Supplement Contemporary Croatian Literature, pp. 15 - 34 - Zarez

II/40, 12. listopada,,,. 29Krešimir BagiæArt of DissentPolemic Styles of, A.G. Matošand M. Krleapublished by Naklada MD, Zagreb, 1999roatian literature contains a ratherlarge corpus of polemical texts, which,until now, lacked systematic historicalanalysis and presentation. After openinghis book on polemical writings withthis statement, Krešimir Bagiæ goes on toemphasize the necessity of thorough research,in light of the fact that insight into polemicalpraxis of Croatian literature is mandatoryfor any understanding of Croatian literaryperiods. Bagiæ suggests the polemicaltexts of Matoš and Krlea as the best possibleexamples of the polemical genre duringthe period when these authors wrotetheir works.In order to be fair, in his introductorynote Bagiæ tries to prove the possibility ofconceptualizing literary polemic as a recognizablegenre, at the same time disputingthe genre history, different textual forms inwhich the polemical content appeared andthe "polemical style" as trans-genre andtransdisciplinary phenomenon.(...) Art of Dissent describes basic featuresof a literary polemic, its character, practice,styles and goals of its participants, aswell as its social function within the particularliterary community. Bagiæ also offersuseful advice on how to conduct a polemicwith the examples from both the older andmore recent polemical debates, where, if weare to believe the author, knocking out youropponent after the round has been completed(à la Mike Tyson) is perfectly acceptable,and if that fails, the Croatian polemicalpractice has already demonstrated the advantagesof simply attacking your rival inthe middle of the street.Igor ŠtiksStanko AndriæMiraclesof JohannesCapistranusPublished by Hrvatski institut zapovijest - podrunica za povijestSrijema i Baranje and Matica hrvatskaOsijek, Slavnoski Brod-Osijek, 1999roatian reading audience knowsStanko Andriæ (b. 1967) primarilyfor his previous two books: Historyof Slavonia in Seven Conflagrationsand Encyclopedia of Nothingness. Duringthe Croatian '90s, both books establishedStanko Andriæ as a genuinely originalauthor whose texts defy sharp boundariesof literary classification within anygiven genre. It remains uncertain whetherHistory of Slavonia in Seven Conflagrationsshould be understood as a fictionalwork with historiographical background,or a metafiction, or else as apostmodern historiography. But thesequestions started to disentangle after thearrival of Andriæ's second book, Encyclopediaof Nothingness, which pointed ustoward the interpretation of StankoAndriæ as a fictional writer; certainly thewriter who insists on "fantastical supplements"to reality. Being a competent narrator,Andriæ nevertheless fascinates hisreaders with the scope of his historiographicalknowledge, thereby casting hisextraordinary fictional net while using thefactual data. (...)As a whole, monograph Miracles of JohannesCapistranus follows the chronologicalthread of Capistranus’ life, endingonly after the saint's death and interpretingmiracles performed during the "real" timeof Capistranus’ sainthood, after his actualdeath. This performance of sainthoodis essential for the understanding of hagiographicdiscourse and its functions, especiallyif we keep in mind that these functionsremained unchanged during manycenturies after the physical death of particularsaints. (...)While in his other fictional works Andriæplayed with the relationship between fictionand reality, in the work about saintlyacts of Johannes Capistranus the authordecided to make the ontological differencebetween fiction and reality the mainsubject of his analysis. Hence the monographstarts with a detailed, step-by-stepportrayal of Capistranus’ historical journey(locating his stations, his encountersand real references in Slavonian history),and it ends with the discovery of the mechanismsof miraculous reality "estrangement".Andriæ groups Capistranus’ miraclesaccording to the manner of their productionand/or to the fictional status ofthe event. The classification of miracles finallybuilds into a seven-step scale whichdepicts rather contradictory miracles –from the entirely fictional ones and thosethat are pure deception, also includingcoincidences and self-suggestions, to thecases where the measure of miraculous isobviously a product of "stylization" orquoting from the unreliable story-transfer.Andriæ refuses the possibility to translatethe difference "fiction/reality" in theworld of miraculous with a statement that"the miracles were simply illusionary". Onthe contrary, Andriæ considers the phenomenonof miraculous performance a permanentand active element of the wholemedieval reality. Disciplines like religion,experiences with magic, psychologicalschools of thought certainly helped himin this interpretation of reality... – variouselements of medieval reality that contributedto the forceful process of spiritualizationduring the Middle Ages.With his conclusive remarks, Andriæ deliversa persuasively well-rounded monographdedicated to Johannes Capistranusand Slavonia, the homeland of both Capistranus’saintly deeds and Andriæ'sscholarly research. The book Miracles ofJohannes Capistranus should earn itselfthe highest place within Andriæ's oeuvre,and the status equal in scope and qualityto any contemporary European studyabout medieval hagiography.Andrea ZlatarSlobodan Prosperov NovakA Historyof CroatianLiterature IIIpublished by Naklada anti-BARBARUS,Zagreb, 1999he third volume of A History ofCroatian Literature by SlobodanP. Novak boasts a chronometricaland periphrastic subtitle: "From Gunduliæ'sThe Spawn of Darkness to PleasantConversation of Slavic People (1756)",and thanks to its simple and relaxedcomposition, it is as difficult to review asit was easy to read. Much like the firsttwo volumes in the edition, the third volumeconsists of short and independentlytitled chapters, mostly dealing withparticular literary works and arrangedaccording to their completion or releasedate. Since chapters are not arranged hierarchically,even the texts that have somethingin common are never groupedunder any single heading or title. (...)After decades of employing the sameclassification, A History of Croatian Literature,VOL. III, breaks the traditionby refraining from the use of the word"baroque" in discussions of seventeenthcentury Croatian literature. (...)But Novak's disregard for the baroque asa period designation is only a symptomof his disregard for the periodisation ingeneral. He is equally dismissive of theterm Enlightenment, although he doesuse it in one of the book subtitles, i.e. asthe title of an individual chapter ("TheFirst Enlightenment"). However, whendiscussing the individual writers of theperiod in the same chapter, he never usesthe term, neither as programmatic ideanor as heuristic hypothesis. (...)A second major criterion that Novaksystematically avoids when dealing withchronological orientation and division isthe concept of literariness, despite thefact that this very concept has beenkeenly discussed and carefully applied inCroatian literary studies, regardless ofwhether they employ a philological, historicalor theoretical approach. (...)Novak does not distinguish betweena review of lyrical poetry and a review of"Illiric" dictionary, or between an essayon baroque epic poem and the one onanatomy atlases: they mesh quite effortlesslyunder his treatment. The proximityof such disparate literary items rendersthe book confusingly "light", but italso reflects the author's effort to distancehimself from historical and scholarlyholism. This could be interpreted as Novak'sreadiness to (mis)use metahistoricalperspective and stretch the argumenttowards the attitude that all early modernliteracy could be treated as literature.To be fair, we should keep in mindthat Novak's disobedience to the canonof literary science theoretical vocabularydoes not serve only as a distinguishingfeature of his book; it can also be understoodas a mark of its modernity. A His-tory of Croatian Literature III shows obviouspreference for anti-holistic thinkingtypical of the recent fin de siecle atmosphere,so much so that it refuses tooperate under the notion of "historicalobjectivism" (which is a legitimate contemporaryapproach) or to abandon theconcept of "little history".All in all, by departing from the usualperiodisation and classification standards,the third volume of Novak's Historyof Croatian Literature (much like the firsttwo volumes) has succeeded in posinga formidable challenge to Croatian scholarsof literature and history). The truevalue of this book lies not in the author'snonchalant attitude towards universaliaof literary history, but rather in the sensibleusage of the advantages that comewith that nonchalance. When we disregardthe general terms, we also make roomfor the rehabilitation of particularities.In Novak's book, the particular winshands-down. Chapters on individual literaryworks and writers' oeuvre, understoodas unique historical events, arewritten imaginatively and without a traceof predictability, and the approach to individualworks remains well-roundedand free from theoretical abstractions,heuristic hypotheses or a predeterminedanalytical program. This newly won freedomdoes not equate emptiness, and forthat let us be thankful to Novak's alreadyestablished large experience with literarytexts, to his knowledge (acquired throughscrupulous and passionate reading ofscholarly literature), to his famous arsbene dicendi (as witnessed in Novak'searlier works), and, finally, to his engaging,and frequently illuminating metaphors.Zoran KravarThe MiroslavKrleaEncyclopedia I/IIandBibliography of MiroslavKrleaby Davor Kapetaniæpublished by "Leksikografski zavodMiroslava Krlee", Zagreb 1993/99he making of The Miroslav Krle-a Encyclopedia took fifteenyears, and the whole researchwas conducted under the guidance ofVelimir Viskoviæ. In the summer of1993, the first volume (letters A-LJ)was published, and this autumn bringsus the final volume (letters M-) withBibliography of Miroslav Krlea by DavorKapetaniæ. In composing and editingof Krlea's literary and personalglossary, more than fifty relevant authorswere included: from literary historians,critics and theorists to philosophers,philologists, historians, andjournalists... Together they preparedalmost two thousand encyclopedic entries.The basic principles of encyclopedicalclassification were based onthe diversity of Krlea's activities onone hand, and on the desire to paint adetailed portrait of Krlea on the other.Separate encyclopedic articles arededicated to Krlea's texts, his publicactivities, esthetical attitudes and beliefs,his translators and propagandistsand finally, members of his family...Krešimir Bagiæ