Research paper. Arseniy Fedosiuk, Group A2

Historiographical Discussions on Croatian Nationalism in mid-19th Century (on the example of studies by Djourou Shurmin and Rudolph Horvat)

Article gives an overview on early Croatian nationalism and the Illyrian movement question in works of  Djourou Shurmin and Rudolph Horvat. It traces differences between authors' views on the most significant aspects of Illyrism and concepts they build to represent its narrative.

Introduction - 1

Methodological background - 2

The question of  emergence of Illyrism - 3

Approaches to periodization of Illirysm - 4

Discussions on the idea of Illyrian unity - 4

Intellectual sources of Illyrian movement - 5

Summary – 5

For a decent period of time and till nowadays the question of early Croatian nationalism also known as Illyrism has been one of the central and most significant themes in Croatian historiography. In the early twentieth century study of Illirysm and Illyrian movement concentrated around the University of Zagreb and the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, as major research centers of the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia (Leshilovskaya 125). At that time a relatively young Croatian historiography was focusing its efforts on producing a grand narrative of national history. The researchers, influenced by Romanticism and the Croatian national movement, attempted to focus on the "glorious pages" of Croatian history in their works that led to increasing interest in the Illyrian movement among the academic community. One of the earliest and at the same time the most extensive and comprehensive studies of Illirysm in the twentieth century historiography belonged to Djourou Shurmin and Rudolph Horvat (Leshilovskaya 140). In fact they were one of the first who explored the question Illyrian movement in retrospectively, making an attempt to build some system of representations of illyrian movement and provide a comprehensive model of its factual and ideological components (Orel 63). Study of Illyrism resulted in lively discussions around this subject. Even though the methodology and the source base were generally almost identical, they were considered by researchers in different ways. But at the same time the existence of two completely opposite concepts of early Croatian nationalism can not be traced. Despite this, two different points of view were produced. Additionally, works of both historians corresponded to the "zeitgeist" of their time and its historiographical trends associated primarily with the Croatian national revival. Actually they determined a prevailing system of ideas about the Illyrian movement as well as early Croatian nationalism.

Djourou Shurmin (1867-1937) led his researches at the University of Zagreb. He began his scientific work with Croatian Studies and History of Literature, issuing several publications dedicated to Croatian and Serbian literary history. Later, his scientific interest had switched to the age of national revival in Croatia, resulting in fundamental work Croatian renaissance published in 1902. Rudolf Horvat (1873-1947) received PhD at the University of Zagreb, where he later worked as a professor of history at the Faculty of Philosophy. His field of research originally covered mostly the medieval history, but later he begins to explore the history of the nineteenth century and the Illyrian movement. His researches of Illyrism were displayed on pages of two fundamental works - History of Croatia and The newest era of Croatian history published in 1906. Although both Rudolf Horvat and Djourou Shurmin belonged to the so-called Zagreb historiographical school and besides their works were published around the same time, their views on the Croatian national revival and the Illyrian movement are somewhat different.

Both historians generally built quite a similar concept of Illyrian movement and attracted identical methodology - analysis and reconstruction of the event-based documents and written sources (Leshilovskaya 142). Also it should be noted that the studies of Shurmin and Horvat were influenced by concepts of other Croatian historian Tadiya Smichiklas, known as the "father of modern Croatian historiography" and the one who brought the very idea of Slavic unity into Croatian history (Kurelac 47).

Considering the differences between the concepts of Illyrism in researches of Djourou Shurmin and Rudolf Horvath, first of all it should be noted that such differences are focused primarily in the field of interpretation, which contains such aspects as the question of genesis and intellectual roots, periodization, social and political role, problem of the Illyrian unity etc. Thus, the authors made emphasis on different components and often their accents were different. Such accents as well as the conceptual components, individuals and events they chose to explore in order to produce a narrative of Illyrian revival represents their attitude to Illyrism and Croatian renaissance.

D. Shurmin depicts Illirysm basing on the thesis of its emergence as a movement for the revival of Croatian language and literature, which later switched to struggle against Magyarization (135). Thus, Shurmin's concept is based on the determination of Illirysm as primarily cultural-literary movement. Historian notes that the prerequisites of the Illyrian movement were synergistic and included as well as limiting the rights of Croatian parliament, Magyarization of social life and the emergence of the idea of Slavic unity (Shurmin 160). At the same time, Rudolf Horvat links Illyrian movement to a comprehensive process of the reformation of Croatian society (201). This, from the first sight ambiguous definition, was used to describe the Illirysm as holistic and integral movement. Horvat do not single out particular political or cultural components; moreover he does not make a clear reference to certain specific areas of public life. Analyzing the background of the rise of Illyrism, the most significant are determined by Horvat as the desire for unification of Croatian lands and the restoration of its civil rights and status in the Kingdom of Hungary (219).

One of the main differences finds its expression in the choice of social constructs to analyze. Horvat as a starting point uses the Croatian Sabor, on which he bases his chronology and construction of the narrative (205). Moreover, the very logic of presentation is closely linked to the political life of the Croatian lands. On the other side Shurmin gives more attention to the changes and transformations in the humanitarian and intellectual field, and bases his research on this.

Djourou Shurmin and Rudolf Horvat use different approaches to periodization of Illirysm. Interestingly, both researchers trace the genesis of movement from the early 30-ies (Horvat 192, Shurmin 99). However, they date back the actual appearance of Illyrian movement to later period. Shurmin using formal approach, basically the proliferation of the ethnonym "Illyrian", defines the beginning for 1836 (101). According to his conception this is the date of the rise of Illyrism as well-coordinated movement for the revival of Croatia and cultural association of all South Slavic nations (Shurmin 120). He states that it was caused by the transition to shtokavsky dialect, which soon becomes a core of the Croatian literary language (Shurmin 155). On the other hand Horvat offers different periodisation, taking into account the organizational component. Considering it as the "revival of Croatian literature and society" he sets its beginning for 1835, as the start date of the publication of "Croatian news" and "Danitsa Illirska" (Horvat 260).

Referring to the idea of Illyrian unity, it should be noted that authors are not unanimous regarding the interpretation of the genesis of this idea. Horvat believes that the concept of Illyrian unity arose due to the failure of the Croatian political nobility in search of allies and protectors as well as so called treason by Vienna and Budapest. This, he said, initiated a search for allies among themselves – Slovenes, Serbs and Bulgarians (Horvat 275). In addition, author regards the emergence of concept of the unity of all South Slavs as the product first of all of the Croatian political thought, and later the Illyrian movement. In his view, such idea was picked up by romantically minded young Croatian and Slovenian intellectuals and turned to the cultural and literary stream (Horvat 280). In contrast, Shurmin stated that the formation of these concepts attracted the idea of the Slavic unity from the very beginning (178). In his view, an important role was played by Slovenian, Czech and Serbian influences, including the views of Jan Kollar and Pavel Safarik (Shurmin 185). Shurmin shows that Illyrian movement appeared primarily in cooperation with Czech, Serbian and Slovenian intellectuals. In addition, he says that Illyrism was the product of intellectual activity of all South Slavic nations and not only Croats (Shurmin 192).

Rather controversial is also the question of intellectual sources of Illyrian movement. Croatian historiography of early twentieth century almost unanimously associates it with Western influences and do not tie it to Croatian intellectual tradition at all. D. Shurmin believes that the intellectual and spiritual sources of Illyrism were presented by the French Revolution and German national revival (221). After all, intellectual background according to Shurmin can be found in Western Europe. In contrast, R. Horvath strongly emphasizes on the so-called "Hungarian example": young Croatian intellectuals during their education in Hungarian universities were able to experience the development of the Hungarian national movement (290).

The analyzed studies of Djourou Shurmin and Rudolf Horvat clearly show that Croatian historiography at the beginning of its formation presented different views on key aspects of national history. Although the authors used a limited source base and methodological approaches to create a narrative of Illyrism, the existence of separate, but significant differences in the interpretation of both event-chronological and conceptual components can be seen. Thus, pluralism and ambiguity of ideas considering the Illyrian movement is observed almost from its earliest comprehensive studies.

Reference List in APA format

Horvat R. (1906). New period of Croatian history. Zagreb.

Kurelac M. (1995) Historian Tadija Smičiklas and his historiographical conceptions. Vjesnik Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti, 6-7, 41-59.

Leshilovskaya I. (1987). Historiography of history of South and Western Slavs. Moscow.

Orel U. (2007). Illyrism in interwar Croatian historiography. Magisterium: Historical studies, 28, 61-75

Shurmin  D. (1903). Croatian renaissance. From 1790 to 1836. Zagreb.