U radu se analiziraju pisma iz korespondencije Josip Juraj Strossmayer – Lujo Vojnović iz razdoblja 1885. – 1892. Kao prilog je uvršteno pet pisama iz naznačenoga razdoblja sa znanstvenim aparatom. ...Preostali dio korespondencije, iz razdoblja 1893. – 1901., koji obuhvaća ukupno devet pisama, analizirat će se, također uz njihovu cjelovitu transkripciju, u drugom dijelu rada. Posebna pozornost posvetit će se onim pismima koja se sadržajem referiraju na pojedine važnije međunarodne aspekte hrvatske politike. To se u užem smislu, kad je riječ o dijelu korespondencije od 1885. do 1892., uz Vojnovićevo pismo Strossmayeru od 5. lipnja 1885., koje je u znanstvenom smislu već elaborirano, odnosi na još samo dva pisma: Vojnovićevo od 23. srpnja 1892., u kojemu biskupa Strossmayera moli da kod glasovitoga britanskog državnika Williama Ewarta Gladstonea podrži njegov memorandum na francuskom jeziku u kojemu Gladstoneu preporučuje Hrvatsko-ugarsku nagodbu (1868.) kao predložak za nacrt zakona o irskoj samoupravi (
Home Rule Bill
), koji je Gladstone predložio na donošenje britanskom parlamentu 1886. i 1893., te na Strossmayerov odgovor na to pismo od 25. srpnja 1892., u kojemu on, umjesto potpore Vojnovićevoj inicijativi, iznosi niz kritičkih objekcija o Mađarima i njihovoj hegemonističkoj politici prema Hrvatima u sklopu Ugarsko-Hrvatskoga Kraljevstva te općenito prema nemađarskim narodima u okvirima Translajtanije, ugarske polovice Austro-Ugarske Monarhije (1867.). Pritom Strossmayer u svojem odgovoru Vojnoviću iznosi i rasističke i pseudoantropološke objekcije o Mađarima, kojima im je nastojao osporiti mogućnost nadilaženja okvira feudalnoga društvenog uređenja i oblikovanja modernih građanskih institucija. Tom je odgovoru priložio i pismo s istim nadnevkom, zamolivši Vojnovića da ga zapečati i zajedno sa svojim pismom pošalje Gladstoneu. Ono također sadržava niz kritičkih objekcija o Mađarima i njihovoj hegemonističkoj politici. Glede ocjene dosega Strossmayerova utjecaja na oblikovanje Gladstoneovih kritičkih stajališta o Mađarima i njihovoj politici prema nevladajućim narodima Translajtanije, a napose prema Hrvatima u sklopu Ugarsko-Hrvatskoga Kraljevstva, bitno je istaknuti da Gladstone, koji je 1892. osvojio svoj četvrti, ujedno posljednji izborni mandat, ne samo da nije Strossmayera podržao u njegovoj kritici Mađara, nego mu uopće nije odgovorio na njegovo pismo od 25. srpnja 1892. Kao objašnjenje za takav Gladstoneov postupak u radu se iznosi teza da je on, s obzirom na svoje inače vrlo srdačne i prijateljske odnose sa Strossmayerom, to učinio napose iz pragmatičnih političkih razloga, koji su proizlazili iz činjenice da je Velika Britanija u tom razdoblju pružala snažnu potporu Austro-Ugarskoj Monarhiji, držeći ju važnim čimbenikom europskoga sustava ravnoteže, preprekom ruskom ekspanzionizmu prema Zapadu i njemačkom prodoru prema Istoku. Stoga bi, da se sve svelo samo na Gladstonea, doseg Strossmayerovih nastojanja u razotkrivanju mađarske represivne politike nad nemađarskim narodima Translajtanije u Velikoj Britaniji bio neznatan. No, ona su naišla na iznimno snažan odjek kod jednoga drugog Britanca, također vrlo utjecajnog, Roberta Williama Seton-Watsona, koji je fragment zapečaćenoga Strossmayerova pisma Gladstoneu objavio u prilogu svojega djela
The Southern Slav Question and the Habsburg Monarchy
(1911.), a u djelu
Racial Problems in Hungary
(1908.), polazeći ne samo od Strossmayerovih uvida s tim u vezi nego i od rezultata vlastitih istraživanja i spoznaja, europskoj javnosti razotkrio činjenice u vezi s hegemonističkom politikom ugarskih političkih elita prema nemađarskim narodima Kraljevine Ugarske, posebice pritom upozorivši na snažnim kulturološkim predrasudama uvjetovan diskriminatorni odnos Mađara prema Slovacima. Uzevši u obzir da je problematika odnosa Mađara prema nemađarskim narodima Translajtanije potaknula velik interes i u krugovima britanske historiografije i publicistike, korespondencija J. J. Strossmayer – L. Vojnović iz srpnja 1892. analizira se i u širem kontekstu hrvatsko-britanskih i ugarsko-britanskih rasprava i sučeljavanja s tim u vezi. S obzirom na u njoj snažno prisutne Strossmayerove rasističke objekcije o Mađarima, posebna pozornost u radu posvetila se analizi nacionalnih stereotipa i rasističkoga narativa u tadašnjem političkom i znanstvenom diskursu. Analizom više znanstvenih djela i promidžbenih publikacija, nastalih od sredine 19. pa sve do kraja prvoga desetljeća 20. stoljeća, u radu se argumentira teza da su nacionalni stereotipi, uključujući i rasistički narativ, kao element potkrepljivanja vlastitih kritičkih teza o pripadnicima drugih naroda, bili gotovo općeprisutni podjednako kod hrvatskih i mađarskih, kao i kod britanskih autora koji su se bavili tom problematikom, naravno, u različitom omjeru, pa se na tragove takva diskursa može naići čak i kod Seton-Watsona, koji ga je inače nastojao na svaki način izbjeći i načelno ga je osuđivao. Time se ujedno argumentira teza da Strossmayerove rasističke i ksenofobne formulacije o Mađarima ni u kojem slučaju nisu bile iznimka, nego tek segment tada vrlo zastupljenog rasističkog narativa, koji se iz javne i političke prenosio u znanstvenu sferu. U tom smislu ovaj rad može se shvatiti i kao kritička analiza jednoga s etičkog i znanstvenog motrišta neprimjerenoga komunikacijskog diskursa u političkim i znanstvenim raspravama u 19. i početkom 20 stoljeća, utemeljenog na kvazihistoriografskim, pseudoantropološkim i rasističkim stereotipima, koji je s današnjega gledišta, napose s obzirom na obvezu poštovanja propisanih etičkih normi u znanstvenom radu i javnom djelovanju, sasvim neprihvatljiv.
The paper analyses the correspondence between Josip Juraj Strossmayer and Lujo Vojnović (1885-1892). Five letters from this period have been included as an Appendix, with a critical apparatus. The remainder of the correspondence, covering the years 1893-1901, with a total of nine letters, will be analysed in Part II, likewise with full transcription. Special attention has been paid to those letters that refer to some crucial international aspects of Croatian politics. Strictly speaking, when it comes to the correspondence from 1885 to 1892, in addition to Vojnović’s letter to Strossmayer of June 5, 1885, which has already been a subject of scholarly analysis, this includes only two other letters: Vojnović’s from July 23, 1892, in which he asked Bishop Strossmayer to support his memorandum in French to the famous British statesman William Ewart Gladstone, in which Vojnović recommended him the Croatian-Hungarian Settlement (1868) as a template for the Home Rule Bill, which Gladstone proposed to the British Parliament in 1886 and 1893; and Strossmayer’s reply to that letter of July 25, 1892, in which, instead of supporting Vojnović’s initiative, he presented a series of critical objections about the Hungarians and their hegemonic policy towards the Croats in the Hungarian-Croatian Kingdom and generally towards non-Hungarian peoples in Transleithania, the Hungarian half of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (1867). In his reply to Vojnović, Strossmayer also presented some racist and pseudo-anthropological objections about the Hungarians, whom he considered unable to overcome feudal social organization and establish modern civil institutions. He attached another letter with the same date to this reply, asking Vojnović to seal it and send it to Gladstone together with his own letter. This second letter likewise contains a number of critical objections about the Hungarians and their hegemonic politics. Regarding the scope of Strossmayer’s influence in shaping Gladstone’s critical views on the Hungarians and their policy towards the non-ruling peoples of Transleithania, especially towards the Croats in the Hungarian-Croatian Kingdom, it should be pointed out that Gladstone, who won his fourth and last electoral mandate in 1892, not only refused to support Strossmayer in his criticism of the Hungarians, but did not even reply to his letter of July 25, 1892. The author of this paper argues that Gladstone did so mainly for pragmatic political reasons, considering that he was otherwise in very cordial and friendly relations with Strossmayer: Great Britain was at that time providing strong support to the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy as an important balancing factor in European politics, an obstacle to both Russian expansionism towards the West and German progress in the East. Therefore, if it all came down to Gladstone alone, the results of Strossmayer’s efforts to expose Hungary’s repressive policies against the non-Hungarian peoples of Transleithania in Great Britain would have been insignificant. However, they found an extremely strong resonance with another Briton, likewise very influential: it was Robert William Seton-Watson, who published a fragment of Strossmayer’s sealed letter to Gladstone as an appendix to his book
The Southern Slav Question and the Habsburg Monarchy
(1911), while in another book,
Racial Problems in Hungary
(1908), starting not only from Strossmayer’s ideas in this regard, but also from the results of his own research and insights, he informed the European public about the hegemonic policy of the Hungarian political elites towards the non-Hungarian peoples in the Kingdom of Hungary, especially the discriminatory towards the Slovaks, based on strong cultural prejudices. Taking into account that this problem of the Hungarian attitude towards the non-Hungarian peoples of Transleithania aroused great interest among British historians and journalists, the correspondence between J. J. Strossmayer and L. Vojnović from July 1892 has also been considered in the wider context of Croatian-British and Hungarian-British discussions and confrontations in this regard. As Strossmayer’s racist objections against the Hungarians played an important role therein, this paper focuses particularly on the national stereotypes and racist narratives in the polit
The paper investigates the circumstances in which an epidemic was proclaimed in the vicinity of Velehrad in Moravia, on the eve of the celebration of the thousandth anniversary of the St Methodius’s ...death on July 5, 1885, as one of the earliest examples of abusing medicine for political purposes. The events related to the prevention of the Velehrad celebration in 1885 have been analyzed on the basis of correspondence between Bishop Josip Juraj Strossmayer and Franjo Rački, as well as between Lujo and Kosto Vojnović. The analysis focuses on the measure of restricting movement, passed by a consensual decision of the governments of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and the Russian Empire, which prevented the organized travel of Slavic pilgrims from other parts of the two empires to Moravia, although the epidemic actually did not occur. The prohibition was purely political in nature, intended to prevent mass religious gatherings of Roman Catholics and Greek Catholics from the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and the Orthodox and Greek Catholics from the Russian Empire. The aim was to obstruct putting in practice the idea of church unification between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, strongly promoted by the Holy See during the pontificate of Leo XIII (1878-1903). The Austro-Hungarian government considered the idea of church unification as extremely dangerous and an instrument of pan-Slavic propaganda that encouraged the penetration of the Russian Empire into the Balkan and Mediterranean regions, threatening the existence of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. The Russian government also considered the idea of church unification to be highly dangerous, especially the affirmation of the Old Church Slavonic liturgy as the common church heritage of Catholic and Orthodox Slavs, which it perceived as an instrument of Catholic proselytism. In addition, in accordance with the position of the Russian Orthodox Church, Russia did not recognize Sts Cyril and Methodius as saints of the Catholic Church, but of the Orthodox Church alone. Affirmation of the Old Church Slavonic liturgy by the Holy See was also directly linked to its efforts to win over the Orthodox Churches in the Balkans for an ecclesiastical union, which Russia considered a potential threat to one of its most important foreign policy priorities, which was expanding its influence to the West. By accepting the ecclesiastical union with the Holy See, the Balkan Orthodox states would be far lesser subject to Russian political influence.
The paper analyses the correspondence between Josip Juraj Strossmayer and Lujo Vojnović (1885-1892). Five letters from this period have been included as an Appendix, with a critical apparatus. The ...remainder of the correspondence, covering the years 1893-1901, with a total of nine letters, will be analysed in Part II, likewise with full transcription. Special attention has been paid to those letters that refer to some crucial international aspects of Croatian politics. Strictly speaking, when it comes to the correspondence from 1885 to 1892, in addition to Vojnović’s letter to Strossmayer of June 5, 1885, which has already been a subject of scholarly analysis, this includes only two other letters: Vojnović’s from July 23, 1892, in which he asked Bishop Strossmayer to support his memorandum in French to the famous British statesman William Ewart Gladstone, in which Vojnović recommended him the Croatian-Hungarian Settlement (1868) as a template for the Home Rule Bill, which Gladstone proposed to the British Parliament in 1886 and 1893; and Strossmayer’s reply to that letter of July 25, 1892, in which, instead of supporting Vojnović’s initiative, he presented a series of critical objections about the Hungarians and their hegemonic policy towards the Croats in the Hungarian-Croatian Kingdom and generally towards non-Hungarian peoples in Transleithania, the Hungarian half of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (1867). In his reply to Vojnović, Strossmayer also presented some racist and pseudo-anthropological objections about the Hungarians, whom he considered unable to overcome feudal social organization and establish modern civil institutions. He attached another letter with the same date to this reply, asking Vojnović to seal it and send it to Gladstone together with his own letter. This second letter likewise contains a number of critical objections about the Hungarians and their hegemonic politics. Regarding the scope of Strossmayer’s influence in shaping Gladstone’s critical views on the Hungarians and their policy towards the non-ruling peoples of Transleithania, especially towards the Croats in the Hungarian-Croatian Kingdom, it should be pointed out that Gladstone, who won his fourth and last electoral mandate in 1892, not only refused to support Strossmayer in his criticism of the Hungarians, but did not even reply to his letter of July 25, 1892. The author of this paper argues that Gladstone did so mainly for pragmatic political reasons, considering that he was otherwise in very cordial and friendly relations with Strossmayer: Great Britain was at that time providing strong support to the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy as an important balancing factor in European politics, an obstacle to both Russian expansionism towards the West and German progress in the East. Therefore, if it all came down to Gladstone alone, the results of Strossmayer’s efforts to expose Hungary’s repressive policies against the non-Hungarian peoples of Transleithania in Great Britain would have been insignificant. However, they found an extremely strong resonance with another Briton, likewise very influential: it was Robert William Seton-Watson, who published a fragment of Strossmayer’s sealed letter to Gladstone as an appendix to his book The Southern Slav Question and the Habsburg Monarchy (1911), while in another book, Racial Problems in Hungary (1908), starting not only from Strossmayer’s ideas in this regard, but also from the results of his own research and insights, he informed the European public about the hegemonic policy of the Hungarian political elites towards the non-Hungarian peoples in the Kingdom of Hungary, especially the discriminatory towards the Slovaks, based on strong cultural prejudices. Taking into account that this problem of the Hungarian attitude towards the non-Hungarian peoples of Transleithania aroused great interest among British historians and journalists, the correspondence between J. J. Strossmayer and L. Vojnović from July 1892 has also been considered in the wider context of Croatian-British and Hungarian-British discussions and confrontations in this regard. As Strossmayer’s racist objections against the Hungarians played an important role therein, this paper focuses particularly on the national stereotypes and racist narratives in the political and scholarly discourse of the time. By analysing several scholarly and journalist publications from the mid-19th century until the end of the first decade of the 20th, the author argues that national stereotypes, including the racist narrative, articulated to support one’s critical hypotheses about other nations, were almost equally present in Croatian and Hungarian, as well as in British authors who dealt with this issue at the time, although, of course, in different proportions. Thus, traces of such discourse can be found even in Seton-Watson, who tried to avoid it in every way and condemned it on principle. This, again, means that Strossmayer’s racist and xenophobic formulations about the Hungarians were in no way an exception, but rather a segment of the racist narrative that was prevalent at the time, spilling over from the public and political into the scholarly domain. In this sense, this paper can be understood as a critical analysis of a communication discourse present in the 19th and early 20th centuries that was inappropriate from an ethical and scholarly points of view, based as it was on quasi-historiographical, pseudo-anthropological, and racist stereotypes, which today would be completely inacceptable, especially in view of the obligation to respect the prescribed ethical norms in scholarly work and public activity.
U radu su istražene okolnosti proglašenja epidemije u okolici Velehrada u Moravskoj uoči proslave tisućite obljetnice smrti sv. Metoda u Velehradu 5. srpnja 1885. kao ranoga primjera zloporabe ...medicine u političke svrhe. Kao osnova za istraživanje poslužila je mjera ograničenja kretanja, donijeta sporazumnom odlukom vlada Austro-Ugarske Monarhije i Ruskoga Carstva, kojom je onemogućen organizirani odlazak hodočasnika iz drugih dijelova Austro-Ugarske Monarhije i Ruskoga Carstva u Velehrad, premda se spomenuta epidemija realno uopće nije dogodila. Svrha zloporabe javnozdravstvenih mjera i zabrane kretanja bila je isključivo političke naravi, onemogućiti masovno slavensko vjersko okupljanje, rimokatolika i grkokatolika/unijata iz Austro-Ugarske Monarhije te grkokatolika i pravoslavaca iz Ruskoga Carstva. Velehradsku proslavu austrougarske vlasti shvaćale su isključivo kao opasno sredstvo panslavenske propagande i s njom povezane ugroze slavenskih zemalja Austro-Ugarske Monarhije od strane Ruskoga Carstva, napose u kontekstu afirmacije uporabe starocrkvenoslavenske liturgije kod katoličkih Slavena, a ruske vlasti kao sredstvo katoličkoga prozelitizma i „unijaćenja” te prijetnju za svoje vanjskopolitičke ambicije širenja utjecaja Ruskoga Carstva prema Zapadu, napose na Balkan, te za njegov prodor na topla mora. U prilog tezi da se pri proglašenju epidemije u okolici Velehrada 1885. radilo o jednom od ranih primjera zloporabe medicine u političke svrhe ističe se da te godine službene javnozdravstvene institucije nisu registrirale nikakvu epidemiju u Moravskoj unatoč vrlo dinamičnom razvoju mikrobiologije u tom razdoblju te sustavnom praćenju pojava različitih infektivnih bolesti i redovitom objavljivanju podataka o njima u medicinskim publikacijama, što je sasvim isključivalo mogućnost da bilo koja epidemija s iole znatnijim smrtnim ishodom, da se zaista dogodila, ne bi bila medicinski registrirana. Događaji u vezi sa sprječavanjem Velehradske proslave 1885. u radu se napose analiziraju na temelju korespondencije biskupa Josipa Jurja Strossmayera s Lujom i Kostom Vojnovićem s jedne te Franjom Račkim s druge strane. Na osnovi analize tadašnjih bečkih tiskovina Neue Freie Presse i Wiener Allgemeine Zeitung može se uočiti da su se od sredine lipnja u njima počele javljati vijesti o pojavi različitih infektivnih bolesti (šarlah, trbušni tifus, difterija, vodene kozice, ospice i dr.) u okolici Velehrada, koje se, bez bilo kakvih vjerodostojnih dokaza o stvarnoj pojavi tih bolesti, dovodilo u vezu s hodočasnicima koji su još od travnja 1885., u povodu tisućite godišnjice Metodove smrti 6. travnja, počeli pristizati u Moravsku. Cilj je bio, kako je napomenuto, omesti organizirani dolazak hodočasnika izvan Moravske, iz drugih dijelova Austro-Ugarske Monarhije i Ruskoga Carstva na glavnu proslavu u Velehradu 5. srpnja 1885., u čemu je postignut potpun uspjeh. Zloporabu političkih vlasti lažnim proglašenjem epidemije razotkrilo je Moravsko zdravstveno vijeće, koje je u svojem očitovanju od 3. srpnja 1885. ustvrdilo da nisu utvrđeni medicinski razlozi koji bi nalagali uvođenje epidemioloških mjera koje su po nalogu političkih vlasti aktualno provođene. Pritom treba upozoriti na to da je po učestalosti i intenzitetu te pojavljivanju i proširenosti epidemija/pandemija u Europi, ali i znatno šire, na globalnoj razini, u 19. stoljeću posebna prijetnja bila kolera, čiji se peti pandemijski val odvijao upravo u vrijeme Velehradske proslave 1885. Trajao je od 1881. do 1896. i s tim u vezi austrougarske su vlasti vrlo odgovorno provodile mjere epidemiološke zaštite da se epidemija, koja je napose zahvatila Španjolsku, ne bi proširila na njezin prostor. Zloporaba medicine od političkih autoriteta proglašenjem lažne epidemije, odnosno više različitih opasnih infektivnih bolesti u okolici Velehrada 1885., uzima se, s obzirom na to da se zasigurno radi o jednom od ranih primjera takve zloporabe uopće, kao osnova za utvrđivanje načelne legitimnosti propitivanja javnozdravstvenih odluka i mjera koje donose medicinski, a napose politički autoriteti u svim javnozdravstvenim prijetnjama u kojima se ozbiljnije ograničavaju zakonska i ustavna prava građana, uključujući i one u vezi s aktualnom pandemijom bolesti Covid-19, tijekom koje su građanima na svjetskoj razini ukinuta ili znatno sužena neka od temeljnih ustavnih prava, među kojima osobito pravo na slobodno kretanje, što je inače bila osnovna restriktivna mjera i tijekom proglašenja epidemije u okolici Velehrada u Moravskoj 1885. godine.
The paper investigates the circumstances in which an epidemic was proclaimed in the vicinity of Velehrad in Moravia, on the eve of the celebration of the thousandth anniversary of the St Methodius’s death on July 5, 1885, as one of the earliest examples of abusing medicine for political purposes. The events related to the prevention of the Velehrad celebration in 1885 have been analyzed on the basis of correspondence between Bishop Josip Juraj Strossmayer and Franjo Rački, as well as between Lujo and Kosto Vojnović. The analysis focuses on the measure of restricting movement, passed by a consensual decision of the governments of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and the Russian Empire, which prevented the organized travel of Slavic pilgrims from other parts of the two empires to Moravia, although the epidemic actually did not occur. The prohibition was purely political in nature, intended to prevent mass religious gatherings of Roman Catholics and Greek Catholics from the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and the Orthodox and Greek Catholics from the Russian Empire. The aim was to obstruct putting in practice the idea of church unification between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, strongly promoted by the Holy See during the pontificate of Leo XIII (1878-1903). The Austro-Hungarian government considered the idea of church unification as extremely dangerous and an instrument of pan-Slavic propaganda that encouraged the penetration of the Russian Empire into the Balkan and Mediterranean regions, threatening the existence of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. The Russian government also considered the idea of church unification to be highly dangerous, especially the affirmation of the Old Church Slavonic liturgy as the common church heritage of Catholic and Orthodox Slavs, which it perceived as an instrument of Catholic proselytism. In addition, in accordance with the position of the Russian Orthodox Church, Russia did not recognize Sts Cyril and Methodius as saints of the Catholic Church, but of the Orthodox Church alone. Affirmation of the Old Church Slavonic liturgy by the Holy See was also directly linked to its efforts to win over the Orthodox Churches in the Balkans for an ecclesiastical union, which Russia considered a potential threat to one of its most important foreign policy priorities, which was expanding its influence to the West. By accepting the ecclesiastical union with the Holy See, the Balkan Orthodox states would be far lesser subject to Russian political influence. Therefore, Russia accepted without hesitation the proposal of the Austro-Hungarian Empire to introduce the measure of prohibiting movement, including closing the border with the Russian Empire, in order to prevent the pilgrimage to Velehrad. As a support for the hypothesis that the proclamation of the epidemic in the vicinity of Velehrad in 1885 was one of the earliest examples of abusing medicine for political purposes, it is pointed out that no infectious disease was medically registered in Moravia that year by the state institutions of public health. Given the coincidence of the proclamation of the Velehrad epidemic with the fifth cholera pandemic wave in the 19th century (1881-1896), the author draws attention to the discrepancy between the very objective reporting of the Viennese press – the Neue Freie Presse and the Wiener Allgemeine Zeitung – on the Austro-Hungarian anti-epidemic measures in order to prevent the disease from spreading to the territory of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and the very biased and tendentious reporting of the same newspaper on the alleged outbreak in Moravia from mid-June 1885, on the eve of the great Velehrad celebration on July 5, 1885. This is directly related to the fact that the news about the appearance of several infectious diseases in Velehrad and its surroundings were false, and the mentioned press published them under the influence of the Austrian government, which used them for its political agenda. As crucial evidence, which supports the conclusions in this paper about the abuse of medicine for political purposes by the Austro-Hungarian authorities in connection with the Velehrad celebration of 1885, historian Jitka Jonová has mentioned in her paper that the Moravian Health Council, in its statement of July 3, 1885, stated that there was no need to prohibit the pilgrimage to Velehrad for health or epidemiological reasons. Abuse of medicine by the Austro-Hungarian government in declaring a false epidemic in the vicinity of Velehrad in 1885, as probably one of the earliest examples of such abuse, has been taken as a basis for questioning the justification of all restrictive measures and decisions of public-health and political authorities in cases of serious threats to public health, in cases when they significantly violate the legal and constitutional rights of citizens, especially taking into account some drastic forms of abusing public health measures in the 20th century. The importance of critical attitude adopted by the public towards all important decisions and measures of political and medical authorities has also been emphasized in view of the current Covid-19 pandemic, during which some of the fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to free movement, have been revoked or significantly restricted, similarly to the proclamation of the epidemic in Moravia in 1885. The author indicates that he by no means intends to ques
Korespondencija Šimun Milinović Grijak, Zoran
Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti,
2018
Journal Article
This paper analyses the value of Izidor Kršnjavi’s manuscripts on bishop Josip Juraj Strossmayer as a historical source. The author proposes that the mentioned manuscripts require a very thorough and ...critical approach in exploration, since they often reflect Kršnjavi’s subjective views. Moreover, a part of the manuscripts was written several years after Strossmayer died, i.e. several decades after the conversations between Kršnjavi and Strossmayer took place, based on his memories of questionable reliability. Having performed the critical elaboration, the author nevertheless rates Kršnjavi’s manuscripts on bishop Strossmayer a valuable historical source, since they shed light upon extremely important and less known moments of his private life as well as his public ecclesiastical and political work within a wider framework of Croatia and Slavonia as constitutional parts of the Habsburg Monarchy (Austria-Hungary) and even wider European framework from the middle of the 19th to the beginning of the 20th century. To the scholars studying Strossmayer’s work, the manuscripts provide valuable information on his attitude towards the options related to regulation of state and juridical affairs in the Monarchy on the eve of and after its dualistic reorganisation in 1867/1868. They confirm the already known theses about Strossmayer as a fierce opponent of the Hungarians and the dualistic system, but also provide us with the important data on his concepts of federation-based reorganisation of the Monarchy stemming from the idea of Austroslavism and South-Slavism, with Croatia as the core of Southern Slavs’ unification. The author pays special attention to Strossmayer’s views of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the time of the Great Eastern Crisis (1875-1878), because it is his main area of expertise. In the end, the author concludes that I. Kršnjavi’s manuscripts portrait bishop Strossmayer as a prominent member of Croatian and European intellectual and cultural elite, who remained a lone figure in Croatian history considering his influence on some of the key moments of European history during the second half of the 19th century, especially the events related to the Great Eastern Crisis (1875-1878) and shaping of the Catholic Church at the time of and after the First Vatican Council (1869/1870) because of a strictly limited influence of Croatian politics on the shaping of the external affairs of the Monarchy – a bishop of the Renaissance profile, as Kršnjavi rightfully noticed and maintained.
In this paper the circumstances of the collaboration between Bishop Josip Juraj
Strossmayer and the eminent Croatian historian Tadija Smičiklas are analysed, based
on their correspondence (Smičiklas’ ...letters addressed to Strossmayer), held in the
Archive of the Croatian Academy of Science and Arts in Zagreb, covering the period
from 1884 to 1904. Based on the content of this correspondence, regarding key
issues of Croatian political and cultural history in the quoted period within a broader
framework of evens in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and Europe, its extraordinary
value as a historical source is verifi ed. This correspondence shows that Bishop Strossmayer
and Tadija Smičiklas were not only friends but also close associates during
the great job of creating and subsequently maintaining Croatian cultural life as well
as the vital academic and cultural institutions of the second half of the 19th century.
The Zagreb canon and eminent historian Franjo Rački, the bishop’s right-hand man
in these efforts, died in 1894 and Smičiklas found himself in an unenviable position
by partly taking over his role as mediator between the bishop and the institutions he
was sponsor of, particularly the Yugoslav (today: Croatian) Academy of Sciences and
Arts (further: JAZU). However, never playing a role in political life as important as
Rački’s, Smičiklas dedicated himself to what he was best at – to writing, teaching and
organizing activities in cultural and other institutions, which were in constant disfavour
in Ban Khuen Héderváry’s regime. Smičiklas, working and mediating between
them and the bishop, requiring fi nancial support from the bishop for JAZU and Matica
hrvatska, forwarded him petitions from the common people and students and particularly
stood up for them as professor at the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of
Zagreb. Living in the capital of Croatia and operating in cultural as well as political
upper-class circles, Smičiklas was always well informed of current events, concerning
which he would write to Bishop Strossmayer. A signifi cant topic of their correspondence
was the nomination of the new archbishop in Zagreb during the sede vacante
of the Zagreb archbishopric (1891-1894). Bishop Strossmayer’s and Smičiklas’ engagement
was specially accentuated in their endeavours to reorganise the Institute of
St. Jerome in Rome and their engagement during the so-called St. Jerome scandal in
1901/1902. This was caused by the demands of Montenegro, supported by French and
Russian diplomacy, that the Serbian in addition to the Croatian version of the saint’s
name should be included in the title of the institution. Eventually, in 1902, the Croatian
name, given one year before, was cancelled and the Institute was given back its
old Illyrian name. The Smičiklas-Strossmayer correspondence refers also to variousother significant moments of Croatian policy and cultural history during the period 1884-1904.
The author endeavours to provide response to the question as to whether and to what extent Gladstone's and Strossmayer's views were relevant when it comes to the formulation of the specific political ...descisions of the governments of their states. This correspondence contains many vital, and in the case of Gladstone's letters hitherto entirely unknown facts which provide comprehensive insight into the views of on one of the momentus periods in recent European history.
U radu se analiziraju nacionalno-politički aspekti zahtjeva za uvođenjem starocrkvenoslavenske (glagoljaške) liturgije u bogoslužje Katoličke crkve u hrvatskim zemljama od početka šezdesetih
godina ...19. pa sve do sredine prvog desetljeća 20. stoljeća. Bez obzira na činjenicu da je riječ o državnopravno različito definiranim cjelinama i da su se crkveno-povijesne osnove tih zahtjeva za svako od istraživanih područja također razlikovale, oni se, s obzirom na to da su se odnosili na sveukupan prostor hrvatskih nacionalno-političkih aspiracija, istražuju napose u kontekstu hrvatskoga nacionalno integracijskog procesa u drugoj polovici 19. i početkom 20. stoljeća, kao njegova bitna sastavnica.
PDF
