THE INTELLECTUAL CIRCLE OF MILOVAN GAVAZZI: CORRESPONDENCE WITH SLOVENIAN COLLEAGUES THROUGH THE EXAMPLE OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH ANGELOS BAŠ, 1960-1973

1 A special contribution to the study of relations between the two national fields of ethnology were provided by Croatian-Slovenian ethnological parallels organised by the Croatian and Slovenian Ethnological Society from 1981 until today (with a pause between 1991 and 2004), as described by AleksandraMuraj (2006). This issue of the journal provides more information about the centuries of contact and interrelation between the two national fields of ethnology in an inspired article by Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik entitled “The Ritual of Institution: Fragments of Contiguities between Slovenian and Croatian Ethnology”.

2 The need for analysing the correspondence of Milovan Gavazzi crystallised in 2012 during a guest visit by Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik at the 3rd seminar in honour of Branimir Bratanić, as well as the 85th anniversary of the foundation of the Department of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology. On this occasion, there was a discussion about Milovan Gavazzi’s extensive correspondence held at the Croatian State Archives, and it was concluded that it was necessary to research contact between the two neighbouring national fields of ethnology and cultural anthropology especially in today’s age of concise correspondence, messages and e-mail (Pleše 2014), meaning that the near future may be absent of comprehensive writen sources on the professional and private relationships between members of the academic community.

3 Ljudmil Hauptmann (Graz, 1884 – Zagreb, 1968). Studied in Graz (1902); professor of Mediaeval history at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Zagreb (1926- 47). Served as dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences during the 1930/31 academic year, 1942/43 summer semester, and 1943/44 winter semester. Correspondence has survived regarding Hauptmann’s resignation as dean. HR-HDA-1029-7, 449 (Hauptman, Ljudmil). Hauptmann’s letter bears witness to the fact that historians also followed ethnological research. In this letter, he expresses regret at not being able to come to a Balkan studies conference in Munich and at not hearing Gavazzi’s lecture on Croatian (home) cooperatives (see Petrović Leš and Leček 2018). the Ethnographic Museum, the Faculty of Arts, the Slovenian Ethnology Institute, and the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts. It is likely that some communication took place through the Faculty, as the correspondence contains a surprisingly small number of transcripts. It can be assumed that the majority of officia correspondence unfolded via the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, and is thus archived there. Gavazzi corresponded with two institutions – Ljudska univerza in Maribor and Ljudsko vseučilište in Celje – in the 1930s. Ljudska univerza in Maribor invited Gavazzi to hold a lecture “on the cultures and lives of polar peoples”. The lecture was held with slides presented via a projector in early March of 1933, after which Gavzzi immediately thanked those present for his “few pleasant hours” in Maribor (HR-HDA-1029-7, 753/81). Ljudsko vseučilište in Celje asked him to hold the same successful, interesting lecture (HR-HDA-1029-7, 754/81). His correspondence with the Ethnographic Museum in Ljubljana encompasses two letters dated 29 June 1950 and 15 November 1955. They concern organisational work for Slovenski etnograf journal such as exchanges and fees for reviewers; the editorship also ordered a text on Swiss ethnology and discussed photographs of items for an exhibition in Paris (HR-HDA-1029-7, 290/70). The Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana contacted Gavazzi in only three surviving letters and answers (16 Nov 1965 - 3 May 1968) discussing Gavazzi’s employment contract and Angelos Baš being named assistant professor. Gavazzi excused himself due to his other obligations and the short advance notice given of one month, he would not be able to write an evaluation. The dean of the Faculty informed him that he accepted his reasons, and that Dr. Bogo Grafenauer and Dr. Svetozar Ilešič would sit on the commission in his place (HR-HDA-1029-7, 320/72). Special celebrations were always held for Milovan Gavazzi’s birthdays. A telegram from the Institute of Slovenian Ethnology on his 80th birthday has survived, as has Gavazzi’s answer that he was looking forward to their successful future cooperation (HR-HDA-1029-7, 528/77). The Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts sent Gavazzi four letters from 1955 to 1957. This is an unpersonalized greeting card for the new year without a date signed by Janez Milčinski, and the announcements related to the promotion of Milko Matičetov as a doctor. Gavazzi wrote on the back of his response to Matičetov’s incapability of personal achievement, but to congratulate him and wish for further successful work under a deserved title (HR-HDA-1029-7, 1182/91, 9 December 1955) . In two letters followed by Gavazzi’s request to send him three copies of the book Antona Melika Kozolec in Slovensk (1931) (from the Academic Stocks to the home address) (HR-HDA-1029-7, 1182/91, 11 July 1957).). The last letter from Milko Matičetov, thanks to the sent (unnamed) resume, gives him information about his colleagues (HR-HDA-1029-7, 1182/91, 9. 4. 1963). It has been confirmed that correspondence with twenty three individuals has survived, of whom five are women and eighteen are men. Gavazzi wrote his correspondence in Croatian, while his colleagues wrote in a linguistic mixture of Croatian and Serbian, with a small number also writing in Slovenian. Female correspondents from Slovenia At the outset of Gavazzi’s scientific and academic career, the ethnological scientific community was small, and the number of women in academic circles was even smaller. An increase in the number of women in the academic community is visible in the second half of the 20th century (Potkonjak 2013). This is also supported by historical data on ethnological institutions, the Department of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology in Zagreb, and the Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology Department in Ljubljana, as well as the ethnographic museums in both states (Belaj 1998; Slavec Gradišnik 2000). The ethnological institutes in both countries were founded only after World War II – in Zagreb in 1948 (Marks and Lozica 1998) and in Ljubljana in 1951 (Slavec Gradišnik 2000:224). Gavazzi corresponded with Linda Sadnik-Aitzmüller (1910-1998), a Slavic studies scholar of Slovenian origin who worked at the Slavic Philology Seminar at the University of Graz in Austria. They exchanged two two-page letters, on the back of which Gavazzi wrote his answers. The reason why Linda Sadnik-Aitzmüller wrote Gavazzi the first letter (in the Croatian language) was the publishing of her book on Southern European riddles; she sent him a copy as thanks for his criticisms of her manuscript. Gavazzi immediately answered in German to thank her for the letter and book, emphasising the importance of the subject. He also took the chance to ask his colleague to greet Professor Joseph Matl, Hanns Koren, and Leopold Kretzenbacher, which bears witness to his broad circle of colleagues in Austria (HR-HDA-1029-7, 1119/90; 19 Feb 1953). The following surviving letter is from 1975, in which Sadnik-Aitzmüller invites him to cooperate in an anthology dedicated to Dr. Joseph Matl, which Gavazzi had to turn down due to his other obligations (HR-HDA-1029-7, 1119/90; 15 Jan 1975). Gava zzi ’s writ te n comm unica ti on wit h phil ol ogist a nd ethnomusicologist Zmaga Kumer (1924-2008), who worked at the Slovenian Academy of Arts and Sciences’ Ethnomusicology Institute and the Institute of Slovenian Ethnology (Slavec Gradišnik 2000:323;Ramšak 2004a:270), spanned a period of roughly ten years. They exchanged nine letters, as well as Gavazzi’s five draft answers from 1968 to 1977. At this time, Zmaga Kumer was employed as the secretary of the Slovenian Ethnographic Society, and so the correspondence concerned the organisation of Gavazzi’s lecture on his impressions from a yearly film festival founded in 1959 in Florence under the name “Festival dei popoli”. Gavazzi sought three films from the French Institute in Zagreb (unfortunately the titles were not listed) from the festival, which he intended to show as an illustration alongside his lecture in Ljubljana (HR-HDA-1029-7, 687; 26 Feb 1966). The second part of the correspondence is dedicated to work on an outline for a handbook of European musical instruments, which Zmaga Kumer coordinated with twelve Yugoslav musicologists, including Gavazzi. They co-authored an entry on idiophonic instruments and on the use of leaves to play (whistle) (HR-HDA-1029-7, 687/80.; 23 Feb and 19 Aug 1967) Two female ethnologists employed at the Slovenian Ethnographic Museum communicated with Gavazzi. One of them was Marija Makarovič (1930), an expert in Slovenian folk dress and farming (Slavec Gradišnik 2000:481–482;Ramšak 2004b:306). Only one letter has survived, in which Gavazzi co-organised a visit to Ljubljana from “Mrs. Byhan from Malbeck”, asking to deliver a letter from him to her and to provide assistance to her (HR-HDA-1029-7, 767/82; 24 Apr 1965). The second female correspondent was curator Pavla Štrukelj (1921-2015) who dealt in non-European cultures and the Roma people in Slovenia (Slavec Gradišnik 2000:400–401;Ramšak 2004c:617). Within less than a year between 1973 and 1974, they communicated quite intensely, with eleven letters sent to Gavazzi’s home address and his two draft answers. During this period, Pavla Štrukelj, who was employed at the Slovenian branch of the Ethnological Society of Yugoslavia in Ljubljana, coordinated editing work on Etnološki pregled journal (vol. 12), which underwent the editing process from February to late October of 1974. As editor-in-chief, Gavazzi edited texts, commented on the number of photographs and pictures, and warned of printing prices and the number of offprints for authors (HR-HDA-1029-7, 1272/92) The ethnologist Helena Ložar-Podlogar (1942), an Associate of Institute for Slovenian Folk Literature, a researcher of customs and a successor to Nike Kuret (Slavec Gradišnik 2000:499-500; Ramšak and Ravnik 2004: 299-300), is represented in Gavazzi’s correspondence with nine letters (Slavec Gradišnik 2000:499–500). They each exchanged nine letters across a period of nearly ten years, from 1968 to 1977. Gavazzi’s communication with Ložar-Podlogar was more intimate and less formal, perhaps because her uncle was well-known archaeologist and ethnologist Rajko Ložar, director of the Ethnographic Museum in Ljubljana. Gavazzi and Ložar wrote each other during the war, from 1942 to 1945, when Ložar had to leave Slovenia for political reasons (Slavec Gradišnik and Ložar-Podlogar 2005). As a young colleague, Ložar-Podlogar took on the role of middleman in communication between Niko Kuret, Vilko Novak from the Ethnology Department of the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana, and Milovan Gavazzi, as well as undertaking some organisational work. It is apparent that Gavazzi followed the development of his much younger colleague, whom he especially valued as is apparent in how he addressed her: “Esteemed colleague”, “Esteemed Ms Alenka!”. He was also equally familiar with inter-institutional and interpersonal relations in Ljubljana. The fact that their relationship went beyond professional cooperation is witnessed by their exchange of personal opinions on the state of the field. Gavazzi attempted to allay his younger colleague’s fears and dissatisfaction, answering that not only these are “professional maneuvers” but “the quite stupid, stubborn, intolerant, and short-sighted cutting of the branch we all sit on...” He thus advised her: “we’ve nothing else to do but be patient!” (HR-HDA-1029-7, 741/8; 11 Jun 1977). Ložar-Podlogar wrote most of her letters by hand. In one letter, she even expresses her admiration for the extent of Gavazzi’s work in the fie d: “I didn’t know you were carrying ‘all of Yugoslavia’ on your shoulders” (HR-HDA-1029-7, 741/8; 7 Jun 1977). Her farewell phrases at the end of her letters are not merely formal, instead displaying a closer relationship, especially as she also sends greetings to Gavazzi’s wife in each letter. She complained to him that she was the only person from Yugoslavia travelling to Moscow for a conference of Demos (HR-HDA-1029-7, 741/81; 17 May 1976). Ložar-Podlogar would be of especial help to Gavazzi in finding good photographs of the “belokranjski turn” (Circle dance from Bela Krajina), which he needed to accompany a text on the “kolo na kolu” (Circle dance in which the dancers are standing on ground circle dancers’ shoulders) for a memorial in honour of Bulgarian ethnologist Khristo Vakarelski. Satisfi d with the quality of the photographs, Gavazzi ended his letter with a heartfelt greeting in Slovenian... “pa ostajem sa ‘prav lepa hvala’” (HR-HDA-1029-7, 741/81; 8 and 20 May 1976). GAVAZZI’S CORRESPONDENCE WITH ETHNOLOGISTS Gavazzi corresponded with eighteen of his ethnologist colleagues. This correspondence can be portrayed according to two formal criteria – the length of the correspondence period and the quantity of letters exchanged. Milovan Gavazzi began communicating with four colleagues in the Interbellum. He communicated with eminent philologist, ethnographer, and Slavic studies scholar Matija Murko (1861-1952) from 1926 until 1948, exchanging a total of 62 letters (HR-HDA-1029-7, 867/84). He communicated with ethnologist and politician Niko Županič only during 1930, receiving three letters (HR-HDA-1029-7, 1356/92). He began to write frequently to Slavic studies scholar Vilko Novak (1909-2003) in 1935, with a total of 478 letters surviving (HR-HDA-1029-7, 916/85). The correspondence ended when Gavazzi fell ill and later died in early 1992 (Belaj 1992:203–204). He began exchanging letters frequently with Boris Orel in 1939; their correspondence would last 23 years, until Orel’s death in 1962. Orel sent him 194 letters (HR-HDA-1029-7, 936/86). He communicated intensively with Rajko Ložar during World War II (HR-HDA-1029-7, 742/82). Gavazzi communicated with literary historian and ethnologist Ivan Grafenauer (1880-1964) from 1942 to 1960, exchanging 20 letters (HR-HDA-1029-7, 398/74). Correspondence with some colleagues began quickly after the end of World War II, and with two in particular in 1947. This was the case with Niko Kuret, who sent him 269 letters between 1947 and 1981 (HR- HDA-1029-7, 693/82). From 1947 to 1960, Franc Kotnik sent him 44 letters (HR-HDA-1029-7, 654/72). He began writing to five colleagues in the 1950s, such as anthropologist Božo Škerlj (1904-1961), with whom he exchanged seven letters between 9 April 1954 and 6 December 1960 (HR-HDA-1029-7, 1263/92). The subject of their correspondence was comprehensive research of the island of Susak. Škerlj asked Gavazzi for help collecting literature, and asked him to get involved in the research. In his reply, Gavazzi recommended Italian sources, older geographical literature, and recommended “Miss Jelka Ribarić” as a collaborator on the project, a young ethnologist with knowledge of the ethnology of Istria, the Croatian Littoral, and the islands of the northern Adriatic (HR-HDA-1029-7, 1263/92; 9 Apr 1954). The following important theme in their communication was the 1966 selection of Božo Škerlj as the Yugoslav member of the “conseil permanent” national committee at the 6th International Congress in Paris. Gavazzi informed Škerlj that Niko Županič and Aleksandar Gahs were members of this same committee in 1934. In the following letter, Škerlj informed Gavazzi that he had also received an official notice that he had been appointed a member of the organizing committee of the congress. He suggests to Gavazzi to give a joint proposal on the appointment of Županič and Gahs to honorary members of the congressional or congressional committee board because they are not active and instead propose two younger members of ethnologists under 40 years of age (HR-HDA-1029-7, 1263/92 6 December 1960). Gavazzi, with colleagues who were not ethnologists, exchanged only one letter, such as with the historian Milko Kos, dated April 12, 1956 (HR-HDA-1029-7, 646/79). Only one letter and answer from 1970 bears witness to Gavazzi’s scant communication with Božo Račič (1887-1980), a great organiser, busi-nessman, promoter of domestic crafts, and former director of the State Central Institute for Female Domestic Crafts in Ljubljana (Ramšak and Slavec Gradišnik 2004:486). Only one letter from ethnol-ogist Slavko Kremenšek has survived (HR- HDA-1029-7, 669/79). It is interesting to note that, in some cases, Gavazzi corresponded with fathers, and later with their sons, e.g. with Bogo and Ivan Grafenauer, as well as with father and son from the Murko family. Matija Murko (1861- 1951), philologist, literary historian, ethnographer, Slavic studies scholar, Germanist, and editor (Slavec Gradišnik 2000:126–127; Slavec Gradišnik andRamšak 2004:342–343), corresponded with Gavazzi from 7 May 1926 to 20 November 1948, sending him 62 letters across 63 pages. Two answers from Milovan Gavazzi have also survived (HR-HDA-1029-7, 867/84). His son, Vladimir Murko (1906-1986), lawyer and science historian, corresponded with Gavazzi for slightly less than ten years between 30 July 1953 and 30 November 1962; 79 letters and two answers from Gavazzi have survived (HR-HDA-1029-7, 868/84). This brief overview portrays the research potential of correspondence for quantitative and qualitative communications analysis (rhythm, intensity, trends, topics...). The need for further qualitative research becomes even clearer from the selected example that follows. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MILOVAN GAVAZZI AND ANGELOS BAŠ For this research, correspondence with one correspondent was analysed in detail – Angelos Baš. His selection was coincidental. Baš is the first correspondent alphabetically; the quantity of letters they exchanged is moderately comprehensive, meaning it could be analysed within an acceptable time period. Their correspondence includes 68 letters across 71 pages, and 11 of Gavazzi’s draft answers (HR-HDA-1029-7, 65/66). Prior to analysing the correspondence, a few biographical notes about Angelos Baš are needed. Angelos Baš (Tabor, 24 August 1926 - Ljubljana, 25 August 2008) graduated from the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana in 1951, and he received his doctorate in 1959 with a dissertation entitled Noša na slovenskem v poznem srednjem veku in 16. stoletju. From 1950 to 1963, he served as curator of the City Museum of Ljubljana, after which he was curator of the Slovenian Ethnographic Museum. Starting in 1979, he was employed by the Slovenian Ethnology Institute at the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts. In 1969, he was named assistant professor at the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana, then associate professor in 1978, and finally full professor in 1984. He dealt in historical ethnology using archival sources. He also stayed in Tübingen and München as a Humboldt scholar (1968–70, 1982, 1987, and 1992). He was interested in material culture, mostly in folk dress. He published roughly 300 articles and books (Slavec Gradišnik 2000:283– 286;Ramšak 2004d:24–25; Godina Golija 2013). CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN BAŠ AND GAVAZZI Correspondence between Gavazzi’s and Baš lasted thirteen years, from 1960 to 1973, during their collaboration while working with the Ethnological Society of Yugoslavia. Baš’s letters to Gavazzi have survived, as has Gavazzi’s draft answers or copies of typewritten answers. In addition to letters, they also sent postcards. In this correspondence relationship, the individuals were both writers and readers. The situation was made especially interesting as Gavazzi either wrote his answers on the back of letters he received or attached a copy of his typewritten answer to them (Pleše 2014:49). The sending and receipt dates make it apparent that letters travelled between Ljubljana and Zagreb quickly, in no more than a day or two. In emergency cases, telephone communication was arranged in parallel with written communication. The most common greeting and farewell phrases of Baš’s are “Respected Comrade Professor!” and “Yours truly, Angelos Baš”, respectively. Gavazzi addresses his younger colleague with “Dear Doctor!” and signs off with “With respectful greetings”. They began writing when Baš was 34 and had just been employed in the field at the Ethnographic Museum in Ljubljana, while Gavazzi was 65 years old, had an enviable scientific carreer and enjoyed international renown. WHAT DID BAŠ AND GAVAZZI WRITE ABOUT? The thematic content of letters can be divided into two groups: a) professional and personal questions, and b) issues related to the Ethnological Society of Yugoslavia, founded in 1958, and their membership in its managing board and the editorship of Etnološki pregled journal (Novak 1958:212–214). From 1959 to 1978, Gavazzi was editor-in-chief of Etnološki pregled journal (Židov 2004:123). PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL ISSUES Angelos Baš frequently informed Gavazzi of his family situation, problems with advancing in the field, and stipends; he also discussed and asked for assistance and opinions in writing his research. Some of the correspondence relates to Gavazzi’s opinion regarding Baš’s article on 16th-century Slovenian folk dress for print in Etnološki pregled.⁴ Baš asked Gavazzi as main proof-reader and editor-in-chief to give his opinion after Miljenko Filipović rated the article “good and useful”; he also asked for linguistic advice. Gavazzi’s answer came only in late October; he apologised for being busy as he was preparing for a trip to Berlin, as is apparent on the back of Baš’s letter (HR-HDA-1029-7, 65/66; 23 Aug 1960). In July of 1961, Baš sent a letter in which he asked Gavazzi’s opinion on the written concept of his lecture he had held in Čačak, as Filipović had recommended the text be printed and offered to collaborate. They discussed the issue of dividing and defining cultures, as well as a possible title for Baš’s work. He could not decide between “On the historiographic character of ethnology” or “On issues in historical ethnology” (HR-HDA-1029-7, 65/66; 11 Jul 1961).⁵ However, Gavazzi did not return the manuscript for a while due to obligations at the Faculty and his editorship of Etnološki pregled. Baš finally answered Gavazzi’s letter in July of 1962 with reactions to his comments. Baš advocated that ethnology should encompass all social classes and classes within his research, and Gavazzi sends a comprehensive comment on his allegations in his response, and calls him to interact with each other (HR-HDA-1029-7, 65/66; 7 and 20 July 1962). Baš would also regularly inform Gavazzi about his holidays, private problems, the health of his father Franjo (who had a heart attack in the spring of 1963 and was resting in the Ljubljana neighbourhood of Zapuže), and finally about his employment in the field (HR-HDA-1029-7, 65/66; 26 Jul 1963). It is also apparent from Baš’s letters that Gavazzi also spent his holidays in Zapuže during these years (HR-HDA-1029-7; 26 Jul 1963).

4 Published under the title: Baš, A. 1960. “Staleški okviri u nošnji 16. stoleča kod Slovenaca”. Etnološki pregled, vol. 2:41–62.

5 Published under the title: Baš, A. 1963. “O istorijskom karakteru etnologije”. Etnološki pregled, vol. 5:5–22. He writes about leaving for a three-month stipend at the Herder Institute in Marburg, Germany in late 1962 / early 1963 (HR-HDA-1029-7, 65/66; 7 Nov 1962), where he was to go again in the spring of 1964. Immediately upon arriving in Marburg, Baš sent Gavazzi a postcard, which was co- signed by Ingeborg Weber (HR-HDA-1029-7, 65/66; 21 Apr 1964).⁶ Upon his return to Ljubljana, he immediately wrote Gavazzi with a detailed description of his stay, which he used to gather comparative material to add to his dissertation; he had taken the opportunity to visit Dr. Hans Moser in Münich and then-Assistant Professor Ingeborg Weber-Kellerman and Professor Gerhard Heilfurth in Marburg. During his visit, he invited them to collaborate in a meeting in Pohorje, and asked Gavazzi advice on how to invite them, either “through the secretariat (which I personally consider a great risk), or perhaps you yourself could send them two invitations to Marburg” (HR-HDA-1029-7, 65/66; 9 May 1964). THE ETHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF YUGOSLAVIA AND ETNOLOŠKI PREGLED An important topic in correspondence between Baš and Gavazzi involved numerous issues related to their work with the Ethnological Society of Yugoslavia.⁷ In 1961, a meeting of the management board of the

6 Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann (Berlin, 26 Jun 1918 – Marburg, 12 Jun 1993). A German ethnologist who worked as a university professor in Marburg (1968-85). She dealt in the development of ethnology as the empirical scientific study of society, focusing especially on the relationships between German ethnology, German studies, and sociology. She studied traditional forms of family, Christmas traditions, the lives of women and villagers in the 19th century, children and childhood, children’s songs, inter-ethnic relations, etc. She also took autobiographical notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingeborg_Weber- Kellermann; accessed August 26, 2018). In the inter-war period, she undertook field research on Germans in Croatia, especially the village of Josipovac, for her dissertation. Her dissertation was published in 1942. See: Ritig-Beljak 1998.

7 Etnološko društvo Jugoslavije, founded in Belgrade in 1957. The Croatian Ethnological Society (Hrvatsko etnološko društvo) was founded 31 Jan 1959 as the fi st republican branch of the society. The Society organised congresses known as ‘consultations’, which were held each time in a diff rent republic. It also organised communal projects, the largest of which was the Ethnological Atlas of Yugoslavia (Etnološki atlas Jugoslavije). The last congress was organised by the Croatian Ethnological Society in Zadar in 1989. See: Novak 1958. Ethnological Society of Yugoslavia was supposed to be held in Zagreb, and Baš and Orel were supposed to attend. During their discussion of the date of the meeting, Baš informed Gavazzi that Orel had extended his holiday on the island of Rab, after which he planned to leave for field research with “the entire staff of his museum” (HR-HDA-1029-7; 20 and 24 Jul 1961). However, in mid-August, Baš informed Gavazzi that “director Dr. Orel” had been released from the hospital, and that he had visited him and informed him of the conclusions of the management board meeting. One of the basic issues they observed was the problem of the management board and problems in organising congresses, called consultations, in various parts and cities of former Yugoslavia (Čulinović-Konstantinović 1963;Rajković-Orepić 1970). The important issue of organising a consultation in the Pohorje Mountains in Slovenia in 1964 was a regular topic in their correspondence. There were multiple financial and organisational problems with this event. Gavazzi was unsure whether to invite Moser and Weber, which Baš had been insisting on for some time. In the same letter, Gavazzi underlined the Society’s difficul financial situation with information he had received from the organisation’s treasurer that the Society was in “critical” financial trouble (HR-HDA-1029-7, 65/66; 12 May 1964). New problems then arose for Baš involving the organisation of the congress in Pohorje. The issue arose of whether to postpone the consultation due to “invitees’ preoccupation with preparing for a congress in Moscow” and the lack of funds to organise it; this resulted in only Slovenian ethnologists registering for the congress. Visibly worried, Baš wrote Gavazzi the following: “We have taken a series of measures with the government here and we have been well received and achieved good results. How can we cancel it all now? Why didn’t anyone think of that earlier?” (HR-HDA-1029-7; 9 Mar 1964). Baš also thought about including students into the work of the consultation. Gavazzi answered his worried younger colleague in late September: “As concerns the unfortunate news about the postponement of the consultation (none of which has reached my ears as of yet), I have also written to Beograd in astonishment” (HR-HDA-1029-7, 65/66; 25 Sep 1964). Finally, after apparent tensions, a lack of funds, and organisational issues, the 7th consultation of the Ethnological Society of Yugoslavia was held in the Pohorje Mountains from 6 to 10 October 1964, however without the involvement of the foreign guests Baš had invited. In a report on this event, young Croatian ethnologist Josip Milićević noted that a large number of young ethnologists had participated in the event, and that they had discussed employment opportunities, small salaries, and their lack of permanent housing. They also discussed methodological issues and opened some new topics for discussion, such as the need to research worker folklore and present ethnological material in museums (Milićević 1965:237–238). As concerns the editorship of the Etnološki pregled journal, problems appeared involving the preparation of particular issues: organisational issues, difficultie in pre-print work, printing errors, a lack of funds.⁸ In 1968, they discussed problems of the editorship of Etnološki pregled as the managing board of the Ethnological Society of Yugoslavia had concluded the “situation was worrisome”. Gavazzi was prevented from involvement due to work obligations, director of the Novi Sad Museum of Vojvodina Dr. Rajko Nikolić was in a car accident, and Dr. Miljenko Filipović, professor at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade, died suddenly. Gavazzi took on the task of finishing the editing of the journal with the editorship secretary so that it could be published before a consultation in Zenica (HR- HDA-1029-7, 65/66; 19 Dec 1968). In addition to collecting papers, they discussed various other papers, such as reviews, e.g. about how Baš had spoken with Professor Novak about Gavazzi providing a summary of Dr. Milko Matičetov’s dissertation for Etnološki pregled, as well as the issue of who could write obituaries (e.g. he suggested Professor Novak write Dr. Orel’s obituary) (HR-HDA-1029-7, 65/66; 28 Nov 1962).

8 Etnološki pregled (1959–90), the main yearly ethnological review of the Ethnological Society of Yugoslavia and the organ of the Union of Ethnological Societies of Yugoslavia, which was published in Belgrade. The journal published works by the most eminent Yugoslavian ethnologists, both to introduce and connect experts in Yugoslavia and to familiarise international members of the field with modern theory and methodolodies. After 1988, Etnološki pregled was published exclusively in English. Milovan Gavazzi was editor from 1959-1978. See: Židov 2004:123. MESSAGES IN BETWEEN THE LINES The general political situation is apparent in two notes about Baš’s attendance of military exercises, which disturbed his plans to cooperate in the congress: “If I don’t go to the military exercises, as the situation looks in Slovenia, I will come to the consultation in Čačak, where I expect your criticism of the paper I have sent you” (HR-HDA-1029-7, 65/66; 23 Aug 1960). This is also apparent in the preparation of papers: “Having come back last night from military exercises (where I have been since the 15th of the month), I found your postcard at home...” He committed to staying in Ljubljana through August to work on papers for upcoming scholarly events in Vršac (HR-HDA-1029-7, 65/66; 31 Jul 1967). However, some problems appeared that point to deeper political problems in the state, which also affected relationships within the Ethnological Society of Yugoslavia, as is apparent in letters from 1968 and 1972. In 1968, Gavazzi wrote Baš of forceful attempts to publish a paper about open-air museums by Dušan Drljača in Etnološki pregled that had been rated poorly as a dissertation.⁹ It turned out that the Socialist Republic of Serbia’s Republican Fund for the Promotion of Cultural Activities had allocated considerable funds to publish this paper as a special issue of Etnološki pregled, and he writes: “It pains me that dedicated funds have been obtained for this purpose, while there is still nothing for Etnološki pregled – the decision is constantly being delayed...” (HR-HDA-1029-7; 22 Feb 1968). When the paper reached the editorship, Filipović and Gavazzi were named reviewers, and after a thorough review, they gave the paper a negative review “due to significant deficiencies, incompleteness, and

9 Drljača, D. 1980. “Problemi i perspektive stvaranja etno-parkova u Srbiji”. Etnološke sveske, vol. 2:40–43. Dušan Drljača, ethnologist, scientific adviser, worked as curator of the National Museum in Sarajevo. In 1960, he moved to the Ethnographic Institute, where he ran the sub-project “Serbs outside of Serbia – in diaspora and national minorities in Serbia”. In addition to migrations, he dealt in migrations of population, problems of endangered settlements, ethnic groups, and national minorities (Poles, Jews, Italians, Rusyns, etc.), ethnological films, ethno-parks, and other issues. He has been a full professor at the University of Banja Luka since 1994. He published the book Kolonizacija i život Poljaka u jugoslovenskim zemljama (Vlahović [s. a.], “Prof. dr Dušan Drljača”). incorrect information” (HR-HDA-1029-7; 25 Mar 1968). In his answer to Gavazzi, Baš expresses worry that this negative review could influence monetary support for the journal due to the influence of Drljača and “some of his people” (HR-HDA-1029-7, 65/66; 27 Mar 1968). In 1969, ethnologists from Slovenia did not take part in the consultation in Zenica, perhaps as resistance against state centralism at the time and Slovenia’s position in the federation, which began with the “road affair”¹⁰ This was apparently a form of quiet resistance, which Gavazzi – then president of the Ethnological Society of Yugoslavia – detected, writing Baš: “... I believe careful thought should be given to the absence (which was complete, with the exception of Vitomir Belaj from Ptuj) of Ethnological Society of Yugoslavia members from Slovenia at the consultation in Zenica” (HR-HDA-1029-7, 65/66; 19 Dec 1969).¹¹ The 1970s saw political tensions in Yugoslavia, especially because of the “Croatian Spring” movement and the question of national self- determination. Angelos Baš returned the comments, and he commented on a title that contained the concept of the “Yugoslav”, as it reflected the “Greater-Serbian perception” of the concept (HR-HDA-1029-7, 65/66; 3 Apr 1972). Gavazzi quickly answered, saying that he agreed with his “interpretations and objections”, although he maintained that they must not change the title under which the presentation was held, especially because the author could say he was referring to “citizens of Yugoslavia”. He recommended instead that they place a note alongside the title in order to protect themselves from potential complaints (HR-HDA-1029-7, 65/66; 6 Apr 1972).¹² The answer shows Gavazzi’s experience in political balance

10 Cestna afera,https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cestna_afera (accessed August 26, 2018).

11 According to the photo album of the consultation in Zenica, which includes not only photographs but a programme of the congress and all other events, it is apparent that Slovenian ethnologists did not participate. The photo album was given as a gift to Milovan Gavazzi, president of the Ethnological Society of Yugoslavia, by Fikret Ibrahimpašić, the director and the organiser of the Zenica Town Museum. The photo album of the 11th consultation of Yugoslavian ethnologists, 1-4 Oct 1969 in Zenica, archive of the Croatian Ethnological Society. For more on the conference programme, see Rajković-Orepić 1970.

12 This is an article of mr. cc. Radomir Rakić from Belgrade entitled “The Body of Orthodox Yugoslavs as Social-Structural Form” held in the XII. Ethnologist Counseling