INTRODUCTION
The connections between Croatian and Slovenian ethnology have been the subject of frequent research, observed through a conceptualisation of the area of research, institutional history, and interpersonal contact among ethnologists.11 Recent research by Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik directs attention
towards two professors, Branimir Bratanić from Zagreb and Vilko Novak from Ljubljana (Slavec Gradišnik 2012). Slavec Gradišnik portrayed the 1950s, when Slovenian and Croatian ethnology dealt in relations between general and regional/national ethnology. She affirme that both professors followed modern ideas that were part of the conception of European ethnology at the time within the framework of the Ethnologia Europeae ethnological association (ibid.). In this issue of Studia ethnologica Croatia, we continue with the marking of the 90th anniversary of the founding of the Department of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology and the 80th birthday of Professor Vitomir Belaj, Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik wrote a research paper that accentuates the importance of comparative research of two scientific and research traditions, as well as the production of ethnological knowledge throughout a longer time period. In the paper I shall focus on written communication between Milovan Gavazzi and Slovenian ethnologists. The research is founded on archival research of some correspondence from the personal fund of Milovan Gavazzi held at the Croatian State Archives, which is used as a historical source, with a view to the subjective nature of such material (Stipančević 2006:115–121;Pleše 2014:38).22 Correspondence is always of interest to researchers, especially historians, as a valuable source
The discussion of the need to examine and analyse Gavazzi’s correspondence with his Slovenian colleagues continued on a similar occasion nearly five years later, 8 November 2017, during preparations for an international scientific congress in honour of the 90th anniversary of the Department of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology and the 80th birthday of Dr. Vitomir Belaj, entitled “Croatian and Slovenian Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology: experiences, contact, connections...”. Work on the correspondence was arranged with Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik; it was decided that basic research of Milovan Gavazzi’s correspondence with his Slovenian colleagues would be published first
of data and a reflection of a particular time. Interest in correspondence is apparent in Croatian ethnology and cultural anthropology in a small amount of research as a source of data and historical document in order to shed light on particular topics from the history of the field, e.g. the founding of the Board and the publishing of Zbornik za narodni život i običaja, the role of women in the collection of material during the constitution of ethnology as a science (Pleše 2014:35–36).
This article has been conceived as a contribution to the awareness of the history of the field and intellectual history; it shall observe eminent individuals in the scientific and educational life of two countries and two fields in the humanities, of which ethnology and cultural anthropology is a part. Attention has been turned to Milovan Gavazzi and a body of correspondence related to a part of his intellectual circle – a professional network of colleagues who played an important role in 20th-century Slovenian ethnology and cultural anthropology. These sources allow the research of various topics in intellectual history (such as conceptual influences, the transfer or exchange of ideas), society (the position of the intellectual elite), and the fi ld (the issue of cognitive/methodological changes or institution building). Here, attention is redirected from the biography of prominent individuals to their intellectual positions, infl ences, connections, and interpersonal infl ence (Janković 2013:15). This paper contributes to the broadening and deepening of knowledge on the scientific heritage of both countries.
The following chapters shall discuss Milovan Gavazzi and the significance of his fund, especially correspondence, and shall focus on a quantitative and qualitative analysis of part of this correspondence with colleagues from Slovenia. As there are a great deal of letters and answers from particular correspondents, after a quantitative and qualitative analysis, correspondence between Milovan Gavazzi and Angelos Baš was chosen as a kind of case study.
THE CORRESPONDENCE OF MILOVAN GAVAZZI
Creator of the fund, Milovan Gavazzi (Gospić, 18 Mar 1895 – Zagreb, 20 Jan 1992), graduated with degrees in philosophy and Slavic studies in Zagreb and Prague. He received his doctorate in musicology in 1919 (Bezić 1999:53–68). He was the curator of the Ethnographic Museum in Zagreb from 1922 to 1927, also serving as director from 1939 to 1941. He was a professor at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences’ Ethnology Department from 1927 to 1965. After retiring, he held lectures and continued working intensely in the field. He was the founder of science- based ethnological research, designed an ethnology study programme, and encouraged the recording of ethnological films and maps. He researched Croatian traditional culture in the South Slavic and Slavic context, as well as within the context of the nations of Europe. He focused especially on research of proto-Slavic ethnographic heritage. He followed the relevant literature in a dozen languages, as witnessed by both his correspondence and his personal library (Stipančević 2005;Katunar 2006). He was a member of numerous societies in both Croatia and abroad, the Alpes Orientales and Ethnographia Pannonica working groups, and a corresponding member of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Gavazzi received a Herder Award from the University of Vienna in 1970 as an eminent researcher promoting cultural relationships between Central and Eastern European countries, as well as contributing to the protection of European cultural heritage in accordance with the peaceful accord among nations. In 1988, he was awarded a by the Twelfth Congress of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Societies with a special plaque as a world ethnographer (Belaj 1992:203–204).
Gavazzi’s written letters (postcards) and correspondence with colleagues from Slovenia is kept as a part of the correspondence in the personal fund of Milovan Gavazzi (HR-HDA-1029-7) at the Croatian State Archives (Stipančević 2006:115–121). An overview of the content and signifi ance of the correspondence has been provided by archivist, historian, and ethnologist Mario Stipančević, with the note that Gavazzi’s is one of the most extensive collections of correspondence held at the Croatian State Archives (Stipančević 2005:55–68). Milovan Gavazzi corresponded with an imposing 1,358 correspondents, and 11,900 letters and answers
are stored in the archive. According to Stipančević, the correspondence is “fairly complete”, as it contains the letter and the concept of the answer. It contains even the added copy of the answer. The letters are typewritten, and answers, comments, or drafts of replies are often handwritten. In addition to his native Croatian, Gavazzi corresponded in German, English, French, Italian, Czech, Slovak, and Russian. The correspondence encompasses a period of roughly seventy years, from 1921 until his death in 1992 (ibid.:59).
GAVAZZI’S SLOVENIAN CORRESPONDENTS
In addition to ethnologists, the correspondents from Slovenia include Slavic studies scholars, historians, linguists, and ethnologists. More recent research on collaboration between ethnologists and historians revealed a connection between Gavazzi and Slovenian and Croatian historian Ljudmil Hauptmann involving management issues at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Zagreb, as well as revealing that they followed each other’s scientific work (Petrović and Leček 2018).33456789101112 The text will not discuss born Slovenians who worked and lived in Croatia, e.g. historian and musician Janko Barlè, a friend of Gavazzi’s, as witnessed by their letters (Stipančević 2005:60). The text will also portray Gavazzi’s correspondence with institutions, and then with individuals – first with his female colleagues, and then with his male colleagues – before finally portraying his correspondence with Baš in detail.
CONCLUSION
This research has provided a quantitative and qualitative analysis of some of the correspondence between Milovan Gavazzi and his colleagues from Slovenia. It has been shown that Gavazzi’s intellectual circle encompassed a number of eminent Slovenian male and female ethnologists from different generations between 1926 and 1991. Due to the large scope of archival material, attention was focused only on the analysis and contextualisation of professional and private communication between Milovan Gavazzi and Angelos Baš from 1960 to 1973. This correspondence was subjected to research as a historical document and an aid in shedding light on activities and controversies during a period in the development of the discipline after World War II. It was a time when Croatia and Slovenia were “two neighbouring and friendly republics” within the framework of the first Federal National Republic of Yugoslavia, followed by the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia after 1963.
The correspondence shows the relationships between the older and younger colleagues, members of the academic community from the same field. This relationship displayed a certain amount of distance, as is to be expected, however it was also full of mutual respect. The younger of the two, Angelos Baš, frequently discussed private issues (illness, death, moving, travel) and events in the field (his own promotions and those of his colleagues, congresses, events) to his older colleague, who was also an acquaintance of his father. They discussed theoretical issues, as well as new subjects and approaches to professional problems and advances in the field that begun to
of Yugoslavia and the VIII. regular assembly in Ulcinj, from 18 to 21 October 1971 (the programme of these events, HR-HDA-1029-7, 6.2.3.1.1.1, box 32). The text is published almost under the same title: Rakić, Radomir D. 1972. “Kumstvo u pravoslavnih
Jugoslovena kaosocijalno-strukturni oblik”. Etnološki pregled, vol. 10:105–115. Ethno logical Review, Vol. 10, pp. 105-115, with the remark: “The appendix is, as a reference, for understandable reasons, in a shortened form. It is thus omitted to move away from the first part of the work on the historical continuity of humanity and on the socio-cul- tural structure and ideological superstructure.”
take place at the time, especially in Slovenia (Slavec Gradišnik 2000:283– 286). The fact that both correspondents travelled outside of Yugoslavia for congresses speaks to the openness of the former state, as well as to the opening of the field to the broader European and international context. Collaboration between Gavazzi and Baš developed on two levels: within the framework of the managing board of the Ethnological Society of Yugoslavia and the publishing board of Etnološki pregled journal, of which Gavazzi was editor- in-chief from 1959 to 1978.The role of the politics of the time on scientifi work is apparent, as is the strategy of the two colleagues in maintaining their level of scientific integrity and appropriate professional relations. The letters show economic issues and the tense political situation of the 1960s, especially the political situation in the world and the former Yugoslavia in 1968 (Radelić 2006:329–378). From 1968/69 to 1972, political movements also took place within the fi ld, e.g. resistance against the system, national movements, language and identity issues, economic problems, and even repressive reactions from communist leadership (ibid.:379–433), which reflected on ethnology – especially in Croatia and Slovenia – within the framework of the Ethnological Society of Yugoslavia, as well as the publishing work of Etnološki pregled journal. Gavazzi’s restraint and caution is apparent in his actions and comments, which is no surprise considering his prior experience of living and working in the sciences in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Independent State of Croatia. According to some divisions and definition of the concept of the intellectual, Gavazzi can be defined as Gramsci’s “traditional intellectual”, as an earlier text affirm that he provided passive resistance to the leading ideology as an intellectual in the interwar period, thus keeping his position independent in continuity regardless of social changes (Janković 2013:26; Leček and Petrović Leš 2011).
Parts of Gavazzi’s correspondence that could not be analysed here due to their size await further portrayal and analysis, including correspondence with Niko Kuret, Milko Matičetov, Matija and Vladimir Murko, Boris Orel, and especially with Vilko Novak. This research provides a contribution and encouragement to research of the history of Croatian and Slovenian ethnology in the second half of the 20th century, the position of national ethnology and individuals, especially Milovan Gavazzi, all which has then not sufficientl been the subject of focused and detailed research, within the Ethnological Society of Yugoslavia from its founding in 1957 until 1991.
CROATIAN STATE ARCHIVES:
STIPANČEVIĆ, Mario. 2007. Personal fund of Milovan Gavazzi, HR-HAD-1029.
Analytical inventory, Zagreb: Croatian State Archives (Manuscript) HR-HDA-1029-7. Personal fund of Milovan Gavazzi. Correspondence
63. Baš, Angelos. Box 66.
92. Bezlaj, France. Box 66.
290. Etnografski muzej u Ljubljani. Box 70.
320. Filozofski fakultet u Ljubljani. Box 72.
398. Grafenauer, Ivan. Box 74.
399. Grafenauer, Bogo. Box 74.
528. Inštitut za slovensko narodopisje. Box 76. 646. Kos, Milko. Box 79.
654. Kotnik, Franc. Box 79.
669. Kremenšek, Slavko. Box 79.
684. Kuhar, Boris. Box 80.
687. Kumer, Zmaga. Box 80.
693. Kuret, Niko. Box 82.
741. Ložar Podlogar, Helena. Box 82.
742. Ložar, Rajko. Box 82.
753. Ljudska univerza v Mariboru. Box 82. 754. Ljudsko vzeučilište v Celju. Box 82. 767. Makarovič, Marija. Box 82.
812. Matičetov, Milko. Box 83.
867. Murko, Matija. Box 84.
868. Murko, Vladimir. Box 84.
916. Novak, Vilko. Box 85.
936. Orel, Boris. Box 86.
1048. Račič, Božo. Box 88.
1119. Sadnik-Aitzmüler, Linda. Box 90.
1182. Slovenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Box 91.
1183. Slovenski etnografski muzej. Box 91.
1272. Štrukelj, Pavla. Box 98.
1263. Škerlj, Božo. Box 92.
1356. Županič, Niko. Box 92.
Croatian Ethnological Society – archive:
Photo album of the 11th consultation of Yugoslav ethnologists, 1-4 Oct 1959, Zenica.