hrcak mascot   Srce   HID

Izvorni znanstveni članak
https://doi.org/10.17234/SEC.28.10

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

Suzana Marjanić ; Institut za etnologiju i folkloristiku, Zagreb

Puni tekst: hrvatski, pdf (1 MB) str. 267-289 preuzimanja: 526* citiraj
APA 6th Edition
Marjanić, S. (2016). Krležin razgovor o Brest-Litovsku (1918.) kao apologija Oktobra ili politike prijateljstva. Studia ethnologica Croatica, 28 (1), 267-289. https://doi.org/10.17234/SEC.28.10
MLA 8th Edition
Marjanić, Suzana. "Krležin razgovor o Brest-Litovsku (1918.) kao apologija Oktobra ili politike prijateljstva." Studia ethnologica Croatica, vol. 28, br. 1, 2016, str. 267-289. https://doi.org/10.17234/SEC.28.10. Citirano 16.06.2021.
Chicago 17th Edition
Marjanić, Suzana. "Krležin razgovor o Brest-Litovsku (1918.) kao apologija Oktobra ili politike prijateljstva." Studia ethnologica Croatica 28, br. 1 (2016): 267-289. https://doi.org/10.17234/SEC.28.10
Harvard
Marjanić, S. (2016). 'Krležin razgovor o Brest-Litovsku (1918.) kao apologija Oktobra ili politike prijateljstva', Studia ethnologica Croatica, 28(1), str. 267-289. https://doi.org/10.17234/SEC.28.10
Vancouver
Marjanić S. Krležin razgovor o Brest-Litovsku (1918.) kao apologija Oktobra ili politike prijateljstva. Studia ethnologica Croatica [Internet]. 2016 [pristupljeno 16.06.2021.];28(1):267-289. https://doi.org/10.17234/SEC.28.10
IEEE
S. Marjanić, "Krležin razgovor o Brest-Litovsku (1918.) kao apologija Oktobra ili politike prijateljstva", Studia ethnologica Croatica, vol.28, br. 1, str. 267-289, 2016. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.17234/SEC.28.10
Puni tekst: engleski, pdf (1 MB) str. 291-314 preuzimanja: 316* citiraj
APA 6th Edition
Marjanić, S. (2016). Krleža’s Talk about Brest-Litovsk (1918) as an Apologia for October Revolution or the Politics of Friendship (Translation). Studia ethnologica Croatica, 28 (1), 291-314. https://doi.org/10.17234/SEC.28.10
MLA 8th Edition
Marjanić, Suzana. "Krleža’s Talk about Brest-Litovsk (1918) as an Apologia for October Revolution or the Politics of Friendship (Translation)." Studia ethnologica Croatica, vol. 28, br. 1, 2016, str. 291-314. https://doi.org/10.17234/SEC.28.10. Citirano 16.06.2021.
Chicago 17th Edition
Marjanić, Suzana. "Krleža’s Talk about Brest-Litovsk (1918) as an Apologia for October Revolution or the Politics of Friendship (Translation)." Studia ethnologica Croatica 28, br. 1 (2016): 291-314. https://doi.org/10.17234/SEC.28.10
Harvard
Marjanić, S. (2016). 'Krleža’s Talk about Brest-Litovsk (1918) as an Apologia for October Revolution or the Politics of Friendship (Translation)', Studia ethnologica Croatica, 28(1), str. 291-314. https://doi.org/10.17234/SEC.28.10
Vancouver
Marjanić S. Krleža’s Talk about Brest-Litovsk (1918) as an Apologia for October Revolution or the Politics of Friendship (Translation). Studia ethnologica Croatica [Internet]. 2016 [pristupljeno 16.06.2021.];28(1):291-314. https://doi.org/10.17234/SEC.28.10
IEEE
S. Marjanić, "Krleža’s Talk about Brest-Litovsk (1918) as an Apologia for October Revolution or the Politics of Friendship (Translation)", Studia ethnologica Croatica, vol.28, br. 1, str. 291-314, 2016. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.17234/SEC.28.10

Rad u XML formatu

Sažetak
U članku nastojim detektirati Krležinu antitetičku vrtešku, da uporabim Lasićev termin, prema miru u Brest-Litovsku s obzirom na Krležin zapis, polemički disput Razgovor o Brest-Litovsku (1918). Naime, iz perspektive 1918. godine Krleža Brest-litovski mir (3. ožujka 1918.) određuje kao anticipaciju “internacionalističke solidarnosti proletarijata evropskog”, kao politički manevar pro futuro (DD2, 180). Međutim, u podrupku teksta, pisanom iz perspektive 1967. godine, kao korekciju vlastite interastralne retorike upućuje kako su se već u veljači 1918. godine “sve moskovske iluzije o generalnim štrajkovima na terenu centralnih vlasti, a naročito u Berlinu” rasplinule pod “terorom soldateske”, a “lenjinska koncepcija mira u Brest-Litovsku našla se u bezizlaznoj ulici” (DD2, 188).

Ključne riječi
Miroslav Krleža; Davni dani; Brest-Litovski mir; Prvi svjetski rat; književna i politička antropologija; politike prijateljstva

Hrčak ID: 171883

URI
https://hrcak.srce.hr/171883

▼ Article Information



Notes

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 (prema Čengić 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, prema Marjanić 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, prema Čengić 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 to Čengić 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 to Marjanić 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 to Čengić 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).

References

1 

ALEKSANDER Irina. 2007. Samo činjenice, molim! Tekstovi i dokumenti. Zagreb: Hrvatsko filološko društvo.

2 

BATUŠIĆ Nikola. 2007. Riječ Mati Čina: Krležin kazališni krug. Zagreb: Naklada Ljevak.

3 

Bibliografija Miroslava Krleže. Krležijana. 1999. Glavni urednik Velimir Visković Zagreb: Leksikografski zavod “Miroslav Krleža”.

4 

BOSILJČIĆ Slobodan. 1966. Oktobarska revolucija 1917. i prve godine sovjetske vlasti. Beograd: Mladost.

5 

CRUTWELL C. R. M. F. 1982. A History of the Great War 1914–1918. 2. izd. London – Toronto – Sydney – New York: A Paladin Book.

6 

ČENGIĆ Enes. 1982. Krleža: monografija. Zagreb: Mladost; Sarajevo: Oslobođenje.

7 

ČENGIĆ Enes. 1985. S Krležom iz dana u dan (1980–1981). U sjeni smrti. Zagreb: U sjeni smrti.

8 

ČENGIĆ Enes. 1990. S Krležom iz dana u dan (1980–1981). U sjeni smrti. Sarajevo: Svjetlost.

9 

DERRIDA Jacques. 2001. Politike prijateljstva. Beograd: Beogradski krug.

10 

DETONI DUJMIĆ Dunja. 1998. Ljepša polovica književnosti. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska.

11 

FERRO Marc. 1973. The Great War 1914–1918. London – New York: Routledge.

12 

FRANGEŠ Ivo. 1977. “Krleža i Kranjčević.” Forum, vol. 9: 305–344.

13 

FREIVOGEL Zvonimir. 2014. Austrougarska vojska u Prvome svjetskom ratu. Zagreb: Despot infinitus.

14 

GARCÍA-DÜTTMANN Alexander. 2003. Prijatelji i neprijatelji: apsolutno. Zagreb: Multimedijalni institut.

15 

GAŠPAROVIĆ Darko. 1989. Dramatica krležiana. Zagreb: Cekade.

16 

HEĆIMOVIĆ Branko. 2013. “Bez fetišizma o Krleži”. (Razgovarali Bojan Koštić i Suzana Marjanić). Zarez, 19. prosinca, br. 373–374. http://www.zarez.hr/clanci/bez-fetisizma-o-krlezi (pristup 1. 8. 2014.).

17 

HORVAT Josip. 2006. Pobuna omladine 1911–1914. Zagreb: SKD Prosvjeta – Gordogan.

18 

HORVATIĆ-GMAZ VLASTA. 2014. "Hrvatsko zagorje i Prvi svjetski rat u ratnoj prozi i prozi o ratu u kontekstu hrvatske književnosti". U Zagorsko lice boga rata u Europi – Prvi svjetski rat, ur. Goranka Horjan. Gornja Stubica: Muzeji Hrvatskog zagorja, Muzej seljačkih buna, 15–20.

19 

IVEKOVIĆ Mladen. 1970. Hrvatska lijeva inteligencija 1918–1945. Prva knjiga 1918–1941. Zagreb: Naprijed.

20 

KRLEŽA Miroslav. 1956. Davni dani. Zapisi 1914–21. Zagreb: Zora.

21 

KRLEŽA Miroslav. 1971. Deset krvavih godina i drugi politički eseji. Zagreb: Zora.

22 

KRLEŽA Miroslav. 1977. Dnevnik 1914–17: Davni dani I. Sarajevo: NIŠP Oslobođenje.

23 

KRLEŽA Miroslav. 1977a. Dnevnik 1918–22: Davni dani II. Sarajevo: NIŠP Oslobođenje.

24 

KRLEŽA Miroslav. 1977b. Dnevnik V. Sarajevo: Oslobođenje; Zagreb: Mladost.

25 

KRLEŽA Miroslav. 1988. Drame (Vučjak, Galicija, Golgota). Sarajevo: NIŠRO Oslobođenje.

26 

Krležijana 1 A–LJ. 1993. Glavni urednik Velimir Visković Zagreb: Leksikografski zavod “Miroslav Krleža”.

27 

Krležijana 2 M–Ž. 1999. Glavni urednik Velimir Visković Zagreb: Leksikografski zavod “Miroslav Krleža”.

28 

LASIĆ Stanko. 1982. Krleža: kronologija života i rada. Zagreb: Grafički zavod Hrvatske.

29 

LASIĆ Stanko. 1989. Krležologija ili Povijest kritičke misli o Miroslavu Krleži. Knjiga 1. Kritička literatura o Miroslavu Krleži od 1914. do 1941. Zagreb: Globus.

30 

LAUER Reinhard. 2013. Miroslav Krleža: hrvatski klasik. Zagreb: Naklada Ljevak.

31 

MARJANIĆ Suzana. 2005. Glasovi “Davnih dana”: transgresije svjetova u Krležinim zapisima 1914–1921/22. Zagreb: Naklada MD.

32 

MARJANIĆ Suzana. 2014. Kronotop hrvatskoga performansa: od Travelera do danas. Zagreb: Udruga Bijeli val – Institut za etnologiju i folkloristiku – Školska knjiga.

33 

MARJANIĆ Suzana. 2015. “Krležina demaskiranja mentaliteta ili 'i mjesečina može biti pogled na svijet'.” Narodna umjetnost, vol. 52/2: 85–103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15176/vol52no205

34 

MATIČEVIĆ Ivica. 1996. Raspeti Juda: pristup biblijskom predlošku u drami hrvatske avangarde. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska.

35 

MATKOVIĆ Ivica. 1985. Razgovori i pogovori. O pjesnicima, slikarima i odlascima. Zagreb: Znanje.

36 

MOMBAUER Annika. 2014. Uzroci Prvog svjetskog rata: kontroverze i konsenzus. Zagreb: Naklada Ljevak.

37 

OČAK Ivan. 1979. Jugoslavenski oktobarci: likovi i sudbine. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.

38 

OČAK Ivan. 1982. Krleža – Partija (Miroslav Krleža u radničkom i komunističkom pokretu 1917 –1941). Zagreb: Spektar.

39 

“Prvi svjetski rat”. Wikipedia, https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prvi_svjetski_rat (pristup 16. 6. 2016.).

40 

RIHTMAN-AUGUŠTIN Dunja. 1997. “Zašto i otkad se grozimo Balkana?.” Erasmus: časopis za kulturu demokracije, vol. 19: 27–35.

41 

SLOVIĆ Danko-David. 2014. “Tko je bio moćni zaštitnik Miroslava Krleže?.” Vijenac, 23. siječnja, br. 519. http://www.matica.hr/vijenac/519/O%20Krle%C5%BEi%20sasvim%20druga%C4%8Dije/ (pristup 10. 1. 2015.).

42 

STEVENSON Ivan. 2014. 1914.–1918. Povijest Prvoga svjetskog rata. Zaprešić: Fraktura.

43 

SUVIN Darko. 1988. “Mogu li ljudi biti (re)prezentirani u književnosti?: (prema teoriji narativnih agensa i materijalističke kritike onkraj tehnokracije ili pojednostavnjenja).” Republika, vol. 5-6: 96–134.

44 

ŠKILJAN Filip. 2014. "Prvi svjetski rat u Europi i Hrvatskom zagorju". U Zagorsko lice boga rata u Europi – Prvi svjetski rat, ur. Goranka Horjan. Gornja Stubica: Muzeji Hrvatskog zagorja, Muzej seljačkih buna, 21–95.

45 

ŠLIVARIĆ [i. e. ŠLJIVARIĆ] Aleksandar. 1957. “'Davni dani' Miroslava Krleže.” Mogućnosti, vol. 12: 1007–1013.

46 

ŠTIVIČIĆ Ivo. 2013. “O vlasti, snovima i bestijalnim diktaturama.” (Razgovarali Bojan Koštić i Suzana Marjanić). Zarez, 15. ožujka, br. 354. http://www.zarez.hr/clanci/o-vlasti-snovima-i-bestijalnim-diktaturama (pristup 8. 9. 2014.).

47 

VANIŠTA Josip. 2001. Knjiga zapisa. Zagreb: Moderna galerija, Kratis.

48 

VISKOVIĆ Velimir. 2000. "Životopis Miroslava Krleže". U Miroslav KRLEŽA, Vražji otok, Zagreb: Naklada Ljevak – Matica hrvatska – HAZU, 135–234.

49 

VISKOVIĆ Josip. 2001. Krležološki fragmenti: Krleža između umjetnosti i ideologije. Zagreb: Konzor.

50 

VLAJČIĆ Milan. 1963. “O Zastavama Miroslava Krleže.” Delo, vol. 5: 588–594.

51 

VUČKOVIĆ Radovan. 1979. Poetika hrvatskog i srpskog ekspresionizma. Sarajevo: Svjetlost.

52 

VUČKOVIĆ Radovan. 1986. Krležina dela. Sarajevo: NIŠRO Oslobođenje.

53 

ZELMANOVIĆ Đorđe. 1987. Kadet Krleža: školovanje Miroslava Krleže u mađarskim vojnim učilištima. Zagreb: Školske novine – Sveučilišna naklada Liber.


This display is generated from NISO JATS XML with jats-html.xsl. The XSLT engine is libxslt.




Razmotrit ću Krležinu recepciju Brest-litovskog mira (2. prosinca 1917. – 2./3. ožujka 1918.), ugovora o miru sklopljena 3. ožujka 1918. između Sovjetske Rusije i Centralnih sila (Njemačke, Austro-Ugarske, Turske – Osmanskog Carstva, i Bugarske) (usp. Mombauer 2014:57; Crutwell 1982:479), u kontekstu njegovih dnevničko-memoarskih zapisa Davnih dana, 1

kao našega jedinog literarnog dnevnika iz Prvoga svjetskog rata (dakle, ne mislim ovdje, tragom zapažanja Marijana Matkovića, na ostale naše dnevnike iz Prvoga svjetskog rata s literarnim odrednicama, nego na literarni dnevnik) (Matković 1985:188). 2

Milan Vlajčić (1963:588) vjeruje kako bi svaki “razgovor o Miroslavu Krleži morao (…) da započne Davnim danima” ili tautološki – kako su sva Krležina djela najavljena u njegovim prvosvjetskoratnim dnevnicima, a navedeno posebice primjenjuje na roman-rijeku, njegov posljednji roman Zastave (Ibid. 588–589). 3

Tako npr. Aleksandar Šljivarić ističe da “embrionalni začetak, datum rođenja Hrvatske rapsodije (Savremenik 1917:5) treba tražiti na relaciji putovanja Zagreb – Nova Kapela – Batrina – Požega početkom travnja godine 1917.” (Šljivarić 1957:1011), što ga je zabilježio u Davnim danima navedene godine.

U interpretativnoj niši književne i političke antropologije, s obzirom na to da je mnogima zahvaljujući stilističkim i naratološkim interpretacijama postala zazorna (auto)biografska kontekstualizacija, i centripetalna i centrifugalna, tako da do Lasićeve Kronologije (1982.) nismo imali Krležinu biografiju, kontekstualiziram prvu ratnu (1914.) godinu Krležinim biografskom kronosom – Krleža ima (svega) 21 godinu, a prvi dnevnički zapis pod datumom 26. veljače 1914. svoga literarnog dnevnika Davni dani određuje fragmentom dramske Salome 4

koja uz dramsku Legendu (tiskana u Marjanovićevim Književnim novostima iste godine) čini Krležine prve dramske tekstove.

TRI RATA KAO KRLEŽIN RITUAL PRIJELAZA

Zamjetno je iz psihobiografske niše da pored te povijesno-globalne apokaliptične situacije Krleža započinje pisati Davne dane i nakon vlastitih, osobnih golgotskih scena. Naime, godina 1913. presudna je za definiranje njegova životnog hodograma kada dozrijeva zamisao o bijegu iz ugarske vojne akademije Ludoviceum. Vojnički dril u ugarskim vojnim učilištima Krleža prolazi kroz pet godina, od 1908. do 1913., od petnaeste do dvadesete godine – prvo kao pitomac Ugarske kraljevske kadetske škole u Pečuhu (1908.–1911.) a zatim kao akademac u Ludoviceumu (1911.–1913.) (Usp. Zelmanović 1987).5

Pored ideje bijega iz Ludoviceuma, kada shvaća u tim formativnim godinama da vojni poziv nije njegova vokacija, te, 1913., godine Krleža razvija i ambivalentan politički stav, u skladu vlastite antitetičke vrteške:6

riječ je o mješavini starčevićanske ljubavi prema Hrvatskoj i – paradoksalno – o sentimentalnoj viziji južnoslavenskog ujedinjenja (Lasić 1982:102). I travnja 1913. godine Krleža u skladu s vizijom o južnoslavenskom ujedinjenju napušta Ludoviceum; stiže do Pariza odakle preko Marseillea i Soluna dolazi u Skoplje da se pred srpski rat s Bugarima na Bregalnici prijavi kao dobrovoljac u srpsku vojsku (ibid.:104). Točnije, u vrijeme Balkanskih ratova (Prvi i Drugi balkanski rat, 1912.–1913.) Krleža se dva puta prijavljuje u srpsku vojsku; pritom je 1912. odbijen, a 1913. godine osumnjičen je kao austrougarski špijun i vraćenaustrijskim vlastima u Zemunu. 7

Drugi bijeg gotovo da sadrži i sekvence pustolovnog romana, što se tiče pokušaja (interpretativni modus iz autobiografske niše) spajanja sa Srbima na Bregalnici, gotovo nalik na Melanijino putešestvije s kavaljerom Novakom, da kontekstualiziramo navedenu anabazu i fiktivnim svjetovima Krležina prvog romana Tri kavaljera frajle Melanije. Staromodna pripovijest iz vremena kad je umirala hrvatska moderna (1920.–1922.). Iskustvom na Bregalnici nastaje Krležino razočaranje ondašnjim političkim konceptom južnoslavenskog ujedinjenja koje je trebala sprovesti Srbija-Pijemont: shvaća kako je bitka na Bregalnici “možda nerazmjerno tragičniji događaj od ovoga rata, kod Bregalnice ostvarilo se po drugi put ono što je proricao Dostojevski, da će se ovi balkanski seljaci poklati i pobiti do istrage ako dođu do topova!” (DD, 248). Time je Bregalnica poništila sve Krležine ideje, iluzije o ilirizmu, te je nasuprot austrijskom Alžiru sada spoznao južnoslavenski, srpski Alžir ekspanzionističke državne sile (Lasić 1989:104). Ukratko, lipnja 1913., nakon dva mjeseca putovanja, dolazi na Bregalnicu gdje nastaje buđenje od južnoslavenskog koncepta ujedinjenja pod jugorojalističkom vizurom dinastije Karađorđević, monumentaliziranog u maketi Meštrovićeva Vidovdanskog hrama. 8

Naime, u tom razdoblju Meštrovićeva drvena Maketa Vidovdanskog hrama (1907.–1912.) objavila se kao prva umjetnička vizualizirana predodžba kosovskog mita s političkim podtekstom rojalističkog Jugomitosa.9

Tako se te 1913. godine Krleža kao dezerter vraća u Zagreb te nastaje definitivan rascjep između oca, činovnika u Austro-Ugarskoj (Miroslav Krleža stariji) i sina (Miroslav Krleža mlađi): za oca, Krleža je bio “dezerter, nitko i ništa, njegova živa sramota” (Lasić 1982:109). Iz svih ovih pozicija – globalnih i osobnih Golgota – Krleža počinje voditi dnevničko-memoarske zapise Davnih dana kao“dramu s tisuću lica” (Matković 1985:187) – u 21. godini, u apokaliptičnoj godini početka Prvoga svjetskog rata.

Pored 1913., i 1914. godina višestruko se očituje kao Krležino prijelomno razdoblje: početak rata i slom Internacionale koja je nestala “kao duh sa spiritističke seanse” (DD2, 283). Zadržimo se na slomu Druge internacionale; početak prvosvjetskoratno-paklenog simultanizma Krleži je označio i apsolutni gubitak vjere u Drugu internacionalu – “monumentalnu mramornu boginju kojoj je po Marxu bilo namijenjeno da spasi Evropu od brodoloma” (DD, 417) – a koja je umjesto promocije internacionalizma, prihvatila politiku/strategije obrane singularnih, nacionalnih interesa, te Stanko Lasić navedene segmente iščitava kao prijelomni trenutak oblikovanja Krležinih svjetonazora u okviru kojih prihvaća lenjinsku varijantu (Lasić 1982:115, 118) interastralnih kanonada (DD, 356; 201).

Zadržimo se nadalje na kronologiji Krležina života te apokaliptične godine začetka Prvoga svjetskog rata. U kolovozu 1914. godine dobiva poziv austrougarskih vojnih vlasti da se javi radi regrutacije; odbijen je jer ima samo 46 kg (Krležijana 2:562), što je Ranko Marinković literarizirao u Kiklopu (1965.) u sceni Tresićeve regrutacije. Ipak, prosinca 1915. Krleža je mobiliziran i nalazi se u pričuvnoj časničkoj školi (25. domobranska pukovnija) – u kasarni koja je bila smještena u bivšoj školskoj zgradi u Krajiškoj ulici u Zagrebu (Lasić 1982:123, 125). Nadalje, što se tiče ratnog životopisa, a ovdje fragmentarno iznesenog prema Lasićevoj Kronologiji (Lasić 1982), srpanj i kolovoz 1916. provodi na ratištu u Galiciji – kao dio mase kanonenfutera (DD, 126; usp. dnevnički zapis pod nadnevkom 17. siječnja 1918.) tijekom prve Brusilovljeve ofenzive. Tih galicijskih mjeseci, koji nisu zastupljeni u Davnim danima, Krleža ima uza se tablete cijankalija koje je dobio u Lovranu “od jednog apotekara s kojim se sprijateljio: namjerava se otrovati ako bude teško ranjen ili u kakvoj drugoj neprilici” (Visković 2000:152). Iz navedenih fragmentarnih podataka o Krležinu životu do 1916. godine, sasvim je sigurno kako su na njega najviše utjecala ta tri rata (metonimija Velikog meštra sviju hulja): Prvi i Drugi balkanski rat (1912. i 1913.) te Prvi svjetski rat, kako je to uostalom često i isticao.

Ukratko: Krležini se Davni dani mogu odrediti kao aktivistička literatura činjenice o marsijanističkoj Odisejadi i Penelopijadi. Pritom navedeni feminino-maskulini ratni binom preuzimam iz Krležina Motiva za noveletu (iz Davnih dana) o djevojci – koja figurira kao “neka vrsta Penelope” i koja spoznaje da su svi njezini prosci prasci – i o njezinu Gerichtsadjunktu (usp. DD, 31–32), a posebice prema zapisu iz eseja Iza kulisa godine 191810

gdje bilježi kako naše Penelope – koje nisu ratnice, ali ratuju – ne misle “da bi se njihov Odisej mogao jednoga dana vratiti, ovjenčan lovorikom” (DD2, 132).

Dakle, dok je 1913. godina ključna što se tiče životnih rituala prijelaza, ako uporabimo Van Gennepovu trijadnu konstrukciju životnih rituala, Stanko Lasić dokumentira da je godina 1914., dakle, slom Druge internacionale kao i slom Krležine vjere u Ilicu 55, u socijaldemokraciju Vitomira Koraća, prijelomni trenutak oblikovanja Krležinih svjetonazora.11

Iz navedene kontekstualizacije krećem u interpretaciju Krležina Razgovora o Brest-Litovsku kao političkog manevra pro futuro, no, iz perspektive 1917. godine.

Ivan Meštrović,drvena Maketa Vidovdanskog hrama (1907.–1912.)
SEC_28_267_G1.jpg

BREST-LITOVSKI SUKOB: LENJIN – TROCKI

Zapis Razgovor o Brest-Litovsku (1918) (prvi put objavljen u Republici, 1967., br. 7–8), zabilježen kao polemički disput što ga Krleža vodi “s jednim tipičnim trabantom Hrvatsko-srpske koalicije”, 12 a koji će se pojaviti“u jednom od kraljevskih SHS-kabineta kao ministar” (DD2, 179), inkrustiran je u dnevničko-memoarske zapise Davnih dana, i to u njegovu drugom izdanju, kao Krležina apologija mira što ga je Lenjinova Rusija potpisala s Centralnim silama u funkciji očuvanja Oktobarske revolucije. Krleža tih davnih dana koji će rezultirati s približno 20 milijuna mrtvih vojnika i civila (“Prvi svjetski rat”, URL),13 istinski vjeruje u Lenjinove interastralne kanonade asimptote Slavjanstva (DD, 356; 201).14

Kao etičku dostojnu gestu nasljedovanja apostrofira rusku politosferu koja je prva odbacila noževe (DD, 280–281), i iz perspektive 1918. Brest-litovski mir (3. ožujka 1918) određuje kao anticipaciju “internacionalističke solidarnosti proletarijata evropskog”, s obzirom na to da su masovni štrajkovi počeli u Francuskoj i u Berlinu (DD2, 188), kao politički manevar pro futuro (DD2, 180).

Međutim, u podrupku teksta, pisanom iz perspektive 1967. godine, kao korekciju vlastite interastralne retorike upućuje kako su se već u veljači 1918. “sve moskovske iluzije o generalnim štrajkovima na terenu centralnih vlasti, a naročito u Berlinu” rasplinule pod “terorom soldateske”, a “lenjinska koncepcija mira u Brest-Litovsku našla se u bezizlaznoj ulici” (DD2, 188). Dakle, riječ je o dvostrukoj optici o Brest-litovskom miru, iz perspektive 1918. i 1967., posljednje – u povodu obilježavanja pedesete obljetnice Oktobra, odnosno godine kada je Krleža potpisao Deklaraciju o položaju i nazivu hrvatskog književnog jezika (objavljena u tjedniku Telegram 17. ožujka 1967.), nakon čega podnosi ostavku na članstvo CK SKH i pritom se povlači iz javnog života (Lasić 1982:403). 15Navedenu dvostruku optiku (1918. – 1967.) moguće je jednako tako dokumentirati i što se tiče Krležine ekspresionističke drame Kristofor Kolumbo (1918. prvi put tiskana u knjizi Hrvatska rapsodija, Naklada Đorđa Ćelapa, Zagreb, 1918., zajedno s istoimenim tekstom i Kraljevom) koju je prvotno posvetio Lenjinu da bi naknadno izbrisao posvetu.16

Naime, navedenu jednočinku, u kojoj postavlja sljedeće paralelizme, duhovnopovijesne analogije, gotovo u smislu morfologije svjetske povijesti Oswalda Spenglera: Kolumbo – Lenjin, Santa Maria – Aurora, piše u vrijeme Oktobra 1917. godine i godinu dana kasnije u trenutku objavljivanja posvetu briše. U Napomeni o Kristovalu Kolonu(Književna republika, 1924., br. 5–6) ističe kako je tada, u vrijeme pisanja jednočinke, legende, Lenjina doživio na tragu Maxa Stirnera (anarhoindividualizam) i Mihaila Bakunjina (kolektivni anarhizam), s tim dvjema anarhoidnim idejama koje je tematizirao, primjerice, i u drami Golgota (1922.) u kojoj će dokumentirati rasap politike prijateljstva među radničkom pokretom. Tako Gomila, koja nastoji ubiti kolumbovskog Admirala, performativno upućuje: “Mi nismo anarhisti kao vi. Nas može spasiti samo organizacija rada! Taylorov system!”, što čini autorsku ironizaciju njihova jednodimenzionalnoga, cikličkog pogleda na svijet.

Možda posvetu briše i iz konteksta Brest-litovskog mira u okviru kojeg je nastao sukob Lenjina i Trockoga.

U tome smislu prvotno shvaćanje Lenjina iz 1917. godine, kada ga je u upisao u štirnerijansko, solipsističko, šopenhauerovsko shvaćanje, blisko je Krležinoj imaginaciji Salome iz prvoga dnevničkog zapisa Davnih dana; Kolumbova krilata lađa i njegova plovidba u tangenti, u nepovrat ka zvijezdama bez kompasa i bez globusa, bliska je Salominoj astralnoj strategiji – “Ten je kod žene najmanje važna stvar! Važne su zvijezde” (DD, 11), odnosno Kolumbovim performativima: “Novo ne može biti u krugu. Novo ne može biti u vraćanju”, s obzirom na trajno faustovsko traganje smisla ljudskog postojanja.

DVIJE IDEJE SLAVENSTVA – JUGOROJALISTIČKA I LENJINSKI NASTROJENA KOMPONENTA

Uvod Razgovora o Brest-Litovsku čini Krležina opservacija stanja duha Koalicije u razdoblju od 1914. do 1918, dokumentirajući kako je Brest-litovski mir prouzročio političku dramatizaciju (i) osobnih prijateljstava, dramatsko razdvajanje “koje će se već nekoliko mjeseci kasnije objaviti u nepomirljivoj borbi i potrajati jednako strastveno decenijama” (DD2, 179)17

, a kao ilustraciju raskola,bipolarizacije hrvatske socijalne demokracije na frakciju koja apostrofira “Rusko Slavjanstvo” ideologema Kerenskoga, premijera privremene vlade Rusije 1917. godine, te na “lenjinski nastrojenu” frakciju bilježi dijalog-duel s jednim, prozvanim koalicijskim trabantom. Ukratko, navedeni zapis dokumentira Krležin osoban spor s Vitomirom Koraćem, njegovom politikom jugoslavenske socijaldemokracije koja je često napuštala zahtjeve proletarijata prihvaćajući, u ime vlastitih interesa, suradnju s vlašću (Visković 2001:145).

U tom predgovoru Krleža ironično priznaje Hrvatsko-srpskoj koaliciji “uspjeh” u sprečavanju uvođenja vojničkog komesarijata u Hrvatsku (u razdoblju od 1914. do 1918.), zahvaljujući njezinoj lojalnoj politici spram ugarske vlade, pod protektoratom “madžarskoga ministra predsjednika, grofa Istvána Tisze” (DD2, 177), s obzirom na to da je glasala Tiszi za ratni budžet (usp. DD2, 178, 190). Stvarna podloga Krležine ironije razotkriva kako je Koalicija iz ratnog kaosa uspjela za sebe izvući znatnu ekonomsku korist, a da bi to što bolje prikrila, štitila je “čitav niz sitnih građanskih prava, što se manifestiralo u relativnoj slobodi štampe i sastajanja, koje se kasnije manifestiralo u često izazovno protuaustrijsko šurovanje” (DD2, 178). 18

Krleža u podrupku Razgovora, pisanom iz retroperspektive 1967., dokumentira predatorskom zoo-metaforom politiku cinizma Centralnih sila, politiku makijavelizma koja je lenjinsku koncepciju Brest-litovskog mira dovela u bezizlaznu ulicu: “Turski, rumunjski, bugarski, njemački i austro-madžarski generali sletjeli su u Brest-Litovsk kao gavrani na truplo ruskog imperija, da otmu iz ruskog carskog tijela Moldaviju, Kavkaz, Kurlandiju, Litvu, Poljsku, Ukrajinu, Estoniju, Latviju i Finsku” (DD2, 188; kurziv S. M.). 19

Pri kraju razgovora optužuje rezultate/dogovore Ženevske konvencije, kontrapunktirajući slučaj Odese gdje “strijeljaju naše zarobljenike, jer ne će da prisegnu kralju”,dok koalicijski trabant Krležine protuargumente atribuira političkom sintagmom bečka soba. Pritom Krleža ironično odašilje kritički (ubodni) upit: “Da nije možda crno-žuta, da me možda nije potplatio Czernin?” (DD2, 191).

Neimenovani “tipični trabant Hrvatsko-srpske koalicije” retorikom uvjeravanja i poučavanja nesvjesno razotkriva vlastitu politiku cinizma, makaronsku i kompromitantnu politiku proturječnih ideologema: kao antantofil (antantofilska Konstituanta: Lloyd George, Raymond Poincaré, Georges Clemenceau [usp. DD2, 183]) negira junkersku politiku; međutim, misli njihovom logikom (princ Leopold von Bayern [usp. DD2, 182]) u pitanju ruskog boljševizma. Kao demokrat apostrofira prvaka revolucionarne demokracije Kerenskoga koji je likvidirao cara (DD2, 182); međutim, nije shvatio da se Kerenski nikada ne bi mogao obračunati s “Kornilovom da mu nisu pomogle revolucionarne mase, bez boljševika Kerenskoga bi bio odnio vrag”,20

a ruski boljševizam određuje kao smrt demokracije. 21

Navedeni sukob dviju ideja slavenstva – jugorojalističke i lenjinski nastrojene komponente – Krleža dokumentira spominjući da s Koraćem (usp. Visković 2001:145) ideje dijele, primjerice, i Zofka Kveder i Juraj Demetrović, pa tako u Davni danima 1917. godine zapisuje:

Što da odgovorim ovima (Zofka Kveder i Juraj Demetrović itd.) kad psuju po Ruskoj revoluciji? Svi obožavaju Ruse, a o Rusiji pojma nemaju. Nitko od nas nema pojma o Rusiji, i kako bih mogao objasniti što hoću reći kad ni ja o njoj nemam pojma? (Krleža, prema Čengić 1982:126).

Inače, Zofka Kveder ima vrlo bitnu ulogu u Krležinu retrospektivnom memoarskom zapisu Pijana novembarska noć 1918 gdje iz perspektive 1942. Krleža transformira Salominu i Johanaanovu figuru: referencijskom ovjerom u zbilji Saloma postaje “dobra Hrvatica i otmjena gospođa jučer, a jugoslavenska demokratska žena večeras, s jednim jedinim Idealom Dinastije Karađorđevića na pastozno ružiranim usnama, i to od ove čajanke večeras do prekosutra”, a Johanaan figurira kao krvava metonimija odsječenih domobranskih glava (DD2, 149). Naime, Salomom, kako je interpretativno kontekstualizirana u memoarskom zapisu Pijana novembarska noć 1918, Krleža razobličuje ulogu “tri eshaezijske Ravijojle” (DD2, 142) – Zofke Kveder-Jelovšek-Demetrović, Zlate Kovačević-Lopašić i Olge Krnic-Peleš – koje su ga tepijane novembarske noći (13. studenoga 1918) “izopćile iz narodnih redova” (DD2, 163). U bilješci navedenog teksta imenuje ih trijadnim politoatributima: “tri troimene pik-dame našeg Ujedinjenja god. 1918. Tri eshaezijske Ravijojle: Slovenka, Hrvatica i Srpkinja”, koje su dočekivale “Aleksandra Karađorđevića godinama na zagrebačkoj stanici sa svojim protokolarnim kranjsko-agramersko-sremskim buketima” (DD2, 142; Marjanić 2005:101–140).

I završno pridodajem, što se tiče Krležina Razgovora u Brest-Litovsku (1918),kako u podrupku zapisa Krleža daje zanimljiv psihogram Aleksandre Mihajlovne Kolontaj, bilježeći da u trenutku kada se glasalo da li da se sklopi mir s njemačkim generalštabom ili ne, “Kolontajeva, kojoj su zatajili živci” “ispala [je] protiv Lenjina sa čitavim nizom grubih verbalnih injurija” (DD2, 186–187).

Navedeni navod o Aleksandri Kolontaj može se kontekstualizirati i Krležinom ljubavi prema njoj, o čemu svjedoči i npr. Irina Aleksander, ističući da je Krleža bio zaljubljen u šest žena, pri čemu navodi svega tri: Aleksandru Kolontaj, Belu i sebe (Aleksander 2007:294), gdje za sebe apostrofira da stoji, na šestom, posljednjem ljubavnom mjestu.

Inače, do Koraćeve Socijaldemokratske stranke (HSSDS) Krleža dolazi zahvaljujući revolucionarnoj trojki, “pobunjenoj omladini” (kako ih je označio Josip Horvat) – Đuri/Đuki Cvijiću, Kamilu Horvatinu i Augustu Cesarcu (Čengić 1982:128; Očak 1982:28–29), koja mu je imponirala zbog toga što su pod vodstvom Luke Jukića izvršili atentat na bana Cuvaja 1912. godine, što uvodi i u fiktivni svijet svoga posljednjeg romana.22

I ubrzo Vitomir Korać predlaže Krleži suradnju u svom socijalističkom glasilu Sloboda (Očak 1982:29).

Naslovnica knjige o radničkom pokretu Vitomira Koraća: Pov[i]jest radničkog pokreta u Hrvatskoj i Slavoniji.Od prvih početaka do ukidanja ovih pokrajina 1922. godine. Zagreb: Radnička komora za Hrvatsku i Slavoniju u Zagrebu, sv. 1–3, 1929.–1933.
SEC_28_267_G2.jpg

Čitam V. Koraća. Naš Postolar iz Šida ispast će na kraju kao jedini historik (da ne kažem 'povjesnik', što bi, što se Koraćevih Povjestica tiče, bilo ispravnije) hrvatskog socijaldemokratskog pokreta. (…) Moglo bi se dogoditi zaista da Koraćeva pristrana pisanija ostane kao jedini komentar onih dana, a trebalo opovrgnuti sve njegove blezgarije od prve riječi do konca” (Krleža 1977b:479–480). 23

KRLEŽINE POLITIKE PRIJATELJSTVA

I dok je u razgovoru o Brest-litovskom miru Krleža dokumentirao sukob između antantofilske inteligencije, u drami Golgota (1923.) dokumentira sukobe u okviru politika prijateljstva (Usp. Derrida 2001; García-Düttmann 2003) u samom radničkom pokretu. U slobodnoj interpretativnoj mreži značenja možemo reći da Krležu kao i Derridu zanima tumačenje uzvika “O, moji prijatelji, prijatelja nema”, što je uostalom i dokumentirao u svom posljednjem romanu – veliko prijateljstvo između Kamila Emeričkoga mlađeg i Joje. 24

Upravo Krležina drama Golgota (1922.) označava prvi žanrovski okvir njegove izrazito političke dramaturgije, na što upućuje i njezina posveta: “sjenama Richmonda i Fortinbrasa”, Shakespeareovim likovima koji nose baklju otpora nasilju (Gašparović 1989:70–71). Nikola Batušić prvi je upozorio da je prvobitni moto u časopisnoj verziji Golgote slijedio dedikaciju “Agnus Dei! Qui tollis peccata mundi! Ora pro nobis”, a da je u svim kasnijim izdanjima ispušten. Riječ je o autorskoj varijanti teksta svećenikova zaziva pri lomljenju kruha kod katoličke mise, iz čega moto, kao što nadalje utvrđuje navedeni teatrolog, pokazuje da Krleža od jaganjca Božjeg “nije zaiskao niti da nam se smiluje niti da nam poda mir, već da moli za nas” (Batušić 2007:231).

Tako u zapisu Premijera “Golgote” 3. XI. 1922. Rukopis od 4. novembra 1922. (DD2, 381–392) 25

Krleža spominje Zofku Kveder-Demetrović u atributivnom određenju supruga i poetesa Jurja Demetrovića, “poznatog marksističkog ideologa i lidera, danas prisutnog u svojstvu Kraljevskog komesara kod bivše Pokrajinske vlade”, a koji je bio uvjeren kako je Golgota,koja je praizvedena u Zagrebu spomenutog datuma u HNK-u u Gavellinoj režiji,ispisana kao “pamflet protiv njega lično kao socijalističkog renegata”. 26

U bilješci dnevničkog zapisa Krleža zapisuje kontekst te glasine: “Stvorila se sama od sebe glasina, a ta je kružila gradom kao što već takve glasine kruže, da se pod krinkom Kristijana krije Juraj Demetrović, a i on sam bio je uvjeren da je tako” (DD2, 384).

Zamjetno je da dok je Zofku Kveder-Demetrović u memoarskom zapisu Pijana novembarska noć 1918 Krleža sarkastično označio kao jednu od trikolornih eshaezijskih Ravijojli, u zapisu o premijeri Golgote očito je da Krleža povezuje njezina supruga Jurja Demetrovića sa žutom negacijom Krista. Naime, Golgota dramatizira sukob unutar samoga radničkog pokreta – između crvene linije radničkog pokreta (Pavle kao prefiguracija Krista) koji su vođeni idejama Oktobra, i žute, oportunističke linije radništva (Kristijan kao prefiguracija Jude) koja stremi kao kolumbovska Gomila samo poboljšanju vlastitoga materijalnog života. 27Golgotu Krleža piše u razdoblju od 1918. do 1920., u doba vlastitog angažmana u SRPJ(k), poslije KPJ, kada vrlo često nastupa kao govornik na skupovima (Krležijana1:301). 28

Upravo segment dnevničkog zapisa od 23. travnja 1920., Kraljevica, Brodogradilište(Scena na stanici Kameral Moravitz), Nikola Batušić određuje kao kontekstualni okvir trećeg čina Golgote (Batušić 2002:114). Pored navedenoga, Krleža u bilješci zapisa Premijera “Golgote” 3. XI. 1922. Rukopis od 4. novembra 1922. zapisuje kako je Golgotu pisao u Kraljevici 1920. godine (usp. DD2, 384).

Ukratko, Golgota tematizira stanje u europskom radničkom pokretu nakon Oktobarske revolucije, sukobe i rascjepe u Drugoj i Trećoj internacionali, a uvodno smo istaknuli koliko je kriza Druge internacionale djelovala razočaravajuće na Krležu te time golgotski problem u Golgoti figurira kao etički problem izdaje (Vučković 1986:161). Biblijski arhetip pritom se rastvara i na primjeru Ksavera (u prefiguraciji Ahasver) koji u kritičnom trenutku nije pritekao Pavu (prefiguracija Krista) u pomoć, kao što je Ahasver, prema srednjovjekovnoj predaji, kada je Krist na putu do Golgote zamolio vodu, uskratio mu tu vodu (Ibid. 163; Matičević 1996:129). Navedenim se dobiva sljedeći paralelizam: Pavle – Krist, Kristijan – Juda i Ksaver – Ahasver te Andrej koji nakon Pavlove smrti preuzima njegovu, Kristovu ulogu, što upućuje da Golgota pored toga što funkcionira kao politička drama figurira i kao drama ogoljele ljudske egzistencije (Gašparović 1989:80), u navedenoj kontekstualizaciji u okviru politike prijateljstva.

ZAKLJUČNO O KRLEŽINOJ DVOSTRUKOJ OPTICI NA BREST-LITOVSKI MIR

Krležini Davni dani, dnevničko-memoarski zapisi, obuhvaćaju, dakle, kancerozno razdoblje od 1914. do 1921./22. “kada je čitav ovaj blatni pejzaž preletio anđeo smrti” (DD2, 22), kada se brblja “o oštrim noževima kao o najsvakodnevnijoj pojavi” (DD, 262). Tako u povijesnom eseju Prije trideset godina (1917–1947), 29što ga uvodi u dnevničko-memoarsku strukturu Davnih dana, u njegovu prvu izdanju iz 1956. godine, Krleža detektira kako nema (hrvatskog) ljetopisa o Prvom svjetskom ratu (DD, 398) jer – kao što bilježi u dnevničkom zapisu 15. rujna 1916. – riječ je o razdoblju kada su svi mislioci zatajili, prepustivši se etičko-indiferentnoj šutnji (DD, 219). Vjeruje kako je dublji smisao ovih (davnih) dana moguć samo iz retrospektive (DD2, 39), retrodiskursa neutralizirane, ohlađene povijesti. Posredno vlastitom dvostrukom optikom na Brest-litovski mir Krleža demonstrira ono o čemu svjedoči Annika Mombauer u vlastitom proučavanju Prvoga svjetskog rata – da je “povijest uvijek samo interpretacija događaja, formulirana u kontekstu političkih okolnosti” (Mombauer 2014:259). I završno njezinom povjesničarskom detekcijom:

Povijest nije objektivni, činjenični prikaz događaja onako kako su se dogodili, a povijesne analize valja čitati s jasnim razumijevanjem njihovog porijekla. Povijest je podložna pristranosti, falsifikaciji i namjernom pogrešnom tumačenju pojedinaca, čak i profesionalnih povjesničara, kao i cenzuri vladinih tijela – ako su rezultati povijesnog istraživanja previše neugodni ili se previše nepovoljno reflektiraju na sadašnjost. Za studente povijesti to je možda najvažniji zaključak ove knjige” (Mombauer 2014:259).

U dnevničkom zapisu 28. listopada 1915., gdje Krleža dijagnosticira kako instrumentacije Julesa Masseneta s Goetheovim motivima još uvijek nisu raskrinkane kao besmisao, ispisuje apokaliptičnu viziju povijesti: “A ustvari ovako zločinačke, kriminalne, perverzne, bolesne civilizacije još nije bilo u historiji. Ni jedna nije bila razdirana takvim protuslovljima” (DD, 57).

U kontekstu navedene dvostruke optike na Brest-litovski mirovni sporazum nastojala sam dokumentirati i Krležine vizure prijateljstva; i dok u Razgovoru o Brest-Litovsku (1918) Krleža dokumentira kako je Brest-litovski mir prouzročio političku dramatizaciju (i) osobnih prijateljstava, dramatsko razdvajanje hrvatske socijalne demokracije na frakciju koja apostrofira “Rusko Slavjanstvo” ideologema Kerenskoga, premijera privremene vlade Rusije 1917. godine te na “lenjinski nastrojenu” frakciju, u drami Golgota (1922.) dokumentira i raspad prijateljstva i u radničkom pokretu, i time se vraćam na uvodni zapis o politikama prijateljstva kako ih je dokumentirao Freud 1921. godine u suodnosu bodljikave prasadi.

Inače, dva su stava što se tiče Krležina dokumentarizma Prvoga svjetskog rata, i to uglavnom iz perspektive njegove zbirke Hrvatski bog Mars (1922.) kao i njegovih ratnih drama – Galicija (1922.), Golgota (1922.) i Vučjak (1923.). I dok neki, kao npr. Filip Škiljan čije mišljenje dijelim, smatraju da je Krleža dao vjerodostojnu sliku Prvoga svjetskog rata, neki se pak zadržavaju na pitanju stereotipizacije i autorova ethosa.Naime, Filip Škiljan ističe realan opis u noveli Tri domobrana (1921.), način na koji su Zagorci doživljavali odlazak na ratište i eventualni dopust (Škiljan 2014:68). No, Vlasta Horvatić-Gmaz smatra da je Krleža oblikovao literarni stereotip 30zagorskog domobrana prisilno unovačenog da bi uzaludno ginuo za cara i Monarhiju u očajnim prilikama u galicijskim rovovima, da domobrani iz novele Bitka kod Bistrice Lesne (1923.) prerastaju u mit “o neratobornim, nepismenim i rezigniranim zagorskim domobranima, nemoćnim da promijene svoj položaj” (Horvatić-Gmaz 2014:16). Naime, autorica zaključuje da Krleža radikalizira protumonarhijska uvjerenja i osobni animozitet prema austrijskim vojnim strukturama.

Zadržat ću se na pozitivnokvalitativnim određenjima Krležine reprezentacije Prvoga svjetskog rata s obzirom na stvaralačku slobodu odabira navedene perspektive. Tako Zvonimir Freivogel ističe kako se u Hrvatskoj sve donedavno relativno malo znalo i pisalo o postrojbama austrougarske vojske “jer je to znanje, kao i sjećanje sudionika godinama sustavno 'brisano' iz kolektivne svijesti i povijesti koju su 'skladali' pobjednici. Više se o austrougarskoj vojsci moglo saznati iz beletristike, poput Hašekovog Dobrog vojaka Švejka ili Krležinog Hrvatskog boga Marsa nego iz stručne literature koja za to razdoblje do hrvatske samostalnosti praktički nije ni postojala” (Freivogel 2014:9).

Irina Aleksander, obično određena prepoznatljivom sintagmom “kontroverzna prijateljica Miroslava Krleže”, jedna je od rijetkih krležologinja koja je istaknula da Krleža odlazi u rat kao običan vojnik, da odbija promaknuće u časnički čin: “Ide ratovati rame uz rame s tim seljacima, otkinutim od rodne grude u ime tuđega rata, s tim 'kandidatima za slavnu, kraljevsku, mađarsku domobransku smrt'” (Aleksander 2007:195). Ivo Štivičić smatra da je Krležina Kraljevska ugarska domobranska novela najbolji scenarij napisan na matrici koju Amerikanci eksploatiraju već punih pedeset godina, a to je kako izdresirati čovjeka da bude poslušni ubojica. To su sve one, kako Štivičić scenaristički opisuje, “vježbe po štangama pa kroz vodu, po blatu”. Sve je to Krleža zabilježio u Kraljevskoj ugarskoj domobranskoj noveli (1921.) koja je “gotov scenarij, a donosi jednu od najčudesnijih i najužasnijih priča o tome kako se uništava i muči čovjek” (Štivičić 2013). 31

I završno navodim kako je Velimir Visković u predgovoru knjige Krležološki fragmenti istaknuo da je Krleža permanentno odbijao “ponude da postane profesionalni političar (i onu Koraćevu iz 1918. godine, kad je trebao postati jednim od čelnika hrvatskih socijaldemokrata, i onu Brozovu nakon 1948.)” (Visković 2001:6), što se danas nažalost često zaboravlja ili iz nekog pogleda na svijet (od kojeg je Krležin Doktor iz romana Na rubu pameti zazirao) prešućuje. A koliko su politike prijateljstva Krleži bitne svjedoči i Vaništin zapis iz studenoga 1981. godine kada mu je Krleža, mjesec dana pred smrt, rekao:“Imao sam malo prijatelja, vrlo malo u odnosu na velik broj ljudi koje sam poznavao. Bili su to Kamilo Horvatin, Cesarec, Vaso Bogdanov, Krsto [Hegedušić, op. a.],” čime se ponovno vraćam na moto ovoga članka o bodljikavoj prasadi koja, prema Freudu, može prepoznati istinske granice prijateljstva.

Notes

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 (prema Čengić 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, prema Marjanić 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, prema Čengić 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 to Čengić 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 to Marjanić 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 to Čengić 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).




I shall be considering Krleža’s reaction to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (2 December 1917 – 2-3 March 1918), a peace treaty signed on March 1918 between Soviet Russia and the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey – Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria) (cf. Mombauer 2014:57, Crutwell 1982:479), in the context of his diary-memoirist entries titled Bygone Days 1as the only Croatian literary journal from WWI (namely, I do not refer to other Croatian journals from WWI with literary determinants, as observed by Marijan Matković, but rather to a literary journal) (Matković 1985:188).2

Milan Vlajčić (1963:588) believes that any “discussion on Miroslav Krleža should (...) begin with Bygone Days” or a tautology according to which all Krleža’s works had been hinted at in his WWI journals, which particularly refers to the “river novel”, his last novel TheBanners (ibid.:588-589). 3

Hence, Aleksandar Šlivarić suggests that if one was looking for the “embryonic beginning, a date of birth for the Croatian Rhapsody (Hrvatska rapsodija) (Savremenik, 1917, 5) then they would do well to look at the Zagreb – Nova Kapela Batrina – Požega route at the beginning of April 1917” (Šlivarić 1957:1011), which was recorded in Bygone Days for the mentioned year.

In the interpretative niche of literary and political anthropology, given that (auto)biographical contextualization, both centripetal and centrifugal, has become unappealing to many, due to its stylistic and narratological interpretations, so much so that there were no Krleža’s biographies before Lasić’s Chronology (1982), I will be contextualizing the first year of war (1914) through Krleža’s biographical chronology – Krleža was (only) 21 when the first diary entry dated 26 February 1914 in his literary journal Bygone Days contained a fragment of Salome 4, which together with the play Legend (printed in Marjanović’s Literary News the same year) belonged to Krleža’s first dramatic texts.

THREE WARS AS KRLEŽA’S RITE OF PASSAGE

It is noticeable from the psychobiographical niche that apart from the given historical and global apocalyptic circumstances, Krleža began to write Bygone Days after having gone through his personal calvary. Namely, the year of 1913 is crucial for delineating his life itinerary because it is the year when the idea about escaping the Hungarian Ludovica Military Academy matured. Krleža had been undergoing the military drill in Hungarian military academies for five years, namely from 1908 to 1913, from the age of fifteen to twenty, first as a cadet at the Hungarian Royal Officer Cadet School in Pecs (1908 – 1911), and then at Ludovica (1911 – 1913) (cf. Zelmanović 1987).5

In addition to the idea of escaping Ludovica, realizing in these formative years that the military was not his calling, in 1913 Krleža also began to develop an ambivalent political position, which was in line with his antithetical carousel 6

i.e. a paradoxical mixture of Starčević-esque love for Croatia and a sentimental vision of South Slavic unification (Lasić 1982:102). Thus in April 1913 Krleža left Ludovica Academy in keeping with the vision of South Slavic unification and reached Paris from where he continued on to Skopje via Marseilles and Thessaloniki, with the intention of enlisting in the Serbian Army as a volunteer at Bregalnica (Lasić 1982:104), just before the war between Serbia and Bulgaria started. To be exact, at the time of the Balkan wars (The First and Second Balkan War 1912 – 1913) Krleža attempted to enlist in the Serbian Army twice, however in 1912 he was rejected and in 1913 he was suspected of being an Austro-Hungarian spy and subsequently returned to the Austrian authorities in Zemun. 7

The latter escape almost resembles the sequences from an adventure novel, whereas the attempt to join the Serbs at Bregalnica bears a resemblance to Melanija’s voyage with Novak the cavalier, to put the mentioned anabasis in the context of the fictional world of Krleža’s first novel The Three Cavaliers of Miss Melanija: An old fashioned tale fromthetime when Croatian Literary Modernism was dying (1920/1922). Krleža’s experience at Bregalnica brought about his disillusionment with the political concept of the South Slavic unification prevalent at the time, which was to be implemented by Serbia – Piedmont: as he realised that the battle of Bregalnica was “perhaps disproportionately an event more tragic than this war, because at Bregalnica Dostoyevsky’s prediction came true for the second time: that all these Balkan peasants would slaughter and kill each other to extinction if they could lay their hands on cannons!” (BD, 248). Thus Bregalnica destroyed all Krleža’s ideas, illusions about the Illyrian Movement and, unlike the Austrian Algeria, he came to know the South Slavic, Serbian Algeria, as an expansionist national force (Lasić 1989:104). In short, in June 1913, after two months of travelling, he reached Bregalnica where he was awakened from the South Slavic concept of unification under the Yugo-Royalist views of the Karađorđević dynasty, which was monumentalized by the Meštrović’s Vidovdan Temple Model. 8Namely, at that time Meštrović’s wooden Vidovdan TempleModel (1907 – 1912) appeared as the first artistic visualization of the Kosovo Myth with political subtext of the royalist Yugo-mythos. 9

Hence, in 1913 Krleža returned to Zagreb as a deserter and a definite rift between father, a clerk in Austria-Hungary (Miroslav Krleža senior) and son (Miroslav Krleža junior) ensued. To his father Krleža was “a deserter, a nobody, a crying shame” (1982:109). It is from this position of global and personal calvary that Krleža began to write his diary-memoirist entries titled Bygone Days as a “drama with a thousand faces” (Matković 1985:187) – at the age of 21 in the apocalyptic year when WWI began.

Apart from 1913, the year of 1914 proved in many ways to have been a crucial turning point in Krleža’s life: the beginning of war and the collapse of the International which vanished “like an apparition from a spiritualist séance” (BD2, 283). Let us dwell on the collapse of the Second International. The beginning of the WWI and its infernal simultanism marked the absolute loss of faith in the Second International on Krleža’s part – “a monumental marble goddess who, according to Marx, was intended to save Europe from capsizing” (BD, 417) – which, instead of promoting internationalism, accepted the policy/strategy of defending the singular, national interests. Therefore, Stanko Lasić interprets the mentioned excerpts as a crucial turning point in shaping Krleža’s viewpoints, within which he accepts the Leninist version (Lasić 1982:115, 118) of the interastral barrages (AD, 356; 201).

Let us also dwell on Krleža’s life chronology during the apocalyptic year when WWI broke out. In August 1914, he received a conscription notice from Austria-Hungary military authorities asking him to register for recruitment. Since he weighed only 46 kilo, he was rejected (Krležijana 2::562), an event that Ranko Marinković preserved in literary memory in a scene depicting Tresić’s recruitment in the novel Cyclops (1965). Nevertheless, in December 1915 Krleža was conscripted and sent to the Officers’ School for reservists (25th Home Guard regiment). The barracks were situated in the former school building in Krajiška Street in Zagreb (Lasić 1982:123, 125). To continue with Krleža’s war biography, which is here mentioned in fragments according to Lasić’s Chronology (Lasić 1982), he spent 1916 on the Galician Front as part of the cannon fodder mass (BD, 126; cf. diary entry dated 17/1/1918) during the first Brusilov’s offensive. During those Galician months, which are not mentioned in Bygone Days, Krleža had potassium cyanide pills with him that he procured in Lovran “from an apothecary with whom he became friends, with the intention of taking them in case he was badly wounded or got in some other kind of trouble” (Visković 2000:152). From the fragmented information on Krleža’s life before 1916, it is quite certain that he was influenced by these three wars (metonymy for “The Grand Master of All Scoundrels”): First and Second Balkan Wars (1912 and 1913) and WWI, which he often mentioned himself.

In essence Krleža’s Bygone Days can be defined as activist factual literature on the wartime Oddiseyiad and Penelopeiad. Hence, I am using the feminine-masculine war binomial from Krleža’s NovellaMotif (from Bygone Days) about a girl – who acts as “a kind of Penelope” and realises that all her suitors are pigs – and her court trainee (cf. BD, 31-32), particularly according to the entry from the essay Behind the Scenes in 1918, 10

in which he stated that our Penelopes – who are not warriors, but are waging war nevertheless – do not think that “their Odysseus could return one day, wearing his laurel wreath” (BD2, 132).

Therefore, while 1913 is a crucial year regarding the rites of passage, provided we apply Van Gennep’s three phases of rites of passage rituals, Stanko Lasić documents that 1914, i.e. the collapse of the Second International and the loss of Krleža’s faith in Ilica 55 (social democracy as expounded by Vitomir Korać), is in fact the crucial turning point in shaping Krleža’s worldview. 11

After providing the context above, I will move on to the interpretation of Krleža’s Discussion on the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk as a political manoeuvre pro futuro, from the perspective of 1917.

Ivan Meštrović:wooden Vidovdan TempleModel (1907–1912)
SEC_28_291_G1.jpg

BREST-LITOVSK DISPUTE: LENIN – TROTSKY

The entry Discussion on the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918) (first published in Republika, 1967, 7–8) was defined as a polemical dispute, which Krleža was having “with a typical hanger-on from the Croato-Serbian coalition”,12

who nevertheless later emerged “in one of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes cabinets as a Minister” (BD2, 179), was encrusted in diary-memoirist entries of Bygone Days, more precisely in its second edition, as Krleža’s apologia for peace, i.e. a treaty which Lenin’s Russia had signed with the Central Powers in order to preserve the October Revolution. In those bygone days, which were to result in approximately 20 million dead soldiers and civilians (“WWI”, http), 13Krleža truly believed in Lenin’s interastral barrages, asymptotes of Slavianism (BD, 356; 201) 14. He pointed out the Russian politosphere, which was the first to refuse knives (BD, 280–281), as an ethical and worthy gesture of heritagization, and from the perspective of 1918 identified the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (3 March 1918) as an anticipation of “the international solidarity of the European proletariat” given that the mass strikes started in France and in Berlin (BD2, 188), as a political manoeuvre pro futuro (BD2, 180).

However, in the footnote to the text, written from the perspective of 1967, Krleža suggested, as a correction of his own interastral rhetoric, that as early as February 1918 “any Moscow illusion about general strikes in the area of central government, particularly in Berlin” dissipated under the “terror sewing military hordes” in February 1918, and “the Leninist concept of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk ended up in a cul-de-sac” (BD2, 188). Therefore, there are two perspectives on Brest-Litovsk, one from 1918 and the other from 1967, the latter came about on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the October Revolution, namely in the year when Krleža signed the Declaration on the Status and Name of the Croatian Literary Language (published in a Telegram weekly on 17 March 1967), after which he submitted his resignation from the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia subsequently withdrawing from public life (Lasić 1982:403). 15

It is also possible to corroborate the above mentioned double vision (1918 – 1967) on the basis of Krleža’s expressionist play Christopher Columbus (first published under the title Cristobal Colon in 1918 as part of the book Croatian Rhapsody, Đorđe Ćelap publishing, Zagreb 1918, together with the eponymous text and a play Kraljevo) which he originally dedicated to Lenin only to erase the inscription later on. 16

Namely, he wrote the mentioned one-act play, which discusses the following parallelisms, spiritual and historical analogies, almost in the sense of Oswald Spengler’s morphology of the world history: Columbus – Lenin; Santa Maria – Aurora, at the time of the October Revolution in 1917. A year later, when it was published, he erased the inscription from it. In the Annotation to Cristobal Colon (Književna republika, 5–6, 1924) he explains that at the time of writing the one-act play, a legend, he perceived Lenin in the light of Max Stirner’s (individualist anarchism) and Mikhail Bakunin’s (collectivist anarchism) two anarchist ideas, which he thematized, for example, in the play Golgotha (1922) where he demonstrated the disintegration of the politics of friendship within the workers’ movement. Hence, the Crowd that attempts to kill a Columbian Admiral performatively elaborates: “We aren’t anarchists like you. We can only be saved by the organization of work! The Taylor’s system!” whereby the author ironizes the one-dimensional, cyclical worldview.

Perhaps, he erased the inscription within the context of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty out of which the Lenin – Trotsky conflict arose.

In this regard, Krleža’s initial perception of Lenin from 1917, when he included him among the solipsistic views of Stirner and Schopenhauer, is close to Krleža’s imagination in Salome, from the first diary entry in Bygone Days; Columbus’ winged ship and his voyage along the tangent into oblivion, towards the stars, without a compass or a globe, is similar to Salome’s astral strategy – “A woman’s complexion is of the smallest importance! What’s important are the stars” (BD, 11), or Columbus’ performative utterance: “The new cannot exist in a circle. The new cannot be about going back”, regarding the perennial Faustian search for the meaning of human existence.

TWO IDEAS OF SLAVIANISM – YUGO-ROYALIST AND LENIN LEANING COMPONENT

The introduction to the Discussion on the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk contains Krleža’s observation of the Coalition’s state of mind in the period 1914–1918, which corroborates that the Brest-Litovsk Treaty had caused political dramatization (and) personal friendships to dramatically disengage “which would in the next few months become visible in an irreconcilable struggle and go on to passionately continue through decades” (BD2, 179) , 17and as an illustration of the schism, the bipolarization of the Croatian social democracy to the faction which emphasises “Russian Slavianism” of ideologue Kerensky, the Prime Minister of the Russian Provisional Government in 1917, and the “Lenin leaning” faction, he wrote a dialogue – duel with a typical coalition hanger-on. In a nutshell, the mentioned entry confirms Krleža’s private dispute with Vitomir Korać, whose politics of Yugoslav social democracy frequently abandoned the demands of the proletariat and agreed to cooperate with the authorities out of interest (Visković 2001:145).

In his introduction Krleža ironically acknowledges the “success” of the Croato-Serbian coalition in preventing the introduction of a military commissariat in Croatia (in the period 1914-1918), due to its loyal politics towards Hungarian Government, under the protectorate of the “Hungarian Prime Minister, count István Tisza” (BD2, 177), given that it had voted for Tisza’s war budget (cf. BD2, 178, 190). However, the real background to Krleža’s irony was the discovery that the coalition managed to reap significant profit from the chaos of war for itself, and in order to cover it up as best it could, it protected “a whole host of secondary citizens’ rights, which was manifested in the relative freedom of the press and of assembly, which later took on the form of often challenging anti-Austrian colluding” (BD2, 178). 18

In a footnote to the Discussion, written from the retro perspective of 1967, uses a predatory zoo-metaphor to corroborate the Central Powers’ politics of cynicism and Machiavellianism which led the concept of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty into a cul-de-sac: “Turkish, Romanian, Bulgarian, German, and Austro-Hungarian generals landed in Brest-Litovsk like ravens on the carcass of the Russian Empire, to snatch Moldavia, the Caucasus, Courland, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, and Finland from the imperial body” (BD2, 188, italics S. M.). 19

Towards the end of the discussion, he condemns the results/agreements under the Geneva Convention, by counterpointing the case of Odessa where “our prisoners were being shot because they did not want to swear allegiance to the King”, while the coalition hanger-on describes Krleža’s counter-arguments using a political syntagm Viennese room. In doing so Krleža poses a critical (probing) question: “Could it perhaps be black and yellow, perhaps I was bribed by Czernin?” (BD2, 191).

The “typical hanger-on of the Croato-Serbian coalition” who remains nameless by the rhetoric of persuasion and teaching, unintentionally uncovers the politics of cynicism, macaronic and compromising politics of contradictory ideologues: as an Entente-phile (Entente-phile Constituents: Lloyd George, Raymond Poincaré, Georges Clemenceau [cf. BD2, 183]) negates the Junker politics. Nevertheless, he thinks in line with their logic (Prince Leopold von Bayern [cf. DD2, 182]) apropos the Russian Bolshevism. As a democrat, he pointed out the champion of the revolutionary democracy Kerensky, who had the Emperor killed (BD2, 182), however, he did not understand that Kerensky could never have dealt with “Kornilov had he not been aided by the revolutionary masses; without the Bolsheviks, Kerensky would have gone to hell in a handbasket”20

; and defines Russian Bolshevism as death of democracy. 21

The mentioned conflict between the two ideas of Slavianism – Yugo-Royalist and Lenin leaning components – Krleža shows that for example Zofka Kveder and Juraj Demetrović shared Korać’s ideas, too (cf. Visković 2001:145) so in Bygone Days in 1917 he wrote:

What do I do with these (Zofka Kveder and Juraj Demetrović etc.) when they curse the Russian Revolution? Everybody loves the Russians, but nobody has a clue about Russia. None of us have a clue about Russia, and how could I explain what I mean when even I have no clue? (Krleža, according to Čengić 1982:126).

Zofka Kveder played a very important role in Krleža’s retrospective memoir A Drunken November night 1918, where he from the perspective of 1942 transformed the characters of Salome and John the Baptist (Johanaan). Through a referential verification in reality Salome became “a good Croatian woman and a distinguished lady yesterday, a Yugoslav democratic woman today, with only one ideal of Karađorđević dynasty wearing pastel colour lipstick on her lips, from the tea party this evening until the day after tomorrow”, and John the Baptist (Johanaan) represents a bloody metonymy for beheaded Home Guard soldiers (BD2, 149). Namely, with Salome, as she was interpretatively contextualized in a memoir Drunken November night 1918, Krleža exposes the role of “the three faeries of the Kingdom of SCS" (BD2, 142) – Zofka Kveder-Jelovšek-Demetrović, Zlata Kovačević-Lopašić and Olga Krnic-Peleš – who on the drunken November night in question(13 November 1918) “excommunicated him from the commons” (BD2, 163) – “In the note to the mentioned text he depicts them as a triad of political attributes – “three Queens of Spades of our Union in 1918 with three different names. Three faeries of the Kingdom of SCS: a Slovene, a Croat and a Serb woman” – who had welcomed “Aleksandar Karađorđević for years on the Zagreb Station with their protocol proscribed [derrog.] Slovene-Croat-Serbian nosegays” (BD2, 142, Marjanić 2005:101–140).

In conclusion, regarding Krleža’s Discussion on Brest-Litovsk (1918) I would like to add that in a footnote to the entry Krleža gave an interesting psychogram of Alexandra M. Kollontai, writing that at the time of voting on whether or not to conclude a peace agreement with the German General Staff Mrs Kollontai, whose nerves gave out on her, “spoke against Lenin using a whole array of coarse verbal affronts” (BD2, 186–187).

The above mentioned quote on Alexandra Kollontai can also be contextualized in Krleža’s love for her, which is confirmed by e.g. Irina Aleksander, who said that Krleža had been in love with six women, stating the names of only three: Alexandra Collontai, Bela, and herself (Aleksander 2007:294) and emphasised that she occupied the sixth, i.e. the last position.

Furthermore, Krleža came into contact with Korać’s Social Democratic Party (HSSDS) thanks to the revolutionary trio, “the rebelling youth” (as they were described by Josip Horvat) – Đuro/Đuka Cvijić, Kamilo Horvatin, and August Cesarec (Čengić 1982:128; Očak 1982:28–29), who impressed him because they executed the assassination of count Cuvaj in 1912 under Luka Jukić’s leadership, which is an introduction to the fictional world of his last novel.22

Soon after that Vitomir Korać invited Krleža to collaborate on his socialist newspaper Sloboda(Freedom) (Očak 1982:29).

Cover of the book on workers’ movement by Vitomir Korać: The History of Workers’ Movement in Croatia and Slavonia. From the beginning to the abolition of these provinces in 1922. Zagreb: Workers’ Union for Croatia and Slavonia in Zagreb (Radnička komora za Hrvatsku i Slavoniju u Zagrebu), volumes 1-3, 1929, 1933.
SEC_28_291_G2.jpg
I’ve been reading V. Korać. Our shoemaker from Šid will turn out to be the only historian (not to use the Croatian synonym 'povjesnik' (chronicler), which would, in the case of Korać’s Historical Short Stories (Povjestice), be more accurate) of the Croatian Social Democratic Movement. (…) It may well be that Korać’s biased scribbles remain the only comment of those days, in truth all of his blather should be refuted from beginning to end (Krleža 1977b479–480). 23

KRLEŽA’S POLITICS OF FRIENDSHIP

While Krleža focused on the conflict between the Entent-phile intelligentsia in the Discussion on the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, in the play Golgotha (1923) he focused on the conflict within the politics of friendship (cf. Derrida 2001; García-Düttmann 2003), in the workers’ movement itself. Using a free interpretative web of significance we could say that both Krleža and Derrida were interested in the interpretation of the vociferation “O, my friends, there are no friends”, which he also depicted in his last novel – a great friendship between Kamilo Emerički, jr. and Joja.24

Krleža’s play Golgotha (1922) designated the first genre-based framework of his distinctly political dramaturgy, which is implied in its dedication “To the shadows of Richmond and Fortinbras”, Shakespeare’s characters who bear the torch of resistance to violence (Gašparović 1989:70–71). Nikola Batušić was the first to warn that the original motto in the magazine edition of Golgotha contained the dedication “Agnus Dei! Qui tollis peccata mundi! Ora pro nobis”, which was missing from all subsequent editions. The phrase in point is the author’s version of the words uttered by a priest while breaking the bread in a Catholic mass which, as the mentioned theatrologist confirmed, shows that Krleža “did not ask from the Lamb of God either to have mercy or to grant peace, but to pray for us” (Batušić 2007:231).

Therefore, in the entry titled Premiere of “Golgotha” 3 November 1922 (Manuscript from 4 November 1922) (BD2, 381–392)25

Krleža mentioned Zofka Kveder-Demetrović characterizing her as a wife and a poetess married to Juraj Demetrović, “a well-known Marxist ideologist and leader, present today in the capacity of the Royal commissar with the former Province Government”, who was convinced that Golgotha,which was premiered in Zagreb on the above mentioned date at the Croatian National Theatre, directed by Gavella, was written as a “pamphlet against him personally as a socialist renegade”. 26

In the note to the journal entry Krleža describes the context of the rumour: “A rumour has emerged by itself, circulating around the city as such rumours are known to do, that lurking under the mask of Kristijan was Juraj Demetrović and he himself was convinced of it” (BD2, 384).

It is worth noticing that in the Drunken November Night 1918 Krleža sarcastically depicted Zofka Kveder-Demetrović as one of the three-colour faeries of the Kingdom of SCS, while in the entry about the Golgotha premiere he clearly connected her husband Juraj Demetrović with the yellow negation of Christ. Namely, Golgotha dramatizes the conflict within the workers’ movement – between the red workers’ movement line (Pavle as a refigured Christ) who follow the ideas of the October Revolution, and the yellow, opportunist workers’ line (Kristijan as a refigured Judas) whose only aspiration, like the Columbian crowd, is to have better material life. 27

Golgotha was written between 1918 and 1920, at the time when Krleža was actively engaged in the Socialist Workers’ Party of Yugoslavia – SRPJ(k), later Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and often spoke at the gatherings (Krležijana 1:301).28

It is precisely the journal entry from 23 April 1920, Kraljevica, Shipyard (Scene at the Kameral Moravitz Station) that Nikola Batušić identifies as the contextual framework to Act Three of Golgotha (Batušić 2002:114). Apart from this, Krleža mentions in the entry about the Premiere of “Golgotha” 3 November 1922 Manuscript from 4 November 1922 that he had written Golgotha in Kraljevica in 1920 (cf. BD2, 384).

To sum up, Golgotha thematizes the state of play in the European workers’ movement after the October Revolution, the conflicts and schisms in the Second and Third International. As was highlighted in the introduction, the Second International had a disillusioning impact on Krleža whereby the calvary problem in Golgotha features as an ethical problem of betrayal (Vučković 1986:161). The Biblical archetype also spreads out to the example of Ksaver (refigured into Ahasver) who at the critical moment did not come to Pavle’s aid (refigured Christ) like Ahasver, who according to a Mediaeval legend, when Christ asked for water on the way to Golgotha, refused to give him any (Vučković 1986:163; Matičević 1996:129). This yields the following parallelism: Pavle – Christ, Kristijan – Judas, and Ksaver – Ahasver with Andrej taking over the role of Christ after Pavle’s death, which indicates that Golgotha functions not only as a political drama but also as a bleak human existence drama (Gašparović 1989:80), within the contextualization of the politics of friendship.

CONCLUSION ON KRLEŽA’S DOUBLE VISION OF THE TREATY OF BREST-LITOVSK

Krleža’s Bygone Days, diary-memoirist entries encompass, therefore, the cancerous period 1914–1921/22, “when the Angel of Death flew over this entire muddy landscape” (BD2, 22), when people babbled about “sharp knives as if they were most ordinary things” (BD, 262). Thus in the historical essay Thirty years ago (1917–1947), 29

which he added to the first edition of the journal-memoirist structure of Bygone Days in 1956, Krleža discovered that there were no (Croatian) annals on WWI (BD, 398), because, as he wrote in the entry from 15 September 1916, this was the period when all thinkers failed, having resigned to the ethically indifferent silence (BD, 219). He believed that the deeper meaning of these (bygone) days was possible only in retrospective (BD2, 39), retro-discourse of the neutralized, cooled history. Through his double vision of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk Krleža indirectly demonstrates that which Annika Mombauer evinced in her research of the WWI - i.e. that “history is always just an interpretation of events, formulated within the context of political circumstances” (Mombauer 2014:259). Concluding with her final historian’s discovery:

History is not an objective, factual representation of events in the way that they took place, historical analyses are to be read with clear understanding of their origin. History is prone to bias, falsification, and intentional wrong interpretation by individuals, even professional historians, as well as the censorship of the authorities – in case the results of historical research are too unpalatable or adversely reflect the present. For the students of history this is perhaps the most important conclusion in this book (Mombauer 2014:259).

In a journal entry from 28 October 1915, where Krleža diagnosed Jules Messenet’s instrumentations with Goethe’s motifs as not having been unmasked as absurdity, when he wrote an apocalyptic vision of history: “While in fact history has never seen such a miscreant, criminal, perverse, sick civilization before. None of them were torn apart by such contradictions.” (BD, 57).

In the context of the above mentioned double vision regarding The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, I intended to document Krleža’s vision of friendship, too. While in the Discussion on Brest-Litovsk (1918) Krleža showed that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk caused political dramatization (i) in personal friendships, a dramatic separation of Croatian social democracy into a faction that emphasizes “Russian Slavianism” as propounded by ideologue Kerensky, the Prime Minister of the Russian Provisional Government in 1917, and a “Lenin leaning” faction; in the play Golgotha (1922) he depicted the dissolution of friendship within the workers’ movement itself, which brings me back to the introductory remark on the politics of friendship as exemplified by Freud’s Porcupine’s dilemma from 1921.

In general, there are two attitudes to Krleža’s documentarism of WWI, mostly from the perspective of his short story collection Croatian God Mars (1922) as well as his wartime plays – Galicia (1922), Golgotha (1922) and Vučjak (1923). While some, like Filip Škiljan, whose opinion I share, feel that Krleža painted an accurate picture of WWI, others dwell on ethos. Namely, Filip Škiljan emphasizes that the novella Three Home Guards (1921) gives a realistic depiction of the way in which people from Croatian Zagorje perceived going to the front and getting a possible leave of absence (Škiljan 2014:68). However, Vlasta Horvatić-Gmaz believes that Krleža shaped a literary stereotype 30

of a Home Guard from Zagorje who was conscripted by force in order to die in vain for the Emperor and the Monarchy in desperate circumstances in the trenches of Galicia; that Home Guards from the novella The Battle at Bistrica Lesna (1923) have become a myth about “non-belligerent, illiterate, and resigned Home Guards from Zagorje, powerless to change their position” (Horvatić-Gmaz 2014:16). Namely, the author concludes that Krleža radicalises his anti-Monarchy beliefs and personal animosity to Austrian military organization.

I shall dwell on the positive and qualitative definitions of Krleža’s WWI representation regarding his creative freedom in choosing the given perspective. Thus Zvonimir Freivogel points out that until recently relatively little was known or written in Croatia about the Austro-Hungarian military troops, “because the knowledge, as well as participants’ remembering were systematically ‘erased’ from the collective consciousness and from history which was ‘composed’ by the winners. One could find out more about the Austro-Hungarian military from fiction, i.e. Hašek’s The Good Soldier Švejk or Krleža’s Croatian God Mars than from professional literature about the period, which practically did not exist before Croatia’s independence” (Freivogel 2014:9).

Irina Aleksander, who is often perceptibly characterized by the phrase “controversial friend of Miroslav Krleža”, was one of the few experts on Krleža who underlined that Krleža had gone to war as an ordinary soldier and rejected a promotion to the rank of officer – “He goes to war shoulder to shoulder with these peasants who were ripped out of their native soil in the name of someone else’s war, with these ‘candidates for a glorious, Royal, Hungarian Home Guard death’” (Aleksander 2007:195). Ivo Štivičić believes that Krleža’s Royal Hungarian Home Guard novella was the best screenplay written according to the same template that Americans had been exploiting for fifty solid years, which is all about how to train somebody to become an obedient killer. “All those” – as Štivičić puts it from a screenwriter’s perspective – “exercises that involve running over tree trunks and into water, through mud”. All this was written by Krleža in the Royal Hungarian Home Guard novella (1921) which is “a complete script, conveying one of the most remarkable and most horrible stories about how to destroy and torture a human being” (Štivičić 2013, URL). 31

In conclusion, I would like to mention that Velimir Visković, in the preface to the book Krležology Fragments, pointed out Krleža had consistently rejected “the offers to become a professional politician (including one made by Korać in 1918, when he was to become one of the leaders of the Croatian Social Democrats, and the one made by Broz after 1948)” (Visković 2001:6), which is unfortunately often forgotten today or omitted for the sake of a certain worldview (which Krleža’s Doctor from the novel On the Edge of Reason would abhor). It can be seen just how important politics of friendship were to Krleža from Vaništa’s records from November 1981 when Krleža, a month before his death, told him:“I had few friends, very few in comparison to the great number of people I knew. They were Kamilo Horvatin, Cesarec, Vaso Bogdanov, Krsto (Hegedušić, AN)”, which brings me back to the motto of this paper – porcupines which, according to Freud, can recognize the true boundaries of friendship.

Notes

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 (prema Čengić 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, prema Marjanić 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, prema Čengić 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 to Čengić 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 to Marjanić 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 to Čengić 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).

[engleski]

Posjeta: 1.519 *