Quick viewing(Text Mode)

The Dissolution of the Slavic Identity Of

The Dissolution of the Slavic Identity Of

CEU eTD Collection THE IN THE T In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of HE DISSOLUTION OFTHE SLAVIC IDENTITY OF Supervisor: BalázsSupervisor: Professor Trencsényi Second supervisor: Klaniczay Gábor Central European University European Central VENETIC THEORY Luka Lisjak Gabrijel Department of History Budapest, Submitted to Submitted 2008 1980 By S . þLþ THECASE OF THE CEU eTD Collection instructions may not be made without the written permission of the Author. the of permission written the without be made not may instructions page must form a part of any such copes made. Further copes made in accordance with such lodged in Central the European Library. maybe Details librarian. from obtained the This bemay and givenby full the instructions part, Author in made the with or accordance only in CopiesinCopyright with the byany either Author. textof process, thesis rests this the Statement ofCopyright Statement iii CEU eTD Collection 4. TheVenetic Controversy Autochthonism 3. Framingan Alternative Discourse. Two Fragments ofPost-Romantic Meaning inSlovene History 2. Framingthe Historical Identity: Slovene and theIssue of the 1. Early Autochthonist Theories in theSlovene Lands Abstract 4.3 The Venetic Theory...... 79 Tomaži 4.2 ApproachingAutochthonism from Right:Thethe Šavli Cases of Jožko and Ivan 4.1Approching Autochthonism from the Left: The Case of ...... 66 of Franc Jeza...... 58 3.2 Framing from Anti-Jugoslavism Perspective:an Ethnicist The Scandinavian Theory 3.1 A “Cultural Turn” in Fin-de-siècle Autochthonism: The ...... 53 Case of Henrik Tuma 2.4 Modern Slovene Historiography and its Ideological Preconceptions...... 43 2.3 The Serfdom Myth...... 39 2.2 The Settlement Myth...... 35 2.1 The Notion of ...... 28 Slavic Kinship 1.5 From Topos to Theory: Romantic Autochthonism...... 22 1.4 The Enlightenment: Re-Emergence and Demise of the Autochthonist Topos...... 16 1.3 The Humanist Topos...... 13 1.2 The Medieval Tradition...... 12 1.1. The Discursive Shifts in Slovene ...... 10 Autochthonism ...... vi þ ...... 69 ...... 52 ...... 66 ...... 27 Table of Contents iv ...... 8 CEU eTD Collection Conclusions 4.6 The “Cultural Turn” of ...... 95 the Venetic Theory Official Narrative...... 89 4.5. The Attempt of a Historical4.4. The Continuity Theory...... 82 Turn in the National Identity and the Clash with the ...... 101 v CEU eTD Collection contribution to the redefinition of Slovene identity in the period after the secession from secession the in after period identity the of Slovene redefinition the to contribution it gave important discourse. Itwasthat in an discourse inserted this different a completely dissolution. Althoughits for catalyst a as acted and identity theSlovene of authorsframe demotic-ethnicist of the theory renewed and Slavic the of crisis the uncovered Theory Venetic of the success Themassive republics. the theses of challenged bynew experiences, social including theimmigration from Yugoslavother 19 in identity Slavic frame a understood Afterway. WWII,demotic ethnicist this and was of into contextawider the inserted repeatedly identity was historical Slovene century, the imagery.national movementcultural which significantly contributed re-definitionthe to Slovenethe of a regular supporters into gradually developed forin awhole decade.Its present the media years remained and for several sphere public Slovene the dominated controversy which launchedit Italsowon publicsupport. wide by aharsh rejected establishment, scientific the was it Although context. historical and cultural Yugoslav the from away break to attempt the Central European area in 13 the area European Central the had Veneti supposedly from colonized they called who Century, but people a proto-Slavic 6 in the region Alpine East in the settled that from descended not were Slovenes pluralism. political to from transition 1980s, assessing its in role in shifts the Slovene historical during identity occurred that the Since the early articulations of Romantic in the first half of the 19 the of half first in the nationalism Romantic of articulations early the Since In 1985,agroup launchedof Slovene authors a which theory according to the The present thesis treats the issue of autochthonism which emerged in in in emerged the which Slovenia issue of the treats autochthonism thesis The present th Century B.C.. The theory ideological theory B.C.. The represented an Century Abstract vi th century Pan-Slavists, they Pan-Slavists, century th th CEU eTD Collection collective identity. markingYugoslavia, the turningbetweenamodernist point model and postmodernist of vii CEU eTD Collection 2 establishment, as asby mainstream well and major media, publishers the gained the Theory 1 Slavs”. South the to connection ethnical or historical no have “Slovenes that show to was aim their theory, the advancing articles first the of one in wrote of the book authors three Asoneof the political project. authors of theatmuchall not hidden unmask, werenot implications sincetheseideological to by the theory, althoughwas entering the crisis inits whichended indissolution profound There however 1991. was not Yugoslav launched whenthe inaperiod historical context, Yugoslav and cultural all of them were from breakthe away to attempt asanideological was recognized Theory The implications. controversy which dominated the Slovene public debate until early the 1990s. harsh very a launched and acclamation public wide won book the – this of because scholars, suchas ethnographers Nevertheless andlinguists. –ormaybe partially precisely “Venetic byacademic decidedly Theory” historians, –was rejected aswellbyother European in area European 12 the colonizedthe Central supposedly called Veneti, which they people of a pre-Roman Forefathers historiography in the 19 East Alpinein settledthe that Slavic from WestandSouth the descended not were Slovenes the region in the 6 Ivan Tomaži Ivan Matej Bor, Jožko Šavli, Ivan Tomaži Ivan Šavli, Jožko Bor, Matej Since the very beginning, the critics of the Venetic theory pointed out its ideological pointed out theory Venetic the of critics beginning,very the Since the In 1985, a group of three Slovene amateur historians published a book claiming historians book that of publishedamateur In 1985,agroup Slovenethree a , the three authors advanced a theory that the Slovenes were direct descendants direct were Slovenes the that a theory advanced authors three the , þ , “Urednikov uvodnik.” “Urednikov , th Century BC. Century th century. In their monograph, entitled monograph, their In century. th þ Century, as it had been established by asithad academic the Century, been established , Glas Korotana Veneti: naši davni predniki Introduction 1 Their theory – which soon became known as the 1 10 (1985), 9. (: Slovenski dom Korotan, 1985). a priori Veneti: OurAncientForefathers 2 Spurnedbytheacademic adverse totheYugoslav Veneti: OurAncient CEU eTD Collection As such, it had an important impact in framing their professional experience; several of their firstthe public polygon for several influential Slovene historians of youngerthe generation. place serving withincontroversy as Slovenehistoriography, shift during agenerational took presupposition “properthe Sloveneon what identity”be.is oroughtBesides, to the historiographic community,in which away they gave several of implicittheir own the members of from areaction triggered theory Venetic of the authors the identity, of Slovene views essence onthe own theirBy advancing community. historiographic Historiography”, which exercised within an Slovene hegemony overwhelming the unmask many “ ideological unacknowledged premises so-called School of of the changes historiography.within mainstream firstthe Slovene place,its In stance managed to frame. Slavic its of dissolution regardingdiscourse Slovene identity, among whichthe probably importantmost is the final borders of Slovenia. It also served as a catalyst numerous of important changesin the public theory developed in firstthe open public debateon Slovene identity 1945withinafter the the followed that controversy The identity. national the for relevance their highlighted that contexts several into introduced since been have and Slovenia in imagery collective entered the imageswhich historical several re-appropriated or elaborated century, created, radical change in of discourse the itSlovene identity as had developed since themid 19 innovative approach to Slovene identity issues. This movement, besides introducing a of matter public debate. in a issue the transform to managed and –, historians academic with exclusively but mostly, – community scholarly the with in polemics entered advocates Their success. an unexpected For several reasons, the Venetic controversy also played an important role in the in role important an played also controversy Venetic the reasons, several For an a distinct with movement a into cultural regular developed gradually The Theory 2 th CEU eTD Collection the neo-avant-garde movements centred around the around groups movements centred neo-avant-garde the and movement, ecological the of Central , concept of the popularization such as the 1980’s, in the narrative national Slovene classical in the a shift brought which phenomena cultural wider the within controversy Venetic the of role assessed yet not and important produce an to importanthelped it from sprung that controversy the and theory Venetic the re-definitionboth is that hypothesis of the Slovene My context. ideological and political in proper the them place and – sphere academic national imagery. I willsides try to show – thethe authorsideological ofboth implications strategies discursive and the argumentative procedures, and propagatorsachieve to analyze history. this,I will theory Inorder inSlovene acultural phenomenon as of the Theory, as well as theirdistance to assess their own position within opponentsthe controversy. fromlacked proper the and thus have overitscontent, in the polemics been engaged hadtheory the ideological its of nature properly theexact to define far have unable beenso they Venetic theory, the program. Furthermore,Although most who historians with dealt issuehavethe ideological outthe pointed of nature entirely neglected. haseitherwith been itsor dealt historicsignificance superficially almostwhile –, falsity its show to trying mostly – Theory all the of content the on centred exclusively of the scholars1990s. Although hassome literature been published on issue,the it has been almost who analyzedestablishits relevance in changes thatoccurred in the Slovene identity during the 1980sand the Venetic properly onlyunderstood in backgroundof the controversythe stirred by Veneticthe theory. canbe away broke from generation, previous with the which they conceptualizations, recent One of the aims of my thesis is to critically assess the controversy around the Venetic and theory Venetic the by created controversy public the analyse will I thesis, my In 3 Irwing and Neue Slowenische CEU eTD Collection 2005). 3 assert the ancestral communion of all Slav peoples. The Venetic theory, on the other side, newcomers” from from 6 the newcomers” that Slavs were the originalRomantic settlersPan-Slavists of Centralof consistency theand credibility,but used it toachieve19 completely different aims. Forand the Slovene South-Easttheses Europe and not of“barbarian 19 for asacatalyst itsdissolution. identity acted and Slovene of frame” “Slavic the of crisis the uncovered theory Venetic of the The massivesuccess aligned policy was the most suitable form of institutional integration of the Slovene . 19 since the demise of the as the main “Other” against whom Slovenian identity was framed experiences, most the important being from the immigration Yugoslavother Republics, the identity framethis became more andmore for unsuitable containing newsocial and political however, WarWorld Two, After denied. very rarely, was never,or two of the relatedness essential thei but time, this throughout debated abundantly was identity Slavic South or wider Slavic identity. Therelationship between Slovene identity and awider, either Slavic Century, the identity of Slovenes was constantly about theiridentityand historicaland destiny. repeatedly put intoprepare itsto in ground, asthey the coordinates changed werethinkwhich usedto Slovenes the context of a Slovenia’s thatbrought process toindependencehelped declaration from of and Kunst For the latter, see Alexei Monroe, see Alexei latter, the For . One of the most paradoxical features of the Venetic theory was that itrenewed the that was theory of Venetic the features paradoxical most One the of Since birththe modernof Slovene national consciousness in thefirst halfof 19 the 3 These movements, embedded in the civil society, ran parallel with with political the society,parallel ran in embedded civil the Thesemovements, th th century, and doubtswhether raising Yugoslavia its with anti-western non- century Pan-Slavist activists, elevating them to a much higher level of level higher much a to them elevating activists, Pan-Slavist century th and 7 th Interrogation Machine: Laibach inNSK centuries – was a means to fight German nationalism and to th century, the autochthonist discourse – that is, the claim 4 (Cambridge, Mass.: MITPress, Mass.: (Cambridge, th CEU eTD Collection 6 in naSlovenskem,” 5 53. has which theory, the of content the much be so not will focus My connotations. ideological and political analyzed yet not and implicit their showing Theory, the in contained theses the discoursethe employedimportantmostVenetologians bythe accountof give and a proper analysis by an fill of intendaccurate gap producing research to this In thesis, present the I inis in he tothematerial of writes”. that author on which the a textregard the“positioning position”, of location author’s the “theSaïdstrategic call whatEdward would to emphasis povesti,” in else: Vends, Veneti, , Etruscans, , etc.” MiranHladnik. “Slovani v slovenski zgodovinski amateur historians who the to use popular ananswer etymologiesas beseen also can […] in ordernovel to prove historical Slovene that weof the are not Slavs tradition butthe something in Slavs and Slovenes between MiranHladnik, whichbegins with the following statement: “The topic of my present article about the relation 4 ideological purposes. conclude fuelled only it by themselves its contents, to was an clear conjecture untenable concentrated mostly phenomenon, a as Theory Venetic the with dealt who historians The identity. Slovene of redefinition the to contribution important an gave that conveyed was Slavs or Veneti”. Slavs or are “we whether on question, the around revolving was controversy whole the that believed became called, soon as they “Venetologians”, by andthe published books pamphlets the read never had who Slovenes many fact, in theory: the of content very the obscured it that and wassostrong overwhelming discourse. This discourse initdifferent acompletely tightened until then. Toput it shortly, the Venetic theory was the old autochthonism inserted generallyYugoslav into (or whichcorset theSlav) historical Slovene narrative had been ancestral origin of the Slovenes itself inits thevested re-discovered the ideology for of advocates, identity: pure Slovene should have served as an encouragement to get rid of the Edward Saïd, Cf. Peter Štih, “'Ej ko goltneš do tu-le, udari po konjih!' O avtohtonisti This misperception can be for example seen in a recent article published by the renowned literary historian literary renowned by the published article a in recent seen example be for can misperception This It is therefore clear that it was not the Theory itself, but the discourse with which it Podoba tujega v slovenskiPodoba tujegav književnosti Orientalism Zgodovina za vse 4 5 (New York: Vintage Books, 1979). They however neglected its discursive character and gave no its neglected character however They discursive 3, no. 2(1996): 66-80. , ed., Tone Smolej Filozofska(Ljubljana: fakulteta,2005), 5 þ nih in podobnih teorijah pri Slovencih 6 CEU eTD Collection is in fact discourses identitarian classical a of common redefinition The interest. regional narrow its transcending trait in many contemporary European type post-modern discourse. nationalist of societies. Constantmodel of Slovene reframing national identity,Venetic inscribes itself theory in pointthe between of division modern the and post-modern marking the the how show is to aim point final My 1980s. in the height its of reached which passage identity European to what one could call a itsof nationalisticformed connotations, wide partof the spectrum of revival the Central of because even or inspite in fact, theory, Venetic The context. European Central in wider the identity different conclusion, Inthe discourses. subject of establish Ishall relevance the the two of clash a also but methodology, and content the on clash a only not was Venetologues the and historiography “official” the between clash the how show will I claims, concrete its controversy, whichVenetic the on emphasis much too wasputting Without moretraditions. or semi-autochthonist less centred around repetitiveand autochthonist different of the appropriation through itself slowly established discourse assertions theory’s the how and show will I two. the rejectionsbetween shifts and continuities the ascertain to on in Venetic theory, tothe prior theories autochthonist of the make ageneral outline will also historiographic discourse of 20 the of discourse historiographic the to myself concentrating identity, Slovene of discourses the of coordinates basic by identity created Theory the becan appreciated. that a proper evaluationas from is cultural the itandcontextsprung. political which It only perspectivethrough this of the extent of theunderstanding its success isnot so much its butcontent, its ideological background, as well rupture of key the in that fact in believe theI scholars. many by traditional rejected and analysed been already framing of Slovene The latter element makes my subject a paradigmatic case for wider case element aparadigmatic makes mysubject phenomena, The latter In ordershow Iwillthis rupture, focus mostly its prehistory:on the Iwill describe th century, to which the Venetic theory was a reaction. I 6 CEU eTD Collection collective historical identities. historical collective it raises perennialissuethe of relationshipthe between historiography scholarly and difficulty of the academia to grasp these changes and to cope with them. Not leastimportant, also It reveals the in faceofnewchallenges. the themselves to transform areable discourses identitarian) speaking, broadly (or, nationalist which with agility the of example good a is theory Venetic the case, any In ingeneral. identity of trait intrinsic an well be as might 7 CEU eTD Collection 87-92. 8 in naSlovenskem,” 7 the Slovenesthe by providing them with ancestors. glorious of consciousness national the boast to one: ideological an but a scientific, not was – named sarcastically were they –as “Venetizors” aim the the of predecessor their casewith the been had as Exactly clothes. new with them dressing claims, rejected already scientifically re-proposed merely claimed, they of Theory, the The advocates nature. unsubstantiated sequel whohadauthors of advanced similarclaims wasjust anotherprove their for long a of existence the theory, Venetic the objecting scholars academic the For intentions. fact,with opposite this emphasized Venetic the theory around controversy ininvolved the beenin present Slovene historiography since its beginning.very Paradoxically,both sides such claims, whichwere later dubbed with generalizingthe “autochthonism”, have contrary, the On conquest. Roman the to prior area the inhabited who people ancient some descendents of Slavic tribes which settled the Eastern in the Early , but of articulation: it was a general, unchallenged awareness, which was shaken only by the by only shaken was which awareness, unchallenged general, a was it articulation: for itsand need wasnoreal there inarticulate, was largely This conviction region. more less or naturally everybody thewas convinced Slovenes that were in indigenous this awareness. in historical the continuity the proved wasthe autochthonism of long tradition view, the their In perspective. different from a Matej Bor, Jožko Šavli and Ivan Tomaži Ivan and Šavli Jožko Bor, Matej Cf. Peter Štih, “'Ej ko goltneš do tu-le, udari po konjih!' O avtohtonisti The Venetic theory was not the first theory claiming that the Slovenes were not were Slovenes the that claiming theory first the not was theory Venetic The The advocates of the Venetic theory – we shall call them Venetologians – saw the issue –sawthe them Venetologians – weshall call Veneticof theory the The advocates 1. Early Autochthonist Theories in the Slovene the in Theories Autochthonist 1. Early Zgodovina za vse 3, no. 2(1996): 66-80. þ , Veneti: našidavni predniki 8 8 Until the mid 19 mid the Until 7 þ nih in podobnih teorijah pri Slovencih (Ljubljana: Editiones Veneti, 1989), th century, they claimed, CEU eTD Collection Paulus Diaconus: 13 12 11 10 9 by of Venetologians the defending a“Pan-Slavic construct”. accused sincewerethemselves especially this paradox, pointingout of missed theoccasion collections of absurdities within the “Venetizor movement”. “Venetizor the within of absurdities collections in the element another just as considered they which detail, this to attention much toponymics as one of theSlavists, main sources Pan- outspoken by framed been had that theory a for resuscitated only not they theirParadoxically, claims. but they was idea. basis whole, Yugoslav which the the of distinctive linguistic ethnic and alsotheir used theory the “community a South whatSlavic idea the they destiny”; perceived asitsof surrogate, of was“discoveries” a very and of Pan-Slavism specter the were Venetologians of the opponents ideological The main unequivocalGrafenauer Štihhisevident especially Bogo noticed and dauphinPeter paradox. anall – too attack of those on historians – be academic sure,the it. To within shifts andideological paradigmatic were the the perceptionPan-Slavists of the South constructions. ideological in Slavs the asfield articulated autochthonistlong whichhad convictions, been by obfuscated unsustainable a insufficiently old, the of veracity of essential the confirming now were Venetologians German and Pan-Slavic intellectual and political elites. Pan- the both of interests political the suited which nationalism, Romantic of fabrication more ideological than an nothing insisted, Venetologians the new was however, This truth “the have realtruth”. modern emergence discovered which claimed to positivist science of Matej Boret al., ibid. Seeabove. “Ob tiso Grafenauer. Bogo Matej Bor et al., op. cit., 28-64. Ivan Tomaži Ivan What both sides missed in their recollections of the Slovene autochthonist tradition, theSlovene autochthonist of in their recollections missed sides both What þ , “Urednikov uvodnik.” “Urednikov , Zgodovina Langobardov - Historia Langobardorum þ tristoletnici slovanske naselitve na današnje slovensko narodnostno ozemlje” in ozemlje” narodnostno slovensko današnje na naselitve slovanske tristoletnici Glas Korotana 9 10(1985): 9. 9 The new discoveries madebythe Thenewdiscoveries 11 (: Obzorja, 1988). Obzorja, (Maribor: The academic historians rarely historians Theacademic 13 12 They did however not pay not however did They 10 CEU eTD Collection Jožko Šavli’s book Šavli’s Jožko 16 15 na Slovenskem,” the secondthe chapter,sounds in in fact as a parodydescribed of itself. “methodology” his of example classical a inscription, Venetic of the Venetologic “decoding” Bor’s modern of the discourse. fathers” “founding three ofthe one Bor, Matej by advanced Alps, Dolomite (“Ej kogoltneš do po konjih”),tu-le, udari interpretation an of a supposed inscription Venetic foundthe in 14 need summarize his to Štih findings, wrote: failedautochthonism,draw any but to meaningful conclusionsit. with from Confronted the discursiveinin present shifts long attitude andhistory changes the of Slovene ancient peoplesfrom – descended in general theSlavs or – Slovenes the idea that the advanced who present, who settled the area. It is interesting to note how Štih registered all the nature, Lands. Slovene in the theories autochthonist various Štihextensivesubsided, published Peter of an summary historian medievalist the had controversy Venetic the by stirred storm the after shortly 1996, In Lands. Slovene logic, which was also the reason why, as we shall see, their critiques often missed the target. see in failed They however tounderstanddiscursive Venetologians’ the chapter. second the mixture of confusion, indignation, haughtiness, and personal disqualifications, asweshall Faced with the as“insolentdilettantes”. theirdesignate opponents to academichistorians forenough the unexpectedwas it scientism their In claims. their of nature implicit the into inquire deeply to bother they popularitykind of conjecture it was. They did not take it seriously as ofan ideological movement, nor did the Veneticrejected the Venetic theory as an ideological conjecture. They did however notanalyze what theory, their reaction to it was1.1. TheDiscursive Shifts inSlovene Autochthonism a Štih’s article was writtenin the last wave of reactions against the Venetic theory, raised by publicationof Seeabove. Peter Štih, “'Ej ko goltneš do tu-le, udari po konjih!' O avtohtonisti The same can be said for their recollection of the history of autochthonism in the in autochthonism of history the of recollection their for said be can same The rightly in controversy, caught the scholars other as aswell historians, The academic 16 he made a comprehensive list of Slovene authors from from authors 16 Slovene the listof hemadeacomprehensive Zgodovina za vse Veneti and EtruscansVeneti 3, no. 2(1996):71. in 1995. The polemic nature of the article is revealed by its very 15 10 In his article, which nothidedoes its polemic þ nih in podobnih teorijah pri Slovencih in th century to the to century 14 CEU eTD Collection reaction against the prevailing convictions. The sixth stage is represented by the revival by of revival isthe represented stage Thesixth convictions. prevailing against the reaction a into evolves theory, historical accepted) not (although feasible a and consciousness whichdiscourse, beenhad previously both an acceptable mode of expressing national autochthonist connotations.its the andits Pan-Slavists In this stage, “methodology” especially tradition, Romantic the of much keep however who individuals, isolated and few already itis marginalized:autochthonistgets discourse mostly completely by forward put publicthe Inthefifth sphere. stage,following demise the Romanticthe of paradigm, the prevailing the framed inthe academia andin atheory convictions consciously to as reacting itwas that it used,since then only bewas properly can autochthonism which term the first phase of what is known as the “Slovene national revival”. This is also the first stage for emerged Thefourth stage period. and in formed Romantic the of period anintegral the part Humanistic historiography; the second stage comes with the evolvement of this tradition into a medieval of tradition by isthe represented first stage The stages. six different into theory Venetic the of emergence the to prior autochthonism Slovene the group can we think autochthonism. Its tradition is however, as Štih himself properly pointed out, much longer. I 17 Peter Štih, op. cit., 72. This claim is certainly true, but only insofar as it applies to the post-19 tothe it insofarapplies as This butonly is claim true, certainly science in order to discover and verify new findings. new verify and discover to order in science taught individuals,unaware ofthe methodstechniques, employed andrules byaparticular self- often very non-professional, were autochthonists] [the They work. scientific adequate word – as a place where science was both formed and taught – openedwith the 19 the possibilities for an their common trait: their authors were all dilettantes. This is true at least for the period starting If we further analyze the autochthonist and similartheories among the Slovenes,we discover topos th , whilebyitsis the third represented re-emergence in Enlightenment the century, when establishmentthe of universities the themodern in ofsense the 11 17 th century CEU eTD Collection commonly accepted fact only at the beginning of the 19 the beginningof the factat only commonly accepted emerged in periodit It anda relatively one. earlyEnlightenmentbecame a only the recent is area Alpine Eastern the of settlement Slavic a of consciousness the that Venetologians the 1.2 TheMedieval Tradition theory. an emphasize on those of their features which already announce the discourse of the Venetic “official”historiography,its putting tothe where relations show Iwill secondthe chapter, in theories autochthonist of stage fifth and fourth the analyze therefore will I historiography. prevailing the in to itself framedreaction that one the autochthonism, Post-Romantic the were notso much influenced by it. The true roots of the Venetic theory can be found only in inhistoriography the 19 modern by of obfuscated emergence the was which tradition forgotten They a represent away from the Venetic theory, not only in the chronological, but alsoin the discursive sense.further most the are which ones the also are stages These identity. Slovene of discourse emergence correlativethe in the historiography of change and prevailing the positivist weapon of projectintegration. againstthe Slovene of autonomism Yugoslav ideological becomingan autochthonism change, start to with clearly connotations discursive autochthonism in the Post-World War Two period, crowned by the Venetic theory. Here, the the west . west the of part and coast Adriatic east the for also extent a large to but Lands, Slovene the for only When one looks to the tradition of autochthonism, one can only confirm the claims of precede which stages, three the first outlineof will makeashort sections, I nextIn the th century. The Venetologians appropriated thisbutthey appropriated century. tradition, Venetologians The 12 th century. This is however true notis century. true Thishowever CEU eTD Collection narodopisje Humanist intellectuals,expandeditHumanist who and gaveita more clearly and ethnical defined A.D. Hieronymus.by St. Old Slavic liturgy who claimed that Glagoliticthe scripthad beeninvented in 4 the bytheeastAdriatic first popularized apparently perception was Croatians, Dalmatians and Istrians) as Illyrians was later transformed into a into transformed later was asIllyrians Istrians) and Dalmatians Croatians, 1.3 The Humanist Topos north-west of his Empire. tothe extending territory enormous Slavsan tothe donated ruler which theMacedonian the falsified documentAlps is alsomentioned. of dating from the 14 the “fact” that the local Slavs had been christianized already in the Apostolic times. Apostolic in the already christianized hadbeen local Slavs the that “fact” the 10 autochthonism of the Balkan Slavstraditions was mentioned Biblical alsoeven or Ancient the inwith links in the establish to cases tried Christian tradition intellectual the where where tradition it did notalready exist. in Europe, in Medieval trait was acommon this the Nevertheless, It lost. quickly so was migrations is thus not surprising that the idea of the 22 21 20 19 18 Chronicle. which can be found in all kind of Medieval documents, including the Russian Nestor Primož Simoniti, “Dekret ali pri Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Peter Štih, op. cit., 67. th century. In letter century.In a to Croatianthe John mentioned Tomislav,king X. (914-928) The Medieval ecclesiastical tradition of identifying the Southern Slavs (mostly Slavs Southern the identifying of tradition ecclesiastical Medieval The It issomehow surprising historical the population that experienceof great the 44, no. 9(1973): 225. 20 In latter,the the Slavic ethnicity of pre-Romanthe state in the Eastern 21 Another source of the same autochthonist tradition can be found in 22 19 This idea soon Thisidea developed ina soon tradition,proper traces of the þ evanje Aleksandra Velikega o Slovanih,” 13 glagoljaši th century, according to ý asopis za zgodovino in , promoters of the topos th century among 18 This CEU eTD Collection denomination tribes 27 to denoteCankarjeva založba, 1987), 10-18. their Slavic neighbours. To this day, it has survived is closely linked to the German 26 (1977): 305. Paulus Diaconus: dealingare we withthat an established clear is it case, any In interpretation. first the suggest would only, Slovenes addresses clearly which book, the to preface the although meant, were Slovenes than rather Slavs that suggest would “all” meant “Friend of All Slovenes”, whichis the traditional interpretation, or“Friend of All Slavs”. The adverb introduced in the 24 only in23 mid 19 . tradition, Medieval the from language, Slovenethe philologist AdamBohori 25 early 19 of popularthe counterpart meantto signifywere being adjective intellectual with same the Illyricus an the ethonym, itto recall the (suffice regional denotation the designate South Slavic Illyrians. The peoples might as designation have hadboth a to intellectuals for common very fact in became it period Humanist the During public. identitarian connotations. spread The this notionHumanist texts in the secularalso reading while (“ inhisPatriot”), in Abecedary, sameyear, published he the used the Slovene whoTrubar (1508-1586), signed hisCatechismfrom 1550 as Primož preacher andauthor Protestant Slovene the with case the undoubtedly This was one. theologianfrom Matthias Flacius(1520-1575) Venetianthe aswell anethnical ), as was The term emerged probably already in the and was commonly used by various German Adam Bohori Adam It has to be noted that the distinctionbetween the terms Slav and Slovene did not yet exist atthe time. It was “Ob tiso Grafenauer. Bogo Darja Miheli Darja Winde One of the first one to identify the Slavs with the ancient Veneti was the protestant th 26 century, the most common designation for the Slovenes in the German the in Slovenes the for designation common most the century, Peryatil vseh Slouenzou Peryatil vseh The reason for this shift was quite clear. Throughout the Middle Ages until the until Ages Middle the Throughout clear. quite was shift this for reason The or Wende þ þ , “Karantanija v o “Karantanija , . “Slovenci in Slovani,” in Slovani,” in “Slovenci . Windische Zgodovina Langobardov - Historia Langobardorum for the of . The Magyars also took over the denomination from the German topos Arcticae horulae þ . þ tristoletnici slovanske naselitve na današnje slovensko narodnostno ozemlje” in ozemlje” narodnostno slovensko današnje na naselitve slovanske tristoletnici 27 (or Bohorizh, 1520-1598) in Bohorizh, his (or 1520-1598) the preface firstgrammarto of slovenski , not with a defined terminology. a defined with not , Bohori 25 þ buthe shifts the emphasis from the Illyrians to the Veneti and eh zgodovinarjev od konca 15. do 18. stoletja,” 18. do 15. konca od zgodovinarjev eh or“Friend of All Slovenes”. þ identified this ethonym with the ancient Veneti (which Veneti ancient the with ethonym this identified . 24 Slovenska misel: eseji oslovenstvu , published inLatin in text,he In draws 1584. the , published th century. The question thus arises whether the signature the whether arises thus question The century. 14 Illyricus (Maribor: Obzorja, 1988), 378. 23 Clearly, the two adopted by Protestant the adopted , ed.Jože Poga Philopatridus Illiricus Zgodovinski þ nik (Ljubljana:nik þ asopis 31 CEU eTD Collection 31 30 Veneti were very probably not of the same origin as the Adriatic Veneti. See the reference above. 29 reference the See Veneti. Adriatic the as origin same of the not probably very were Veneti Baltic The region. of the settlement Slavic tothe prior and western of present-day area most likely derives from the name of the Baltic Veneti, an non-Slavic Indo-Europeantribe whichsettled the 28 Diaconus: Grafenauer, “Ob tiso Slovenes in his rather chaotic reconstruction of the of region. the history of ancient the reconstruction inhischaotic rather Slovenes who alsomentions the Vandals as the ancestors of the Carinthian, Carniolan and Friulian from to . to from Carinthia used as one of the main sources(around 1550-1614)from (Ragusa). was Orbini’s book very influential, asitwas for the Ancient and Medieval Slavs”,the 1601)published in Veniceby Dalmatian the Benedictine monkOrbini Mauro history of the Southbook Illyrian continuity, bythe wasreinforced which Slavs Littoral. Austrian the in and of Slovenes the among Balthazar) whoworked by Slavs”)BelsazarFrench naturalist Hacquet(1739-1815) (or the and Illyrians Vends, Eastern and South-Western the of description and A Sketch Illyrians: Wenden, Illyrer und Beschreibungund Slaven undöstlichen dersüdwest- monograph the also is identification this of example published in by 1663 Slovenethe Jesuithistorian Martin Bau language and it is still used as a common name for the Hungarian Slovenes ( Slovenes Hungarian the for name a common as used still is it and language already rudimental Pan-Slavist ideology, which started gain amongto the popularity started ideology, alreadyPan-Slavist which rudimental conclusion) right a was the work in also betraced can Veneti ancient the with of Slovenes the identification The particular. the term Illyriancease use not to he did Symptomatically,peoples. descend from two those Slavs had the to as an alternative name for the Slavs in general and the Slovenes in Cf, Franjo Šanjek in Cf. Baltazar Hacquet, Baltazar Cf. Cf. Martin Bav peoples Slavic neighbouring many denote to used Windische, or Wende Winde, ethonyms Germans The Much stronger than the identification with the Veneti was however the myth of myth the however was Veneti the with identification the than stronger Much Zgodovina Langobardov -Historia Langobardorum Historia rerumnoricarumetforojuliensium þ er, þ Zgodovina Norika in Furlanije tristoletnici slovanske naselitve na današnje slovensko narodnostno ozemlje” in : Kraljevstvo Slavena Veneti, Iliri, Slovani 28 and with the Vandals (which was a wrong one), concluding that 31 More importantly, the book shows the first elements of an of elements first the shows book the importantly, More (: Založba Branko, 1996). Branko, Založba Gorica: (Nova (Ljubljana: Slovensko bibliografsko društvo, 1991). društvo, bibliografsko Slovensko (Ljubljana: 15 (: Golden marketing,1999). (Maribor: Obzorja, 1988), 409-411. Il Regno degliSlaviIl Regno Slavus-Venedus-Illyricus; Abbildung (“History of Noricum and ”) and Noricum of (“History 30 þ er (orBaucer,1595-1668), Vend , pl. (“The Realm of (“Slavs-Vends- Vendek ). Cf. Bogo Cf. ). 29 A late Paulus CEU eTD Collection 34 33 202. Slovene history, since it was the first conscious intellectual conceptualization and conceptualization intellectual conscious first the was it since history, Slovene Slavi 32 kroneke iniswhat book historiographical considered thefirst Slovenelanguage, the Deluge. the after emergedimmediately language, which expressedMarko Pohlin (1735-1801) conviction Slavic the of origin Illyrian the of the the ancestralcultural and even political Pan-Slavism. origins conscious already an of light in the Slavs Balkan the of origin ancestral the argued which of the SlavsSlavorum origine successibusque in his work,(around 1540) 1480-around less influential,but much more ideologically motivated book not only reinforcing the old preface to the book grammar the preface to Enlightenment Inhisfamousperiod. language, defense of vernacular the published as the in the language Slovene the of revival the launched which in Carniola movement intellectual Topos 1.4 The Enlightenment: Re-Emergence and Demise of theAutochthonist itcombining with a forthright vindication of Slavic the cultureandlanguage. Pribojevi Vinko was example A similar time. the of intellectuals Croatian and Dalmatian Ibid. Peter Štih, op. cit., 68. Anita Peti, “Vinko Pribojevi as a source for his bizarre recollection of history. of asaregional the his for source recollection bizarre Pohlin’s defense of of languageisPohlin’sconsidered1768 point often aturning of defenseof the It is notsurprisingthus had thatOrbini’s an book influenceimportant on the (“The Carniolan Chronicles”, 1770), in which hein Chronicles”, (“The Carniolan used 1770), which clearly Orbini’s ü : De origine: successibusque Slavorum,” Kraynska grammatika (“On the Origins and Successes of Slavs”, 1532), the Successes of and Origins the (“On 32 Orbini incorporated Pribojevi Orbiniincorporated 16 (1768), the SloveneAugustinian (1768),the monk 33 Pohlin was also the author of Mogu ü 34 nosti 38, no. 1-2 (1991): 38,no. 196- ü ’s speculationsof Regno degli topos Kraynske , but ü De ’s CEU eTD Collection 38 (2005/2007): 5-9. Branko Reisp, Janez Vajkard Valvasor (Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1983), 28-35. 37 36 35 production in the German language with a strong regionalist character. regionalist in languagewith a strong German the production 18 vindication of Slovene identity after more than one and a half century. Megiser thus revived a very avery old Megiser thus revived individuality Duchy the of Habsburgthe against absolutist tendencies. Christalnick and assert specific was the to interest whose Estates, Provincial Carinthian Protestant-dominated countryman. This conception history linkedof strongly course of was to intereststhe of the saw as from descending andforming Vandals the one people with their German-speaking history of the on Carinthia, concentrated them of Both dictionary. German-Slovene a and Carinthia of Duchy emphasizing the role of Slovenes in its political genesis, whom authorof monumental Gothard Christalnick the (1540-1595), they autochthonism. “All-German” tradition conceptualizingof the origins of localthe population:Slavic wecould callitthe speaking population inand general, theSlovene culture writing authors, who very often adopted a manifestly positive attitude towards the Slovene- Catholic Counter-, was largely marginalized. largely was Counter-Reformation, Catholic the of stages early by the extent) lesser a (to and Reformation Protestant the by employed and articulated hadbeenfully which language, Slovene written use of the the between, in Klagenfurt late16 the whoworked in1588) and Ljubljana Megiser theHieronymus Swabian (1553-1618), and Martina Orožen, “Janez Vajkard Valvasor o slovenskem jeziku,” MatjažKmecl,“Valvasorjev kulturnozgodovinski pomen,” Anton Slodnjak, Anton Cf. , Peter Cf. th century, the intellectual scene in the Slovene Lands was dominated by literary the in wasdominated Lands Slovene scene the intellectual the century, The initiators of this tradition were two Lutheran historians, the Carinthian Michael Carinthian the Lutheran historians, of were two this tradition initiators The Zgodovina slovenskega slovstva Od Pohlinove slovnice do slovenske države th century and wrote an important treatise on the history of the of history the on treatise important an wrote and century topos presentin the circles of the Carinthian nobility, which (Klagenfurt:, 1968). 17 Glasnik Slovenske matice (Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2006). Jezik in slovstvo 38 36 brought a completely different From the early 17 Historia Carinthiaca 39, no. 1 (1993/94): 3-12. 37 The local German 35 In in periodthe 29/31, no. 1-3 no. 29/31, th to the late (1579- CEU eTD Collection Valvasorjeve Slave 41 Ljubljani, 1980),219. 40 Valvasorjeve Slave 39 largely rhetoric move which had little success. Although Pohlin’s call for the re-valorization was a It discourse. intheSlovene a re-introduction but exactly a resuscitation, not however humanist Germanic. seen as were peoples pre-Roman which possible all to according reconstructions, historical ( Slovene the emphasized Empire, but also but Empire, For Schönlebenprovince’s peculiarity,and at the same time framingValvasor, the of them testimony the as as beingelement partSlovene the of the Germanic emphasized thus They family. Empire. German in fact, Carniolaof their province, was withoutnotemphasizeto as much possiblethe as regional which peculiarities uniqueidentity shaped the only in any politically,way putting wanted authors these wasin agenda: political latter grounded a very clear the on insistence in doubt its as role part ofessential componentan of the regionalintegralof identity with the the assertionthe as of itspopulation Germanic Slovene local origins. the of Theavowal piece the together tied tradition ofhistoriographic the This canon. national Slovene inthe incorporated fully later was who noblemen political privileges. Johann Weichard Valvasor (1641-1693), historianthe andJohann LudwigSchönleben (1618-1681) especially with polymath the German descended from the Vandals, became rooted alsoin Carniola with the works of , Bogo Bogo Grafenauer, Bogo Bogo Grafenauer, Bogo It is precisely against this All-German tradition that Pohlin oldIt isthisthe that All-German tradition against precisely resuscitated In the 17 topos 41 th (Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije,1990). (Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije,1990), 12-13. of of All-Slavic autochthonism hewhich found in writings.Orbini’s Itwas century, conception history, this whichsaw of Slovenesthe an as odd Valvasorjevo mesto vsamospoznavanju Slovencev posebnega narod : obtristoletnici Valvasorjevo mesto vsamospoznavanju Slovencev kot posebnega narod : obtristoletnici ethnically Struktura in tehnika zgodovinske vede 39 Windisch German. Inorder this,to prove they engaged inimplausible ) origin of the Duchy as an assertion of its ancestral of Duchyasanassertion ) originthe of 40 one of the very few local German-speaking few local oneofthevery 18 (Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v CEU eTD Collection 43 42 not so much the early new Enlighteners. The of from late focus Humanist evolved this the ideologeme, modern Slovene of discourse the penetrate to started lands, affirmationSerbian and Croatian neighbouring the of ancestryIn latethe 18th century,in fact, in Illyrianthe ideologeme, which had been developed in a in any more, but identity andofthe specificlanguage local the of population. vindications of vernacular the the assertion could discourse historiographic serious and inliterature still flourish variousof patriotic an the scholarly establishment of the second half of the 19 by ascertained finally was it before even view of point mainstream the became Ages Middle early in the Lands Slovene the of settlement of Slavic theory the the that which meant thereafter, history of Slovene conceptualizations all for reference became acrucial work of Austrian the Slavs”),South in published volumes two 1788 between and 1791.Linhart’s Oesterreiches der südlichenSlaven included itin his monogparh whohistorian alsoaccepted (1756-1795) Tomaž Anton bytheEnlightenment Linhart MiddleAges. in theearly regions Alpine the Eastern of settlement Slavic the of theory advanced the contemporaries. his by rejected completely were writings historical his elite, local of segments the by important embraced of wasenthusiastically Slovene language the Carinthian Slovene Jesuithistorian Marko Hanzi for an andacceptable emerging intellectual erudite public. enlightened were definitely changing andtheimprobable wereno ancestors listsofillustrious longer Ibid., 66. Peter Štih, op. cit., 68. It is nevertheless interesting to notice how the same notion which was banished from banished was which notion same the how notice to interesting nevertheless is It One of the first ones to object the tradition of the Slavic continuity was apparently the apparently was continuity Slavic the of tradition the object to ones first the of One 43 During 18 the Versuch einer Geschichte von Krain und den übrigen Ländern vonKrainunddenübrigen Versuch einerGeschichte th century, this view became widely acknowledged. It was It became widelyacknowledged. view century,this (“An Essay on the History of Carniola and Other Lands 19 þ (or MarkusHansiz, (or 1683-1766),who th century. 42 The times topos , was CEU eTD Collection ancestral attachment of Slovenes to their : yearsexpand his the from addingan before, assertion two unequivocal panegyric about Vodnik advantagedoubts, took of of his publication the collected in1811 to poems order any leave to not implicit; only were claims those 1809, from version first the In claims. manyit realize in carries autochthonist not but that literary do the incorporated canon, since been has song The Slavs. Dalmatian and Croatians among expressions patriotic similar with line in the absolutely was song The nation. Illyrian old the resuscitated having patriotic poem entitled poem patriotic Illyrianthe ProvincesFrench under direct administration, an Vodnik wrote enthusiastic Pohlin himself. in and write Vodnik(1758-1819),whowasinspired authorValentin to versatile Slovene by poet wasthe strikingmost example The time. for some ideologeme Illyrian tothe attached Illyrians. ancient from descendents did not inall andit not wereethnic, of Thisusehada which connotations, Illyrians. of variety wide any caseby lands as inhabitedpopular the referSouth Slavs to to automatically idea of Slavic South decades, it In kinship. followingwouldthe become increasingly undefined largely still the frame to way a becoming and implication autochthonist initial imply the conviction the are 44 ethnically loadedethnically Ibid., 68. Latinez inGrek, Latinez Ilirsko me klizhe Nevertheless, the tradition of autochthonism was apparently so strong that it remained 44 In 1809, when the Napoleonic army occupied the region established and region the occupied army Napoleonic the when 1809, In amor patriae Ilirija oživljena . As such, the notion of Illyrianism was starting to lose its (“ Reborn”), in which he praised for Napoleon praised he in which Reborn”), (“Illyria 20 Illyria and to South Slavs as Slavs South to and really CEU eTD Collection the Slovenethe Language”) published in thejournal twice. First in 1798 in a long article entitled that the Slavs settled their present homeland only in the Middle Ages. He did it not once, but himself.author ofthosewhoVodnik wasinfactone views endorsed Linhart’s the publicly The is mine. is translation The 45 , Valentin Funnily enough, the challenge invocated in the last strophe was answered by lastin invocated Funnily strophe the the wasanswered enough, challenge the which. say him Let If anyone knows of another one, My race has lived upon this land, Since the earliest times, Now call me Slovene. All the locals around Greek, the and the To I was known as Illyrian naj rezhe, od kod. zhe vekdo zadrujga, ú Od perviga tukaj vse prek. domazhi ú tanuje moj rod, lovensko mipravjo Zadovolni Kranjc: izbrano 45 , ed. Jože Koruza (Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1997), 22. Povedanje odslovenskegajezika Povedanje 21 Lublanske novize of which he was himself (“A History of CEU eTD Collection Poga 47 in the sciences,but alsoin the public discourses. The 1.5 From Topos to Theory: Romantic Autochthonism author. its even not apparently anybody: of convincing incapable already point that wasat tradition which venerable an to old history,resorted Vodnik and culture the localvindicate language, topos the two works. I believe we have to understand this duality as the persistence of an old 46 peoples. language,now increasingly from whichwere claiming their authority of right natural the the vernacular vindications the of from aswell as public from literature, the disappeared poem was moreissue the inyear even book the 1809,thesame published paradoxical, ashewrote the make To Lands. Slovene the in schools grammar and lyceums Austrian the for textbook Duchy Territory Carniola, the of and of the ”), publishedof asa Görz derGrafschaft von Triestund Gebietes Herzogthumus Krain, des in he same the book chief the then conviction the editor; repeated discourse, they as public were figures far from being marginal: in almost all cases, they in from they they marginal: all being were figures far as publicalmost cases, discourse, were public in the marginalized were theories their although First, commonality. all-Slavic that they were all nationalists and Pan-Slavists or at least openly sympathetic to the ideas of fact besides the I findimportant, them that common to features distinctive three There are See Anton Martin Slomšek. “Dolžnost svoj jezik spoštovati,” in , Janko þ nik (Ljubljana:nik Cankarjeva založba, 1987), 30-38. . In absence of any other rhetorical instrument to assert the Slavic identity and In the Romantic era the autochthonist claims became increasingly marginal, not only not marginal, increasingly became claims autochthonist the era Romantic the In Illyria Reborn Illyria 47 Nevertheless, there were important authors who clung to autochthonist claims. autochthonist whoclung to authors important were there Nevertheless, Valentin Vodnik . 46 Nothing suggests that Vodnik ever repudiated his views expressed in Nothingviews everrepudiatedhis suggeststhatVodnik expressed (Ljubljana: Partizanska knjiga, 1990),113. 22 topos Slovenska misel: eseji oslovenstvu of Slavic ancestrality completely (“History of the of (“History Geschichte des , ed. Jože CEU eTD Collection 1890). As most of his autochthonist colleagues, he was ideologically close to the Croatian close to the he wasideologically Asmost colleagues, 1890). of hisautochthonist Trstenjakfrom Catholic of calledDavorin andpublicist (1817- region the priest op. cit. inhabitants of Europe. thethat Slavs must havehad been,along with Basquesthe and Etruscans,original the concluding documents, Ancient in even and Europe throughout place and mountain Following Šafa 49 slovanske naselitve na današnje slovensko narodnostno ozemlje”, op. cit., 379-382. Peter Štih, op. cit., 68. Czech mostand SlovakPan-Slavists, by notably Jozef Pavel Šafa younger toponymicinfluenced research.them,especially ones, Many by were of the the Humanist counterparts, they tried to demonstrate the validity of their theories by intense famous Jernej linguist Kopitar(1780-1844), many and Cf.others. Bogo “ObGrafenauer, tiso monograph inthe Slovene language; Jakob Zupan (1785-1852), one of the most prominent pupils of the Styrian Church ethnologist and historian AntonKrempl (1790-1844),author largeof historiographical first the 48 although memory the was of their autochthonism suppressed. canon, national in the integrated fully been cases many in have and philologists renowned 1810, andthey mostly intheir wrote works 1830sand Many the 1840s. them were of Theautochthonousstatements. discourse shifted thus from argumentative.assertive to andwidelydemonstrate not their origins theyprove accepted, hadto were of Slovenes the on ideas their since Third, conservative. politically and socially was which nationalism, national movement; they were linked to the so-called the to linked were they movement; national Slovene the to adherents the of generation first the to belonged all they Second, conjectures. members also prominentrejected civil of the society, bythosewhotheir respected Bogo Grafenauer, “Ob tiso “Ob Grafenauer, Bogo Notable thecases include Carinthianphilologist, ethnologist and linguist UrbanJarnik (1784-1844); the The most prolific and influential of these authors was a relative latecomer, a Liberal latecomer, wasarelative authors of these influential and prolific The most The majority of werebornThe majority between1780and autochthonists Romantic Slovene the of Ĝ ik’s example, they ik’s of they example, (andfound) searched in traces river, 49 þ tristoletnici slovanske naselitve na današnje slovensko narodnostno ozemlje”, narodnostno slovensko današnje na naselitve slovanske tristoletnici 23 Old Slovene 48 Differently from their from Differently current within Slovene Ĝ ik (1795-1861). þ tristoletnici CEU eTD Collection published in 1878 by the Klagenfurt-based Hermagoras Society ( compiled andexpanded in book the prestigious publishing house 53 52 63-102. sedanjo domovino,” in domovino,” sedanjo 51 2001-2003), 141-142. 50 chronicles. throughout Europe – aspresent – Veneti a synonymethonym the saw he since Illyrians, the on forthan rather Slavs,Veneti the on drawing from the tradition of early aparticularputin firstwas of autochthonistthe emphasizeto . authors the probably He Medieval especially languagesand , in European “researches” of traces Slavic etymological only late, published in quite themost 1870s,and the of comprehensive collections were of Trstenjak’s texts, Trstenjak’s of tone unassertive calm, the by surprised was I say personally can I However, interpretation. hehis theory”. defended autochthonist which with “zeal the about he writes where analysis Štih’s Peter by overlooked completely toponymy, explained by dubiousrather andnot really convincing etymologies. wascorpus formedby longlists Slavic in languages supposedly of foreign traces and main their itself; contradicted often very which theory, his of features main the explained introductionincluded in and ashort articles barelyexisting.His cohesion which their sympathies. Pan-Slavist clear expressed and movement Illyrian theory as ideologicalanother one,/ Let him enemiessay which.” Evidently, Trstenjak did notperceive the opponents of his (or at leastverses not for “Sincethe mere the fact earliest Venetologians’ emphatic assertionalso from but their of truth, threateningVodnik’s almost of being times,/ opponents My race to hashis lived upon this land,/ If anyone knows of I draw my Peter Štih, op. cit., 69.conclusions from Trstenjak's articles in the About the relations between the ethonyms Slavs and Veneti, see Franc Kos. “Kdaj so Slovenci prišli v svojo Igor Grdina. Igor“Smrt najpoštenejšega rodoljuba,” in It is important to emphasize another feature of Trstenjak’s writings, whichwas writings, ofTrstenjak’s emphasize feature to is another It important 51 Unfortunately, the narrative part of his autochthonist writings poor his wasrather autochthonist partof narrative Unfortunately, the Franc Kos:Zbrano delo 53 which is so strikingly different not only from the modern Slovenska Slovanš þ ) in the years) inthe 1874, 1875,1876 and 1877. articles The were later ina v romanš 52 What qualifies as zealous is of course a matter matter of is a of course aszealous qualifies What , ed.BogoGrafenauer (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 1982), 24 Slovenska kronika XX. stoletja þ Letopis Slovenske matice ini (“Slavic Elements in ”), Romance in Elements (“Slavic Družba Sv. Mohorja 50 Most of his articles were hisarticles of Most ). (Ljubljana: Nova revija, (Ljubljana: (the yearbooks of the CEU eTD Collection no. 2(1893): 49-53. ve 55 Grafenauer(Ljubljana: Slovenska matica), 344. 54 theory). His werepublishedtheory). texts by the renownedpublishinghouse the Slavic demotic nationalism, its most radical and also its most phony. For this reason, its reason, this demiseFor happened almost unnoticed. Many Trstenjak’s of followers, such early as famousthe phony. most its also and radical most its nationalism, demotic Slavic the of itan exaggeration was just discourse: lackedoriginal any Romantic autochthonism the Furthermore, reality. from experienced factually the alienated completely self-importance, itsof amegalomaniac with discourse indigence spiritual tried tocompensate and political which nationalism inarticulate ideologically of an early, a relic as seen type was Trstenjak’s of theautochthonism discourse, nationalist of the modernization andthe sciences of Romantic autochthonism. With the growing influence of the positivist paradigm in the younger the generations. educationto available his by he himselfscientific inadequacy and defended that of research pointing lackedthe out correspondence with (1861-1952), he linguistthe and the admitted MatijaMurko philologist content. that the exaggeratedly dry and unattractive serves to conceal the groundlessnessseems almost it where manner, in a scholarly written are of texts the Trstenjak’s Indeed, Lands. which institution important most propagationwas forthe also the in of science Slovene the expansionism. againstGerman self-confidence theirboast to encouragement needed an people when the national awakening, Slovene the of period early inthe butreasonable inadequate, inpatriotism field; the hisautochthonismand work public mentionedbeing was as Fran Levec, “.” “Davorin Levec, Fran Peter Štih, op. cit., 69. Bogo Grafenauer, “Franc Kos in njegovo delo” in þ er.” Trstenjak’sin caseis shows manyways reasonsthe for demise the paradigmatic and years tohis private Inthe ofhislife,Trstenjak renounced theory. In hislast 55 (1890): 256. Andrej Fekonja,“Davorin Trstenjak, slovenski pisatelj,” Ljubljanski zvon 25 (1890), 166-174. SimonRutar, “Trstenjakov spominski 54 Whenmost hedied, eulogieshis praised Franc Kos: Izbrano delo Slovenska matica , ed. Bogo 6, , CEU eTD Collection emerging myth: the founding myth of the settlement. the of myth founding the myth: emerging byanew obscured forgotten, waslargely tradition The autochthonist anymore. no place adjustment of the Slovene identity discourse,an brought also within science whichhistorical the old positivist autochthonist the of emergence The claimsscience. hadweapons: improvisations; the Slovenes were now claims nationalist of German historiography able beneedn’t to foughtwith amateurism and to counter it on its own field and Slovene positivist historians,with whoentered the public in sphere 1880s.From the then on, the its own era”. “scientific demands of the emerging an to themselves 1850s, nothavingchange to theirjustbutideological general paradigm, accommodating andwriter historian (1830-1905)renounced totheir autochthonism inthe The final blow to the autochthonist tradition was given by the first generation of generation first the by given was tradition autochthonist the to blow final The 26 CEU eTD Collection Miroslav Polzer, eds. (Ljubljana-Klagenfurt: Cankarjeva založba –WieserVerlag, 2002), 35-46. (avstijski primer),” in 59 58 Budapest:CEU Press, 1995), 160. 57 56 of quilting point, sewingSlavic kinship,together the myth of the settlement, and the serfdom myth. The latter served as a kind all the others 20 the in a consistent narrative.lovers” Modern ( Slovene “German- or as“Germans” identified handincreasingly wereon provinces other the of those provinces inwhichtheSlovene Thelargely elites Landsweresubdivided. German-speaking Sloveneidentified wasby nation Slovene-speakingthe inhabitingvarious populace the among intellectuals, of popularization paradigm Slovene Herderian the “demotic-genealogical treatment of history”. dominated by Pynsetwhat Robert identifiedin histreatment of Slovak historiography a as 19 the of half first the in nationalism Romantic the with emerged which identity” Slovene of frame “classical the be called might atwhat looks one if mobilization politicization the of vernacular Indeed, and culture”. “cultural revolution, where, according to Smith,one. the route towards in ethnies modern process of the building:nation ethnie andthe“demotic” “aristocratic” the the creation of the nation proceeds through 2. Framing the Historical Identity: Slovene Historiography the and Historiography Slovene Identity: Historical the 2. Framing Peter Štih, “Nacionalizacija zgodovine in nastanek sovražnih predstav o sosedih. Slovensko-nemški ososedih. predstav sovražnih nastanek in zgodovine “Nacionalizacija Štih, Peter Cf. Janez Markeš, Robert Pynset, Anthony Anthony D. Smith, 56 According to this model, finally sanctioned in the early 19 In his book his In It is clear that in such a distinction, the Slovenes would fall in the second category, th century had several corollaries, among which the most important were theidea of important themost which among corollaries, several had century nem þ urji Questions ofIdentity: Czech andSlovak IdeasofNationality andPersonality To ). The ethnic origins ofnations origins ethnic The Issue of the Meaning in Slovene History inSlovene Meaning the of Issue The Ethnic Origins of The EthnicOrigins of 59 þ Avstrija –Slovenija: preteklost in sedanjost ka nacionalnega nesporazuma This model wasseriouslywhich challenged onlyin secondhalf the of (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986). Blackwell, (Oxford: 57 27 (Ljubljana:Promag, 2001). , Anthony Smith identified two types of types two identified Smith Anthony , th century, one discovers that itwas that discovers one century, , Ferdinand Mayrhofer-Grünbühel and th century century by the 58 the emerging the (London- CEU eTD Collection LjudevitGaj was framing (1809-1872) itself asthe vanguard of Slavism, for a calling ranges of political purely or cultural and philological conceptualizations. homeland,into Austrian through shouldall Empireanessentially going evolveSlavic the that notion the Austroslavism, to peoples, Slavic all of unification political and cultural a for quest the Pan-Slavism, from versions: competing and different many had notion this above, written have I As brethren”. of “communion a as community linguist Slavic the frame to started Romantics the nation, the of aspects linguistic and ethnological the on interest In their regions Austrian of Empire. mostly the from other Slavic intellectuals, other of Slovene identity toits demiseprior after World especially War Two, after 1980s. the notion of in obviouskinship anestablishedSlavic feature was andquite conceptualizations the say ongoingSuffice itdespite discussions, to paper. that summarized present inthe be cannot it and one complex a rather is identity Slovene of frame Slavic the of issue been, in terms identity,of one of the most debated issues of Slovene intellectual history. The became an became established during Humanist times. In the so-called Slovene national revival in the 19 the in revival national Slovene so-called the In times. Humanist during already in italready theintellectual section,seen entered conceptualizations previous the 2.1 TheNotion of SlavicKinship role in sustaining them. involvedhistoriography directly was not myths, inforging but those did playasignificant In the western Balkan region, the led by the Croatian activist with intellectuals Slovene of interaction the from circles in Romantic evolved idea The The idea of Slavic kinship has a long history in the Slovene Lands. As we have we As Lands. Slovene the in history long a has kinship Slavic of idea The topos . To be sure, the relation between Slovenes and other Slavs has Slavs other and Slovenes between relation the sure, be To . 28 th century, it century, CEU eTD Collection 60 Illyrian project of linguistic unification of the South Slavs: standard, literary Croatian Gaj’s Ljudevit finally adopted of who among Slovenes major the Illyrianism Vraz (1810-1851), advocate in written Stanko famous 1840tothe Slovenethe poet letter Lands. Slovene In a in Movement of Illyrian the opponents main wasoneof the Prešeren Prešeren (1800-1849). the Romantics’ writings. in the in basis factual and a real had which kinship, Slavic the of idea the Nevertheless, Movement. linguist JernejKopitar (1780-1844) and the radical sympathizers of LjudevitGaj’s Illyrian clearly day won the conservativeledby Austroslavists the both against influential the individuality national Slovene of notion the day, the of end the At . and the namely largerpeople, with Slavic another, inor away merge, they should rather identity or specific own their to stick should Slovenes the whether on issue the on – be sure to small, was relatively week,but it nevertheless galvanized the public opinion – which was still quite cultural linguisticand unification of all Slavs. In Southern Slovenethe Lands thismovement Tomislav Cepanec, Tomislav Italian one than Slovene isfrom Serbian, theCzechfrom Polish, orthe French from Italian results your efforts bring. The Spanish dialect is probably notmuch more different from the what see and wait we that right only is it language; literary our regarding young very still derivations andconstructionswhich are currently unknown to them. “Upper We Illyrians” are our dialect, which of course lacks many modern expressions butcould explainstill numerous would be saved from the effort to study – I am sorry – to superficially take into considerationIt would be very gratifying if poet, Romantic Slovene foremost the of writings the example asan take Let’s république desletters : Ilir iz Štajera of Slavic Romantic philologists, remained a strong feature in Slavism (Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani, 2008). was to perish from our lands, so its future coryphaei 60 Prešeren used the following words to reject the reject to words following usedthe Prešeren 29 CEU eTD Collection national anthem of Slovenia, Prešeren wrote: fifth the In it. stanza to refers he explicitly in which poems several are there contrary, the On kinship. of his ( notion the communality of identity wishthat the specific Slavic Slovene and uttered “we Upper Illyrians” in the letter must of course be understood ironically), but also on a 61 Slavism In Slovenska misel: eseji oslovenstvu Thus again hand-in-hand! go henceforth Slavs Let destination their Towards Come back us throughoutto the land! Let peace, glad conciliation, Even Prešeren, who insisted not only on the distinctive Slovene ethonym (the phrase (the ethonym Slovene distinctive the on only not insisted who Prešeren, Even keeper than to rule over all the dead. pro vobis,quis contra vos Styria) is to and Carinthia] [i.e. Carniola, in language Slavic (the Slovene than Portuguese in understand it without the need of previous study. will learn to speak Czech, Polish, and RussianSpanish.might They aswell merge into one dialect in the future, butuntil then I hopewe and of course Serbian; and if not speak it, at least ) would perish from the Slovene Lands, did not at all reject the idea of Slavic of idea the reject all at not did Lands, Slovene the from perish would ) Pan-Romance provincial Croatian , at least in Spanish, since Spanish is probably as close or even closer to (“A Toast”) from 1844, whose seventh stanza is now the is now stanza seventh whose 1844, from Toast”) (“A ; but remember […] what says: it is better to be a swine , ed. Jože Poga Jože , ed. , and certainly closer than it is to an 61 30 þ nik (Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1988), 6. 1988), založba, Cankarjeva (Ljubljana: nik Camoens could have chosen to write, if not if write, to chosen have could eclectic Illyrian eclectic . Si Deus CEU eTD Collection Christian ledtroops by Carantanianthe Valjhún:prince followingthe encourage words histo brethrentojoin him in the final battle against the itwas equally present and moreeven emphasized among their Catholic conservative however in no way confined only to the freethinking orliberal intellectuals. On the contrary, call for emancipatory solidarity. As I have said, the idea of Slavic communality was passage of an otherwise rather non-messianic poem, the Slovene pagan leader, opus magnum 63 http://www.preseren.net/ang/3_poezije/13_zdravljica.asp (accessed May 21 62 The translation is mine. is translation The Translation by , Most of the World is inhabited by sons of si prosti vól’jo vero in postáve. tje bomo našli pot, kjer nje sinovi Narvé Prešeren was of course a Herderian libertine who used the idea of Slavic kinship as a as ideaof kinship Slavic used the who libertine aHerderian of course Prešeren was May freely choose their laws and faith. We shall find the way to where her children his to preface in epic the before years nine already appeal made a similar Prešeren domain. our in pledged justice To Will honour reign þ svetá otrokom sliši Slave!, sliši otrokom svetá “ at the Savica Fall” ( Savica the at “Baptism 62 63 Slava 31 Krst priSavici !, retrievedfrom the webpage , 1835). In messianic an , 1835). almost st 2008). ý rtomir, uses CEU eTD Collection 67 1870). first1854), wife of powerful the nationalistconservative Toman politician Lovro (1827- in byJosipina the Urban early Slovenewritten 1850s languagewere 1906) wrote a long1906) wrote ballade andhis theBulgarian celebrating uprising, epigone Josip Simon early the of medieval poet Polabian The popular Slavs. context Gregor mythology. and history Slavic indefinable and Slovak Bulgarian, from material of basis the novels she wrote, only two are placed in Slovene environments, the other four are written on this ideawas in diffused the culture 19 the of show meto which to extentsome Letjustthe examples public discourse. prototypical give Slovene tragic play – Romantics, found diffusion in wide and literary the texts in rhetoric 66 65 64 solidarity. trans-national Prešeren’s case, but as the affirmation of theSlovene-Slavic of affirmation as the but case, Prešeren’s not was as brotherhood Slavic understood an inner asemancipationnot liberation, asin Kermauner, nothing butan andnationalism;extrapolation ethnicist exclusivistof for them, tolerance”. Enlightenment the negated which exclusivism “nationalist a on based was nationalism Romantic Slovene analysis of thethe to According literary expressions. radical most its of one being theorist autochthonism with counterparts, , the ideology of the conservative wing of Keber, Katarina. “Josipina Urban “Josipina Katarina. Keber, Nataša Budna Kodri Kermauner, ibid. Taras Kermauner, “Uvod v tretjo knjigo poezije slovenskega zahoda.” slovenskega poezije knjigo “Uvod vtretjo Kermauner, Taras The Slavicist model, The byboth Slavicist libertinethe articulated and conservative employed and 66 All of them strongly emphasize the idea of Slavic mutualism: of the six historical six the of mutualism: Slavic of idea the emphasize strongly them of All 67 This meanswas bynois case:what anisolated first the considered generally þ , “Zgodba, Josipine Turnograjske in Lovra Tomana,” Tugomer 65 64 In these circles, the idea of Slavic kinship was, according to þLþ , written by Jur Josip , written Turnograjska: prva slovenska pisateljica,” slovenska prva Turnograjska: 32 th century. The first historical novels in the novels historical first The century. þLþ (1844-1881) in (1844-1881)1875 – isplacedin genus Kronika Gea þLþ topoi against the notion of a 41, no. 6-7 (1993): 615. 51(2003): 197-216. Turnograjska (1833- Turnograjska , June , June 2005, 72-75. of of the 19 þLþ th century (1844- CEU eTD Collection stanza sings to the beauty of the song us take two typical examples, both from the second half inof written Post-Romanticthe period andhave remainedthe popular present up tothe days. Let 19 Slavic languages also wordfor the glory, profusely entered in patrioticnumerous songs identity was far from being a intellectual purely fashion. Slovene of “Slavisation” the that proves – Bogomil or Milan, Boris, as such – countryside Serbian and other Slavic personal names, absent from in the tradition of the Slovene not choose local,butgenerally choose not in order to “visually nationalize” the most popular hazard game in the Slovene Lands, he did draw anew decided designforthe Smrekar to caricaturist (1883-1942) Hinko 1901) adopted Russian-soundingthe 1901) adopted pseudonym friendfin-de-sièclelyrical Josip poems his closest andrefined–, while poet Murn(1879- 69 68 literature,modernist entitled hismost famous patriotic song as Oton Župan Oton . Pagliaruzzi set most of (1859-1885) his among poems BalkanSlavs, the Serbs and Mil Taras Kermauner, op. Cit. þ Domovini Slava le, slovansko so prijat’lji, bratje ne, Tuje šege, tuja ljudstva, the Furthermore, ek Komelj and Peter Vodopivec, Peter and Komelj ek This trend was only partially mitigated by the emergence of fin-de-siècle literature. fin-de-siècle by emergence of mitigated the partially This was only trend 68 þLþ (1878-1949), one of one of mostthe (1878-1949), powerful poets and prolific of Slovene early (“To Homeland”), the composed by TheBenjamin (1829-1908). firstIpavec topos þ ustvo of Slovene Slava Smrekarjev tarok Smrekarjev Slavic , the personified notion of Slavdom which is in most in is which Slavdom of notion personified , the motives. homeland, while the second affirms: 33 (Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1993). 69 Aleksandrov The widespread diffusion of Russian, Duma . When in . 1919 thefamous th century. The first is the first The century. –a Ukrainian word for tarock cards CEU eTD Collection Serbian national anthem national Serbian composed1860 by in cousinauthor’s the (1835-1914), who also wrote melody the forthe word of the meaning The Army. Slovenian ofthe anthem official the been has song the 1994, Since republic. of the democratization the for necessary “glory”. Cf. “glory”. the song iswrittenwith the word “slava” insmall ratherthan capital letters, which canbe interpreted only as provision regulating the symbols of the Slovenian Army doesn’t allow any ambiguity in this sense: the title of replaced by Prešeren’s by replaced national anthem, national On also lines,known same the (1835-1869), as the of author Slovene firstthe 71 70 Its title was, paradigmatically, mine. is translation The naših dedov so cvetela. ko obtebimesta bela vozil jeslovanski rod, Ko potebi hrastov brod nekdaj bilosi slovansko. Bu Brings joy into my heart. into joy Brings Only not, brethren but myfriends, Are peoples foreign customs, Foreign veseli. moje srce þ i, bu i, Slava Uradni list Republike Slovenije þ i, morje Adrijansko, , the Slavic feeling 71 wrote in his song Zdravljica Bože pravde Naprej,zastava slave in 1990 by the last Socialist parliament as part of the constitutional changes 70 (“ of Justice”,1872). Jadransko morje Slava 3/95 (January The 1995), 170. melody forthe anthem was is nowadays of course interpreted as “glory. official The 34 or“Forward, the Flag of Glory/ (“The ”): (“The Adriatic Slava ”. It was officially CEU eTD Collection Grafenauer(Ljubljana: Slovenska matica,1982), 63-103. 74 1982), 357. “Franc Kos in njegovo delo”, in 73 72 claims. autochthonist the Agesagainst Middle in early the settlement polemic with Davorin and essay in toprove along Trstenjak the write Slavic order embraced ethnicist-demoticparadigm prevailing the identity.itSlovene of If anything, in fact, as I have already written, not bring any significant shifts in the identity discourse. was rather cordial: it was after all a family dispute. The demise of autochthonist theories did leading Slovenemedievalist, positivistFranc Kos(1854-1924), the that fact the by shown is autochthonism of tenacity and influence The autochthonism. emergence of in historiography inSlovene 1880s the gave thefinal blow to the section, previous the in said have I as However, interpretation. autochthonist an 2.2 TheSettlement Myth Cf. Franc Kos, “Kdaj so Slovenci prišli v svojo sedanjo domovino?,” in Bogo Grafenauer called Kos the Slovene counterpart of Franjo Ra of Franjo counterpart Slovene the Kos called Grafenauer Bogo mine. is translation The The white towns of our fathers. of our towns white The When on your shores flourished race; the Slavic Sailed When upon you on an oak vessel Slav; be to used you Once Roar, roar, Adriatic Sea, It would be unfair to affirm that the first generation of Slovene positivist historians It seems that the latter song, written in the 1860s, still leaves opened the possibility for Franc Kos: Izbrano delo 72 35 , ed. Bogo Grafenauer (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, Slovenska (Ljubljana: Grafenauer Bogo ed. , þ ki and Ilarion Ruvarac. Bogo Grafenauer, Bogo Ruvarac. Ilarion and ki Franc Kos: Izbrano delo 73 74 had to indulge in a indulge to had The tone of the essay , ed.Bogo CEU eTD Collection German nationalists who tried to the outmost to undervalue the importance of Slavic of the importance the to undervalue theoutmost to tried who nationalists German by Latinized Antiquity. late were nowthe The mainopponents increasingly Austrian the provingin pre-Roman that and populations the any notSlav that case theyhadbeen were isby that argument, by bases and opposite the linguistic the on rejectthem to itwas easier it was the because especially argument; only argument. a was of course etc. toponymy crucial break by late Antiquitythe AgesMiddle whichwasprovoked and early A Slavic the settlement. in the ethnic between breakin was continuity mainargument the The Alpineregion. Slavs in the East the composition mentionsin and peninsula, of fewcontemporary spread the Balkan the Slavicof the tribes and arrival the for data known the from ofbe reconstructed to thus had It region. the thein found territory, have of werelacking; proofs up totoday, settlements few Slav been early very remains of the Archeological settlement circumstantial. or non-contemporary were either it all and them of testifying very few documents were there for once, thepositivists: for headaches professional patterns, the settlement. the with break historical the of myth the by replaced was – identity of frame Slavic ethnicist the of a corollary but myth a territorial not was which in Sincefindings. mythwas reframed their to the 1880s,the continuity – accordance of were taken in consideration without any significant objection and the national mythology whichdiscourse framed agents. byother By was conforming it, however, to findings their term theirinfluence was substantial, none of them directly challenged the prevailing identity in long the Although conjectures. Romantic Post-Romantic particularthe the against and in interest their with short, in etc.; history local customs, legal institutions, of development in the interest their with especially a certain extent, least to it, at curb managed to This radical break had to be emphasized not so much against the local local autochthonists: the so much against not be emphasized had to break This radical in manybe Alpsprovoked sure,To problem Slavicthe of settlement the East the fact , but it often had to be exaggerated for the sake of the 36 CEU eTD Collection 77 Grafenauer, “Rojstna ura slovenskega naroda pred tiso pred naroda slovenskega ura “Rojstna Grafenauer, 76 Orientales 75 assertionsinteresting most stylistically and last can its of One public. be anti-Catholic even or foundCatholic in the book “How Is It Possible?” ( followingby quote Franc Kos: conquest” hour of as “the nation”. birth the and an estheticismSlavic the of settlement becameassertion almostthe a patrioticthat duty for Slovenes. The settlementterritories, began Slav to be framed ethnically from evolved Lands ofAustrian ruthlessness negate fact in from core to the andpositivistthe historiography modern erudite order of the were added to it, as can be seen in the Frankish Empire. in the region the of incorporation the to Antiquity late the from region the of history in the by continuity Styria, the emphasizing andLower of settlement East Carinthia, Franc Kos, The notion was still used by the historian Bogo Grafenauer in his polemics against the Venetic theory.Bogo Cf. Bogo Grafenauer, “Die Kontinuitätsfragen in der Geschichte des altkarantanischen Raumes,” altkarantanischen des Geschichte der in Kontinuitätsfragen “Die Grafenauer, Bogo Cf. Understandably, this kind of conceptualization was much more appealing to the non-much more tothe appealing was Understandably, kindof conceptualization this Balkans”. the to inSlovenia] peak highest [the “from today resonate not would population […]. If theyhad acted in more gentlea and indulgentmanner, the languageSlavic autochthonous the exterminated mostly they lands, conquered the In Slavs. South other Spaniards, which belong to the Romanic race. The situation wasdifferent among Slovenes and their nationality: now their former inhabited are territories by , Frenchmen and lost gradually the and the , the that was consequence The alive. them Romanic populations, theyexpropriated their landor least at apartof it, butthey mostly kept Lombards, Franks Goths, the the nations andother Germanic subjected the autochthonous The Christian. is that Arians, were latter the while pagan, were former The nations. Germanic Noricum,were much more sanguinary and ruthless than the Lombards, the Goths andother We are completely justified inclaiming that theSlovenes [sic]which arrived in and 5 (1969): 55-79. Izbrano delo 75 It was against the German nationalist claims, which (mis)used fragments (mis)used which claims, nationalist German the against was It , op. cit., 79. 76 Increasingly, the elements of some kind of “right of 37 þ štiristo leti,” štiristo Arheo 10 (1990):11-17. Kako jemogo þ e? ) written in 77 Alpes CEU eTD Collection Slovenska misel: eseji o slovenstvu collection offorty most important conceptualizations of Slovene identity from the 16 79 Brejc – Jože Javoršek controversial figure, he is regarded as one of the foremost Slovene essayist of all times. Cf.theatres. JožeSlovene He in Kastelic, adopted absurd aslightly ofthe critical, buttheatre openly positive contemporary the attitude to introduce the Communistto first regime.of the A one highly was He director. stage and playwright important an became he 1952, in release the After trial. staged a in convicted was he when 1949 until service diplomatic Yugoslav the in worked was and resistance partisan the joined later he nationalism; thinker (1904-1981)who propagated aspecific highly and idiosyncratic metaphysical 78 way: idiosyncratic and original in an expressed although identity, historical Slovene established and classical of made is reflections historical its of entirety the almost generation”. from perspectivethe of “partisanthe generation” in polemic against young the “babyboom identity political and national Slovene of framing a conscious other, was, among itbecause was important its year. notonly it It because of popularity –,but – became abestseller the book as a dialogue 1969 by famousthe essayistJože and Javoršekplaywright with (1920-1990). his dead son who had committed suicide earlier in the same It is not a case that fragments from the essay were included by the literary Socialist historian Christian ofthe circle intellectual of the member pre-war a was Brejc) ofJože name (pen Javoršek Jože Poga brother,because he was sosimilarto them – and he still is. Besides, hewas involved in nymphs,with fates, savagemen andespecially with water sprites, which treated him as vampires, with encounters – secret has still he –and had He […] steppes. the in much so missed had they which mountains the at especially estates, new their at gazed proudly they Illyrians in the and Celtspresent territory between Vienna. was Venetia and He there when up and move with the sun west.towards was He when there our ancestors slaughtered the the Slovenesin a distant land were caught by a strange, crane-like driving unrest, them to lift traditions from the most ancient times to the present. […] Your grandfather was there when childhood world. For themilieu ofyour grandfather’shome included all Slovene culture and learned to talk, where you opened your book first and where you built your own self-sufficient health than milieuthe of yourgrandfather’s home,where you made your firststeps, where you Asforme, Icouldn’thave thoughtof environment abetteryour for and spiritual Slovene 79 Despite the stylistic excellence of the essay and its emotional sincerity, (Ljubljana: Literarni klub, 1999). , ed., Jože Poga þ nik (Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1987), 261-277. 38 th to the late 20 78 Javoršek wrote th topoi þ century. nik in a Jože of CEU eTD Collection 1996), 49. 81 2.3 TheSerfdom Myth to emergeautochthonismin started 1900s. the Slovene of current a new that it against polemic in precisely was it that wonder no is ever since, has had a major role in the affirmation of the settlement myth among Slovenes. It times. Finžgar’snovel,immediately included in canon the and partof school the curricula Roman town of Empire in the 6 in of between Slavic theBalkansduringconflict theByzantine theperiod and tribes South entitled “UnderaFreeSun”( whoFinžgar (1871-1962), in yearsthe 1906/07published novela historical in volumes two Saleški Fran author and priest Catholic Roman the by mythology national the of part as as ferocious andas ferocious pagans. destructive imagine theearly likedSlavs to also historians, positivist of Slovene secondgeneration the of major of one exponents the (1884-1978), Mal Josip conservative moderate andCatholic The Javoršek. as vitalists Nietzschean or nationalist agnostic by only shared was nation” 80 Janez Perši Janez Jože Javoršek, It would be wrong to assume that such a gentilistic vision . Lake on island on the Živa of the “birth hour ofancientskills hewassent bythegod tobecome high in priestthe the ofgoddesstemple the mysteriouserrands, carried out dwarfs, werewolves, by gnomes elves.his Becauseof and all þ , “Malovi srednjeveški spisi” in spisi” “Malovisrednjeveški , Kako jemogo th Tergeste century, which ends with a symbolic arrival of the Slavs at the gates of the , the modern Trieste – a concession to the nationalist spirit of the þ e? (Maribor: Založba Obzorja, 1969), 22-23. Pod svobodnim soncem 80 81 What is more: the settlement myth was finally fixed Malov zbornik 39 , et al., eds. (Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU, ). The novel is a romanticized story set CEU eTD Collection seventh stanza of his of stanza seventh The traces of such a notion can be found already in the works of France Prešeren, who in the Slovene). In the words of the historian Peter Štih, identity identity has been so-calledthe the “serfdom myth” ( 82 Peter Štih, op. cit., 35. Bloodstained revolts and wars, the Turk at last – His yoke upon us, then came thick and fast Our fathers’ bickerings let Pepin bind mind. nation’s the from reft grave his o’er Sweeps With ’s spirit – now an icy blast Such was our land since Samo’s rule had passed Where tempests and roar nature is unkind: own polity get rid of this burden, achieve redemptionhad long subjected been to foreignmasters had and to suffer underyoke it their before could and become a true nation, thatThis myth identifies the history of isSlovenes asthe history ofa a smallpeople and diligent people who with its One of mostOne powerful of thewithin ethnicist-demoticthe of frame Slovene historical . 82 Wreath of Sonnets Wreath of made this short description of Slovene history: 40 mit ohlap þ evstvu or hlap þ evski mit in CEU eTD Collection movement in Styria after the late 1860s: Young Slovene unify nation one into all again. Slovenes the beauty of whose songs would inspire patriotism, help overcome internal disputes and 120. very in inthe isevident Prešeren: This feature is more emphasized. even currentgeneration the of role emancipatory heroic the then ishumiliations, a sequel history of dark whole national if clear: the quite myth” wereinfact of “serfdom the implications ideological The features. Slovene history and identity, included which autochthonism as one ofits most radical 85 songs could celebrate “ language: Slovene inthe made been ever invocation isplaced immediately before the quoted passage, which isan explanation why no great poetry had 84 http://www.preseren.net/ang/3_poezije/76_sonetni_venec-08.asp (accessed May 21 “liberal” counterpart to the conservative to “liberal” counterpart popular a became later and period Neo-Absolutist the and Metternich the during intellectuals 83 Igor Grdina, “Smrt Josipa Vošnjaka,” in The invocationof Orpheus was, needless to say, asubtle assertionof his ownenvisioned historical role. The Translationby Viviande Sola Pinto, Wreath of Sonnets Wreath of A very similar strain of thought can be seen in the following passage written by the by written passage following the in seen be can thought of strain similar A very was dyingwas out the had and diggingGermans already started grave tobury a large us asthey ferocious Turks,ourwestern neighboursenjoyed a cultivated abundantand life.nation Our pulled pieceus apart after piece. we While were defending Europe from the ofattacks the nations neighbouring The suffering. and fighting of incessant full sad, and gloomy is past Our It is freethinking“negative” mostly surprising It vision amongthespread this that not lined. deeply is history our woes With topos among the liberal nationalist among the liberal Josip Vošnjak (1834-1911), the undisputed leader of Slovene leader undisputed national of the (1834-1911),the Josip Vošnjak ” (translation by Vivian de Sola Pinto, for source see the note above). note the see source for Pinto, Sola de by Vivian ” (translation , he invoked the skies to send anew Orpheus to the Slovene people, Slovenska kronika XX. stoletja deeds of valour ceased in our past state/ And triumphs that our 85 84 83 Old Slovene Young Slovenes Young 41 positive andself-assertive vision of retrieved from the website the from retrieved . It thus served as some kind of (Ljubljana:Nova revija, 1996),119- st 2008). CEU eTD Collection tried to reconstruct these Stations of the Cross: true ultimately failed inits attempt,thus prolonging thelistinglorious of Gradually,defeats. a 87 86 Peter Štih, op. cit., 35-36. Josip Vošnjak, via dolorosa enough of domestic hardships, they were harassed by the Turks, too Turks, bythe harassed were they hardships, domestic of enough had hadn’t they As if rulers. foreign by fought wars in died and fought which peasantry the up by foreigners, mostly Germans orItalians. As aconsequence, Slovene was the oflanguage feudal regime. lacked They their ownnobility and bourgeoisie, since the elite social madewas thousand years. At first they were serfs, in the best of the cases poor peasants exploited by the a than more for rulers foreign served and vegetated they which in state, German foreign, century the Avaryoke was replaced by the German one and the Slovenes became ofpart a themselves liberate to managed they enemies, foreign against fight In the Avars. of the shortlyserfs or slaves and establishlike this: the Slavsmore often (or already the Slovenes) settled their present homeland as theirpresentations etc. looks, with exaggerationsome for the sake of the ownmore argument, or less state – Carantania.which have for many decades dominated the media, literature, schoolbooks, occasional stereotypes and myths by forged been has it as history, of Slovene perception But widespread [t]he already in the late 8 Of course, every generation which tried to frame itself as the “saviour” of thenation of “saviour” asthe itself frame to tried which generation every Of course, meant for us awoke us from dream and summoned us to a new life gathered around the grave to celebrate, butreckoned wrong. The death ringing which was had done with several other Slavic neighbourstribes. Our Italians and hadMagyars also Spomini of the nation’s shame emerged. In the quoted article,historian Štih shame Inthequoted Peter nation’s of the emerged. (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 1982), 238. 42 . 86 . 87 th CEU eTD Collection 2.4 Modern Slovene Historiography and its Ideological Preconceptions epistemological tradition of what has been called the “Ljubljana School of Historiography”. chairfor history Universitythe at doLjubljana in1919,andthewithof has second to the tothefigureconnected founder of LjudmilHauptmann historian the of (1884-1868), the is one first The sense. in this significant are stories Two purposes. political for sustainment involved in the creation of the myth and debates character.Although national on much historiography Slovene the itsnot so was diffusion, it didinterwar the playto linked more much is a relevantstereotype mentioned the of diffusion the role; roleminor a in its tacit – as himselfŠtih out–in history pointed In textbooks. sense,this historiography has played century beto the responsible for the diffusion of thismyth in the public discourse, including the Slovenes “from anation “from of a nation to of Slovenesheroes”. serfs the over by 1945, when it have Communistthe was took regimeclaimed transformed which to after only weight normative its all acquired It traditions. political “left” and liberal libertine, the to linked traditionally was myth the logically, Quite one. Liberal the establishment: fails to specify that this was true only for one segment of the Slovene political the second half of the 19 of “the Slovene politics that out points Štih history. hasspecific own its this myth aware that consciousness. historical Slovene the 89 88 Peter Štih, op. cit., 37. Peter Štih, op. cit., 35. It would beunfair accuse to Slovenethe historiography latethe of 19 Peter Štih wrote that the serfdom myth has been the most dominant stereotype faming Štih mythhasbeenthe dominant serfdom the that most wrote Peter th century largely contributed to the formation of myth”, of the to the formation largely contributed century 88 This is to a large extent true, although one has to be 43 th and 20 89 but th CEU eTD Collection Brunner. genesis anddevelopment of which wasnoticedby and Duchy the of Carniola, praised Otto in the issues of territorial and administrative history, publishing acrucial study on the a member of the second generation of Slovene positivist historians, he was interested mostly As medievist Czech Jan Peisker. the local studied supervision of the under atthe university 92 bavarica” vs. “hoba “hoba and sclavanisca”.servilis” “hoba vs. Cf. Peterlibera” “hoba the Štih, op.Carinthia, in cit., and Lands 155. Slovene the in documents medieval 91 Nastanek in razvoj Kranjske 90 organization firststage of period asthe Slovene political enlightenment since the Carantania –seen of Slavic medieval early the that maintained Hauptmann roles), social personal un-freedom was linkedpolitical to subjugation. waspersonallythis and that un-free group) asanethnic byhim theSlovenes (equated with –, wrong be to proved later were –which documents in medieval present terminology legal and ethnicbetween 1910s, heusedanalogies in Already the Slovenes. of the “servile condition” muchperspective, he toprovide of devoted his efforts of empirical scholarly prove the polities instrumentsas in a struggle between ethnically socialdetermined From groups. this condition social the in ofparallel a saw He the nobility. Bavarian-German Slovenes, the finally and Croatians the then whichAvars, the first forces, formed foreign by established been always have frames stately only and political the lower strata of independentlife,leadingsince to this political Slovenesan their the wereunable theory, of the Medieval and early“discovery”, Hauptmann developed what he himself called “serfdomthe theory”. According Igor Grdina,“Karantanski mit v slovenski kulturi,” To put it short, Hauptmann put an equation “Ljudmil PeterŠtih. Hauptmann in raziskovanje slovenskega srednjega veka,” in between two recurrent pairs of peasant estates documented in Ljudmil Hauptmann was a Slovene historian born and raised in , where he On the same line of argumentation (equating ethonyms with terminologies referring to referring terminologies with ethonyms (equating argumentation lineof same On the 90 91 On the basis of the theories of Jan Peisker and Ludwig Gumplowicz he saw in order to demonstrate that the agrarian population of the Slovene Lands 92 –wasrulingby infact his Reflecting established elite. a Croat on (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica,1999), 154-155. Zgodovina za vse 44 3, no.2 (1996): 52-53. Ljudmil Hauptmann: CEU eTD Collection 97 96 95 Tiskarna sv. Cirila, 1920). 94 93 of standpoint national pride. Slovene Hauptmann’sfor from awider synthesesthe Malrejected conjectures historical – public researcherempathic and history local of investigator attentive an he was – himself medievalist of what can be called “history from below”, as well as author of popular his purelyscholarly beingbyposition was attacked patriotic vanity inLjubljana. Museum National of the director then the counterpart, conservative Josip and historian objection Catholic of cultural Mal, Lamprechtian the Hauptmann’s the old Serbian kingdom, the of Serbs,were the practice particularly – in those ethnicity a state-forming such Yugoslavia, form only part of a polity led by ethnic Inthe other then groups. prevailing discourse–and Yugoslavist claims Slovenes thatthe were non-political anessentially ethnicgroupwhocan Yugoslav nation building. theories His were clearly a“scientific”forproviding support the projectto the of ferventadherent was a he views: his consideration into political takes and finallyby Germans”. the Croatians, the then Avars, the from blows received first at which anvil “an were Slovenes foreign society,modern his metaphor,the In belongedto while elites ethnicities. own the partially partially Hauptmann lefttrue), Ljubljana for in Zagreb 1926.After a void,his of period Peter Štih, op. cit., 153. Peter Štih, op. cit., 152-153. Janez Perši Cf. Oto Luthar et al., eds., Cf. Leopold Lenard, Leopold Cf. Peter Štih, op. cit., 159. Hauptmann’sin ruling ontheCroat theories class emphaticCarantania raisedthe one when clearer much become theory Hauptmann’s of implications ideological The Jugoslovanski Piemont: zgodovina Srbije od Malov zbornik Malov 93 Piedmont ofYugoslavia þ , op. cit., 48-49. , op. cit. 96 Following polemic,in the hecomplainedwhich that 45 . 94 ý rnega Jurija dokralja 97 (which was of course of was (which Petra (Maribor: 95 Not a CEU eTD Collection 100 101 99 Univerza v Ljubljani, 2000), 35-36. 98 historian Franc Kos. Franc historian chair by wastaken a young from historian Kos MilkoGorizia, olderthe (1892-1972), son of region. picture medievalof and earlymodern movementspopulation in widerthe Eastern Alpine and high medieval producing patterns, amarvelously and settlement colonization detailed in trends especiallycontemporary Central inKosEurope, focused , onthe early period. that doubt, Without Kos’historical work was scholarship atits best. Following the during lived” actually in the Slovenes “how a account detailed produced MiddleAges, the asking meaningless on“freedom”questions and“serfdom” of Slovenethe populace during betweenstrife instead by suspended Mal who andKos’ Hauptmann scholarly was work, of implicit Slavicist frame remained strong, with all its political implications. political its all with strong, remained frame Slavicist implicit narrative of Slovenehistory. No traces of the serfdom myth are presentin his works, but the importantwhichcontribution hemade the overgrow an ethnicist-demoticnarrow to section on history”: “homeland on section from short quotes,one two from “general chapters dedicatedthe to history” and other the nationalist vision of history. by Yugoslav the acrudeSlavist andauthorities werepropagating andYugoslavist ethno- wereregulated in forhistoriography.not andtextbooks, part, their artistic spheres, School where in beingframedmostly wasstill stage historical political was the the consciousness The identity. national the framing of attempts in any engage not did He time. the at minimal Bogo Grafenauer et al, eds., Nataša Stergar, “,” in Cf. Milko Kos, TatjanaRozman. “Ideološke vsebine zgodovine Slovenskem,”na According to the self-narrative of modern Slovene historiography, the “ideological” the modern Slovene historiography, of self-narrative the According to Kos’ influence on the public discourse on Slovene historical identity was however was identity historical Slovene on discourse public the on influence Kos’ 99 He also wrote several syntheses of early Slovene history for the wider public, in wider for of the several public, history Slovene Healsoearly syntheses wrote Zgodovina Slovencev Zgodovina 98 Kosov zbornik 101 Oddelek za zgodovino The ideological load of these texts can be appreciated already canbe texts load appreciated of Theideological these (Ljubljana: Jugoslovanska knjigarna, 1933). (Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije, 1953). Slovenije, založba Državna (Ljubljana: 46 , Matjaž Rebolj Natašaand Stergar, eds. (Ljubljana: Nova revija 89-90 (1989): 1240-1257. 100 CEU eTD Collection deutschen Geschichtwissenschaft 104 high schools throughout the 1920s until the early 1930s. of the of mid 1930s,when his main werepublished:works messagethe of a national struggle over in the havenot been could overlooked message which implicit carried aclear movements German-speaking elites forming the thin upper layers of society. the to opposed as nation/people, Slovene the with identified course of was attention which Kos his turned substratum towards popular the emphasis ethnically determined: was As inthe people. of common of life research the to the to history akin was very Kos’of sight. first conception at innocent than less however appears historiographical school called – frequently “Ljubljanathe School – of Historiography” 103 102 GeorgG.Iggers, review of Ibid. The quote is Ibid., 1250. text The is from a fromschoolbook written in1934 by Serbianthe historian Vasilij Popovi a textbook written in 1923 by the Slovene historian Josip Bu Furthermore, Kos’ emphasis on the settlement patterns, colonization and population Looking from the perspective of the quote above, the role of Milko Kos and his Kos and Milko above, of role the quote of the perspective from the Looking German customs andGerman language, too. entirely German. Surrounded byGermanremaining nobility, thenoblemenSlovene adopted became soon nobility the growing, was villages of German number the Alps; Eastern the in German peasants on their estates […]. All these settled actions nobility accelerated foreign the The Germanizationnoblemen. process German to feud into estates his gave ruler German The three parts. into split was State Frankish the death, Charles’ after Soon endure. not could community a In the State of , Romance and Germanic nations lived side by side. Clearly, such Volksgeschichte Volksgeschichte 102 paradigm in contemporary Weimar Germany. Weimar contemporary in paradigm , Kos turned from the issue of the state formation and elites to the Volksgeschichte: metodischeInnovationen unvölkische Ideologisierung inder , by Willi Oberkrome, History and Theory 33, no. 3 (October1994): 395-400. 47 103 Volksgeschichte , however, this sociological 104 Like thehistorians þ ar and was used in ü . CEU eTD Collection forced assimilation. They both inherited Kos’ extensive knowledge in medieval settlement medieval in knowledge extensive Kos’ inherited both They assimilation. forced a policy of to and submitted inforeign states incorporated later which were settlement Like Koshimself,linked thus existentially the border areasof were they to Slovene Austria. now is what in Carinthia, north-western from came parents their Slovenia, central (1905-1988)andAlthoughGrafenauerZwitter Bogo born in both (1916-1995). they were of a whole generation of younger historians, among whom the most important were Fran as Austria Lower Danubethe intoday’s 107 106 105 languagethe in heis describeswhich it often of that a military operation: process, planned a of result the was this that imply to tried way in any not he did Although ethnic loss, in which “the Slovenes were shrunk to a mere third of their initial territory”. or, as he writes, of de-nationalization of of Slovenes: ashede-nationalization of writes, or, Germanization history of a wasessentially history medieval early the Kos, For territory. the Ibid. Ibid., 117. Milko Kos, op. cit., 115. In 1920sandKosthe hadimportant 1930s, an influencein formation theintellectual By identifying in Alpine –including all Eastern Slavs the those area on banksof the advances. national Slovene small very by countered was Carinthian In the halfofsecond the 10 In the halfof second 10 the and Styrian soil. 107 th th century the great de-nationalization of Slovenes began, which began, of Slovenes de-nationalization great the century century, theGermans launched with themselves on all force Slovenes 48 106 –, Kos narrated a horrifying history of 105 CEU eTD Collection the Slovene nation with the Slavic ethnic and linguistic substratum whose continuity could hegemonizing paradigmin Slovene historiography. underlining The identifying conviction inthe School Ljubljana the of principles epistemological the of solidification in the role 109 108 willingness to find a experts for border issuesbeen as later andhad withdrafted resistance partisan hadinthe factcollaborated Zwitter by the Yugoslav diplomacy. historiography”.both to the pedestal and WorldGrafenauer Duringa “national WarTwo, of This circumstance,“ethnically blind” history the downfall after social ,of as well as their positioning. ideological their own towards lackofacritical the distance by more acute rendered even This position was andobjectified. werecodified characteristics national the in which nation” the of a “scientifization brought it such, As nation. ethnically vision centered ofhistory identified the ethnicalwhich community social the with French the receptionfrom the itself 1950s to the opened modernownership), was ethnology. conception historiography and a very It after of which analysis of economic structures of everyday life (such as the patterns of agrarian the notions,statistics, , , integrated geopolitical history which specialist in the national movements and nationality questions in the 19 in the questions nationality and movements national in the specialist becameMathiez a Albert under inParis, also hand,who on other studied the again. Zwitter, since 19 the border whichpatterns, Grafenauer supplemented with studies inthedevelopment of ethnic the Ibid., 398-399. Georg G. Iggers, op. cit., 396-397. In the same period when the German the when same period In the Not unlikeNot German the th century, when it started – in his own military terminology – to “move” –to terminology military own his in – started it when century, modus vivendi Volksgeschichte with the official Communist ideology had an important an had ideology Communist official the with 49 Volksgeschichte , 108 the Ljubljana School pursued astudy of Annales was forced to evolve into an into evolve to was forced 109 the Ljubljana School rose school, butit was also an th century. CEU eTD Collection 112 thousand years until 1945”. 111 110 textbook: in their line following sure, when learningSloveneschoolchildren medieval about history in 1979could readthe participate inwere alsopublic, butwriting offeredtextbooks. to of the compilationthe national history andof historical publish important syntheses for wide the of Ljubljana the School, whowerenot only noteworthy funds tocarry given in out projects historians the to autonomy a largedegreeof factin gave regime TheCommunistSlovenes. the of identity historical common a of creation in the contribute actively to allowed historiography same period when firstwas for time the academic Slovene the inhistory ethnic nationalism: it was simply the result of a historical experience. ferocious a of an evilconstruct or conjecture an abstract not was territory the over fight a primary political itbecame and the1870s, since intellectuals issue amongSlovene preoccupation facta widespread after World War One. The notion of ethnic relations based on a Ethnic Boundary in the ”.Ethnic in Eastern Boundary the Cambridge with a thesisconservative Alojzij Kuhar(1895-1958). politician inhistory achievedhisPhD at entitledCatholic democratic the was border ethnic Slovene “Thenorthern the of “movements” Conversion of the within the LjubljanaSlovenes School. Suffice it mention to that one of the foremost researchers of the and the German-Slav ethnic substratum and consequent the with fixation ethnic boundaries was present only becamethus only the andpossible allowable paradigmin Slovene historiography. be retroactively traced until the Slavic settlement of the East Alps in the late 6 Tatjana Rozman, op. cit., especially the list of textbooks used by secondary a than highmore schoolsfor oninvariable p. almost 1256. remained “has repeats, still narrative historical the as one, western The Aloysius Kuhar, This experience however started to change after World War Two, precisely in precisely the WarWorld Two, change after to started however This experience It would be wrong to assume that this identification of the Slovene nation with the Slovene Medieval History: Selected Studies 110 The issue of the northern ethnic border ethnic northern issue of Thethe 50 (New York: Studia Slovenica, 1962). 112 Inaperiod, tobe th 111 century, was in was CEU eTD Collection 113 Ibid., 1251. peasant – serf – peasant For thefollowing 1000 years thehistoryof theSlovene nation was thehistoryof theSlovene . 113 51 CEU eTD Collection 116 Ljubljana by throwing himself in the riverwrapped inaYugoslav flag. 115 of the existence of anything like an autochthonist tradition. It is not a case is like virtuallyall that not anautochthonistof tradition. of anything existence the It unaware were but content, their hear to used not were only not who generations younger to odd howeverdie must appeared They have hard out. to were oldconvictions thatthe proofs autochthonists. Romantic of theories the in belief his also things, other of earthquake 1895. memory of Sloveneswho entered historical the (1851-1941), Ljubljana mayor liberal national of for having led the reconstructionautochthonism. seriously he instrumental took in Romantickeeping alive hiswork, was tradition the of of theanyone that evidence no present the is to Slovene there Although contemporaries. his of amusement capital prolificafter author of compilations of All-Slavic etymologies, written and publishedthe to the one of Styrianthe villagesin which Davorin Trstenjak practiced as priest. in naSlovenskem,” 114 Martin Žunkovi marginalized. The foremost representative of Post-Romantic largely autochthonism were but scene, was the Davorin on remained autochthonism on insist to continued who autochthonist theories did not completely disappear from the Slovene Lands. Individuals Ivan Hribar Ivan And for havingcommitted suicide in 1941, at the age of 90, in protest against the Italian occupationof Peter Štih, “'Ej ko goltneš do tu-le, udari po konjih!' O avtohtonisti konjih!' po udari tu-le, do goltneš ko “'Ej Štih, Peter 3. Framing an Alternative Discourse. Two Fragments of Post- of Fragments Two Discourse. anAlternative 3. Framing That this tradition did not completely die out, is revealed by the memoires of the With the demise of Romantic autochthonism in the second half of the 19 , Moji spomini þ Zgodovina za vse (1858-1940),an officer of Army, Austro-Hungarian the born and raised in 115 In them, aged the politician exposed, amongand diplomat many (Ljubljana: Merkur, 1928). Romantic Autochthonism Romantic 3, no. 2(1996): 70. 52 þ nih in podobnih teorijah pri Slovencih pri teorijah podobnih in nih 114 116 Žunkovi The example The th century, þ was a CEU eTD Collection was the Social Democratic politician, lawyer and mountaineer from Gorizia Henrik Tuma Henrik Gorizia from mountaineer and lawyer politician, Democratic Social the was Tuma 3.1 A “Cultural Turn” in Fin-de-siècle Autochthonism: The Case of Henrik Jeza. TumaFranc and arethecasesof Henrik Those of one of them be Veneticdevelopmentthe only although can called autochthonist. theory, word,butthe frequently initsused autochthonist slogans anti-Slavic propaganda. nationalist-imperialist discourse, which was of course not autochthonistin the strict sense of Italian the one–to an unconscious a large extent – to was areaction likely,it Most a coincidence. just was it that interpretation the allow barely can extent its but concentration, aregional such for reasons the on speculate only can One followers. pronounced most its of Italy; the same goes for all the three main authors of the Venetic theory and for the majority autochthonists Slovene of majority vast the 1880s, the since that is feature – interesting almostAnother all – came from identity they analternative framing increasingly awaydiscourse. become discourses: of the western Slovene regions on the border on historic autochthonism fell identity, of out prevailing indentitarian the paradigm. with in the generaldiscourse had incorporated historiography been Once result positivist of the 1850 and same 1860,atthe first that time the generation of Slovene positivist historians. between decade the in born were autochthonism Post-Romantic the of exponents few the of One of the major exponents of post-Romantic autochthonism in the Slovene Lands In the next sections, I will highlight two cases which had a direct influence on the shift be inIn can 1880s,animportant the after period seen the autochthonist 53 CEU eTD Collection 124 123 122 121 64. 125 Poga 120 of the settlement. In a later article, published in the early 1920s, he wrote: 119 118 any Slavicthe way oppose frame of Slovene identity. 117 Slovenia. personally of collecting from ahugeamount data , Italy,Austria and he of wasalsosupportive of construction the Yugoslav the intellectual his endeavours, portion only a minimal of research his autochthonist which represented probably of unaware theory. Venetic of the for the“toponymic sections” main the source continent. European the of settlers first the were Slavs the that he claimed since theorist”, autochthonist Slovene Štih calledTumatrue intellectuals “theonly in Peter Marxist Historian Lands. Slovene the (1858-1935). 1906. after publication the novel of volume historical first the ofFinžgar’s “Under aFreein Sun” come and Notby exposehis “discoveries”. forward heimmediately publicly chance, didso figure”. Cf. Henrik Tuma. “Jugoslovanski in balkanski problem” in problem” balkanski in “Jugoslovanski Tuma. Henrik Cf. Peter Štih, op. cit., 69. Claudio Magris and Angelo Ara, Ibid. , Milan Matej Bor, Jožko Šavli, Ivan Tomaži Ivan Šavli, Jožko Bor, Matej Branko Maruši Branko Peter Štih, op. cit., 69. Petra Kolenc, Petra þ nik (Ljubljana:nik Cankarjeva založba, 1987), 84-93. 123 Tuma was however no nationalist zealot. The Italian literary historian Claudio Magris, historian Claudio literary Italian The zealot. nonationalist however Tuma was 122 To beYugoslavist Towashimself sure,a convinced Tuma 119 Tuma had been collecting his sources for several decades before he to before decided several decades for Tuma hissources hadbeen collecting Tuma’s collections of toponyms and his all-Slavic etymologizations served as 117 Sto let socialdemokracije na Slovenskem Dr. Henrik Tuma in njegova knjižnica njegova in Tuma Henrik Dr. þ Tuma was a notable public figure and one of the most prominent Austro- , “Starinoslovska sre “Starinoslovska , 118 Tuma based his theories on toponymic research in the Alpine region, Alpine the in research toponymic on theories his based Tuma 121 Trieste: un’identità di frontiera described him as “an acute and equilibrate intellectual and“an acute described him equilibrate as þ þ anja Tume in Srebrni in Tume anja , Veneti: našipredniki davni 54 (Nova Gorica-Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU, 2008). (Ljubljana: Veda, 1996). þ a,” 125 Slovenska misel:esejio slovenstvu Jadranski koledar 1985 What he opposed to, was the myth wasthe to, he opposed What (Turin: Giulio Einaudi Editore, 1982), 65. 1982), Editore, Einaudi Giulio (Turin: (Ljubljana: Editiones Veneti, 1989), 32- political 124 –in 1930s 1920sand the 120 nation – and did not in (1986): 106-107. , ed. Jože CEU eTD Collection From these positions, the leap into autochthonism was short: 128 127 Alpinism”) from Alpinism”) from 1930, he wrote: 126 influential book on alpinism, inhabits, in their Inhis rootedness theenvironment highly livedandwhich they worked. ancient their soil, their to people rural the of connection the but Romantics, the with as Ibid. Quoted in Branko Maruši Branko Maruši latest historical eras Nowhere in our Alps did I found traces of foreignness; all that isforeignderivesonly from the from the turmoil of history landscape retained manvirtuesall the of from a living apart worldly culture,the keepingapart on land. out Ifound Slovene their own the that shepherd ofin thesilent mountaincorners the the essence of nationality: the discovery of virtuesthe and singularity of a simple people, free for our simplerespect of love a people. land, my native towards love Only conscious and clear the a I developed link nature. with with our land and with the simple peopleterminology with helpthe ofelderly shepherds, I discovered linkthe of humanthe revealedthought to me There is something else that alpinism gave me! When I started collecting toponyms and For Tuma, the focus of autochthonism was not any more the ancestrality of of anythe ancestrality more the not was focus of Tuma, autochthonism For the since ancestral times. century is afairytale. The Slovene toponyms tell usthatthe Slovene has cultivated his soil The historical account that the Slovenes arrived in their present settlement area in the 6 þ , op. cit., 105. þ . 128 , op. cit., 105. 126 . Pomen inrazvoj alpinizma 127 55 (“The Meaning and Evolution of genus th , CEU eTD Collection foremost Slovene of author time,the IvanCankar – having (1876-1918) of replaced impossible, hisfrienda mergerofnationsand party the reproached as was and – similarly Tuma believed Slovenesthe languagein that and should andthat keeptheir culture case any Littoral, which called for the cultural unification of all the South Slavs into one nation. in in Carniola and mostly Party,active Austrian the Social his Democratic Yugoslav differences. ethnic in backthe put the region would ofaunified economic andcultural geographical advance contemplating at the ordertime – but a Balkanto create Federation,manifesto in which he called for the collaboration of all Balkan Socialin – Democratic partieswhichnot in the Wars,he ofthe a Balkan published outbreak the Tuma’s In 1912,at autochthonism. a commonSouth effort Slav for the state, as manyinternationalist, of his fellowhimself an as Tuma infact regarded Slovene patriotism, Despite hispronounced partyis the chauvinistic notionmembers of a were 134 133 132 131 movement in Slovenia. Petra Kolenc, op. cit., 42. 130 territory. Tuma Inshort, wasagainst HannahArendtnationalism”, what called “tribal and nation of conceptual separation the claims,against imperialistic is against areaction we are to assess Tuma’s autochthonism in the light of his other writings, we could say that it realistic butalways unambiguously affirmative vision modernity of and modernization. If countryside, skeptically sideTuma’s whichis remote of acute, other the pronounced, 129 Milan Zver, op. cit. Cf. Henrik Tuma, op. cit. Petra Kolenc, op. cit., 25. To be more accurate, he evolved from Austro-Marxist Cf. to HenrikMaximalist Tuma, positions.op. cit. Suffice it to recall that Tuma ferociously opposed theintegralist Yugoslav nationalism of the ORJUNA Hannah Arendt, Two interesting details mightshedlight further ideologicalthe on backgrounds of The shift of the discourse was clearly towards some kind of “ecologist” vision of the 131 The Origins of aMarxist and, despite his opposition to bolshevism, aCommunist. 133 Three years before, Tuma rejected the so-called Tivoli Resolution of Resolution Tivoli so-called the rejected Tuma before, years Three Volksgemeinschaft (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1968). 56 based on race and not on territory. on not raceand based on 132 129 that 134 130 CEU eTD Collection 105-106. 138 137 Zgodovinski inštitut Milka Kosa ZRC SAZU, 1996),284. 136 135 during hisactive life. fought he whom of emancipation the for Slovenia, western of regions adjacent the and Friuli of eastern proletariat agrarian as the such people, with the interchange and observation similar conclusions based on “a sociological and historical standpoint”. which Tuma rejected the etymologic fantasies of Davorin Žunkovi by in inMatija a passage between Tuma andthe philologist Murko, correspondence the isconfirmed This typeautochthonism. of “sociological” a “territorial” or to “genealogical” drew the conclusion which he put as amotto which heput drew thehis conclusion researches: autochthonist on people; focus from shiftthe of the of work and life everyday the and toponomy of interconnection the of experience a direct to theRomantics of etymologies moveabstract from The texts. autochthonost homeland for all South Slavs with an outdated bourgeois “literary nationalism”. socialist of a newcommon of thecreation project revolutionary as apolitical Quoted in Branko Maruši Petra Kolenc, op. cit., 24-25. Branko Maruši Branko Ibid. To be sure, Tuma’s “sociology” was of course not a scholarly one, but a result of touch with nature itself nature with touch Look for the sources ofhuman history away from archives, initsprimary simple life in the inTuma’s already seen be can that interpretation an suggest hints above The þ et. Al., eds., Al., et. 137 It was very probably from the experiences his activist life, that he that life, activist his experiences the from probably very was It þ , “Starinoslovska sre . 138 Henrik Tuma. Pisma: osebnosti indogodki race to þ anja Tume in Srebrni landscape 57 : all this suggests a move from a from amove suggests : all this þ a,” Jadranskikoledar 1985 (Ljubljana - Trieste -: þ , but claimed he came to 136 135 (1986): CEU eTD Collection 141 140 139 as member of veryfirstthe fighting unit. mentor Edvard Kocbek characterized him with him following description: the with EdvardKocbek characterized mentor language station sponsored by radio Allies.the Italy, firstautonomy achieved the “nationalduring in anti-Fascistrevolution” the fight,he to emigrated to Rome and totalitarianism anddisappointedwith thenthe to Trieste, where hemostly from the Christiangot Left. employedEdvard Kocbek,composed ferventof opponents of Yugoslav centralism and unitarism, at the localLjubljana, where hejoined theintellectual circle of poetandthe Christian Socialist thinker Slovene- autochthonists Davorin Trstenjak and Davorin Martin Žunkovi Jeza was born in Slovene Styria, in the sameSlovenepolitical and emigrant author Franc activist, ethnologist Franc Jeza (1916-1984). micro-region the which with was identity wasnational the on thenarrative homelanda different convey to order in employed of the identity. collective on narrative a different Theshaping for instrument an was it nor first profile, intellectual time overall inTuma’s ancentral neither was It alternativea symptom. that: than more nothing But discourse. theory on the origins of Slovenes was consciouslyScandinavian Theory of Franc Jeza 3.2 Framing Anti-Jugoslavism from an Ethnicist Perspective: The Ibid., 79. Ibid., 72. Marko Tav by the […] a tragic figure of an aspiring and ideologically penetrating humanist, whowas confused reality of a dictatorship which cast him away on the shores of a powerless, differentiated a symptom of cleara wasalready autochthonism case, In Tuma’s þ ar, ed., Zbornik simpozija oFrancu Jezi. Trst, 1994 139 During World War Two, he joined the partisan resistance partisan the hejoined War Two, World During 140 After the war, shocked by the nature of Stalinist 58 de facto de 141 In his journal from 1952, his former dismantling of Slovenia’s political Slovenia’s of dismantling (Gorizia: Goriška Mohorjeva,1995), 69. þ . He studied ethnology . Hestudiedethnology in CEU eTD Collection Paulus Diaconus: 144 Jeza, 1967). they Epsilonthey so-calledSlovene “Group established the of Academians” which published inmid Slovenia’s federation, and which 1960s intheYugoslav critical towards role were of Slovenia. Inemigration, heestablished with all contacts groups of kind Slovene emigrant independence campaigned for the andfirst Sloveneemphatically who intellectuals actively Slovene; without the dash, of course). 143 (the Slavs and modern Norwegians,ancient Scandinavians, of which be Nor-Vendsthe wouldof the ancestors oldthe Normans while the Sol-Vends among and division Sol-Vend Nor-Vend the about aconjecture poorandisbasedon rather would be the ancestors is theory of the narrative The historical ones. andsouthern eastern the of ethnicity Slavic the of modern westernincluded andlayers the theSlovenes older,settlement), pre-Ottoman Croat asopposedto of he which (among peoples Slavic west the of origin ethnic Scandinavian the prove to German origin) medieval early (manyof them of words Slovene of resemblances etymologic Jeza used Origin Slovenes: An of andEthnographical-Linguistic Historical Study”. University with the avolume telling1967 hepublished of Graz. In title“The Scandinavian 142 Bogo Grafenauer. “Ob tiso Grafenauer. Bogo Franc Jeza, Franc Edvard Kocbek, Jeza was however not famous only for his Scandinavian theory, but also as one of the of one as also but theory, Scandinavian his for only famous not however was Jeza Jeza, who was also a prolific and important novelist, completed his studies atthe studies his completed novelist, important and a prolific was also Jeza, who desperate and absurd lucid, mentality, emigrant truly of a mirror living isthe He […] solipsism. embittered Vends Skandinavski izvorSlovencev: etnografsko-jezikoslovna inzgodovinska Zgodovina Langobardov - Historia Langobardorum 144 Dnevnik 1951 ), the and of course of Slovenes ( with Scandinavian ones, as well as similar ethnological features, in order . þ 142 tristoletnici slovanske naselitve na današnje slovensko narodnostno ozemlje” in ozemlje” narodnostno slovensko današnje na naselitve slovanske tristoletnici (Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba,2001), 393. 59 (Maribor: Obzorja, 1988), 382. Slo-venci , as they are called in študija (Trieste: Franc 143 In the book, CEU eTD Collection 148 Inštitut dr. Jožeta Pu 147 146 145 itself: material in favourof an independent Slovenia. a zealous and lasthislifeof the decades of dedicated propagandistic proliferation restless to Communists respect ofhuman andrights, envisagedpossible a collaboration with reformist the for called system, multi-party of a establishment for the need the sustained chauvinism, program nationalistsustainedmoderate argumentation and ademocratic– they and rejected andfactually off independent Theirrational in would bebetter setting. social an situation overall and Slovenia’s economy arguing that data economic they used one: nationalistic to the German Romantic glorification of Germanity. of glorification German Romantic to the unity – of Slavicthe was peoples forged amyth, by Romantic historiography an as answer provethataim cultural unity the was nowto ethnical-ethnological consequently – and the vein of ethnicist the In affinity. linguistic the than other in common determinism,little have nations Slavic different the he transposed those social and economical conditions in his must strengthenedYugoslavia, have intuition that beliefs to his ethnologicalintellectual circles of Edvard Kocbek. The permanentmanaging the data andtheories. analyses on the His individualitythe nation, Slovenethe hea conviction must of have gainedalreadyin the political ferventstriveviews. His anindependentSlovenia for tohistestifies conviction on manifestos several callingfor Slovenia’s independence. Franc Jeza, op. cit., 225. Boris . “Franc Jeza – skoraj zamol skoraj – Jeza “Franc Pahor. Boris Ibid., 17. Slovenija 1968. Kam? Jeza’s viewsunique Slovenethe on closely wereof course hisrelated to 146 – was accompanied by an intransigent and emphatic style. Jeza himselfJeza and intransigent style. – emphatic byan was accompanied þ nika, 2007), 117-120. (Trieste: TipografiaA. Keber, 1968). þ ani disident,” in disident,” ani 60 147 Kultura in politika 148 The following quote speaks for 145 Their platform was not a , ed. Mateja Jan Mateja , ed. þ ar (Ljubljana: ar CEU eTD Collection equating language affinity languageequating affinity ethnological the with one: myth unmask Jeza, For ofSlavic misconception kinship.wasbasedonthe myth this the of to theduty has fled science official the now, Jezaclaimed, with Until nation. equated state interests of their masters: servedthe –,which universities institutions –academies, bystate-sponsored fostered either the hegemonic interest” and autonomy courage, enough “gather big nations or the idea of the unity of the 150 149 Ibid., 226. Ibid. Baltic, andVandal ethnic elements like the and andthe Croats, nationsthose Slovenes[…], the - and the Sorbs of Lusatia,or evolved from the mixing of Slavic nations which eitherdescended directly from the Solvends (theVandals) like the therefore notwonder a even that today, we can still trace dividingthe line between those the same language, speak nations two when cases the in even world, modern the in valid is same The differences. as the English and theOnly the linguistic affinity was of course unable hideto ethnic,the Irish racial and cultural or the French and the Walloons. […] It is The task of the modern scientist was thus to unveil the Romantic conjectures, to and Byelorussians, as was the Czarist one before it also Soviet Sovietone,hegemony isbased ontheRussianthe the over state since the centuries. Such were the Pan-Slavic, present and the Illyrian,last the thein Yugoslav nations and the CzechoslovakSlavic idea,different of but fate the on influence decisive a having them over the smaller ones. Whole political ideologies have basedon been thismany notion, of politics, since they could serve hegemonistic to the purposesof some larger nations Slavic The Romantic notions on ethnicthe unity of Slavic-speaking were peoples hijacked by 61 150 to challenge the “official truths”, . 149 CEU eTD Collection psyche, in folklore and even in – economy: in– even and in folklore psyche, in the values, collective the in seen be can continues, Jeza differences, The one. Orthodox and the culture Catholic-Protestant the between west, the and east the between divide very same ethnical line,dividing which Yugoslavia, through runs right coincides with the AREA_III Project (Culture_2000 by programme) the in Poznan(Poland), organized onJuly 12 resistance", expansion, ", session the at presented paper region”, Wielkopolska the in archaeology within relations Polish-German On expansionism. and “Megalomania Kaczmarek, Jarmila Cf. Czarnecki. of Wiktor “Scythism” the from influence some suggests theory of his nature the Due to the lack of an exhaustive bibliographythe Polish one. The “Sarmatian”it is hard and “Scythian”to deduct theories which had sourced in fact a long traditiondid151 Jeza in Polishuse, historiography.but the tone and Javoršek, whom I havein quoted wrote previousthe chapter, with scorn about“this strange midthe Letme 1970s. give amarginal,eloquentbutexample. In1969 the essayist Jože in become identity to started palpable Slovene of onward. The inthediscourses difference from Yugoslav from other republics latethe 1960s and from especially early the 1970s in increasingly becoming acute with Slovenia, of beginning especially the immigration the was that peoples Slavic various the of settings cultural the different of experience the 153 152 31st, 2008). http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/archweb/archweb_eng/Publications/mega/index_meg.html (retrieved on May Ibid. In Ibid. constructing his theory,Jezawas of course collecting material from another autochthonist tradition, Ibid., 230. Ibid., 229-230. A “true ethnic and cultural groupsA “true ethnic thetwo of andcultural separates abyss” nations.Slavic This […]. nations Slavic eastern other and which have more or lessdirectly descended from and like the There can be little doubt that Jeza’s conjectures answered an existential experience: answered anexistential Jeza’sconjectures that be doubt little There can liberty. towards even and life towards world, surrounding the towards We can saythatthey differences][all these evident overallin are the relationof nations those 151 152 62 153 th , 2003, available at CEU eTD Collection 157 156 155 Slavic kinship was starting to reveal itself for what it was: a myth. of the notion newexperiences, these Against paradigm. identity collective the remodeling were rapidly “German of danger”, demise the with the settings inthechanges geopolitical elite in andthecentral and, government strife 1980s,the the cultural over policies, tensionsimmigration. political between frequent suchas Slovene the changes, Political the and which were transforming Slovenia from a traditional land of emigration a landto of placewhich in took during exactwhen the Slovenia period Franc Jeza his forged theories social changes great the allusion to unambiguous but acareful course wasof capital Slovene 154 entitledpublished abook “Dangerous Liaisons” ( effort”. revolutionary by the saved was it which “Slovenethe culture wouldfall again in the undefined Central European from ambiguity following words: Ljubljana.he exchanged several withepistles a sculpture on a famous fountain in the mainsquare of In one of thecomposed of imaginary from letters beyond sentto real and imaginary people. Among them, fictitious letters, the sculpture addressed Europe” Central and opaque the author with the Cf. Nevenka Sreš, Nevenka Cf. Jože Javoršek, Ibid. Jože Javoršek, The short mentioning of the “different people” on the streets and squares of mentioning and The short “differentpeople” streets the squares of on the of the are different. Ljubljana is not any more the Central European town you used to know to used you town European Central the more any not is Ljubljana different. are have beenI to. used not herewas I as ways in behave for they and them, long of more and more are centuries There people. and different God people, new Imeet day knowsEvery Jože. gone, have you I since have changed have things Many seen a lot, but what can I say, they Nevarna razmerja Nevarna Kako jemogo Skupna programska jedra þ e? 154 (Maribor: Založba Obzorja, 1969), 131. 1969), Obzorja, Založba (Maribor: (Maribor: Založba Obzorja, 1979), 107. 1979), Obzorja, Založba (Maribor: and warned that without the innovative spirit of Socialism (Maribor: Univerza v Mariboru, 1996). 63 155 Nevarna razmerja Nevarna Nine years later, the same Javoršek same the later, years Nine ), an epistolary essay an epistolary ), . 156 157 and CEU eTD Collection 419. ozemlje” in although there can be no doubt that the two knew each other, if not before, from the from before, if not other, each knew two the that doubt no be can there although articles in early the in 1930s support of theory,the it extending to Slovenes.the several wrote in 1945, in camp Buchenwald in who died Nazi concentration the – and inlaunched WarTwo resistance Slovenia during ledthe World armedanti-Fascist and which Party Communist Tito’s of branch Slovene the of hegemony the under platform wing founding left-membersof one of Liberation Front eightthe People –a Slovenian the of the from Rus,integralism is andfederalist who positions. democratic for having been famous known in interwarthe period asan centralismnationalistYugoslav opponent of and Slovenia: the geographer and aleftist historian liberalJože Rus(1888-1945), intellectual, in highly supporter in Serb 1930s,hadalonely uncharacteristic Croatian and chauvinists the The “Gothic theory” of the origins of Croats, invented by the radical anti-Yugoslav and anti- public. wide the to unknown largely anecdote, interesting an however is There influence. of (1941-1945)remains opened. There arenodirect evidencesconfirm to such an duringsponsored bythepro-Nazi World WarTwo acertain people. determine lifenature and civilvalues,to relationship which the attitude the to environment, the for the reason underlying asthe terms, in itcultural was framed but paradigm, nationalist old the Slavicist in casewith aswasthe blood”, kind “brotherhood with associated any wasnownot origin ethnic the wasthat two the between The difference more even accentuatedethnicist sameone, based on presuppositions. deterministic or the 158 Bogo Grafenauer, op. cit., “Ob tiso “Ob cit., op. Grafenauer, Bogo It is difficult to assess to which extent Rus influenced Jeza in his Scandinavianism, in his Jeza influenced Rus extent which to assess to is difficult It The how much question by on was Jezainfluenced discourse “Gothic” a similar With his weird Scandinavian theory, Franc Jeza tried to replace this myth with another Paulus Diaconus: Zgodovina Langobardov -Historia Langobardorum þ tristoletnici slovanske naselitve na današnje slovensko narodnostno slovensko današnje na naselitve slovanske tristoletnici 64 Ustaša regime of the Independent State Independent the of regime mores (Maribor: Obzorja, 1988), Obzorja, (Maribor: , the mentality, the mentality, the , 158 CEU eTD Collection historical and discursive cultural, wasaregular theory Venetic the while peculiarity, intellectual arare as mostly circulating widerpublic, the to wereunknown theories Jeza’s was that culture.crucialdifference focusThe deterministic on nations;the big, hegemonic ethnically of the interest the serving of establishment academic the against accusations the conjectures; nationalist against openlyanti-Yugoslavconnotation;Romanticthe polemic the tone everything else was already there: the direct confrontation with the notion of Slavic kinship; content, completely the different Despite Jeza. ofFranc by Scandinavianism influenced the peoples. Slavic the between “cultural differences” a similar theory wasemphasized indissolublethe “Balkanic Slavic unity” and of South the Slav In peoples. Jeza, a logicalwhich discourse centralist a of corollary rejection his of and autonomism democratic his of symptom of his anti-Yugoslavismit a was very probably Rus’ In case, tothefar right. in noway restricted were nations, and on Slavic in the subcultures many pro-Fascist his among popular “Germanic” theories, these that focus on the in of resistance Thecasehowevershows activities underground early anti-Fascist 1941. the the Baptist of the Venetologians; the theVenetologians; of Baptist the the Slovenesthe arethe oldestinpeople Europe. More than from any kind of autochthonism, the discourse of the Venetic theory was event . With a slightly indecent analogy, itcan be said that Franc Jeza was the John vox indesertoclamantis 65 announcing the good news: good announcing the CEU eTD Collection 160 159 “Were Etruscans entitledthe book, in 1984.The published autochthonist theories, 4.1Approching Autochthonism from the Left: The Case of Matej Bor years,started. for nextten the newspapers Slovene pagesof on the to bepresent from reactions incontroversy, along continued 1985and already academiathe came which developed cultural ina movement,proper its with own symbology Thefirstand discourse. mobilized launched much readingpublic and eventually the of theory, bythethreeauthors, favourable, stimulated the interest of generalthe critiques, public. somehow The first skeptic butmostly century B.C. According to ancient sources, they were called they were sources, ancient to According B.C. century already settledin of end a Slavic-speakingthe that Europe people Central of at 13 the descendants direct in factthe were TheSlovenes continent. European the of history Roman to it –and taughtin schools was wrong. As was wrong also the prevailingimage on the pre- ethnogenesis Slovenesby the – of proclaimed historiography” asthey “official the referred Tomaži Ivan and Šavli Jožko Matej Bor, authors, Slovene by three written essays and articles of collection predniki See forexample critiquethe published in thejournal Matej Bor, Jožko Šavli, Ivan Tomaži Ivan Šavli, Jožko Bor, Matej The big “boom” of The big “boom” of advancing Veneticthe by book theory was preceded another In 1985, a book entitled “Veneti: Our Ancient Forefather” entitledAncient ( book In Our “Veneti:1985, a ) wasissued by Slovenethe center cultural 160 started filling the Slovene media, and the book became a bestseller. The bestseller. a became book the and media, Slovene the filling started þ , in which they maintained to have discovered a shocking truth: the truth: shocking a discovered have to maintained they which in , 4. The Venetic Controversy Venetic 4. The þ , Veneti: naši davni predniki 66 Razgledi Korotan in Autumn the of 1985. (Vienna: Glas Korotana, 1985). inVienna. Veneti Veneti: našidavni 159 . The theory soon The book was a th CEU eTD Collection deutschen Geschichtwissenschaft Georg G.Iggers, review of 165 164 In 163 162 161 archeologists and linguists, and archeologists was published, book the provoked scornful and negative reactions from majorthe Slovene book. forin spent tofinda their nextsevenyearsthe authors the order publisher in circulation Slovenia. inpublished1976 and between 1977as of one a feuilleton largest magazines the with peninsula. travel experiences and languageknowledge agency,used hisextensive state import-export who in aYugoslav in ordersmall Slovene town in what was then the toa Austrianin 1908 in born Littoral) Rebec, Ivan study certain was (a one a retired other the high-rankingin cryptology; who enthusiast clerk an became ancient decipherment, military in experience some with Army People’s cultures,Yugoslav the of major especiallythem (a certain Anton Berlot,the bornprove methods deciphermentnature Slavicof the to Etruscan language. ancientthe One of ones in Trieste on in 1897)the was a formerItalianSlavs?”, partisan and a retired Slovenian Academy Sciencesof and MatejArts (1913-1993). Bor an eminent sponsor: the poet,keeps finding in Etruscansthe a favorite subject forits fancy ruminationsif –, ithadn’t had playwright, –which sensationalism archeological and translator historical of history in the chapter another just and member of the artsideological sectionimplication. The story about Berlot’s and Remec’sof theory wouldthe have been an itlacked any but tone, in a rathersensationalist waswritten be book sure,the times. To Jože Kastelic, “So bili Etruš Ibid. Bogo Grafenauer, “Ob tiso Grafenauer, Bogo Ibid. Anton Berlot and Ivan Rebec, Ivan and Berlot Anton Paulus Diaconus: Zgodovina Langobardov - Historia Langobardorum The book was the amplification of several articles which the two authors had 161 162 was written by two elderly gentlemen from western Slovenia who used 163 Volksgeschichte: metodischeInnovationen un völkische Ideologisierung inder þ þ The reaction of the academic public was of course negative and negative course wasof public academic the of Thereaction tristoletnici slovanske naselitve na današnje slovensko narodnostno ozemlje.” narodnostno slovensko današnje na naselitve slovanske tristoletnici ani Slovani?”, 165 , by Willi Oberkrome, History and Theory 33, no. 3 (October1994): 395-400. So bili Etruš but was well received by the reading public – a sign of the þ Delo aniSlovani? , 27 December 1984, 15. 67 (: Založba Lipa, 1984). . (Maribor:Obzorja, 1988), 383. 164 When it CEU eTD Collection often criticizing the smaller and bigger misdeeds of regime. the of misdeeds bigger and smaller the often criticizing but line, party official the to and ideal Socialist the to loyal always regime: Communist the Slovenia, one of the first and most influential offshoots of the civil society in Slovenia. early 1970s, hewas among the founding members of environmental the movementin advance. technological of consequences negative pollution and the atomski vek Atomic Age”( inWanderer the “A poetry collection 1945wasthe after achievement poetic famous most undoubtedly His collections. poetic inspired several of Revolution”, he as was dubbed, the of poet “court the war, the After songs. fighting revolutionary famous extremely into transformed were poems his of Many resistance. Slovene the of poets revolutionary World War Two, he joined the University involvinginof Ljubljana, soon himself During Communistthe underground. partisan resistance family his totheKingdom linguistics the and studiedYugoslavia. of emigrated Bor at Slavic became one of the mostin regime Italy, riseof Fascist the the After was then Littoral. inAustrian the Gorizia what prominent memoires from aTitoist concentrationcamp. Cf. IgorTorkar, favour of writerthe , victim of aStalinist show in1949,trial inorder to enable him to publish his 169 tohim likely permitted legendary due tothe status of his warpoetry had becomewhich one by regime. Yugoslav the persecuted and writers for theintellectuals hissupport voiced heoften P.E.N., International the of section Slovene http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/76-3-230.shtml (retrieved onMay 31st 2008). 170 Bor. by Matej preface 168 Age”. Atomic the through Wanderer “A title the bear thereafter translation 167 166 , Slobodan Stankovi Slobodan ViktorBlaži Matej Kos, Janko Bor, During all During wasconsidered all Socialistthe assome Bor period, kind of Matej Bor, with the true name Vladimir Pavši ) from from ) 1958, an allegorical contemplation of modern the wasteland createdby Pregled slovenskega slovstva þ A WandererWent through theAtom Age , Spomin kot zgodba Spomin kot Svin þ ena leta ü , “Mihajlov’s Shadow Over Pen Club Congress in Bled”, available at available Bled”, in Congress Club Pen Over Shadow “Mihajlov’s , (Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1999). (Ljubljana:Prešernova 1998). družba, Amongothers, heintervened in 166 became a renowned translator of and author Shakespare translator became arenowned (Ljubljana: DZS, 2002), 359. 68 170 (London: Adam Books,All 1959). the English All this unorthodox behavior was very was behavior unorthodox this All þ , was born in a village near the town of Umiranje naobroke 169 167 As the president of the In the late 1960sand late Inthe (Zagreb: Globus, 1984), Šel jepopotnikskozi enfant terribleenfant 168 of CEU eTD Collection priest named Ivan Tomaži 173 172 171 and Ivan Tomaži 4.2 Approaching Autochthonism from the Right: The Cases of Jožko Šavli of Este. town Italian northern in museum of the archeological the kept Venetic plates of ancient Table”,acollection “Atestine so-called the on inscriptions the of decipherment the theory: andEtruscan Rebec’s byBerlot’s incentivized a newon embarked research, “Etruscanism”. from distanced himself their had already of Bor research, their publishing gentlemenstarted theresults by in thetwo fairly allcasesandtime the negative by organized Academy of Slovenian Sciences Arts. the of a linguistic and even symposium at P.E.N International of the section Slovene of the meetings the at theories of their presentations arrangedseveral between 1972,he 1970 and gentlemenand imagination: It inspiredBor’s curiosity seems two matter. in thatthe this ambiguous rather was theory the of narrative the although Slovenes, the of origin Etruscan gentlemen who were trying to prove the Slavic origin of the Etruscans – anddissidents”. therefore the role in times, Communist the dubbed hewassometimes guardian as“the angel of Slovene specific his For in Slovenia. movement resistance anti-Fascist the of symbols very the of Ibid., 383-384. Bogo Grafenauer, op.cit., 383. Viktor Blaži In the meantime, another revival of happeningin was Vienna.In themeantime, revivalof There,a another autochthonism In the early 1970s, Bor apparentlyIn theearlylift Bor 1970s, hisdecided to twowing the guardian over 171 þ , op. cit. þ þ (b. 1919), like Bor native from the so-called Littoral region of 69 172 Apparently, the response was 173 He CEU eTD Collection regions of his birth. his of regions tradition,in legalhistory the of rural which hadself-government remained in strong the traditions and heraldry of localthe nobility,in the symbolic practices of peasant the of the LjubljanaMarxist discourse, andsemi-Marxist textbook and by ethnicallythe socialprejudiced history Schoolhistoriography, dominated on one side by the decrepitideological phraseology of the official on the history and folklore. Hefocused onissuesleftaside by of grand the narrative Slovene other. Šavli’s articlesand the contentof group’smanifestosthe were very akin Šavli’sto writings. style rehabilitated the case, any In unknown. extent large a to today, to up remained has and was, which by Epsilon membershipof the “Group propagated Franc Jeza’sAcademians”, of Slovene the interest those to close very were ideals political His inItaly. minority Slovene the of journals in the tolocal and magazines active 1970s,Šavlihasbeen an contributor Vienna. the late Since of University the at sciences social and in economic PhD a obtained later and Ljubljana of University the at economy studied he , of town Alpine Slovenian western the Gorizia name (GoricainŠavli. The Slovene). in wasborn wasJožko professor’s He 1943 of town border Italian inthe school secondary a Slovene-language at economy of professor Slovene unknown largely a of articles several published Carantania”) of Voice “The promulgated the Gemeinde legislation that granted autonomy to the municipalities in the in Empire Austrian the in municipalities tothe autonomy granted that legislation Gemeinde the promulgated strong bothin however regions and itsefficiency remained was admired by Count Franz Stadion self-government (1806-1853), the statesmanvillage of who tradition The Republic. Venetian of the annexation Austrian self-government with village its own rural the judicial system Veneta”), based “Schiavonia on common as law wasdocuments abolishedVenetian onlyin 1797 (known in withFriuli the ofnorth-eastern territories remained muchof its medieval privileges until the early 18 175 Carantania. of duchy medieval early the for name Slovene original the also mid 19 mid 174 home, thecultural of gazette the early 1980s, western Slovenia, had established a Slovene cultural called center cultural had aSlovene Slovenia, established western In the the sub-Alpine In regions ofwesternSlovenia (the County of the Tolmin) rural municipalself-government “Korotan” is an archaic Slovene name for the region of Carinthia (“Koroška” in modern Slovene); since the since Slovene); modern in (“Koroška” of Carinthia region the for name Slovene archaic an is “Korotan” In his articles, Šavli showed a great intellectual sensibility in treating issues from local in intellectual issuesfrom a treating sensibility Šavlishowed In hisgreat articles, th century it has mostly although not exclusively beenused withsolemnly patriotic connotations. It is 175 All it,of tobe sure, through an identitarian perspective. 70 Glas Korotana th century. In the neighbouring Slovene-inhabited (“The Voice of the of Voice (“The Korotan 176 . 174 Korotan Since the Since ” or CEU eTD Collection Hermagoras Society (Mohorjeva družba) from Gorizia. from družba) (Mohorjeva Society Hermagoras in the publications 176 (1998). identity model, typical for the development of the nationalThis consciousnesseslanguage. in Slovene the the western of speakers native the with nation Slovene the of identification identity based on inherentpresuppositionsthe of national the inrevival the 19 historical a challenge openly to intellectuals Slovene first the of one also was He history. Slovene of treatments scientific and popular the both in established been had it as history, lefttraces of history by and millennial historical of variegated region.the development them integrate andidentitarianinto thatwould acomprehensive include discourse all the common Slavic symbology and mythology, not bothering to uncoverimported but the real local Slovene-centered, traditionsnot was it all, of worst But nobility. the towards hostile it means rural was patronizingthe towards and that culture bourgeois which perspective, “national itrevivers”: was Slavicist and folklorist, simplifying and formed from a petit- of19 the idiosyncrasies on the based itbecause was was flawed identity Slovene Consequently,historical identity Slovenethe had hindered. of been Thewhole discourse impoverished inSlovene history fit order to their notion of ofserfs”.a “nation they way, this In sense. no made it when Ages, Middle the to period Romantic the in formeda linguistic identity model theytransposed heof with claimed, speakers, Slovene the With identifyingoppressors. preconception their ethnic Slovene ethnicist the community nobilitythe by identifying them as “Germans”, which foreignersamounted to and autochthonous legal and comprehensive story of digandsymbolic failedSlovene identity. They valorize to out the traditions of the countryside; they neglected the role of Slovencev 1849, and who beenhad governorof Austrian the Littoral from 1841-1847. , Iambasing my analysisof discourseŠavli’s onseveral of articleshis the published between1980 1985and Šavli’s discourse thus departed radically from of radically from demotic-genealogical treatment the thusdeparted Šavli’s discourse Šavli complained that mainstream Slovene historians had failed to narrate a narrate historiansmainstream hadfailedto Slovene Šavli complained that (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 1961). Rozman, Franc “Franz Stadion,” in Glas Korotana and Koledar, published by the prestigious Catholic publishing house St. 71 Enciklopedija Slovenije Pravna zgodovina th century: the th century CEU eTD Collection 178 2005). 177 nationalit but identity ofa community persistence –, the shows different logic region in the followed the same actions, would have automatically canon. national Slovene inthe integration opted himself out his shook identity, –strangely they Slovene nordid –Fabiani’sfull endanger enough from the Slovene of one of themayor as smallerauthorities Fascist the by nomination the accepted even 1930s in the and villagesmilitary in Italian the for themonuments several built region.One, War World during damaged settlements the None of these actions of lead reconstruction the to authorities by theItalian chosen hewas 1920s, Inthe milieu. apparently in any any hiscontradiction with fullintegration in theAustrian Italian cultural and linguisticway seeing Home” regulation in without for Ljubljanaand “National the Slovene Trieste) plan even (such in actively as participated design Slovenepublicthe of architecture the differentiation linguisticfor lines.Fabiani,on example, regardedhimselfas Slovene and mountaineer Julius andauthor Kugy – whoescaped(1858-1844) logicthe ofnational the famous andMaxFabiani or nouveau architect art(1865-1962) – one of the can think Slovene Lands where in fin-de-sièclethe period one could still find prominentpublic figures homeland, the former Princely and Gradisca. Kingdom Šavli’swas precisely in Vendvidék)MuravidékHungary of – the region or model identity impacthad the least marginal the (also –besides known as this which in region the that a symptomatic however is It transcend. to difficult was which ofhegemonic an iron characteristic evidence butsoon developedintophenomena, paradigm part of Austrian-Hungarianthe late –onlyinEmpire, achievedvery the1850s – theself- Marco Pozzetto, Marco Cf. Branko Cf.Branko Maruši Fabiani’s case is of course an exceptional one – most likely, anybody who had The Austrian County of Gorizia and Gradisca was the only non-marginal part of the Maks Fabiani þ , Gli sloveni nelGoriziano dalla fine del medioevo ai giorni nostri (Trieste: MGS Press, 1998). 178 72 177 (: Forum, CEU eTD Collection 181 (Gorizia: Goriška Mohorjeva družba, 2007). 180 179 anti-Fascist the by aided community, Catholic same this was it Two, War World after alive also under Communistlegitimism. Habsburg of spirit in the times formed hierarchy and in the parts of the region was local the lower clergy,by fully supported until 1929 Church a largely thatSlovene-Friulian remained under Italy his evil ideological conjectures. whichhomogenizing state national crushed inall ruthlessly identities thenameparticular of and centralizing the with as “other”, ethnic the in much so not enemy the identify to easy of brutal Fascist repressionby period a followed was arcadia European Central this since case the more even This was of all nationalcheck itveracity. could to facts, againstŠavli,bothered its establish essential the who and regionallike intellectuals interested and memory; collective particularisms.in the survive to reasons the all had It was thus pastoral image multiculturalof a tolerant, and supra-national MonarchyAustro-Hungarian all too Italian speakers, butFriulians whichmaintained their linguistic own and cultural identity. proper the not were region inthe Slovenes the of “other” ethnic the is more, What issue. nationality the of an into exacerbation lead it where andIstria in Trieste case the largely aswas with coincide divide, a social in region speakers the andItalian Slovene between divide the did Nor community. German-speaking the to assimilation into lead to Lands, Slovene the in elsewhere present always danger, the without mobility upward for means which means that the German language retained its social role of its social of a role languageretained German the that which means County subjectedtoany not Gorizia were andGradisca of process, of kind Germanization in in wasborn whichŠavli andFurthermore, raised. 19 the Cf. Edo Škulj et.al., eds., Cf. Branko Maruši Ferruccio Tassin, Ferruccio In the region, one of the main defenders of the old multi-national identity of the region To put it shortly, Gorizia and Gradisca was the one Slovene region in which the idyllic Cultura friulana nel Goriziano þ , Il vicino come amico realtàutopia? o Laconvivenza lungoil confine italo-sloveno Sedejev simpozij v Rimu (Udine: Forum, 2003). (: Mohorjeva družba, 1988). 73 181 This Catholic tradition remained th century the Slovenes in the Slovenes the century and a 179 180 CEU eTD Collection or at least ator nothingless from than a turn historicistan ethnicist to perception historical the of identity; framed their identity historical until wasthen flawed: between lines,the he proposed had Slovenes inwhich way the that claiming symbology, national Slovene of interpretation ambition can be seen in anarticle in written in 1983, he which proposed a radical re- of his extent The people. of perceptions collective the structure which of paradigms historiographicknowledge Austrian tradition the and wasacutely of aware of existence the he had a PhD in social andparticular identity. Šavli was howevereconomic clearly aiming higher than the other authors. After all, studies centralfrom the University state of the behave pressures homogenizing the of preservedagainst memoriesand from pastthat to the Vienna, the hadsuperficiality a good butasprecious presented as not curiosities werehowever features These traditions. of modern popular culture; pieces in the mosaic of a 83. is called sphere in cultural German the andwhatmostly “antiquities” of they matters, consisted historical truly than rather he wrote: which for inItaly minority Slovene the of journals Catholic of Gradisca. and Gorizia Vienna, the priest Ivan Tomaži Ivan priest the Vienna, Gorizia that he wrote thehis return first from articles,Vienna in 1975. and It was later in the Catholicin the journaljournals of editedthe Slovene by minorityhis mentor of from 182 national in of terms as nationalism terms of minority. It was into this clergy, that helped to re-establish the cultural and political institutions of the Slovene Jožko Šavli, “ Šavli, Jožko In his writings, Šavli conformed main tothe trend of historical the articles in the less ethnicist and ethnicist ý rni panter: zgodovinski simbol Slovencev,” simbol zgodovinski panter: rni Landeskunde milieu more , appreciations of particularities and valorizations of local of valorizations and particularities of , appreciations þ who was accidentally also a native from the former County former the from a native also accidentally was who , in whichnational, identity notmuch so was understood in historicist. particularism 182 74 Koledar Goriške Mohorjeve družbe , that Šavli socialized himself after (1983): 82- CEU eTD Collection was the history of a localist the of tradition Catholic the by inspired clearly was He Slovenes. the of identity historical 183 event whichdescribe to tried an historians howvividly mainstream the detail noticed the interesting they in factnotion had of the over thea aberration the all veryfelt territoryhave must he nation”, the of hour “birth the as settlement difficult becoming nothing more with him insisted confronted the narrative issue.Confronted onthe which official the with time than lootin ofreconstructing barbarian directly Ageshowever Middle the antiquity and between late the breakin on the continuity plunderers. He narrative insistence of official The the say,autochthonist. been,“structurally” soto have still also from diverse and can call “territorial autochthonism” or an “ecological” vision of history. people: the memory the of on traditions, the on land, the on left traces innumerous of inventory an as history on people, the of and nature man, millennial collaboration of from territory the on destiny as inseparable the of historical identity was already autochthonist. His focus on the landscape as a fruit of Thelogic inner a Slovene of conception expressing orcivilization culture spirit. was Šavli’s called be can which everything habits; legal the toponomy, the customs, the countryside, the of visualstructure The Slovene. land essentially the remained but andmisdeeds, their deeds contributed to its development with their this twist:endeavours, for Šavli, the in “catch” a however was There have ascension. national the of a commemoration left to than history traces on its identitymore onwith the territory than on the ethnic community. His concept was closer to a regional nation The best example of this kind of conceptionof identitarian history is his (Bilje: Humar, 2003). The article shows Šavli’s boldness: he was prepared to challenge the very core of of the very core the challenge to he prepared was boldness: Šavli’s shows The article Even ifstep had intoŠavli notto decided explicitautochthonism,his narrative would Landeskund. . In the re-interpretation of the national history, he wanted to focus Slovene territory itself territory region. Many “foreigners” have found their home there, have there, home their found have “foreigners” Many region. was ethnically determined. The history of history region the The wasethnically determined. 183 all these features reveal a conception of what we 75 Slovenia: discovering a European CEU eTD Collection 18th century 190 find some truly find “Braudelian” some descriptions truly geographical and reflections in oneis and Tuma hadinfluencework animportant onFernandBraudel’s determinism; geographical 189 traditions. rural Slovene the from absent completely 188 187 1980s. mid 186 the in period the for least at exact, were schools elementary for textbooks 185 184 deficient sources. deficient the mentality mentality the with peoples of of geographical features the landthe they inhabited. theconnections of human geography, between proving ancestral connections and physical is focused Yugoslavist on geopolitical whichanthropogeography, on the discourse that of JovanCviji Serbian the geographer determinism geographical with the had some similarities theory determined autochthonism “Slavicist”, only a not infact was in common.had Tuma two the that features only werethe these “territorial” type of whichlargely conformed hisautochthonism to ownviews. However, and “ecologic” an Šavlidiscovered InTuma, inhis early writings. Šavli interested local traditions and the toponymy of the Alpine areas of western Slovenia which particularly ,maximalist Socialism He was and Yugoslavism.also source for animportant the unusually, Tuma since had a remained figureduringcanonic Communisthis due times to perfectly the Slavicist Romantic paradigm of Slovene history.fitting were they because precisely him, in suspicion arose details these all account, own for animportant information the represented identity. national overall live”,“how reconstructionthe ourancientforefathers used of whichsupposedly to See the introductory chapters of the first volume of ’s, Cf. Jovan Cviji Jovan Cf. It’s interesting to mentionthat of Tuma’s tenchildren, eight were giventypically , six of those Igot this information from a private conversationwith Mr. Šavli in July 2004. Ibid., 20. Ibid. Ican myself confirm that Šavli’s accounts onthe emphatic representations of ancient Slavs in history Matej Bor et al., The first autochthonist theory Šavli encountered wasHenrik Tuma’s. encountered theory Šavli autochthonist first The (London: Fontana, 1985), where Cviji 188 albeit not an ethnically nationalistic one; his territorially and culturally and territorially his one; nationalistic ethnically an not albeit ü , Veneti: naši davni predniki Jedinstvo i psichi 184 In Yugoslav history textbooks of the time, much space was dedicated to þ ki tipovi dinarskih južnih Slovena , op. cit., 16-20. ü ü is extensively referred to. (1865-1927), the founder of founder the Balkanistand of (1865-1927), 76 (:Slobodna knjiga, 1999). 186 Civilization and , 15th- 185 According his to 189 190 Cviji 187 we can Not ü ’s CEU eTD Collection 192 supporters of Cviji severalworks of anthropologistthe ethnologist and Niko Zupani Peninsula and Yugoslavthe Lands: Basesthe of Anthropogeography”) found is inTuma’s library,as are is not only quoted in those sections of the first Venetihe monographtheories; ŠavliJeza’s wrote. about knew Šavli that doubt no is There development. intellectual Šavli’s public. In this the sense, Scandinavianism of Franc Jeza much morewas influential for a Balkan nation; a hadby rejection which become time the very inwidespread theSlovene fact his anti-Yugoslavism or, tobe more exact, the rejection of the notion of the Slovenes as framework of Šavli’s autochthonism. One of the main Kolenc. Petra scholar Slovene features of Šavli’s writings was in 191 linguistLehr-Sp Kostrzewski Tadeusz (1885-1969), archeologist of the works inthe especially autochthonism, Polish of tradition in Hefound itthe sources. different from completely came however ethnogenesis Slovene one, peoples. sinceethnographic they from different descend and ethnic an not but unity, linguistic a only form nations Slavic the that theory byJeza’s Šavlimusthave beencaptivated political purposes. theirsuited imperialistic which onethnogeneses spread suchtheories to inorder science manipulated ideologies Pan-the that one; ethnological the with languageaffinity equating of misconception eastern the and southern the from sphere cultural a different form – Slovenes the included he whom ones; Jeza’s suppositionsfound western notion inŠavli’swritings: are that the the Slavs –to the rejection of the idea of Slavic kinship as a myth based on the Cviji read thoroughly and sinceTuma knew also source, thesame attribute them tempted to to Matej Boret. al., Cviji ü It is clear that Tuma could not have been the one who provided the ideological the whoprovided have one beenthe not isTuma could It that clear The final element which enabled Šavli to formulate a coherent alternative theory on ’s work, as it is clear from the analysis of Tuma’s large library made by the young ü 's book ü Balkansko poluostrvo i južnoslovenske zemlje: osnove antropogeografije ’s Balkanic anthropogeography. Petra Kolenc, op. cit. Veneti: naši davni predniki davni naši Veneti: 191 , op. cit., 20. 77 þ (1876-1961), one of mainSlovenethe á awi Ĕ ski (1891-1965)and the (“The Balkan (“The 192 Many of Józef CEU eTD Collection history history was all of product the effortthe Jožko Šavli. of gave that narrative ita meaning placed discourseand the that in it place” “proper the in historical place, the right in the his discovery put that theory the Atestine Tables; the of thedecipherment part, most sensational itsand final provided Bor separately.reality, In conclusions their to had come they that emphasized interviews they later In book. case, by 1985 Bor, Šavli and inBerlot’s andRebec’s “Etruscan” putinmotion book 1984 that wholethe any thing. In Tomaži happensin Very theit publicsphere can hidden. remain probably of was publishing the beenhad in meantimeby nothing completely the persuaded which autochthonism Šavli’s – Tomaži Ivan was as networking social happened. Slovenia ishowever asmall nation an and to attentive skilled coordinator, in not been have I one. ablea Slavic fact in was Veneti the of language to ancient the that proof reconstructa decisive not how thenarrative, something that all the previous autochthonistsencounter had lacked. There was however still between waseverything makingsense.Hewasnow finally armed historical with a consistent Jožko Šavli and the Matej Bor people. 193 14 the around emerged which culture Lusatian archeologist and paleontologist Josef Ladislavarcheologist Josef Pí paleontologist and indentified the Batic Veneti with Slavs. Furthermore, they adopted the theories areaand Baltic of northern widerof the settlers the autochthonous the Slavs were the that Czech Kostrzewski, framed anthropologist and linguist JanCzekanowski(1882-1965). their theories in reaction to the German expansionism; they insisted Matej Boret. al., Evidently, this was the piece Šavli was missing in his historical reconstruction. Now reconstruction. historical in his missing was Šavli piece the was this Evidently, Veneti: naši davni predniki davni naši Veneti: þ þ were already a team ready to publish a sensational , 91-92. – the director of the Slovene home in Vienna who Vienna in home Slovene the of director –the 78 th century genesisof aproto-SlavicB.C. the century þ (1847-1911), whosaw inancient (1847-1911), the 193 These scholars, especially CEU eTD Collection obvious bias, the statement is quite felicitous. traditional the was Slovene school, historiography old ofthe itsand treaty nationalist of the “Slovene anti-ethnicist national and question”cultural in Italy. Italian Despite a hard-core his author, the of “enemy” Goliardiche, 1995), 5. He nevertheless wrote booka about it: but the Venetic theory was just apretext, the real 194 the last layer is represented by the myth of Carantanian continuity. The gradual shift of the shiftof gradual continuity. The myth by Carantanian of islayer the represented last the thesecond proper; is one byits in expansion represented “substratum theory”; so-called the theory belayerVenetic called can isnarrative. first in what The the ashift essentially only last is one the content; intheir historiography established the to a challenge represent and are innovative two first Only the message. identitarian carry buta powerful content, mustwhole debate havesounded absurd. someone conceptualization Slovene identity.of To with unacquainted tradition,this the understood only by intotaking account prevailingthe andtrends traditions in the nothingmore than a repetitive andratheruninteresting dialogue of deaf the it–: can be couldhave from be difficultly appreciated debatethe lifted by theory the – which was through insightthe itbreakthrough on discursivethe this Inits achieved. turn, breakthrough truth in this verdict. Theminutes in be“thatand intworejected theory one”. explained can success of the theory cannot foron adecade: heunderstandit could not howso debate waspossible to long a about be understood from itself,1990s, was perplexed by fact in the that discussions the Slovenia around ithad been going but only coherent and logic, but was far from being complex. An Italian scholar who reacted was theory the of narrative historical Indeed, the to scholars. by the rejected it easily quite the 4.3 The Venetic Theory Tummolo, Manlio. Three layers can be identified in the Venetic theory. All of them are simple in their simple are them of All theory. Venetic in the identified be can layers Three The content of the Venetic theory was rather simple. The proofs supporting it were L’arrivo degli sloveni nelleVenezie.Due mitiin discussione 79 194 There isindeedmuch . (Udine:. Edizioni CEU eTD Collection 2008). Gorica: Mirko Škrbin, 2005); Leopold Verbovšek, Petkovšek, jutri 2003); LucijanVuga, prednamce :dokazi in razmišljanje ostarožitnosti Slovencev nadolenjskem zahodu Beti Jarc, ed., Jarc, Beti Slovenci že odkamene dobe nasedanjihozemljih. Teorija kontinuitete odgrinjanje tan Verbovšek, Leopold include Triglavom (ŠkofjaLoški Loka: muzej, 2003). slovenskaobzorja z Veneti v Evropi2000 Kdo smo? Odkod prihajamo in odkod izviramo? Ljubljana: Editiones Veneti: 1995); their ethonym neologisms German the invented linguists Slovene the when revival, national Slovene the of eve very the until Tomaži neighbours: eastern their for designation Germanic the into there from and tradition Latin the also unknown, they were called simply as - combination phonetic the where language, Greek ancient the In Etruscans. assimilatedgot merged or into other indigenous people innew ethnicities, such as the language. people suchasincentral the In someItaly, regions, alsospread their Slavic they Central and Apennine intothe Peninsula; withthe spreadthroughout Europe culture, the of were also the bearers* ethonyms the of the which at the end of the 13 Tomaži 195 in Lusatian culture 13 the Šavli. Jožko movement: Venetic inthe person one focus from the first layer to the others was a sign of the growing influence of the views of I base my reconstruction of the Venetic theory on the quoted book by Matej Bor, Jožko Šavli and Ivan (Ljubljana:Založba Jutro, 2004);LucijanVuga, Some waves of the Sloveneti reached also the coast of the Atlantic, where they left The Venetic theory claims that the ethnogenesis of the Slavic peoples started in the þ þ : , as well as on several books and booklets published thereafter. All of them were edited by Ivan (Vienna: IvanTomaži Z Veneti vnovi Belinov kodeks Wende Zbornik oVenetih þ ic z našedavne preteklosti Venetes Sloventi, Slovenci Sloventi, Megalitski jeziki , or Slowenen would later be recalled in ’s inJulius later berecalled would þ (Ljubljana: Založba Jutro, 2005); Mirko Škrbin, Winde as Komu (ni)smo tujci? th (ViennaLjubljana: - Editiones Veneti, 1990); century B.C. century þ (Ljubljana:Slovenian World Congress, 2003); Leoplod Sever, , 2007).Otherbooks theory defending the I consultedwhich inmyresearch (adj. Slovenske korenine and Razstava Veneti na Slovenskem (Ljubljana: Revija 2004); SRP, Leopold Verbovšek, (Slovenes) and slowenisch (Vienna -Ljubljana: Editiones Veneti:2000); windisch (Bilje: Založba Humar, 2000); Lucijan Vuga, Venetoi 195 Their name was (Ljubljana: Jutro, 1995); LucijanVuga, Sto kamen (Vienna -Ljubljana: Editiones Veneti, 1999); ), a name that remained in use for the Slovenes 80 . (Ljubljana:Tomaži Ivan or Prah preteklosti Sloveni Enetoi þ kov za nov slovenski mozaik , an ethonym that would later enter later would that , anethonym , (Vienna: Ivan Tomaži Slovani Sloveneti (Ljubljana:Revija SRP,Ivo 2005); (ova Gorica: Založba Branko, 2003); De Bello Gallico De Bello Etruš (Slavs). These proto-Slavs Etruš þ , 2003). which later evolved in evolved later which þ ani so bili Slovani þ ani in Veneti (: Samozaložba, Veneti na Slovenskem th Bog živideželo pod century spread century þ , iz v iz Danes, , 1998);, (Ljubljana: L.V., (Ljubljana: Davnina govori: Jantarska pot: , the lower , the (Vienna - slo- Iskal sem Slovenci. þ V nova (Nova eraj za eraj was CEU eTD Collection (Slo-veneti (Slo-veneti Slovenes)or inhabited the settlementareas modernof Slavicwest languages, Tyrol, Pannonia and Vindeliciain modern southern . Further to the north, the Veneti Alpsandthe in theSwiss Reatia Noricum, Venetia, Italian northern the existed: culture 4 the Since principality. later Carantanian the continuity a Alpswith direct which was infact aVeneticpolity which maintained Eastern in the realm Noricum of the was case the Such Slo-venetic. same, the remained substratum maintained, the only that upperlayersthe represented of society,the whilethe peasant they understand, hadone to mentioned, areexplicitly Celts wherethe regions, other Venetic theyhad Celtic ethnicity although acceptedthe Inmany innovations. technological in factof were thePannonians) Celts (suchastheCarnior the to populations ascribed many by scholarship: the overestimated been had colonization of Celtic the extent the that claimed however Venetologians The Alps. Swiss western the in and Swabia modern in expansion shrunk theterritory Veneti,the of in especially of thewestern plain,parts Po the century B.C. and was transmitted also tothe neighbouring Celts. Soon afterwards, the Celtic Norrland. northern the and Götaland southern the present day, the name of the regionculture which had beensowell and prophetically outby pointed lateFrancJeza.the Tothe bears the SloveneScandinavian and Slovene the between nameresemblances the explains – which Svealand modern – as distinct from , , Czech the Republic They andPoland. also settled the central of regions Germany, Austria, Slovenia, western the modern Pannonian of plainregion includingthe homelandfrom extended southernNorthern AlpsItaly, Swiss the throughout and eastern theVenetic Europe: Central was however area settlement of their Thebulk Venetic people. also sources recall the wheresomeancient andthePontus Bulgaria Danubein today’s It was the Veneti that established the culture which flourished until the 6 81 th century B.C. several centers of Venetic th CEU eTD Collection Germanist” and “pan-Slavist” bias of the official sciences, sarcasm directed against the Romantic conjectures, Romantic the against directed sarcasm sciences, official ofthe bias “pan-Slavist” and Germanist” “pan- the against philippics the areas, ofsettlement reconstructions cartographical artifacts, pre-Roman of ancient inscription, transliterations The the assertion beginning. of very the cultural the from affinity of discourse the of populationsthe in condensation Centralthe Europe, say, so to the imageryenables, It of effective. This feature, which onepresented in fragments which reveal comprehensivewouldthe picture only through agradual and attentive reading. expect to hinderthe “Venetic” books. Inmost the of them, the argument is receptionnot presented in anintegral narrative flow, but is of the books196 in a wider audience, is in fact very period. in a later articulated fully of were them some logic, although inherent of same the features different represent they because precisely discourse Venetic of “phases” than rather “layers” dominated what I call the “substratum theory” was almost natural. Indeed, Iprefer to refer to 4.4. The Continuity Theory language. adifferent meantime accepted in the had many peoples the of ages,the although through had remained infra-structure same wasan the population the oak) proof that additional mythology, common the self-government, even municipal rural small of traditions legal the same the world, common venerationthe common of folk thetraditions,landscape, linden common the thesense: commonin another also settlers way ancient of their life of tree witness bore and mentality,territory (as the sameopposed attitude to the to same the however, importantly the More found. be wereto autochthonists, of generations Germanic areasinthe which toponyms,Slavic scrupulously collected from already previousthe Germanized. while the Ventic island in Sweden present-day was probably linguistically already In this sense, another feature of the Venetic discourse might be mentioned, namely the scattered nature of nature scattered the namely be mentioned, might discourse Venetic the of feature another sense, this In From this first phase of the Venetic theory the evolution into a second phase, a second into evolution the theory Venetic the of phase first this From Not surprisingly, mentioned the territories of Venetic settlementcorresponded with 196 The complete articulation of the substratum theory came relatively late, only with only late, relatively came theory thesubstratum of articulation Thecomplete 82 CEU eTD Collection theory, this open issue was now solved. According to the substratum substratum the theory,According innovation,now solved. issue to this proto- was the open With substratum the languages. Slavic South the of affinity the for reasons general or explained the reasonsSlovenes in regard toother South Slavs – and the misfortunate factfor that the theory in no way such a difference. Nor it explained the genesis of the Slavs in Šavli with what name”called “the eloquent characterized alternatively culture, ware corded was the expression and whosecultural later engaged ina nonviolent way life, theof which Indo-Europeans to violent contrary arrived They culture. pottery linear wasthe expression cultural foremost Šavli, their According to Middlethe tothearrival Eastwhohadlivedinmostprior of Europe Indo-Europeans.the of and northern of inhabitants ancient the as population of stock same the to belonged call the “parallax” between its implicit ideological message – the ideological its implicit between call “parallax” the only besides problem,thefact itthat problemwas wrong.The one was in might one what hadin fact initial The theory theory. Venetic original the inconsistency of what wasamajor descent. Šavli Afro-European languagewereof Slavic what accepted the called 199 Veneti, 1995), 85. century B.C. in the13 area European represented Central the colonized who Veneti the theory, substratum the only an manifest latentconviction in already present underlying According stages. early the to a rather thin massive controversy. Venetic waveof the the last and roused layer of of monographs advocating the theory was published only after the controversy had subsided. had controversy the after only 198 published was theory the advocating monographs of yearsthe 1989and 1990. The second one was yearthe around 1995and1996. Interestingly, great majority the controversy: first the one happened immediately afterthe publicationof the first book and reached its height in 197 it was to say: “Here is where we stand. Accept us if you want, otherwise rejectdiscourse. us.” ofthe image The Veneticdirect and discourseimmediate an is very conveying honesttogether in this moulded sense; are itimmediatelyelements divergent shows its otherwise cards these to all the reader, as if assertionof national pride, appeals forthe protectionof the cultural heritage, attacks against the serfdom myth: the book “Etruscans and Veneti” ( Veneti” and “Etruscans book the Ibid., 98. Jožko Šavli, “Veneti in vprašanje podstati,” in Base my analysis on the corpus of newspaper and journal articles I identified two major waves of Venetic The substratum The theory substratum intelligent was andhandy solvea highly sophisticated, way to Etruš þ ani inVeneti Etruš 199 83 of battleaxeculture. of þ ani inVeneti ) which in was published only 1995 Kulturträgers , IvanTomaži differentia specifica differentia 197 Nevertheless, itmade Nevertheless, . The populations that . The populations þ , ed. (Vienna: Editiones 198 of the of They th CEU eTD Collection 200 Šavli juxtaposes the two social models: individualized settled following see In cultureandfamily nuclei. we can how the of quotes the on but unity, tribal of collectivism the on based not was structure social whose people, peace-loving were a Veneti the Indo-Europeans, bellicose the to Contrary Basque one. material spiritual and and beculture waspre-Indo-European could seenasparalleltothe as Veneti. to refered weretraditionally latter only the Significantly, by represented hand,linear substratum other culture. pottery Afro-European the the settled the on Europe, Central settled that proto-Slavs Lusatian The culture. axe battle the of sense in the developed their continued course) of of not Slovenes, Slavs(but southern eastern and ofmodern ancestors andthe became moved eastwards that culture Lusatian Slavs of the The theory is essentially explained between pages 81 and 112 of the above quoted monograph. quoted above of the 112 81and pages between explained essentially is theory The fields,etc.) forms alegal institution known under theconceptof the mother are the oneswho decide. […] The family withits dwelling withand its estate (the the is community national of the basis The character. national In this case [the case of the Veneti], the substratum became elementthe which determined the family. productional Roman ofthe reflection total almost is patriarch the of authority the families large of forms these In family. productional such community is a Roman the based anymore on areal, butalsoon an imagined i.e. familiarblood bond.An example of Germanic the especially and Celtic Balkans the in itself maintained century their shepherd origins from the steppes, example for the large family which until the 19 reveals character Indo-European predominantly a with nations among organization tribal The whose population a reality in were Veneti the theory, substratum the to According (patria potestas) (patria . The medieval familia under the authority of the feudal lord is also a familia sipa which existed until the Middle Ages. The latter is not under the name of name the under and the Greek the and 84 ergasterion zadruga family house 200 . A similar example is the , inwhichthe father and which were forms of a forms were which . The house . The has itsown th CEU eTD Collection : Basque (1933-1975), whoseversesbecome have oneof mostthe expressions known modern of My in written Father) foremost1963 by Basque the left-nationalist poet Gabriel Aresti to, let me quote a short passage from poem passagefrom ashort marvelous methe to, let quote the around framed discourse typeof see whatthe to In order discourse. Basque social organization mid19 until the to function, unlikein case, Slovene the asalegally system andintegrated sanctioned of case that the same tradition of house names is present in the Basque countries where it used is stratum not the theŠavli pre-Indo-European alsohas days. surviveduntil It to present the by traditions.house names asascribedin tradition rural the Inmost of of fact, Slovenia, rural Slovene the with familiar is who anyone by be overlooked cannot connotation 201 Jožko Šavli, op. cit., 100. And with my hands I shall defend I shall my hands with And weapons my away take will They […] I shall defend the house of my father. Against usury, against the Justice, drought, against , Against I shall defend the house of my father. The last image carries an implicit, but very message andits implicit, butvery The last imageidentitarian an clear carries group of houses forms a A in. moves family another if even maintained is which institution an representing name, etxea (house or home)has amajor or emergedas (house village [vas], which etymologically means community. means etymologically which [vas], th century. After its demise in the late 19 85 Nire aitaren etxea topos in the Basque identity Basque inthe etxea (The House of Iam referring th 201 century, the century, CEU eTD Collection 22. is dedicated to the Basques of whom the author writes: Šavli’s close collaborator Ivan Tomaži Ivan collaborator close Šavli’s by written Origins?” Our are Where We? Are Who “Slovenes. book the In autochthonism. resorting tothe Basque frame asa identitarian possible model for hisnew Slovene 203 June 1st 2008). 202 Ivan Tomaži Translated by Toni Strubell. Retrtieved from http://www.basquepoetry.net/poemak-i/0004.htm (accessed such as very similar carnival customs or the traditional sawing contests. sawing traditional the or customs carnival similar very as such Indo-European origin], they manyalso share common character features and even customs, common with Slovenes [which are of course, the explains,author the legacy of acommon pre- community for atleast years. 10,000 Not only doestheir language have many words in national specific a as existed have Basques the researchers, of opinion the to According If I have quoted the above example is because I believe that Šavli Šavli was consciously that believe I is because abovethe example haveIf quoted I Will remain standing. But the house of my father My descendence will be lost, I shall die,my soul will be lost, […] my father; of house The And with my arms I shall defend my hands off cut will They my father; of house The þ , Slovenci. Kdosmo? Od kdaj inodkod izviramo? 202 þ as a reflection on Slovene identity, an entire chapter entire an identity, Slovene on reflection a as 86 (Vienna-Ljubljana: Editiones Veneti, 1999), 203 CEU eTD Collection discursive shiftin such ofidentitariankind framing. Itisin fact more than obvious in that itself only focused to the theory reacted that establishment academic The reconstructions. historical on the preposterous conjectures of the contents, but failed to see the clear it can be seen from the continuation of his previous quote: “culture” rather than language orblood, expandingit tothe whole Central European area, as (and, to a certain extent,not with aim theat toCroats); tearing hedown did autochthonismthehowever as an aim of breaking notionthe Slavic frame of Slovene identity. To be sure,want he did of kinshipto re-frame betweenaffiliation.feature mustŠavli have beenextremely This appealing to used who it in Slovenesterms of and the westerncentered Slavs aself- logically, quite is infact, identity national of discourse The Basque implication. one, focusedquite evident another, also hasidentity however Slovene the “Basquisize” to This attempt on the mostprobably identity of autochthonist all in moderndiscourses the Europe, Basque one. ancient history of a nation with no ethnic or linguistic 204 Jožko Šavli, op. Cit., 100. The above quote shows the unsustainable conjectures of the Venetologians in terms of maintained itself in the rural population has substratum their and Veneti the by inhabited fact in was territory German contemporary among the Germans as Venetic space, among Slovenes, , the Sorbsof and But Lusatia. also,not let us forget, Veneti. Itis therefore not acoincidence that the concept hasmaintained itself in the former a legacy of the matriarchalclearly is it and of fatherland principle concept the from from different the completely is periodword ofthis of origin theThe linear pottery culture and from the called The house in the sense of a family fireside, to which we also have an emotional relationship, is It is not surprising that the authors of an autochthonist discourse would resort to the to resort would discourse autochthonist an of authors the that surprising not is It home . The land. The inwhich membersthe ofits people have their homes, is the Heimat as opposed asopposed to theGermanic Vateralnd.of Most the . 204 87 homeland . CEU eTD Collection 205 territoriality: assertionis one the thefirst book: same the from examples other look attwo us Let discourse. of in nationalist turn the gender a “post-modern” mightcall one this with case wearedealing equality, the other one shows a clear shift from ethnicism to Ibid., 101. admitting the Slovenes had the their ownstatehood before latter The know neitherSerbs. the Slovene science forcing Yugoslavistthe ideology it;upon anideology that could not allow 17 borrowed wordmentionedthe (first “state” as with the [Slovene] linguist Bezlaj who wrote in his that the Slovenes hinted hinted by the suffix population holds together) then and thewider areaof community, the than there one: thetribal first, isthe The legacy The legacy of the habit among the Slavs” (sicut Sclavi solent esse). document from woman1136 […]states named abouta is Gothelindis: free,as itisthe “she 73, 53): “Man sagt, dasz alle Wendinen vri sind.” (They say that all Wend women are free).A 1010. In 1275, the of theSachsenspiegelauthors wrote this aboutforthePolabian (III in Carinthia in monastery first the establish to able was Wichburga countess the that tradition enabled the women to legal and administrative freedom. It was on the bases of this legal patriarchal authority. The Slovene legal system in Carantania, known as known Carantania, in system legal Slovene The authority. patriarchal substratum;differently from the Indo-European organizationtribal which isbased on The legal equality of women in the [west Slavic] tribal law also comes from the Venetic th century. This is yet another case of submission to the Belgrade centralism that terrorized that centralism Belgrade the to submission of case another yet is This century. linearpottery culture is certainly also a higher stage of social organization –ava denoting an enlargement. In this sense, one cannot in any way agree way any in cannot one sense, In this enlargement. an denoting country 88 [dežela] (from “držela”– a territory where the derschaua 205 ) from other Slavic languagesin the state institutio Sclavenica [država] as it is , CEU eTD Collection with theOfficial Narrative 4.5. The Attempt of aHistorical Turn inthe National Identity and the Clash principality Carantania. of dawn of state; modern dawn the of longinto the Middle Ages inand casessome –asin Šavli’s native region – until very the self-government their maintained have which of many communities, rural the of framework legal the as first, senses: in two alive remained had claimed, he tradition, legal This from times. features already hadbeeninherited pre Indo-European legal whose tradition shiftin content. As we have seen from the quotes above, Šavli insisted on a specific Slovene a than rather shift narrative a on centered most is which one the theory, Venetic the of layer thirdthe infactframe. Šavli isThisconceptrepresents tryingthat to of concept statehood asthe Belgradecentralism the much against philippic meannot so the Ido discourse. interesting passageinexpertin isagainthe ears. Themost convincing the abovequoted to 1975). Any continuity with pre-historic times is of course pure fiction. Venetian Slovenia structure. Cf. Sergij Vilfan, op. cit. Bogo Grafenauer, and terminology, suggest thatsome elements of older traditions have been incorporated the in their continuity with the direct earlyany had they medieval that Slavicunlikely self-governing however is It Slovenia. communities, although somenorthern-western and parallels,western of areas mostly mountainous in 207 206 The existence of such communities has in fact been documented by historians, especially in the in especially by historians, documented been fact in has communities ofsuch existence The Ibid., 103. Needless to say that Šavli’s etymologies were flawed, although they sound they might flawed, although were Šavli’ssay etymologies that to Needless soil]. [land, “zemalja” concept ofstate nor province nor country in their language, everything to them justis (Ljubljana-Koper-Trieste: Cankarjeva založba- Primorski tisk- Založništvo tržaškega tiska, 206 207 second, as the legal continuity of the medieval Slavic medieval the of continuity legal the as second, 89 Samouprava BeneškeSlovenije -The Autonomy of CEU eTD Collection “freedom of the Slovenes” had been lost in the early in lost hadbeen early the 9 of Slovenes” “freedom the classical historiographical Slovene based onanimplicitnarrativetradition was inwhich the were however not the facts, but the identity discourse. against German the nationalist it. obfuscate historiography trying to framedmain ashishad putmany ideological in opponent, prove to efforts factorder this Bogo Grafenauer, somethingcourse level whichwason factual the by very recognized historiography.the The the “doyen”the other Slovene historical provinces, namely Carniola and Styria, had evolved. This was of of the principality Ljubljana of Carantania naturally evolved in feudal the Duchy of Carinthia,from which School Slavic toshow howthe – modernand Šavliwanted period, early the of Historiography,historiographical re-interpretation. Based on mentions several from high the Middle Ages whom Šavli public ceremonies in the Middle Ages, the assertion of the Slovene legal character of assertion legal character of the Slovene in Ages, the Middle the public ceremonies legalinlanguage of several and them usage Slovenetradition ritual the of uninterrupted the many of traditions in Slavicthe principality incorporated the newfeudal were duchy, among Slavic tribal asset of Carantania, after a failed attempt of anti-Frankish rebellion. Of course, of Carantania. Institutio Sclavenica.” Institutio of Carantania. Roman on Empire renewed bases.he entitled In book published1990, a “The Slovene State Noricum from of ruins the less the kingdom Venetian the re-emergence of old the than nothingin was reality state, Slovene first asthe Enlightenment the seen since Carantania, of principality Slavic Medieval the that claimed had he Veneti, the on book first the in Already identity. historical Slovene the re-framing of project life in his elements major 208 Veneti- Založba Karantanija- Založba Lipa, 1990). 209 Lipa, Založba Karantanija- Založba Veneti- Bogo Grafenauer, Jožko Šavli, Jožko With some exceptions (one of whom was the already mentioned Josip Mal), the Mal), Josip mentioned already the was whom of (one exceptions some With Provinglegal legacy the of Carantania has beenundoubtedly ofJožko Šavli’sone Slovenska država Karantanija: institutio Sclavenica Karantanija: izbrane razprave in 208 þ lanki The book was a very clever attempt of 90 (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 2000). th century with the dismantling of the of dismantling the with century (Vienna- Ljubljana- Koper: Editiones 209 Slovene The question at stake Thequestion at , as he wrote – CEU eTD Collection 82-83. 212 September1999, 43. 211 Vilfan, Sergij and above reference the 210 boldly itdubbed “thehistorical symbol of Slovenes”. Italy Šavlihad and Austria, an published in article heintroduced a newwhich symbol and conception history of gainingstarted atan ground extremely high pace. frame of Slovene tothe classical brought identity historical such theof rupture a conception overemphasize identity.history To a great of surprise the ofregion the academic belongs establishment, to suchthe a Slovene historical identity. One can barely which was featured panther black the of symbol the across came increasingly came Šavli in polity, Carinthian the coats of arms of of Carantanian/ the legal character for the Slovene severalconfirmations in of search documents highmedieval old of study medieval his In genesis. its is what know handful a only although Slovene, noble families from ever seen before,the was a on a silver shield: an image recognized today by every Slovene: were of the territory “infrastructure” the area, cultural German substratum theory: although nobility the and upperstrata the of society the belonged the to his of logic same the to according tradition, Slovene the with land common this identified German element cominginand the Slovene contrast”. the without state, one existed, land one “only which in legacy historical acommon were sense participated to a common feudal history was alien to it. some in had Slovenes the that notion the myth: serfdom the around structured however was modern in etc.; bynobility period, Carinthia local the early the The statement is takenfrom aninterview forthe popular liberal conservative political magazine See before. historians Slovene by studied fully already been had elements these all mentioned, already As 212 Jožko Šavli, “ Šavli, Jožko In 1983, whenhe wasstill Slovenean anonymous contributor to Catholic journals in Šavli, on the other side, rejected such a vision of history. For him, the Middle Ages Middlethe Forhim, of history. suchavision side,rejected Šavli, other on the ý rni panter: zgodovinski simbol Slovencev,” simbol zgodovinski panter: rni Pravna zgodovina Slovencev zgodovina Pravna 91 211 212 Koledar GoriškeMohorjeve družbe (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica,1961). The trick, so to say, was that Šavli The symbol, nobody which had 210 The prevalent narrative prevalent The ergo , the whole the , (1983): Mag , CEU eTD Collection 214 213 by Wolfram von Eschenbach. von Wolfram by persevered in his search and found numerous mentionsother of symbol,the including one the black panther on a silver shield as it was the prerogative of the Carinthian . century, vaguely in which mentioned a which use dispute Styrian the wasprohibited to Carinthian realizedspace. Hethus that thesymbol behad toconnectedmid tothe 13 published acommuniquéshort which stated: and which Arts was then representative most the institution of Slovene historiography, of Academy of Sciences Slovenian the weeks later, Historical MilkoKos the Institute two more than Not Government. key Slovenian the inthe which atthetimepositions controlled liberal June 1990by Union,party Democratic anational youth of the section Slovenian the in made was sense inthis proposals serious most the of One Slovenia. of of arms coat itthe make to wereadvanced proposals serious very several from Yugoslavia, secession Slovene By enormous. ithad1990, a become widely recognized and symbol. used Inthe of process design a discovery it–which was Šavli openly admitted andnot a reconstruction – was identity. of the for Slovene symbol success representing the The as suchtheonly appropriate and Carantania early of legacy symbolic of the part itwas that claimed He only Carantania. article. have like. The looked resultwas symbol the blackof panther he in the which presented the could Carantania, of Duchy Carolingian early the of legacy symbolic the with identified areconstruction hedocuments, of created himself the originalhow he design, which Ibid., 136. Jožko Šavli, Jožko To be sure, Šavli never claimed that the black panther was the coat of arms of Slovenska znamenja (Gorizia-Bilje:ZaložbaHumar, 1994), 131. 214 Following the descriptions and imageshefound in the 92 213 Šavli th CEU eTD Collection 1990). equaled a symbol inequaled 19 asymbol Germanization of the community political medieval a symbolizing image An treason. national to tantamount was any feudal perspective incorporate kindSloveneof identity,symbology, which of would historicist a framing writings: their all in convistion implicit the revealed establishment thehistorical When provoked, consciousness. of re-framing national Slovene against the was areaction It historians. of intellectual elite intelligent and subtle very an otherwise gentlemen. wasnothing Thecommuniqué nervousmore and than a rather stupid reaction of Germanization andfight and Slovene against unity freedom” wasnot explained by the the first time in 1983 have served as a “symbols of a power which was among the carriers of could How of institute. the “thefigure of which hadan animal creature” been designed for board Scientific of the president Grafenauer, and –Bogo Otoperec, Božo councilors senior 215 political inyears1939 for writings, aChristian left written the1938and and nationalist Middle Ages was nothing butan Izjava Zgodovinskega inštituta MilkaKosaobpobudah zanoveslovenskesimbole The document was signed by the manager Carantania. with link any has of this of Nothing freedom. the and unity Slovene against fight and InstituteGermanization of carriers the among was which power a of symbols Two, Stane War World during still and 1918 until Granda, been, traditionally had which creature animal of an figure a and colours one of its among the especiallypeople, because they propose to accept asaSlovene national symbol much time and space to their argumentations. By doing so, only theyhave brought confusion so devoted which media, of the policy editorial the by surprised therefore are We interpreted. but we condemn historicalabuse ofthe which facts are wrongly being arbitrary and We cannotoppose initiativethe [of Youngthe Initiative of the Slovenian Democratic Union], At the end of At endthe historianGrafenauer of 1987,the published Bogo hisa volume of early umbra futurorum 93 th and 20 of the Nazi genocide policies. th century. The German yoke of the , n. 11-128/90(21 , n. st June 215 CEU eTD Collection 218 217 matica, 1987). 216 for political inspiration accordingreflection serveasan suchamentality could to structured historical reflections beliefthat makeanybody Grafenauer’s anymore. not to sense analogy had wasstructured in collapsed themeantime. In1980s, such a statementthe could Grafenauer’s logic of internal whichthe to according self-evidences interconnected of which made meaningful statement this in preposterous had vanishedin 1939, 1987. The set paradigm mental very the that I claim different. is rather point my anti-Semitism; even or analogy,infelicitous he could which have testifies easily omitted, his raucousnationalismto with a very paragraph appeared: strange and whichwaspublished bya houseofwhichhe publishing chief was the anarticleeditor, faced with new uncertainties at the horizon. atthe new uncertainties faced with Two couldin some for wayserve as inspiration youngerof the an Slovenes, generation World attheWar eve hour historical of in difficult the formulated his wish reflections that and Slovene the Historical Position”. Inthe eminent the preface, historian expressed the journal. Ibid., 153. 1987 was of course the year in which Miloševi Grafenauer, Bogo I do not want to claim that Grafenauer’s decision to re-publish claim Grafenauer’sa terribly wantnotto decision such I dothat are. Slovenia] over dominate be authorized to claims [to German originally inpublished June 1939]is mostthe evidentproof of how unjustifiable the was article [the Jews of the German treatment current The more severe. even be must Germans the against verdict is the that only difference the native people; the problem isa foreign that moneyed is stratum living on accountthe of property the of the positionto similar aspects many in is inSlovenia minority national German the of of position The the Jews in Germany before 1933. In both cases the essence of the 216 The title of the volume had a significant title: “The Slovene National Question National Slovene “The title: significant a had volume the of title The Slovensko narodno vprašanje in slovenski zgodovinski položaj ü rose to power. 217 94 In the volume, In hethe which hadhimself edited 218 (Ljubljana: Slovenska (Ljubljana: CEU eTD Collection 219 answered: He saint”. Slovene “first the of beatification the preceding celebrations official the with contradiction in clearly was which book, his of title weekly magazine shortly to be beatifiedafter by John Paul II. the very same year. In an theinterview for a popular right-liberalpublication of the book, Šavli was asked to explain the saint was the 19 was book highly challengingprovocative, which the narrative Slovene according first the to 4.6 The “Cultural Turn” of theVenetic Theory in years Venetic role same theory –the – played acrucial process. this in the against fighting were they phenomenon the that and place taken had identity Slovene in change a deepstructural realize that failedto community academic historiographic in hadalone. previousidentity that decades.Hewasnotthe occurred collectiveof Most the anyoneto in1987 was symptom the of his sense inability to paradigmthe shifts in Slovene Horvat, Jože. “Jožko Šavli – intervju.” . From this point of view St. Modest was the first Slovene saint land andwas connected to Slovene history in a specific way, in this case through our in role important an had who establish to order in assessment historical a make to have Slovene stock and blood, which was still the case in the lastthus aSlovene saint.cannot We just notion acceptcentury, the ours” somebody that ofhe only if“is is in the Romantic era. We Carinthia, Modest, St. was who ofIrishdescent considered was but ofthe apostle Carantania, recognized missionarysaint, the and auxiliary bishop atthefirst church at in This is what I have been bothered with for quite some time now. We actually already had a In Šavli1999 Jožko entitled published a book The “Slovene Saints”. verytitle of the th century bishop of Anton Martin bishopwho Slomšek was Maribor century (1800-1862) of Mag , September1999, 41. 95 . 219 CEU eTD Collection Šavli’s answer wassomehow surprising: asking: 221 220 supported by supported an exclusivit demotic-genealogicalhistory of treatment with one basedon modelbeginning: ethnicist of the replacement identity basedan natural andof righton autochthonism as a meansJožko Šavlihadused background. They inconfirm that the theory pushed theVenetic to assert he which with remarks smart the and whatfigures national of canonization hadthe in “taxonomy” arguably been his main goal since the very Ibid. Ibid., 42. the 9 suggests that the Slovenes started differentiating from some southern Balkanic sphere only in differentiation among us, many things suggest we dealing that are with worlds; two nothing a been always has we nature, inter-disciplinary of is which my research, According area. stated somewhere that until the 9 Kos historian the already Balkans; the to and Slavs South the to belong we blood and ancestry I don’t think was that ascientific, but an ideological discussion. Ithasbeen claimedby that years ago? Where it is now? It seems it has retrieved from public attention. What about the theory of the Venetic origin of Slovenes that stirred up many polemics some In the same interview the journalist brought up Šavli’s role in the Venetic controversy upŠavli’srole intheVenetic In thesame thejournalist brought interview The above quotes are very arevery issue Šavli’s The above quotes reflection the revealing, both on of whole withissue ideological and political labels and putting an end to any discussion. the covering of instead roots national our of question the about debate open an be to has There th century. I think, however,that we will continue to have vivid discussions about it. th century we weren’t any different from our “brothers” in the in “brothers” our from different any weren’t we century 96 220 221 CEU eTD Collection respective views: respective their between differences the acknowledged also gentleman, intellectual where he,asatrue and his Afterpendants. his death, Šavli a touching published eulogy of his collaborator late Trstenjak of Romantic the tradition to muchlinked infact very was autochthonism Bor’s inspiredinterpretations linguisticAtestine of the Tables itsgave thetheory initial resonance. whosepoetically Bor, Matej theory, of Venetic the column other of the early the death 1990semergedthe asone of most popularthe representingimages identity. Slovene in which panther black the of symbol the by expressed symbolically continuity, Carantanian myth of was the re-interpretation historical neo-conservative core Inthe of Šavli’s past. historic by rights and supported incorporative,an territorial and historicistic vision the of the fields, in old customs – from carnival masks tomaypoles etc. – regardless the linguistic their culture. This ismanifested in the ofsystem village self-government, thedistribution of ancestral countryside culture, still reveals itself asthe homeland on Venetithe ancient and its with Europe, Central All speakers. Italian of proportion large a in and speakers German the East and South Slavs, but only in the , as wellone, and asthat theirin ancientabout culture, two despite thirdsthe Slavic language, of has modern not had any continuation in with this, insisting that theVeneti were not so much linguistica group as they were a cultural agree not I could people. Slav ancient As an ancestors. our Veneti, the imagined he way same consequently the perception of the Slovene historical statehood, could never prevail. In the never really able to capture his imagination. He thought that such a conception of nation, and cultural and economic community; buttohim, aSlavist, as such ofan image thenation was legal, historical, a also is nation the that understood He community. a linguistic as nation of historical image of Austria was that of a German entity in the sense of the modern conception continuity of Slovene statehood from Carantania Austria through untilour […] times. His Since Slavdom still meant alot to him,he did not accept my discoveries on the unbroken because advanced of the ageand possible This hijacking wasalso of autochthonism 97 CEU eTD Collection 421. 223 vinedresser from Gorizia to his Friulian neighbor.” , “Slovenci in Jugoslovani,” in Jugoslovani,” in “Slovenci Bela krizantema.Kriti Cankar, Ivan neighbor.” Friulian his to Gorizia from vinedresser differentmore from one another thanour peasant from is to hiscounterpart from Tyrol,or our language at least cousins – but inculture which is the fruit of centuries-longa separate education we are much Slav tribe split into four nations with four completely autonomous cultural lives. In blood we are brothers, in cultural oreven linguistic sense does not exist atall. Maybe itused to exist, but itwas solved when the South support forthe projectof South Slav political unification, but added: “Forme, any Yugoslav questionin the writer, essayist political and activist Ivan Cankar(1876-1918) who deliveredin alecture 1913voiced full his by Grafenauer:Bogo framed Veneticheto the somethingalso was hadbeen reproached by discourse Šavli, which completely Veneticthe conformedremainedBor controversy. Publicly, hiddenthroughout 222 Bogo Grafenauer, “Ob tiso Grafenauer, Bogo Ivan Tomaži a wide echo as among the Slovenes. Here, I can really not understand why and to what end times. But asfarI know, nowhere else do similarhistoriographical eccentricitiesrecent in have such nations Slavic South other among theories of similar emergence the is as accidental Slovenes, theirour arguing arrival homeland. separate presentdifference in is This aslittle of name the in only not wider, even and Slavs South ifall name the in made been always have however true that former theorieson Slovene autochthonism (Venetic andothers) in the past still somehow compatible with Bor’s defence against my reproaches, butnot the Itissecond). time he directly and explicitly defends Šavli’s historical and ethnical closeness [of the Slovenes] with other South Slavs […]. But at the same defence against my reproof that hehas implicated himself intheories which clearly dislike the theories. […] Bor of It courseis evenmore mepuzzling to howcould have Bor become involved in these kinds of insists that the Veneti were Slavs and even uses this claim as a It has to be however emphasized that this conceptual difference between Bor andŠavli Bor between difference conceptual that this behas emphasized however It to Slav South a to than Tyrolean a to closer much is Slovene a culture, his in that noticed Cankar Already divides. þ , ed., þ Etruš ni in polemi þ ani in Veneti … þ tristoletnici slovanske naselitve na današnje slovensko narodnostno ozemlje,” narodnostno slovensko današnje na naselitve slovanske tristoletnici 222 þ ni spisi , op. cit., 148-149. The reference in the last sentence is to the Slovene tothe is sentence last the in reference The 148-149. cit., , op. , ed. Boris Merhar (Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1966), 154. 98 argumentation andhis conceptions Ivan Cankar: (the first is . 223 CEU eTD Collection complete disappearance of what had been one of its most characteristic features: the features: most characteristic its of hadbeen one of what disappearance complete almost wasthe which of one transformations, brutal) sometimes (and radical several makeTo an After traditional 1945,the example. landscape of wentthrough Slovenia whichsee it and problemswas precededby very to reacted. the to a failure challenges real autochthonism – I take Grafenauer as an example of legacy”. “historical of narrative neo-conservative spell a captivating of a wider generational modernization industrialization and from Matej Bor the fell autochthonist whounder the phenomenon – of effects cataclysmic of the Matej contemplator poetic the Bor separate not must modernization and bycultural brought massive bythe immigration.patterns and One cannot andhegemonizing by both anonymous endangered of towns the character European” “Central landscape,the of of the heritage, of cultural the environment, the defence of for the abattle for battle: itwas already a cry statement, poetic or any more acontemplative deeds the and legacy ofmodernization,misdeeds historical the asserting was not Socialist andlegacy. cultural historical being“void” Slovene,not asa as but fullness subjectivity,pure factof a asthe of not identity national reasserting in fact was narrative This theory. Venetic the of success the of understanding the for keys essential the of one represent nevertheless they that believe to until day. very Itend by present the they academichavethe establishment, overlooked been And yet consciousness. national of the legacy”element asakey “historical emphasis on the isthem, as its is overlook to that hardly in factpossible so pronounced were autochthonism of Venetic implications The“ecological” part problem. of the a certain extent, and,to was however genuine.It symptomatic beI believe they as arhetorical taken were device; Bogo Grafenauer’ssee failure feature to this of post-modernthe Slovene This was an extremely powerful and mobilizing discourse. In the mid 1980s, after all I donot thinkGrafenauer’s that above expressedperplexities inthequote last should 99 CEU eTD Collection (1986). 226 225 224 – pronunciation standard Slovene theloosening19 linguistssupported polemicized of rigid the who against –hematters even variegated themost his expressabout opinion to lose achance redefinitions of the national identity. national the of redefinitions Italy), although it was probably one of the few cases where their role was importantso in the in movement Northern andsecessionist Padanian regionalist of the recall emergence the itto (suffice transformation of this part were similarconjectures or where autochthonist Europe. Slovenianot theonlycasehappening identity, throughout was wasaphenomenon historical legacy its but nation, the subjectivity of or “ethnical substance” the –not threatened ethnicaldemographic trends butbypolitical, economic or or Other, that processes anymorenot was changed. any danger The identity had structurally national posed to the dangers of the nature the meantime in the that realize not whodid allthose of representative contemporary facingchallenges Slovenes the inthelate 1980s.Hewas prototypicalthe about Nazi the danger couldin anywaycontribute in reflection the against the such against policies. Grafenauer was a survived the criminal cultural of regime Communistthe policies inthis regard. area of the Holy . numerousastonishingly medieval modernand early castles and built fortresses in aborder Bogo Grafenauer, “Zgodovinsko gledanje na spreminjanje narodnega zna narodnega spreminjanje na gledanje “Zgodovinsko Grafenauer, Bogo Cf. Mateja Kos et al., eds., Cf. Ivan Stopar, At the same time, as we have seen, Grafenauer thought that his reflections thatpre-WWII thought Grafenauer have seen, we as sametime, the At Gradovi na Slovenskem and its medievalist way of life Gradovi minevajo, fabrike nastajajo whoactively participated in public the and debates didnot 224 226 Only a handful of these monuments of medieval culture . This, what we might call the “cultural turn” in national turn” “cultural the call might we what . This, (Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1989). : not once did he voice his opposition, or even opinion, 100 (Ljubljana: Narodni 1991).muzej, þ aja,” th Sodobnost century norms in cultural and 34, no. 12 no. 34, 225 Bogo CEU eTD Collection as a largely a-historical entity based on language as its main mark of identity. Through most much so exceptions, important with understood, not was language shared the of period, the Through identity. of mark main its as language on based entity a-historical largely a as emerged intheRomantic on period andwascentered notionthe national of the community identity. andhistorical Slovenecollective frame national In case,thethe modern had 1980s wassome kind a “disappearing bridge” frame of amodern from post-modern to of it was what purposes anddidreactingit against whatachieve. want to mostly, and traditions; intellectual the to reference in itself position it did question of how and why such a movement emerged, what were its intellectual sources, how inthe mainly interested was I historian, intellectual As an place. first in the movements nationalist of and researchers sociologists scholars, other awaits such a task movement; this in the 1980s.interested Inmy thesis, Iwasnot somuch in the description and definition of a visual symbology whichis direct of consequence autochthonistthe movement cultural the foreignerand every also whovisits foronly period country the encounter isbound ashort to Slovene every Today, imagery. in collective the areomnipresent its endeavours of results the but since, evaporated largely has subculture This in Slovenia. subculture influential history. In 1980sandthe early 1990s,autochthonism representedan extremely powerful and In my analysis I have come to the conclusion that the autochthonist theory of the of theory autochthonist the that conclusion the to come have I analysis my In The aim of my thesis was to write a yetBerlin Isaiah unwritten chapter in reality ofsocial Sloveneunderstanding lack desperation), pathological of point intellectualas a society of the living, the dead nation and ofthe image those the yet and them, unborncaused what (as sinister matter no wounds, as it mental may unhealed bethe when between pushed contact to the It seems to me that those who (regardless of their lucidity) ignore the explosive powergenerated by the Conclusions 101 . CEU eTD Collection second half of the 20 in the period of Romanticstructured a paradigm nationalism, would surviveuntil the that –emerged.This notion, articulated etc. Carinthia, Styria, Carniola, of provinces traditional the of that – territories certain in living Slavs of identity the essentially was Slovenes specific a of characteristic inherent an as but field, symbolic common a structuring a system as prepared to – but structurallyprepared to–but different. is discourse every something are enemies empirical in the – changes different empirically “other”, the implicitconcept of enemynatural right, the new one emphasizesagainst historical rights. But most importantly, whom the itwith the language,is thestructured, new one equates it with the territory. If the old one was basedis on the radically is identity has framed If littletothem. oldthe ethnos resemblance the paradigm equated different. fromNot onlythe older traditionswithout taking intoaccount the shift created by the Venetic theory. Althoughare many elements incorporated in its discourse, the way identity. in Slovene the castablow of oldon paradigm to employed which it is nationalThis reachedtrend in its height Veneticthe controversy in autochthonism which was finally frame discourse. to wanted an alternative individuals who upby autochthonism waspicked 20 scientific in historiography the second half 19 the of itrole. Its after hadbeenforgotten was largely tradition by doomed of emergence the autochthonism treatment of hadplayedhistory were tightly interconnected, aprominent th century in century happened shift aninteresting onward, this and regard:over overagain, It is impossible understandto the contemporary manifestations of Slovene nationalism Withinin this which paradigm, ideaof the kinshipSlavic a and demotic-genealogical genus – the Slavic one. From this perception, the notion that the identity of the th century. 102 th century. From the beginning of the CEU eTD Collection autochthonous; the real enemy is the one outside trying to force his way in. way his force to trying outside one is the enemy real the autochthonous; all weare letus pretend on, now from evenenemies: or competitors recently until everyinvitation migration neighbours,shall stop Or as anopened tothe of peoples.” the a project for the future, Tomažiis of past acamouflage the about statement every mythomaniac’s itis that true If Peoples!” Tomaži every annihilate to are threatening that of globalization processes againsthomogenizing the core, in its very and outside, the from legacy European recently discovered whothe threaten those containing of borders up atthe is continent, the front set legacy”. This common European “the defend to front new a forming now are and other each with compete to used yesterday until which particularisms of complicity strange sometimes a witnessing are we Europe, All over context. widerfor the European paradigmatic ways isinmany Venetic theory connotations of the contemporary Slovene autochthonist discourse. andecological cultural the importance of the overestimate to is difficult It environmentalist. leftist aradical and neo-conservative wereasensible trans-nationalist propagators major two its that case a is it think not do I territory. and history with connection and loosing of of rootedness sense the fear legacy itself, loss the the hasbecome enemy of for compete territory.members Thenew –or for everyday –the plebiscite either compete particularism. In 1990, assessing the success of the Venetic theory, one of its three authors, Ivan In sensethis I believe thatthemodel nationalismof inauguratedby Slovenethe The old “other” was the national neighbor with whom the nation had to compete: had to nation the whom with neighbor national the was “other” old The þ , wrote an article entitled “We Have Unmasked the Theory of the Migration of Migration the of Theory the Unmasked “We Have an entitled article , wrote þ ’s statement could be re-interpreted in: “from now on, we 103 CEU eTD Collection Cankar, Ivan. Cankar, Budna Kodri Braudel, Fernand. -----. In beseda.” Matej. “Spremna Bor, -----. Bor, Matej, Šavli, Jožko and Tomaži Jožko Matej, Šavli, Bor, Bohori Blaži Berlot, Anton, Ivan. andRebec, Berlot, Ara, Claudio. Angelo,andMagris, Bav Hannah. Arendt, þ er, Martin. er, þ A Wanderer Went throughtheAtomAge Veneti: naši davni predniki , Viktor. þ 216. Korotan, 1985. Korotan, 10-18. Ljubljana:10-18. založba, Cankarjeva 1987. 1982. , Adam., in“Slovenci Slovani.” In þ , Nataša. “Zgodba Josipine Turnograjske in LovraTomana,” “ZgodbaTurnograjske Josipine , Nataša. Bela krizantema: kriti Svin Zgodovina Norika inFurlanije The Origins ofTotalitarianism Civilization andcapitalism, þ ena leta .Ljubljana:knjiga, Mladinska 1999). So biliEtruš . Ljubljana: Veneti, Editiones 1989. Igor Torkar: Umiranjenaobroke þ Trieste:di frontiera. un’identità ni inpoelmi þ , Ivan. Slovenska misel:esejioslovenstvu Slovenska Bibliography þ ani Slovani? . London: 1959. Adam Books, Veneti: našidavniprednikiVeneti: 15th-18th century. . Ljubljana: Slovensko bibliografskodruštvo, 1991. . San Brace Harcourt Diego: Jovanovich, 1968. þ ni spisi 104 (Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1966). . Koper:Založba Lipa, 1984. London: Fontana, 1985. . Zagreb: Globus, 1984. Turin: Giulio Einaudi Editore, . Vienna: Slovenski dom Kronika , ed. Jože Poga , ed. 51 (2003): 197- 51(2003): þ nik, , CEU eTD Collection -----. -----. -----. -----. -----. “Rojstna ura slovenskega naroda pred tiso -----. “Ob tiso “Ob -----. -----. “Franc Kos in njegovo delo.” In Grafenauer, Bogo. “Die Kontinuitätsfragen in der Geschichte des altkarantanischen Raumes,” Fekonja, Andrej.“Davorin Trstenjak, slovenski pisatelj,” Edo Škulj eds., et.al., Cviji Cepanec, Tomislav. Cepanec, ü , Jovan. , Karantanija: izbrane razprave in Slovensko narodno vprašanje in slovenski zgodovinski položaj Slovensko narodno zgodovinski vprašanjeinslovenski Struktura intehnikazgodovinske vede Samouprava Beneške Slovenije - The Autonomy of Venetian Slovenia of Samouprava BeneškeSlovenije-TheAutonomy 1980. 1987. Cankarjeva1975. tiska, tisk–Založništvo založba –Primorski Trieste: tržaškega 1988. Paulus Diaconus: Slovenska matica,Slovenska 1982. Orientales 1999. Ljubljani, 2008. Jedinstvo ipsichi þ tristoletnici slovanske naselitve na današnje slovensko narodnostno ozemlje.” In ozemlje.” narodnostno slovensko današnje na naselitve slovanske tristoletnici 5 (1969): 55-79.5 (1969): Sedejev simpozijvRimu Stanko Vraz: IlirizŠtajera Zgodovina Langobardov-HistoriaLangobardorum þ ki tipovidinarskih južnih Slovena þ lanki Franc Kos: Izbranodelo . Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani, Univerze fakulteta Filozofska Ljubljana: . (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 2000). (Celje: Mohorjeva družba, 1988). þ štiristoleti,” 105 . Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta Univerzev fakulteta . Ljubljana: Filozofska Dom in svet Arheo , ed. Bogo Grafenauer. Ljubljana: Grafenauer. Bogo ed. , . Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, Slovenska . Ljubljana: 10(1990):11-17. 6,no.2 (1893): 49-53. . Belgrade: Slobodna knjiga, . Maribor: Obzorja, . Maribor: . Ljubljana-Koper- Alpes CEU eTD Collection Jeza, Franc. -----. Javoršek, Jože. Javoršek, Jarc, Beti, ed. Jarc, Iggers, Georg G. Review G. of Iggers, Georg Hribar -----. “Tri tiso Horvat, Jože. “Jožko Šavli “Jožko Jože. intervju.” – Horvat, Hladnik, v Miran.“Slovani slovenski zgodovinski povesti.” In Hacquet, Baltazar. Hacquet, -----. “Smrt najpoštenejšega rodoljuba.” In rodoljuba.” najpoštenejšega “Smrt -----. In Vošnjaka.” Josipa “Smrt Igor. Grdina, -----. -----. “Zgodovinsko gledanje na spreminjanje narodnega zna -----. Nevarna razmerja , Valvasorjevo mesto vsamospoznavanju Slovencevkotposebnega narod:obtristoletnici Franc Jeza, 1967. Theory Ideologisierung inderdeutschen Geschichtwissenschaft Ideologisierung književnosti Nova revija, 2001-2003. 1996. Valvasorjeve Slave. Ivan. Skandinavski izvor Slovencev: etnografsko-jezikoslovna inzgodovinska Skandinavski izvorSlovencev: etnografsko-jezikoslovna Moji spomini Zbornik oVenetih 33, no. 3 33, (October395-400. 1994): þ Kako je mogo let stari.” , ed. Tone Smolej. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, 2005. Veneti, Iliri, Slovani Veneti, Iliri, . Maribor: Založba Obzorja, 1978. Mag . Ljubljana:1928. Merkur, Ljubljana: Državnazaložba Slovenije, 1990. þ e? , December 1999,64-65. . Ljubljana: Slovenian World Congress,2003. . Maribor: Založba Obzorja, 1969. Volksgeschichte: metodischeInnovationenunvölkische Mag . Nova Gorica: Založba Branko, 1996. Slovenska kronika XX. stoletja kronikaSlovenska XX. , 1999,41-43. Slovenska kronika XX. stoletja kronikaXX. Slovenska 106 þ aja,” , byWilli Oberkrome. Sodobnost Podoba tujega vslovenski Podoba tujega . Ljubljana: Nova revija, 34,no.12 (1986). , 141-142. Ljubljana: študija. Trieste: študija. History and CEU eTD Collection Kuhar, Aloysius. Kos, Milko. al.,eds. MatejaKos, et -----. Kos, Janko. Kos, Kos, Franc. Kos, Komelj, Mil Kolenc, Petra. Kocbek, . Edvard Kmecl, Matjaž. “Valvasorjev kulturnozgodovinski pomen,” “Valvasorjev kulturnozgodovinski Kmecl, Matjaž. Kermauner, “Uvod v poezije slovenskega Taras. knjigotretjo zahoda.” Keber,Katarina.“Josipina Urban Jože. Kastelic, within relations Polish-German On expansionism. and “Megalomania Jarmila. Kaczmarek, Valentin Vodnik 3 (2005/2007): 3 (2005/2007): 5-9. (1993): 601-616.(1993): 75. (accessed 31May 2008). http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/archweb/archweb_eng/Publications/mega/index_meg.html at Available region.” in Wielkopolska the archaeology Zbranodelo þ Pregled slovenskegaslovstva Zgodovina Slovencev ek and Vodopivec, Peter. ek andVodopivec, Dr. Henrik Tuma in njegova knjižnica Jože Brejc (Jože Javoršek) Jože Brejc Dnevnik 1951 Slovene Medieval History: Selected Studies . Ljubljana: Partizanska knjiga, 1990. Gradovi minevajo, fabrike Gradovinastajajo minevajo,fabrike , ed.Bogo Grafenauer. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 1982. . Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 2001. þLþ . Ljubljana: Jugoslovanska knjigarna, 1933. Turnograjska: prvaslovenska pisateljica.” Smrekarjev tarok . Ljubljana: DZS,2002. . Ljubljana: Literarni klub, 1999. 107 . Nova Gorica-Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU, 2008. . Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1993. . Ljubljana: Narodnimuzej, 1991. Glasnik Slovenskematice Glasnik . NewYork: Studia Slovenica, 1962. Sodobnost Gea , June 2005, 72- , June 29/31, no. 1- 29/31, 41,no.6-7 CEU eTD Collection Orbini, Mavro. Alexei. Monroe, Orožen, Martina. “Janez Vajkard Valvasor o slovenskem jeziku,” slovenskem o Valvasor “Janez Vajkard Martina. Orožen, Miheli -----. -----. Mati -----. “Starinoslovska sre “Starinoslovska -----. Maruši Janez. Markeš, Luthar, Oto et al., eds.. Levec, Fran. “Davorin Trstenjak.” Lenard, Leopold. Kumar, Željko. “Drugi venetski zbornik,” þ etov, Milko.etov, “Slovenetska sprava – blizu alidale Gli sloveni nelGoriziano dalla del medioevo aigiorninostrifine Il vicinocome italo-sloveno.amico realtàconfine lungoil outopia?Laconvivenza þ þ þ (1993/94): 3-12.(1993/94): Goriška Mohorjeva družba,2007. Duino: Zgodovinski Milka inštitut KosaZRC 1996. SAZU, Maribor: Tiskarna sv. Cirila, 1920. , Darja. “Karantanija v o “Karantanija , Darja. , Branko, et. al., eds.. asopis 31(1977). KraljevstvoSlavena To Interrogation Machine:Laibachin NSK þ Jugoslovanski Piemont:Jugoslovanski zgodovinaSrbijeod ka nacionalneganesporazuma Malov zbornik þ anja Tume in Tume anja Srebrni Henrik Tuma. Pisma:osebnosti indogodki þ Ljubljanski zvonLjubljanski eh konca stoletja,” 15.do18. zgodovinarjev od . Zagreb: Golden marketing, 1999. Ljubljana: ZRCSAZU, 1996. Primorska srePrimorska þ a,” . Ljubljana: Promag, 2001. (1890):166-174. Jadranski koledar 1985 108 þ ?,” þ . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005. anja Sodobnost 176 (1995): 881-882. 176(1995): ý rnega Jurijadokralja 46, no. 5 46,no. (1998): 438-440. . Udine: Forum, 2005. Jezik inslovstvo (1986). . Ljubljana - Trieste - Zgodovinski 39, no. 1 Gorizia: Petra . CEU eTD Collection Said, W. Edward Rutar, Simon. “Trstenjakov spominski ve na Slovenskem,” vsebine “Ideološke zgodovine Rozman, Tatjana. v Janez. verasvoj “Trdna prav,” Rotar, Reisp, Branko. Pynset, Robert. Pozzetto, Marco. Pozzetto, Poga Pleterski,Andrej. “Veneti naši – davni metoda, po Znanstvenapredniki? kateri bi biti utegnil Jezus Pleterski, Andrej. “Je mogoPleterski, Andrej.–znanstvena diskusijapoljudno sploh Petkovšek, Peti, Anita. “VinkoPribojevi Perši Pahor, Boris. “Franc Jeza – skoraj zamol þ þ , Janez. “Malovi srednjeveški spisi.” In “Malovi srednjeveški , Janez. nik, ed.. Jože 1257. London-Budapest: Press,1995. CEU Kristus Slovenec,” (November 1990):634-635. (1991): 196-202.(1991): ZRC SAZU, 1996. 117-120. Ljubljana:117-120. dr. Pu Jožeta Inštitut Ivo. Janez Vajkard Valvasor Belinov Belinov kodeks Questions of Identity: Czech and Slovak Ideas of Nationality andPersonality CzechQuestions andSlovakIdeasof ofIdentity: Maks Fabiani Orientalism Slovenska misel:esejioslovenstvu Naši razgledi . NewYork: Vintage Books, 1979. ü . . Trieste: MGS Press, 1998. : Deorigine successibusque Slavorum,” Ljubljana: Založba Jutro,2005. . Ljubljana: Mladinska. Ljubljana: knjiga,1983. Naši razgledi 34,no.15 (1985): 450-451. þ þ er.” ani dissident.” In Ljubljanski zvon Malov zbornik þ nika, 2007. 109 39,no. 12 (June 1990):379. . Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1988. Kultura inpolitika , Oto Luthar et al., eds.. Ljubljana: (1890): 256. (1890): Nova revija þ a?,” Naši razgledi Mogu 89-90 (1989): 1240- 89-90(1989): , ed. Mateja Jan ü nosti 38,no.1-2 34, no. 21 34,no. þ ar, . CEU eTD Collection Sreš, Nevenka. Sreš, Smith, Anthony D.. Slovenija 1968.Kam? Slomšek, Anton Martin. “Dolžnost svoj jezik spoštovati.” In Slodnjak, Anton. Škrbin, Mirko. Simoniti,“Dekret Primož. ali pri Sever, Leoplod. -----. -----. -----. -----. -----. Šavli,Jožko, “ Slovenski svetniki Slovenska znamenja Slovenska država Karantanija: institutioSclavenica Slovenija: podoba evropskega naroda Slovenia: Discovering nation aEuropean Jože Poga in narodopisje dolenjskem zahodu. ZaložbaVeneti- Lipa,1990. Založba Karantanija- (1983): 82-83.(1983): ý Etruš Skupna programska jedra rni zgodovinskipanter: rni simbolSlovencev,” þ Zgodovina slovenskega slovstva Iskal sem prednamce: dokazi in razmišljanje o starožitnosti Slovencevna starožitnosti o inrazmišljanje Iskal semprednamce:dokazi nik, 30-38. Ljubljana:nik, založba, Cankarjeva 1987. 30-38. The ethnic origins ofnations origins ethnic The þ 44,no.9 (1973). ani sobili Slovani . Trieste: Tipografia A. Keber, 1968. . Bilje: Založba Humar, 1999. . Gorizia: Založba Humar, 1995. Turjak: Samozaložba, 2003). þ evanje Aleksandra VelikegaAleksandra Slovanih.” o evanje . Nova Gorica: MirkoŠkrbin, 2005. . Maribor: Univerza. Maribor: v 1996. Mariboru, . Nova Gorica: Založba Humar, 1995. . Bilje: Humar, 2003. . Oxford: Blackwell, 1986. . Klagenfurt: Drava,. Klagenfurt: 1968. 110 . Vienna-Ljubljana- Koper: Editiones Slovenska misel:eseji oslovenstvu Koledar Goriške Mohorjevedružbe Koledar Goriške ý asopis zazgodovino , ed. CEU eTD Collection -----. -----. -----. Tomaži Tav Tassin, Ferruccio. -----. “Nacionalizacija zgodovine in nastanek sovražnih predstav o sosedih. Slovensko-nemški sosedih. o predstav nastanek sovražnih in “Nacionalizacija zgodovine -----. -----. “Ljudmil Hauptmann in raziskovanje slovenskega srednjega veka.” In srednjega veka.” slovenskega in “Ljudmil-----. raziskovanje Hauptmann Stopar, Ivan. Stopar, In Kos.” “Milko Nataša. Stergar, Štih, Peter. “'Ej Štih, “'Ej Peter. goltneš ko tu-le, udari konjih!'do po Oavtohtonisti Stankovi Stan þ þLþ ar, Marko, ed. Marko, ar, Etruš Z Veneti vnovi V nova slovenska obzorja z Veneti v Evropi 2000 V novaslovenska obzorjazVenetivEvropi , Zoran. “Venetoslovenstvo –deset let pozneje,” 2000. 1995. Wieser Verlag, 2002. Grünbühel and Miroslav Polzer, eds.,35-46. Ljubljana-Klagenfurt: Cankarjeva – založba (avstijski primer).” In Nastanek inrazvoj Kranjske. Slovencih in na Slovenskem,” na in Slovencih Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, 2000. http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/76-3-230.shtml onMay (accessed 31st 2008). þ , Ivan, ed. ü , Slobodan. “Mihajlov’s Shadow over Pen in at overPen “Mihajlov’s Club Bled.”Available Congress , Slobodan. Shadow þ ani inVeneti Gradovi naSlovenskem Cultura friulananelGoriziano Razstava VenetinaSlovenskem Zbornik simpozija oFrancu Jezi.Trst,1994 þ as . Vienna -Ljubljana: Editiones Veneti, 1990. . Vienna -Ljubljana: Veneti: Editiones 1995. Avstrija –Slovenija: preteklostinsedanjost Oddelek zazgodovino Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 1999. . Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1989. Zgodovina zavse . Udine:2003. Forum, . Vienna: Ivan Tomaži 111 3,no. 2(1996): 66-80. Raziskovalec , Matjaž Rebolj and Nataša Stergar, eds.. . Vienna - Ljubljana: Editiones Veneti: Editiones Ljubljana: - Vienna . . Gorizia: Goriška Mohorjeva, 26, no. 2 26,no. (1996): 33-34. þ nihin podobnih teorijah pri þ , 1998. , Ferdinand Mayrhofer- Ferdinand , Ljudmil Hauptmann: CEU eTD Collection Veyne, Paul. -----. -----. Verbovšek, Leopold. Tummolo, Manlio. Tuma, Henrik. “Jugoslovanski in balkanski In problem.” -----. Trstenjak, Davorin. Trstenjak, -----. -----. -----. Bog živi deželo pod Triglavom. Vienna: Ivan Tomaži -----. “Venetski in etruš -----.“Urednikov uvodnik,” -----. “Deset kažipotov iz preteklosti v slovensko sedanjost,” Sto kamen Komu (ni)smo tujci? Slovanš Slovenske korenine Slovenci. : UniversityChicago: of Chicago Press, 1988. Goliardiche, 1995. Jože Poga Kelti aliVenedi? Veneti, 1999. þ Did the Believe in their Myths? An Essay on the Constitutive Imagination Constitutive AnEssayon the Myths? Believe intheir the Greeks Did ina vromanš þ Kdo smo? Odkodprihajamo inodkodizviramo? þ kov zanovslovenski mozaik nik, 84-93. Ljubljana:nik, založba, Cankarjeva 1987. 84-93. KdosobiliAmbidravi,je sozidal inkdo starodavniVirunummesti inTeurnia L’arrivo degli sloveni nelleVenezie. Duemitiindiscussione Danes, iz v Danes, . Klagenfurt: J. Leon, 1853. þ . Ljubljana: Ivan Tomaži anski napisi,” . Ljubljana: 1995. Jutro, þ ini Glas Korotana . Klagenfurt: Družba Mohorja, Svetega 1878. þ eraj za jutri eraj Sodobnost 10(1985):9. . Ljubljana: L.V., 2008. . Ljubljana: 2004. Založba Jutro, þ 3/4 (1998): 3/4 313-316. , 2003. 112 Slovenska misel: eseji oslovenstvu misel: Slovenska þ , 2007. Raziskovalec . Vienna - Ljubljana: Editiones 27,no.5 (1998): 91-92. . Udine: Edizioni , ed. . CEU eTD Collection Weiss, Luigi. . -----. Zlobec, Ciril. Zlobec, Zver, Milan. Zver, -----. Vodnik, Valentin. Sergij. Vilfan, -----. Vuga, Lucijan. Vošnjak, Josip. Peter. Vodopivec, Megalitski jeziki Jantarska pot: odgrinjanje tan Prah preteklosti kontinuitete. 1997. Sto letsocialdemokracijenaSlovenskem Ipotesi suiVeneti.Senza preteseIpotesi accademiche Spomin kotzgodba: avtobiografski roman Pravna zgodovinaSlovencev Spomini Davnina govori: Od Pohlinoveslovnicedoslovenske države Zadovolni Kranjc:izbrano delo Nova . Ljubljana: RevijaSRP, 2004. . Ljubljana: RevijaSRP, 2005. . Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 1982. Gorica: Založba2003. Branko, Slovenci že od kamene dobe nasedanjihozemljih. Teorija Slovenci žeod þ ic znašedavne preteklosti . Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 1961. , ed. Jože Koruza. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 113 . Ljubljana: Veda,1996. . Ljubljana: Prešernova družba,1998. . Treviso: Canova, 2003. . Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2006. . Bilje: Založba Humar, 2000.

Top View