Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
100
Makedonska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti
Fondacija Trifun Kostovski
IROSLAV RLEA
120. obljetnica od roenja
100 godina od prvog dolaska u Makedoniju
Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Trifun Kostovski Foundation
IROSLAV RLEA
120 years since his birth
100 Years of His First Coming to Macedonia
Makedonska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti
Fondacija Trifun Kostovski
Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Trifun Kostovski Foundation
120
100
IROSLAV RLEA
120 godina od roenja
100 godina od prvog dolaska u Makedoniju
IROSLAV RLEA
120 Years since his Birth ????
100 Years of his First Coming to Macedonia ????
/
Glavni urednik i coordinator projekta /
Editor-in-Chief and the Project Coordinator
/ Tome Serafimovski
120
100
IROSLAV RLEA
/ Katica ulavkova
/ Goran Kalogjer
/ Boo Rude
/ Gane Todorovski
IROSLAV RLEA
/ Prijevod / Translation
/ Biljana Jovanovska
/ Zoran Anchevski
2013 Skopje
: ,
Tome Serafimovski: portret Miroslava Krlee, mramor
Tome Serafimovski: portrait of Miroslav Krlea, marble
.
,
, .
, .
(, 7 1893 29 1981).
32 , 120
.
,
, .
, .
, , ,
, .
()
,
, ,
, ,
,
20 .
,
, , ,
. , , , ,
, , , , ,
, ,
,
.
- , ,
, ,
, .
,
,
,
, , ,
, , , ,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
1 2013 , ,
, ,
, .
,
, (17 ,
), .
Post nubila Phoebus. ,
, ,
, .
.
,
. .
, ,
.
,
, .
,
.
. .
.
.
, ,
. . .
.
.
.
,
, .
,
. .
.
.
() .
. ,
, 1913 ,
, .
,
,
, ,
, ,
.
, :
,
, ,
, .
: 1913
, ,
.. , ,
( ,
); 1937 ,
, 1960 ,
-
. ,
, .
, .
,
,
. , ,
1983- ,
,
.
,
120- ,
.
, .
, ,
(In extremis,
, ), .
,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, .
,
.
, 20
. , .
10
11
, 2013
. , 1913
, , , .
, . , .
, , . .
, ,
.
. , .
, .
,
, . , ,
. .
.1
: ,
, , , , ,
, , .2 ,
, , ,
, , , . : Lasi, Stanko.
Krlea Kronologija ivota i rada, Grafiki zavod Hrvatske, 1982., 100.
2
, . 101. : Zelmanovi, ore. Njihov obraun s njim, Veernji list,
8.12.1973., 7.
1
: ,
Tome Serafimovski: portret Miroslava Krlee, bronza
Tome Serafimovski: portrait of Miroslav Krlea, bronze
13
: ,
, , ,
,
, .3
,
,
, , .4
. .
,
, ,
. .
, , , :
, . ,
. . :
, ,
, , .
, ,
, , ,
.5
,
, :
, , ,
, .
: ,
, .6 ,
,
.
, ,
.
, , ,
.
, , .
.
.7
, .8
1913 ,
Rue de la Harpe,
. ,
1913 , .
.
: (
), ,
, ,
, .9
, .10
: 1913 ,
Urednitvo Nove Evrope (uz Krleinu redakturu), Hrvatska rapsodija, 1921., 159.
Lasi, Stanko. Krlea Kronologija ivota i rada, Grafiki zavod Hrvatske, 1982., 102.
9
( Izlet u Rusiju, 1926., . 3), . 104.
10
: Lasi, Stanko. Krlea Kronologija ivota i rada,
Grafiki zavod Hrvatske, 1982., 102.
7
4
5
6
3
, 101.
Zelmanovi, ore. Njihov obraun s njim, Veernji list, 8.12.1973., 7.
Matvejevi, Predrag. Stari i novi razgovori s Krleom, Spektar, Zagreb, 1982., 107.
, . 107.
14
15
.11
, :
, ,
,
, ,
, , .
,
, , .12 ,
:
(
), ,
.
, ,
, , ,
, . , ,
, , ,
,
, , , , ,
, .13
, ,
,
.
,
: , , 1913
, 20 , .
: , ,
! ... .14
: .
. ?
1931. : ,
1913 , ,
. , ,
. ?
. , . .
:
, ,
, . , ,
, , , ,
, , .15
, , ,
: ,
( ), ,
,
,
(, , ) ,
, ,
,
, , ( )
.16
11
14
12
15
16
, . , , , 1987., 236.
engi, Enes. Krlea Ples na vulkanima, 3, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1990., 275.
16
Lasi, Stanko. Krlea Kronologija ivota i rada, Grafiki zavod Hrvatske, 1982., 106 (
Moj obraun s njima, 1932., 151).
17
: , , ,
vajshemd-,
, , , ,
, ,
vajshemd- :
.17
.
, ,
, ,
. ,
1913 .
?
. ,
, . ,
.
, , , , , ,
,
.18 , , :
, 1913.
,
, ,
, .19
. ,
, . 105 ( : Fragmenti iz dnevnika, 14. III. 1946., Svjedoanstva, 22. III.
1952., 2).
18
, . 104.
19
, . 105 ( : Davni dani, 1956., 234).
17
18
,
. ,
, , ,
. , , ,
, ,
: ,
, , , , .20
,
, ,
: ,
, ,
. (
1913),
, ,
,
. ,
: ,
, ,
( ),
,
engi, Enes. Krlea Ples na vulkanima, 3, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1990., 273.
, , ,
, ,
.
20
19
, , ,
, .21 ,
, ,
.
, . 1913
, , ,
,
,
. , ,
,
,
. ,
. 1913 ,
,
,
, ,
,
.
. , 1937
(, 12
1937), K .
.
,
. ,
Lasi, Stanko. Krlea Kronologija ivota i rada, Grafiki zavod Hrvatske, 1982., 104.
21
20
, -.
,
.
.22
, ,
, ,
.23
,
1913 . , 1936
, ,
. ,
:
, , :
, , , ,
,
.24 , ,
, :
, , ,
,
( ,
), , ,
40% ,
...25
Dobrianin, Ljubomir M. Veliki uspjeh komada U logoru od g. Miroslava Krlee u Skopju, Pravda,
23.I.1937.
23
Lasi, Stanko. Krlea Kronologija ivota i rada, Grafiki zavod Hrvatske, 1982., 264.
24
Bojadiski, Ognen. Krlea i Makedonija (fragmenti), Prometej, Zagreb, 2005., 184.
25
, . 185.
22
21
, ,
. ,
, ,
: ,
, , ,
( , ),
, scherco ,
, ,
, -,
.26 ,
, ,
: .
( )
, , .
, ,
, . ,
, ...
, , (
).
( ).
...27
,
, ,
, , ,
.
,
. :
,
, . 187.
, . 185/6.
, ,
, ,
.
... ,
( ), .28
, ,
, :
,
, ,
, , , .
( ),
.29
. , 1960
, 1960 ,
.30
. ,
. ,
.
, : ,
,
. , ,
, . 186.
, . 186.
30
25 , 2 1960 .
28
29
26
27
22
23
, ,
,
, , .
,
,
.
.31
,
,
.
, .
,
, ,
, ,
, .
, ,
. : ,
, .
,
.32
engi, Enes. S Krleom iz dana u dan Krlea post mortem 2, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1990., 121.
, . 109.
.
,
,
.33
,
-
,
- .
,
, , ,
. ,
,
.34
.
, , ,
, ,
,
.
, ,
,
.
,
, , ,
:
Bojadiski, Ognen. Krlea i Makedonija (fragmenti), Prometej, Zagreb, 2005.
, . 103.
31
33
32
34
24
25
.
, .
.
, : , ,
., , ,
. ,
,
,
, ,
.35 ,
.
, , .
, , .
, , .
, , ,
.36
, , ,
:
, , ,
,
. .
(
) , .37
:
35
. .
, ,
.
. .
.38
,
.
,
, 1960 :
, ,
: , , ,
1950 .
.39 ,
, ,
.
. ,
,
,
.
36
38
26
, . 105.
, . 111.
39
27
,
,
,
, ,
,
, , .
,
, ,
, ,
.
, ,
1913
.
, ,
, , .
,
: Illyricum sacrum (1944),
,
, ,
, ,
.
.40 ,
, , ,
.
, ,
,
Viaggio in Pelagonia , ,
, ,
, . ,
, , ,
.
,
.
. .
. , . .
Krlea, Miroslav, In extremis, novela, Knjievna republika, 1923.
:
40
28
29
, 2013
1.
,
,
, , ,
, , -,
, , , 120-
,
,
. ,
,
,
.
, , ,
,
(, , ,
, , , , ,
, ...)
, ,
.1
: ,
Tome Serafimovski: portret Miroslava Krlee, bronza
Tome Serafimovski: portrait of Miroslav Krlea, bronze
, , (19831981), ,
. , . ,
31
-, :
, ,
, .
, , , 2
, ,
///
//
,
.3
1923 ., (Voicki) ,
. Minerva , 1932 , 18 ,
9, . , 1937
,
. , , ,
, .
, .
, , , , ,
. Nakladni zavod , 6 .
Zora , 27 , .
1967 1972 . 80-
, Osloboenje,
1975 1988 , Sabrana djela Miroslava Krlee u 50 svezaka.
2
ore Zelmanovi, Kadet Krlea, kolovanje Miroslava Krlee u maarskim vojnim
uilitima, 15. 18. ,
Ludoviceum ,
, , .
Karakteristike akademca Krlee Frigyesa, . 49 ., kolske novine /Sveuilina naklada
Liber, Zagreb 1987.
3
, Leksikografski zavod
32
Encyklopdie ou Dictionnaire raisonn... .
. ,
- . ,
, (, ,
, , , , , j .). ,
,
, ,
, ,
,
, .
, , , ,
,
,
. ,
,
.4
, , ,
,
, 1950 , ,
,
.
- ,
, ,
(. . .). Broura: Enciklopedijska izdanja LZ FNRJ, Zagreb (1953), 19.
4
: Krleijana, sv. 1;
Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krlea (gl. ur. Velimir Viskovi), 209 i d.
33
K ,
: ,
. , ,
,
, a
, 1960 :
.
, . .
, ,
. .
.
(, )
, ,
, .
.
,
.
. ,
, , .
,
, .
.5
,
,
,
, , ,
.
():
34
35
I/125.
ab ovo.
II/911.
,
. ,
. (1922), -
,
pied--terre
.
,
, ,
...
5
Enes engi: Krlea, post mortem II, Svjetlost, Sarajevo 1990, 109.
VII/67
.
VII/6 4.000
. , , ,
4.000
, ,
.
.
. ,
1918 1941 , ,
,
1919
,
.
, , , ,
:
V/34. V/2225 VI/18
!
. .
XV .6
,
,
, (). ,
, , ,
: Marginalia lexicographica, Izbor, Kolo, asopis Matice hrvatske, br. 1,
proljee 2007: 392, 393, 394, 395.
36
, ,
;
, , ( )
.
,
, , 1932
, ,
, :
,
,
,
.7
,
, ,
,
.
,
.
,
.8
- ,
,
Moj obraun s njima .
: Stanko Lasi, Krleiologija ili povijest kritike misli o Miroslavu Krlei, II., Zagreb 1989., 315.
37
(Dahrendorf9)
(Benda10).
, , , ,
, , ,
,
11
.
,
-
.
, (),
, , ,
. , , : (, ,
, , , ) , ,
, , ,
, ,
. . XX
: ,
(), .
. () ,
,
: Ralf Dahrendorf, Iskuenja neslobode. Intelektualci u doba kunje, Prometej, Zagreb 2008.
10
(Julien Benda) ja
Izdaja intelektualaca 1929 .
1997, . Politika kultura, Zagreb.
11
(19391940), .
, .
, ,
: . , .
. , . . : !
. , . . ,
, , , . . Zva
ne rnja: Sukobi oko Krlee. Argumenti i svjedoanstva za jo jedan obraun sa antikrleijanstvom,
NIRO Osloboenje, Sarajevo 1983., 69.
9
38
, ,
, , ,
.
, ,
. .
, .
.
, ,
. ,
, ,
.
, ,
. , ,
, ,
,
.
. ,
,
; , .
, .12
,
,
Georgij Paro: Gospoda Glembajevi na sceni HNK, Programska knjiica u povodu 100. obljetnice
roenja Miroslava Krlee, Zagreb, 1993, 12.
12
39
.
, , ,
, ,
, !
,
, , ,
-
. ,
,
,
, ,
, ,
, ,
,
: , , ,
. , , ,
.
, ,
.
, , ,
,
; ;
. ,
, ,
, ,
.
, , ,
, ,
, :
.
,
. ,
,
, , ,
,
, ,
.
, : ,
!
,
,
.
()
- ,
. --
,
( -)
, 1936 . ,
(1957) , ,
. , ,
: ,
, -.
( )
,
, . 10 10 ,
,
40
41
.
.
.
,
, ,
, -
,
. , ,
,
, ,
.
.
2.
, , ,
(1918) 1981 ,
,
,
.
(1919);
(1933),
(19411945); ,
,
:
;13
;
(1971); , 1980 ,
,
, ,
,
, .
, , .
, ,
. ,
, ,
, , .
, ,
.
, , ,
,
,
. (
) , . 1945 ,
, .
(-, - -),
: Zvane
rnja: Sukobi oko Krlee Enes engi: Krlea, .
, , , .
, , , :
, , ?
.
?
, !
. :
, 1942 , , ?
; , ,
... (Enes engi: Krlea, Zagreb 1982, 412.)
.
42
43
13
, : 14
. ,
,
.
,
, , , :
, . !
,
,15 ,
,
, XX .
, , 1945, ,
: ! , , !
, , !
(Sukobi oko Krlee, . 118.). ,
. ,
, ,
, : ,
, .
15
Enes engi: S Krleom iz dana u dan (Balade o ivotu koji tee, Truba u pustinji, Ples na vulkanima,
U sjeni smrti), Zagreb, Globus 1985. ,
1956 1980 . ,
S Krleom iz dana u dan: Krlea, post mortem 1 (19811988) Krlea, post
mortem 2 (19891990), Sarajevo, Svjetlost 1990. :
. ,
. , ,
, , ,
. ? ? !
? ,
, ,
, . (Krlea, post
mortem 1, 13.)
120- ,
S Krleom iz dana u dan ( ),
, , Jutarnji list 2013. S Krleom iz dana u dan IVI,
, .
14
44
,
, , ,
, , ,
.
, ,
, , ,
, ,
, .
: , ,
, ,
.
.
,
, ,
,
. , ,
,
.
.
,
. ,
. , ,
:16
16
,
. , : Sukob na knjievnoj ljevici 19281952, (1970);
Struktura Krleinih Zastava (1984); Krlea, Kronologija ivota i rada (1982); Mladi Krlea i njegovi kritiari
(1987); Krleologija ili povijest politike misli o Miroslavu Krlei, IVI, (19891993).
: ,
; ,
.
45
,
. ,
, .17
, , , ,
, ,
( , ,
), ,
, , .
,
XX , , -
, ,
,
, ,
.
, ,
,
.18 ,
: ,
.
,
: ,
,
. .
.
(. KRLEIJANA,
, , 1993, , 1999, Bibliografija Miroslava Krlee, 1999),
, ,
. : Knjievna Republika, srpanjrujan 2012, 3.
18
Eliza Gerner, Milan Arko: Svjedoci Krleina odlaska, Prometej, Zagreb, 2002, 129.
17
46
,
,
,
.
, , ,
,
, ,
, .19
, 1990 1997 ,
(!),
.(!!!) ,
, ,
(Agape Satanas!)
,
,
.
,
...
.20
, ,
.
Milan Gavrovi: ovjek iz Krleine mape, ivot i smrt dr. ure Vraneia, Novi Liber, Zagreb, 2011, 233.
Opi religijski leksikon, Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krlea, Zagreb, 2002, 479, 480.
19
20
47
,
. ,
, ,
.
. ,
, ,
, , , ,
,
, .
, ansich, , ,
.
,
. ,
,
.
, ,
, ,
, , ,
, , ,
.21
,
, ,
Miroslav Krlea: Deset krvavih godina, Jubilarno izdanje, NIRO Sarajevo 1979, 106, 107.
21
48
,
.22
2001 , ,
,
,
,
, , , .
, ,
, ,
. :
, ,
, ... (ovjek iz Krleine mape,
. 235).
, (,
,
,
. (
) . , ,
?!23
, 2011
, ,
, , , ,
,
Miroslav Krlea, Eseji, III, Zagreb 1963, 52.
Lje
vak, , ,
: 2 3 ! Sabrana djela Miroslava Krlee u 50
svezaka, 1.
22
23
49
, ;
; ,
XX , , , ,
, ,
, , ,
,
. , ,
.
:
, ,
,
: ?!24
, , ,
:
: (1) ,
(2)
,
, .25
()
,
,
,
24
, ,
. -, -
, :
,
(...) , , ,
. (...)
,
. (...)
-
. (...)
, , ,
. ,
, , , , :
?
, .
, .
,
, - :
, !
:
?
.
, .
.
, , , .26
, ,
, ,
25
26
50
51
, , ,
(, , , )
.27 , 1956 ,
:
. 5%
(), !
,
. , (1980),
28
. : ,
.
, ,
, ,
.
,
.29
Snjeana Kordi: Jezik i nacionalizam, 40 i d., Durieux. Zagreb, 2010. ,
, ,
, ,
. Razlikovni rjenik srpskog i hrvatskog jezika
, Prvi srpsko-hrvatski obja
snidbeni rjenik , ,
- juh, sup orb.
28
, 23,
.
29
, ,
, 1987
: , , ,
, , ,
27
52
,
, :
,
.
, , ,
,
,
...
, , ,
, , , .
,
, ,
... ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
.
, ,
, . 1990 ,
, - -
( , ,
1.300 2 5.000 2).
, 7.7.1991 ,
, . , (
) ,
, ,
! 23
, 5
, , .
53
30 ,
.
: , ;
.
31, 1956 ,
,
, ,
:
:
, ,
, BMW-a, , , ,
, () ,
, ,
, , ?
,
, . , ,
: , ,
:
1) , , (
) ,
;
2) ,
, ,
,
;
3) ,
. Stanko Lasi, Tri eseja o Evropi,
izd. Hrvatsko vijee europskog pokreta, Zagreb 1992, 22, 37, 38.
31
( 1926 1994) ,
. 1955 Osloboenje,
- ,
- . , ,
, ,
. , ,
,
, . 11 ,
Oporuka
, , .
, ,
. 20
. , 1973 ,
. , ,
5 (1975). ,
6 ,
(1976/77). 1975 1988 ,
, ,
, 50 ,
. , ,
. ,
15
, .
, ,
: , , ,
,
?
, ,
, , : ,
, , , , .
, ,
, , , . ,
.
, ,
, , ,
, ? ,
,
.
. , ,
.
54
55
30
. ,
.
,
, , ,
, .32
120- , ,
, , ,
:
, .
. (
2012) ,
. ,
, o
, , , ,
.
, ,
,
: , , ,
. (1933)
, ,
.
, 1933 ,
, - ;
,
.
.
- , 22 1986, Arhiv obitelji
engi.
,
, ,
, .
, ,
, ,
, . ,
,
,
,
...
.
, ,
,
.
, ,
( .
) .
.
: (
), (
, , , ,
.), ,
(Serbus Krlea,
),
56
57
32
.
, ,
, .
a , :
. ,
, , ,
, ,
. ,
, , , a
, , a ,
a (. : 1973).
3.
- , , ,
. ,
post mortem apostolorum
, ,
, 33
.
, ,
,
.
, 24 ,
.
,
: ,
. , ,
( )
.34
IX , ,
, .
(
: , !)
,
.
,
, 1922
: ,
...
, ,
, ,
, , ,
,
.35
Krlea: Panorama pogleda, pojava i pojmova, priredio Anelko Malinar, NIRO SarajevoZagreb
1975., 583.
58
59
33
34
XIX , -
,
,
,
.
XX , -
, ,
, , :
( , ,
, ...)
.
.
, ,
,
- , ad
personam ad institutionem,
, -
.
, ,
, -.
1913 , , ,
.
,
, .
, 1913 , ,
, .
, ,
... ,
, , ,
, , . (. ..) ,
,
.36
, ,
, : !
, ,
. ,
.
,
, ,
...
,
,
.37
, ,
, ,
,
: , , , ,
, , , ,
, , ,
, , , ,
60
61
Enes engi: S Krleom iz dana u dan (19751977), Ples na vulkanima, Globus, Zagreb, 1985., 273.
Miroslav Krlea: Zastave, knjiga 2, Jubilarno izdanje, Sarajevo 1976., 246.
36
37
, , ,
, ,
, , ,
, , , ,
, , , , ,
, , , ,
, , , , ,
, , ...38
, 1937 ,
,
: ,
. .
, .
.
-
. ,
.
. .
. (Ljub. M. Dobrianin, Sa g.
Miroslavom Krleom po Skoplju, Pravda, 11588, 25. I. 1937, str. 6)
, .
... ( ,
), . (Ljubomir M.
Dobrianin, Veliki uspjeh premijere komada U logoru od g. Miroslava Krlee
u Skoplju, Pravda, 11586, 23. I. 1937, str. 10.)39
, . 251, a : Veera kod starog Kamaratha, Zbogom mladosti, Zov
carske trube.
39
Stanko Lasi: Krlea Kronologija ivota i rada, GZH, Zagreb, 1982., 263264.
38
62
, : ,
( ),
, .
, , .40
1950 ,
,
, .
.
,
,
ductus generalis ,
(1950, . 6). plaidoyer pro domo, ,
- XIII XVI
, .
: .
() . (),
, , , ,
. :
,
, ,
,
,
.
, .
,
... , ,
Katalog NSK, iz ostavtine Miroslava Krlee, Zagreb 2003, Pismo Beli iz Skoplja 1937 (1440).
40
63
, , -, ,
XIII
(duecento) , ,
XVIII (settecento)
, . , , -
, , ,
.41
, , .
.42
, ,
, . ,
30 1968 , , (
)
( )
. ,
,
,
...
. , per
Miroslav Krlea: Likovne studije, Srpska i makedonska freska Jubilarno izdanje, NIRO Oslobo
enje, 32, 33.
42
Prirunik Leksikografskog zavoda (interno), JAZU, 1952, 12.
41
64
analogiam macedonicam,
, ,
.43
.
1960 , ,
.
,
:
,
. , ,
. ...
, ,
: , , ,
, ,
. ,
, ,
,
...
, ,
, , ,
. .
,
, .
,
...
Enes engi: Krlea, post mortem 2, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1990, 108122.
43
65
,
, ,
, ,
,
. .
, ,
1960.44
, ,
, !
, , ,
,
. Viaggio in Pelagonia, 30.IV1.V, 2.V
:
, , , ,
, , . -,
, -, , - ,
, .
, ,
, , ,
. ,
, . ...
, ,
... , , !
, 886,
916. , ,
. 2.287 ,
2.200, . , , . ,
...
...45
,
,
, 1983 , .
. .
,
,
,
,
...
!46
:
, . 109 110.
: , , 1987, . 242, 243.
45
44
46
66
67
1
, ,
, ,
, , ,
, ,
,
, ...
,
,
:
I. ;
II. , ;
III. , ;
IV. , ;
V. .
,
, , 1983 .
, 18 1983
, .
: ,
Tome Serafimovski: portret Miroslava Krlee, mramor
Tome Serafimovski: portrait of Miroslav Krlea, marble
69
,
,
,
, : ,
, , , ,
.
:
, ,
,
, ,
,
, ,
, , ,
,
.
, , ,
,
,
,
, .
,
,
: --, --,
-- , . , , ,
(
),
. ,
, , ,
,
,
, ,
, , , ,
, , ,
.
,
, , , , .
, , ,
, , .
,
,
,
,
.
, , ,
(sponte sua)
,
1960 1979
, .
?
1913- ,
, , ,
70
71
;
1979- , , ,
, ,
.
, ,
,
,
, ,
.
(
, 1982 .) 552553
: , ,
, , ,
,
19 1979 , .
, 12 13
(
!) 23,
...
,
, , ,
, , , !
, ,
, , , ,
,
, ,
:
, !
:
...
, ,
, :
He , !
. ,
, .
.
(,
,
, ..
), .
My :
...!
, , :
, , 1913 , 20 .
: , ,
! Me ... ...
, , :
?
My . : , :
...
, , , , ,
, , , -
. He , . ,
86 ,
...
72
73
,
, . :
( )
, (
7 1893), ,
. .
. 1913 .
1926 .
, , ,
. , 1956, (. . 148149)
. ,
.
, . (:
, 1982, . 104)
()
.
:
, 1913, ,
,
. ,
, ,
( aoc ),
,
, , , ,
. ,
, .
,
,
( , 1956, . 148).
, (1725. V 1913)
, , , ,
,
(: , , . 104).
:
1913 , !
, ;
, ...
,
( , 1956, . 234).
, .
(, , )
, Kratak ivotopis piev
:
, , ,
- ( )
...
... ( , 1921, . 159160).
, ,
, , , ,
.
, 1983 , , ..
1913- , ,
74
75
, ,
.
, , ,
() , (
), ,
, :
, ,
, , . ,
, , o ooj , ,
, ,
,
. To ,
, (
, torrente, ),
, , ,
, , ,
, , curiosum mundi
.
,
, , ,
, , , a y ,
( ),
,
, .
: , ,
...
. , a
. , , ,
,
.
... , ,
,
, a , ,
... ,
...
,
e
,
, , , , ,
, , , ,
, ,
(, 1969, . 523/524).
(: Aleksandar Flar, Poetika osporavanja,
1982) : (: .
142154). , 1932
., .
, ,
,
, ().
.
, ,
, ,
,
, (:
) ,
(. 148).
,
,
, , , ,
76
77
.
:
stariji brat bio je pod turskom zastavom, pa su doli Srbi i oteli
nam sto i sedam ovaca. A ja sam srpskoga kralja sluio tri puta i povukao se
u Albaniju. Pa su Bugari doli i mater mi odvukli. I sestru. I oca su mi ubile
Komite jo prije. Sve su nam uzeli (str. 331332).
co ,
, ,
.
(1924)
, ,
, , (: , 5, .
91)
.
:
19241984! Co ,
,
:
, ,
.
.
,
, ,
.
! ,
,
! He co ,
.
78
, , , 1983 ,
, ,
,
.
* * *
. .
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
- .
!
, , ,
,
materia prima
.
79
.
(
)
.
, 1913-
,
. Co Illyricum sacrum (1944)
,
, ,
, ,
.
.
.2
: , . . : ,
1987, 232243 (. .).
80
: ,
Tome Serafimovski: figura Miroslava Krlee, bronza
Tome Serafimovski: figure of Miroslav Krlea, bronze
: ,
Tome Serafimovski: figura Miroslava Krlee, bronza
Tome Serafimovski: figure of Miroslav Krlea, bronze
Katica ulavkova
Povratak Miroslava Krlee
Sto godina od prvog dolaska u Makedoniju
Linosti koje su prevazile svoje vrijeme pripadaju svim kulturama i
svim vremenima. Linosti koje su zaduile jednu kulturu, nikada ne pre
staju biti dio te kulture, pa makar bile odsutne, stavljene u sjenu javnosti i
iza glavnog scenskog prostora. Kulturna se misija moe preobraziti, ali ne i
nestati. Takva je linost Miroslava Krlee (Zagreb, 7. srpnja 1893 29. pro
sinca 1981). Ve vie od 32 godine on nije meu ivima, a asovnik povijesti
odbrojao je 120 godina od njegova roenja. Miroslav Krlea je zaduio ne
samo hrvatsku kulturu, ve i junoslavenske, te u tom smislu i makedonsku
kulturu, knjievnost i naciju. On danas pripada i europskoj kulturi, a time i
svjetskoj. Stoga i nije vano jeli Krlein opus prije svega obiljeen hrvatski,
jugoslavenski, balkanski, centralnoeuropski, pa i austrougarski. Njegova su
knjievna i kulturna misija doivjele (privremeno) biti potisnute na dru
tvene margine, od desno orijentiranih predstavnika hrvatskog nacionalnog
diskursa, upravo u neovisnoj Hrvatskoj, iako, da ironija bude vea, teko da
se bez Krlee moe zamisliti kontinuitet, cjelovitost i vrijednost hrvatske kul
ture, leksikografije i knjievnosti XX. stoljea.
Ukoliko postoji linost koja je utisnula vei ig na suvremeni hrvatski
jezik i knjievnost te i na kulturne strategije i politike nekadanje Jugoslavi
je, onda je to, bez sumnje, Miroslav Krlea. Poeta, romansijer, pripovjeda,
85
86
87
objavljen predhodno. Ali, bez Ganetova teksta, ova knjiga ne bi imala svoju
duhovnu cijelovitost, ne bi artikulirala svoj konceptualni oslonac, prepoznat
u makedonskom nacionalnom, jezikom i kulturnom biu koje je Krlea sa
gledao, duboko emotivno, kao otkrovenje, jo u svojoj dvadesetoj godini a
koje je njegovao do kraja svoga ivota, dajui potporu sa puno argumenata.
Ova je knjiga objavljena sa finansijskom i moralnom potporom Fon
dacije Trifun Kostovski, a iza njene objave stala je i Makedonska akademija
znanosti i umjetnosti. To je najmanje to smo mogli uiniti kako bi iskazali
nae potovanje prema djelu i linosti Miroslava Krlee, jednog od najveih
makedonskih prijatelja XX. stoljea. Jednom prijatelj, zauvijek prijatelj.
88
89
Goran Kalogjera
Krlea i Skopje u tri ina
Prvi in. Skopje 1913.
Nedovoljno marljiv, uman, nije uvijek otvoren, nervozan. Dosta marljiv,
pomalo uglast. Pomalo uglast, zatvoren u sebe. Ozbiljan dobronamjeran, po
malo spor. Osrednje darovit. Vrlo osjetljiv, jo nije potpuno formiran, na dobar
postupak vrlo dobro radi. Vrlo sklon prkosu i to nastoji prikriti svojom osjetlji
vou. Sanjarska priroda, uznosit. Bavi se filozofijom iako iz tog studija ne bi
mogao izvui koristi. Pogrena shvaanja koja odande crpi prenosi na ostale
predmete pa ak i u ivot. Zbog toga nita ne producira iako je dosta darovit.
Ne pripada ovamo.
Ovo su ocjene koje mladi Krlea dobiva od svojih pretpostavljenih,
nakon prvog semestra u Ludoviceumu.1 U rubrici Karakterne osobine i
raspoloenje pie: Pomalo zatvoren, ali odreit karakter, ozbiljan ponekad
djetinjast, nezgrapan i prkosan, samopouzdan, neskroman, sanjarska priro
da, euforian.2 U rubrici Darovitost, marljivost posebne sklonosti stoji:
Vrlo talentiran, ivog poimanja, nedovoljno marljiv, pomalo povran, bavi se
apstraktnim idejama, predmetima vojne nastave se ne bavi, prua malo nade
Ocjenitelji su bili natporunik Dome, nastavnik Leszak, kapetan Thott, natporunik Hajto, major
Dobrentey, Oberleutant Vamos, kapetan Klimko. Vidi u: Lasi, Stanko, Krlea kronologija ivota i
rada, Grafiki zavod Hrvatske, 1982., str. 100.
2
Isto, str. 101. Na temelju teksta ore Zelmanovia Njihov obraun s njim , Veernji list, 8. 12. 1973.,
str. 7.
1
: ,
Tome Serafimovski: portret Miroslava Krlee, mramor
Tome Serafimovski: portrait of Miroslav Krlea, marble
91
92
93
doekati odgovor na svoju molbu, (kojoj sam priloio sve vojne dokumente),
ja sam otputovao do Glavne komande u Skoplje, da tamo lino rijeim pita
nje svoje sudbine. Tu sam se naao pred sumnjiavim nepovjerenjem, uhapen
kao nepoznati bjegunac, bez dokumenata, pod sumnjom pijunae, u dizinte
riji, pred opasnou da budem baen u kolerini odio kune bolnice. andari,
hapsane, zatvori, hotelska internacija, zapisnika ispitivanja, bjegunac pod
sumnjom pijunae na ratnom podruju, u djelokrugu Glavne komande, bez
dokumenata, koji su se navodno izgubili, bez identiteta, potpuno u tmini, ja
sam tada prilino duboko pogledao smrti u oi.13
Ovaj je dogaaj spomenut i prigodom posjete delegacije makedonskih
pisaca Krlei na Gvozdu, prigodom uruenja nagrade Zlatni vijenac Strukih
veeri poezije. Na konstantaciju Gane Todorovskog, da je od danas Makedo
nac, Krlea je odgovorio: Ta zaboga, vam mora toa da vi e poznato jas sum
toa ute od 1913-ta godina, ute toga koga imav samo 20 godini jas stanav
Makedonec. Im rekov na srpskite oficeri: gospodinovci moi, ova ne e Srbija,
ovde se zboruva na drug jazik! Me zatvorija... za malku da me strelaat...14
engieva verzija izgleda ovako: Sada ste Makedonac kae Popovski. Bio
sam ja Makedonac davno prije Vas. Koje ste godine roeni kao Makedonac?
Roen sam 1931. Sa mnom je bilo ovako: Idete kao dobrovoljac u Skoplje 1913.
da se borite na strani srpske vojske, ba u vrijeme Bregalnike bitke. I u hotelu
drugog dana dokazujete srpskim oficirima da tamo nitko ne zna srpski i udite
se kad vas sutra uhapse. A jesu li Vas vezali? pita Popovski. Vezali jesu, ali
ne za dugo. I nije to ni vano. Dogodilo se neto normalno: Jer stiete s krivim
papirima i priznajete sami da su vai papiri, odnosno putne isprave, krivo
tvorene, nemate identiteta. A u hotelu u drutvu s oficirima, kao dobrovoljac,
stoprocentno oduevljeni, dokazujete im da tu, zapravo, nitko ne govori srpski
i da je ovdje jezik i narod koji nije srpski i, prema tome, to mi radimo ovdje.15
Isto, str. 223.
14
, , , , , 1987, str. 236.
15
engi, Enes, Krlea ples na vulkanima, 3, Svjetlost , Sarajevo, 1990., str. 275.
13
94
95
1913. mjeseca juna. Neu da budem policijski pisar skopski koji ureduje s ku
burom u ruci, neu da budem radikalna prevara, ni ova agramerska glupost, ni
kavana Bauer, ni Arbeiterhilfs kompanija.19 Krlein bunt je razumljiv. Zau
ujue kako mlad Krlea u dobi od dvadesetak godina nazire problem, koji
e trajati narednih tridesetak godina i vie. Uvia da nema June Srbije, ve
da na tim prostorima ive ljudi druge nacionalnosti, koji govore jezik koji
nije srpski, i koji su doslovce ereeni od svojih susjeda na najgore mogue
naine. Zbog toga e Krlea, ne u ali, nego u zbilji rei svojim posjetiteljima
iz Makedonije u njegovom domu na Gvozdu, da je bio Makedonac prije svih
njih: Dakle, tu nije bio nikakav visok stupanj svijesti, ali svakako sam, dakle
prije tebe Makedonac.20
Bregalnika bitka, krvavi obraun dva junoslavenska naroda na utrb
treeg, oito mu proiuje horizonte i rui mladenake ideale o slozi i jedin
stvu junoslavenskih naroda: Nije se, meutim, ni osuila kumanovska krv,
kada je ve osam mjeseci kasnije bitka na Breglanici raznijela kao kartea sve
lirske iluzije o kojima su itava junoslavenska pokoljenja bila uvjerena da
predstavljaju elemente naeg narodnog opstanka. U dimu i poaru Bregalnike
bitke (juna 1913.), mi smi nauili da je ciniki makijavelizam malih balkanskih
dinastija stvarnost, a partitura Lisinskoga, ilirske fantazmagorije, akovaka
idila ili nostalgija za Prizrenom da su pusta retorika. Sva viena stradanja,
uasi i besmislene smrti jaaju mladog Krleu u uvjerenju to mu je nadalje
initi: U onom trenutku sloma svih ovozemaljskih vrijednosti, djeakih dragih
iluzija, samoobmana i megalomanije, meni se objasnilo da jedina prava i tog
poziva dostojna misija umjetnika (u takvome kaosu u kakvome mi ivimo), ne
moe da bude drugo, nego da pripovijeda ljubav prema ovjeku, kao takvom,
Isto, str. 105. (preuzet tekst iz Davni dani, 1956., str. 234)
engi, Enes, Krlea ples na vulkanima, 3, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1990., str. 273. Ovdje postoji izvjesna ne
jasnoa, Gane Todorovski u svojoj knjizi navodi da je on vodio ovaj razgovor s Krleom, dok engi to
pripisuje Ante Popovskom, predsjedniku tradicionalne pjesnike manifestacije Struke veeri poezije.
19
20
96
bez obzira na meridijane, paralele, boju masti, drave, nacije ili kontinente.21
U tom kontekstu gledano, ne trebaju nas uditi fragmenti u raznim Krlei
nim djelima, koji su inspirirani ili potaknuti strahotama na tlu Makedonije.
Meutim, to je tema za sebe. Ono to je najbitnije u cijeloj toj 1913. godini
jest Krlein susret s balkanskim jugom, ratom, razaranjima, smru nevinih
i nedunih, animalnim krvoproliem dojueranjih saveznika, to uvjetuje
slom njegovih prijanjih ideala o bratstvu i solidarnosti junoslavenskih na
roda. Mladenaki su ideali za Krleu izgubljeni, no ostaje spoznaja da na
teritoriju koji se unitava, teritoriju na kojem je umalo izgubio ivot, ivi
narod koji ne govori srpski i koji nije srpski. To e mladi Krlea uostalom i
otvoreno kazati gospodi srpskim asnicima. Krleina trauma iz 1913., prem
da o tome kasnije pie s prizvukom ironije i ale, kao i doivljaj uasnog bre
galnikog krvoprolia, neosporno su ostavili dubok trag u njegovoj nutrini,
o emu, uostalom, najbolje svjedoe tekstovi u njegovom knjievnom opusu,
inspirirani Makedonijom i njenom traginom sudbinom.
Drugi in. Skopje 1937.
Nakon izvedbe drame U logoru (Osijek, 12. sijenja 1937.) Krlea
sedam dana nakon toga odlazi u Skopje. Razlog putovanju jest priprema
izvedbe drame U Logoru u skopskom teatru. Prema Lasievim navodima,
Krlea je prisustvovao nekim probama i razgledavao grad. elio je vidjeti
borbu gusana u ciganskoj mahali, meutim, nije uspio, jer je obolio zna
meniti gusan Megdandi-Musa. Dok su prijatelji i on oekivali borbu, do
koje nije dolo, Krleinu je panju privukla jedna ciganska ikona. Ljubomir
Dobrianin svjedoi da je primitivnost tog crtea toliko zainteresirala Krleu
da je zaelio dobiti jedan takav primjerak.22
Lasi, Stanko, Krlea kronologija ivota i rada, Grafiki zavod Hrvatske, 1982., str. 104.
Dobrianin, Ljubomir. M., Veliki uspjeh premijere komada U logoru od g. Miroslava Krlee u Skopju,
21
22
97
23
98
99
30
31
100
101
36
38
engi, Enes, Krlea post mortem 2, Svjetlost, Sarajavo, 1990., str. 120.
Isto, str. 121.
37
Isto, str. 121.
102
39
103
40
104
Boo Rude
KRLEA A.D. MMXIII.
1. Krleini europski horizonti
Gotovo da nema ni jedne republike i pokrajine bive jugoslavenske za
jednice, ni jedne znaajnije europske kulturne sredine koja nije kazalinim
predstavama, simpozijima, literarnim veerima, festivalima, radio i TV
emisijama, prijevodima, reprintima, zbornicima ili posebnim izdanjima
obiljeila 120. obljetnicu roenja Miroslava Krlee, jednog od najplodnijih
hrvatskih knjievnika, najutjecajnijih jugoslavenskih pisaca i najznaajnijih
europskih umjetnika XX. vijeka. On je svojom pojavom i veliinom toliko
zapremio na umjetniki, kulturni i drutveni horizont da ga nije mogue
niti zaobii niti previati, koliko god mnogi to eljeli.
Isto tako, malo je koji pisac, prije i poslije Krlee u junoslavenskim i
svjetskim razmjerima, tako kreativno iskazivao svoj umjetniki talent u svim
knjievnim anrovima (lirika, proza, drame, romani, eseji, feljtoni, polemi
ke, kritike, putopisi i dnevniki zapisi, asopisi i uredniki poslovi) kao to
je to inio Miroslav Krlea, ostavi dosljedan svojim estetskim afinitetima,
etikim principima i intelektualnim uvjerenjima1.
Svejedno, i usprkos golemom knjievnom opusu, Krlea (18931981) za svog ivota nije doekao
Sabrana djela. Bilo je nekoliko pokuaja, ali svi su neslavno zavrili. U Koprivnici, 1923. kod Voickog
izlaze samo tri knjige, nakon ega Krlea raskida ugovor. Minerva iz Zagreba 1932. ponudila je piscu
tiskanje 18 svezaka, objavljeno je 9, nakon ega je uslijedila policijska zabrana i hapenje prokurista
Brucka. Zatim, 1937. Sabrana djela pokuava objaviti Stanislav Kopok u Biblioteci nezavisnih pisa
ca. Izlazi nekoliko knjiga, opet dolazi do policijske zabrane, a u to vrijeme, zbog sukoba na ljevici, Kr
105
106
107
dan. Tako je i bilo. Utisak koji je na mene ostavila njegova bogata i definirana
linost kao intelektualca izuzetne sposobnosti, potvrdio se je i tada kada sam
bio u njegovom drutvu prilikom njegove viednevne posjete Makedoniji. Nje
govo interesovanje za razvitak (kulturni, politiki, ekonomski) makedonskog
naroda od ranog srednjeg vijeka do danas, bilo je toliko veliko da sam ja morao
voditi rauna za svaku moju rije koju sam izgovorio pred ovim ovjekom, jer
je on svaku moju misao pratio sa velikim potovanjem. Imao sam utisak da
vjeruje mome izlaganju. Iz razgovora koji smo vodili uvideo sam da Krlea
zna da odvoji istinu od lai i realne vrijednosti od improvizacije, makar ova
bila obojena eljom da se la izjednai sa istinom. Vjerovao sam da je Krlea
u tome nenadmaan. Tokom ovog druenja pala mi je u oi njegova iskrena
radost to je makedonski narod najzad izborio svoju slobodu.
Na rastanku izrazio je elju da ponovo posjeti Makedoniju i da se bolje
upozna sa likovnim vrijednostima nae srednjovjekovne umjetnosti, naro
ito one u Ohridu. A nije proputao da kae i koju pohvalnu rije o suvre
menoj makedonskoj umjetnosti koju je imao priliku da vidi u Umjetnikoj
galeriji u Skopju i na godinjoj izlobi Makedonskih likovnih umjetnika u
Umjetnikom paviljonu isto u Skopju.5
Sve autore enciklopedijskih natuknica koji se u opisu povijesnih inje
nica i dogaaja ne pridravaju principa istine i objektivnosti, koristei se pri
tom provjerenom i izvornom historiografskom literaturom i znanstvenom
metodologijom, Krlea je nemilosrdno kriao i persiflirao, a za tako loe na
pisane ili nepotpune tekstove traio je da se preprave, dopune, djelomino ili
u cijelosti odbace. Za ilustraciju navest emo Krleine urednike primjedbe i
kritike opservacije uz natuknicu Makedonija (Makedonci):
I/1-25.
Uvod bi trebalo prestilizovati ab ovo.
Enes engi: Krlea, post mortem II, Svjetlost, Sarajevo 1990. str. 109.
108
II/9-11.
Bilo bi u svakom sluaju informativno kad bi se ovdje navele egzaktne
cifre o helenizaciji Egejske Makedonije. Bilo bi isto tako informativno, da
se prikae kako i zato je do ubrzane helenizacije dolo. Poslije izgubljenog
rata u Maloj Aziji (1922), kada je Kemal-paa bacio u more milijun i po
Helenskih kolonista starosjedilaca, Egejska Makedonija preostala je kao jedi
ni pied--terre smjetanja ovih brodolomaca i beskunika. Grke vlasti upot
rijebile su ovu katastrofu za helenizaciju Egejske Makedonije, to im ovako
brzo i ovako rezulutno ne bi bilo polo za rukom bez masovne imigracije
VII/6-7
U vezi sa kolonizacijom Makedonije navodi se jedina konkretna cifra
VII/6 u Makedoniji je naseljeno oko 4.000 kolonistikih porodica i t. d. to
zapravo nije mnogo, a trebalo bi rei u kom vremenskom razmaku, jer ako
je ovih 4.000 porodica jedini uspjeh kolonizacije, onda se i po tome vidi da u
trajnost takvog pothvata nisu vjerovale iroke mase i t. d. Prikaz ovog histo
rijskog perioda od Versailleskoga mira nije naroito precizan pa i u onom
sluaju kad bismo ga ovdje preradili. Od ovog teksta ne bi nastalo neto to
bi se moglo imprimirati bez nekih naknadnih izmjena. Ne moe se poeti je
dan prikaz jednog takvog historijskog perioda kao to je ovaj od 19181941
sa jednim datumom, u ovom sluaju sa Versailleskim mirom, jer bi trebalo
rei da je datum Versailleskog mira od juna 1919, koji kroji sudbinu Ma
kedonije za slijedeih dvadeset i tri godine, samo jedan od datuma u ovom
krvavom kalendaru, koji traje pedeset i vie godina.
Ili, kada npr. strogo uredniki Krlea upozorava na propuste oko
Bogumila:
V/3-4.
Sve to je reeno o Bogumilima V/22-25 i VI/1-8 nita nije tano! Lai
cizacija crkvene hijerarhije srednjovjekovne nije nigdje uspjela. To bi trebali
109
Iz Krleine ostavtine: Marginalia lexicographica, Izbor, Kolo, asopis Matice hrvatske, br. 1, proljee
2007, str. 392, 393, 394 i 395.
7
Moj obraun s njima je polemika knjiga s najboljim obiljejima Krleina stila. O tome vie vidjeti u:
Stanko Lasi, Krleiologija ili povijest kritike misli o Miroslavu Krlei, II., Zagreb 1989., str. 315.
8
Predrag Matvejevi: Razgovori s Krleom, 6. izdanje, Prometej, Zagreb 2002, str. 93.
O duhovnim velikanima i ljudima sudbine, o slobodi i vlasti (moi), o drutvenoj ulozi i javnom an
gamanu intelektualaca, od Sokrata i Erasmusa, preko Galilea, Markantuna de Dominisa i Voltaiera
do Karla Poppera i Sartrea ispisane su mnoge studije i knjige. I uvijek je u meritumu spora: da li
intelektualac (pisac, filozof, umjetnik, znanstvenik, izumitelj, genije) svoje vrline, svoju izvrsnost,
svoj etos stavlja u slubu ovjeka, istine i humanistikih ideala, ili svoj dar i um stavlja u slubu lai i
obmana, sistema i reima, koji su gospodari ivota i smrti. Povijest poznaje obje vrste javnointelek
tualnog angamana. A naroito onog iz XX. vijeka kada su se rasplamsala tri totalitarizma: faistiki,
nacistiki i komunistiki (boljeviki), a mnogi intelektualci podlegli su tim bremenitim kunjama.
Rijetke i asne izuzetke koji su odoljeli iskuenjima neslobode Dahrendorf naziva erasmovci. O
erazmovskim intelektualcima i (ne)kompromitiranim formativnim linostima koji su svojim ivo
tom i djelom obiljeili i dali peat svojoj epohi, vie vidjeti u: Ralf Dahrendorf, Iskuenja neslobode.
Intelektualci u doba kunje, Prometej, Zagreb 2008.
10
Zanimljivo je da je Julien Benda svoju uvenu i esto citiranu knjigu Izdaja intelektualaca napisao i
objavio jo 1929., a na hrvatski jezik prevedena je tek 1997., izd. Politika kultura, Zagreb.
11
Poznato je da je nakon sukoba na ljevici (19391940) Krlea ostao u posvemanjoj izolaciji. Sve se
vrtoglavo kretalo prema katastrofi, sve je ukazivalo da dolaze teki i tragini dani. Tako su ga usta
ke vlasti dovele u zatvor, o emu je ostalo Krleino autentino svjedoanstvo: Vode me u zatvor u
Petrinjskoj ulici. Dugaak hodnik, polusvjetli. Jedina lampa na plafonu. Prema meni ide grupa omla
dinaca, vode ih. Jedan me je prepoznao. Viknuo je: trockista! Pljunuo mi u lice. A kad su to vidjeli
drugi, pljuvali su i oni. Bio sam sav popljuvan. Doao sam u eliju, sjeo na pod i uhvatio me gr, bol,
sram, ponienje. Zaplakao sam kao gorka godina. Zvane rnja: Sukobi oko Krlee. Argumenti i svje
doanstva za jo jedan obraun s antikrleijanstvom, NIRO Osloboenje, Sarajevo 1983., str. 69.
110
111
112
113
12
Rije je o Milovanu ilasu, politiaru, knjievniku i publicisti koji je za vrijeme Drugog svjetskog rata i u
jugoslavenskom komunistikom pokretu obnaao najvie politike i vojne dunosti, lan Politbiora CK
KPJ i lan Vrhovnog taba NOV. Krlei se zamjeralo zato nije napustio Zagreb i (poput Ivana Gorana
Kovaia i Vladimira Nazora) preao na drugu obalu, u partizane. O tome je 1945. Krlea razgovarao
s ilasom u Beogradu. Taj susret se esto spominje i navodi u raznim izvorima (povijesno-knjievnim,
dnevniko-memoarskim i historiografsko-politikim), ali autentino Krleino svjedoanstvo zabiljee
no je samo na dva mjesta: u knjizi Zvane rnje Sukobi oko Krlee i monografiji Enesa engia: Krlea,
koji su gotovo identini. Tih dana Krlea je u hotelu Maderi posjetio i Milovana ilasa u njegovoj sobi.
Razgovarali smo o raznim stvarima, a onda mi je ilas, u jednom trenutku postavio pitanje:
Reci ti meni, Stari, iskreno, zato nisi doao u partizane?
Nisam, jer bi me ubili.
Tko bi te ubio?
Recimo, ti!
ilas je skoio sa stolice i iziao na balkon. Ubrzo se vratio i rekao mi: Moram biti poten, ubio bih
te do 1942. godine, a zato nisi doao na zasjedanje AVNOJ-a, kad smo te zvali?
Niste mi poslali ovjeka moga povjerenja; u ljude koji su mi dolazili ja nisam vjerovao, a uostalom,
moj stil nije da dolazim na kraju balade (Enes engi: Krlea, Zagreb 1982., str. 412.)
Dido Kvaternik bio je ministar policije u NDH.
115
116
117
18
19
118
Opi religijski leksikon, Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krlea, Zagreb, 2002., str. 479. i 480.
20
119
21
22
120
svezaka. Izila su samo tri kola (dvadeset i dvije knjige) i stalo se. Muk, nitko
nita ne pita, zato je i gdje zapelo?!23
Na tridesetu obljetnicu Krleine smrti, u prosincu 2011., u organizaciji
Drutva hrvatskih pisaca prireen je znanstveni simpozij na kojem su su
djelovali nai najeminentniji krleiolozi, redom sveuilini profesori, efo
vi katedri, akademici, vrsni publicisti i ugledni nakladnici, svi jedinstveni
u ocjeni da je Krleino djelo i danas podjednako aktualno; da je Krlea
arhitekt nove kulturne paradigme; da je Krlea bitna, ako ne i najbitnija
karika u nacionalnom knjievnom i intelektualnom kanonu XX. stoljea, ali
da mu se, naalost, vodee nacionalne institucije, kako za ivota tako i post
humno, nisu primjereno oduile, tovie, neke su ga zatajile, neke ga ustrajno
nijeu, a neke mu, latentno i manifestno, zatiru svaki trag, izbacujui ga iz
hrvatskog javnog ivota. U emu su uglavnom i uspjeli, usprkos nacionalnim
anketama jednog zagrebakog tjednika koje Krleu svrstavaju meu najve
e Hrvate i najcjenjenije hrvatske pisce. ak je jedan od sudionika simpozija
postavio nimalo retoriko pitanje: U ime ega se i zato hrvatska ljevica i hr
vatska socijaldemokratska misao, ergo, hrvatska Vlast i Drava odriu svojih
protagonista i velikana: Josipa Broza Tita i Miroslava Krlee?!24
ini se, ipak, da je Krleinu duhovnu batinu u toj prigodi najlucidnije
rekapitulirao Zdravko Zima, ustvrdivi: To to su hrvatski narod i hrvatska
inteligencija i dalje tako manihejski podijeljeni u odnosu na jednog pisca
moe znaiti samo dvoje: (1) da je u ovom dijelu svijeta vrijeme stalo, fiksira
no u mitovima i stoljeima sedimentiranim obmanama ili (2) da je Krleina
dimenzioniranost takva da ga Hrvati u svojoj nacionalno i povijesno deter
miniranoj skuenosti nisu u stanju apsolvirati.25
A knjige iz prva tri kola mogu se nai i kupiti samo kod izdavaa knjiara Ljevak, i to povremeno
i na hrpi, u rasprodaji i na akciji pod modernim marketinkim sloganom: Plati 2 uzmi 3 knjige!
Vie o zloj kobi Krleinih Sabranih djela vidi fusnotu 1.
24
Vidi: Knjievna Republika, godite X., 79, srpanj/rujan 2012.
25
Krlea danas, Novi list, 27. svibnja 2012.
23
121
122
123
i Krleini nasljednici Kreimir Vranei i Enes engi, a vodio ga je potpisnik ovih redaka. Odbor je
1990. izradio integralni projekt KRLEIANUMA, kulturno-umjetnikog i znanstveno-istraivakog
centra (zgrada, u kojoj su Bela i Miroslav Krlea imali stan, sa etiri etae, ukupne povrine 1300 m2
i okolnog perivoja od 5.000 m2). Bila su prikupljena i dostatna sredstva za adaptaciju, kanili smo ga
sveano otvoriti na Krlein roendan 7. 7. 1991., ali nova vlast je projekt obustavila, a Odbor raspus
tila. U meuvremenu, Grad Zagreb (Muzej Grada Zagreba) u Krleinu stanu uredio je Memorijalni
postav Bele i Miroslava Krlee,koji je otvoren dva puta tjedno po dva sata, po dogovoru i unaprijed
najavljenoj posjeti! U ostatku zgrade na Krleinu Gvozdu 23 stoluju predstavnici nekih multinacio
nalnih kompanija, a neko vrijeme tu je bilo sjedite 5 trgovakih drutava koja, koliko mi je poznato,
s kulturom i knjievnou nemaju nikakve veze.
30
Nitko bolje o stanju hrvatske svijesti i Evropi danas, poslije Krlee, nije pisao od Stanka Lasia: Moe
li hrvatski narod u ovom tekom trenutku prihvatiti dijalog o kakvoj je Hrvatskoj rije kada se kae
da emo braniti Hrvatsku svim sredstvima: da li je to Hrvatska vlasnika vila, deviznih rauna u vi
carskoj, vikendica na tri kata, BMW-a, elektronskih ureaja, svile i kadife, dijamantnih narukvica,
zlatnih kalea i krznenih kaputa, ili je to Hrvatska iz vlaka (Krleine) Hrvatske rapsodije, Hrvatska
podrumskih stanova, Hrvatska koja se die u etiri ujutro da bi ila na posao, Hrvatska poderana,
pokrpana, gladna i neispavana? Nema jedinstva nacije u naciji koja ne inicira i ne iri ovakav dijalog,
koja nema smjelosti da sebi otroumno pogleda u lice i izrekne istinu, stranu i optuujuu. Ili, malo
dalje, kad Lasi kae: U svjetlu ove analize, a na pitanje to je to Evropa, mogue je sada dati tri
odgovora:
1) Evropa je iskreno nesretna, jer zbog dravnike logike mora odstupiti od (univerzalnih) principa na
kojima poiva demokratski poredak, u kojima se utjelovljuje ljudskost;
2) Evropa uope nije nesretna, jer ona razumije samo glas topova, a sve je ostalo dodatni teatar koji
treba da uvjeri i nju samu i one oko nje da ona ne postoji kao sebina i besmislena praksa, nego kao
humanistiko bie s povijesnom misijom;
3) Evropa je i jedno i drugo, ona je i iskreno nesretna i igra humanistiki teatar kojim ublaava svoju
nesretnu svijest i olakava posao politikoj pragmatici koja ostaje dominantna komponenta u po
naanju Evrope. Stanko Lasi, Tri eseja o Evropi, izd. Hrvatsko vijee europskog pokreta, Zagreb
1992, str. 22, 37 i 38.
31
Enes engi (Foa 1926 Zagreb 1994) publicist i knjievnik, porijeklom je iz stare plemike obitelji.
Godine 1955. dolazi u Zagreb kao dopisnik sarajevskog Osloboenja, a poslije postaje direktor Infor
mativno-poslovnog centra za Hrvatsku te novinsko-izdavake kue. U brojnim listovima i asopisi
ma objavio je mnoge lanke, komentare, reportae, putopise, a posebno su ostali zapaeni njegovi
intervjui s istaknutim linostima hrvatske kulturne i umjetnike scene. Bavio se i fotografijom, te je
kao foto-kroniar snimio veliku zbirku portreta znamenitih suvremenika i niz Krleinih portreta,
susreta i javnih nastupa, velike dokumentarne vrijednosti. engi je i sam autor 11 knjiga, a svojom
Oporukom Miroslav Krlea na engia prenosi doivotno upravljanje svim autorskim, izdavakim i
reprodukcijskim pravima te zatitu knjievnog djela.
124
125
32
126
128
129
Enes engi: S Krleom iz dana u dan (19751977), Ples na vulkanima, Globus, Zagreb, 1985., str. 273.
Miroslav Krlea: Zastave, knjiga 2, Jubilarno izdanje, Sarajevo 1976., str. 246.
Isto, str. 251. i posebno poglavlja: Veera kod starog Kamaratha, Zbogom mladosti, Zov carske
trube.
130
131
36
37
38
132
133
43
134
Sasvim razumljivo posjet nije mogao proi bez obilaska Ohrida, putova
nja kroz Makedoniju i sl. Krlea ne bi bio ono to je bio, njegova ljubav i zani
manje za Makedoniju ne bi bili to to su bili da nije proputovao i razgledao...
Ponosim se prijateljstvom koje me je s njim povezivalo, to mi je njegov
dom bio otvoren, kao i njemu moj, to je poznavao moju obitelj, moju djecu i
to je veoma esto, kad mi je to bilo potrebno ili teko, nalazio rijei podrke
i okrepe. Razumijevanje i savjet.
Ali, nezaboravno ostaje, ne samo za mene, ve razgledaima, podrka
koju nam je on dao tokom njegova posjeta 1960.44
Kole aule Krleu je doista drao svojim uiteljem i bio mu je zahvalan,
jer, kako kae, on nas je nauio kako ostati uspravan, kako se izboriti za
svoje miljenje!
O tom treem boravku u Makedoniji Krlea je napisao i putopisnu bi
ljeku, koja je, kao i mnogi drugi njegovi zapisi, naalost, ostala samo kao
podsjetnik za vee studije i eseje, za neto ime se valjalo naknadno pozaba
viti i emu se tek trebalo posvetiti. Biljeku je naslovio Viaggio in Pelagonia,
30. IV1.V, 2.V i tako umjetniki ovjekovjeio svoje makedonske putopisne
impresije: U sivoj kopreni kie, serpentine, preko Resena i evo nas u Ohri
du sa turskim doksatima od hartije. To su gradovi koji imaju svoj Bit Pazar,
Cigansku Mahalu, Kurumli-han, Bezistan, Daut Pain hamam, damije i
tvrave, zapravo kulise.
Hotel Palace ohridski kao simbol vremena. (...) Melasa, svjetiljke od
ive, rasvjeta od keja nou, a tu je ona mramorna villa o kojoj su sanjala po
koljenja. U toj mramornoj villi kao u Kranjevievoj poemi meni je hladno.
Drugog jutra i etnje Ohridom. (...) Sveti Kliment, Klimentov grad sa ras
cvjetalim jabukama, enevsko jezero... Galiica u snijegu, Sunce na brdu, de
set vjekova sunca! Klimentove godine nije teko upamtiti, doao je one 886,
a umro 916. Od ovog punkta do Moravije i Kijeva irio je Bizantovu i svoju
Isto, str. 120, 121 i 122.
44
135
Gane Todorovski
Krlea i Makedonija1
Jedan vaan kulturni dogaaj, recimo dogaaj prvog reda, okupio nas
je danas, u Makedonskom narodnom teatru, pod ovim sigurnim krovom
koji uvijek, i danju i nou, umjetnosti daje sigurno utoite i zakrilje, okupio
nas je da bi se jo jednom potsjetili, bar na tren, da sve ono to se radi na
prostorima umjetnosti izgleda apsolutno pravovremeno i uvijek dobrodolo,
jer tu nikada nita nije kasno, kao da smo u carstvu devet muza, devet bo
ginja i pokroviteljki znanosti i umjetnosti, te svaki razumni poduhvat slii
boanskom inu
Tako smo se i mi danas okupili u ovom skopskom naturbetonskom He
likonu, da bi promovisali pet novih svezaka djela Miroslava Krlee koje je na
makedonkom jeziku izdala skopska nakladna kua Naa kniga:
I. Izbor poezije i poema Balade Petrice Kerempuha;
II. Hrvatski bog Mars, pripovijetke;
III. Povratak Filipa Latinovicza, roman;
IV. Glembajevi, drame; i
V. Izabrani eseji.
Rije pri promociji Izbora Krleina stvaralatva, objavljenog na makedonskom jeziku u pet svjezaka
u izdanju nakladne kue Naa kniga, Skopje, 1983. godine. Promocija je odrana u maloj dvorani
MNT, 18. studenoga 1983. godine. Fragmente iz Krleinih djela itali su i govorili glumci Nada Ge
ovska, Ilija Milin i Risto ikov.
45
46
136
137
138
139
rekao sam srpskim oficirima: Gospodo moja, ovo nije Srbija, ovdje se govori
drugim jezikom! Uhapsili su me... Za malo da me strijeljaju...
Prekida, tek za mali predah, pa me zatim pita:
Kada si roen?
Kaem mu. Odmah dodaje: Eto, vidi: ja sam Makedonac petnaest-es
naest godina prije tebe... Nakon toga poinje brzo, teno i izvrsno logino
govoriti o Skopju, Strugi, Bizantu, Anni Komnenoj, o povijesti, o Miladinov
cima, Misirkovu, Vatroslavu Jagiu, o sprsko-bugarskom sporu oko Make
donije. Ne dozvoljava nam da ga prekinemo, a i ne mora. Jasno, pred nama
imamo vrlo krhku linost od 86 godina, i kvalificiranog Makedonca...
Ima neeg impresivnog u svim ovim asocijacijama, poreanih napreac,
o relaciji KrleaMakedonija. Evo zbog ega:
Da bi sudjelovao u Balkanskim ratovima (u Prvom i Drugom) u redovi
ma srpske vojske, Krlea, kao dvadesetogodinjak (roen je 7. sprnja 1893.),
u Makedoniju dolazi kao ratni bjegunac iz austrougarske armije. Dolazi pre
ko Francuske. U Marseilleu ulazi u brod za Solun. Negdje travnja 1913. go
dine, on je u Makedoniji.
O ovim svojim prilikama i neprilikama autor nam govori u knjizi Izlet u
Rusiju iz 1926. godine.
Nekoliko dana kasnije, negdje poetkom svibnja iste godine, Krlea do
lazi u Skopje. U knjizi Davni dani, 1956., (v. str. 148149) biljei da mu se
idejni i politiki horizonti zatvaraju da bi vee predimsvo prepustio smislu
za umjetnost. Eto, u tome je veliki smisao ovog podatka. Krleina skepsa je
ipak roena u Skopju, na makedonskom tlu. Stanko Lasi (vidi: Krlea kro
nologija ivota i djela, Zagreb 1982., str. 104) govori nam da se u potapanju
ideala i u ratnom vihoru umjetnost namee kao mogue rijeenje. Krlea
nam o ovome priopava sljedee:
Godine 1913., mjeseca lipnja, u Skoplju sam o svemu ovome imao ne
obino jasne slike, uvjeren da se sve to moe izraziti stihovima dva i po metra
dugim. U onome trenutku sloma svih ovozemaljskih vrijednosti, djeakih
140
141
142
143
...I kao to ne zna, jadna moja, to je znailo biti i glavu izgubiti kao
Ilindenac, tako pojma nema ni o tome to su makedonske freske, a to nisam
znao ni ja, draga moja gospoice, dok mi se nisu prikazale u punom svom
dostojanstvu... Sve je tu krv i sve je tu alost, pa samo krv i samo alost zrae
iz ovih krvavih slika...
Do dananjeg dana dubinu ove tragedije nitko nije opisao, vanost ovih pu
stolovina nikada nitko nee znati ni umjeti ocjeniti, upravo kao to nee znati
ocjeniti ni znaenje nae vlastite pustolovine, kada se, rtvujui sebe, svoju sre
u, da mila moja, svoju ljubav, obmanjujemo da bi ove vode makedonske, ova
Treska, ovaj Vardar, ova Pinja prestale da teku, da se tu nismo mi velevano
pojavili pod ajkaama kao oslobodioci. (Zastave, Beograd, 1969, str. 523524)
U najnovijoj litaraturi (vidi: Aleksandar Flaker, Poetika osporavanja, Zag
reb 1982) uvedena je sintagma: Krlein Makedonac (vidi: str. 142154). Rije je
o Krleinoj pripovijeci In extremis, od 1932. godine, gdje je otkrivena vizija
o Makedoniji i balkanskom prostoru. U ovoj Krleinoj pripovijeci, prema Fla
keru, Makedonac je predstavnik opebalkanskih patnji, kao autentini pred
stavnik prostorne ekstenzije, kao dno adskog cirkulusa (kruga). Krleina vizija
o Makedoniji je vie nego traumatina. Flaker nam istie da glavni lik u pri
povijeci In extremis, Kunej, u dijalogu s Makedoncem koga je sreo tamo neg
dje u maslenicima Kvarnera, kao vojnik na strai pored brijega, konkretizira
balkanski prostor kao prostor nacionalne i socijalne obespravljenosti, prostor
neprekidnih ratova u kojima, seljak (itaj: proletariziran) kome je uskraena
zemlja, samo je objekt, isto tako, balkanskih zastava i kraljeva (str. 148).
Predstavljajui Makedoniju kao dno adskog cirkulusa, glavni junak Kr
leine pripovijetke poslije susreta sa napaenim Makedoncem otvara novi
prostor, kae Flaker, koji nije vie geografski, ve iskljuivo moralni. Krlein
Makedonac govori sa teinom dramatine optube.
Moj stariji brat bio je pod turskom zastavom, pa su doli Srbi i oteli
nam sto i sedam ovaca. A ja sam samo srpskoga kralja sluio tri puta i povu
kao se u Albaniju. Pa su Bugari doli i mater mi odvukli. I sestru. I oca su mi
ubile Komite jo prije. Sve su nam uzeli (str. 331332).
144
145
* * *
Krlea ostaje u naoj svijesti kao autor najsugestivnije knjievne rijei
koju su poznavali junoslavenski narodi odkad se rije biljei. Bio je Voltai
re naeg vremena. Bio je vietomni kroniar svete i proklete Ilirije, bio je
pisac pronicljivog uma i neimar asocijativnih pohoda golih, gladnih i bo
146
: ,
Tome Serafimovski: portret Miroslava Krlee, bronza
Tome Serafimovski: portrait of Miroslav Krlea, bronze
: (),
Tome Serafimovski: figura Miroslava Krlee (detalj), bronza
Tome Serafimovski: figure of Miroslav Krlea (detail), bronze
Katica ulavkova
The Return of Miroslav Krlea
A Hundred Years of His First Coming to Macedonia
Those individuals who surpass their own times belong to more than one
time. Those individuals who enrich a culture never stop being part of that
culture even when they are out of the spotlight and off the centre stage. Their
cultural mission may be transformed, but it cannot disappear. Such an indi
vidual was Miroslav Krlea (18931981), who has not been among the living
now for more than 32 years.
The clock of history has measured 120 years since Krleas birth in Za
greb on 7th July, 1893. Miroslav Krlea has enriched Croatian culture and all
other South Slavonic literatures, including Macedonian culture and litera
ture. Today he is regarded as a prominent contributor to European and world
cultural heritage. It does not matter any longer whether Krleas work be
longs more to the South Slavonic, Balkan, Central European or even the Aus
tro-Hungarian cultural tradition. That work, unfortunately, has been pushed
to the literary and social margins, mostly by the right-wing representatives of
Croatian national discourse in independent Croatia. Ironically, however, one
can hardly imagine the continuity, fullness and value of Croatian culture,
literature, and lexicography in the 20th century without Krlea.
If there is any individual who has left a deep and lasting impact on con
temporary Croatian language and literature, as well as on the cultural strat
151
Slavonic and European perspectives and histories. A new light will be cast
upon those segments of the past that might overlap with those of the future,
upon the points where history repeats itself or prophetically announces the
future. Such points register the existence of great individuals like Miroslav
Krlea, an exceptional shared historical figure of all Yugoslav peoples and
culturesneither less of a Croat, nor more of a Yugoslav, and a little bit of a
Macedonian.
Miroslav Krlea returns again to Macedonia. And he rightly belongs to
it. He enriched this culture, too. He inscribed himself in its more recent his
tory with his emphatic love of the Macedonian medieval arts. He generated a
consciousness that Glagolitic literacy and culture constituted all Slavic iden
tities, especially along the route from Macedonia, to Bosnia and Herzegovi
na and Croatia. He also expressed deep sympathy for all the historical and
national tragedies of the Macedonian people, for their enforced division and
ensuing injustices. He always showed great interest in the development of
Macedonian literary and cultural modernity. He developed a clear under
standing of Macedonian identity and selfhood, bearing throughout his life
his own Macedonian scar after having had to face the absurdity of the Ser
bian campaign in Macedonia during the Balkan Wars, conceiving his own
vision for the publication of a separate Macedonian encyclopaedia, etc. Some
say that even Krleas kin may be traced in the vicinity of the Dojran Lake.
This symbolical and yet indicative and necessary return of Miroslav
Krlea to Macedonia has been achieved after an invitation of the Macedo
nian sculptor Tome Serafimovski, a homegrown Macedonian but a Croa
tian by his format of education and his familial, existential, linguistic, and
cultural ambience. It was on his initiative that two excellent academic texts
were written on the life and work of Miroslav Krlea: the first one by Goran
Kalogjera, professor at Rijeka University and a foreign member of the Mac
edonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and the second one by Boo Rude,
an essayist, publicist and publisher from Zagreb. Goran Kalogjera produced
152
153
a narrative regarding Krleas visits to Skopje and to Macedonia: his first visit
in 1913 just before the outbreak of the First World War, when as a defector
from the Austro-Hungarian army he enlisted in the Serbian forces only to
understand how absurd their campaign was in what they called Sothern
Serbia and to express his belief that the Macedonians were not Serbs but a
separate people with their own distinct language (a belief which endangered
his life and landed him briefly in prison); and his second visit in 1939 on the
occasion of the premiere of his play In the Camp on the stage of the Skopje
Theatre; and his third visit when he toured the Macedonian historical and
cultural monuments and met the Macedonian political and literary elite. Af
ter that he wrote about Macedonia in several of his works and articles. He
was also the co-organizer (together with Dime Koco) of an exhibition of
Macedonian medieval arts in Paris. Boo Rude has prepared an excellent
and very thorough study on Krleas European and Croatian spiritual hori
zons, including his attitude towards Macedonia viewed from a relevant con
temporary perspective on the development of the European and the Yugo
slav concept of a community of various peoples. Both Rude and Kalogjera
make use of Gane Todorovskis speech on the occasion of the Macedonian
publication of Krleas Selected Works in five volumes (1983), where Todor
ovski referred to Krleas relationship with Macedonia.
The concept of this special edition on Krlea and Macedonia, which
marks the 120th anniversary of his birth, is based on the idea of commemo
rating the anniversary and historical importance of Miroslav Krlea as a key
figure in Croatian culture and of his study and affirmation of Macedonian
culture. Consequently, the texts in this book are published in three languag
es: Croatian, Macedonian, and English. They have not been published pre
viously, except for the text of Gane Todorovskis inspirational speech, full
of personal reminiscences and interpretations of Krleas texts (In Extremis,
Balkan Impressions, Flags, etc.). However, without Todorovskis text this book
would lose its spiritual wholeness, would not be able to articulate its ideo
154
155
Goran Kalogjera
Krlea in Skopje in Three Acts
Act I. Skopje, 1913
:
,
Tome Serafimovski:
figura Miroslava Krlee, bronza
Tome Serafimovski:
figure of Miroslav Krlea, bronze
Not diligent enough, smart, not enough open, nervous. Sufficiently dili
gent, somewhat stubborn, closed in on himself. Serious, good-natured, some
what slow. Averagely gifted. Very sensitive, still unformed personality. When
approached well, responds well. Significantly inclined to tenacity, but tries
to cover it with sensitivity. Wistful by nature, proud. Involved in philosophy,
though aware of its impractical outcome. The wrong conclusions drawn from
there, he applies to other things, even to life. Consequently, he produces noth
ing, despite his capability. He does not belong here.
These are the evaluation notes young Krlea received from his superi
ors after his first semester at Ludovica Military Academy.1 Under the heading
Features of character and mood, it says: Somewhat withdrawn, but with ener
getic character, serious, childish at times, difficult and stubborn, self-conscious,
arrogant, pensive, euphoric.2 Under Capability, diligence special skills it
says: Very talented, with unruly beliefs, insufficiently diligent, somewhat super
ficial, indulged in abstract ideas, not interested in military subjects, almost no
The evaluators were: first, Lieutenant Dome, Professor Lesak, Captain Tot, First Lieutenant Hajto, Ma
jor Dobrentej, Lieutenant Vamosh, and Captain Klimko. See in: Lasi, Stanko: Krlea Kronologija
ivota i rada, Grafiki zavod Hrvatske, 1982, p. 100.
2
Ibid., p. 101. On the basis of the text: Zelmanovi, ore. Njihov obraun s njim, Veernji list, 8. 12.
1973, p. 7.
1
157
ting an end to his previous kind of life, departure from his fathers desires, giv
ing the whole incident a deep emotional note. Bearing in mind that as a result of
the Balkan Wars the borders were closed, he had to find another route in order
to reach Southern Serbia. He first came to Paris with the intention of boarding
a ship in Marseilles and reaching his destination, Skopje, via Thessaloniki.
There is yet another version explaining his defection from the Academy.
From Krleas interpretation of the event it becomes evident that he came to
Serbia by chance because he failed to join a colonial army.7 Lasi disagrees
with this version found in the editorial of New Europe because he believes
that Krlea had no intention of making his way to any of the British colonies
and therefore discards that statement as incorrect and hastily written.8 It is be
yond any doubt, however, that Krlea found himself in Paris at the beginning
of May 1913 residing in Hotel Rue de la Harpe and going through a very dif
ficult emotional period. After that he boarded a ship in Marseilles and arrived
at the port of Thessaloniki at the beginning of June. There he acquired forged
documents enabling him to travel to Skopje. He remembers his short stay in
Thessaloniki by another beating he received there: The guards of His Majesty
(King Constantine, by then already dead) beat me horribly with their rifle-butts
when I tried to peep through the grid of the iron fence of the Royal Palace Ma
ria on the top of the Thessaloniki Fortress, with my insolent, plebeian boldness.9
Several days later, Krlea found himself in Skopje.10 Here is what engi
writes about it: He arrived in Skopje in June 1913 as a defector from the Lu
dovica Military Academy in order to join the Serbian army as a volunteer.11
Krlea himself clarified this event in his life, saying: Deeply affected by the
Editorial in Nova Evropa (ed. Krlea), Hrvatska rapsodija, 1921, 159.
Lasi, Stanko. Krlea Kronologija ivota i rada, Grafiki zavod Hrvatske, 1982, 102.
9
Ibid., (from Izlet u Rusiju, 1926, p. .3), p. 104.
10
The reconstruction of the journey was taken from Lasi, Stanko. Krlea Kronologija ivota i rada,
Grafiki zavod Hrvatske, 1982, p. 102.
11
engi, Enes: S Krleom iz dana u dan, 6, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1990, . 106.
7
8
5
6
3
4
Ibid., p. 101.
Zelmanovi, ore. Njihov obraun s njim, Veernji list, 8.12.1973, 7.
Matvejevi, Predrag. Stari i novi razgovori s Krleom, Spektar, Zagreb, 1982, p. 107.
Ibid., p. 107.
158
159
wave of international political crisis as a result of the Balkan War, in the spring
of nineteen thirteen, overwhelmed by deep and unresolvable inner conflict, I
managed to dislodge myself to Serbia and took the risk, as a defector, to enlist
in the Serbian army. I handed my application to volunteer in it on the basis
of my thorough reports about Peshta and Pechuj at the outbreak of the Sec
ond Balkan War in June, 1913.12 Instead of being accepted wholeheartedly,
Krlea was accused of being an Austrian spy: As I could no longer wait the
response to my application (after having submitted all my military papers with
it), I went to the High Command in Skopje without any documents in order
to resolve in person the issue of my future engagement. There I was met with
suspicion and mistrust and was immediately arrested as an unknown defector,
without documents, on the grounds of espionage, infected with dysentery and
threatened with being placed in the Cholera Ward of the hospital riddled with
plague. Gendarmes, prison cells, hotel internment, interrogations, defector sus
pected of espionage in a war zone, placed in custody of the High Command, no
documents, in total darkness, I looked deep into the eyes of death.13
This event was also mentioned during the visit to Gvozd by the delegation
of Macedonian writers from the Struga Poetry Evenings on the occasion of
delivering him the Golden Wreath Award of the festival. When Gane Todor
ovski told Krlea that from that day on he was a Macedonian, Krlea replied:
My goodness, you should know that I have been a Macedonian since 1913. I
became a Macedonian when I was only 20. Then I told the Serbian officers: If
you allow me, gentlemen, this is not Serbia. These people here speak a different
language! They put me in prison and almost took me to the firing squad14
The account of the same event as presented by engi is the following: Now
you are a Macedonian, said Ante Popovski. I became a Macedonian long
before you did. When were you born? In 1931. This is what happened to
Ibid., Krlea, Miroslav: Moj obraun s njima, Osloboenje, Sarajevo, Mladost, Zagreb, 1983, . 223.
Ibid., . 223.
14
Todorovski, Gane. Neodloni ljubopitstva, Misla, Skopje, 1987, p. 236.
12
13
160
me: I went to Skopje in 1913 to enlist as a volunteer in the Serbian army and
just before the Bregalnica battle. During the second day of my stay in the hotel
I started arguing with the Serbian officers that no one spoke Serbian there and
much to my great surprise, I was arrested the following morning. Did they tie
you up? asked Popovski. They did, but not for long. But it does not matter.
What happened was quite normal. I came with false documents, that is travel
documents. They were forged and I openly said that I had no identity in a hotel,
among Serbian officers. And moreover, I said to them that no one spoke Serbian
there and that the language of the people was not Serbian. So what would they
think I was doing there?15 Accused of espionage, Krlea avoided the death pen
alty thanks to a high-ranking Serbian officer. I was saved by a man, an artillery
major (or perhaps a first-class captain), who served in the High Command. He
was the only person who believed my claim that I was not an Austrian spy, that I
truly handed in my documents from Peshta and Pechuj in Thessaloniki (which, I
was told, had been lost). That man sent me to Belgrade accompanied by his per
sonal cavalry gendarme with a letter addressed to the military authorities there,
asking them to take me to the Ministry of War and (if possible) to determine
my identity.16 Krlea describes how the meeting with General Vasi went: He
received me that afternoon in a small office, after lunch. He sat in a simple mili
tary chair, wearing a sweatshirt. In front of the house there was a fountain with
goldfish in its basin; a palemonk sat in front of it, gazing at the fish. The spout
splashed water drops about and General Vasi in his shirt, a cigarette smoking in
his hand, looked at me with a cannibal look: one more Austrian spy.17
The first act in Skopje ended happily for Krlea. As soon as he was es
corted to Zemun, where he proved his identity and was allowed to return to
engi, Enes. Krlea ples na vulkanima, 3, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1990, p. 275.
Lasi, Stanko. Krlea Kronologija ivota i rada, Grafiki zavod Hrvatske, 1982, p. 106 (the text was
taken from Moj obraun s njima, 1932, p. 151).
17
Ibid., p. 105. (The text was taken from: Fragmenti iz dnevnika, 14. III. 1946., Svjedoanstva, 22. III.
1952, p. 2).
15
16
161
Austria, he was arrested by the Austrian border police with an issued war
rant. He was taken for questioning and then given permission to leave for
Zagreb, where he arrived in the middle of 1913. What were the consequences
of this nearly fatal adventure on Krlea? He came to Skopje at the time of the
Second Balkan War; his youthful, romantic ideals had drawn him, like many
other young people, to join Serbia in its righteous struggle, but these ideals
soon waned. All about him sheer horrorthe terror of the Serbian soldiers
over the oppressed people that he immediately understood were not Serbian.
The bloodbath of the Bregalnica battle undermined Krleas ideals about the
brotherhood of the South Slavonic people. Instead of freedom, brotherhood and
culture, Krlea in Skopje met with an aggressive, militarist and expansionist
power.18 As a result of this experience, he later remarked: I did not want to
have any role in the Arnauts transport between Veles and Krivolak in June
1913. I did not want to be a police scribe in Skopje who handles matters with
a revolver in hand; I dont want to be a part of a radical treachery, nor of an
ordinary nonsense, nor anything to do with the Bauer Cafe, or the Arbeiterhilfs
Company19 Krleas revulsion is evident and understandable. It is amazing
how Krlea, as young as he was then, managed to anticipate the problem that
would persist for more than thirty years after these events. He realized that
there was no Southern Serbia and that on the territory of that name there
was another nation who spoke a different language than Serbian, a nation
torn apart by its neighbours in the worst possible way. Consequently, Krlea
very seriously (not jokingly at all) pointed out to his visitors from Macedonia
that he had become a Macedonian long before they had: Not that I had any
highly developed consciousness, but I became a Macedonian before you did.20
Ibid., p. 104.
Ibid., p. 105.
20
engi, Enes: Krlea ples na vulkanima, 3, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1990, 273. It remains unclear whether
it was Gane Todorovski, as he claims in his book, who had the conversation with Krlea or, as engi
claims, Krlea addressed Ante Popovski, the president of the Struga Poetry Festival Council.
18
19
162
The Battle of Bregalnica was a clash between two South Slavonic peo
ples which caused the tragedy of a third. It cleared Krleas horizons and
ultimately destroyed his youthful ideals about the friendship and unity of
the South Slavonic peoples. However, before the blood spilt near Kumanovo
could dry up, only eight months later, the Bregalnica battle June (1913) dis
persed like mortar all the lyrical illusions of several generations who had been
convinced that they were all elements of the common existence of the South
Slavs. From the cinder and smoke of the Bregalnica battle we learned that the
cynical Machiavellianism of the small Balkan dynasties was a reality, and that
Lisinskis musical composition about the Ilyrian phantasmagoria, the Gjakovo
idyl or the Prizren nostalgia had been mere rhetoric.
The suffering, horror and absurd deaths he witnessed only strengthened
young Krleas conviction as to how to proceed: In that moment of sheer col
lapse of all earthly values, of all my childish illusions, self-deceptions and meg
alomaniac ideas, it became clear to me that the only real and plausible mission
of the artist (in the present chaos of our lives), cannot be anything else but to
preach love for our fellow human beings, disregarding the meridians and the
parallels that divide them, the colour of their skin, the country, the nation, the
continents they live in, etc.21
Viewed in this context, the fragments that appear in different works of
Krlea should not seem puzzling to us, as they were really inspired by the
horrors he had seen on Macedonian soil. However, this presents a theme for
another analysis. What matters most here is the fact that throughout 1913,
Krlea established a relationship with the south of the Balkans, became in
volved in the wars, experienced the destruction, the death of innocent and
oppressed people, witnessed the bestial bloodshed between two previous al
lies; all of these shattered his previous ideals for brotherhood and solidarity
among the South Slavonic peoples. Krlea lost his youthful ideals, but what
Lasi, Stanko. Krlea Kronologija ivota i rada, Grafiki zavod Hrvatske, 1982, p. 10.
21
163
remained was his gained awareness that on the territory which was being
ravaged, on the territory where he had almost lost his life, there lived a peo
ple that did not speak Serbian and consequently were not Serbian. In fact,
Krlea stated this notion in front of the Serbian officers. Krleas traumas
from 1913 (although he later wrote about these events with a dose of irony
and light-heartedness), together with the horrendous experience of the Bre
galnica bloodbath, left a significant and deep trace in his soul, as evident in
his literary works inspired by Macedonia and its tragic fate.
Second Act. Skopje, 1937
Seven days after the premiere of the play In the Camp (Osijek, 12th Jan
uary, 1937), Krlea left for Skopje. The reason for this journey was to carry
out the preparations, rehearsals and premiere of the same play at the theatre
in Skopje. According to Lasi, Krlea visited several rehearsals and spent his
time sightseeing. He wanted to attend a goose fight in the Gypsy quarter, but
it was cancelled due to the illness of the champion goose, Musa the Fighter.
While waiting for the fight with his friends, which was eventually cancelled,
Krleas attention was caught by a Gypsy icon. Ljubomir Dobrianin notes
that the primitive quality of the drawing appealed so much to Krlea that he
wanted to have a copy of the same icon.22
Krleas play achieved great success. The performance was sold out. But
despite the ovations and the long and loud applause, Krlea did not appear on
the stage.23 Krleas second visit to Skopje had been much more relaxed than
the previous, dangerous one in 1913. In late 1936, Krlea received an offer
for his play In the Camp to be produced in Skopje in addition to Osijek and
Dobrianin, Ljubomir. M., Veliki uspjeh komada U logoru from g. Miroslava Krlee u Skopju, Pravda,
23.I.1937.
23
Lasi, Stanko. Krlea Kronologija ivota i rada, Grafiki zavod Hrvatske, 1982, p. 264.
22
164
Belgrade. In a letter to his wife Bela, Krlea expressed his hesitation about
going to Skopje: I still dont know whether Ill go to Skopje, but then in anoth
er (third) letter to her he says: The management of the Skopje theatre invited
me to the dress rehearsal of my play In the Camp, so tomorrow, on Sunday, at
11:00 Ill take the express train to Skopje where I should arrive about 9:00 in
the evening.24 After spending the night in Skopje, Krlea wrote another letter
to his wife while in the office of the manager of the King Aleksandar Theatre.
In it he wrote: Last night I arrived at Skopje after nine hours on the train. Now
we sit by the banks of the Vardar and I hear how that Serbian river warbles
along its way, as if the heavenly Phoenix has spread its white wings (I dont
mean the Vardar River, but make an allusion to the eagle in Ilis poem), So,
be it as it may, I now take a break after the dress rehearsal of the first act of the
play which was of 40% less the quality it had at the Osijek performance. I sit
with people in uniforms that remind me of autumn25
During his second visit to Skopje, Krlea evidently felt very satisfied.
Unlike the first visit when he almost lost his life, during this second visit he
found himself in a world much closer to himthe world of the theatrical
stage: Kerosene lamps glimmered in the wardrobes that reeked of grappa, on
ions, grilled liver, mutton, and of the gasses the actors released through their
intestines (mixed up with grilled meat-balls, kebabs, garlic and other meze),
while drunk Macedonians and Thracians wearing the same type of scherzo
peasant shoes and fur-caps threw rotten potatoes at the semi-naked singers,
and at the rough, dirty, drooling oek dancers at Jone-Inn, opposite the
church of the Holy Saviour.26 As for the theatrical performance, it seems that
besides the pleasure he found in the local folklore, he was also happy with the
performance of his play: Last night was the premiere. Here it was regarded as
the best performance at the Skopje theatre (since the beginning of the world),
Bojadiski, Ognen, Krlea i Makedonija (fragments), Prometej, Zagreb, 2005, p. 184.
Ibid., p. 185.
26
Ibid., p. 187.
24
25
165
and the premiere success was regarded as the biggest success of Skopje. There
was greater outburst of temperament and ovations, i.e. screaming, to be more
exact, than in Osijek, where it was also rather loud. The director of the play, Mr.
timac, is a young man ambitious above average, but to my notion, unintelli
gent and un a strange mixture of temperament and, for instance, capability
(Id say). The performance was sold out two days before, but there were still
tickets to be bought (if anyone was interested). The performance was regarded
as a fantastic event and there was evidence of it anywhere one cared to look.27
From the letters that Krlea sent to his wife Bela, it is obvious that he felt
pleasant in Skopje, that he became relaxed and greatly enjoyed the colourful
Balkan folklore in its directness and intimacy, free from artificial etiquette.
He certainly enjoyed the fame and honour, as the numerous positive reac
tions of the audiences in Osijek and Skopje fed his ego and his specific kind
of narcissism. This is what he says about it: Regarding my coming to Skopje, it
is clear to me that in all these different and various cities there live many people
who read my works and want to hear my words, so I find it necessary that their
prejudices about the role of the writer should be cleared up by means of lectures.
The people expect a lot from him, so it may be important to work on that issue
more intensely than before. Both in Osijek and Skopje, the audience found the
Camp an event that would certainly achieve success on the stage, so what the
newspapers bark about (there are such barking newspapers) is utterly unim
portant.28
Upon his return to Belgrade, Krlea wrote again to Bela about his ex
cellent impressions, saying that the moments he had experienced in Skop
je would remain among his pleasant memories: Everything I saw and ex
perienced in Skopje was worth seeing and experiencing. The impressions are
so great that I resolutely decided to remain longer here, in the south, where
everything is so dynamic that it all seems unbelievable. As for the performance
Ibid., pp. 1856.
Ibid., p. 186.
(I have already written about it in my previous letter from Skopje), all went
very well and there remains nothing else to me but be very content.29
Third act. Skopje, 1960.
In 1960, Krlea decided to visit Skopje for a third time in his life.30 Ac
counts differ as to the reasons for his visit. Personally, I am ready to accept
the reasons given by the writer Kole aule. He was a really good friend
of Krleas, which is evident from his correspondence with Enes engi.
Among other things, aule wrote the following: The reason for Krleas visit
to Macedonia, besides its being a desire he had cherished for years, resulted
from a meeting I had with him in Zagreb. On that occasion I had elaborated for
him the situation of Macedonian literature and told him that there was a real
danger of the modernist wing of writers gathered around the magazine Raz
gledi, whose editor-in-chief I was, being persecuted. Krlea listened to me very
carefully and then asked me a series of questions, deeply pondering over my
answers and promising to come to Macedonia to assist in the problem. The for
mal reason for his visit was to meet the Editing Board of the Encyclopaedia.31
The coming of Krlea in Macedonia was poorly covered by the media,
but what matters most is the fact that during the days of his stay he talked
to the Macedonian modernists, a group of younger poets who tried to free
themselves from party censorship and literary clichs. His journey around
Macedonia is no less important because it would later result in the wonder
ful essayistic prose about the beauty of Macedonian historical, cultural, and
church heritage. His stay in Skopje must have provoked some contradictory
rumours within the leading political circles, especially between those around
Ibid., p. 186.
He arrived on 25th April, and left on 2nd May, 1960.
31
engi, Enes, S Krleom iz dana u dan Krlea post mortem 2, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1990, p. 121.
29
30
27
28
166
167
Lazar Kolievski and those who belonged to the more liberal culturalists.
However, Krlea managed to smooth the situation over without producing
any great tension and to make the relationship between the two sides toler
able. It should also be noted that Krleas companion and guide during his
visit of Macedonia was Dime Koco, an exceptional art historian who had
previously worked with Krlea on the organization of the Exhibition of Me
dieval Art from the territory of Yugoslavia in Paris. Here is what Koco writes
about this: On departure, he expressed his wish to visit Macedonia again and
to become better acquainted with the artistic values of our medieval art, espe
cially the art of Ohrid. He also uttered several sentences of praise as regards
Macedonian contemporary art, which he had the opportunity to see in the
Skopje Art Gallery and at the annual art exhibition of the Macedonian artists
organized in the Art Pavilion.32
This account of Dime Koco confirms the fact that Krlea genuinely
wanted to acquire more knowledge about Macedonia. He did not have a clear
understanding about the situation, which is best seen in the account Kole
aule gave Ognen Bojadiski.33 aule recalls his discussions with Krlea
and the conversation he had with his wife, Vangja aule, who then worked
on the book From Recognition to Negation: Bulgarian and Macedonian Rela
tionships. According to aule, Krlea had sufficient knowledge of the issue,
but lacked better and more detailed insight, so he wanted to obtain more
details from the conversation with Vangja aule. He asked her what she
wanted to prove with that book, and she answered that she wanted to eluci
date the hypocrisy and insincerity of Bulgarian policy towards Macedonia.34
The unofficial meeting of Krlea and aule with the representatives of
the modernist current in Macedonian literature was also very interesting.
The Macedonian modernists insisted on greater artistic freedom in choice of
32
33
35
Ibid., p. 109.
Bojadiski, Ognen, Krlea i Makedonija (fragments), Prometej, Zagreb, 2005.
34
Ibid., p. 103.
168
36
169
give Krleas visit the most possible official character, he tried the best he could
during the meetings with us, during the discussions, and even during the walk
through Skopje, to give his visit a specific character of support for our ideas
and wishes. And that had an immediate effect. Some of the prepared plans for
chastising the modernists were dropped (during one such meeting of the offi
cials, both political and police intervention had been demanded), postponed or
cancelled altogether.37
Gane Todorovski also gives his own account about Krleas visit: I was not
informed that Krlea was going to visit our faculty. In the seminar hall where I
carried out oral exams in Croatian literature. I asked Borislav Naumovski, who
was a student of mine then, to talk about the plays of Miroslav Krlea. At the
very same moment the door of the seminar opened and there appeared Krlea
himself, accompanied by the head of the Department of Serbo-Croatian lan
guage and literature, Professor Haralampie Polenakovi, and by the President
of the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Professor Blae Koneski. The
student lost his breath and fell silent. He could not pronounce a single word.38
During his visit to Skopje, Krlea had also the opportunity to meet Lazar
Kolievski and other political dignitaries. engi writes that in his conversa
tion with Kolievski he expected Krlea to make his visit to Macedonia much
earlier, but it was eventually made possible in 1960: He came with an already
prepared programme about the visit. He was, above all, interested in seeing the
development of Macedonia, its people, their life, the situation in the arts, and
especially the Macedonian frescoan exhibition of which he had organized in
Paris in 1950. The dinner given in his honour in Skopje was attended by a large
number of writers and academics. In their presence he revealed to us the exist
ence of an interesting study about the Macedonian nation, written long ago by
the famous Slavicist, Karl Chron.39
Ibid., p. 121.
Ibid., p. 105.
39
Ibid., p. 111.
37
38
170
the ancient sites of Stobi and Heraclea, the Bogomil movement and the Bal
kan wars, the Ilinden Uprising and the Macedonian traumas and paradoxes.
Krlea was a rare example of an utmost connoisseur of Macedonia.40
Macedonia was close to Krleas heart. Whenever he had the opportuni
ty he addressed Macedonia in his literary works. The fact that he enjoyed its
nature, its cities, and its medieval monuments is best seen in his essays Viag
go in Pelagonia, where he gives an account of how, guided by the great con
noisseur of arts Dime Koco, he came to know the essential, true Macedonia.
He was and remained to be, as Gane Todorovski claims, a great and true
friend of Macedonia, the Macedonian people and the Macedonian culture.
Epilogue
My older brother fought under the Turkish flag, then the Serbs came and
took a hundred and seven sheep from my family. I served the Serbian king three
times and withdrew with his army to Albania. Then came the Bulgarians and
took my mother and my sister away, whereas my father was killed before by the
komitadjis. I have nothing and no one now.
Krlea, Miroslav, In extremis, novella, Knjievna republika, 1923.
Boo Rude
KRLEA, THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 2013
Krleas European Horizons
There is almost no republic or province from the former Yugoslav fed
eration, nor a significant European cultural environment that did not mark
the 120th anniversary of the birth of Miroslav Krlea, one of the most prolific
Croatian authors, one of the most influential Yugoslav writers and one of
the most significant European artists of the twentieth century, with theat
rical performances, symposia, literary nights, festivals, radio shows and TV
shows, translations, reprints, proceedings or special editions. With his work
and his greatness, he has so significantly occupied our artistic, cultural and
social horizon that it is impossible to neglect or overlook him, despit the fact
that many desire to do so.
Additionally, hardly any writer, before or after Krlea, in Yugoslavia or
the world, has expressed his or her artistic talent so creatively in all liter
ary genres (poetry, prose, drama, novels, essays, feuilletons, polemic writ
ing, pieces of criticism, travel literature and diary, magazines and editorial
work) as did Miroslav Krlea, remaining consistent to his aesthetic affini
ties, ethical principles and intellectual views.1
Despite his large oeuvre, Krlea (18931981) did not live to see the publication of his Collected Works.
There were several attempts, but they all finished unsuccessfully. In Koprivnica in 1923, only three
books appear at Voshicki, and after that Krlea terminated the contract. Minerva from Zagreb in
1932 offered printing 18 books, published 9, which was followed by a police restraint and the appre
40
172
173
Besides the many poetic and literary masterpieces, such as: The Ballads of
Petrica Kerempuh, The Banners, the Return of Philip Latinowicz, The Glembays
etc., which ensure his place in the anthology of world literature, Krlea, as
an erudite, polyglot2 and perhaps the last polymath on these territories,
also provided the academic, cultural and social community of the Croatian/
Serbian/ Slovenian/ Bosnian/ Montenegrin/ Macedonian linguistic domains
a legacy of series of encyclopaedia editions of lasting and universal value3.
The exemplary encyclopaedia that Krlea frequently referred to was
Diderots Enciklopdie ou Dictionnaire raisonn... It is not difficult to un
derstand the reasons for that inclination. Didrots encyclopaedia preceded
hension of the manager Bruk. Then, in 1937, Stanislav Kopchok attempted to publish the collected
works in the Library of Independent Writers. Several books are published, followed again by a police
restraint and at that time, because of the conflict with the Left, Krlea distanced himself from the
Party. During the Second World War, because of restraints or because of contempt towards the NDC
regime Krlea did not publish a single word. Nothing will change in that regard even after the war
not even the auspices of Tito or the friendship with him. Nakladni zavod started the printing of SD,
but only six books were published. The Zora publishing house published as many as 27 books, but it
encountered problems and was closed down. From 1967 to 1972, Krleas books were not published.
It was at the 80th anniversary from the birth of the author that, thanks to Enes Chengic and the Sara
jevo publisher Osloboenje, the Collected Words of Miroslav Krlea in 50 Books were published for the
first time, in the period from 1975 to 1988.
2
ore Zelmanovi, in his book Kadet Krlea, kolovanje Miroslava Krlee u maarskim vojnim
uilitima, states that between his 15th and 18th year, at the Cadet School in Pechuh in the Pestan Lu
doviceum he learned perfectly German, Hungarian and French and that he was translating in Croa
tian even then Strindberg, Ibsen, Petefi. See specifically the chapter Karakteristike akademca Krlee
Frigyesa, p. 49 and on, kolske novine /Sveuilina naklada Liber, Zagreb 1987.
3
It should be known that Miroslav Krlea is the founder, and, since the founding of the Leksikografski
zavod FNRJ in Zagreb in 1950 (since 1962, Jugoslovenski leksikografski zavod which, since 1991 is
called Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krlea) to his death was a director, editor-in-chief and editor
of Enciklopedija Jugoslavije and of Opa enciklopedija. With Krleas signature and approval, the oth
er encyclopedic and lexicographic editions are printed: Pomorska, umarska, Medicinska, Tehnika,
Likovna i Muzika enciklopedija, Leksikon JLZ, Atlas svijeta etc. Krlea explained the reasons why he
decided to do this job under difficult circumstances to the Editorial Board in 1952 with the following
words: The South Slavic Encyclopedia, among other things, should formulate or codify what gen
erations have missed because of many fatal reasons (); it should be a denial of all parochial and
reactionary leitmotifs of this province of the spirit, denial of these senseless mutual denials that get
permanently inspired by ignorance and then by conscious twisting of the truth (emphasized by B.R.).
Brochure: Enciklopedijska izdanja LZ FNRJ, Zagreb (1953), 19.
174
175
bition of medieval art of the Yugoslav peoples in Paris. I was a member of the
Board in charge of realising this exhibition, and Miroslav Krlea was its pres
ident. Krleas knowledge of the medieval art of our peoples was so broad
that, ever since the start of this Boards work, I believed that the exhibition
will have excellent success. And it was indeed so. The impression made on
me by his rich and well defined personality of intellectual with exceptional
skills was also confirmed when I was in his company during his several-day
visit to Macedonia. His interest in the development (cultural, political and
economic) of the Macedonian people, from the early Middle Ages till today,
was so vast that I had to be careful about each word I said in the presence of
this man because he followed all my thoughts with great respect. I had the
impression that he believed in my presentation. During the conversation we
had, I realised that Krlea knew how to distinguish between truth and lies,
and between real values and improvisation, even when there was a desire to
present lies as truth. I believed that nobody could compete with Krlea in
this. While we were spending time together, I noticed his honest joy because
of the fact that the Macedonian people have finally achieved their freedom.
When he was leaving, he expressed his desire to visit Macedonia again
and acquaint himself better with the artistic values of our medieval art, es
pecially the one in Ohrid. And he would always say a word of praise for the
contemporary Macedonian art, which he could see in the Artistic Gallery in
Skopje and at the annual exhibition of the Macedonian Visual Artists in the
artistic pavilion also in Skopje.5
Krlea mercilessly crossed out the encyclopaedic entries of all authors
who, in the description of historical facts and events, were not faithful to the
principles of truth and objectivity, and Krlea did this using substantiated
and authentic historiography sources and scientific methodology, and he de
manded that the badly written or partial texts be rewritten, supplemented,
Enes engi: Krlea, post mortem II, Svjetlost, Sarajevo 1990, 109.
176
years was being decided, that is only one date in this bloody calendar that
lasts for more than fifty years.
Or, for example, when Krlea, as an editor, severely warns of the omis
sions in regard to the Bogomils:
V/34.
All that is written about the Bogomils in V/22-25 and in VI/1-8 none
of it is true! Laic description of the medieval church hierarchy has never
worked. It should be rewritten. Arianism is present on the Balkans ever since
the pre-Christian days on this ground and obstinately persists all the way to
the second half of the fifteenth century.6
So, Krlea demanded from his collaborators to investigate thoroughly
and meticulously the topics they were in charge of writing, without ideolog
ical interference or political comments, without phrases and additional re(
constructions). Because, to Krlea, to write about art, culture, history, social
phenomena and events, to write about anything was to think; to write and
to think freely and critically and, in such a way, to convey the artistic (and
scientific) truth of the mankind and the world we live in.
Krlea lucidly noted as early as 1932 that the chaotic thoughts and sen
tences could be a result of the chaos in society (which is true even today),
when, in his polemical text (My Conflict with
Them), he addressed his parochial adversaries who disputed his moral and
literary credibility, saying: The chaos in sentences is a consequence of the
chaos in thoughts, and the chaos in thoughts is a consequence of the chaos
in the head, and the chaos in the head is a consequence of the chaos in man,
and the chaos in man is a consequence of the chaos in the environment and
the situation in that environment.7
From Krlezas legacy: Marginalia lexicographica, Izbor, Kolo, asopis Matice hrvatske, br. 1, proljee
2007: 392, 393, 394, 395.
7
Moj obraun s njima is a polemical book with the best characteristics of Krlezas style. See more in:
Stanko Lasi, Krleiologija ili povijest kritike misli o Miroslavu Krlei, II., Zagreb 1989., 315.
178
179
8
9
180
played without punishment; the reflection gets absorbed into the mirror,
weakens it and breaks it. Both Hamlet and Leone become murderers and are
drawn into the chasm along with the Danish court, i.e. the Glembay house13.
In other words, Hamlets and Leones To be or not to be refers to the pur
suit of virtue, facing the truth and a dramatic moment of decision making.
While Hamlet is preoccupied with the thought how to trip the sinful king
when he is drunk asleep or in his rage, Leone does everything to get away
from the murky Glemabyness and the accursed Glembays who are crimi
nals, beguilers and murderers! as a clear, authentic, full-fledged Glembay.
The complex tissue of this dramatic text of Krlea brings together the
motives of social injustice, wealth abuse, irresponsibility and insolence, with
motives of degeneration, hypertrophied sensitivity and moral and intellectual
alienation. This play of Krlea, which is the most performed among his plays,
with its tense dialogues, with psychological nuances and artistically delicate
ly represented personalities is full of allusions to philosophy and science,
painting and medicine, music and bank manipulations, social reputation and
financial manipulations which, in fact, tell us that, neither then nor now, the
international character of the capitalist entrepreneurship knows and recog
nises no boundaries, regardless of the nature of those boundaries: linguistic,
political, cultural, state. Home is everywhere, and nobody counts the victims,
so Krlea constantly reiterated we should not cherish any illusions. There
fore, today, to read and reread Krlea means to give up the remaining illusions.
On the other hand, no one before or with such energy and style entered
into battle with our fatal misunderstandings and conflicts; disputed our
parochial mentalities; attacked the human stupidity. Today we may also
say that nobody, before or after Krlea, undermined our myths and holy
beliefs, especially the Croatian literary lies and the Serbian deceits with
such resolution and audacity, knowledge and courage.
Georgij Paro: Gospoda Glembajevi , Programska knjiica u povodu 100. obljet
nice roenja Miroslava Krlee, Zagreb, 1993, 12.
13
181
that included reading and understanding the texts and books of Krlea. The
Festivals programme was held under the auspices of the Ministry of Culture.
The Belgrade Festival showed that Krleas writing, regardless of wheth
er it is polemic or essayistic, poetic or dramatic, novelistic or in the form of
memoires has not lost its keenness, strength or freshness even today, in rad
ically changed cultural, political and social circumstances. On the contrary,
Krlea, who is spiritually and intellectually situated between the Balkans and
Europe, lucidly analysed those two spirits, he constructs them and scruti
nizes them, and the charm of his speech through writing is that he shapes it
by denial. This denial trait is the crucial point in the poetics and the under
standing of the Krleas world.
182
183
erations of readers find them very close and recognizable: from the state
ment that the time has come to burn and destroy and demolish the lie of the
Croatian literature (1919); that Europe has already prepared a rope for us
any way (1933), fearing whether the Endehasia darkness (1941-1945) will
swallow him; for, finally, in the secret conflict between the government, on
the one hand, and the intellectuals and the people with spirit, on the other
the writer does not care who shall make him suffer: Dido or Gjido14; with
the warning to the sixty-eighters that they will one day see the realization
of their ideals; and to the supporters of the spring that among the Croats, it
is not noble to tell the truth (1971); while he addressed all the rest, in 1980,
before he left, the following words: Tito15 did more for the situation of the
This is a reference to Milovan Gjilas, politician, writer and publisher who, during the Second World War
and the Yugoslav communist movement, had the highest political and military functions, was a mem
ber of the Politbureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and member of
the Supreme HQ of NOB. Krlea was criticised for not leaving Zagreb and (as Ivan Goran Kovacic and
Vladimir Nazor) and crossing to the other side, the partisans. In 1945, in Belgrade, Krlea discussed this
with Gjilas. This meeting is frequently mentioned and indicated in various sources (historical-literary,
diary-memoires and historiographical-political), but the authentic words of Krlea were conveyed only
in two places: in the book of Zvane Zvane rnja Sukobi oko Krlee and in the monograph of Enes engi:
Krlea, which are almost identical.
Those days, in the Madera Hotel, Krlea was visited by Milovan Gjilas.
We discussed various matters, and then Gjilas, at one moment, asked me:
- Tell me honestly, old pal, why didnt you join the partisans?
- I did not come because they would have killed mi.
- Who would have killed you?
- For instance, you!
Gjilas jumped from the chair and went to the balcony. He soon came back and said: - I have to be honest,
I would have killed you before 1942; and way didnt you come at the AVNOJ session when we called you?
- You didnt send a man I trust; I did not trust the people that came and my style, after all, is not to come at
the end of the ballad (Enes engi: Krlea, Zagreb 1982, 412.)
Dido Kvaternik was a minister in the NDH police.
15
Unlike Gjilas, Tito in 1945, received Krlea differently, as Zvanje Chrnja states: Tito was really look
ing forward to that meeting! Whatever was in the past is in the past, lets go on! And while you are
with me, do not be afraid, nobody will have disputes with you on behalf of the Party! (Sukobi oko
Krlee, p. 118). According to Krleas calendar, the time had not come yet for objective evaluation of
the role of Tito in recent Croatian history. On the contrary, both Tito and Krlea, after death, in the
Croatian nationalistic passionate consciousness share the same destiny: permanently and without
arguments they are being disputed, criticised, neglected.
14
184
Croats than anyone else in their history. In a certain, who knows how distant,
future the time shall come when he will be objectively valued, and when his
great achievements will be recognized.
If Krlea could see today the dark state of the cultural, social and po
litical facts in Croatia and the world, he would probably reiterate the same
statement he pronounced many times: Stupidity and space are truly limitless.
But I am no longer certain in the latter!
The diary entries of engi, the chronicle of an epoch With Krlea from
day to day16, are authentic testimonies of a writer, his eventful life as an en
cyclopaedic author and engaged intellectual regarding the most important
phenomena, events and persons of the twentieth century.
With great erudition and freedom of expression, the books authentically
reveal the intimacy, sensitivity, artistic inclinations, intuition and reflections
of Krlea, people and events related to him, as well as the unknown or lit
tle known private biographical facts. engi managed, as a collaborator and
editor, as well as through the friendship with Krlea to note all his thoughts,
meditations and dilemmas, monologues and dialogues from the broad regis
ter of the artistic, cultural, social and political topics.
Enes engi: S Krleom iz dana u dan (Balade o ivotu koji tee, Truba u pustinji, Ples na vulkanima,
U sjeni smrti), Zagreb, Globus 1985. The books are conceived in the form of a diary, they are written
chronologically and they cover the period from 1956 to 1980. After Krleas deat, engi publishes
two more books: S Krleom iz dana u dan: Krlea, post mortem 1 (19811988) and Krlea, post mor
tem 2 (19891990), Sarajevo, Svjetlost 1990. engi explained their aim with the words: Parting
from Mirogoj was not my parting with Krlea. Krlea is a river, endless story. After he left, I still live
with him and his work, sometimes I roast on ember, exposed to unfavourable winds which, in man
ways, were trying to turn the ember into fire. What remains for me to do? Defend myself? No! Re
spond to the deceits? No, but rather to complete the poets legacy to finish first of all the Collected
Works and to do everything I can in order to keep this significant oeuvre from being pushed into
marginal paths, as has happened after the death of many prominent people. (Krlea, post mortem 1,
13.)
For the 120th anniversary of the birth of Krlea, Silvana engi Voljevica prepared curtailed edition
of S Krleom iz dana u dan (two books), with an introduction of Ivan Lovrenovic and with a preface
of Boo Rude, Zagreb, Jutarnji liost 2013. And the whole chronicle of S Krleom iz dana u dan IVI,
shows that, in fact, literatures ways are as mysterious as Gods.
16
185
One thing is certain: no one, before and after Krlea, has fought with
such passion and style against our fatal misunderstandings and conflicts, the
parochial mentalities, the slowness of spirit and the myths. Every page of this
book is an expression and a voice of the intellectual and moral consciousness
which we are so much in need of today.
We have in front of us the erudite and polymath Krlea, with all his
sensibilities and open wounds, with the wisdom and lucidity, with the dam
nations and oppositions, with the preoccupations and artistic inclinations.
From day to day, we come into contact with the monologues and dialogues
of Krlea, with the living and the dead, we are again with the literature of
Krlea and with the epoch of Krlea. These diary entries show that all loves
and hates of the Krleianship are burning posthumously.
Croatia was Krleas destiny, and he was a decisive influence in its shap
ing. It was never good, however, it was never recommendable to love Krlea
publically. Because, as Mladen Kuzmanovic, presenting the six-volume
Krleology said17:
Krleianship was much more than a choice of a writer, it was the choice
of the world. Sometimes it meant choice of death or dying, and it has always
been testimony of style, taste and worldview.18 Krlea loved Croatia without
any shame, without illusions, without beautification, he loved it ugly, hun
gry, illiterate and parochial, he adored it mercilessly and without forgiveness
(namely, one forgives only children and mentally retarded people), and the
Croats never forgave this love of his of the Croatian reality, the Croatian truth.
Stanko Lasic, theoretician and literary historian is the analyst most acquainted with Krleas life
and work. Among other things, he has published the books: Sukob na knjievnoj ljevici 19281952,
(1970); Struktura Krleinih Zastava (1984); Krlea, Kronologija ivota i rada (1982); Mladi Krlea i
njegovi kritiari (1987); Krleologija ili povijest politike misli o Miroslavu Krlei, IVI, (19891993).
18
Velimir Viskovi (editor-in-chief of KRLEIANSHIP, the three-volume encyclopedia on Miroslav
Krlea: first volume1993, second volume 1999, third volume Bibliography of Miroslav Krlea, 1999)
states that his old friend and professor Alexander Flacker frequently said that the Zagreb high
school pupils, at the end of the thirties, were divided into Krleians and anti-Krleians. See: Knjiev
na Republika, srpanj-rujan 2012, 3.
17
186
If we can classify the period from the first public appearances of Krlea,
in the beginning of the twentieth century, to his death, in a dialogue-polem
ical sense under (My Conflict with Them), then
all that is happening with the name and the works of Krlea, from his death
until today, involving the Croatian educational, cultural and state authorities
could be called Their Conflict with Him.
And it all began with the ceremony at the funeral on the Zagreb ceme
tery Mirogoj, where a state funeral [was organised for him], with honorary
shooting and military honours, with speeches of highest party and state offi
cials.19 God, what a paradox and what irony of fate: the sworn anti-milita
rist and great writer is sent to his eternal resting place with honorary shoot
ing. The honour and dignity of Croatian culture was saved then by the poet
Jure Kashtelan who said goodbye to Krlea with the words: Great brother,
on behalf of all of us who hold a pen in our hands, I stand before you with a
strong confidence that you are not dead. This conviction is not just an illu
sion. With the suggestive force of the poetic word you have transgressed the
limits of time and space and you have established a conversation of the dead
and the living and the future generations.
During the following ten years, persons in the Zagreb cultural circles
were writing and talking about who and why stole the manuscripts from the
sealed chests of Krlea in the Bureau of Lexicography in which Krlea was
the editor-in-chief since its foundation. Kresho Vraneshic, the successor of
Krlea and, along with Enes engi, executor of Krleas Will, states that the
chest, when they came to officially seal it, in Krleas office was completely
empty, and its upper part was even torn out.20
With the coming of HDZ in power, from 1990 to 1997, not a single book
by Krlea was printed (!), and the MPs in the Parliament ultimatively de
Eliza Gerner, Milan Arko: Svjedoci Krleina odlaska, Prometej, Zagreb, 2002, 129.
Milan Gavrovi: ovjek iz Krleine mape, ivot i smrt dr. ure Vraneia, Novi Liber, Zagreb, 2011,
233.
19
20
187
manded that the name of Miroslav Krlea is taken away from the Bureau
of Lexicography (!!!). With the knowledge and approval of the manager of
the Bureau of Lexicography and editor-in-chief of the
(General Religious Lexicon), even a denouncing, revengeful and
herostratic entry KRLEA was printed, in which this Croatian priest of lit
erature is said to be the most radical opponent of religion (Agape Satanas!)
and that in aestheticism, Krlea found a religious spirituality, and in posi
tivism and evolutionism dogmatic shelter for his attitudes, whereas in the
communist revolution and in the party he searched for a surrogate of the lost
religious community. Not only that this Religious Lexicon deceives that
Krlea was singing songs of praise to the totalitarian dictatorships and
that with his anti-religious attitudes he strongly marked the liberal civil and
communist intelligence and indisputably contributed to the anti-Catholic
campaign in the communist post-war period.21
A true and honest measure of Croatianism Krlea expressed often and in
various manners and at this point, we shall quote just one sermon of Krlea
and one blessing of Krlea.
Croatianism is not One and Only Croatianism as Such, and that is es
sential in this review. The bishop Count Drakovi, who signed the death
verdict for Matija Gubec, is a Croatian feudal lord, and Gubec is a Croatian
peasant. There is no such Croatianism which is able to reconcile the Croatian
peasant with the Croatian Count. So, I do not recognize the Croatian Bishop
and Count Drakovi as my Croatianism, and I expressly deny such feudal
Croatianism, culturally futile and politically parasitical for centuries, which
does not mean that I deny Croatianism as such, as if the Bishop and Count
Drakovi has a monopoly over his Episcopal and comital Croatianism, and
I do not have the right to my peoples Croatianism. Croatianism as such,
Croatian ansich, Croatianism, by itself does not exist, and it would be good
to agree in the introduction to this review the value and the meaning of cer
tain notions. Nothing on this planet exists as such or per se not even our
planet as such in itself. Per se, this Croatianism of ours does not exist
because it is not a balloon to float beyond time and space, and it is not a Pla
tonic Idea so that our thoughts about it would be just a divine reflection of a
supernatural notion. In the past there was a whole series of Croatianisms be
cause through time they flow into the permanent fluctuation of notions and
reflections and, therefore these Croatianisms, in overflowing, are always dif
ferent, resembling each other and never fully coinciding, in successive line,
and they are themselves but a reflection of the circumstances and situations
through which they flow.22
And, if in our history, there is a person who travelled the world as a
symbol of Croatianship, it was this ingenious Dominican Juraj Kriani, who
was fruitlessly staying in Siberia for fifteen years, accused of being a Latin,
and who was abhorred by Rome because of suspicion that he is a Slavophil
who is loyal to the schism.23
In 2001, on the twentieth anniversary of the death of Krlea, in the Na
tional and University Library, in the presence of the Croatian state top offi
cials and the cultural authorities, according to Krleas Will, chests, contain
ing Krleas manuscripts, with maps, schemes, letters and marginal items, that
had been sealed for twenty years were ceremoniously opened. Kresho Vrane
shi, witness who, along with Enes engi and the official representative of
the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Cutlure, prepared and sealed the
manuscript legacy, noted again that someone opened the chests and was look
ing at what was inside. More specifically: Fourteen sealed chests no longer
had a single seal, several ropes were torn or cut, the screws were unscrewed,
and the lids were deformed ( , p. 235)
Several years ago, HAZY, whose long-time vice president Miroslav
Miroslav Krlea: Deset krvavih godina, Jubilarno izdanje, NIRO Sarajevo 1979, 106, 107.
Miroslav Krlea, Eseji, III, Zagreb 1963, 52.
22
Opi religijski leksikon, Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krlea, Zagreb, 2002, 479, 480.
21
188
23
189
Krlea was, in cooperation with a Zagreb publishing house started the project
(Critical
Edition of the Collected Works of Miroslav Krlea) in sixty books. Only three
book series were published (twenty to books) and everything stopped. Si
lence, nobody asks anything and why everything stopped?!24 And the books
from the first three book series could be found and bought only at the prem
ises of the publisher the bookshop, only occasionally and in groups, on sale
or under the modern marketing slogan: Take 3 pay for 2.
On the thirtieth anniversary of the death of Krlea, in December 2011, a
scientific symposium was organized by the Association of Croatian Writers,
at which our most eminent Krleologues participated, all of them university
professors, department heads, exceptional authors and respectful publishers,
all unanimous in the assessment that even today, Krleas work is equally
modern; that Krlea is the architect of the new cultural paradigm; that
Krlea is an important, possibly the most important chain in the national lit
erary and intellectual canon of the twentieth century, but that unfortunately,
the leading national institutions, during his life and posthumously, did not
show adequate respect, some even neglected him, some persistently denied
him, and some, latently and openly, try to erase all of his traces, throwing him
out of the Croatian public life. They mainly succeeded, which is contrary to
the national surveys of a Zagreb weekly, whose respondents included Krlea
among the greatest and most appreciated Croatian writers. One of the par
ticipants at the symposium even asked a question which was not in the least
rhetorical: In the name of what and why do the Croatian Left and the Croa
tian social democrats, that is, the Croatian government and the state, give up
all their protagonists and great men: Josip Broz Tito and Miroslav Krlea?!25
The books from the first three book series can be found and bought only in the premises of the pub
lisher the bookshop Ljevak, only occasionally and in groups, on sale or under the modern market
ing slogan: Pay for 2 Take 3! For the misfortune of Krleas Sabrani djela (Collected Works), see
footnote 1.
25
See: Knjievna Republika, godite X., 79, srpanj/rujan 2012.
24
190
Yet, it seems that, in that occasion, the spiritual legacy of Krlea was
most lucidly expressed by Zdravko Zima, when he claimed that: The fact
that the Croatian people and the Croatian intellectuals are still so divided in
regard to a writer can mean only two things: (1) that in this part of the world,
the time stopped, fixated in myths and centuries of sedimentary deceits, or
(2) that the dimension of Krlea is such that the Croats, in their national and
historical limitation, are incapable of absolving him.26
The current fierce disputes about keeping the Croatian rules of writing,
the Croatian alphabet and the Croatian language clean and saving them at
any price from various international contaminations or, God forbid, eastern
versions also confirm the assumptions that time stopped for many Croatian
intellectuals in this part of the world and that the Croats are not yet able to
absolve Krleas European horizons (Zmega) and his significance for the
national literariness and culture. Krlea spoke, and engi wrote, of these
Croatian-Serbian, Serbian-Croatian linguistic issues: The Croatian or the
Serbian are one language that Croats always call Croat, and the Serbs Serbi
an ever since I have been writing, I have been writing in Croatian, exactly,
just as all Serbian writers write Serbian. () I consider that the language is
not a matter of administrative agreement, but it is a living matter that can
not be an object of a regulation and law (), which does not mean that this
matter should not be discussed with all scientific and literary-historical im
partiality. ()
When we are talking about language, however, I remembered that on
Brioni, Krlea was telling me about the dispute he had with Alexander Beli
regarding the name of the language. Since Beli insisted on the name Ser
bo-Croatian, i.e. Croatian-Serbian, Krlea eventually asked him:
In what language did you mother raise you?
In Serbian, he answered.
Krlea danas, Novi list, 27. svibnja 2012.
26
191
This is a reference to the flat in Gvozd, today Krlein Gvozd 23, in which Bela and Miroslav Krlea
lived the last three decades of their lives.
30
After several unsuccessful attempts, at the proposal of the Sabor (Assembly) and the Parliament of the
City of Zagreb, in 1987 a Board for Arranging Krlein Gvozd was formed, which included prominent
Krleians and Krleologues: Jure Katelan, Saa Vere, Andre Mohorovii, Boidar Gagro, Milivoj
Solar, Boidar Raica, Rade Sherbedzija and Krleas successors Kreimir Vrane and Enes engi,
and was led by the author of this text. In 1990, the Board performed the integral project KRLEIJA
NUM of the cultural-artistic and scientific-research centre (the four-storey building in which Bela and
Miroslav Krlea had a flat, with a total surface of 1,300 m2 and a surrounding part of 5,000 m2). Suffi
cient means were collected to adapt the building, we wanted to open it with an opening ceremony on
Krleas birthday on 07.07.1991, but the new authorities stopped the project, and the Board dismissed
it. In the meantime, the City of Zagreb (the Museum of the City of Zagreb) organized an exhibition in
Krleas flat called Memorial Display of Bela and Miroslav Krlea, which is open twice a week for two
hours, provided that it is preannounced! The remaining part of the building on Krlein Gvozd 23 is
a seat to representatives of several multinational companies, and at one point it was also a seat of five
trading companies which, as far as I know, have nothing to do with culture and literature.
192
193
27
28
29
was not only his last harbour and his last stop, after numerous movements,
but also a safe haven, a working place, a house in which he always, unre
servedly, felt like he is at home. And while to all of Krleas friends, this
house was like a lighthouse in which this great writer and dreamer? found
unexpected harmony, to Krlea this was a place of rest and planning, crea
tions and contemplations, place of an ideal distance from which the more
dramatic world could be observed What Balzacs home is to the French,
or the well kept home of Tolstoy in Jasna Poljana or Dostoyevskys, Ostro
vsky, Mayakovskis and other great writers flats are to the Russians, Krleas
home in Gvozd should be to us, a place with dynamic structure and scene
of permanent gatherings. Yet, let us put aside the memories and sentimen
tal thought of a poet and an actress; maybe, with Croatias entrance into
the EU31, a factor would appear to complete this investment, so that we
could return to Krleas literary oeuvre.
Krlea always said: I do not have children, the books are my children; and
the most that can be done for a writer is to have his books published and read.
After Krlea, no one has written better on the situation of the Croatian consciousness and Europe
today, than Stanko Lasi. In these hard times, san the Croatian people accept a dialogue about what
kind of a Croatia we are talking about when we say we shall defend Croatia with all means: is that the
Croatia of the owners of villas, of foreign currency accounts in Switzerland, houses on three floors,
BMWs, electronic equipment, silk and velvet, diamond bracelets, golden cups and fur coats, or is it
the Croatia from the train of (Krleas) Croatian Rhapsodia, Croatia of flats and cellars, Croatia that
wakes up at four in the morning to go to work, Croatia torn, tattered, hungry and sleepless? There is
no unity of nation in a nation that does not initiate and does not spread such a dialogue, which does
not have the courage to look at its own face and express the truth, terrible and accusing. Or, further
on, when Lasi says: In the light of this analysis, regarding the question what is Europe, it is now
possible to provide three answers:
1) Europe is positively unfortunate because, due to the logic of its state officials, it must withdraw from
the (universal) principles on which the democratic order is based, in which humanity is embodied;
2) Europe is not unfortunate at all because it only understands the voice of cannons, and all else is ad
additional theatre which is supposed to convince itself and those around it, that it does not exist as
a selfish and sensless practice, but as a humanistic being with a historical mission;
3) Europe is both, it is positively unfortunate and it is playing humanistic theatre thus mitigating
its unhappy consciousness and facilitates the work of the political pragmatics which remains a
dominant component in Europes behavior. Stanko Lasi, Tri eseja o Evropi, izd. Hrvatsko vijee
europskog pokreta, Zagreb 1992, 22, 37, 38.
31
194
Enes engi32, since 1956 when he met Krlea and he started keeping
diary, became a close collaborator of Krleas, and later, as an editor and a
publisher, he became Krleas close friend and personal secretary. engi is
the initiator and editor of 20 volumes of the Selected Works of M. Krlea,
printed in 1973 for the eightieth anniversary of the birth of the author. He
is the founder of Panorama, Views, Phenomena and Notions in Miroslav
Krleas works in five volumes (1975). He is also the initiator of the project:
six books in the school reading list, called Krlea in school (1976/77).
From 1975 to 1988, at the initiative of engi and with his efforts, the
Collected Works of Miroslav Krlea in 50 volumes were finally published, and
millions of Krleas works were printed and sold. Unfortunately, during his
life, Krlea did not live to see the publication of his Collected Works. He only
saw the third book series, a sequence of 15 books, which engi brought to
Krlea in the hospital, one week before death.
engi left the hospital, and Krleas doctor Ivo Mlinari asked the writer
who was about to leave this world: Well, tell me, mister Krlea, who is this
Enes engi whom you trust so much that he can visit you whenever he re
quires? Krlea looked at me suspiciously, as if he was surprised I did not know
that, he moved his head a bit, and without thinking replied: My sir, Enes
engi is a noble, yes, yes, noble, not only by his background, but by spirit.
The engi have been nobles for generations, who keep their dignity and, to
be honest, the dignity of others, too. That is why engi is the man who has
Enes engi (Foa 1926 Zabreb 1994) is a publisher and a writer, originating from an old aristo
cratic family. In 1955 he arrives in Zagreb as a correspondent of the Sarajevo newspaper Osloboenje,
and then he becomes a director of the Informative-Business Cenre for Croaia, as well as of the news
paper-publishing house. He has published many texts, commentaries, reportages, travel literature
texts in numerous magazines and newspapers, and his interviews with prominent persons from the
Croatian cultural and artistic scene are especially well known. He was also dealing with photography,
as photo-historian, he shot a lot of collection of portraits of significant contemporaries and a series of
portraits of Krlea, meetings and public events, withe great documentary value. engi is himself an
author of 11 books, and with his Oporuka (Will), Miroslav Krlea entrusted to engi the manage
ment with all his copyrights (regarding publishing and reproduction), as well as the protection of his
literary works.
32
195
my trust and is my friend. What more would you like to hear after I tell you
that when Krlea, as a writer, was neglected so that he could be forgotten, he
and his work as well, then this same engi found the strength, despite all
risks, to be the editor of my Collected Works? Thus, at the right moment, he
jumped into the ship which had received numerous holes and which threat
ened to sink. He saved the ship and made it capable of floating again. You, my
dear, do not know what it means for a writer when his works are not printed
and read. It is a very difficult feeling to be forgotten. I never searched for com
fort, but I expected that what I deserved would be recognised. Enes engi
understood that best and I am thankful to him, not only as an editor, but also
as a man who was very tactful and respectful to me, and I, admittedly, have a
difficult character, which you were able to conclude for yourself.33
For the 120th anniversary of Krleas birth, in Zagreb, a Krleian actor,
enthusiast and a creative person, Goran Matovi, organized the Second Fes
tival of Miroslav Krlea under the slogan: Zagreb has Sljeme and it has one
spiritual, artistic mountain. That second mountain it Miroslav Krlea. The
festival was held on Krleas Gvozd (just as in 2012), which proved to be an
appropriate place for a meeting with Krleza, the artists and the audience.
Through Krlea, a new and live dialogue with the world was established, with
the participation of the best actors of the Croatian theatre, theatrologues,
directors, cineastes and musicians, Krleians and Krleologues.
Krleas Patchwork Europe Today: Voices, Phenomena, Faces, Persons, di
rected by Zlatko Sviben, with the magnificent Branka Cvitkovi and the ac
tors arko Potonjak, Franjo Kuhar and Mladen Vuji was performed the
first night. The fullness of Krleas essay Europe Today (1933) was supple
mented with sentences from The Glembay, On the Edge of Reason, Banners
and with verses from The Ballad of Petrica Kerempuh. The performance re
minded us that Krlea, as early as 1933, in this famous essay, radically cut
From the letter of d-r Ivo Mlinari to Enes engi, dated on 22 December 1986, Archive of the
engi family.
196
197
33
198
wouldnt get any ideas34 the Glagolitic alphabet is the beginning of our
literacy and the spiritual belonging to medieval Europe. The Glagolitsa and
the Glagolitsa speakers, pressed between the Latin and the Greek speakers,
in their fight to dominate between Byzantium and Rome, played a decisive
role in strengthening and constituting the South Slavic linguistic and ethical
awareness.
The Macedonians celebrate every 24 May as the Day of the All Slavic En
lighteners. In the church and cultural history of the Croats, the influence of
Cyril and Methodius was double: with their missionary work and the alpha
bet they did not only spread Christianity, but they also set the foundations
of the national language and literature. The Thessaloniki brothers, according
to the statements of the Croat Glagolitsa supporters (expressed in Mavrov
brevijar) are the most responsible that .35
Near the end of the ninth century, their pupils Kliment and Naum, as
it is well known, established in Ohrid the prominent Ohrid Literary School.
Thousands of pupils of that school also spread (besides the three holy alpha
bets: the Hebrew, Greek and Latin!) the Glagolitic literacy and culture, not
only in Macedonia and Bulgaria, but also throughout Croatia.
We find out how much the legacy of Cyril and Methodius inspired and
contributed to the emancipation of the Macedonian national awareness
from the words of Vatroslav Jagi, enunciated in 1922 and dedicated to Kli
ment Ohridski: He understood the task that he should write in an easily
understandable language and in simple style His merits are truly great,
considering the fact that the Slavic people in Macedonia, with his care, pro
gressed significantly in the area of culture, so that not only with their ethnic
characteristics, but also with their meekness, and Macedonia separated from
Krlea: Panorama pogleda, pojava i pojmova, priredio Anelko Malinar, NIRO Sarajevo-Zagreb
1975., 583.
35
Kulturni radnik, asopis za drutvena i kulturna pitanja, Zagreb, 5/1985, 58. See especially: thematic
block with texts of Andre Mohorovii, Edvard Hercigonja and Boo Rude, dedicated to 1,100th
anniversary of the death of Methodius.
34
199
the eastern parts of the Bulgarian state where, in that time, there was a large
section of non-Slavic, in the original meaning Bulgarian, population.36
In the nineteenth century, the deacon Bishop, educator and patron
Josip Juraj Strossmayer was mostly responsible for expanding the Croa
tian-Macedonian literary and cultural relationships, and, as a supporter of
the Croatian unity, he saw in the Glagolitic alphabet a golden bridge be
tween the East and the West.
Many Macedonians, who worked in Croatia, contributed to better and
broader Macedonian-Croatian cooperation in the twentieth century in the
field of art, culture and science, as did many Croatian intellectuals working
in the area of culture (researchers, writers of travel literature, historians and
Macedonians, poets and writers, musicians and persons working in the the
atre), who spent shorter or longer time of their life in Macedonia.
All this was well known to Krlea.
Krleas sensibility and inclination, however, his polyvalent and multi
disciplinary interest for/towards the Macedonian history and culture, his lit
erary and friendly relationships with leading Macedonian intellectuals and
with social and political protagonists, ad personam and ad institutionem, the
Macedonian themes and motives in Krleas literature are a special chapter in
the Croatian-Macedonian relations and connections.
Let us remind ourselves for this occasion, the anniversary, of the most
significant meetings and leitmotifs.
In 1913 Krlea came to Skopje for the first time and then, he deeply
looked at death in the eyes.
He came here as a refugee escaping from the Ludoviceum, without iden
tity and without documents, suspected of being an Austrian spy. With me,
it was like this Krlea said to the poet Ante Popovski in the time of the
Bregalnica battle, in 1913, you go to Skopje as a volunteer in order to fight
Blagoja Jovanovski: Hrvatsko-makedonski odnosi kroz stoljea, izd. Zajednica Makedonaca u RH,
Zagreb-Osijek, 2002, 15.
36
200
on the side of the Serbian army. The second day in the hotel you prove to the
Serbian officers that no one knows Serbian there and you are surprised when
the next day they arrest you (). As a volunteer, completely shocked, you
prove to them that here, actually, no one speaks Serbian and that here the lan
guage they speak and the people are not Serbian and, accordingly what are we
doing here. (italicised by B.R.) The officers are undoubtedly seeing a monkey,
and that is what they informt their superiors, and then police officers come
and arrest the man.37
When it is carefully analysed, it can be seen that Jagi and Krlea, on
different occasions speak of the same thing: the Macedonian autonomy!
The Balkan Wars undoubtedly marked permanently Macedonias fate,
dividing it into a Bulgarian, Serbian and Greek part, and the battle of Bre
galnica is the end of that military conflict between the victorious countries.
For Krlea and his whole generation, the Bregalnica battle meant a decisive
misfortune for the South Slavic national ideals. In the smoke and fire of the
Bregalnica battle, we learned that the cynic Machiavellism of the small Bal
kan dynasties is a reality, whereas Lisinskis musical score, the Illyrian fan
tasies, the Gjakovo idyllic atmosphere or the nostalgia for Prizren are only
empty words Bregalnica is only a consequence of the cursed state logic,
because whenever a noble thought turns into a state policy, it is achieved
with cannons and bayonets.38
In this context, Kamilo Emeriki, the protagonist of Krleas Banners,
speaking to the regnicolar and war profiteer Amadeo Bogoljub Trupac,
whose topmost ideal is to open a casino on Margitsziget, describes with dis
appointment the fall of all his youthful ideals and liberation passion, and paints
a dark and nauseous picture of the world at that time and the constellation of
powers: Please, take, for example, all peoples in Austria, all peoples along the
Danube River, on the Carpathian Mountains, on the Balkans, on the other side
Enes engi: S Krleom iz dana u dan (19751977), Ples na vulkanima, Globus, Zagreb, 1985., 273.
Miroslav Krlea: Zastave, knjiga 2, Jubilarno izdanje, Sarajevo 1976., 246.
37
38
201
of the Carpathian Mountains, from Finland to Estonia, all the way to Alba
nia, throughout Europe, all of it together is a primitive, stupid synagogue, they
all shout, each trying to surpass the others in shouting the same phrases of
the tradition, race, missions, the folk soul, they all have their popular geniuses
and their tamburas and gusli and poetry and history and flags, whereas this
senseless blabbering of ours about Kosovo, tsar Lazar, Metrovi, the Vidovden
temple, white eagles, iconostases, kings, all that seems to me, youll have to for
give me, unworthy of common sense, meaningless, yes, even more than that,
foolish, especially today, when we face it to the Macedonian event39
Regarding the second visit of Krlea to Macedonia, in 1937, in his book
Krlea Chronology of his Life and Work, Stanko Lasi writes: Seven days after
the opening night in Osiek, Krlea arrived in Skopje. The first performance of
the play In the Camp was prepared here as well. Krlea was present at several re
hearsals, and he was also sightseeing the city. He wanted to watch the well known
gusak fights in the Gypsy quart. However, he did not manage to see the fight
because the famous gusak Megdandzi Musa got sick. While he and his friends
were waiting for the fight, Krlea was interested in a Gypsy icon. The primitive
ness of this drawing interested mister Krlea so much that he desired to get a hold
of one himself. Durmish promised to provide one to him and fulfilled his prom
ise. (Ljubomir M. Dobrianin, With mister Miroslav Krlea through Skopje,
Pravda, 11588, from 25.1.1937, p. 6). The drama was a great success, all the seats
in the theatre were taken. It should be underlined that the performance caused
admiration among the audiences, which increased along with the increase of the
tension and the developments in the play (When the curtains were closed, the
admiration was unending), but Krlea did not appear on the stage. (Ljubomir M.
Dobrianin, Great Success of the First Performance of the Play In the Camp by
mister Miroslav Krlea in Skopje, Pravda, 11586, 23.1. 1937, p. 10)40
Ibid, p. 251. especially the chapters: Veera kod starog Kamaratha, Zbogom mladosti, Zov carske
trube.
40
Stanko Lasi: Krlea Kronologija ivota i rada, GZH, Zagreb, 1982., 263264.
39
202
41
203
204
45
205
Kole aule considered Krlea as his teacher and he was grateful that,
as he says, he taught us how to be righteous, how to fight for our opinion!
Krlea also wrote a travel text for his third say in Macedonia, which, un
fortunately, as many other of his texts, remained just a reminder for greater
studies and essays, something that he should additionally pay attention to
and dedicate himself to writing. He entitled his note Viaggio in Pelagonija,
30.IV1.V, 2.V and thus eternalised his Macedonian impressions: After a
gray veil of rain, after curvy roads, through Resen, here we are, in Ohrid with
Turkish types of walls and windows. These are towns that have their bazaars,
Gypsy quarters, Kurshuml-an, Bezisten, Daut-Pashin Amam, mosques and
fortresses, that is, stone walls.
The Ohrid hotel Palas, as a symbol of time Lights, illuminating the
coast at night, and there is that marble villa which generations have dreamed
of. In that marble villa, just as in Kranjevis poem, I am cold. Second morn
ing and walks through Ohrid Saint Kliment, Kliments town with blos
soming apples, Geneva Lake Galiica in snow, sun on the hill, ten centu
ries of sun! It is not hard to remember Kliments years, he came in the distant
886, and died in 916. From this point, all the way to Moravija and Kiev, he
was spreading the Byzantine and his own power and autocratic vision of
the Slovenian speech and alphabet. Galiica, 2,287 meters, and Mokra and
Drimkol and Jablanica, all about 2,200 meters high, covered in snow. In the
afternoon, through Petani, to St. Naum, a 1 May picnic on the sources of the
Crn Drim River
Through Struga and Veleta via Skopje46
Gane Todorovskis words at the presentation of Krleas books into Mac
edonian, in 1983 in Skopje, confirm the fact the Croatian writer Miroslav
Krlea was and still remains the Voltaire of our area and a proven friend of
Macedonia.
46
47
206
207
Gane Todorovski
From the Book Urgent Curiosities:
Krlea and Macedonia1
We have gathered here at the premises of the Macedonian National The
atre, this renowned sanctuary which day and night provides shelter for the
arts, to witness a first class cultural event. We have gathered here once again
to remind ourselves, even for a brief moment, of the fact that everything of
proper value has always been welcome in this placethat in this hall of arts
nothing arrives early or late but absolutely on time, that in this kingdom of
the nine muses, the nine goddesses and patrons of all sciences and arts, every
justified endeavour is treated in such a manner as to resemble a divine act
Today we have gathered in this Helicon built of natural concrete to
launch the five newly-published volumes of Miroslav Krleas work translat
ed into Macedonian language and published by Naa Kniga, the renowned
Skopje publisher:
1. Selected Poetry, including the poem The Ballads of Petrica Kerem
puh;
2. The Croatian God Mars, short stories;
3. The Return of Filip Latinovi, novel;
4. The Glembajs, plays, and
5. Selected Essays
Speech given at the launching of Miroslav Krleas Selected Works, published in Macedonian trans
lation, Naa Kniga Publishers, Skopje, 1983. The event was held at the small hall of the Macedonian
National Theatre, 18th November, 1983. Fragments from Krleas work were read by the artists: Nada
Geovska, Ilija Milin and Risto ikov.
: ,
Tome Serafimovski: portret Miroslava Krlee, mramor
Tome Serafimovski: portrait of Miroslav Krlea, marble
209
210
211
The first moment is related to October 1913 when Krlea, a twenty-yearold young man, came to Skopje for the first time and almost perished while
defending the Macedonian cause; and the second is related to 1979 when a
delegation of the Struga Poetry Evenings, including myself, paid him a visit
in his home in Zagreb in order to hand him the Golden Wreath Award of the
festival, as he was unable to attend due to illness.
Therefore, today, at this ceremony of launching his works, allow me to
tell you briefly about these two rather interesting chapters in his life related
to Macedonia, on the basis of the evidence I possess. These chapters are as
important to him as they are to our culture, so I believe that as pieces of in
formation they may be regarded as of higher interest to our audience.
In Enes engis book, Krlea (published by Mladost in Zagreb and by
Oslobodjenje, Sarajevo in 1982) on pp. 552-553, the author gives some short
information about the visit of the delegation from the Struga Poetry Eve
nings festival (Risto Milevski, president of the Struga Municipality Council,
Ante Popovski, president of the Festival Board, Jovan Strezovski, director of
the festival, Gane Todorovski and Petre Bakevski, members of the Festival
Board), on 19th September, 1979, during the afternoon hours.
That day has remained vividly impressed on my memory. It was about
noon when Enes engi (I hope he will forgive me for mentioning his name
for the third time) and the members of our delegation started for the home
of Miroslav Krlea in Gvozd Street 33 with the aim of officially handing him
the Golden Wreath
We were all, I suppose, overwhelmed by the interior of Miroslav Krleas
office, laden with books, rare antique artefacts, paintings, copies of frescos,
valuable relics, and many other such objects. Ante Popovski, a descendent of
the Miyaks, a shrewd and quick-thinking person with an excellent sense for
finding the best and most convenient word when most necessary, still pant
ing from the long climb up several flights of stairs, after shaking hands with
the host at the threshold, addressed him and on behalf of the Festival Board
handed him, with no further delay, the Golden Wreath Award, saying:
212
213
dispute between Serbia and Bulgaria over Macedonia. He did not allow us
to stop him, and we did not need to. Evidently the person in front of us was
much too vigorous for an 86-year-old man, and a qualified Macedonian
There was something very impressive regarding these associations of
his, thrown in with such a disorderly manner, i.e. something very personal
regarding Krleas relationship with Macedonia. And here is why I think so:
Born in 7th July, 1893, he was only twenty years old when he defected
from the Austro-Hungarian army and joined the Serbian forces to take part
in the Balkan wars (both First and Second). He came to Macedonia from
France, where in Marseilles he had boarded a ship that took him to Thessa
loniki. At the end of April he was eventually stationed in Macedonia.
All these events have been described in detail by the author in his book
A Picnic in Russia, written in 1926.
Several days later, at the beginning of May, Krlea arrived in Skopje.
In his book Days Long Ago (1956:148-149), the author notes that he put an
end to his ideological and political horizon in order to give advantage to his
growing inclination towards arts. That is the reason why this moment in his
life has such great importance. Krleas scepticism regarding his vocation was
born in Skopje, on Macedonian soil. Stanko Lasich in Krlea Chronology of
His Life and Work (Zagreb, 1982: 104), informs us that after the drowning of
his ideals in the tumult of war, art imposes itself on him as the only solution
in his life. Krlea himself explains this moment by saying:
While in Skopje in June 1913, I had very distinctly clear notions about
everything and was sure that I could express them in two-and-a-half-metrelong lines. In that moment of sheer collapse of all earthly values, of all my
childish illusions, self-deceptions and megalomaniac ideas, it became clear
to me that the only real and plausible mission of the artist (in the present
chaos of our lives), cannot be anything else but to preach love for the fellow
human beings, disregarding the meridians and the parallels that divide them,
the colour of their skin, the country, the nation, the continent they live in, etc.
It means that art is neither for some racially selected, nor for some common
man in the extreme sense of the word, but for the improvement of the basest
and most miserable in us in general. That is how I saw it, as a contribution
of one civilization which is still to come to the civilizations which are dying
out. I was convinced that it was the new or that it was to be the new in us,
in the midst of our dismal belatedness, that should raise us to the spiralling
movement of the spirit towards a higher degree of existence. (Days Long Ago,
1956: 148)
So even before the battle at the Bregalnica River (1725 May, 1913),
which definitiveely buried Krleas belief in the brotherhood of the South
Slavic peoples, here in Skopje, instead of cherishing the idea of freedom,
brotherhood and culture, he was confronted with aggressive, militarist, and
expansionist state power (See, Lasi, Krlea: 104).
Krlea himself wrote the following:
I dont want to have any role in the Arnauts transport between Veles
and Krivolak in June 1913. I dont want to be a police scribe in Skopje who
handles matters with a revolver in hand; I dont want to be part of a radical
treachery, nor of an artificial nonsense In order to express such an an
ti-Hannibalistic feeling, a person must know this topic well and then turn it
into writing. (Days Long Ago, 1956: 234)
This was the reason why he was arrested in Skopje and accused of being
an Austrian spy.
While Krleas chroniclers write in detail about this event (Lasi, engi,
Matvejevi), Krlea himself, in his A Short Authorial Note, describes this
Skopje adventure in a rather restrained manner:
Without documents, accepted with mistrust, accused and arrested,
during the several weeks he needed to arrive in Skopje (to the office of the
Supreme Command) he had enough time to become dispassionate as regards
his national enthusiasm By the end of the war he also lost his keenness for
war adventures (Croatian Rhapsody, 1921: 159160).
214
215
was right to say that all of that was theirs. I had never been preoccupied with
that issue before, but now many things became clearer in my mind. And the
new knowledge rose like flames with such power that more than two weeks
after that unusual experience, I could not free myself from the greatness of
that impression.
And you cant know, my dear, what it meant to this man to be and to
die as an Ilinden rebel, you cant know what the Macedonian frescos are, in
the same way as I didnt know before, my dear lady, until they appeared in
front of me in their full dignity Everything here is blood, everything here
is sorrow All that blood and all that sorrow shine through these bloodstained paintings
Until today no one has described the depth of this tragedy, my dear. The
importance of these adventurous events, no one will know how to appre
ciate them in the same way as no one will learn how to appreciate our own
adventurous exploits when by sacrificing ourselves, our happiness, yes, my
dear, our love, we cheat ourselves that these Macedonian rivers, the Treska,
the Vardar, the Pinja will stop their flow if we werent there with our Serbian
ajkaa caps as liberators. (Flags, Belgrade 1969: 523524)
In the most recent literature (See: Aleksandar Flaker, Poetics of Denial,
Zagreb, 1982) we find the phrase Krleian Macedonian (142154). The au
thor refers to Krlaas short story In Extremis (1932), in which he unveils
a vision about Macedonia and the Balkans. In this short story, according to
Flaker, the Macedonian is seen as a representative of suffering throughout
the Balkans, as an authentic victim of various territorial hegemonies, as one
who suffers in the lowest circle of Balkan Hell. Krleas view of Macedonia is
traumatic. Flaker brings to our attention that Kunej, the main character in
the short story In Extremis, in his dialogue with a Macedonian whom he
has met in the olive grove of the Kvarner region, a soldier guarding an out
post by the sea shore, concretizes the Balkans as a territory lacking national
and social justice, a territory of continuous conflicts and wars, where the
216
217
peasant, devoid of his land (i.e. turned into a proletarian) is merely an object,
a territory of various Balkan flags and kings (148).
Presenting Macedonia as being at the bottom of the Hades, the main
character in Krleas short story, after meeting the suffering Macedonian (as
Flaker notes), opens up a new territory, a territory which is not geographi
cal but exclusively moral. The Krleian Macedonian speaks with words of
heavy and dramatic accusation:
My older brother fought under the Turkish flag, then the Serbs came
and took a hundred and seven sheep from my family. I served the Serbian
king three times and withdrew with his army to Albania. Then came the
Bulgarians and took my mother and my sister away, whereas my father was
killed before by the komitadjis. I have nothing and no one now. (331332)
Thus Krlea in his literary works does not discover the Balkans as a new
geographical space, but makes serious attempts to discover it as a new ethical
space.
In his work Balkan Impressions (1924), written about the situation in
Albania and in response to Kosta Novakovis book Macedonia to the Mac
edonians, in its final part (to be more precise), it seems that with the motif
of the operatic ceremony of enthronement of the first Mbret in Shqipnia,
Krlea offers an optimum projection of the Balkans in the same way as Alek
sandar Flaker does when describing the Krleian Macedonian. Thus Krlea
appears as a prophet whose relevance has not been surpassed for sixty years
to this day. Therefore we shall conclude our speech by quoting the following:
Today, more than ever, should the Balkans be looked at from an integral
point of view. More than ever should we believe in Balkan unity for the sake
of saving our souls and the souls of all those innocent victims that die on
a daily basis along the Balkan mountains and ravines. Constructive theses
must be postulated in order to connect firmly all Balkan valleys in length and
in width, so that wherever the whistle of the locomotive is heard, there dies
the need for blood revenge and there rises the need for literacy. We should
all desire the building of smoking chimneys fed eight hours a day! Where
trade unions are established and where class struggle develops, there die the
parodies of the Spanish enthronement ceremonies. Not with machineguns
and gallows, but with books.
It is there, on that Balkan and infernal ground that Krlea has now, in
1983, arrived again with the five volumes of his work. He has yet again ar
rived on Macedonian soil in the role of a masterful peacemaker who wants
to ennoble us with the power of his artistic word.
218
219
* * *
Krlea remains in our consciousness as an author of extremely sugges
tive literary work that has hardly been known before among the south Slavic
peoples. He was a kind of Voltaire of our time. He was a prolific chronicler of
the holy and damned Illyricum, the writer who shrewdly and meticulously, by
means of a number of associations, followed the journey of the underdressed,
undernourished, and barefoot Slavic nomads who, carried by their dashing
endurance, came on foot all the way from the Samoyedic regions in the midst
of the Siberian taigas to Split and Ohrid. He was the author who gave the arts
in Titos Yugoslavia a specific and unique dimension, a writer who was the
greatest spiritual torchbearer in the history of the Yugoslav peoples.
There is still time for this country to rise in the world, as soon as the
non-Yugoslav regions of the world realizes the vividness and the bright
greatness that our peoples had in their environment during the past five or
six decades of the 20th century. The memorable motto of this writer of such
imposing stature was that literature could never be isolated from the context
in which it is submerged, known as reality. He also pointed out that since
literature is connected with reality, it thus becomes the country in which we
live and the language in which we speak, for it is material prima and the only
means for our own literary expression.
220
, .
. ,
.
/ SADRAJ / CONTENTS
( . ) ..
, 2013 ( . ).
Katica ulavkova
POVRATAK MIROSLAVA KRLEE Sto godina od prvog dolaska u
Makedoniju (Prijevod B. Jovanovska) ..
Goran Kalogjera
KRLEA I SKOPJE U TRI INA .
Boo Rude
KRLEA A.D. MMXIII. .
Gane Todorovski
KRLEA I MAKEDONIJA (Prijevod B. Jovanovska) ..
................................
................................
...............................
................................
,
, : (Translated by Z. Anchevski)
221
120
100
,
2013
500
222