Krležin razgovor o Brest-Litovsku (1918.) kao apologija Oktobra ili politike prijateljstva

1 U daljnjim navodima drugog izdanja Davnih dana (Dnevnik 1914–17: Davni dani I, Dnevnik 1918–22: Davni dani II) iz 1977. godine koristim kratice DD i DD2. Dnevničko-memoarski zapisi Miroslava Krleže (Davni dani. Zapisi 1914–1921, Zagreb, 1956.; Dnevnik 1–5, Sarajevo, 1977.) obasižu vremenski raspon od 1914. do 1969. godine, dakle 55 godina autorova života.

2 Ovaj članak pišem kao svojevrsnu re-interpretaciju vlastite interpretacije iz 2005. godine (Marjanić 2005), potaknuta nužnošću uvođenja određenih nadopuna iz retrospektive od gotovo 11 godina, u kontekstu forme re-performansa i izvedbenih re-interpretacija kakve je ponudila Marina Abramović u svom projektu Seven Easy Pieces (2005.).

3 U tom se smislu uspostavlja paralelizam između povijesnog i političkog horizonta Krležinih triju djela: Davni dani: 1914.–1921./1922. (drugo izdanje prošireno je političkim i povijesnim horizontom 1922. godine), Deset krvavih godina. Refleksije između 1914–1924 (1924., 1937.) i Zastave (Forum, 1962.–1968.; Zagreb: Zora, 1967.; Sarajevo: Oslobođenje, 1976.), pri čemu je Ivo Frangeš odredio Zastave kao najautobiografskije Krležino djelo (Frangeš 1977:340). Upravo je politička antropologinja Dunja Rihtman-Auguštin ponudila prvo iščitavanje Krležine antropologije balkanskih tipova i mentaliteta, ističući kako je u Zastavama Krleža ostvario antropološku studiju Balkana i kao metafore i kao stereotipa (Rihtman-Auguštin 1997:32).

4 Nije slučajno što Davne dane Krleža otvara fragmentom legende Saloma u kojoj je demaskirao, ustoličio jugoproroka Johanaana aka Ivana Meštrovića i njegovu maketu Vidovdanskog hrama (1907.–1912.). Dramu, legendu antiwildeovske inspiracije u kojoj je Vječno Žensko pobijedilo virilnu volju za moć objavljuje 49 godina nakon (Forum, 1963., br. 10) toga prvoga dnevničkog zapisa kojim otvara Davne dane (usp.Marjanić 2005).

5 Krležinoj vojničkoj anabazi prethodila je još jedna osobna Golgota; naime, zbog sukoba s razrednikom Dragutinom Müllerom (Lasić 1982:62–64) u Kraljevskoj velikoj donjogradskoj gimnaziji Krleža 1906. seli u Kraljevsku veliku gornjogradsku gimnaziju. Međutim, školske se nedaće i ovdje gomilaju te sukobi s profesorima dovode do toga da po završetku četvrtog razreda odluči školovanje nastaviti u vojnoj školi te 1908. odlazi na vojno školovanje u Ugarsku (Ugarska kraljevska kadetska škola u Pečuhu) kako bi izbjegao sredinu – Zagreb – u kojoj se osjećao poniženim i uvrijeđenim nakon što je propao u četvrtom razredu iz tri predmeta (premaČengić 1985:276).

6 Naime, Stanko Lasić antitetičnost određuje kao konstruktivno načelo Krležina književnog korpusa, ali i njegove osobnosti (Lasić 1989:39–40, 343;1982:102).

7 Danko-David Slović nastoji nadopuniti Lasićevo i Zelmanovićevo istraživanje o Krležinu dvostrukom bijegu u Srbiju za vrijeme Balkanskih ratova te navodi kako je riječ samo o legendi, odnosno da se radilo o špijunskoj operaciji u koju je Krležu uključio obavještajni časnik Maximilian Ronge. Među ostalim tvrdi: “U tom smislu s Krležom je obavljeno više razgovora u smislu obavještajne obuke” (Slović 2014). Jedan od recenzenata moga članka istaknuo je potrebu za revizijom navedena Krležina putešestvija: “Staromodno, historiografski, moram reći da će prije ili kasnije morati doći vrijeme da se kritikom izvora propitaju Krležini iskazi u vezi s 'Bregalnicom'. Prvo, uputio se na 'Bregalnicu' u situaciji kada je I. balkanski rat bio apsolviran, odnosno u situaciji kada je bilo manje-više sigurno da će se Balkanski savez raspasti i da slijedi sukob među saveznicima. Nameće se pitanje zašto je uopće išao tamo kada je mogao anticipirati što bi se moglo dogoditi? Daljnje je pitanje zašto je išao na srpsku stranu htijući ući u srpsku vojsku u takvim okolnostima?”

8 Sentimentalnu viziju južnoslavenskog ujedinjenja pod konceptom Vidovdanskog hrama Ivana Meštrovića (jugoslavenstvo pod Karađorđevićima) na Bregalnici je doživio u kronotopskom paralelizmu kao bengalsku vatru jugoiluzija (DD, 248). Presudna je, čini se, za Krležino razočarenje u nacionalističko-iluzionističku ideologiju bila bitka na Bregalnici 1913. godine, koje se on poslije sjećao, a o kojoj je pisao i u romanu Zastave (Vučković 1979:133–134.). Ukratko, 1913. godina svojevrsna je liminalna godina Krležine psihobiografije zbog iskustva Bregalnice – Krležina učešća u Balkanskim ratovima kao neslavnog završetka dobrovoljnog odlaska na ratište te zaokret od nacionalističke ideologije u socijalističku, što je rezultiralo dramatičnim rušenjem mladenačkih ideala, kako je to i istaknuo Zlatko Sudović u dokumentarnom filmu o Miroslavu Krleži (1978.).  O Krležinoj negaciji mesijanističkih utvora Meštrovićeve umjetnosti toga doba usp.Marjanić 2005:58–64. U navedenoj knjizi usp. npr. poglavlje “Literarni govor o Šeherezadi, Heliogabalu i Zaratustri-Meštroviću”.

9 Stanko Lasić u prvom dijelu Krležologije pridodaje kako se u literaturi malo govori o fazi Krležina jugoslavenskoga nacionalnog buntovništva koje nije nestalo nakon Bregalnice, “kako nas je on više puta želio uvjeriti. Prečesto se zaboravlja na Krležinu suradnju u Hrvatskoj njivi i Književnom jugu u presudnim godinama njegova definitivnog idejnog formiranja” (Lasić 1989:104).

10 Zapis Iza kulisa godine 1918 (Republika, 1967., br. 7–8) Krleža uvodi u drugo izdanje Davnih dana (Bibliografija Miroslava Krleže 1999:145).

11 O odustajanju od svih pogleda na svijet, u kontekstu Krležina sukoba na ljevici, jer “i mjesečina može biti pogled na svijet”, usp.Marjanić 2015.

12 Atribut “tipični trabant Hrvatsko-srpske koalicije” označuje ulogu Vitomira Koraća kao jednoga od prvaka Socijaldemokratske stranke Hrvatske i Slavonije na koju se oslanjala kontrarevolucionarna politika Hrvatsko-srpske koalicije, suzbijajući revolucionarne pokrete u Hrvatskoj nastale pod utjecajem Oktobarske revolucije. Atribut “i neće proći ni godina dana, a gospodin pojavit će se u jednom od kraljevskih SHS-kabineta kao ministar” demaskira ulogu Vitomira Koraća kao ministra za socijalnu politiku u kabinetu Stojana Protića u vrijeme afere Diamantstein, događaje iz ljeta 1919. kada je policija uhitila komunističke predvodnike pod optužbom da su u suradnji s mađarskom komunom namjeravali provesti prevrat u Jugoslaviji.

13 O broju stradalih u okviru pojedinih država usp.Ferro 1973:251.

14 Navodim jedan od Krležinih konstativa iz Davnih dana o kolumbovskim optimalnim projekcijama u budućnost: “U ime legija mrtvih jedini čovjek koji govori danas u svijetu, to je Lenjin i nitko više” (DD2, 80). Ili kao što pod datumom 20. XII. 1917. bilježi kako bi trebalo napisati knjigu o milijunima razgovora o revoluciji i kapitalu i zato: “… pjevam tebi pjesmu, Veliki Kolumbo! Sretan ti put u nepovrat!” (DD, 360), što je metafora za ekspresionističku potragu za nemogućim (Lauer 2013:40). O paralelizmu, povijesnoj analogiji Kolumbova krilata lađa – Lenjinova “Aurora”, usp.Marjanić 2005.

15 O tome da nije bila riječ o potpisivanju Deklaracije nego o glasanju, glasovanju podizanjem ruku u tadašnjem Društvu književnika Hrvatske usp.Hećimović 2013.

16 U polemici je Josip Bach spočitnuo Krleži i to da je “poput Petra zatajio Krista – Lenjina ili Trockog, kojima je bio posvećen Cristoval Colon u manuskriptu” (Krležijana 1:495–498).

17 O Brest-litovskom miru i dramatizaciji među domaćim antantofilskim krugovima, o sukobu dviju ideja slavenstva – jugorojalističkoj i lenjinski nastrojenoj komponenti, usp.Marjanić 2005:293–332.

18 Oponirajući trabant ideosferu ruske politike određuje i Hamletovim političko-psihološkim konstativom: “... ima tu nečeg trulog u vašoj državi Danskoj” (DD2, 185), uspoređujući rusku politiku “s politikom grofa Czernina i pruskih junkera” kojoj je cilj izbavljenje Austrije (DD2, 184–185), a rusku politiku cinički određuje kao historijsku ulogu Šajlokâ ([Shakespeareov Mletački trgovac]DD2, 187) koji “su prodali Ukrajinu Nijemcima”: “... kad je Car stajao s Japancima u borbi na život i smrt, gospoda su digla pobunu, a sada će ta ista gospoda Japancima priznati ne samo Mandžuriju nego i Amur i Vladivostok, pa to je rasprodaja ruske zemlje, sve fuć, jedamput zauvijek, eto, to je historijska uloga vaših Šajloka, oni da se bore protiv carizma, pa to je prosto smiješno, zar ne vidite da su prodali Ukrajinu Nijemcima” (DD2, 187; kurziv S. M.).

19 Navedeni komentar u podrupku Krleža bilježi iz perspektive 1967. godine kada piše i predgovor Razgovoru o Brest-Litovsku (1918) kojim daje “historijsku pozadinu takvih dijaloga kao što je ovaj” (DD2, 177).

20 “'Tako se Kerenski – kornilovac, razišao s Kornilovom slučajno, a produžio da bude u najintimnijem savezu sa drugim kornilovcima', pisao je Lenjin” (Bosiljčić 1966:76). Ideologemi neimenovanog trabanta Hrvatsko-srpske koalicije i njegove konstelacije performativne moći, u okviru koje se uglavnom strategijski opredjeljuje za argumentum ad hominem u odnosu na sugovornika Krležu, kojima optužuje Sovjete da su potpisujući ugovor o miru u Brest-Litovsku, među ostalima i s Austro-Ugarskom, priznali pravo njezina postojanja kao države i time poništili načela vlastite revolucionarne borbe, prije svega prava naroda na samoodređenje, označeni su ideologemima književnog stvaralaštva Dostojevskoga kao i Andrejevljevim Crvenim smijehom (1904.).

21 Mirovnim ugovorom u Brest-Litovsku koji je potpisala vlada Sovjetske Rusije s grofom Ottokarom Czerninom, Sovjetska se Rusija obvezala da će Njemačkoj platiti šest milijardi maraka u čistom ruskom zlatu (DD2, 181). U okviru navedene povijesne činjenice Krležin sugovornik spekulira kako “gospoda 'čistunci' plaćaju Njemačkoj dvadeset milijarda maraka, i to, molit ćemo lijepo, u suhom zlatu, carissime, u čistom ruskom zlatu, dvadeset milijarda” (DD2, 181; kurziv S. M.).

22 Na sve nas je to podsjetila predstava Cefas (2010.) Kuće ekstremnoga muzičkog kazališta (D. B. Indoš i Tanja Vrvilo) koja je krenula, kako je to jednom prigodom Tanja Vrvilo istaknula, od podataka iz knjige Josipa Horvata Pobuna omladine (2006.) u kojoj je taj istaknuti novinar i političar obradio četiri atentata od 1911. do 1914. godine, a od kojih su samo dva počinjena, uspješno izvedena u kontekstu Austinove teorije govornih činova, odnosno uspješnosti ili neuspješnosti performativa. U navedenoj predstavi Tanja Vrvilo spojila je prvi atentat u životnoj izvedbi Luke Jukića kao i aktivnosti revolucionarno-anarhističke skupine Cefas koju je 1900. godine, dakle, u svojoj četrnaestoj godini organizirao Janko Polić Kamov, kao đak Sušačke gimnazije u Rijeci. Naime, taj je prvi atentat Luke Jukića obuzeo redateljske vizure Tanje Vrvilo, i to upravo zbog rasprave između teorije i prakse. Naime, organizatori atentata između sebe su pronašli praktičara – Luka Jukić odlučio je biti praktičar (Indoš i Vrvilo, premaMarjanić 2014:833–839).

23 Riječ je o dnevničkom zapisu pod datumom 21. prosinca 1968. u kojem Krleža zapisuje bilješku o dolasku Kamila Emeričkoga u Beč (rad na Zastavama), o tome da je raketa Saturn 5 opalila svoju patronu s Apollom 8 – “… da se pronašla mašina koja garantira da ova raketa neće promašiti magnetski krug Mjesečeve gravitacije, to obuzima pamet čudnim strahom” – te o tome da svijet postaje kasarna gdje “i djevojke postaju kadeti”, suvremene Pentesileje.

24 O motivaciji bijega u Dugu Rijeku, nakon iskustva s Narodnim vijećem, Vitomirom Koraćem i kompanijom itd., gdje je nastao materijal za dramu Vučjak, među ostalim, Krleža navodi: “I tu sam ja kao mladić koji je, na koncu, imao dvadeset i sedam godina, manje-više šmrkavac, prvi put konstatirao da postoje tako pokvareni ljudi, da postoje nitkovi, hulje, razbojnici …” (Krleža, premaČengić 1990:71).

25 Zapis Premijera “Golgote” 3. XI. 1922. Rukopis od 4. novembra 1922. (DD2, 381–392) čini završni okvir/kraj dnevničkih bilježaka 1922. godine (riječ je o drugom izdanju Davnih dana), nakon čega slijede dnevnički “Dodaci”. Zapis o navedenoj premijeri prvi je put objavljen u Borbi (1, 2. i 3. svibnja 1965.), a što se tiče Davnih dana Krleža ga uvodi u drugo izdanje (Krležijana 2:232).

26 Dunja Detoni Dujmić upućuje kako je završnom spektakularnom zanosu Zofke Kveder za jugoslavenstvo i velikosrpski hegemonizam pridonio brak s Jurjem Demetrovićem, “političarom i kraljevskim namjesnikom za Hrvatsku, koji je žestoko zastupao ideologiju jedinstvene jugoslavenske nacije” (Detoni Dujmić 1998:195).

27 Usp. Kristijanovu negaciju bakunjinske direktne akcije (dok vlastitu koncepciju određuje marksističkim ideologemima) i Pavlove anarhoindividualističke akcije (Krleža 1988:249, 281).

28 Usp. Krležin zapis Kraljevica 18. IV. 1920, iz govora pred Hreljinskom Gradinom za godinu 1920.

29 Povijesno-fenomenološki esej Prije trideset godina (1917–47) objavljen je u Republici (1947., br. 11) s prilogom Napomena uz essay: Prije trideset godina, a Krleža ga uvodi na stranice Davnih dana (prvo izdanje 1956.) (usp.Krležijana 2:235–236).

30 Što se tiče stereotipije, svakako bi trebalo uključiti i pitanje (re)prezentacije u književnosti, koju je problematizirao, primjerice, Darko Suvin u članku Mogu li ljudi biti (re)prezentirani u književnosti? Naime, kako narativni prostor i narativno vrijeme figuriraju kao transpozicija najčešće izvanknjiževnih pojmova prostora i vremena, jednako tako i narativni agensi figuriraju kao transpozicija najčešće izvanknjiževnih pojmova o ljudima. Ukratko, u interpretaciji psihemskih narativnih figura moramo, kako to nadalje subverzivno naglašava Darko Suvin, imati u vidu da su oni književni simulakrumi ljudi (Suvin 1988:97).

31 Marc Ferro ističe kako su od 1880. godine objavljeni brojni članci i knjige o tome kakav bi rat trebao biti, međutim jedino su H. G. Wells (David Icke pridodao bi za njega atribut – fabijanski književnik), dizajner Albert Robida i ruski teoretičar Ivan Blok tvrdili da će rat biti industrijaliziran s milijunima mrtvih i s mobilizacijom čitavih nacija. Pritom su radovi o ratu postali još brojniji nakon 1906. godine, početkom rusko-japanskog rata. “Ljudi su bili mentalno pripremljeni” (Ferro 1973:30). Poznato je da se do kraja 1914. godine gotovo polovica studenata u austrijskom dijelu Monarhije dragovoljno javila u vojsku, te su se tako i pripadnici kulturne elite, npr. Ludwig Wittgenstein i Oskar Kokoschka, dobrovoljno javili u rat i borili protiv Rusije (Stevenson 2014:431–432).

1 When quoting from the second edition of Bygone Days (Journal 1914-17: Bygone Days I, Journal 1918-22: Bygone Days II) from 1977, I will be using acronyms BD and BD2. Diary-memoirist entries by Miroslav Krleža (Bygone Days. Entries 1914–1921, Zagreb 1956; Journal 1–5, Sarajevo 1977) span the period from 1914 to 1969, ergo 55 years of the author's life.

2 I wrote this paper as a sort of reinterpretation of my own interpretation from 2005 (Marjanić 2005), prompted by the necessity of introducing certain additions from a vantage point of almost 11 years in hindsight, in the context of re-performance and performance reinterpretations which were provided by Marina Abramović in her project Seven Easy Pieces (2005).

3 In this regard, parallels can be drawn between a historical and a political horizon in the three of Krleža’s works: Bygone Days: 1914–1921/1922 (second edition extended by the political and historical horizon of 1922), Ten Years Soaked in Blood. Reflections between 1914–1924 (1924/1937) and The Banners (Forum, 1962–1968; Zagreb – Zora, 1967; Sarajevo – Oslobođenje, 1976). Ivo Frangeš identified The Banners as Krleža’s most autobiographic work (Frangeš 1977:340). Political anthropologist Dunja Rihtman-Auguštin provided the first interpretation of Krleža’s anthropology of the Balkan characters and mindsets, emphasising that in Banners Krleža succeeded in providing an anthropological study of the Balkans both as a metaphor and as a stereotype (Rihtman-Auguštin 1997:32).

4 It is no coincidence that Krleža opened Bygone Days with a fragment from the legend about Salome in which he unmasked the enthroned Yugoslavism prophet John the Baptist (Johanaan), aka Ivan Meštrović and his model of the Vidovdan Temple (1907–1912). The play, a legend with anti-Wildean inspiration, in which the Eternal Feminine triumphs over the virile desire for power, was published (Forum, 10, 1963) 49 years after the first journal entry that opened Bygone Days (cf.Marjanić 2005).

5 Another private calvary preceeded Krleža’s military anabasis; namely, due to the conflict with his classmaster Dragutin Müller (Lasić 1982:62–64) at the Royal Grammar School in Zagreb’s Lower Town in 1906, he transferred to the Royal Grammar School in the Upper Town. However, he continued to get into trouble with the teachers there, too, which led to his decision, when he was in the fourth grade, to continue his education in a military school. Hence, in 1908 he left for a military school in Hungary (The Royal Hungarian Officer Cadet Academy in Pecs) – in order to avoid Zagreb as an environment in which he felt humiliated and offended having failed  three subjects in the fourth grade (according toČengić 1985:276).

6 Namely, Stanko Lasić defines antitheticality as a constructive principle underlining Krleža's literary opus, but also his personality (Lasić 1989:39–40, 343;1982:102).

7 In an attempt to complement Lasić's and Zelmanović's explorations of Krleža's double escape to Serbia during the Balkan wars, Danko-David Slović points out that this is not only about a legend, but rather about a spying operation in which Krleža was involved by Maximilian Ronge, an intelligence officer. Among other things, he claims: “To this end multiple interviews were conducted with Krleža regarding intelligence training” (Slović, 2014, http). One of the reviewers of my paper underlined the need for a revision of Krleža’s voyages: “Oldfashioned, historiographic, I must say that sooner or later there will come a time to examine Krleža’s statements in connection with 'Bregalnica' by critically reviewing the sources. Firstly, he went to 'Bregalnica' in the situation when WWI had practically been at an end, i.e. in the situation when it was more or less certain that Balkan League would collapse and a conflict would ensue among its allies. Therefore, it must be asked why he went there in the first place when he could anticipate what could happen? The question to follow is why did he want to join the Serbian Military under such circumstances?”

8 It is in a way a romantic and political mixture of Starčević-esque love of Croatia and a sentimental vision of South Slavic union shaped by Ivan Meštrović’s Vidovdan Temple concept (Yugoslavism under Karađorđević dynasty), which he experienced at Bregalnica in a chronotopical parallelism as the Bengal lights of the illusion of Yugoslavia (BD, 248). It seems that the battle of Bregalnica in 1913 was crucial to Krleža’s disillusionment with nationalist and illusionist ideology, which he remembered later on and wrote about in his novel The Banners” (Vučković 1979:133–134). To sum up, 1913 was in a way a liminal year of Krleža’s psychological biography due to the Bregalnica experience – Krleža’s participation in the Balkan wars which infamously ended his voluntary going to the front and turning away from the nationalist and towards the socialist ideology, which resulted in a dramatic collapse of the ideals of youth, as Zlatko Sudović emphasised in a documentary about Miroslav Krleža (1978). On Krleža’s negation of the messianic illusions of Meštrović’s art at the time cf.Marjanić 2005:58–64. In the above mentioned book cf. i.e. the chapter “Literary speech on Scheherazade, Heliogabalus, and Zarathustra-Meštrović”.

9 Stanko Lasić adds in the first volume of Krležology that there are few references in literature to Krleža’s Yugoslavian national rebellion which disappeared right after Bregalnica “as he wished to convince us many times. Krleža’s collaboration with the Hrvatska njiva (Croatian field) and Književni jug (Literary south) periodicals in the crucial years of his definitive shaping of ideas” is all too often overlooked (Lasić 1989:104).

10 The entry from Behind the Scenes in 1918 (Republika, 1967, 7–8) was included in the second edition of Bygone Days by Krleža (Bibliografija 1999:145).

11 On giving up all worldviews, in the context of Krleža's dispute among left wing intellectuals, because “even moonlight can be a wordview”, cf.Marjanić 2015.

12 The description “a typical Croato-Serbian coalition hanger-on” denotes Vitomir Korać’s role as one of the champions of the Croatian Social Democratic Party and Slavonia on which the counter-revolutionary politics of the Croato-Serbian coalition rested, suppressing revolutionary movements in Croatia, which emerged under the influence of the October Revolution. The phrase “within less than a year, the gentleman in question would emerge in one of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes Cabinets as a Minister” unmasks Vitomir Korać’s role as a Minister for social policy in Stojan Protić’s Cabinet at the time of Diamantstein  trial, namely the events of the summer of 1919, when the police arrested communist leaders accusing them of cooperating with a Hungarian commune with the intention of overthrowing authorities in Yugoslavia.

13 On the number of casualties per country cf.Ferro 1973:251.

14 I quoted one of Krleža's statements from Bygone Days about Columbian optimal projections into the future: “In the name of the legions of the dead, only one man speaks in the world today and that is Lenin and Lenin alone” (BD2, 80). Also, in the entry under 20 December 1917 he wrote that a book should be written about millions of discussions about the revolution and capital, and that is why: “(...) I dedicate this poem to you, Great Columbus! I bid you farewell into oblivion!” (BD, 360), which is a metaphor for the expressionist search for the impossible (Lauer 2013:40). On the parallelism, historical analogy Columbus’ winged ship – Lenin’s “Aurora” cf.Marjanić 2005.

15 On this occasion in question there was no signing of the Declaration but a vote by the raising of hands at the premises of the Croatian Writers' Association. Hećimović, 2013, URL.

16 In a polemic, Josip Bach reproached Krleža for denying “Christ like Peter” – Lenin or Trotsky, to whom Cristobal Colon had been dedicated in his manuscript (Krležijana 1:495–498).

17 On the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the dramatization among domestic Entente-phile circles, on the conflict between the two ideas of Slavianism – Yugo-Royalist and Lenin leaning components cf.Marjanić 2005:293–332.

18 The opposing hanger-on defines the Russian politics ideosphere by using Hamlet’s political and psychological statement: “(...) something is rotten in your state of Denmark, too” (BD2,185), thus comparing Russian politics “with the politics of count Czernin and Prussian Junkers” whose goal it was to deliver Austria (BD, 184–185), and describes the politics cinically as a historical role of Shylocks ([Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice]BD2, 187) who “sold Ukraine to the Germans”: “(...) while the Emperor stood with the Japanese in a life or death fight, the gentlemen rebelled, and now the same gentlemen would recognize the Japanese authority not only over Manchuria, but also over the Amur Oblast and Vladivostok. Well, this is selling out the Russian land, all gone, once and for all, there, this is the historical role of your Shylocks, them fighting Tsarism, that’s simply ridiculous, don't you see that they sold the Ukraine to the Germans?“ (BD2, 187, italics S. M.).

19 The comment given in a footnote was written by Krleža from the perspective of 1967 when he wrote the introduction to the Discussion on Brest-Litovsk (1918) which provides “historical background to dialogues such as this” (BD2, 177).

20 “’That is how Kerensky – a Kornilov supporter, incidentally parted ways with Kornilov, and went on to form the most intimate of alliances with the other Kornilov supporters’ –-Lenin wrote” (Bosiljčić 1966:76). Ideologues of the nameless Croato-Serbian coalition hanger-on and his performative power constellation, within which he mostly strategically opts for argumentum ad hominem in relation to the interlocutor Krleža, by which he accuses the Soviets that by signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, with Austria-Hungary among others, they recognised its right to exist as a state thereby denying the principles of their own revolutionary struggle, primarily the right of a nation to self-determination, which were defined as ideologues in the literary work of Dostoyevsky as well as in Andreyev’s The Red Laugh (1904).

21 In the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which the Government of the Soviet Russia concluded with count Ottokar Czernin, Soviet Russia agreed to pay six billion marks in pure Russian gold to Germany (BD2, 181). It is within the context of the mentioned historical fact that Krleža’s interlocutor speculates: “gentlemen ‘purists’ are paying twenty billion marks to Germany, and in pure gold, I’ll have you know, carissime, in pure Russian gold, twenty billion” (BD2, 181, italics S. M.).  

22 We were reminded of his by the play Cefas (2010.) by The House of Extreme Musical Theatre (Kuća ekstremnog muzičkog kazališta) (D. B. Indoš and Tanja Vrvilo), which began, as Tanja Vrvilo said on one occasion, by consulting the data from Josip Horvat's book The Youth’s Rebellion (2006). In the book the prominent journalist and politician discussed four assassinations, from 1911 to 1914, of which two were executed, felicitously performed in the context of Austin’s theory of speech acts, that is to say felicitous vs. infelicitouperformative utterances.  In the mentioned play Tanja Vrvilo combined the first assassination performed by Luka Jukić with the activities of a revolutionary and anarchistic group Cefas, which was founded in 1900 by Janko Polić Kamov, while he was still a fourteen-year-old Sušak Grammar School student in Rijeka. Namely, the first assassination by Luka Jukić had an intense impact on Tanja Vrvilo’s director’s vision precisely because of the theory vs. practice debate.  To be exact, the organisers of the Assassination had amongst themselves found a practitioner – Luka Jukić volunteered and decided to be the practitioner (Indoš, Vrvilo, according toMarjanić 2014:833–839).

23 This is the journal entry from 21 December 1968 in which Krleža wrote in prallel about the arrival of Kamilo Emerički in Vienna (he was working on The Banners), and about the Saturn V rocket burning its fuel beneath Apollo 8 – “(…) the fact that a machine was invented that could guarantee this rocket would not miss the Moon gravity’s magnetism, fills the mind with strange fear”) – and about the world becoming a barracks where “even girls become cadets”, modern Penthesileias.

24 On the motivation for the escape to Duga Rijeka, following the experience with the National Council, Vitomir Korać and others, etc., which was the source of material for the play Wolfhound, Krleža inter alia mentions: “This is where I, a young man of twentyseven, more or less a whippersnapper, discovered that there were mean people such as these, that there were scoundrels, ruffians, brigands…” (Krleža, according toČengić 1990:71).

25 Entry on the Premiere of “Golgotha” 3 November 1922 Manuscript from 4 November 1922 (BD2, 381–392) rounded off the journal entries of 1922 (second edition of Bygone Days), which were later followed by the Supplement to Bygone Days. The entry about the mentioned premiere was first published in Borba daily (1, 2, and 3 May 1965), whereas Krleža introduced it in the second edition of Bygone Days (Krležijana 2:232).

26 Dunja Detoni Dujmić indicates that in the final spectacular fervour of Zofka Kveder for Yugoslavism and Geater Serbia hegemony was helped by the marriage to Juraj Demetrović, “a politician and a provincial commissioner for Croatia, who vehemently advocated the ideology of a united Yugoslavian nation” (Detoni Dujmić 1998:195).

27 Cf. Kristijan’s negation of Bakunin’s direct action (whereas he defines his own concept by Marxist ideologues) and Pavle’s anarchistic and individualist action (Krleža 1988:249, 281).

28 Cf. Krleža’s entry Kraljevica 18 April 1920, from the speech at Hreljina Fort for the year of 1920.

29 Historical and phenomenological essay Thirty years ago (1917–47) was published in  Republika periodical (1947, 11) accompanied by Notes to the essay: Thirty years ago, and Krleža introduced it on the pages of Bygone Days (first edition 1956) (cf.Krležijana 2:235–236).

30 Regarding stereotyping, it should definitely include the issue of (re)presentation in literature, which was problematized by Darko Suvin for example, in the article Can people be (re)presented in literature? Namely, since narrative space and narrative time most often represent a transposition of extraliterary concepts of space and time, the narrative figures most often represent extraliterary notions about people. Briefly, in the interpretation of psychemic narrative figures we should, as Darko Suvin continues to underline, bear in mind that they are literary simulacra of people (Suvin 1988:97).

31 Marc Ferro points out that since 1880 numerous articles and books were published about what war would be like, however, only H. G. Wells (David Icke would add for Wells – the writer of the Fabian Society) , designer Albert Robida, and a Russian theoretician Ivan Blok claimed that war would be industrialized with millions of casualties and mobilizing entire nations. The papers on war became even more proliferate after 1906, towards the beginning of the Russo-Japanese war. “People were mentally prepared” (Ferro 1973:30). It is known that until the end of 1914 almost half the students in the Austrian part of the Monarchy volunteered to join the army, hence the members of cultural elite such as Ludwig Wittgenstein and Oskar Kokoschka, also voluntarily joined the war and fought against Russia (Stevenson 2014:431–432).

1 U daljnjim navodima drugog izdanja Davnih dana (Dnevnik 1914–17: Davni dani I, Dnevnik 1918–22: Davni dani II) iz 1977. godine koristim kratice DD i DD2. Dnevničko-memoarski zapisi Miroslava Krleže (Davni dani. Zapisi 1914–1921, Zagreb, 1956.; Dnevnik 1–5, Sarajevo, 1977.) obasižu vremenski raspon od 1914. do 1969. godine, dakle 55 godina autorova života.

2 Ovaj članak pišem kao svojevrsnu re-interpretaciju vlastite interpretacije iz 2005. godine (Marjanić 2005), potaknuta nužnošću uvođenja određenih nadopuna iz retrospektive od gotovo 11 godina, u kontekstu forme re-performansa i izvedbenih re-interpretacija kakve je ponudila Marina Abramović u svom projektu Seven Easy Pieces (2005.).

3 U tom se smislu uspostavlja paralelizam između povijesnog i političkog horizonta Krležinih triju djela: Davni dani: 1914.–1921./1922. (drugo izdanje prošireno je političkim i povijesnim horizontom 1922. godine), Deset krvavih godina. Refleksije između 1914–1924 (1924., 1937.) i Zastave (Forum, 1962.–1968.; Zagreb: Zora, 1967.; Sarajevo: Oslobođenje, 1976.), pri čemu je Ivo Frangeš odredio Zastave kao najautobiografskije Krležino djelo (Frangeš 1977:340). Upravo je politička antropologinja Dunja Rihtman-Auguštin ponudila prvo iščitavanje Krležine antropologije balkanskih tipova i mentaliteta, ističući kako je u Zastavama Krleža ostvario antropološku studiju Balkana i kao metafore i kao stereotipa (Rihtman-Auguštin 1997:32).

4 Nije slučajno što Davne dane Krleža otvara fragmentom legende Saloma u kojoj je demaskirao, ustoličio jugoproroka Johanaana aka Ivana Meštrovića i njegovu maketu Vidovdanskog hrama (1907.–1912.). Dramu, legendu antiwildeovske inspiracije u kojoj je Vječno Žensko pobijedilo virilnu volju za moć objavljuje 49 godina nakon (Forum, 1963., br. 10) toga prvoga dnevničkog zapisa kojim otvara Davne dane (usp.Marjanić 2005).

5 Krležinoj vojničkoj anabazi prethodila je još jedna osobna Golgota; naime, zbog sukoba s razrednikom Dragutinom Müllerom (Lasić 1982:62–64) u Kraljevskoj velikoj donjogradskoj gimnaziji Krleža 1906. seli u Kraljevsku veliku gornjogradsku gimnaziju. Međutim, školske se nedaće i ovdje gomilaju te sukobi s profesorima dovode do toga da po završetku četvrtog razreda odluči školovanje nastaviti u vojnoj školi te 1908. odlazi na vojno školovanje u Ugarsku (Ugarska kraljevska kadetska škola u Pečuhu) kako bi izbjegao sredinu – Zagreb – u kojoj se osjećao poniženim i uvrijeđenim nakon što je propao u četvrtom razredu iz tri predmeta (premaČengić 1985:276).

6 Naime, Stanko Lasić antitetičnost određuje kao konstruktivno načelo Krležina književnog korpusa, ali i njegove osobnosti (Lasić 1989:39–40, 343;1982:102).

7 Danko-David Slović nastoji nadopuniti Lasićevo i Zelmanovićevo istraživanje o Krležinu dvostrukom bijegu u Srbiju za vrijeme Balkanskih ratova te navodi kako je riječ samo o legendi, odnosno da se radilo o špijunskoj operaciji u koju je Krležu uključio obavještajni časnik Maximilian Ronge. Među ostalim tvrdi: “U tom smislu s Krležom je obavljeno više razgovora u smislu obavještajne obuke” (Slović 2014). Jedan od recenzenata moga članka istaknuo je potrebu za revizijom navedena Krležina putešestvija: “Staromodno, historiografski, moram reći da će prije ili kasnije morati doći vrijeme da se kritikom izvora propitaju Krležini iskazi u vezi s 'Bregalnicom'. Prvo, uputio se na 'Bregalnicu' u situaciji kada je I. balkanski rat bio apsolviran, odnosno u situaciji kada je bilo manje-više sigurno da će se Balkanski savez raspasti i da slijedi sukob među saveznicima. Nameće se pitanje zašto je uopće išao tamo kada je mogao anticipirati što bi se moglo dogoditi? Daljnje je pitanje zašto je išao na srpsku stranu htijući ući u srpsku vojsku u takvim okolnostima?”

8 Sentimentalnu viziju južnoslavenskog ujedinjenja pod konceptom Vidovdanskog hrama Ivana Meštrovića (jugoslavenstvo pod Karađorđevićima) na Bregalnici je doživio u kronotopskom paralelizmu kao bengalsku vatru jugoiluzija (DD, 248). Presudna je, čini se, za Krležino razočarenje u nacionalističko-iluzionističku ideologiju bila bitka na Bregalnici 1913. godine, koje se on poslije sjećao, a o kojoj je pisao i u romanu Zastave (Vučković 1979:133–134.). Ukratko, 1913. godina svojevrsna je liminalna godina Krležine psihobiografije zbog iskustva Bregalnice – Krležina učešća u Balkanskim ratovima kao neslavnog završetka dobrovoljnog odlaska na ratište te zaokret od nacionalističke ideologije u socijalističku, što je rezultiralo dramatičnim rušenjem mladenačkih ideala, kako je to i istaknuo Zlatko Sudović u dokumentarnom filmu o Miroslavu Krleži (1978.).  O Krležinoj negaciji mesijanističkih utvora Meštrovićeve umjetnosti toga doba usp.Marjanić 2005:58–64. U navedenoj knjizi usp. npr. poglavlje “Literarni govor o Šeherezadi, Heliogabalu i Zaratustri-Meštroviću”.

9 Stanko Lasić u prvom dijelu Krležologije pridodaje kako se u literaturi malo govori o fazi Krležina jugoslavenskoga nacionalnog buntovništva koje nije nestalo nakon Bregalnice, “kako nas je on više puta želio uvjeriti. Prečesto se zaboravlja na Krležinu suradnju u Hrvatskoj njivi i Književnom jugu u presudnim godinama njegova definitivnog idejnog formiranja” (Lasić 1989:104).

10 Zapis Iza kulisa godine 1918 (Republika, 1967., br. 7–8) Krleža uvodi u drugo izdanje Davnih dana (Bibliografija Miroslava Krleže 1999:145).

11 O odustajanju od svih pogleda na svijet, u kontekstu Krležina sukoba na ljevici, jer “i mjesečina može biti pogled na svijet”, usp.Marjanić 2015.

12 Atribut “tipični trabant Hrvatsko-srpske koalicije” označuje ulogu Vitomira Koraća kao jednoga od prvaka Socijaldemokratske stranke Hrvatske i Slavonije na koju se oslanjala kontrarevolucionarna politika Hrvatsko-srpske koalicije, suzbijajući revolucionarne pokrete u Hrvatskoj nastale pod utjecajem Oktobarske revolucije. Atribut “i neće proći ni godina dana, a gospodin pojavit će se u jednom od kraljevskih SHS-kabineta kao ministar” demaskira ulogu Vitomira Koraća kao ministra za socijalnu politiku u kabinetu Stojana Protića u vrijeme afere Diamantstein, događaje iz ljeta 1919. kada je policija uhitila komunističke predvodnike pod optužbom da su u suradnji s mađarskom komunom namjeravali provesti prevrat u Jugoslaviji.

13 O broju stradalih u okviru pojedinih država usp.Ferro 1973:251.

14 Navodim jedan od Krležinih konstativa iz Davnih dana o kolumbovskim optimalnim projekcijama u budućnost: “U ime legija mrtvih jedini čovjek koji govori danas u svijetu, to je Lenjin i nitko više” (DD2, 80). Ili kao što pod datumom 20. XII. 1917. bilježi kako bi trebalo napisati knjigu o milijunima razgovora o revoluciji i kapitalu i zato: “… pjevam tebi pjesmu, Veliki Kolumbo! Sretan ti put u nepovrat!” (DD, 360), što je metafora za ekspresionističku potragu za nemogućim (Lauer 2013:40). O paralelizmu, povijesnoj analogiji Kolumbova krilata lađa – Lenjinova “Aurora”, usp.Marjanić 2005.

15 O tome da nije bila riječ o potpisivanju Deklaracije nego o glasanju, glasovanju podizanjem ruku u tadašnjem Društvu književnika Hrvatske usp.Hećimović 2013.

16 U polemici je Josip Bach spočitnuo Krleži i to da je “poput Petra zatajio Krista – Lenjina ili Trockog, kojima je bio posvećen Cristoval Colon u manuskriptu” (Krležijana 1:495–498).

17 O Brest-litovskom miru i dramatizaciji među domaćim antantofilskim krugovima, o sukobu dviju ideja slavenstva – jugorojalističkoj i lenjinski nastrojenoj komponenti, usp.Marjanić 2005:293–332.

18 Oponirajući trabant ideosferu ruske politike određuje i Hamletovim političko-psihološkim konstativom: “... ima tu nečeg trulog u vašoj državi Danskoj” (DD2, 185), uspoređujući rusku politiku “s politikom grofa Czernina i pruskih junkera” kojoj je cilj izbavljenje Austrije (DD2, 184–185), a rusku politiku cinički određuje kao historijsku ulogu Šajlokâ ([Shakespeareov Mletački trgovac]DD2, 187) koji “su prodali Ukrajinu Nijemcima”: “... kad je Car stajao s Japancima u borbi na život i smrt, gospoda su digla pobunu, a sada će ta ista gospoda Japancima priznati ne samo Mandžuriju nego i Amur i Vladivostok, pa to je rasprodaja ruske zemlje, sve fuć, jedamput zauvijek, eto, to je historijska uloga vaših Šajloka, oni da se bore protiv carizma, pa to je prosto smiješno, zar ne vidite da su prodali Ukrajinu Nijemcima” (DD2, 187; kurziv S. M.).

19 Navedeni komentar u podrupku Krleža bilježi iz perspektive 1967. godine kada piše i predgovor Razgovoru o Brest-Litovsku (1918) kojim daje “historijsku pozadinu takvih dijaloga kao što je ovaj” (DD2, 177).

20 “'Tako se Kerenski – kornilovac, razišao s Kornilovom slučajno, a produžio da bude u najintimnijem savezu sa drugim kornilovcima', pisao je Lenjin” (Bosiljčić 1966:76). Ideologemi neimenovanog trabanta Hrvatsko-srpske koalicije i njegove konstelacije performativne moći, u okviru koje se uglavnom strategijski opredjeljuje za argumentum ad hominem u odnosu na sugovornika Krležu, kojima optužuje Sovjete da su potpisujući ugovor o miru u Brest-Litovsku, među ostalima i s Austro-Ugarskom, priznali pravo njezina postojanja kao države i time poništili načela vlastite revolucionarne borbe, prije svega prava naroda na samoodređenje, označeni su ideologemima književnog stvaralaštva Dostojevskoga kao i Andrejevljevim Crvenim smijehom (1904.).

21 Mirovnim ugovorom u Brest-Litovsku koji je potpisala vlada Sovjetske Rusije s grofom Ottokarom Czerninom, Sovjetska se Rusija obvezala da će Njemačkoj platiti šest milijardi maraka u čistom ruskom zlatu (DD2, 181). U okviru navedene povijesne činjenice Krležin sugovornik spekulira kako “gospoda 'čistunci' plaćaju Njemačkoj dvadeset milijarda maraka, i to, molit ćemo lijepo, u suhom zlatu, carissime, u čistom ruskom zlatu, dvadeset milijarda” (DD2, 181; kurziv S. M.).

22 Na sve nas je to podsjetila predstava Cefas (2010.) Kuće ekstremnoga muzičkog kazališta (D. B. Indoš i Tanja Vrvilo) koja je krenula, kako je to jednom prigodom Tanja Vrvilo istaknula, od podataka iz knjige Josipa Horvata Pobuna omladine (2006.) u kojoj je taj istaknuti novinar i političar obradio četiri atentata od 1911. do 1914. godine, a od kojih su samo dva počinjena, uspješno izvedena u kontekstu Austinove teorije govornih činova, odnosno uspješnosti ili neuspješnosti performativa. U navedenoj predstavi Tanja Vrvilo spojila je prvi atentat u životnoj izvedbi Luke Jukića kao i aktivnosti revolucionarno-anarhističke skupine Cefas koju je 1900. godine, dakle, u svojoj četrnaestoj godini organizirao Janko Polić Kamov, kao đak Sušačke gimnazije u Rijeci. Naime, taj je prvi atentat Luke Jukića obuzeo redateljske vizure Tanje Vrvilo, i to upravo zbog rasprave između teorije i prakse. Naime, organizatori atentata između sebe su pronašli praktičara – Luka Jukić odlučio je biti praktičar (Indoš i Vrvilo, premaMarjanić 2014:833–839).

23 Riječ je o dnevničkom zapisu pod datumom 21. prosinca 1968. u kojem Krleža zapisuje bilješku o dolasku Kamila Emeričkoga u Beč (rad na Zastavama), o tome da je raketa Saturn 5 opalila svoju patronu s Apollom 8 – “… da se pronašla mašina koja garantira da ova raketa neće promašiti magnetski krug Mjesečeve gravitacije, to obuzima pamet čudnim strahom” – te o tome da svijet postaje kasarna gdje “i djevojke postaju kadeti”, suvremene Pentesileje.

24 O motivaciji bijega u Dugu Rijeku, nakon iskustva s Narodnim vijećem, Vitomirom Koraćem i kompanijom itd., gdje je nastao materijal za dramu Vučjak, među ostalim, Krleža navodi: “I tu sam ja kao mladić koji je, na koncu, imao dvadeset i sedam godina, manje-više šmrkavac, prvi put konstatirao da postoje tako pokvareni ljudi, da postoje nitkovi, hulje, razbojnici …” (Krleža, premaČengić 1990:71).

25 Zapis Premijera “Golgote” 3. XI. 1922. Rukopis od 4. novembra 1922. (DD2, 381–392) čini završni okvir/kraj dnevničkih bilježaka 1922. godine (riječ je o drugom izdanju Davnih dana), nakon čega slijede dnevnički “Dodaci”. Zapis o navedenoj premijeri prvi je put objavljen u Borbi (1, 2. i 3. svibnja 1965.), a što se tiče Davnih dana Krleža ga uvodi u drugo izdanje (Krležijana 2:232).

26 Dunja Detoni Dujmić upućuje kako je završnom spektakularnom zanosu Zofke Kveder za jugoslavenstvo i velikosrpski hegemonizam pridonio brak s Jurjem Demetrovićem, “političarom i kraljevskim namjesnikom za Hrvatsku, koji je žestoko zastupao ideologiju jedinstvene jugoslavenske nacije” (Detoni Dujmić 1998:195).

27 Usp. Kristijanovu negaciju bakunjinske direktne akcije (dok vlastitu koncepciju određuje marksističkim ideologemima) i Pavlove anarhoindividualističke akcije (Krleža 1988:249, 281).

28 Usp. Krležin zapis Kraljevica 18. IV. 1920, iz govora pred Hreljinskom Gradinom za godinu 1920.

29 Povijesno-fenomenološki esej Prije trideset godina (1917–47) objavljen je u Republici (1947., br. 11) s prilogom Napomena uz essay: Prije trideset godina, a Krleža ga uvodi na stranice Davnih dana (prvo izdanje 1956.) (usp.Krležijana 2:235–236).

30 Što se tiče stereotipije, svakako bi trebalo uključiti i pitanje (re)prezentacije u književnosti, koju je problematizirao, primjerice, Darko Suvin u članku Mogu li ljudi biti (re)prezentirani u književnosti? Naime, kako narativni prostor i narativno vrijeme figuriraju kao transpozicija najčešće izvanknjiževnih pojmova prostora i vremena, jednako tako i narativni agensi figuriraju kao transpozicija najčešće izvanknjiževnih pojmova o ljudima. Ukratko, u interpretaciji psihemskih narativnih figura moramo, kako to nadalje subverzivno naglašava Darko Suvin, imati u vidu da su oni književni simulakrumi ljudi (Suvin 1988:97).

31 Marc Ferro ističe kako su od 1880. godine objavljeni brojni članci i knjige o tome kakav bi rat trebao biti, međutim jedino su H. G. Wells (David Icke pridodao bi za njega atribut – fabijanski književnik), dizajner Albert Robida i ruski teoretičar Ivan Blok tvrdili da će rat biti industrijaliziran s milijunima mrtvih i s mobilizacijom čitavih nacija. Pritom su radovi o ratu postali još brojniji nakon 1906. godine, početkom rusko-japanskog rata. “Ljudi su bili mentalno pripremljeni” (Ferro 1973:30). Poznato je da se do kraja 1914. godine gotovo polovica studenata u austrijskom dijelu Monarhije dragovoljno javila u vojsku, te su se tako i pripadnici kulturne elite, npr. Ludwig Wittgenstein i Oskar Kokoschka, dobrovoljno javili u rat i borili protiv Rusije (Stevenson 2014:431–432).

1 When quoting from the second edition of Bygone Days (Journal 1914-17: Bygone Days I, Journal 1918-22: Bygone Days II) from 1977, I will be using acronyms BD and BD2. Diary-memoirist entries by Miroslav Krleža (Bygone Days. Entries 1914–1921, Zagreb 1956; Journal 1–5, Sarajevo 1977) span the period from 1914 to 1969, ergo 55 years of the author's life.

2 I wrote this paper as a sort of reinterpretation of my own interpretation from 2005 (Marjanić 2005), prompted by the necessity of introducing certain additions from a vantage point of almost 11 years in hindsight, in the context of re-performance and performance reinterpretations which were provided by Marina Abramović in her project Seven Easy Pieces (2005).

3 In this regard, parallels can be drawn between a historical and a political horizon in the three of Krleža’s works: Bygone Days: 1914–1921/1922 (second edition extended by the political and historical horizon of 1922), Ten Years Soaked in Blood. Reflections between 1914–1924 (1924/1937) and The Banners (Forum, 1962–1968; Zagreb – Zora, 1967; Sarajevo – Oslobođenje, 1976). Ivo Frangeš identified The Banners as Krleža’s most autobiographic work (Frangeš 1977:340). Political anthropologist Dunja Rihtman-Auguštin provided the first interpretation of Krleža’s anthropology of the Balkan characters and mindsets, emphasising that in Banners Krleža succeeded in providing an anthropological study of the Balkans both as a metaphor and as a stereotype (Rihtman-Auguštin 1997:32).

4 It is no coincidence that Krleža opened Bygone Days with a fragment from the legend about Salome in which he unmasked the enthroned Yugoslavism prophet John the Baptist (Johanaan), aka Ivan Meštrović and his model of the Vidovdan Temple (1907–1912). The play, a legend with anti-Wildean inspiration, in which the Eternal Feminine triumphs over the virile desire for power, was published (Forum, 10, 1963) 49 years after the first journal entry that opened Bygone Days (cf.Marjanić 2005).

5 Another private calvary preceeded Krleža’s military anabasis; namely, due to the conflict with his classmaster Dragutin Müller (Lasić 1982:62–64) at the Royal Grammar School in Zagreb’s Lower Town in 1906, he transferred to the Royal Grammar School in the Upper Town. However, he continued to get into trouble with the teachers there, too, which led to his decision, when he was in the fourth grade, to continue his education in a military school. Hence, in 1908 he left for a military school in Hungary (The Royal Hungarian Officer Cadet Academy in Pecs) – in order to avoid Zagreb as an environment in which he felt humiliated and offended having failed  three subjects in the fourth grade (according toČengić 1985:276).

6 Namely, Stanko Lasić defines antitheticality as a constructive principle underlining Krleža's literary opus, but also his personality (Lasić 1989:39–40, 343;1982:102).

7 In an attempt to complement Lasić's and Zelmanović's explorations of Krleža's double escape to Serbia during the Balkan wars, Danko-David Slović points out that this is not only about a legend, but rather about a spying operation in which Krleža was involved by Maximilian Ronge, an intelligence officer. Among other things, he claims: “To this end multiple interviews were conducted with Krleža regarding intelligence training” (Slović, 2014, http). One of the reviewers of my paper underlined the need for a revision of Krleža’s voyages: “Oldfashioned, historiographic, I must say that sooner or later there will come a time to examine Krleža’s statements in connection with 'Bregalnica' by critically reviewing the sources. Firstly, he went to 'Bregalnica' in the situation when WWI had practically been at an end, i.e. in the situation when it was more or less certain that Balkan League would collapse and a conflict would ensue among its allies. Therefore, it must be asked why he went there in the first place when he could anticipate what could happen? The question to follow is why did he want to join the Serbian Military under such circumstances?”

8 It is in a way a romantic and political mixture of Starčević-esque love of Croatia and a sentimental vision of South Slavic union shaped by Ivan Meštrović’s Vidovdan Temple concept (Yugoslavism under Karađorđević dynasty), which he experienced at Bregalnica in a chronotopical parallelism as the Bengal lights of the illusion of Yugoslavia (BD, 248). It seems that the battle of Bregalnica in 1913 was crucial to Krleža’s disillusionment with nationalist and illusionist ideology, which he remembered later on and wrote about in his novel The Banners” (Vučković 1979:133–134). To sum up, 1913 was in a way a liminal year of Krleža’s psychological biography due to the Bregalnica experience – Krleža’s participation in the Balkan wars which infamously ended his voluntary going to the front and turning away from the nationalist and towards the socialist ideology, which resulted in a dramatic collapse of the ideals of youth, as Zlatko Sudović emphasised in a documentary about Miroslav Krleža (1978). On Krleža’s negation of the messianic illusions of Meštrović’s art at the time cf.Marjanić 2005:58–64. In the above mentioned book cf. i.e. the chapter “Literary speech on Scheherazade, Heliogabalus, and Zarathustra-Meštrović”.

9 Stanko Lasić adds in the first volume of Krležology that there are few references in literature to Krleža’s Yugoslavian national rebellion which disappeared right after Bregalnica “as he wished to convince us many times. Krleža’s collaboration with the Hrvatska njiva (Croatian field) and Književni jug (Literary south) periodicals in the crucial years of his definitive shaping of ideas” is all too often overlooked (Lasić 1989:104).

10 The entry from Behind the Scenes in 1918 (Republika, 1967, 7–8) was included in the second edition of Bygone Days by Krleža (Bibliografija 1999:145).

11 On giving up all worldviews, in the context of Krleža's dispute among left wing intellectuals, because “even moonlight can be a wordview”, cf.Marjanić 2015.

12 The description “a typical Croato-Serbian coalition hanger-on” denotes Vitomir Korać’s role as one of the champions of the Croatian Social Democratic Party and Slavonia on which the counter-revolutionary politics of the Croato-Serbian coalition rested, suppressing revolutionary movements in Croatia, which emerged under the influence of the October Revolution. The phrase “within less than a year, the gentleman in question would emerge in one of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes Cabinets as a Minister” unmasks Vitomir Korać’s role as a Minister for social policy in Stojan Protić’s Cabinet at the time of Diamantstein  trial, namely the events of the summer of 1919, when the police arrested communist leaders accusing them of cooperating with a Hungarian commune with the intention of overthrowing authorities in Yugoslavia.

13 On the number of casualties per country cf.Ferro 1973:251.

14 I quoted one of Krleža's statements from Bygone Days about Columbian optimal projections into the future: “In the name of the legions of the dead, only one man speaks in the world today and that is Lenin and Lenin alone” (BD2, 80). Also, in the entry under 20 December 1917 he wrote that a book should be written about millions of discussions about the revolution and capital, and that is why: “(...) I dedicate this poem to you, Great Columbus! I bid you farewell into oblivion!” (BD, 360), which is a metaphor for the expressionist search for the impossible (Lauer 2013:40). On the parallelism, historical analogy Columbus’ winged ship – Lenin’s “Aurora” cf.Marjanić 2005.

15 On this occasion in question there was no signing of the Declaration but a vote by the raising of hands at the premises of the Croatian Writers' Association. Hećimović, 2013, URL.

16 In a polemic, Josip Bach reproached Krleža for denying “Christ like Peter” – Lenin or Trotsky, to whom Cristobal Colon had been dedicated in his manuscript (Krležijana 1:495–498).

17 On the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the dramatization among domestic Entente-phile circles, on the conflict between the two ideas of Slavianism – Yugo-Royalist and Lenin leaning components cf.Marjanić 2005:293–332.

18 The opposing hanger-on defines the Russian politics ideosphere by using Hamlet’s political and psychological statement: “(...) something is rotten in your state of Denmark, too” (BD2,185), thus comparing Russian politics “with the politics of count Czernin and Prussian Junkers” whose goal it was to deliver Austria (BD, 184–185), and describes the politics cinically as a historical role of Shylocks ([Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice]BD2, 187) who “sold Ukraine to the Germans”: “(...) while the Emperor stood with the Japanese in a life or death fight, the gentlemen rebelled, and now the same gentlemen would recognize the Japanese authority not only over Manchuria, but also over the Amur Oblast and Vladivostok. Well, this is selling out the Russian land, all gone, once and for all, there, this is the historical role of your Shylocks, them fighting Tsarism, that’s simply ridiculous, don't you see that they sold the Ukraine to the Germans?“ (BD2, 187, italics S. M.).

19 The comment given in a footnote was written by Krleža from the perspective of 1967 when he wrote the introduction to the Discussion on Brest-Litovsk (1918) which provides “historical background to dialogues such as this” (BD2, 177).

20 “’That is how Kerensky – a Kornilov supporter, incidentally parted ways with Kornilov, and went on to form the most intimate of alliances with the other Kornilov supporters’ –-Lenin wrote” (Bosiljčić 1966:76). Ideologues of the nameless Croato-Serbian coalition hanger-on and his performative power constellation, within which he mostly strategically opts for argumentum ad hominem in relation to the interlocutor Krleža, by which he accuses the Soviets that by signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, with Austria-Hungary among others, they recognised its right to exist as a state thereby denying the principles of their own revolutionary struggle, primarily the right of a nation to self-determination, which were defined as ideologues in the literary work of Dostoyevsky as well as in Andreyev’s The Red Laugh (1904).

21 In the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which the Government of the Soviet Russia concluded with count Ottokar Czernin, Soviet Russia agreed to pay six billion marks in pure Russian gold to Germany (BD2, 181). It is within the context of the mentioned historical fact that Krleža’s interlocutor speculates: “gentlemen ‘purists’ are paying twenty billion marks to Germany, and in pure gold, I’ll have you know, carissime, in pure Russian gold, twenty billion” (BD2, 181, italics S. M.).  

22 We were reminded of his by the play Cefas (2010.) by The House of Extreme Musical Theatre (Kuća ekstremnog muzičkog kazališta) (D. B. Indoš and Tanja Vrvilo), which began, as Tanja Vrvilo said on one occasion, by consulting the data from Josip Horvat's book The Youth’s Rebellion (2006). In the book the prominent journalist and politician discussed four assassinations, from 1911 to 1914, of which two were executed, felicitously performed in the context of Austin’s theory of speech acts, that is to say felicitous vs. infelicitouperformative utterances.  In the mentioned play Tanja Vrvilo combined the first assassination performed by Luka Jukić with the activities of a revolutionary and anarchistic group Cefas, which was founded in 1900 by Janko Polić Kamov, while he was still a fourteen-year-old Sušak Grammar School student in Rijeka. Namely, the first assassination by Luka Jukić had an intense impact on Tanja Vrvilo’s director’s vision precisely because of the theory vs. practice debate.  To be exact, the organisers of the Assassination had amongst themselves found a practitioner – Luka Jukić volunteered and decided to be the practitioner (Indoš, Vrvilo, according toMarjanić 2014:833–839).

23 This is the journal entry from 21 December 1968 in which Krleža wrote in prallel about the arrival of Kamilo Emerički in Vienna (he was working on The Banners), and about the Saturn V rocket burning its fuel beneath Apollo 8 – “(…) the fact that a machine was invented that could guarantee this rocket would not miss the Moon gravity’s magnetism, fills the mind with strange fear”) – and about the world becoming a barracks where “even girls become cadets”, modern Penthesileias.

24 On the motivation for the escape to Duga Rijeka, following the experience with the National Council, Vitomir Korać and others, etc., which was the source of material for the play Wolfhound, Krleža inter alia mentions: “This is where I, a young man of twentyseven, more or less a whippersnapper, discovered that there were mean people such as these, that there were scoundrels, ruffians, brigands…” (Krleža, according toČengić 1990:71).

25 Entry on the Premiere of “Golgotha” 3 November 1922 Manuscript from 4 November 1922 (BD2, 381–392) rounded off the journal entries of 1922 (second edition of Bygone Days), which were later followed by the Supplement to Bygone Days. The entry about the mentioned premiere was first published in Borba daily (1, 2, and 3 May 1965), whereas Krleža introduced it in the second edition of Bygone Days (Krležijana 2:232).

26 Dunja Detoni Dujmić indicates that in the final spectacular fervour of Zofka Kveder for Yugoslavism and Geater Serbia hegemony was helped by the marriage to Juraj Demetrović, “a politician and a provincial commissioner for Croatia, who vehemently advocated the ideology of a united Yugoslavian nation” (Detoni Dujmić 1998:195).

27 Cf. Kristijan’s negation of Bakunin’s direct action (whereas he defines his own concept by Marxist ideologues) and Pavle’s anarchistic and individualist action (Krleža 1988:249, 281).

28 Cf. Krleža’s entry Kraljevica 18 April 1920, from the speech at Hreljina Fort for the year of 1920.

29 Historical and phenomenological essay Thirty years ago (1917–47) was published in  Republika periodical (1947, 11) accompanied by Notes to the essay: Thirty years ago, and Krleža introduced it on the pages of Bygone Days (first edition 1956) (cf.Krležijana 2:235–236).

30 Regarding stereotyping, it should definitely include the issue of (re)presentation in literature, which was problematized by Darko Suvin for example, in the article Can people be (re)presented in literature? Namely, since narrative space and narrative time most often represent a transposition of extraliterary concepts of space and time, the narrative figures most often represent extraliterary notions about people. Briefly, in the interpretation of psychemic narrative figures we should, as Darko Suvin continues to underline, bear in mind that they are literary simulacra of people (Suvin 1988:97).

31 Marc Ferro points out that since 1880 numerous articles and books were published about what war would be like, however, only H. G. Wells (David Icke would add for Wells – the writer of the Fabian Society) , designer Albert Robida, and a Russian theoretician Ivan Blok claimed that war would be industrialized with millions of casualties and mobilizing entire nations. The papers on war became even more proliferate after 1906, towards the beginning of the Russo-Japanese war. “People were mentally prepared” (Ferro 1973:30). It is known that until the end of 1914 almost half the students in the Austrian part of the Monarchy volunteered to join the army, hence the members of cultural elite such as Ludwig Wittgenstein and Oskar Kokoschka, also voluntarily joined the war and fought against Russia (Stevenson 2014:431–432).

1 U daljnjim navodima drugog izdanja Davnih dana (Dnevnik 1914–17: Davni dani I, Dnevnik 1918–22: Davni dani II) iz 1977. godine koristim kratice DD i DD2. Dnevničko-memoarski zapisi Miroslava Krleže (Davni dani. Zapisi 1914–1921, Zagreb, 1956.; Dnevnik 1–5, Sarajevo, 1977.) obasižu vremenski raspon od 1914. do 1969. godine, dakle 55 godina autorova života.

2 Ovaj članak pišem kao svojevrsnu re-interpretaciju vlastite interpretacije iz 2005. godine (Marjanić 2005), potaknuta nužnošću uvođenja određenih nadopuna iz retrospektive od gotovo 11 godina, u kontekstu forme re-performansa i izvedbenih re-interpretacija kakve je ponudila Marina Abramović u svom projektu Seven Easy Pieces (2005.).

3 U tom se smislu uspostavlja paralelizam između povijesnog i političkog horizonta Krležinih triju djela: Davni dani: 1914.–1921./1922. (drugo izdanje prošireno je političkim i povijesnim horizontom 1922. godine), Deset krvavih godina. Refleksije između 1914–1924 (1924., 1937.) i Zastave (Forum, 1962.–1968.; Zagreb: Zora, 1967.; Sarajevo: Oslobođenje, 1976.), pri čemu je Ivo Frangeš odredio Zastave kao najautobiografskije Krležino djelo (Frangeš 1977:340). Upravo je politička antropologinja Dunja Rihtman-Auguštin ponudila prvo iščitavanje Krležine antropologije balkanskih tipova i mentaliteta, ističući kako je u Zastavama Krleža ostvario antropološku studiju Balkana i kao metafore i kao stereotipa (Rihtman-Auguštin 1997:32).

4 Nije slučajno što Davne dane Krleža otvara fragmentom legende Saloma u kojoj je demaskirao, ustoličio jugoproroka Johanaana aka Ivana Meštrovića i njegovu maketu Vidovdanskog hrama (1907.–1912.). Dramu, legendu antiwildeovske inspiracije u kojoj je Vječno Žensko pobijedilo virilnu volju za moć objavljuje 49 godina nakon (Forum, 1963., br. 10) toga prvoga dnevničkog zapisa kojim otvara Davne dane (usp.Marjanić 2005).

5 Krležinoj vojničkoj anabazi prethodila je još jedna osobna Golgota; naime, zbog sukoba s razrednikom Dragutinom Müllerom (Lasić 1982:62–64) u Kraljevskoj velikoj donjogradskoj gimnaziji Krleža 1906. seli u Kraljevsku veliku gornjogradsku gimnaziju. Međutim, školske se nedaće i ovdje gomilaju te sukobi s profesorima dovode do toga da po završetku četvrtog razreda odluči školovanje nastaviti u vojnoj školi te 1908. odlazi na vojno školovanje u Ugarsku (Ugarska kraljevska kadetska škola u Pečuhu) kako bi izbjegao sredinu – Zagreb – u kojoj se osjećao poniženim i uvrijeđenim nakon što je propao u četvrtom razredu iz tri predmeta (premaČengić 1985:276).

6 Naime, Stanko Lasić antitetičnost određuje kao konstruktivno načelo Krležina književnog korpusa, ali i njegove osobnosti (Lasić 1989:39–40, 343;1982:102).

7 Danko-David Slović nastoji nadopuniti Lasićevo i Zelmanovićevo istraživanje o Krležinu dvostrukom bijegu u Srbiju za vrijeme Balkanskih ratova te navodi kako je riječ samo o legendi, odnosno da se radilo o špijunskoj operaciji u koju je Krležu uključio obavještajni časnik Maximilian Ronge. Među ostalim tvrdi: “U tom smislu s Krležom je obavljeno više razgovora u smislu obavještajne obuke” (Slović 2014). Jedan od recenzenata moga članka istaknuo je potrebu za revizijom navedena Krležina putešestvija: “Staromodno, historiografski, moram reći da će prije ili kasnije morati doći vrijeme da se kritikom izvora propitaju Krležini iskazi u vezi s 'Bregalnicom'. Prvo, uputio se na 'Bregalnicu' u situaciji kada je I. balkanski rat bio apsolviran, odnosno u situaciji kada je bilo manje-više sigurno da će se Balkanski savez raspasti i da slijedi sukob među saveznicima. Nameće se pitanje zašto je uopće išao tamo kada je mogao anticipirati što bi se moglo dogoditi? Daljnje je pitanje zašto je išao na srpsku stranu htijući ući u srpsku vojsku u takvim okolnostima?”

8 Sentimentalnu viziju južnoslavenskog ujedinjenja pod konceptom Vidovdanskog hrama Ivana Meštrovića (jugoslavenstvo pod Karađorđevićima) na Bregalnici je doživio u kronotopskom paralelizmu kao bengalsku vatru jugoiluzija (DD, 248). Presudna je, čini se, za Krležino razočarenje u nacionalističko-iluzionističku ideologiju bila bitka na Bregalnici 1913. godine, koje se on poslije sjećao, a o kojoj je pisao i u romanu Zastave (Vučković 1979:133–134.). Ukratko, 1913. godina svojevrsna je liminalna godina Krležine psihobiografije zbog iskustva Bregalnice – Krležina učešća u Balkanskim ratovima kao neslavnog završetka dobrovoljnog odlaska na ratište te zaokret od nacionalističke ideologije u socijalističku, što je rezultiralo dramatičnim rušenjem mladenačkih ideala, kako je to i istaknuo Zlatko Sudović u dokumentarnom filmu o Miroslavu Krleži (1978.).  O Krležinoj negaciji mesijanističkih utvora Meštrovićeve umjetnosti toga doba usp.Marjanić 2005:58–64. U navedenoj knjizi usp. npr. poglavlje “Literarni govor o Šeherezadi, Heliogabalu i Zaratustri-Meštroviću”.

9 Stanko Lasić u prvom dijelu Krležologije pridodaje kako se u literaturi malo govori o fazi Krležina jugoslavenskoga nacionalnog buntovništva koje nije nestalo nakon Bregalnice, “kako nas je on više puta želio uvjeriti. Prečesto se zaboravlja na Krležinu suradnju u Hrvatskoj njivi i Književnom jugu u presudnim godinama njegova definitivnog idejnog formiranja” (Lasić 1989:104).

10 Zapis Iza kulisa godine 1918 (Republika, 1967., br. 7–8) Krleža uvodi u drugo izdanje Davnih dana (Bibliografija Miroslava Krleže 1999:145).

11 O odustajanju od svih pogleda na svijet, u kontekstu Krležina sukoba na ljevici, jer “i mjesečina može biti pogled na svijet”, usp.Marjanić 2015.

12 Atribut “tipični trabant Hrvatsko-srpske koalicije” označuje ulogu Vitomira Koraća kao jednoga od prvaka Socijaldemokratske stranke Hrvatske i Slavonije na koju se oslanjala kontrarevolucionarna politika Hrvatsko-srpske koalicije, suzbijajući revolucionarne pokrete u Hrvatskoj nastale pod utjecajem Oktobarske revolucije. Atribut “i neće proći ni godina dana, a gospodin pojavit će se u jednom od kraljevskih SHS-kabineta kao ministar” demaskira ulogu Vitomira Koraća kao ministra za socijalnu politiku u kabinetu Stojana Protića u vrijeme afere Diamantstein, događaje iz ljeta 1919. kada je policija uhitila komunističke predvodnike pod optužbom da su u suradnji s mađarskom komunom namjeravali provesti prevrat u Jugoslaviji.

13 O broju stradalih u okviru pojedinih država usp.Ferro 1973:251.

14 Navodim jedan od Krležinih konstativa iz Davnih dana o kolumbovskim optimalnim projekcijama u budućnost: “U ime legija mrtvih jedini čovjek koji govori danas u svijetu, to je Lenjin i nitko više” (DD2, 80). Ili kao što pod datumom 20. XII. 1917. bilježi kako bi trebalo napisati knjigu o milijunima razgovora o revoluciji i kapitalu i zato: “… pjevam tebi pjesmu, Veliki Kolumbo! Sretan ti put u nepovrat!” (DD, 360), što je metafora za ekspresionističku potragu za nemogućim (Lauer 2013:40). O paralelizmu, povijesnoj analogiji Kolumbova krilata lađa – Lenjinova “Aurora”, usp.Marjanić 2005.

15 O tome da nije bila riječ o potpisivanju Deklaracije nego o glasanju, glasovanju podizanjem ruku u tadašnjem Društvu književnika Hrvatske usp.Hećimović 2013.

16 U polemici je Josip Bach spočitnuo Krleži i to da je “poput Petra zatajio Krista – Lenjina ili Trockog, kojima je bio posvećen Cristoval Colon u manuskriptu” (Krležijana 1:495–498).

17 O Brest-litovskom miru i dramatizaciji među domaćim antantofilskim krugovima, o sukobu dviju ideja slavenstva – jugorojalističkoj i lenjinski nastrojenoj komponenti, usp.Marjanić 2005:293–332.

18 Oponirajući trabant ideosferu ruske politike određuje i Hamletovim političko-psihološkim konstativom: “... ima tu nečeg trulog u vašoj državi Danskoj” (DD2, 185), uspoređujući rusku politiku “s politikom grofa Czernina i pruskih junkera” kojoj je cilj izbavljenje Austrije (DD2, 184–185), a rusku politiku cinički određuje kao historijsku ulogu Šajlokâ ([Shakespeareov Mletački trgovac]DD2, 187) koji “su prodali Ukrajinu Nijemcima”: “... kad je Car stajao s Japancima u borbi na život i smrt, gospoda su digla pobunu, a sada će ta ista gospoda Japancima priznati ne samo Mandžuriju nego i Amur i Vladivostok, pa to je rasprodaja ruske zemlje, sve fuć, jedamput zauvijek, eto, to je historijska uloga vaših Šajloka, oni da se bore protiv carizma, pa to je prosto smiješno, zar ne vidite da su prodali Ukrajinu Nijemcima” (DD2, 187; kurziv S. M.).

19 Navedeni komentar u podrupku Krleža bilježi iz perspektive 1967. godine kada piše i predgovor Razgovoru o Brest-Litovsku (1918) kojim daje “historijsku pozadinu takvih dijaloga kao što je ovaj” (DD2, 177).

20 “'Tako se Kerenski – kornilovac, razišao s Kornilovom slučajno, a produžio da bude u najintimnijem savezu sa drugim kornilovcima', pisao je Lenjin” (Bosiljčić 1966:76). Ideologemi neimenovanog trabanta Hrvatsko-srpske koalicije i njegove konstelacije performativne moći, u okviru koje se uglavnom strategijski opredjeljuje za argumentum ad hominem u odnosu na sugovornika Krležu, kojima optužuje Sovjete da su potpisujući ugovor o miru u Brest-Litovsku, među ostalima i s Austro-Ugarskom, priznali pravo njezina postojanja kao države i time poništili načela vlastite revolucionarne borbe, prije svega prava naroda na samoodređenje, označeni su ideologemima književnog stvaralaštva Dostojevskoga kao i Andrejevljevim Crvenim smijehom (1904.).

21 Mirovnim ugovorom u Brest-Litovsku koji je potpisala vlada Sovjetske Rusije s grofom Ottokarom Czerninom, Sovjetska se Rusija obvezala da će Njemačkoj platiti šest milijardi maraka u čistom ruskom zlatu (DD2, 181). U okviru navedene povijesne činjenice Krležin sugovornik spekulira kako “gospoda 'čistunci' plaćaju Njemačkoj dvadeset milijarda maraka, i to, molit ćemo lijepo, u suhom zlatu, carissime, u čistom ruskom zlatu, dvadeset milijarda” (DD2, 181; kurziv S. M.).

22 Na sve nas je to podsjetila predstava Cefas (2010.) Kuće ekstremnoga muzičkog kazališta (D. B. Indoš i Tanja Vrvilo) koja je krenula, kako je to jednom prigodom Tanja Vrvilo istaknula, od podataka iz knjige Josipa Horvata Pobuna omladine (2006.) u kojoj je taj istaknuti novinar i političar obradio četiri atentata od 1911. do 1914. godine, a od kojih su samo dva počinjena, uspješno izvedena u kontekstu Austinove teorije govornih činova, odnosno uspješnosti ili neuspješnosti performativa. U navedenoj predstavi Tanja Vrvilo spojila je prvi atentat u životnoj izvedbi Luke Jukića kao i aktivnosti revolucionarno-anarhističke skupine Cefas koju je 1900. godine, dakle, u svojoj četrnaestoj godini organizirao Janko Polić Kamov, kao đak Sušačke gimnazije u Rijeci. Naime, taj je prvi atentat Luke Jukića obuzeo redateljske vizure Tanje Vrvilo, i to upravo zbog rasprave između teorije i prakse. Naime, organizatori atentata između sebe su pronašli praktičara – Luka Jukić odlučio je biti praktičar (Indoš i Vrvilo, premaMarjanić 2014:833–839).

23 Riječ je o dnevničkom zapisu pod datumom 21. prosinca 1968. u kojem Krleža zapisuje bilješku o dolasku Kamila Emeričkoga u Beč (rad na Zastavama), o tome da je raketa Saturn 5 opalila svoju patronu s Apollom 8 – “… da se pronašla mašina koja garantira da ova raketa neće promašiti magnetski krug Mjesečeve gravitacije, to obuzima pamet čudnim strahom” – te o tome da svijet postaje kasarna gdje “i djevojke postaju kadeti”, suvremene Pentesileje.

24 O motivaciji bijega u Dugu Rijeku, nakon iskustva s Narodnim vijećem, Vitomirom Koraćem i kompanijom itd., gdje je nastao materijal za dramu Vučjak, među ostalim, Krleža navodi: “I tu sam ja kao mladić koji je, na koncu, imao dvadeset i sedam godina, manje-više šmrkavac, prvi put konstatirao da postoje tako pokvareni ljudi, da postoje nitkovi, hulje, razbojnici …” (Krleža, premaČengić 1990:71).

25 Zapis Premijera “Golgote” 3. XI. 1922. Rukopis od 4. novembra 1922. (DD2, 381–392) čini završni okvir/kraj dnevničkih bilježaka 1922. godine (riječ je o drugom izdanju Davnih dana), nakon čega slijede dnevnički “Dodaci”. Zapis o navedenoj premijeri prvi je put objavljen u Borbi (1, 2. i 3. svibnja 1965.), a što se tiče Davnih dana Krleža ga uvodi u drugo izdanje (Krležijana 2:232).

26 Dunja Detoni Dujmić upućuje kako je završnom spektakularnom zanosu Zofke Kveder za jugoslavenstvo i velikosrpski hegemonizam pridonio brak s Jurjem Demetrovićem, “političarom i kraljevskim namjesnikom za Hrvatsku, koji je žestoko zastupao ideologiju jedinstvene jugoslavenske nacije” (Detoni Dujmić 1998:195).

27 Usp. Kristijanovu negaciju bakunjinske direktne akcije (dok vlastitu koncepciju određuje marksističkim ideologemima) i Pavlove anarhoindividualističke akcije (Krleža 1988:249, 281).

28 Usp. Krležin zapis Kraljevica 18. IV. 1920, iz govora pred Hreljinskom Gradinom za godinu 1920.

29 Povijesno-fenomenološki esej Prije trideset godina (1917–47) objavljen je u Republici (1947., br. 11) s prilogom Napomena uz essay: Prije trideset godina, a Krleža ga uvodi na stranice Davnih dana (prvo izdanje 1956.) (usp.Krležijana 2:235–236).

30 Što se tiče stereotipije, svakako bi trebalo uključiti i pitanje (re)prezentacije u književnosti, koju je problematizirao, primjerice, Darko Suvin u članku Mogu li ljudi biti (re)prezentirani u književnosti? Naime, kako narativni prostor i narativno vrijeme figuriraju kao transpozicija najčešće izvanknjiževnih pojmova prostora i vremena, jednako tako i narativni agensi figuriraju kao transpozicija najčešće izvanknjiževnih pojmova o ljudima. Ukratko, u interpretaciji psihemskih narativnih figura moramo, kako to nadalje subverzivno naglašava Darko Suvin, imati u vidu da su oni književni simulakrumi ljudi (Suvin 1988:97).

31 Marc Ferro ističe kako su od 1880. godine objavljeni brojni članci i knjige o tome kakav bi rat trebao biti, međutim jedino su H. G. Wells (David Icke pridodao bi za njega atribut – fabijanski književnik), dizajner Albert Robida i ruski teoretičar Ivan Blok tvrdili da će rat biti industrijaliziran s milijunima mrtvih i s mobilizacijom čitavih nacija. Pritom su radovi o ratu postali još brojniji nakon 1906. godine, početkom rusko-japanskog rata. “Ljudi su bili mentalno pripremljeni” (Ferro 1973:30). Poznato je da se do kraja 1914. godine gotovo polovica studenata u austrijskom dijelu Monarhije dragovoljno javila u vojsku, te su se tako i pripadnici kulturne elite, npr. Ludwig Wittgenstein i Oskar Kokoschka, dobrovoljno javili u rat i borili protiv Rusije (Stevenson 2014:431–432).

1 When quoting from the second edition of Bygone Days (Journal 1914-17: Bygone Days I, Journal 1918-22: Bygone Days II) from 1977, I will be using acronyms BD and BD2. Diary-memoirist entries by Miroslav Krleža (Bygone Days. Entries 1914–1921, Zagreb 1956; Journal 1–5, Sarajevo 1977) span the period from 1914 to 1969, ergo 55 years of the author's life.

2 I wrote this paper as a sort of reinterpretation of my own interpretation from 2005 (Marjanić 2005), prompted by the necessity of introducing certain additions from a vantage point of almost 11 years in hindsight, in the context of re-performance and performance reinterpretations which were provided by Marina Abramović in her project Seven Easy Pieces (2005).

3 In this regard, parallels can be drawn between a historical and a political horizon in the three of Krleža’s works: Bygone Days: 1914–1921/1922 (second edition extended by the political and historical horizon of 1922), Ten Years Soaked in Blood. Reflections between 1914–1924 (1924/1937) and The Banners (Forum, 1962–1968; Zagreb – Zora, 1967; Sarajevo – Oslobođenje, 1976). Ivo Frangeš identified The Banners as Krleža’s most autobiographic work (Frangeš 1977:340). Political anthropologist Dunja Rihtman-Auguštin provided the first interpretation of Krleža’s anthropology of the Balkan characters and mindsets, emphasising that in Banners Krleža succeeded in providing an anthropological study of the Balkans both as a metaphor and as a stereotype (Rihtman-Auguštin 1997:32).

4 It is no coincidence that Krleža opened Bygone Days with a fragment from the legend about Salome in which he unmasked the enthroned Yugoslavism prophet John the Baptist (Johanaan), aka Ivan Meštrović and his model of the Vidovdan Temple (1907–1912). The play, a legend with anti-Wildean inspiration, in which the Eternal Feminine triumphs over the virile desire for power, was published (Forum, 10, 1963) 49 years after the first journal entry that opened Bygone Days (cf.Marjanić 2005).

5 Another private calvary preceeded Krleža’s military anabasis; namely, due to the conflict with his classmaster Dragutin Müller (Lasić 1982:62–64) at the Royal Grammar School in Zagreb’s Lower Town in 1906, he transferred to the Royal Grammar School in the Upper Town. However, he continued to get into trouble with the teachers there, too, which led to his decision, when he was in the fourth grade, to continue his education in a military school. Hence, in 1908 he left for a military school in Hungary (The Royal Hungarian Officer Cadet Academy in Pecs) – in order to avoid Zagreb as an environment in which he felt humiliated and offended having failed  three subjects in the fourth grade (according toČengić 1985:276).

6 Namely, Stanko Lasić defines antitheticality as a constructive principle underlining Krleža's literary opus, but also his personality (Lasić 1989:39–40, 343;1982:102).

7 In an attempt to complement Lasić's and Zelmanović's explorations of Krleža's double escape to Serbia during the Balkan wars, Danko-David Slović points out that this is not only about a legend, but rather about a spying operation in which Krleža was involved by Maximilian Ronge, an intelligence officer. Among other things, he claims: “To this end multiple interviews were conducted with Krleža regarding intelligence training” (Slović, 2014, http). One of the reviewers of my paper underlined the need for a revision of Krleža’s voyages: “Oldfashioned, historiographic, I must say that sooner or later there will come a time to examine Krleža’s statements in connection with 'Bregalnica' by critically reviewing the sources. Firstly, he went to 'Bregalnica' in the situation when WWI had practically been at an end, i.e. in the situation when it was more or less certain that Balkan League would collapse and a conflict would ensue among its allies. Therefore, it must be asked why he went there in the first place when he could anticipate what could happen? The question to follow is why did he want to join the Serbian Military under such circumstances?”

8 It is in a way a romantic and political mixture of Starčević-esque love of Croatia and a sentimental vision of South Slavic union shaped by Ivan Meštrović’s Vidovdan Temple concept (Yugoslavism under Karađorđević dynasty), which he experienced at Bregalnica in a chronotopical parallelism as the Bengal lights of the illusion of Yugoslavia (BD, 248). It seems that the battle of Bregalnica in 1913 was crucial to Krleža’s disillusionment with nationalist and illusionist ideology, which he remembered later on and wrote about in his novel The Banners” (Vučković 1979:133–134). To sum up, 1913 was in a way a liminal year of Krleža’s psychological biography due to the Bregalnica experience – Krleža’s participation in the Balkan wars which infamously ended his voluntary going to the front and turning away from the nationalist and towards the socialist ideology, which resulted in a dramatic collapse of the ideals of youth, as Zlatko Sudović emphasised in a documentary about Miroslav Krleža (1978). On Krleža’s negation of the messianic illusions of Meštrović’s art at the time cf.Marjanić 2005:58–64. In the above mentioned book cf. i.e. the chapter “Literary speech on Scheherazade, Heliogabalus, and Zarathustra-Meštrović”.

9 Stanko Lasić adds in the first volume of Krležology that there are few references in literature to Krleža’s Yugoslavian national rebellion which disappeared right after Bregalnica “as he wished to convince us many times. Krleža’s collaboration with the Hrvatska njiva (Croatian field) and Književni jug (Literary south) periodicals in the crucial years of his definitive shaping of ideas” is all too often overlooked (Lasić 1989:104).

10 The entry from Behind the Scenes in 1918 (Republika, 1967, 7–8) was included in the second edition of Bygone Days by Krleža (Bibliografija 1999:145).

11 On giving up all worldviews, in the context of Krleža's dispute among left wing intellectuals, because “even moonlight can be a wordview”, cf.Marjanić 2015.

12 The description “a typical Croato-Serbian coalition hanger-on” denotes Vitomir Korać’s role as one of the champions of the Croatian Social Democratic Party and Slavonia on which the counter-revolutionary politics of the Croato-Serbian coalition rested, suppressing revolutionary movements in Croatia, which emerged under the influence of the October Revolution. The phrase “within less than a year, the gentleman in question would emerge in one of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes Cabinets as a Minister” unmasks Vitomir Korać’s role as a Minister for social policy in Stojan Protić’s Cabinet at the time of Diamantstein  trial, namely the events of the summer of 1919, when the police arrested communist leaders accusing them of cooperating with a Hungarian commune with the intention of overthrowing authorities in Yugoslavia.

13 On the number of casualties per country cf.Ferro 1973:251.

14 I quoted one of Krleža's statements from Bygone Days about Columbian optimal projections into the future: “In the name of the legions of the dead, only one man speaks in the world today and that is Lenin and Lenin alone” (BD2, 80). Also, in the entry under 20 December 1917 he wrote that a book should be written about millions of discussions about the revolution and capital, and that is why: “(...) I dedicate this poem to you, Great Columbus! I bid you farewell into oblivion!” (BD, 360), which is a metaphor for the expressionist search for the impossible (Lauer 2013:40). On the parallelism, historical analogy Columbus’ winged ship – Lenin’s “Aurora” cf.Marjanić 2005.

15 On this occasion in question there was no signing of the Declaration but a vote by the raising of hands at the premises of the Croatian Writers' Association. Hećimović, 2013, URL.

16 In a polemic, Josip Bach reproached Krleža for denying “Christ like Peter” – Lenin or Trotsky, to whom Cristobal Colon had been dedicated in his manuscript (Krležijana 1:495–498).

17 On the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the dramatization among domestic Entente-phile circles, on the conflict between the two ideas of Slavianism – Yugo-Royalist and Lenin leaning components cf.Marjanić 2005:293–332.

18 The opposing hanger-on defines the Russian politics ideosphere by using Hamlet’s political and psychological statement: “(...) something is rotten in your state of Denmark, too” (BD2,185), thus comparing Russian politics “with the politics of count Czernin and Prussian Junkers” whose goal it was to deliver Austria (BD, 184–185), and describes the politics cinically as a historical role of Shylocks ([Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice]BD2, 187) who “sold Ukraine to the Germans”: “(...) while the Emperor stood with the Japanese in a life or death fight, the gentlemen rebelled, and now the same gentlemen would recognize the Japanese authority not only over Manchuria, but also over the Amur Oblast and Vladivostok. Well, this is selling out the Russian land, all gone, once and for all, there, this is the historical role of your Shylocks, them fighting Tsarism, that’s simply ridiculous, don't you see that they sold the Ukraine to the Germans?“ (BD2, 187, italics S. M.).

19 The comment given in a footnote was written by Krleža from the perspective of 1967 when he wrote the introduction to the Discussion on Brest-Litovsk (1918) which provides “historical background to dialogues such as this” (BD2, 177).

20 “’That is how Kerensky – a Kornilov supporter, incidentally parted ways with Kornilov, and went on to form the most intimate of alliances with the other Kornilov supporters’ –-Lenin wrote” (Bosiljčić 1966:76). Ideologues of the nameless Croato-Serbian coalition hanger-on and his performative power constellation, within which he mostly strategically opts for argumentum ad hominem in relation to the interlocutor Krleža, by which he accuses the Soviets that by signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, with Austria-Hungary among others, they recognised its right to exist as a state thereby denying the principles of their own revolutionary struggle, primarily the right of a nation to self-determination, which were defined as ideologues in the literary work of Dostoyevsky as well as in Andreyev’s The Red Laugh (1904).

21 In the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which the Government of the Soviet Russia concluded with count Ottokar Czernin, Soviet Russia agreed to pay six billion marks in pure Russian gold to Germany (BD2, 181). It is within the context of the mentioned historical fact that Krleža’s interlocutor speculates: “gentlemen ‘purists’ are paying twenty billion marks to Germany, and in pure gold, I’ll have you know, carissime, in pure Russian gold, twenty billion” (BD2, 181, italics S. M.).  

22 We were reminded of his by the play Cefas (2010.) by The House of Extreme Musical Theatre (Kuća ekstremnog muzičkog kazališta) (D. B. Indoš and Tanja Vrvilo), which began, as Tanja Vrvilo said on one occasion, by consulting the data from Josip Horvat's book The Youth’s Rebellion (2006). In the book the prominent journalist and politician discussed four assassinations, from 1911 to 1914, of which two were executed, felicitously performed in the context of Austin’s theory of speech acts, that is to say felicitous vs. infelicitouperformative utterances.  In the mentioned play Tanja Vrvilo combined the first assassination performed by Luka Jukić with the activities of a revolutionary and anarchistic group Cefas, which was founded in 1900 by Janko Polić Kamov, while he was still a fourteen-year-old Sušak Grammar School student in Rijeka. Namely, the first assassination by Luka Jukić had an intense impact on Tanja Vrvilo’s director’s vision precisely because of the theory vs. practice debate.  To be exact, the organisers of the Assassination had amongst themselves found a practitioner – Luka Jukić volunteered and decided to be the practitioner (Indoš, Vrvilo, according toMarjanić 2014:833–839).

23 This is the journal entry from 21 December 1968 in which Krleža wrote in prallel about the arrival of Kamilo Emerički in Vienna (he was working on The Banners), and about the Saturn V rocket burning its fuel beneath Apollo 8 – “(…) the fact that a machine was invented that could guarantee this rocket would not miss the Moon gravity’s magnetism, fills the mind with strange fear”) – and about the world becoming a barracks where “even girls become cadets”, modern Penthesileias.

24 On the motivation for the escape to Duga Rijeka, following the experience with the National Council, Vitomir Korać and others, etc., which was the source of material for the play Wolfhound, Krleža inter alia mentions: “This is where I, a young man of twentyseven, more or less a whippersnapper, discovered that there were mean people such as these, that there were scoundrels, ruffians, brigands…” (Krleža, according toČengić 1990:71).

25 Entry on the Premiere of “Golgotha” 3 November 1922 Manuscript from 4 November 1922 (BD2, 381–392) rounded off the journal entries of 1922 (second edition of Bygone Days), which were later followed by the Supplement to Bygone Days. The entry about the mentioned premiere was first published in Borba daily (1, 2, and 3 May 1965), whereas Krleža introduced it in the second edition of Bygone Days (Krležijana 2:232).

26 Dunja Detoni Dujmić indicates that in the final spectacular fervour of Zofka Kveder for Yugoslavism and Geater Serbia hegemony was helped by the marriage to Juraj Demetrović, “a politician and a provincial commissioner for Croatia, who vehemently advocated the ideology of a united Yugoslavian nation” (Detoni Dujmić 1998:195).

27 Cf. Kristijan’s negation of Bakunin’s direct action (whereas he defines his own concept by Marxist ideologues) and Pavle’s anarchistic and individualist action (Krleža 1988:249, 281).

28 Cf. Krleža’s entry Kraljevica 18 April 1920, from the speech at Hreljina Fort for the year of 1920.

29 Historical and phenomenological essay Thirty years ago (1917–47) was published in  Republika periodical (1947, 11) accompanied by Notes to the essay: Thirty years ago, and Krleža introduced it on the pages of Bygone Days (first edition 1956) (cf.Krležijana 2:235–236).

30 Regarding stereotyping, it should definitely include the issue of (re)presentation in literature, which was problematized by Darko Suvin for example, in the article Can people be (re)presented in literature? Namely, since narrative space and narrative time most often represent a transposition of extraliterary concepts of space and time, the narrative figures most often represent extraliterary notions about people. Briefly, in the interpretation of psychemic narrative figures we should, as Darko Suvin continues to underline, bear in mind that they are literary simulacra of people (Suvin 1988:97).

31 Marc Ferro points out that since 1880 numerous articles and books were published about what war would be like, however, only H. G. Wells (David Icke would add for Wells – the writer of the Fabian Society) , designer Albert Robida, and a Russian theoretician Ivan Blok claimed that war would be industrialized with millions of casualties and mobilizing entire nations. The papers on war became even more proliferate after 1906, towards the beginning of the Russo-Japanese war. “People were mentally prepared” (Ferro 1973:30). It is known that until the end of 1914 almost half the students in the Austrian part of the Monarchy volunteered to join the army, hence the members of cultural elite such as Ludwig Wittgenstein and Oskar Kokoschka, also voluntarily joined the war and fought against Russia (Stevenson 2014:431–432).