Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T06:06:13.197Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Svetozar Marković in Russia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Gale Stokes
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the establishment of socialist governments in Eastern Europe following World War II , Svetozar Marković has become the most celebrated figure of nineteenth-century Yugoslav history. Not only was Marković the first important socialist in the Balkans, but he received his education in Russian populism at its source in St. Petersburg, participated in the activities of the Russian Section of the First International in Switzerland, organized the first consumers' and workers' collectives in the Balkans, and edited Serbia's first socialist newspaper. An incisive critic of the Serbian bureaucracy, Marković hoped to avoid the pitfalls of modernization in Serbia by establishing a democratic system of local administration based on the traditional peasant commune. Even though he was not successful, his vigorous analyses of social problems, his faith in science, and his uncompromising idealism exerted a strong influence on his contemporaries, turning the politically inclined among them from liberalism to radicalism and the artistically inclined from romanticism to realism. Little wonder, therefore, that since World War II this unusual and brilliant man has become a cultural hero in Yugoslavia.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , September 1972 , pp. 611 - 625
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The basic studies on Marković include Jovan Skerlić, Svetozar Marković : Njegov život, rad i ideje (Belgrade, 1910), republished as part of Sabrana dela Jovana Skerlića (Belgrade, 1966); Slobodan Jovanović, “Svetozar Marković,” Političke i pravne rasprave, vol. 2 of his Sabrana dela (Belgrade, 1932), pp. 59-298; McClellan, Woodford D., Svetozar Marković and the Origins of Balkan Socialism (Princeton, 1964)Google Scholar; and Vuleticć, Vitomir, Svetozar Marković i ruski revolucionarni demokrati (Novi Sad, 1964)Google Scholar. The standard Russian interpretation is summarized by Viktor, Karasev, “Serbskii revoliutsionnyi demokrat Svetozar Markovich,” Uchenye apiski Instituta slavianovedeniia, 7 (1953) : 348–77Google Scholar. For a broader account incorporating much recent Russian scholarship see Viktor Karasev and Konobeev, V. D., “O sviaziakh russkikh, serbskikh i bolgarskikh revoliutsionerov v 60-70-kh godakh XIX veka,” Actes du premier congrès international des ètudes sud-est europèennes, 4 (1969) : 201–13Google Scholar. See also the excellent interpretive essay by Vaso Č Čubrilović in his Istorija političke misli u Srbiji XIX veka (Belgrade, 1958), pp. 271-320, and the recent, clear presentation of Andrija Radenić Svetozar Marković i ujedinjena omladina srpska,” in Ujedinjena omladina srpska : Zbornik radova (Novi Sad, 1968), pp. 105-32, hereafter abbreviated UOS. The most accessible collection of Marković's writings is Sabrani spisi, vol. 1 (Belgrade, 1960), edited by Najdan Pasić vols. 2-4 (Belgrade, 1965), edited by Radovan Blagojević.

2. Skerlić, Svetozar Marković, p. 31. Uncritically repeated by Viktorov-Toporov, Vladimir, “Svetozar Markovich,” Golos mimwshago, 1913, no. 3, p. 36.Google Scholar

3. Sabrani spisi, l : xx.

4. Vuletić, Vitomir, “Svetozar Markovic i Prva internacionala,” Prilozi za istoriju socijalizma, 2 (1965) : 161.Google Scholar

5. Ibid.

6. For an excellent discussion of the efforts of Soviet historians to canonize chernyshevsky see Norman Pereira's dissertation, “N. G. Chernyshevsky : An Intellectual Biography” (Berkeley, 1970; University Microfilms, order no. 71-15, 861), pp. 253-80. Pereira calls the technique of honoring Chernyshevsky by linking his name with revolutionary activists “honor by association” (p. 268).

7. The American authority on Marković, Woodford McClellan, has called attention to this phenomenon by criticizing his own book for its tendency to “exaggerate the significance of Russian influence” on Balkan socialism. See his “Serbia and Social Democracy, 1870-1878,” International Review of Social History, 11 (1966) : 48. Despite this, and despite the criticisms made in this article, McClellan's book is a well-balanced monograph which stands alongside Skerlić as the best work on the subject.

8. Koz'min, B. P., Revoliutsionnoe podpol'e v epokhu “Belogo Terrora” (Moscow, 1929), pp. 136-37, 142Google Scholar, and passim; McClellan, Svetozar Marković, p. 56; Venturi, Franco, Roots of Revolution (New York, 1966, paper), p. 351.Google Scholar

9. Vuletić, Vitomir, “Jedna ruska veza Ujedinjene omladine srpske,” Godišnjak Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu, 6 (1962-63) : 143–55.Google Scholar

10. The basic document is Max Nettlau's obituary of Varlaam Cherkezov, Plus loin, 1925, no. 8, p. 3, available from the Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis, Amsterdam. The dates Bochkarev was in St. Petersburg and could have made the introduction are given in Koz'min, Revoliutsionnoe podpol'e, pp. 37-39. Only late 1867 or early 1868 is consistent with all the evidence. See Karasev, “Serbskii demokrat,” p. 354.

11. For a short discussion of the term “revolutionary democrat,” which Soviet authors apply to nineteenth-century figures who, though lacking knowledge of Marx, expressed views partly acceptable to Marxists, see Pereira, “Chernyshevsky,” pp. 253-56.

12. McClellan, Svetozar Markovit, p. 35.

13. Ibid., p. 40. For Marković's enthusiastic letter to Jovanović in 1865 see Sabrani spisi, 1 : 3-4.

14. On August 17/29, 1866, Marković and his schoolmate, Aleksa Knežević, wrote the Serbian Ministry of Education that they were enrolled in first-year courses and would be permitted to take the third-year examinations at the end of the school year, since the first two years of the Institute curriculum repeated the three years of training they had already completed in Belgrade. However, they believed that this would be “impossible because we do not know the language” (Arhiv Srbije, Ministarstvo prosvete, 1874, box VI, inventory no. 828, abbreviated below AS : MP-1874-VI-828). In October Marković wrote his brother Jevrem that he could understand Russian but not speak it well (Sabrani spisi, 1 : 5). Cf. Karasev, “Serbskii demokrat,” p. 353, where Karasev reports that Markovi studied Russian in Belgrade “intensely.“

15. Zastava, Sept. 3/15, 1867, original in italics. The report from Srpska opština to the second annual congress of the United Serbian Youth (Omladina) appeared in the following issues of Zastava for 1867 : September 3/15, September 7/19, October 8/20, November 5/17, and November 9/21. Although the society did not adopt its constitution until January 1867, this report conclusively demonstrates that Srpska opština was organized by Serbs living in Russia before Marković arrived in St. Petersburg. Only half the membership consisted of students; the remainder were tradesmen and others. Most authors have followed Skerlić's account, based on a report in the newspaper Srbija, which magnifies Marković's role by stating that Srpska opśtina was organized in the course of 1867 and by calling him a “founder” (Skerlić, Svetozar Marković, p. 32). Cf. B. P. Koz'min, “Po stranitsam knig i zhurnalov, “- Katorga i ssylka, 1933, no. 4-5, p. 153; Vuletić, Marković i ruski demokrati, p. 37; McClellan, Svetozar Marković, p. 51; and Karasev, “Serbskii demokrat,” p. 355.

16. Kropotkin, Peter, Memoirs of a Revolutionist (Boston, 1899), pp. 249, 250.Google Scholar

17. The word “mystery” is McClellan's ﹛Svetozar Marković, p. 55).

18. Sabrani spisi, 1 : 7, 19-20.

19. Pushkarevicli, K. A., “Svetozar Markovich v Peterburge,” Trudy Instituta slavianovedeniia, 1 (1932) : 348.Google Scholar

20. Grujić to Jovanović, May 18/30, 1867 (Arhiv Srbije, Pokloni i otkupi, box 73, inventory no. 293 [AS : PO-73-293]). I would like to thank Mr. Radivoj Lukic of Zrenjanin for transcribing the two almost illegible letters from Grujić to Jovanovic in this file and in AS : PO-73-292.

21. Karasev, “Serbskii demokrat,” p. 354. McClellan is cautious (Svetozar Markovic, pp. 54-55), but Vuletic adopts the idea unreservedly : “It is certain … that he did not go to Serbia that summer” (Vitomir Vuletic, “Svetozar Markovic u Rusiji i Svajcarskoj, “ Zbornik Matice srpske za drustvene nauke, 38 [1964] : 36). Karasev actually presents his hypothesis as an improvement over an early suggestion that had Markovic going to the Crimea (e.g., Bozidar Kovacevic, “2ivot Svetozara Markovica,” Knjizevnost, 1, no. 9 [September-December 1946] : 116).

22. Milicevic, Milan D., Dodatak Pomeniku od 1888 (Belgrade, 1901), p. 86.Google Scholar

23. Milicevic, Milan D., Etnografska izlozba i slovenski sastanak u Moskvi 1867 (Belgrade, 1884), p. 71 Google Scholar. The possibility that Markovic may have gone to or returned from Serbia via Odessa is made highly unlikely by the fact that the railroad to that city was not yet finished in 1867. In 1866 Markovic had followed the usual route to St. Petersburg from Belgrade, which went up the Danube by steamer to Vienna, then by train to Warsaw, Vilna, and St. Petersburg (Rektor no. 214, July 1/13, 1866, AS : MP-1874-VI-828; Sabrani spisi, 1 : 4; Milicevic, Etnografska izlozba, pp. 6-15).

24. Karasev also cites Kusheva, E. N., “Iz russko-serbskikh revoliutsionnykh sviazei 1870-kh godov,” Uchenye sapiski Instituta slavianovedeniia, 1 (1949) : 343–58Google Scholar, but these links with Odessa are all from the 1870s.

25. Skerlic, Jovan, Omladina i njena knjizevnost (Belgrade, 1906)Google Scholar, republished as part of Sabrana dela Jovana Skerlica (Belgrade, 1966), p. 112. McClellan also cites Kusheva (Svetozar Markovic, p. 55), but Kusheva does not mention the society.

26. Srbija, Feb. 20/Mar. 4, 1869.

27. M. A. Hitrovo to N. P. Ignatiev, Jan. 4, 1869 (O.S.?), cited by Nikitin, S. A., Slavianskic komitety v Rossii v 1858-1876 godakh (Moscow, 1960), p. 53.Google Scholar

28. Petrovich, Michael B., The Emergence of Russian Panslavism, 1856-1870 (New York, 1956), pp. 144-45.Google Scholar

29. Zastava, Nov. 9/21, 1867; Sava Grujic to Vladimir Jovanovic, May 14/26, 1867 (AS : PO-73-292); Sabrani spisi, 1 : 5, 19-20; and Viktor Karasev, “Iz istorije ruskosrpskih revolucionarnih veza u prvoj polovini sedamdesetih godina XIX veka,” Istorijski glasnik, 1962, p. 91. In his letter to Jovanovic of May 18/30, 1867 (AS : PO-73-293), Grujid said, “Yesterday a letter arrived from Cetinje from the Archimandrite [Nicifor Ducic] in which he describes the political situation there in dark colors. The Montenegrin court is divided into two parties : a ‘party for unity, ’ which came up with this agreement (which you will receive [from the hands of Markovic]) and [which is] headed by the old prince (Tucovic and [unclear word] are part of it); and a separatist party which does not want Montenegrin independence to be subordinated to Serbian… .” Cf. Vaso Vojvodic's interpretation, “Ujedinjena omladina srpska i pripremanje ustanka na Balkanu 1871-1872. godine,” UOS, p. 308.

30. Sabrani spisi, 1 : 7-8, 24, original italics (the last from “Srpskoj omladini,” April 1868). Markovic's remarks to his brother are prefaced by the words, “Our proposal (from Opstina) [Markovic's emphasis] is that there be formed in Serbia … etc.” He went on to say, “Along with that it is understood that at the same time Montenegro would begin hostilities.” These are the plans Markovic discussed with his brother in the summer of 1867.

31. When Ivan Bochkarev met Alexander Herzen in Geneva in 1867, for example, Herzen told him to stop bothering about the South Slavs, because they were undeveloped and because Europe would not tolerate any subversive movements among them anyway (Koz'min, Revoliutsionnoe podpol'e, p. 98). Cf. Sergej A. Nikitin, “Srpski politički život 60-tih godina XIX veka u ruskoj štampi (periodika),” UOS, p. 368.

32. The basic work on Michael's foreign policy is now Grgur Jakšić and Vučković, Vojislav, Spoljna politika Srbije za vlade kneza Mihaila : Prvi balkanski savez (Belgrade, 1963)Google Scholar. See also Slobodan Jovanović, Druga vlada Milosa i Mihaila (Belgrade, 1923)Google Scholar; Vučković, Vojislav, ed., Politička akcija Srbije u Južnoslovenskim pokrajinama Habsburške monarhije, 1859-1874 (Belgrade, 1965)Google Scholar; and Nikola Petrović, ed., Svetozar Miletić i narodna stranka : Grada, 1860-1885, vol. 1 (Sremski Karlovci, 1968). One of the most stubborn questions of Yugoslav historiography is how ready Michael was for military action in 1867 and 1868. For a bibliography of the basic polemical literature see Jakšić and Vučković, Spoljna politika, pp. 7-8. Today the debate centers on whether the government's policy of diplomatic activity from 1867 through 1872 was more functional than the opposition's program of revolt in Bosnia. See Nikola Petrović, “Istorijsko mesto, uloga i značaj ujedinjene omladine srpske,” UOS, pp. 22-23, and the articles cited there. See also the article by Vaso Vojvodić and the remarks by Čedomir Popov in the same volume.

33. Zastava, Mar. 18/30, 1867. See also the article “I opet Beograd ili Srpstvo?” Zastava, Apr. 13/25 and 15/27, 1867.

34. Zastava, Nov. 16/28, 1867.

35. Lukashevich, Stephen, Ivan Aksakov, 1823-1886 (Cambridge, Mass., 196S), pp. 128-29Google Scholar, and Nikitin, “Srpski politički život,” pp. 364-66.

36. McClellan, Svetozar Marković, p. 59. Note that the statement McClellan cites in note 86, in which Marković says, “I want liberation through popular revolt—through revolution,” was made in December 1870, two years after the period under discussion.

37. McClellan, Svctozar Marković, p. 43.

38. In his article “Velika Srbija,” written late in 1868, Marković took his golden rule of social and economic progress directly from Jovanović's famous pamphlet of 1864, Srbenda i gotovan, quoting Jovanović's basic phrase, “Good for all in everything” (Sabrani spisi, 1 : 100). One year later Marković said, “The writer of Srbenda i gotovan correctly sketched the relations of production and consumption in Serbia” (1 : 163).

39. Sabrani spisi, 1 : 27-29.

40. “Šta treba da radimo?” Sabrani spisi, 1 : 58-69. It has been suggested that this title was inspired by Chernyshevsky's novel, What Is To Be Done? This may be so, but an exact translation of Chernyshevsky's title is “Šta da se radi?,” and other articles with similar titles appeared in Serbian newspapers both before and after Marković's article (e.g., “Šta da radimo?” Zastava, Nov. 5/17, 1867).

41. McClellan, Svetozar Marković, pp. 60-61. For a sophisticated new analysis of the sources of Marković's thought, not just during this period but in general, see Andrija B. Stojković, “Moralističko-etički pogledi ujedinjene omladine srpske,” UOS, pp. 51-76, and the same author's “Pogled na razvoj filozofije marksizma u jugoslovenskim zemljama,” Zbornik za društvene nauke, 53 (1969) : esp. 6-11.

42. Sabrani spisi, 1 : 68, original entirely in italics.

43. See his “Velika Srbija,” Sabrani spisi, 1 : 97-115.

44. Pereira, “Chernyshevsky,” pp. 130-52.

45. Markovi ć grumbled about the liberals’ tendency to talk more than act in February 1868 (Sabrani spisi, 1 : 7). Late in 1868 he refused an offer to become editor of a new liberal paper in Belgrade (1 : 120, 125, 129), and when he reached Zurich he wrote a friend as follows : “You say that our liberals are falling… . Well, let them fall, and a happy journey to them” (1 : 135-36). At this point Marković still believed that Vladimir Jovanović was “a more learned, honorable, and sincere liberal than any of them” (1 : 119).

46. Sabrani spisi, 1 : 80, 83.

47. Vuletić, Marković i ruski demokrati, p. 41.

48. Viktor Karasev, “Dva novykh avtografa Svetozara Markovicha,” Slaviane, 1956, no. 9, not consulted (Vuletć, Marković i ruski demokrati, p. 39).

49. Sabrani spisi, 1 : 83.

50. AS : MP-1874-VI-828. Cf. Sabrani spisi, 1 : 84.

51. Pushkarevich, “Markovich v Peterburge,” p. 349.

52. For Knežević the dates (O.S.) were Jan. 31, 1868, Feb. 19, unknown, and Mar. 24 For Marković they were Jan. 10, 1869, Feb. 26, ca. Mar. 14, ca. Mar. 26 (AS-MP- 1874-VI-828, AS : MP-1870-V-1122, McClellan, Svetozar Marković, p. 76).

53. Sabrani spisi, 1 : 130.

54. McClellan, Svetozar Marković, p. 75.

55. Vuletić, “Marković u Rusiji,” p. 39.

56. A draft copy of the decision, dated Feb. 26, 1869 (O.S.), is in Marković's file, AS : MP-1874-VI-838. I would like to thank Mr. Radivoj Lukic of Zrenjanin for rechecking this document for me. The Ministry sent Marković 1421 groš poreski, of which 900 were for travel expenses. Since the groš was a fictitious unit, the order also listed the actual money sent : nine imperials, twenty Louis d'or of ten francs each, ten twenty-kopek pieces, and one fifteen-kopek piece. At the rate of 40 centimes per groš poreski the total sum sent was 568 francs 40 centimes (rate from the table in the back of Vladimir Jovanović's translation of Wilhelm Roscher, Sistema narodne privrede, Belgrade, 1863). At the standard rates for European money listed in the Almanack de Gotha the money sent equals 568 francs 60 centimes.

57. Vuletić is the most extreme example of this interpretation (“Marković i Prva internacionala,” p. 161), but the idea originated with Skerlić, Svetozar Marković, pp. 35-36