Dubrovnik Annals 3 (1999) 105

Novak, and the other, chemist Vladimir impressions of this stay in Putne uspomene Prelog. iz Hrvatske, Dalmacije, Albanije, Krfa i Slavica Stojan Italije (Travel accounts from , Dal- matia, Albania, Corfu and Italy; , 1873). The beauty of the city and the promi- nence of its cultural heritage fascinated KukuljeviÊ from the very first moment. With Ivo PeriÊ, DubrovaËke teme XIX. stoljeÊa the utmost scrutiny he visited the city sights ( Themes of the Nineteenth Cen- and crowned his stay in Dubrovnik by root- tury). Mala knjiænica Matice hrvatske, No.V/ ing about the archives pertaining to the 32 of the new series. Zagreb: Matica hrvat- Ragusan Republic period, as well as the ska, 1997, 227 pp. manuscripts in the wealthy monastery librar- ies. He comments on the inadequate research The book under review contains seven conditions and generally poor state of the old of Ivo PeriÊ’s studies that have appeared in Ragusan documents that had been kept at the scholarly journals over the last decade, all District Court and offices, parts of which had of which concern events and personalities already been ruined or removed to Vienna from nineteenth-century Dubrovnik. and Zadar. Despite the unprofessional care of the archives housed at different locations, In the first article, entitled ≈Dubrovnik i KukuljeviÊ was able to provide a systematic DubrovËani u oËima Ivana KukuljeviÊa classification of old Ragusan documents, Sakcinskog« (Dubrovnik and its people in pointing to the value of particular series. Si- the eyes of Ivan KukuljeviÊ Sakcinski), PeriÊ multaneously, he amassed considerable focuses on KukuljeviÊ’s early contacts with sources for his future historiographic work. Ragusans in Vienna, and his role in the pro- While in Dubrovnik, KukuljeviÊ made con- motion of Dubrovnik’s literary heritage as tacts with the writers and intellectuals of the one of the fundamental segments of the revival circle: Mato VodopiÊ, Antun Rocci, Croatian National Revival movement. He Marko MarinoviÊ, Niko Arbanas, Pacifik further explores KukuljeviÊ’s relations with RadeljeviÊ, and others, whose work he was Dubrovnik and their relevance in the con- text of the revival period. As a founder of already acquainted with. The companionship Druπtvo za povjesnicu jugoslavensku (The of the KaznaËiÊ family—father and son— Society for Yugoslav history) in the 1850s he found most pleasing, in line with broth- KukuljeviÊ initiated multiple activities with ers Niko and Medo PuciÊ who assisted him the aim of registering, collecting, and pub- in the sightseeing of Dubrovnik and its sur- lishing the manuscripts and archival docu- roundings. Having established firm intellec- ments. Massive sources and highly uncom- tual ties with Dubrovnik, KukuljeviÊ pro- fortable travel conditions discouraged ceeded to Kotor. KukuljeviÊ’s subsequent KukuljeviÊ from visiting Dubrovnik during correspondence with the Ragusans is volu- his stay in in 1854. However, two minous and diversified, while the publish- years later, in September 1856, KukuljeviÊ ing activity dealing with Dubrovnik’s herit- organized a scientific expedition to the dis- age remains an important and lasting feature tricts of Dubrovnik and Kotor. His visit to of his career. Dubrovnik lasted from 13 October until 4 PeriÊ’s study ≈Uloga Antuna Dropca u November. Sixteen years later, he penned the javnom æivotu Dubrovnika« (The role of 106 Dubrovnik Annals 3 (1999)

Antun Drobac in Dubrovnik’s public life) at the organization and expansion of the represents the most judicial appraisal of museum, placing thus his name among the Antun Drobac, pharmacist and naturalist, pioneers of what is now called museology. whose life and career was unjustly disre- The third article is dedicated to by far garded. Having studied pharmacy in Padua, one of the most interesting personalities of Antun Drobac (1810-1882) opened chem- nineteenth-century Dubrovnik, Niko Veliki ists‘ shop in Dubrovnik in 1832. PeriÊ con- PuciÊ (1820-1883), whose intellectual quali- cludes that he was the first to recognize and ties received much credit during his lifetime, describe the insecticide properties of tansy, but who, unlike his brother Medo, left no lit- as well as the promoter of its cultivation. His erary or scientific works. His role in the po- pharmacological skill was further proved by litical and public life of Dubrovnik, however, the preparation of ether, for use as an cannot be overlooked. Born to privilege, anesthetic. It was first used during surgery PuciÊ was educated in Dubrovnik and Ven- by a Dubrovnik doctor, Niko Pinelli, with ice. As he was entrusted with running the the assistance of Drobac in 1847. In addi- family estate, he did not study abroad. Never- tion, Drobac was an outstanding business- theless, he absorbed knowledge with unfail- man and among the first shipowners who ing assiduity all his life. An adherent of the invested in the DubrovaËko pomorsko Revival Movement prior to 1848, PuciÊ en- druπtvo (Dubrovnik maritime company). dorsed the idea of the unification of all Drobac’s business reputation won him con- Croatian lands, and he remained loyal to the siderable prestige in Dubrovnik, and even- National Party to the end of his life. During tually he rose to the position of president of the 1850s, in the period of neo-absolutism, the Chamber of business and commerce. he co-operated with Ivan KukuljeviÊ. In 1850 Political activities of the period were also Niko PuciÊ was already appointed member marked by Drobac’s authoritative personal- of the Druπtvo za povjestnicu jugoslavensku, ity. He was a member of the Narodna straæa but equally dedicated his time to cultural and (National Guard) 1848-49, and from 1861 political work in Zagreb. PuciÊ’s political onwards one of the most distinguished mem- ideas and attitude can be gleaned from his bers of the Narodna stranka (National Party). correspondence with Baldo BogiπiÊ, Franjo After winning the 1869 elections, the latter RaËki, J.J. Strossmayer, and Mihovil had two men in top positions: Rafo PuciÊ as PavlinoviÊ. As an exponent of the National mayor, and Drobac as his deputy. Drobac Party, in 1861 PuciÊ was assigned by the was a passionate collector. His collections Dubrovnik Municipal Council to go to Vi- of ores, minerals, crystals, shells, fish, and enna where he was to advocate for the unifi- stuffed animals grew over the years to the cation of Dalmatia and Croatia, and the use size of a proper museum of natural history. of the vernacular language in public life and He named his collection Kabinet prirodopisa education. His mission ended in failure, for (Cabinet of natural history), and housed it in Austria’s interest in keeping Dalmatia iso- the Dominican monastery, where it was to lated prevailed. Nevertheless, Dalmatia be exhibited before the public. In 1871, the could not be deprived of the right to its own Municipal Council found a new location for regional parliament. Upon his return from the collection within the municipal palace, Vienna, PuciÊ stopped in Zagreb, where he renaming it the Domorodni muzej (Native was introduced to the leading figures of the Museum). Drobac enthusiastically labored National Party, headed by Strossmayer, who Dubrovnik Annals 3 (1999) 107 impressed him profoundly. That same year cal views of the bishop of Dubrovnik, writer PuciÊ was elected to the Croatian Parliament Mato VodopiÊ. The life of this popular cleric as a representative from Kriæevci. After re- represents a pattern of cultural revival ac- tiring from this office, PuciÊ resumed his tivities, which contributed to the shaping of political work in Dubrovnik, where he stood Croatian national identity. In light of politi- up against Italian sympathizers. During the cal and national maturation, PeriÊ traces 1860s, PuciÊ took part in founding Il VodopiÊ from his early school days in Dub- Nazionale journal, and collaborated in both rovnik and seminary in Zadar, to his service Matica dalmatinska and Narodna πtionica in numerous parishes of his diocese. Ideas in Dubrovnik. Due to the pressure of the of the Revival Movement were soon to oc- autonomaπi (adherents of the idea of Dal- cupy him, and he began contributing to Dani- matian autonomy), the 1864 parliament elec- ca and Zora Dalmatinska. He cheered the tions and the 1865 local elections in news of JelaËiÊ being elected ban (vice-roy) Dubrovnik proved disastrous for National of Croatia. His vast literary and intellectual Party. These events caused PuciÊ to indulge interests within Dubrovnik’s revival circle more in cultural activities and editorial work have been described in the works of Ida on the journal Dubrovnik - Zabavnik Düringsfeld and Ivan KukuljeviÊ. The most Narodne πtionice. When the Viennese Court creative phase of VodopiÊ’s cultural and lit- began to show more political tolerance to- erary career began with his service in Gruæ wards the National Party, PuciÊ won the 1867 in 1857. In 1860 he entered political life by elections, and was subsequently appointed joining the National Party, having published vice-president of the Dalmatian Parliament. his most outstanding prose (Marija: povijest As his party was in the minority, he was in konavoska and Tuæna Jele: povijest gruπka) no position to contribute to its political goals, on the pages of the journal Dubrovnik - and soon resigned. He remained an active Zabavnik Narodne πtionice. In his clerical observer of Croatian political life, and fol- and literary work he promoted the goals of lowing the Austro-Hungarian Settlement he the nationalist cause: the unification of presented the Croatian Parliament with an Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, the official interpretation according to which this agree- introduction of the vernacular language, and ment favored the Kingdom of Croatia, the cultural and economic development of Slavonia, and Dalmatia. Austrian policy with the region. Although he did not take active regard to Dalmatia, and its interpretation of part in political struggles, VodopiÊ was a the dual monarchy soon deceived PuciÊ. passionate promoter of the national cause, Despite the Party’s victory in the 1869 as can be seen from the diary excerpts in Dubrovnik local elections, and its majority which he refers to all the current political in Dalmatian Parliament in 1870, Niko events and Austrian interference with Cro- Veliki gradually retired from political life, atian national interests in Dalmatia. During as he could no longer witness the grudges the Croat-Serb political controversies in the inside his party. In the subsequent Croat-Serb 1880s, VodopiÊ, like Niko PuciÊ, discred- controversies, he failed to support his brother ited the pan-national orientation of the pub- Medo and Slovinac, Dubrovnik’s pro-Yugo- lishers of journal Slovinac but agreed to con- slav journal. Niko PuciÊ thus remained loyal tribute to it. Owing to the political victories to the Croatian national cause. of the National Party, VodopiÊ was installed The fourth article deals with the politi- as bishop of Dubrovnik in 1881. Political 108 Dubrovnik Annals 3 (1999) tensions within the National Party discour- In order to provide a thorough analysis aged VodopiÊ in his later years, and he in- of the controversies pertaining to the build- clined towards a group of young Dubrovnik ing of the monument to GunduliÊ, PeriÊ pravaπi (advocates of the Croatian Party of traces the causes and the course of the an- Rights) affiliated with Frano Supilo and the tagonism within the National Party and the journal Crvena Hrvatska. emergence of the coalition of autonomists In the context of Austrian policy towards and local . The building of the Dubrovnik, PeriÊ focuses upon the private GunduliÊ’s monument in Dubrovnik, a crea- and official visits of the Habsburgs to tion of the Croat sculptor Ivan RendiÊ, was Dubrovnik. Founding his study on copious a long-term project which turned into a ma- bibliographical information and references, jor political issue in the early 1890s. It was PeriÊ brings to light all the details related to not an easy road from the first initiative in the visits of the Royal family between 1818 1880 to the unveiling of the statue in 1893. and 1906. The Monarchy’s relationship to- The idea of erecting the monument stemmed wards Dubrovnik experienced a slight shift from the National Party, which at that time in the course of the nineteenth century. As was experiencing a serious crisis. A power- the motives of the visits were guided by the ful fraction emerged—consisting of intellec- political climate, the reception varied accord- tuals affiliated with the journal Slovinac— ingly from a submissive indifferent attitude which separated and joined the Serbian and welcome to open revolt. It seemed as Party. The creators of the “catholic Serb” though these very visits fanned the political idea formed a coalition with the opposition, clashes between the National Party and ad- and thanks to the inconsistency and oppor- herents of Dalmatian autonomy. The persist- tunism of the National Party, backed by elec- ent, yet dignified resistance of the Ragusans, tion manipulation, they came to power in the notably the nobility and the old citizen class, Dubrovnik municipal government in 1890. represents a constant, which characterized In order to strengthen their ideological posi- its relationship toward the Monarchy and the tion, Serb attempts to misinterpret Dubro- Habsburgs. Francis I was the first of the vnik’s cultural heritage were evident. They Austrian Emperors to visit Dubrovnik in even claimed that the GunduliÊ’s monument 1818 with the aim of pacifying the patricians was part of the Serb cultural legacy. This idea and becoming familiar with the new prov- met with the general disapproval of the con- ince. In 1875, when the nationalists won the solidated National Party espoused by the municipal elections, Dubrovnik was visited young pravaπi following Frano Supilo and by Francis Joseph I. His stay stirred lively Crvena Hrvatska. The conflicts culminated political activities. Archduke Rudolph, heir on the eve of the monument’s dedication in to the Austro-Hungarian throne, visited 1893. The committee in charge of the monu- Dubrovnik on a number of occasions, as did ment project, appointed by the new munici- his uncle, Archduke Maximilian. In 1878 pal council, decided to carry out the open- Rudolph purchased the island of Lokrum, ing ceremony with Serb features dominat- which he regularly visited every year. ing. This plan met with fierce opposition Dubrovnik also saw the arrival of Francis from the Croatian political subjects who fi- Ferdinand in 1906, who was the last of the nanced the whole project. This conflict had Habsburgs to travel there in spite of the al- a reverberating effect upon Croat and Serb ready aggravated political circumstances. political parties throughout the monarchy. Dubrovnik Annals 3 (1999) 109

PeriÊ examines the controversies between the vnik. He inspired a number of Ragusans to Serb oriented journal Dubrovnik and Frano indulge in research, some of whom (BogiπiÊ, Supilo’s Crvena Hrvatska. As most of the M. PuciÊ, Budmani, and Zore, to name a few) spectators who took part in the opening cer- became members of the Academy. The re- emony were , the manufactured Serb sults of RaËki’s efforts to cull, examine, and prominence throughout the event ended in publish Dubrovnik’s historical sources ap- failure. The 1893 celebration exhibited all peared in Academy’s publications Stari pisci the shortcomings of the coalition of Serbs hrvatski (Old Croat writers), Monumenta and pro-autonomists on the one hand, and spectantia historiam Slavorum Meridiona- the consolidation of Croatian political forces lium, and Monumenta historico-juridica in Dubrovnik on the other. Slavorum Meridionalium. RaËki was among ≈Franjo RaËki i Dubrovnik« is the clos- the guests who witnessed the unveiling of ing article of PeriÊ’s book. Historian RaËki, the GunduliÊ’s monument in 1893, contrib- founder and first president of the Yugoslav uting with his presence to the Croatian spirit Academy of Sciences and Arts (founded in of the ceremony. His death in 1894 was Zagreb in 1861), was connected with mourned in Dubrovnik, and numerous com- Dubrovnik and its heritage in many ways. memorations were held in honor of this The activities of the Croat Revival from the cleric, patriot, and scholar. Crvena Hrvatska forties onwards helped RaËki realize the commented on his outstanding merit in un- enormous significance of Dubrovnik. De- earthing the heritage of Dubrovnik, while the spite great many administrative obstacles, he people of Dubrovnik paid tribute to him with planned a long research in Dubrovnik’s ar- a memorial service held in the church of the chives and libraries. In 1868 he spurred the Friars Minor. research of Petar MatkoviÊ in the Dubrovnik In the articles described above PeriÊ has archives, as well as the journey of two other succeeded in providing most systematic and scholars: Vatroslav JagiÊ and –uro DaniËiÊ. insightful surveys dealing with Dubrovnik The following year, Dubrovnik also saw Fran and its citizens in the nineteenth century, Kurelac upon RaËki’s recommendation list. placing his interpretation in the broader con- In 1873 as part of his scientific travels to text of Croatian history. His work is based Dalmatia, RaËki visited Dubrovnik, where on masterly examination of extensive archi- he was given the opportunity to sift through val and published references, alongside older the documents at the archives. Based on and current periodicals. Being published to- RaËki’s reports and correspondence, PeriÊ gether in this book, his studies are indispen- brings to light a considerable amount of in- sable reading for all those interested in the formation regarding RaËki’s high evaluation nineteenth-century Dubrovnik, particularly of Dubrovnik’s sources and the history of in the context of the revival and question of Dubrovnik in general. During his stay in national integration. Dubrovnik RaËki diligently compiled the archives. In addition, he wrote several arti- Stjepan ΔosiÊ cles on the city’s cultural history and pub- lished them in Vijenac. RaËki collaborated with intellectuals from Dubrovnik and pur- sued ways and means for the Academy to continue to send its researchers to Dubro-