Maroš Melichárek, "THE ROLE OF VUK KARADŽIĆ IN THE HISTORY OF SERBIAN NATIONALISM (IN THE CONTEXT OF EUROPEAN LINGUISTICS IN THE FIRST HALF OF 19TH CENTURY", Serbian Studies Research, vol. 6, no. 1, 2015, 55-74.

55 Serbian Studies Research Vol. 5, No. 1 (2014): 55-74. UDC 323(497.1)”19” Karadžić V. Оригинални научни рад Dr Maroš Melichárek44 Pavol Jozef Šafárik University (Košice) Faculty of Arts Department of History Slovakia THE ROLE OF VUK KARADŽIĆ IN THE HISTORY OF SERBIAN NATIONALISM (IN THE CONTEXT OF EUROPEAN LINGUISTICS IN THE FIRST HALF OF 19TH CENTURY) Abstract: The main aim of the study is to present various interpretations of the controversial treatise by Vuk S. Karadžič “Kovčežič za istoriju, jezik i običaje Srba sva tri zakona” (Treasure Box for the History, Language and Customs of Serbians of All Three Faiths) and also to demonstrate the cultural, linguistic and social conditions of its origin. An important factor of the analysis is the problem of national historiographies, more specifically of the Serbian and Croatian historiographies. This document is considered possessing defensive or hegemonistic and aggressive, or even Great-Serbian attitude. One of the main motifs of the treatise is the question why Vuk Karadžič created the postulate about shtokavian definition as marker for the Serbian nationality. There are four interpretation variants at our disposal. The first possibility is that Vuk Karadžič consciously increased the number of Serbs to the detriment of Croats and Bosnian Muslims or Slav Muslims in the Ottoman Empire. We may also consider the fact that Vuk Karadžič to some extent adopted the ideas of prominent European Slavists (Kopitar, Šafárik, Dobrovský and others). The ethnic diversity within the Military Border of Habsburg Empire could also have influenced him. His document could also have been a sort of defense against the growing Croatian nationalism and efforts to acquire the cultural legacy of Dubrovnik on the part of the Croatians. Moreover at the same time an equivalent process was taking place with the Serbs in the region of Dalmatia. Other prominent works of Vuk Karadžić (Pjesme junačke novijih vremena o vojevanju za slobodu, Narodne srpske pjesme, Mala prostonarodna slaveno-serbska pesnarica, Narodne srpske pripovjetke, etc.) shall be also analysed to build the complex knowledge and understanding of his role in creation of so-called Serbian nationalism. 44 [email protected] 56 | Maroš Melichárek Keywords: nationalism, linguistics, literature, shtokavian dialect, Serbia, language, Vuk Karadžić The year 1849 probably did not mean in the life of Vuk Karadžić (1787-1864) a significant milestone, but in the history of Serb-Croat, or Serb-Bosnian relations is the year extremely important and crucial especially in terms of the interpretation of the so-called “Greater Serbian” ideas. However, this term is often presented incorrectly especially in publications written in English (in Serbian publications written in English the term is translated as “Great Serbia”), where the term “Velika Srbija” is translated as “Greater Serbia”, what represents semantic nationalist evocative phrase presenting Serb efforts to get more than they deserve based on ethnicity (Ekmečić, 2004, p. 11). In 1849 was published Karadžić’s probably the most discussed and most controversial work – theoretical treatise named Kovčežić za istoriju, jezik i običaje Srba sva tri zakona, in translation Treasure Box for the History, Language and Customs of Serbians of All Three Faiths (one may be encountered with other translation alternatives - respectively chest or ark, in German Kästlein für Geschichte, Sprache, Sittem und Gebräuche der Serben aller drei Religionen, Letter, Vuk Karadžić – Franz Joseph I., July 18, 1876 Vienna, box 297, Coll. 8469/1, The Archive of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Art in Belgrade). Usually is incorrectly discussed only first and in terms of nationalist ideas most valuable part of the work titled Srbi svi i svuda (according to the latest theories can be the its name in English translated as All the Serbs whenever they are, a traditional English equivalent is Serbs all and everywhere, Ljusić, 2004, p. 162), but it is only part of the whole work, where there are also additional chapters Boka Kotorska, Risanski običaji and Srpske Zdravice (Karadžić, 1849, p. 1-27). Karadžić, I dare to say, had no idea what the name of his work causes (Srbi sva tri zakona, Serbs of three religions, namely Orthodox, Muslim and Roman Catholic, of which, of course, postulate can be derived about Bosniaks as Muslim Serbs and Roman Catholic Croats as Serbs, too). This postulate caused number of issues of disagreement in relationships of Croats and Serbs (its misinterpretations occurred primarily during the civil war in the early nineties of the 20th century). The main objective of this paper is to analyze the possible interpretations of Karadžićs treatise in the context of creating the idea of “Greater Serbia” and answer a question whether it is possible to call Treasure Box for the History, Language and Customs of Serbians of All Three Faiths philological platform of mentioned idea and also what actually led Vuk Karadžić to the formulation of such hegemonic notion. Vuk Stefanović Karadžić introduced for Serbs a new dimension in the perception of their own identity. His work presented a secular vision of the Serbian nation, The Role of Vuk Karadžić in the History of Serbian Nationalism (In the Context of European Linguistics in the First Half of 19TH Century) | 57 not based on religious belief,45 but on question linguistic competence (we may encounter with the concept of linguistic nationalism). This ideology came from enlightened ideas and a “predecessor” of Vuk Karadžić - Dositej Obradović, who also presented this vision (Fischer, 2001, p. 72-84). For this reason he got into conflict with the Serbian Orthodox Church. Karadžić presented the new criteria for determining the Serbian national identity, the very concept of nation and nationality. To year 1836 were Serbs from a national perspective perceived as Balkan Orthodox community, which uses the Cyrillic alphabet and preserves national legend of Kosovo tragedy 1389 and the legends about it (Sotirović, 2007, p. 48). Karadžić is known as the creator of the so-called nationalism on the basis of language, respectively language understanding of nationalism, as the Serb national identity was merged with the so-called shtokavian dialect of Serbo-croatian language.46 Besides this part of his work was Vuk Karadžić also famous as a reformer of the Serbian language, when he modified it for the needs of thecommon population, but since his dictionary was published (Srpski Rječnik) in 1818 (Vuk Karadžić rewrote his vocabulary later on and also wrote several other philological writings and treatises such as Pismenica serbskoga jezika (1814), Srpska gramatika (1824), Primjeri srpsko-slavenskoga jezika (1857) and Prvi Srpski Bukvar (1857), Serbian language came through many changes until it gained the form we know today. Karadžić played a vital role in collecting and recording of heroic songs (called junačke pesme) of Serbian nation and the process of awareness of their own past and shaping their national identity the very closely related to it. These national songs were presented by minstrels in Serbian and called Guslars, who used a simple one or two string musical instrument called gusle (Owen, 1861, p. 11). Collection of National Songs by Vuk Karadžić can be divided into several parts, namely: Songs “before history” as an example could be stated Brothers and their sister , or Wedding of shining moon, Songs from period before Battle of Kosovo, such as the Wedding of Prince Lazar, The Building of Skadar, Battle of Kosovo for example songs as Fall of the Serbian Empire, Kosovo maiden, Songs 45 The similar concept has been presented in the work of Ján Kollár - O literární vzájemnosti mezi kmeny a nářečími slávskými (On the literary reciprocity between Slav tribes and vernaculars): „Unity can exist in the nation where several religions are present, where there are different scripts and letters, customs, climate and manners.“ (Kollár, 1853, p. 3). 46 In the original Serbo-Croatian language were three dialects, Its names comes from interrogatory pronoun for "what" in Western Shtokavian, što (it is šta in Eastern Shtokavian), which is typical in Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and the eastern territories of today's Croatia. Kajkavian dialect (in Kajkavian, the interrogative pronoun is kaj) - in a given historical period was spoken mainly in the northwestern part of Croatia and around Zagreb, Chakavian (ča or ca) was used in the North Adriatic coasts and on islands in the Adriatic Sea, Istria, Kvarner Gulf, in most Adriatic islands, and in the interior valley of Gacka, more sporadically in the Dalmatian littoral and central Croatia. 58 | Maroš Melichárek of Marko Kraljević - Marko and fairy or Death of Marko Kraljević, the next section features songs titled Under the Turkish suzerainty like Woman of Hasan Aga47 (Butler 2007, p. 1; Wolff, 2001, p. 191–192), and Janko Jurićić, Otlaw songs and songs about Serbian Uprising represent the last part of national songs (Holton & Mihailović, 1997, p. 13–298). A collection of Serbian folk songs encouraged great interest among Western Europe writers for example Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Jakob Grimm48 or Englishman John Lockhart (Tomić, 2008, p. 7). Vuk Karadžić’s contribution to the development of Serbian culture is indescribable. He received for his life’s work awards from many scientific societies and also became a member of several of them - for example, the Royal Academy in Leipzig49 (Letter, Vuk Karadžić to Royal Academy in Leipzig, July 18, 1851 Vienna, box 161, Coll. 8470, The Archive of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Art in Belgrade), as well, his work was appreciated by the state rulers - the Russian Tsar, Emperor of Prussia and Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph I.50 (Letter, Vuk Karadžić to Franz Joseph I. July 18, 1851 Vienna, box 297, Coll. 8469/1, The Archive of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Art in Belgrade). During his life he met, befriended and cooperated with countless personalities of his time as Dositej Obradović, Jernej Kopitar, Ľudovít 47 This sentimental ballad, which originated in the years 1646-1649 in Bosnia, is one of the best known and most translated Yugoslavian folk ballads. It first appeared in print in the work of Alberto Fortis entitled Hasanaginica in 1774. Ballad has been translated into many European languages - for example, in German by Goethe, Herder, Walter Scott translated it from English and Pushkin to Russian etc. Vuk was not sure where to put this story, because it was not a classic heroic song, so he did not include it into the so-called "Leipzig" series, but later it was placed among ballads. The importance of this ballad was reflected in the fact that it was twice filmed by Yugoslav television - in 1976 and 1983. 48 Grimm’s close relationship with Karadžić, who was of simple birth, was quite interesting because Grimm was from a distinguished family and highly educated man. Kopitar certainly played an important role in this process, but also Grimm’s interest in non-Germanic languages was prevalent. In 1824, Grimm published German edition of Karadžić’s Serbian Grammar Book from 1814, enriched with his own preface Kleine Serbische Grammatik. This introduction of Vuk Karadžić and his work to the German-speaking part of the world garnered Karadžić recognition both in Serbia and abroad. In contrast, Grimm and Karadžić actually only rarely met in person. While he was travelling around Germany in 1823, Karadžić stopped at the end of September in Kassel to visit Grimm at his home. When Grimm lived in Berlin, Karadžić repeatedly visited him (in 1843, 1844, 1854, and in 1857). In 1853, Karadžić published a book of Serbian folk tales, and dedicated it to Jakob Grimm. Among other material, the book contains 166 riddles and a preface by Grimm (Kropej, 2013, p. 222). 49 In a letter dated 18 July 1851 Vuk thanks to institution for accepting him as a corresponding member, and as a symbol of gratitude sent several copies of his works - three volumes of Serbian songs, the New Testament translated into Serbian, Treasure Box for the History, Language and Customs of Serbians of All Three Faiths. 50 In a letter to the emperor in 1851, Vuk thanks to His Majesty for appreciation of the Knight's Cross and as a symbol of gratitude sent several copies of his works - three volumes of Serbian songs, the New Testament translated into Serbian, Treasure Box for the History, Language and Customs of Serbians of All Three Faiths. The Role of Vuk Karadžić in the History of Serbian Nationalism (In the Context of European Linguistics in the First Half of 19TH Century) | 59 Štúr (Vuk’s personality made on him very big impression, so he called him “literary Patriarch of Serbia”),51 Pavol Jozef Šafárik, Josef Dobrovský, Leopold von Ranke, Miloš Obrenović, Petar II. Njegoš or Ljudevit Gaj (Popović, 1973, p. 93–109) may be mentioned. As it was already indicated in the introduction, Karadžić, according to using of shtokavian dialect considered a large number of Croats and Slavic Muslims in the Ottoman Empire as “Serbs of Muslim and Catholic faith”. This division would in constitutional form create a state entity which would include basically almost the entire territory former Yugoslavia except Macedonia. It is obvious that such an organization could not satisfy Croats and Bosniaks, so they opposed and still oppose against this theory (Banac, 1984, p. 81-83), also consider this theory clearly as “Greater Serbian”. Based on these facts Vuk Karadžić is usually considered as Serbian nationalist in scientific circles (Trbovich, 2000, p. 200). This theory is frequently accepted without further criticism, for example in the work of German historian Michael Weithmann: „In 1849 was published Karadžić’s treatise called Everything and everywhere Serbs (even the translation is not precise, marked by author). He expressed dangerous political and ideological idea in scientific shape – that all southern Slavs are Serbs! Croats are Roman Catholic Serbs and they should bound themselves to encompassing Serbian nation“ (Weithmann, 1996, p. 177). Here should be pointed out another significant fact that southern Slavs are also Bulgarians, Macedonians and Slovenes, but it has not been further developed by the author. Famous Czech historian Jan Rychlik wrote on Karadžić: „He became a propagator of greater Serbian ideology. In this treatise [Kovčežić ..., marked by author] uttered a theory according to which are all Yugoslav people talking shtokavian dialect Serbs, wherever they live and without taking into account their faith. As Croats, nation different from Serbs he considered only people using chakavian and kajkavian dialect...“ (Rychlík, 2012, p. 114). It is a clear fact that mentioned work is marked by the nationalism, but Rychlík hasn’t described the context of its creation and so far we may interpret it as direct Serbian nationalistic claim for alien territories. Similar vision was also presented by Ladislav Hladký (Hladký, 2006, p. 64). Karadžić’s views are often correctly understood as merely ideology respectively ideological platform, not a political or constitutional program, for example as “...the intellectual backbone of the Serbian or more precisely the greater Serbian nationalism” as presented by Tim Judah, but the tones of Serbian hegemonism are 51 Named him like this in the following letter dated July 22, 1842: "It was an unforgettable moment for me when I was honored by possibility to talk with you, literary Patriarch of Serbia." (Letter, Ľudovít Štúr to Vuk Karadžić. 22 July, 1844, Zay Ugrócz , box 297, Coll. 8469/1, The Archive of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Art in Belgrade). Štúr wrote about Karadžić with admiration also in letter to Ctibor Zoch 26 December 1837" ... famous Vuk Stefanović - excellent and inflamed Slavic soul. " (Ambruš, 1971, p. 8-9). 60 | Maroš Melichárek present in his work, too. ( Judah, 2000, p. 61–62). Among Croatian historians was the theory of Vuk Karadžić opposed by Ivo Banac e.g.52 who wrote: „Despite all traditional standards Karadžić widened the definition of “serbiandom” on all who spoke shtokavian, regardless religion. Karadžić wrote in 1814 about one of shtokavian dialects that its typical for “Roman Catholic Serbs“. Karadžić has brought modern Serbian national ideology, which sought to assimilate the large majority of Catholic Croats and all Muslim Bosniaks“ (Banac, 1984, p. 80). Even more radical view was presented by Dragutin Pavličević who filed Karadžić treatise into second phase of greater Serbian aggression (Pavličević, 1993, p. 243), so called “planska faza”, the phase of plans (18441877).53 It is obvious that Croatian historians cannot agree with Karadžić’s theory in its full scale, because it would reduce the Croatian territory and nation. In this stage we shall not omit the ideology of “Grater Croatia“, where similar thoughts were elaborated by Ante Starčević (Banac, 1984, p. 85), in Croatia famous as “Otac domovine” (1823-1896). Starčević in his several articles denied the Serbs as a nation, also their culture, language and history54 (Starčević, 1876, p. 29). His ideals of radical nationalism were completed by Eugen Kvaternik (1825-1871). The other objectors of Karadžić were also Mihovil Pavlinović (1831-1887), who considered an essential feature of the Croatian national identity Roman Catholic faith and also claimed that the Serbs themselves feel as Croats, and Ivo Prodan (1852-1933), who was an ardent supporter of the so-called Pravaški pokret (Žutič, 2005, p. 39). The so-called Pravaški pokret originates from the program of Party of Rights (after r. 1990 Croatian Party of Rights), founded in 1861, whose founders and major representatives were mentioned Ante Starčević and Eugen Kvaternik (Gross, 1973, p. 9-24). Historical HSP (Hrvatska stranka prava) brought into Croatian policy so called “Greater Croatian” policy (Krestić, 2004, p. 129–145) based on historical Croatian state 52 Croatian historian and liberal politician living in the U.S., but was born in Dubrovnik in 1947. Studied at Stanford University and currently works at Yale University. Among his key works we may include, for example, the break-up of Yugoslavia in 2001, With Stalin against Tito: Cominformist splits in Yugoslav Communism in 1988 and The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics in 1984. Banac belonged among the great critics of policy applied by first Croatian president Franjo Tudžman, especially towards Bosnia and Herzegovina. 53 Pavličević wrote: „...work by its very name [Srbi svi i svuda, marked by author] says what is its purpose, i.e. Negation of the right to national self-determination of Croats (Slavonians and Dalmatians), Bosniaks (Muslim), Herzegovinians, Montenegrins and in conformity with the Slavic language school, and Karadžić determined shtokavian language as a criterion for national self-determination on seemingly scientific basis.“ 54 This is evidenced by his arguments at work Pasmina Slavoserbska: „U Stefanu Dušanu ugasi se poslednji trak prejasne hervatske dinastie Nemanićah, koji kroz vekove i kao kralji vladahu istočno – severnih pokrajinah hervatske.“ That argument about Stefan Dušan as a last “flash“ of Croatian ruling dynasty (Nemanjićs) in north eastern areas of Croatia clearly demonstrates the fact that its main purpose was to deny the Serbian culture and history, since Štefan IV. was the most famous Serbian medieval king. The Role of Vuk Karadžić in the History of Serbian Nationalism (In the Context of European Linguistics in the First Half of 19TH Century) | 61 right and national integration. It supposed creation of independent Croatia, to which should be gradually annexed all the territories of Croatian state which possessed in past (Rychlík, 2007, p. 178–179, Gross, 2000, p. 20). Yugoslav platform is presented mainly by Slavists of 19th century as Kopitar, Dobrovský, Kollár, Šafárik and Miklošič, but long since the interwar Yugoslav historiography considered them old fashioned (e.g. Viktor Novak, Ivo Šišić). Considering the possibilities and facts we cannot regard Vuk Karadžić a creator of “pan-Yugoslav idea”, as presented in his writings Serbian philologist Aleksandar Belić (Sotirović, 2005, p. 64). An important question is whether Karadžić presented his views on the nation and the “serbiandom” knowingly with regard to “great Serbian” hegemonic position or not. As it has been written before, this treatise had a strong response, because it attracted the attention of non-Serb intellectuals and writers even only by as its title. Vuk himself tried to defend himself against misinterpreted ideas and non-understanding of his thoughts, it could be proved by letter to Zagreb newspaper called Pozor in which he reacted on article by Josip Miškatović55 (4th March 1861): „In 51st issue of your newspaper I saw that Mr. Josip Miškatović misunderstood my words in Kovčežić – „Srbi svi i svuda“. He thought, I wanted to say that everyone and everywhere are Serbs and it is not correct. These words (Srbi svi i svuda) are headline of the article and I tried to utter that we should discuss about all Serbs wherever they live as in German: „Von den Serben überhaupt“(Mainly about the Serbs). And as well as my own words in this article shows that Mr Miškatović wrongly understood and poorly interpreted the title of my article, because I said that the Serbs are the only ones who speak the Serbian language, without distinction of religion and places of life. About chakavian and kajkavian speakers I did not say that they are Serbs. Please, sir, if you may print these few words in your Pozor (Novak, 1967, p. 464).“ Karadžić spoke about Serbian language, not about shtokavian dialect and about places inhabited by Serbian nation, what doesn’t imply the artificial expansion of Serbian territory: „We know that Serbs live in Serbia (between Drina and Timok and between Dunaj and Stara Planina), in Metohija (from Kosovo through Stara Planina), where is the seat of Dušan Prizren, Serbian patriarchate of Peć and monastery Dečani) in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro, Banat, Backa, Srem to the right across the Danube from Szentendre to Osijek, Slavonia, Croatia (the Austrian and Turkish part), Dalmatia, and almost the entire Adriatic coast to Trieste and Buna. At the beginning I said those that I know for sure, but I’m not sure how far Serbs live in Macedonia and Arnaut lands [Turkish name for Albanians, authors’ note]. In Cetinje, Montenegro I spoke with two men from Dibra who said that there exist a lot of 55 Josip Miškatović (1836–1890) was Croatian politician and journalist, member of National Party edited magazines (Narodna Stranka) Novi Pozor, Zatoćnik and Obzor. (Ciliga, 1965, p. 138–139). 62 | Maroš Melichárek Serbian villages where Serbian is spoken, somewhat between Serbian and Bulgarian, but closer to Serbian than to true Bulgarian.“ (Karadžić, 1849, p. 1). As already indicated in the introduction, the fundamental problem why this Karadžić’s treatise had been described nationalistic, is the question of dialects of Serbo-Croatian language. The question of dialects within the former Yugoslavia is a very complicated issue, because there exists number of local dialects typical for only one region, for example zetsko-sandžacki, kosovsko-resanski, slavonski and others (Ilić, 1985, p. 68–210). Basic classification of dialects within Serbo-Croatian language (or Serbo-Croat, Serbo-Croat-Bosnian, or Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian) is based on a different use of interrogatory pronoun for “what” and proto-long vowel “Jať or Yat” (Ѣ) of Proto-Slavic origin (Šaur, 1977/78, p. 79-81). In Serbo-Croatian language exists three possible ways of translations - što, ča and kaj, from which were derived names of each dialect shtokavian, chakavian and kajkavian. Purely Croatian can be regarded kajkavian spoken around Zagreb and north-east of Croatia, and chakavian used in Istria and Dalmatia (except Dubrovnik, where shotokavian is used). Shtokavian variant is used by majority of Croats, also all ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbs and Montenegrins. Pronunciation of Yat has similarly three alternatives: a) - i is Ikavian (used in parts of Dalmatia and Herzegovina ) , b) - ( i)je is Ijekavian and is used in greater parts of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and. Dubrovnik region) , c) - e is Ekavian (mainly used on own territory of Serbia). The difference can be seen, for example, the word milk (mlieko in Slovak), which in various dialects of Serbo-Croatian could be pronounced as mljeko, mliko, or mleko (Husič, 1999, p. 9–13; Ronelle, 2006, s. 4–5; Brozović, 1988). Karadžić presented essentially the same division, although with some variations, as evidenced by an excerpt from Kovčežić: „From everything what was stated before is obvious that southern Slavs apart from Bulgarians are divided according to their language on three groups: first of them are Serbs who use što or šta and at the end of syllable have o instead of l, second are Croats who use instead of što or šta ča and they don’t change l to o at the end of syllable, in other aspects there is very little difference from the Serbs, Slovenes are the third, which we call Krajnci56 (Šafárik, 1955, p. 46), use kaj instead of što, and they are more different from Serbs and Croats than Croats from Serbs. Among Slovenes belong also Croats in regions around Zagreb, Varaždin and Križevac whose language present transition between Slovene and Serbian, but it is interesting from where they came to areas where they dwell nowadays... Regarding the numbers of those southern Slavs, I would say that population of shtokavian speakers is at least three times high56 According to Safarik were Krajnci of Croatian origin: „Chorvati čili Chrovati slovou obyvatelé Dalmat a ostrovuv príležících od Istrie až do Neretvy, jakož již za časuv Konstantina Porfyrogenety, tak též i jejich osadníci v Cernomili a Metlice v Krajne (tito jinak i Bílí Krajnci).“ The Role of Vuk Karadžić in the History of Serbian Nationalism (In the Context of European Linguistics in the First Half of 19TH Century) | 63 er than kajkavian speakers and chakavian together, and population of kajkavian speakers is much bigger than chakavian“ (Karadžić, 1849, p. 23-24). From this text is clear that Karadžić comprised part of the existing Croatian nation among Serbs on the basis of shtokavian dialect. But the question is what led him to do so, because Karadžić was an educated man who knew the Balkan issues very well - he travelled a lot and became familiar with customs and language of the people, such as in the years 18341835 during stay in Dalmatia and Montenegro (Pekić, 2008, p. 7–49). There are number of possible explanations and alternatives. The first possibility is that Karadžić knowingly increased the number of Serbs denying and Croats and Bosnian Muslims respectively Slavic Muslims in the Ottoman Empire (although in their case was a matter of nationality very unclear) by the theory that every shtokavian speaker was considered Serb. This explanation could be regarded as a manifestation of nationalism with regard to the increase of the Serbian national awareness and building of a strong Serbia in the future. The second alternative may be the fact that his conclusions were adapted to the knowledge about Yugoslav dialects in period of first half of 19th century and followed the work of leading linguists and slavists during Karadžić’s era (Sotirović, 2005, p. 48), like Kopitar,57 Dobrovský, Kollár, Miklošič58 and Pavol Jozef Šafarik59 in his work Slovanský národopis (Slavic ethnography) from 1842 set the Serbian population on 5,294,000 and the number is further subdivided by place of living: „V Uhřích a banátském pomezí 542.000, v Slavonii a slavonském pomezí 738.000, v Chorvatech, t. v částce Záhřebské stolice a v chorvatském pomezí 629.000, v jižní částce Krajny 40.000, v Istrii a uherském Přímoří 254.000, v Dalmatech 391.000, dohromady v Rakousku 2,594.000; v knížectví srbském 950.000, v Bosně, Hercegovině, ve dřevní Rase a krajištěch Arnautska 1,552.000, v Černohoře 100.000, dohromady v Turecku 2,600.000; v Rusku 100.000. Podle náboženství počítáme řecké víry v Rakousku, Tu57 For a further information on relationship between Vuk and Kopitar see Grčević, M. (2009). Jernej Kopitar kao strateg karadžićeve književnojezične reforme. Filologija, 53 (1), p. 1-53. Retrived from https://hrcak. srce.hr/index.php?show=toc&id_broj=3646 58 Association of Serbs and shtokavian dialect was mentioned in his work - Vergleichende Grammatik der slaw. Sprachen. 59 Slovak philologist, poet, Slavist, literary historian, historian and ethnographer. Šafárik was headmaster of a new gymnasium in Novi Sad during his stay in Serbia (1819-1833). In Novi Sad he studied Serbia literature and antiquities, and he acquired many rare books and manuscripts, which he used in Prague later. In 1826 his Geschichte der slawischen Sprache und Literatur nach allen Mundarten was published. All Works of Šafárik are avaliable on https://zlatyfond.sme.sk/autor/96/Pavol-Jozef-Safarik. For a further information see: Paul, K. (1961): Pavel Josef Šafařík. Život a dílo. Prague: Nákl. Československé Akad. Věd; Novotný, J. (1971). Pavel Josef Šafařík. Prague: Melantrich; Káša, P. (2005). Pavol Jozef Šafárik (Básnické dielo). Bratislava: Kalligram. 64 | Maroš Melichárek recku i Rusku 2,880.000, římskokatolické v Rakousku i Turecku (v Bosně a Hercegovině) 1,864.000; mohamedánův v Bosně, Hercegovině a dřevní Rase 550.000, kteřížto ač od víry odpadše, nicméně při jazyku přirozeném pořád setrvávají (Šafárik, 1955, p. 46-47)“ This clearly suggests that he considered part of Croats as Serbs. This theory was highly criticized by supporter of the Illyrian movement Vjekoslav Babukić who used for the language of people in Croatia and Dalmatia term „horvatski“ (Sotirović, 2005, p.48). Šafárik in his work Dejiny slovanského jazyka a literatúry všetkých nárečí (History of the Slavic language and literature by all vernaculars) divided Slavic nations (Slovanský národný kmeň v treťom desaťročí XIX. storočia) among several parts (Juhovýchodná hlavná vetva. Ratolesti) and among Serbian people integrated Bulgarians, Serbs, Bosnians, Montenegrins, Slavonians and Dalmatians (Šafárik, 1963, p.26-27).60 A similar theory as presented by Karadžić was pointed out by the German historian August L. von Schlözer (1735-1809). Schlözer made distinction between Croatian, which represents kajkavian dialect, and Bosnian, Dalmatian and Illyrian dialect, of which the last is clearly shtokavian - Schlözer called it “Illyrisch oder Serbisch” (Banac, 1984, p. 80). Famous Czech philologist and historian Josef Dobrovský61 considered all the territories where shtokavian dialect is spoken Serbian. Western Yugoslavian variant language with Latin letters considered semi-Serbian, 60 2. Srbi. Srbom patrilo pôvodne Srbské kráľovstvo, teraz turecká provincia Serf — Vilajeti, po oboch stranách Moravy, medzi Timokom, Drinou, Balkánom, Sávou a Dunajom; odsťahovali sa však veľmi skoro a najmä koncom XVII. stor. vo veľkom počte do rakúskej Slavónie a do južného Uhorska. Cudzinci ich nazývali Ráci, lebo jedna ich časť býva na rieke Raške, ktorá kedysi delila krajinu na Srbsko a Rašsko. V tureckom Serf — Vilajeti žije asi 800 000 Srbov, v Uhorsku, okrem Slavónska, 350 000, teda spolu ich je 1 150 000. Všetci sa hlásia ku gréckej cirkvi.3. Bosniaci. Bosniaci obývajú kraj medzi Drinou, Vrbasom, Sávou, Dalmáciou a pokračovaním Balkánu. Je ich asi 350 000 kresťanského náboženstva západného i východného obradu. Ba mnohí z nich pozvoľna prestupovali na islamskú vieru, zachovali si však až do posledných čias svoj slávosrbský jazyk.4. Čiernohorci (Crnogorci). Tak sa volajú slovanskí obyvatelia pohoria Čierna Hora v tureckej provincii Albánsku, rozprestierajúcej sa od morského pobrežia pri Bare smerom k Bosne. Turci si ich nikdy celkom nepodmanili, a preto sú i dnes ešte slobodným národom, vládne im biskup a je ich asi 60 000 (podľa Sommiera[39] r. 1812 [1821] iba 53 168), sú bez výnimky kresťania východného obradu.5. Slavónci. Obyvatelia kráľovstva Slavónie i Provinciálneho i Vojenského územia, ktoré hraničí s Chorvátskom a riekami Drávou, Dunajom a Sávou, s Uhorskom, Srbskom a Bosnou a ktorému prináleží i vojvodstvo Sriem medzi Bosutom, Dunajom a Sávou ako jeho časť, je ich asi pol milióna, hlásia sa čiastočne k latinskému (253 000), čiastočne ku gréckemu (247 000) obradu.6. Dalmatínci. Pozdĺž Jaderského mora, medzi Chorvátskom, Bosnou a Balkánom, v štyroch okresoch kráľovstva Dalmácie: Zadar, Split, Dubrovník, Kotor asi 300 000, spolu s 80 000 Dalmatíncami pod tureckou nadvládou v Hercegovine je ich 380 000, z čoho asi 70 000 sa ich hlási ku gréckemu obradu, ostatní k latinskému. III. Chorvátsky kmeň Terajšie Chorvátske kráľovstvo, odlišné od starého Chorvátska Konštantína Porfyrogenneta, medzi Štajerskom, Uhorskom, Slavóniou, Bosnou, Dalmáciou a Jaderským morom, má v Provinciálnom a Vojenskom území (pripočítajúc malú tureckú časť v sandžaku Banjaluka s 30 000 obyvateľmi a kolónie v Uhorsku) asi 730 000 slovanských obyvateľov. Z toho je 174 000 gréckeho obradu, ostatní latinského. 61 Machovec, M. (2004). Josef Dobrovský (studie s ukázkami z díla). Prague: Akropolis. The Role of Vuk Karadžić in the History of Serbian Nationalism (In the Context of European Linguistics in the First Half of 19TH Century) | 65 while Cyrillic variant identified as authentic for the Serbs (his notions were followed by Kopitar). As explanation he offered the example of Dalmatians who use the Latin alphabet and are considered half- Serbs (Glagoljaši), and those who use the Cyrillic alphabet are “regular Serbs” (Ekmečić, 1989, s. 423). The fact that Vuk Karadžić followed mentioned slavists (Dobrovský and Šafárik) can be proved by a direct mention in his work: “Dobrovský and Šafárik proved that by the name Serb were called all Slavic peoples and name Serb is older than name Slav” (Karadžić, 1849, p. 9). Accepting these traditional and (in researched period - until about 1849) standard views could greatly influence the thinking of Vuk Karadžić to create his own concept and in that case it would not be fair to mark him as the producer „greater Serbian“ idea, since this theory was then generally accepted by scientific society. Against model of Karadžić as a creator of linguistic nationalism stands the part of Ján Kollár62 work O literární vzájemnosti mezi kmeny a nářečími slávskými /On the literary reciprocity between Slav tribes and vernaculars/: „V tomto ohľade po Slovákoch a Čechoch nasledujú Rusi, Chorváti, Poliaci, Srbi. Dobrovský, hoci nevedomky a neúmyselne, pripravoval k tomu cestu; jeho diela sú všeslovanské, hoci ešte nevedel, čo je slovanská literárna vzájomnosť. Po Dobrovskom alebo zároveň s ním je Kopitar. — Šiškov, Köppen, Rumiancev, Pogodin atď. urobili u Rusov pekné, napodobeniahodné kroky k vzájomnosti. U Srbov má vo Vukovi a Pavlovićovi,63 u Chorvátov v Gajovi, Topalovićovi, Kurelacovi a i. statočnú oporu a pracovníkov”(Kollár, 1853, p. 14). Here we have to face the question of Illyrian movement and Kollár’s attitude towards it, as was elaborated by Július Heidenreich (Kollár a „nárečí illyrské“. Slovanská vzájemnost 1836 — 1936, Prague 1938). Illyrian movement partly prompted by itself Kollar, was respected by himself and confirmed by his use of the term Illyrian (he admitted 4 standard languages: Russian, Polish, Czechoslovak and Illyrian). But Kollár’s term describing the contents of Illyrian meant Serbian, so an equal sign may be put between two mentioned terms. The proof offers sentence: “Der gelehrtere und gebildetere Slave zweiter Klasse, wird sich auch in die kleinern Mundarten und Untermundarten einlassen, wie 62 For further details: Kidrić, F. (1938). Osnove za Kollárjev vpliv pri Slovencih do 1852. Slovanská vzájemnost 1836–1936. Prague: ČSAV. p. 128–139. Murko, M. (1938). Slovanská myšlenka před Kollárem. vanská vzájemnost 1836–1936. Praga: ČSAV. p. 76–93. Murko, M. (1962). Sto let Kollárjeve »slovanske vzajemnosti«. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica. P. 13–23. Pogačnik, J. (1969). Zgodovina slovenskega slovstva. Maribor: Založba Obzorja. Bratislava. Rozman, A. (2001). Ján Kollár a Slovinci. Zborník Filozofickej fakulty Univerzity Komenského. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského. P. 43–53. 63 Pavlović Todor (1804 — 1854), attroney in Pešt, editor of Letopisa Matice Srpske (1832 — 1841) and newspaper Srpske Narodne Novine (1833 — 1849) and Srbski Narodni list, Kollárs debate in his own Serbian translation according to the original, thus Todor Pavlović became the first apostle and publishers of Kollár's debate on literary reciprocity between Slav tribes. His relationship to Kollar was respectful and affectionate. 66 | Maroš Melichárek z. B. im Russischen das Kleinrussische, im Illyrischen das Kroatische. Windische, Bulgarische, im Polnischen das Lausitziche, u. s. w“. If he stood on the positions of Gaj’s Illyrianism, he would distinguish by the term Illyrian language in Gaj’s perception not shtokavian spoken by Serbs, and he would also not pass from Illyrian language to Croatian. Translation of his dispute over literary reciprocity between Slav tribes, which appeared in Danica in 1836 is ordered as follows “Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian.” Some parts of his woks published in Danica were transformed to needs of Illyrian movement and some parts missed. However, it is not true that Kollár simply changed the term Serbian for Illyrian and he did not use the term Serb and Serbian in his debates any more. We cannot perceive the Kollar’s attitude undecided, but as a constant effort to merge his own ideological foundations of previous ideas with existing and new ideas. Kollár was looking at Serbs as the most important tribe of southern Slavs, although he renamed them as Illyrians, but not in the sense Gaj. (Bednárová, 2012, p.47). Another possible explanation could be the existence of so-called Military frontier or also known as Military Border and Military Krajina; Croatian: Vojna krajina; Serbian: Војна граница, which was gradually created since the 16th century on the basis of already existing military areas from the 15th century and formed a defensive wall against the penetration of Islam into Europe. Its original territory, namely the Western Hungary, Croatian border with Bosnia, stretching from the Adriatic Sea to Belgrade expanded after 1699 (the year when The Treaty of Karlowitz was signed) - part of Transylvania, areas in Slavonia and Srem, later also Banat region was integrated. Military Frontier has been excluded from the jurisdiction of Croatian and Hungarian aristocracy, had its own administration subordinated to Vienna. Land was assigned to peasants whose duty was to fight under Austrian leadership, not only against the Ottoman danger. Because the population wasn’t numerous enough, or often entirely depopulated, were people with different nationality invited and their task was to colonize abandoned area. In the case of Military Border were mainly the Serbs who have become ethnic majority step by step. By religion, population of the frontier was 54% Orthodox Christian (Bogavac, 1994, p.196). Military Frontier lost its real meaning after 1880 and in 1881 was united with Croatia (Rychlík, p. 105-109, Dolejší, 2003, p. 102, Popović, 1990, p. 87-164, Gavrilović, 1989, p. 3-679). The existence of Military Frontier caused the division of the historical territory of Croatia and also mixed up the ethnic composition of the area. The result is that shtokavian dialect coincides with the territory of Military Frontier to great extent. Original Croatian population of Military Frontier was not so numerous, and so the refugees from Ottoman territories inhabited the area – mostly Serbs. Karadžić while elaborating his idea of all shtokavian speakers as Serbs might has been affected by the existence of the Military Frontier, whereas the population in this area was The Role of Vuk Karadžić in the History of Serbian Nationalism (In the Context of European Linguistics in the First Half of 19TH Century) | 67 heavily mixed with Serbian majority and spoke mainly shtokavian dialect, although there weren’t only Serbs, but also Croats ( in fewer Romanians, Hungarians, Slovaks and Germans). There exists entire spectrum of possible alternatives, why Karadžić decided to include among Serbs on the basis of language also Croats and Bosnian Muslims, to elaborate the most probable interpretation we should considered a combination of all the different factors that affected Vuk during his lifetime. Another of the alternatives is the interpretation of a part of Serbian historians, e.g. Vladislav Sotirović. Karadžić’s work presents a defense against the intensifying Croatian nationalism (which culminated in the second half of the 19th century) represented by Ante Starčević and others, whose aims was to achieve “croatization” of all shtokavian Serbs, as in the area of Dubrovník (Sotirović, 2006, p. 101-116; 2000, p. 7–24; 2006, p. 183–194). This period was marked by import of “croatiandom” to areas with a significant percentage of the Serb population, as in already mentioned in Dubrovnik,64 or throughout Dalmatia, Herzegovina, Srem. Croatian national ideas were being spreaded in mythological form by politicians, bishops, canons and historians, who presented the idea of white and red Croatia (Žutić, 2005, p. 2). Ideas of Illyrian movement were slowly fading away, although the movement still had its supporters, led by Ljudevit Gaj,65 who was one of Karadžić’s followers, but the opposition on the Croatian side grew strong. Illyrian movement (or lirski pokret, Slovene: Ilirsko gibanje) was based on linguistic and cultural unity of the southern Slavs during period from 1835 to 1849 (Bednárová, 2012, p. 104). However it could not fulfill the same function in Serbian or Slovenian environment, as in still constituting Croatian nation. As exception we may mention Serbian intellectual community and traders in Croatia and Slavonia (Mojsije Georgijević, Justin Mihailović), or part of intellectuals associated with the journal Bačka Vila in Novi Sad or part of Slovenes mostly in Car- 64 The issue of Serbs from Dubrovik region was elaborated in Mitrović, D. J. (1992). Srpstvo Dubrovnika, Belgrade: Vojna štamparija. 65 Ljudevit Gaj (1814-1872) was a Croatian politician , historian , man of letters and an important representative of national movement. His ideas had a far-reaching influence on Croatian and Yugoslav nationalism. He was born in a multicultural environment and his father was Slovak. In the years 1826-1831 he studied in Vienna, where he dealt mainly with Croatian history, and here he met with John Kollár, from whom he adopted the division of the Slavs, which was released in Danica Ilirska (1835). In the mentioned journal which was edited by Gaj published Slovak patriots like Ľudovít Štúr, Juraj Palković či Pavol Jozef Šafárik. In 1831 he wrote a famous poem Još Hrvatska nije propala, which somewhat recalls Polish national anthem Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła, nevertheless it became a symbol of Croatian national revival. He took part in the revolution of 1848 /49, but paradoxically his political career was at the end. He participated on the arrest of Miloš Obrenović in Zagreb, but he bribed him and he let him go, after the outbreak of the scandal Gaj never returned to social life (Tanner, 1997, s. 67–81; Štúr&Palkovič 1841, p.68; Kollár, 1853, p. 14). 68 | Maroš Melichárek niola and Carinthia - the most important personality was Stanko Vraz. Most Serbs considered efforts of the representatives of the Illyrian movement as process that should results be denationalization Serbs under the neutral name of Illyrian (Bednárová, 2012, p. 104), it was documented by the quotation of Teodor Pavlović, one of the most prominent opponents of Illyrian movement and its core concept: “We can never adopt the term Illyrian, Illyrian language, Illyrian people, where it includes the historic name, language and nationality of the inhabitants of our family living in Hungary, Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Herzegovina, Croatia and Slavonia. Because these people are by origin, name and language true Serbs who call themselves Bosniaks, Montenegrins, Slavonians, Dalmatians etc.” or “Only them distinguish themselves as Illyrian /We Serbs never and nowhere/” (Bednárová, 2012, p. 42). Opponent of Illyrian movement was also Jevstatija Mihajlović, who in his book Iliri i Srbi ili pregled narodnosti starosedeoca Ilirika i imena pismena i načina pisanja današnjih Srbalja from 1843 spoke strongly against the idea Illyriansm and disputed the origin southern Slavs from the old Illyrians. (Banac, 1984, p.81; Barišić, 1987, p. 10–19; Popović, 1973 s. 94-102 ). Concepts of Illyrian movement were markedly different compared to ideas of Croatian Party of Rights founded in 1861 (Croatian: Hrvatska stranka prava 1861), which was aimed towards creation of an independent Croatian state (Gross, 2000, p. 3-23). Despite mentioned facts Vuk still had a lot of supporters among Croats called “hrvatski vukovci” as Vatroslav Jagić,66 Tomislav Maretić, Franjo Iveković and Ivan Broz (Barac, 2006, p. 60–63). However, it is important to note that Dubrovnik had very important position in the Croatian national movement and also in the ideas of Illyrian movement. Dubrovnik was for its rich cultural and literary tradition perceived as a key as well as for Serbs and the Croats. Therefore, there were evident efforts to push both nations towards national consciousness awareness, for example Serb Djordje Nikolajević and others (Banac, 1983, p. 450-454). But it is equally important to note that the Serbian presence in Dubrovnik and whole Dalmatia was undeniable and lasting centuries what can be evidenced by establishment of two Serbian monasteries in Krupa in Krka in 1317 and 1350. Moreover an Eparchy on Island Ston was founded by the St. Sava himself in 1219. Among significant Dubrovnik Serbs we may count Ivan Gundulić a famous writer and philosopher Rudjer Bošković (Trbovich, 2008, p. 84–85). The fact is that the ethnicity of Ivan Gundulić 66 Linguist and Slavist Vatroslav Jagić (1838-1923), who wrote in his work dedicated to Karadžić: "... He travelled through different regions of our Croatian and Serbian nation and collected folk songs which astounded the whole of Europe, and wrote the first dictionary of this language, a work that will long serve as a model not only for us Croats and Serbs, but also for every Slav. "Especially the words ' us Croats and Serbs "implies a certain unity, not only in the field of language (Jagić, 1864, p. 14). The Role of Vuk Karadžić in the History of Serbian Nationalism (In the Context of European Linguistics in the First Half of 19TH Century) | 69 isn’t absolutely clear.67 According to Croatian historian Natko Nodilo,68 active in the second half of the 19th century, Serbian was the primary language in Dubrovnik: “In Dubrovnik as from the very beginning until these moments Serbian was the language which was spoken, by Dušan, the nobility, as well of the every house and everyday life Serbian, was the spoken language” (Mitrović, 1992, p. 316). Nodilo is talking about the clear Serbian presence in Dubrovnik and other areas of Dalmatia, but as a member of the so-called National Party (Narodna stranka u Dalmaciji) was an advocate of equality between two nations, what was evidenced by the fact that in National party were also Serb members, although some disagreements appeared later. Nodilo talked about the Serbian language because the acceptance Serbian language based on Vuk’s reform was still in progress and it was the same in case of Croatian language. Concept of Dalmatians and inhabitants of Dubrovnik as Serbs had been presented also in the work of mentioned Czech slavist Josef Dobrovský who claimed: “Dalmatians are Serbs by origin and language”(Žutić, 2000, p. 34). Opponent of these ideas was Ante Starčević who considered according to ideas Dubrovnik and its inhabitants as Croatian: “Therefore, people in Dubrovnik, in various ways and perspectives can and must know “serbiandom”, but they were among the most enlightened Croats in their time...” (Starčević, 1868, p. 39), or “We can not answer these questions, but we can show that people in Dubrovnik do not consider themselves Serbs...” (Starčević, 1868, p. 43). During the course of time Croats managed to achieve denationalization of Serbs in the region of Dubrovnik, and not only there, although Serbs had a strong position there at the turn of the century - in 1910 there were 24.6% Serbs in Slavonia versus 64.5% Croats ( Jelavich & Jelavich, 1986 p. 254), but nowadays, according to the Croatian census of 2001 the percentage of the Serbian population in Dubrovnik is around 4.01% of the total population, before the Civil War it was around 7 %.69 Vuk Karadžić presented claim to Dubrovnik on the basis of language, because the same tendencies existed in Croatian national movement. If we want to evaluate the work of Vuk Karadžić objectively it is necessary to emphasize that it is not enforcement of political ideology of “Greater Serbia”. His work didn’t discuss political organization of the state and society, mainly cultural and linguistic dimensions are presented. German historian W.D. Behschnitt during 67 Gundulić being of Serb, Croatian or Dubrovnik origin. (Bratulić, 1984, p. 59; Lorkovič, 2008; Anzulović, 1999, p. 56-57). 68 Natko Nodilo (1834 – 1912) was Croatian politician, historian, publicist, university professor and rector of the University of Zagreb (Korunić, 1974-75, p. 95-138). 69 Postotak Srba po gradovima/općinama u odnosu na postotak u županiji (Splitsko-dalmatinska županija), popis stanovništva 2001, DZS, Republika Hrvatska, Zagreb. Retrived from: https://www. dzs.hr/hrv/censuses/ census2001/Popis/Graphs/SRBposto_zupbody.html#mbz19 70 | Maroš Melichárek the study of Croatian and Serbian nationalist ideologies of the 19th century described the ideas of Vuk Karadžić “as Linguistic and cultural ideology of Greater Serbia“ (Behschnitt, 1981, p. 71). It should be stated that Karadžić’s views implied a reduction of the territory of today’s Croatia to some extent, where the Croatian nation constituted during the 19th century. But at this point it must be said, that Karadžić never denied the Croatian nation as such, in its core essence, as it is often misinterpreted. He admitted possible linguistic affinity and as descendants of old Croat population considered inhabitants of Adriatic coast and islands, but he accepted a Croat nation from a historical perspective, as evidenced by his words: “Croats now do not have people who are different from the Serbs in terms of language, but on islands and coastal places where people had less mixed with mainland residents /like in Trogir and Omiš/ , speak the language somewhat different from Serbian, and I think that these Islanders and “Primorci” remained descendants of old Croats” (Karadžić, 1849, p.23-24) Hovewer, the truth is that during discussed period were among Croats more widespread local and regional ties compared to national. The same pattern may be applied for Bosnia, where it was complicated to define Bosnian national identity in the 19th century. Finally, it is important to say that Vuk Karadžić was aware of his division- all Shtokavian speakers are Serbs (regardless of religion, or where they live) Chakavians are Croats, Slovenes are kajkavian speakers, but he was also aware of the negative impacts this division: “It’s true that foreigners can laugh at division of our nation at this time, but what can we unfortunate people do, if there will not be other way” (Ljušić, 2004, p. 164). To answer the question whether the Vuk Karadžić was Serbian nationalist, we must consider a lot of factors affecting his work – conditions during Vuk’s era, social situation, Slavists research in the 19th century and gradual constitution of Croatian and Serbian nation. Certainly Vuk Karadžić can not be considered nationalist in the sense of the 20th and 21st century ideology. LITERATURE: 1. Anzulović, B. Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide. New York: NYU Press, 1999. 2. Ambruš, J. Ľudovít Štúr – Hlas k rodákom. Bratislava: Lovenské vydavateľstvo krásnej literatúry, 1971. 3. Barac, A. „O Hrvatskim vukovcima”. Jezik: časopis za kulturu hrvatskoga književnog jezika 53, 2 (2006): 60–63. 4. Banac, I. „The Confessional ‘Rule’ and the Dubrovnik Exception: The Origins of the ‘Serb-Catholic’ Circle in Nineteenth-Century Dalmatia”. Slavic Review 42, 3 (1983): 450–454. The Role of Vuk Karadžić in the History of Serbian Nationalism (In the Context of European Linguistics in the First Half of 19TH Century) | 71 5. Banac, I. The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics. New York: Cornell University Press, 1984. 6. Bogavac, T. Nestajanje Srba. Niš: Prosveta, 1994. 7. Behschnitt, W. D. Nationalismus bei Serben und Kroaten 1830–1914? Analyse and typologie der nationalen ideologie. München: Oldenbourg Verlag, 1980. 8. Bednárová, M. Symboly a mýty chorvátskeho národného hnutia. Fenomén ilyrizmu. Bratislava: Veda, 2012. 9. Bratulić, J. Alberto Fortis – Put po Dalmaciji. Zagreb: Posebna izdanja, 1984. 10. Brozović, D. Jezik srpskohrvatski / hrvatskosrpski, hrvatski ili srpski. Zagreb: Jugoslavenski leksikografski zavod “Miroslav Krleza”, 1988. 11. Butler, T. “On Hasanaginica”. The Spirit of Bosnia 2, 3 (2007): 1-2. 12. Ciliga, V. Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, sv. 6. Zagreb: Jugoslavenski leksikografski zavod, 1965. 13. Ekmečić, M. Stvaranje Jugoslavije 1790–1918, d. 1. Belgrade: Prosveta, 1989. 14. Dolejší, J. Pod císařským praporem. Historie habsburské armády 1526–1918. Prague: Elka Press, 2003. 15. Fischer, W. “The Role of Dositej Obradović in the Construction of Serbian Identities during the 19th Century”. Spaces of Identity 1, 3 (2001): 67–87. 16. Gavrilović, S. Gradja za istoriju Vojne granice u XVIII. veku, knj. I. Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1989. 17. Gross, M. “Starčević i Kvaternik – Spoznaje i nadahnuća”. Politička misao 37, 1 (2000): 3-24. 18. Gross, M. Povijest pravaške ideologije. Zagreb: Institut za hrvatsku povijest, 1973. 19. Holton, M. Mihailović, V. Songs of the Serbian People from the Collections of Vuk Karadžić. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1997. 20. Husić, G. “Is there/will be a „Bosnian“ language? Aspects of the Language Question in post-war Bosnia”. South Slav Journal 20, 3–4 (1999): 9–13. 21. Hladký, L. Bosenská otázka v 19. a 20. století. Brno: Masarykova Univerzita – Mezinárodní politologický ústav, 2006. 22. Ivić, P. Dijalektologija srpskohrvatskog jezika. Uvod i štokavsko narečje. Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1956. 23. Jagić, V. Zasluge Vuka Štefanovića Karadžića za naš narodni jezik. Zagreb: Dragutin Albrecht, 1864. 24. Judah, T. The Serbs: History, Myth& the Destruction of Yugoslavia. New Heaven Yale University Press, 2000. 25. Karadžić, V., S. Kovčežić za istoriju, jezik i običaje Srba sva tri zakona. Wien: Štamparija Jermenskoga Manastira, 1849. 26. Karadžić, V., S. Srpski rječnik: istolkovan njemačkim i latinskim riječima. Wien: Štamparija Jermenskoga Manastira, 1818. 72 | Maroš Melichárek 27. Kropej, M. “The Cooperation of Grimm Brothers, Jernej Kopitar and Vuk Karadžić”. Studia Mythologica Slavica XVI (2013): 215 – 231. 28. Kollár, J. O literární vzájemnosti mezi kmeny a nářečími slávskými. Prague: J. Pospíšil, 1853. 29. Korunić, P. “Natko Nodilo i narodni preporod u Dalmaciji do 1867”. Historijski zbornik 27-28 (1974-1975): 95-138. 30. Lorkovic, T. Ivan Gundulić (1588–1638). Yale University Library - Slavic and Easte European Collection, 2008. 31. Mitrović, D. J. Srpstvo Dubrovnika i velikohvatski pohod do Drine i Crne Gore. Belgrade: Catena Mundi, 1992. 32. Novak, V. Vuk i Hrvati. Belgrade: Naučno delo, 1967. 33. Owen, M. Serbski pesme: or National songs of Servia. London: Chapman and Hall, 1861. 34. Pavličević, D. “Dva stoljeća velikosrpskih težnji prema Hrvatskoj 1793–1993”. Društvena istraživanja 2, 2–3 (1993): 147-28. 35. Pekić, M. “Vuk i slovenstvo Dalmacije”. Zbornik Matice srpske za istoriju 25, 77– 78 (2008): 7–49. 36. Popović, D. Srbi u Vojvodini II. Od Karlovačkog mira 1699 do Temišvarskog sabora 1790. Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1990. 37. Popović, M. “Ljudevit Gaj i Vuk St. Karadžić”. Radovi 3 (1973): 93–109. 38. Ronelle, M. Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian – a Grammar with Sociolinguistic commentary. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006. 39. Rychlík, J. at al. Dějiny Chorvatska. Prague: NLN, 2007. 40. Rychlík, J. at al. Mezi Vídní a Cařihradem, 1. Utváření balkánských národů. Prague: Vyšehrad, 2009. 41. Starčević, A. Ime Serb. Zagreb: Slovi Karla Albrechta, 1868. 42. Štúr, Ľ.– Palković, J. “Tatranka, časopis slovački”. Danica Ilirska 7, 17 (1841): 68. 43. Trbovich, S. A. A Legal Geography of Yugoslavia’s Disintegration. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. 44. Jelavich, B., Jelavich, Ch. The establishment of the Balkan national states, 1804– 1920. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1986. 45. Barišić, B. “Vuk i ilirski pokret”. Etnološke Sveske 8 (1987): 10–19. 46. Šafárik, P.J. Slovanský národopis. Prague: Československá akademie věd, 1955. 47. Šafárik, P.J. Dejiny slovanského jazyka a literatúry všetkých nárečí. Bratislava: Vydavateľstvo SAV, 1963. 48. Šaur, V. “Původní jihoslovanské jat, jak se vyslovovalo?”. Studia Minora Facultatis Philosophicae Universitatis Brunensis 25/26 (1977-1978): 79—85. The Role of Vuk Karadžić in the History of Serbian Nationalism (In the Context of European Linguistics in the First Half of 19TH Century) | 73 49. Sotirović, V. B. “Nineteenth-century Ideas of Serbian ‘Linguistic’ Nationhood and Statehood”. Slavistica Vilnensis 49, 2 (2000): 7–24. 50. Sotirović, V. B. “Kritika interpretacije filoških stavova Vuka Karadžića od strane jugoslovenske integralističke filologije”. Zbornik Matice srpske za slavistiku 68 (2005): 47-61. 51. Sotirović, V. B. “Pitanje jezika i pisma u Dalmaciji 1903. g. i početak politike ‘novog kursa’”. Zbornik Matice srpske za slavistiku 70, 3 (2006): 183–194. 52. Sotirović, V. B. “The Croatian national (‘Illyrian’) revival movement and the question of language, 1830–1847”. Nasleđe 3, 4 (2006): 101–116. 53. Sotirović, V. B. Balcanica, Serbica, Yugoslavica. Vilnius: Vilnus University Press, 2007. 54. Starčević, A. Pasmina Slavoserbska po Hrvatskoj. Zagreb: Tisak Lav. Hartmána i družbe, 1876. 55. Tomić, Y. The ideology of a Greater Serbia in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (expert report). Paris: ICTY, 2008. 56. Trbovich, A. S. “Nation building under the Austro-Hungarian Spectre. Croato-Serb Antagonism and Cooperation”. Balcanica 37, 1 (2006): 195-221. 57. Žutić, N. “Srbi svi i svuda – hrvatske zemlje bez Hrvata”. Istorija 20. veka, 2, 2 (2005): 31-51. 58. Weithmann, W. M. Balkán: 2000 let mezi Východem a Západem. Praha: Vyšehrad, 2006. 59. Wolff, L. Venice and the Slavs. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. Марош Мелихарек УЛОГА ВУКА КАРАЏИЋА У ИСТОРИЈАТУ СРПСКОГ НАЦИОНАЛИЗМА (У КОНТЕКСТУ ЕВРОПСКЕ ЛИНГВИСТИКЕ ПРВЕ ПОЛОВИНЕ 19. ВЕКА) Апстракт: Основни циљ овог рада јесте да презентује различите интерпретације контроверзне расправе Вука Караџића Ковчежић за историју, језик и обичаје Срба сва три законa, као и да укаже на културне, језичке и друштвене условности које су допринеле њеном настанку. Важан чинилац ове анализе представљају српска и хрватска историографија. Поменута Вукова расправа се тумачи или као дефанзивна, или, на другој страни, као хегемонистичка и агресивна, а понекад се чак сматра и да наступа са великосрпских 74 | Maroš Melichárek позиција. Један од иницијалних мотива за ову расправу јесте питање зашто је Вук Караџић изнео постулат по коме су сви штокавски говорници припадници српског народа. Постоји четири врсте интерпретације ове недоумице. Прва могућност јесте да је Вук свесно повећавао бројност на рачун хрвата и словенских муслимана у Отоманској империји. Такође, може се разматрати чињеница да је Вук у одређеној мери прихватио идеје најзначајнијих европских слависта (Копитара, Шафарика, Добровског и других). Етничка разноврсност у Војној крајини Хабзбуршке монархије је, могуће, такође утицала на његово мишљење. Његова расправа би такође могла представљати неку врсту реакције на растући хрватски национализам, као и на настојања да дубровачко културно наслеђе представи као хрватско. Штавише, истовремено се идентичан процес одвијао са Србима у Далмацији. Друга значајна дела Вука Караџића (Пјесме јуначке новијех времена о војевању за слободу, Народне српске пјесме, Мала простонародна славено-сербска песнарица, Народне српске приповјетка, итд.) би такође требало анализирати у циљу изградње обухватнијег знања и разумевања његове улоге у формирању такозваног српског национализма. Кључне речи: национализам, лингвистика, књижевност, штокавски дијалекат, Србија, језик, Вук Караџић Received 26.01.2015 / Accepted 14.04.2015.