život«, an architect, V. Kovačić, the disciple of the Viennese supporter of the Secession Otto Wagner, fought for the modern style in architecture in Croatia, as the justifiable expression of the new period; he stood up for his cause at the time when the leading Zagreb architects still hesitated between secessionist and historical syles. »Život« also followed closely and commented freely the events in the world of Art.
The author tries to show, too, that »Život« though momentarily occupied with art events, did not limit its interests only to those subjects, but that its work comprised: popularization of the Art, of J. Ruskin's social reforms, proclaiming disagreement with police persecuting of modern art achievements in Germany; therefrom arises obvious the author's intention to explain the expansion of the influence of the Young on the youngest generation - e. g. J. Koharić in the »Svjetlo« (»The Light«, 1900) in Karlovac.
The author then, explains how the political calamities in Croatia - from the brochure of the Yoong »Poraz i slavlje« (»The defeat and the Triumph«, Rijeka, 1901) - led to the restoration of the »Hrvatska Misao« (»The Croatian Thought«) in Zagreb, 1902. It was considered to be the continuation of the earlier paper of the same name, as it brought out again, expanding it, the idea of popular husbandry, considering it to be the only possibility to realize other popular aims. The author made note of the dialogne and different contacts of thc Progressive Youth with Socialdemocrats, as well as of other problems that interested her and which were discussed by the paper: schools, health service policy, psychological characteristics of the Croarian people, Georg Brandes etc. The author points to the quality of the articles and positive influence of the paper towards the better collaboration of the opposition parties and furtber development of the Youth movement. The magazine »Mlada Hrvatska« (»The Young Croatia«, 1902) dealt mostly with the cultural problem and, what should be more important, with appreciating the stage of progress the Young had achieved: they replaced the old one-sidedness with a new universality (B. Drechsler). Others, like A. G. Matoš, Z. Kvederova and V. Jelovšek (art critic) worked on it, too. Turning to the role of the Zagreb theatre in the Croatian cultural development, the author stresses the importance of S. Miletić's work on founding the modern Croatian theatre by including in the repertoire of the pieces of Sophocles, Hauptmann and Russian realists, the works of the writers of the movement »Hrvatska Moderna« (»The Croatian Moderna«); the works of Dežman, Chilar-Nehajev, S. Tucić, helping thus the new literary expression to the affirmation. The fact that the ideas of this young generation were felt present in the political life of Croatia was rather obvious from the political events in 1903: the Progressive Youth came out with a political programme, entering thus that year general peopl's movement in Croatia. The replies from many sides: Dalmatia, Istria, Slovenia, opened the way to the policy of the »new course« and to Croato-Serbian Coalition in 1905.
The author ends up with the conclusion that Progressive Youth was the agent that incited the movement of the whole public life of Croatia, especially in the field of culture; that again, intensified the movements and brought about many good results through the synthesis of national traditions and modern trends.
Ključne riječi
Hrčak ID:
219171
URI
Datum izdavanja:
12.7.1972.
Posjeta: 994 *