Re/Defining the Imaginary Museum of National Music

The Case of

Tatjana Markovic´

Studying history is always dialogue, and to study the history of a small nation involves not only a dialogue between the historian and his sources but also between the historian and ‘canonic’ convictions. The only method of extending the boundaries of national history is to make this dialogue more uncompromising and inquiring – instead of breaking it up.1

The concept of the hybrid Serbian national identity was a model for constructing the canon of national music historiography since the late 19th century. The main criterion used by the Serbian historians for the inclusion of and musicians into the music/ological “national museum” was their ethnic origin, Orthodox religion, and fluency in the , as opposite to the twentieth-century Croatian and Slovenian models where all musicians living and working on the territory of the country – regardless of their origin – were considered “national” composers. Therefore, many foreign – especially Czech or Hungarian composers in Serbia proper who fluently spoke the Serbian language – were never fully accepted as “national” composers in historical surveys. The canon was established by (1856-1914) and then confirmed by Petar Konjović (1883-1970) and his contemporaries. Later on it was profoundly developed and confirmed by Stana Đurić-Klajn (1908-1986) and Roksanda Pejović (b. 1929). Pejović’s stud- ies are methodologically formulated mainly as positivistic presentations of the important historical facts frequently examined for the first time, while Đurić-Klajn’s writings were based on her interdisciplinary research, extensive archival work, and cultural contextu- alization.

1. Contextualization: Constructing national identity The main signifier of Serbian hybrid national identity/-ies in the 19th century was the division of its space between the Habsburg Monarchy and the . Deep political, social as well as religious and cultural differences between the two Empires greatly impacted the profile of Serbian culture and the consequence of this duality re- mained characteristic until nowadays. Its main characteristic was the contrast between

1 Matti Huttunen, “The ‘canon’ of music history and the music of a small nation”, in: Urve Lippus (ed.), Music history writing and national culture, Tallinn 1995, p. 28.

Musicologica Austriaca 28 (2009) 34 Tatjana Markovic´

the peasant, rural culture of the “guardians of the national roots”2 in the former Ottoman province, and the bourgeois culture of the Serbian citizens living in the Habsburg Monar- chy. The concept of national identity was a model for defining the imaginary museum of national music, which was firstly suggested by Stevan Mokranjac (1856-1914), later estab- lished by Petar Konjović (1883-1970) and his contemporaries, and profoundly developed and confirmed by Stana Đurić-Klajn (1908-1986) and Roksanda Pejović (b. 1929), the two main Serbian music historiographers in the 20th century. For that reason, the imaginary museum of Serbian music will be examined in the first place through the writings by Đurić- Klajn, the author of the first Serbian history of music, as well as those of Pejović. Constructing Serbian national (music) identity was in the 19th century a process of developing strategies to unify the dispersed Serbian people. In that process early cultural and music institutions established mainly in and Pest,3 attempting to preserve Orthodox religion,4 played a significant role, fostering vernacular language,5 and creating “authentic” national music instead of adopting the inappropriate music of “foreign” character.

2.The canon of Serbian music historiography and non-Serbian musicians In the canon of Serbian music historiography the term “Serbian music” covers works composed within Serbia, by both Serbian and foreign (mainly Czech) musicians who used the Serbian language, as well as music composed outside of the country by ethnically Serbian musicians. In that way, the main criterion for being included into the “national

2 Cf. Keely Stauter-Halsted, The nation in the village. The genesis of peasant national identity in Austrian Poland 1848-1914, Ithaca- 2004. 3 Due to the continuous uprisings and liberation wars against the Ottoman administration, urban cultural life was established in Serbia from outside of the country by the Serbian intellectuals in the diaspora. Therefore, the main centre of the Serbian culture was Vienna, where the first institutions and media were founded. Cf. Tatjana Marković, “Strategies of networking Viennese culture”, in: Tatjana Marković, Vesna Mikić (eds.), Music networking, 2005, pp. 48-58. 4 In 1825 the reached the status of a state institution, and the constitutions from 1869, 1888 and 1901 confirmed that the state religion in Serbia is “Eastern-Orthodox”. The process included firstly Pan-Slavism and later Serbian nationalism. In this process, the very understanding of Serbianess was redefined. From an article about folk and church rites of from Herzegovina (“Srbi Hercegovcy muhamedanskog i pravoslavno-istočnog veroispovjedanija” [Serbs from Herzegovina of the Muslim and Orthodox-East religions]) published in the Serbian folk calendar Vojvođanin for 1854, it is obvious, for in- stance, that Serbs were included among national citizens who adopted Islam, but later that was abandoned in favour of the belief that only Serbs of Orthodox religion could be regarded as “true Serbs”. 5 The Old Slavic language was adapted to several branches, resulting with national redactions (Czech, Bulgarian, Russian, Serbian, Croatian) which were gradually detached from the vernacular national languages. The Serbian language was standardized by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić in his Srpski rječnik (Serbian Dictionary), published in Vienna in 1818. This Serbian-German-Latin dictionary, containing 26.270 terms, presented an adapted version of Serbian grammar which took the literary language of the Štokavian dialect of epics, as well as a new writing system as a model. The grammar was adopted by Croatian intellectuals too, so that – according to the Viennese agreement from 1850 – Serbian and Croatian were recognised as one, unique language. This agreement was signed in March 28, 1850 in Vienna by the most distinguished Ser- bian and Croatian authors and philologists (Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski, Dimitrija Demeter, Ivan Mažuranić, Vuk St. Karadžić, Vinko Pacel, Franjo Miklošić, Stefan Pejaković, Đura Daničić). The Case of Serbia 35

museum” was the ethnic origin, Orthodox religion, and the Serbian language, as opposite to the 20th century Croatian and Slovenian models where all musicians living and working on the territory of the country – regardless where they came from – were considered as “national” composers. For that reason, with a few exceptions, only composers of Serbian origin were cho- sen to be representatives of Serbian national music.6 Over the years numerous Czech composers worked in Serbia proper, and in order to keep their jobs they were obliged to adopt the Orthodox religion and be fluent in the Serbian language. Although they con- tributed to the advancement of professional musical life in the country, they were never fully accepted as “national” composers. Instead, the historians of Serbian music always mentioned them as a group of “foreign musicians” working in Serbia. A similar case represents the Slovenian (1835-1914), who lived in Serbian cities and worked in Serbian music institutions almost for his entire life.7 Jenko’s patriotic compositions and stage music were the most popular repertoire of numerous Serbian choral societies8 and of the National Theatre in Belgrade, and his contributions to Serbian music were mainly evaluated in a positive way, especially by Robert Tollinger (1859-1911, a Czech musician active in Serbian cities like Velika Kikinda and Šabac) and Petar Konjović (1883-1970). In the editorial to the initial issue of the first Serbian professional music journal Gudalo, Tollinger claimed that: “[what] Kornelije [Stanković] initiated, Jenko continued in a very professional, skilful, and happy way, and we can today only say – let us be grateful to him for establishing a new, but firm foun- dation of Serbian music”.9 While the practice of isolating and excluding the work of musicians of foreign origin could be understood from the point of view of nineteenth-century national ideology and the desire to establish a network of dispersed people, it has certainly been unacceptable within Serbian music historiography since World War II. The composers chosen as rep- resentatives of Serbian music after World War II and in the post-Yugoslav period were in the writings of the younger generation partly redefined and extended due to the fact

6 Actually, the attitude concurs with the original concept of the – later redefined – Croatian canon of national music historiography established by Franz Xaver Koch alias Franjo Ksaver Kuhač, who pointed out: “the characteristic achievements of a nation are not the result of education, but rather of its nature, blood, and ethnicity. Studies can only improve inherited talents, but cannot bestow certain ability upon an individual or even less an entire nation”. (Franjo Ksaver Kuhač, “Historijski uvod za Ilirske glazbenike” [Historical introduction to Illyrian musicians], in: Lovro Županović (ed.), Ilirski glazbenici: Prilozi za poviest hrvatskoga preporoda [Illyrian musicians: Contributions to history of Croatian revival], 1994, p. X.). For further details cf. Zdravko Blažeković’s study in this volume. 7 Moreover, Jenko changed his name from Martin to Davorin. “Davorija” was the term for patriotic song, according to Karadažić, Srpski rječnik (see note 5), showing his dedication to the Serbian liberation struggle. 8 His choral composition – actually, a number from a theatre play with music – Bože pravde, was later adopted as national anthem of the Principality of Serbia, later the . 9 “Kornelije poče, a Jenko nastavi tako stručno, vešto i sretno, da danas smemo samo reći – budi njemu hvala – da je novoj glazbi srpskoj položen nov, ali pouzdan temelj [...]”, cf. “Pristup (Uredništvo)” [Approach (Editorial)], in: Gudalo 1 (1 January 1886), pp. 1-2. 36 Tatjana Markovic´

that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was meant as a unique cultural space, and in Belgrade, and other cities many composers lived and worked who were not ethnically Serbian. In that way, the traditional elements determining who could be included into Serbian music historiography changed, although apparently not deeply enough. Croatian, Slovene, and Czech composers (Krešimir Baranović [1894-1975], Mihovil Logar [1902-1998]) were included into Serbian history of music, always with an emphasis on their ethnic origin. On the other hand, some composers who were born and have worked in the Serbian urban centres of were excluded (for example the Hungarians György [Đuro] Arnold [1781-1848], Károly Krombholz [1905-1991], or Ernö Király [1919-2007]), except in specialized studies on contemporary music, or articles on individual composers. A possible solution for the historical outline was presented by Vla- stimir Peričić in his lexicon of composers, which focused on music in Serbia (instead of Serbian music).10 In the newest history of Serbian music written in 2008 by the members of the Department of Musicology at the Faculty of Music, University of Arts, the traditional and obviously conservative way of defining national identity, was slightly reconsidered and redefined.11 This practice is actually accepted by contemporary music historians in European “small nations”. For instance, the 2003 history of music of Slovakia includes a chapter dedicated to the chosen composers (“Personalities in profiles”), divided into the following sections: “Slovak composers”, “Composers of Czech origin”, “Composers of German/ Austrian origin”, “Hungarian composers”.12 Similar as in Serbian music histories, this ap- proach is explained by the fact that many Czech composers worked in Slovakia, “some of them participated in various ways in the shaping of Slovak national music, but they were naturalized to such a degree that they are regarded as ethnic Slovaks”.13 The presence of Hungarian composers is explained in a different way: “Various outstanding Hungarian composers and musicians […] originated from Slovakia”.14

3. Early stages of constructing the canon of Serbian music historiography The first history of Serbian music was written by Stana Đurić-Klajn and published in 1962. Following this edition, she went on writing numerous surveys of Serbian and Yu-

10 Vlastimir Peričić, Muzički stvaraoci u Srbiji [Composers in Serbia], Beograd 1961. 11 Cf. Mirjana Veselinović-Hofman (ed.), Istorija srpske muzike. Srpska muzika i evropsko muzičko nasleđe [History of Serbian music. Serbian music and European musical heritage], Beograd 2007. 12 Jana Lengová, “Music in the age of Romanticism and national-emancipation efforts (1830-1918): Personalities in profiles”, in: Oskár Elschek (ed.), A History of Slovak Music from the earliest times to the present, Bratislava 2003, pp. 264-279. This music history, published in English, was a national project, developed in order to correct earlier misinterpretations. In the introduction, the editor pointed out that “for centuries and especially in the last decades, Slovak music and its sources were inadequately and falsely incorporated into other, restricted nationally interpreted Central European musical cultures. In its interpretation it was deprived of its specific aesthetic and socio-cultural role in the Central European area”. Cf. Elschek,“Editorial”, p. 6. 13 Ibid., p. 273. 14 Ibid., p. 278. The Case of Serbia 37

goslav music, as well as studies related to Serbian musical life, individual composers, performers, music institutions, lexicographic entries, and with these publications she established herself as the most significant Serbian music historian from the 1930s to her death in 1986, together with Roksanda Pejović (b. 1929) who also came forward in the 1960s. Following the foundation of the national – Yugoslav and Serbian – music historiography established by Stana Đurić-Klajn, Roksanda Pejović continued this work, both in historical surveys of Yugoslav/Serbian music and in writings on music criticism and other aspects of music life (the activities of music institutions, music performance) and in studies on individual composers. The predecessors of the first history of Serbian music from 1962 were surveys of specific aspects of Serbian music history, such as Pogled na današnje stanje naše muzike I bibliografija srpskih muzičkih dela (A view on the current state of our music and the bibliography of Serbian compositions, 1874) by Dušan Đermekov (1853-1876), Glazba u Srba (Music of Serbs, 1886) by one of the most significant Croatian histo- rians, Vjekoslav Klaić (1849-1928), and Muzika u Srba (Music of Serbs) published in the collections of essays, Ličnosti (Personalities, 1920), by the distinguished composer and music writer Petar Konjović.15 In 1950, Đurić-Klajn published the first Biografski rečnik srpskih muzičara (Dictionary of biographies of Serbian musicians, 1950), collecting the biographical notes originally written by Vladimir Đorđević (1869-1938).16 However, the first outline of the national music canon was produced in 1878 for the 25th anniversary of the Beogradsko pevačko društvo (Belgrade Choral Society), by the conductor and composer Stevan Mokranjac (1856-1914), the main figure in Serbian his- tory of music. The organizer of this concert, Beogradsko pevačko društvo, was one of the most significant music institutions in Serbia at that time, placed under the patronage of the Serbian Royal family. The concert, entitled Istorija srpske pesme u pesmi (History of Serbian song in the song), was Mokranjac’s vision of Serbian music history and included

15 Dušan Đermekov, “Pogled na današnje stanje naše muzike i bibliografija srpskih muzičkih dela” [A view on current state of our music and music bibliography of Serbian music works], in: Letopis Matice srpske 116 (1874), pp. 91-115; Vjekoslav Klaić, “Glazba u Srba” [Music among the Serbs], in: Vienac 46 (1886), pp. 734-735, 47 (1886), pp. 746-748, 48 (1886), pp. 763-766; Petar Konjović, “Muzika u Srba” [Music among the Serbs], in: idem, Ličnosti, Zagreb 1920, pp. 119-150. 16 Vladimir Đorđević, Prilozi biografskom rečniku srpskih muzičara [Contributions to the biographical dictionary of Serbian musicians], ed. by Stana Đurić-Klajn, Beograd 1950. Đorđević originally published fourteen biographies in Muzički glasnik in 1922 (Jovan Ivanišević, Jovan Paču, Mita Topalović, Aksentije Maksimović, Milan Milovuk, Stanoje Nikolić, Dragutin Čižek, Josif Voves, Antonije Voves, Isidor Bajić, Robert Tollinger, Hugo Doubek, Josif Svoboda, Bogumil Svoboda), and the biography of Davorin Jenko in: Sv. Cecilija 30 (January 1936). Other biogra- phies included in the edition by Stana Đurić-Klajn were published from Đorđević’s manuscripts. Đorđević produced these biographical notes from the documentation required from musicians by the Ministry of Edu- cation as a supporting material with their job application. Besides information on the education and possible earlier career of musicians in Serbia and abroad, lists of compositions (both published and manuscripts) in the documentation are especially precious, since many of them have been lost in the meantime. 38 Tatjana Markovic´

the repertoire ranging from singing declamation of epics with accompaniment to Romantic compositions.17

I Part Prologue 1. Smrt Jugovića majke, uz gusle peva *** (epic with the gusle accompaniment) Najstarije u note stavljene srpske pesme (The oldest Serbian notated songs) 2. Dve pesme iz šesnaestog stoleća u tadanji notni sistem stavio Hektorović u svome spevu Ribanje. Harmonizirao za mešoviti hor St. St. Mokranjac (Two sixteenth-century songs, notated by Petar Hektorović in his poem Ribanje. Arranged for mixed by Stevan Stojanović Mokranjac) 3. Tri narodne pesme, po pevanju Vuka Karadžića zabeležio F. Mirecki 1815. godine, za mešoviti hor harmonizirao St. St. Mokranjac (Three folk songs transcribed by F. Mirecki in 1815, from the singing of Vuk Karadžić, arranged for mixed choir by Stevan Stojanović Mokranjac) Srbi kompozitori na stranoj osnovi (Serbian composers who wrote in the “foreign” idiom) 4. Nikola Đurković: Napred braćo (Forward brothers) Pesma uz vino (A wine song ) Oj, talasi (Oh, waves) Veseljaci (Jolly boys) Mačem kopljem (By sword, by spear), (for male choir) 5. Atanasije Nikolić: Neverom me zva (You called me unfaithful) Što se sija (How the sun shines) Ti plaviš zoro zlatna (You’re becoming blue, the golden dawn) Već iz gustog luga (From the bushy grove), (for male choir)

II Part Kornelije Stanković I njegovi sledbenici (Kornelije Stanković and his followers) 6. Kornelije Stanković: Tavna noći (Oh, dark night) Mlado pastirče (Young little shepard) Evo desnice verne (Here is the faithful fist), (for male choir) 7. Aksentije Maksimović: Gde je srpska Vojvodina (Where is the Serbian Vojvodina), (for male choir) 8. Mita Topalović: Oj, oblaci (Oh, clouds), (for mixed choir)

17 It was also a direct reference to historic concerts held at the Musikverein in Vienna, and later in Zagreb and Karlovac by Leopold Zellner (1823-1894). The Case of Serbia 39

Znameniti Sloveni koji su radili na srpskoj pesmi18 (Significant Slavic composers who worked on Serbian song) 9. Václav Horejšek: Tuga (Sorrow) 10. Quido Havlasa: Padajte braćo (Fell down, my brothers) 11. Davorin Jenko: Što ćutiš (Why do you keep silent) Rekao nam je (He told us) Dvori davorovi (Davor’s manor-house), (for male choir) Novija srpska škola (The newer Serbian school) 12. Josif Marinković: Hej, trubaču (Hey, trumpet player), (for male choir) Molitva (A prayer), (for mixed choir) 13. Stevan Mokranjac: Himna pedesetogodišnjici (The 50th-anniversary anthem), (for male choir) Peta rukovet (The fifth rukovet), (for mixed choir)

From this earliest definition of the national musical canon some key questions remained in the later music histories, such as the role of folk melodies in the establishing and profiling of “recognizable” Serbian music. Generations of music writers stressed the opinion that the presence of folk melodies in art music is inevitable and necessary in order to make Serbian music “authentic” and unique. In that way, the history of Serbian music could be interpreted also as a history of the attitude towards folk music. Kornelije Stanković (1831-1865) has been chosen by his contemporaries and later historians to be the first Serbian national composer, on the basis of his use of folk melodies, presenting a clear borderline between pre-history (“music based on foreign musical means”) and the be- ginning of national music history (music inspired by folk melodies). He was chosen for this honourable role of the first national Serbian composer, although he was not truly the first one. In the entire Serbian community he was seen as a (possible) prophet of na- tional culture, whose work could support national advancement. Following the advice of the linguist Vuk Karadžić, the organization of the United Serbian Youth and the Serbian patriarch Josif Rajačić, Stanković started to transcribe systematically Serbian Orthodox chant until then orally transmitted. The result of his work was an arrangement of orthodox Liturgy, set for mixed choir, and presented with great success at the Musikverein in Vienna in 1855. In his efforts to collect Serbian folk melodies, Stanković was also supported by

18 The named “Slavic composers” are of Czech and Slovenian origin. 40 Tatjana Markovic´

Prince Mihailo Obrenović, the result of which was an edition of his folk song transcriptions published in Vienna.19 Stanković’s first biographer Fedor Demelić mentioned in 1865 that “if he had immediately started arranging more difficult and more complex variations, his songs would not have spread among people as they have [...] He presents us with folk songs in their intact form, he brings them into the world, as he had heard them from the mouth of the people”.20 The dedication of Serbian composers to their own national heritage and folk music was recognized by Vjekoslav Klaić as well. He pointed out that Serbian musical life is essentially different from Croatian: In Serbia there existed numerous choral societies, the tradition of instrumental and orchestra music was poor, and opera tradition was lacking. He continued “we [] do not really know whether we should feel pity for the Serbs or they should pity us? Because, our progress in music […] is a pure poison, corrupting the little of folk life that remained to us. As we are advancing in music created after the model of cosmopolitism, we are abandoning our own being”.21 Klaić considered numerous Czech musicians, active in Serbian places as Serbian musicians, contrary to the concept put forward by Serbian historians who always regarded them as immigrants.

4. Establishing the canon of Serbian music historiography The concept of Serbian music history was accepted and adopted by the first professional music critics in Serbia, the composers Miloje Milojević (1884-1946) and Petar Konjović, as well as Stevan Hristić (1885-1958) and Kosta Manojlović (1890-1949). They accepted Kornelije Stanković as the first national composer and established a cult of Stevan Stojanović Mokranjac, claiming that with him the European chapter of Serbian music history was established. This opinion remained dominant in the national historiography until today. However, some contradictions could be recognized in the attitudes of these writers. Milojević underlined the significance of the works by his teacher Mokranjac for the subsequent development of Serbian music, his role as the “ideological leader” and as the first musician “who stirred up the spirits, who showed with one swing of his powerful arm which way to follow towards a great artistic future, and what a nation, its

19 Stanković spent his last years in Belgrade as a conductor of the leading choral society in the country, the Beogradsko pevačko društvo. In the Festschrift for the 50th anniversary of the society, the period of Stanković’s activities presented there was particularly significant by the introduction of some incorrect statements. This misinterpretation was made in order to make the period of his work in Belgrade longer, that way providing a shift towards national orientation. Cf. Spira Kalik, Spomenica Beogradskog pevačkog društva prilikom proslave pedesetogodišnjice 25. maja 1903. godine [Festschrift of the Belgrade choral society issued for the 50th anniversary, on 25 May 1903], Beograd 1903, as well as a kind of “subsidiary history” of the society (subsidiary in comparison with the mentioned literature based on official, “puri- fied” history), cf. Zorislava M. Vasiljević, Rat za srpsku muzičku pismenost. Od Milovuka do Mokranjca [The struggle for Serbian music literacy. From Milovuk to Mokranjac], Beograd 2000. 20 Fedor Demelić, “Kornelije Stanković”, in: Letopis Matice srpske 110 (1865), pp. 232, 234. 21 Klaić, “Glazba u Srba” (see note 15), p. 734. The Case of Serbia 41

representatives and its educated society ought to do”.22 On the other hand, Mokranjac’s originality and creativity was denied because of his inspiration by folk tunes. By the concept of “original” composer Milojević meant an author “who creates by himself, and does not borrow anything from anyone”,23 and, in that context, Mokranjac was only “an arranger of folk melodies”, although his high artistic level was recognized. Besides, he did not approve Mokranjac’s exclusive dedication to choral music, regardless that this quality was determined by the very context of 19th century Serbian musical life due to the lack of professional musicians. During this period the first monographs in Serbian music historiography were written by Kosta Manojlović and Petar Konjović, both dedicated to Mokranjac.24 In his short survey of music history spanning the period between the 19th century revival and his own time (“Music of Serbs”), Konjović confirmed Mokranjac’s concept of Serbian music history, naming not only Kornelije Stanković, Josif Marinković (1851-1931), and Stevan Mokranjac as the representatives of national music, but also Davorin Jenko, and Robert Tollinger. In that way, these writers confirmed the early ideas about Serbian music historiography and established them as the canon which remained the foundation of further (re)considerations.

5. The Contribution of Stana Đurić-Klajn and Roksanda Pejović to the creation of the national museum of Serbian music Among the contemporaries of Konjović, who died in 1970, the most important historians of Yugoslav and Serbian national music were Stana Đurić-Klajn and Roksanda Pejović. Consequently, the picture of Serbian music historiography described by Miloš Velimirović in the entry “Musicology”, in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians is some- what incorrect regarding the evaluation of Đurić-Klajn’s work. He pointed out that “several studies on the history of Serbian music have been produced by Stana Đurić-Klajn, editor of a number of journals”,25 omitting to mention any aspect of her historiographic work, her introduction of many important and previously unknown aspects into the national history of music which resulted from her first extensive archival research.26 Stana Đurić-Klajn initiated for instance a profound research of medieval and 18th century Serbian music,

22 Miloje Milojević, “Umetnička ideologija Stevana St. Mokranjca” [The artistic ideology of Stevan St. Mokranjac], in: Srpski književni glasnik 3 (1 February 1938), p. 6. Similar to that, Konjović claimed that in his rukoveti Mokranjac “presented the Serbian and Yugoslav music’s beauty and strength”. Cf. Konjović, “Muzika u Srba” (see note 15), p. 132. 23 Milojević, “Umetnička ideologija Stevana St. Mokranjca” (see note 22), pp. 12-13. 24 Kosta Manojlović, Spomenica Stevanu St. Mokranjcu [Festschrift for Stevan St. Mokranjac], Beograd 1923; Petar Konjović, Stevan St. Mokranjac, Novi Sad 1984 (Konjović’s monograph consists of his studies about Mokranjac’s work). 25 Miloš Velimirović, “Musicology. § III National studies. 7: Eastern Europe”, in: Stanley Sadie (ed.), The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, vol. 12, London 1980, p. 858. 26 Besides the mentioned first Serbian history of music, Đurić-Klajn wrote also Istorijski razvoj muzičke kulture u Srbiji [Historical development of musical culture in Serbia], Beograd 1971 and A survey of Serbian music through the ages, Belgrade 1972. 42 Tatjana Markovic´

including the investigation of documents and iconographic sources. She discovered many musicians working in the Habsburg Monarchy, and established their relations with Eu- ropean composers, for example in the articles on the correspondence between Johannes Brahms and the Serbian composer Petar Stojanović (1877-1957). Stana Đurić-Klajn also started research on music performers and she was the first to establish the significance of the Serbian pianist Jovanka Stojković (1855-1892) who was a student of Liszt and Dreyschock. The national canon was richly contextualized in her mentioned study Razvoj muzičke umetnosti u Srbiji (The development of musical art in Serbia), the first history of Serbian music (1962), which was instrumental in partial redefinition of the imaginary museum of national music. Besides shedding light to almost unknown 18th century Serbian music, Đurić-Klajn for the first time considered Kornelije Stanković and Jovan Paču (1847-1902) in the context of Serbian bourgeois society or Biedermeier culture,27 the details about Mokranjac’s educa- tion and professorship, Miloje Milojević’s work, and activities and work of Petar Konjović. She is also the only music historian who included popular music in her respective book.28 In the revision of the mentioned entry about Eastern European musicology in the 2001 edition of The New Grove’s Dictionary, Velimirović added the statement that “the most significant recent achievements in historical musicology have been Dimitrije Stefanović’s and Danica Petrović’s studies of ecclesiastical chant”,29 although Roksanda Pejović was the one who actually continued Đurić-Klajn’s work in her many books based on her pioneer re- search.30 Pejović dedicated special attention to medieval Serbian musical culture through

27 Except the usual designation of the opus of Kornelije Stanković and Jovan Paču as early Romanticism, there was one more attempt to define it as “preromanticism” by Sonja Marinković in her textbook for secondary schools: Istorija srpske muzike [History of Serbian music], Beograd 2000. Cf. Tatjana Marković, “O periodizaciji muzike devetnaestog stoleca: Prednosti uvodenja termina Biedermeier u periodizaciju srpske muzike” [Periodization of 19th-century music: Advantages of introducing the term Biedermeier into the periodization of Serbian music], in: Dragana Jeremić Molnar, Ivana Stamatović (eds.), Muzikološke i etnomuzikološke refleksije, Beograd 2006, pp. 73-87. 28 Cf. Đurić-Klajn, A survey of Serbian music (see note 26). The book contains three chapters: “Music in the feudal era”, “Music in the bourgeois society”, “Music of the 20th century”. The third chapter consists of four sections: “Initiators of modern trends (Petar Konjović, Miloje Milojević, Stevan Hristić)”, “Musical life and trends between the two world wars”, “Contem- porary music”, “Light music”. 29 Miloš Velimirović, “Musicology. § III National studies. 7: Eastern Europe”, in: Stanley Sadie (ed.), The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol. 17, London 2001, p. 521. 30 Pejović’s publications related to Serbian music historiography are the following: Kritike, članci i posebne publikacije u srpskoj muzičkoj prošlosti (1825-1918) [Reviews, articles and special publications in Serbian music past, 1825-1918], Beograd 1994; Muzička kritika i esejistika u Beogradu (1919-1941) [Music criti- cism and essay writing in Belgrade, 1919-1941], Beograd 1999; Popis kritika, članaka i studija poznatih i anonimnih autora srpske muzičke prošlosti iz novina i časopisa (1825-1918) [A list of reviews, articles and studies by known and anonymous authors from the Serbian music past published in newspapers and magazines, 1825-1918)], Beograd 1993; Muzička publicistika (1918-1941). Pregled novina i izbor naslova kritika i članaka [Music publishing, 1918-1941. A list of newspapers and a selection of reviews and articles], Beograd 1999; Pisana reč o muzici u Srbiji. Knjige i članci, 1945-2003 [Writing on music in Serbia: Books and articles, 1945-2003], Beograd 2003. Cf. Tatjana Marković, “Roksanda Pejović – Spiritus movens of Serbian music historiography”, in: New Sound, International Magazine for Music 26 (2005), pp. 1-75. The Case of Serbia 43

the first extensive research of frescoes in medieval monasteries of Serbia and Macedonia, from the period when Serbia was a leading region of the Byzantine commonwealth. The surveys of the history of 19th century national music, and studies on 19th and 20th century music performers, writers, as well as composers make a special group among Roksanda Pejović’s writings. One of her starting points on this journey is Istorija muzike jugoslovenskih naroda (The history of music of the Yugoslav peoples),31 spanning the period from the first settlements of Slavonic tribes in the Balkan Peninsula to the 19th cen- tury. Next to Stana Đurić-Klajn’s history of Serbian music from 1962, this was the earliest contribution analyzing different traditions in the territory of Yugoslavia. Thus Roksanda Pejović examined music tradition in Serbia and Macedonia within the boundaries of the Eastern Roman Empire, as well as music of and Baroque on the territory of today’s , , Bosnia and Herzegovina, which commenced within the boundaries of the Western Roman Empire. This historical survey singles out composers included in Croatian music history, such as Ivan Lukačić and Giovanni Giornovichi alias Ivan Jarnović. Following this early and modest framework, Pejović later, individually and with collaborators, undertook the work on history of Serbian music, which resulted with editions in line with those produced in Europe several decades earlier, in the van of the multivolume The Oxford History of Music or the recent three-volume Cambridge histories of 18th, 19th and 20th century music. Two monographs have been published so far in this project: Srpska muzika od naseljavanja slovenskih plemena na Balkansko poluostrvo do kraja XVIII veka (Serbian music from the settlement of Slavonic tribes in the Balkan peninsula up to the end of the 18th century), in collaboration with Tatjana Marković, Marija Masnikosa and Ivana Perković, and Srpska muzika 19. veka: Izvođaštvo, članci I kritike, muzička pedagogija (19th century Serbian music: Performing practice, articles and criti- cism, music education). The latter work is the first of the planned two volumes on Serbian music before 1914. The volume on music history before the 18th century not only bridges earlier discontinuities in terms of the fact that the only earlier history of Serbian music has been written 36 years before by Stana Đurić-Klajn, but also provides a synthesis of all results presented in individual research relative to the history of Serbian music from the end of the 18th century to 1914. Moreover, this synthesis has been placed in a broad historical, cultural and artistic European context which is reflected in both the concept of the book and the ample literature in many languages. Roksanda Pejović also wrote the first monograph about the musicologist, and her former professor Stana Đurić-Klajn.32 Writings of Stana Đurić-Klajn and Roksanda Pejović represent Serbian music histo- riography on its path, from the early profiling as a whole to the development of individual

31 Roksanda Pejović, Istorija muzike jugoslovenskih naroda [History of music of Yugoslav peoples], vol. 1, Beograd 1983. 32 Cf. Roksanda Pejović, Muzikolog Stana Đurić-Klajn: Istoriografska, esejistička i kritičarska delatnost [The musicologist Stana Đurić-Klajn: Her historiographic, essayistic, and journalistic activities], Beograd 1994. 44 Tatjana Markovic´

specialized areas. While Pejović’s studies are methodologically formulated mainly as positivistic presentations of precious facts collected for the first time, Đurić-Klajn’s con- tributions to national historiography can be regarded “progressive” not only in the context of her time, but also today. Due to her wide education, interdisciplinary research, exten- sive archival work, and, before anything else, emphasis on cultural contextualization, Đurić-Klajn’s historiographic studies are still an inspiring departing point for younger musicologists. Therefore the mentioned deeper contextualization of national historiography should include not only a contextualized history of music, but also of historiography as a disci- pline, stepping out of national historiographies written “in the national style”33 in order to provide transnational histories of music based on the understandig of music as a cultural practice.

33 “I can certainly attest that national styles of musicology do exist. Please believe the editor of an en- cyclopedia, who has worked for twenty-five years with almost 2.000 collaborators from more than forty nations, when he tells you that the differences are very great”. Cf. Friedrich Blume, “Music scholarship today”, in: Barry S. Brook, Edward O. D. Downes, Sherman van Solkema (eds.), Perspectives in Musi- cology: The Inaugural Lectures of the PhD. Program in Music at the City University of New York, New York 1972, p. 30.