UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
Date:______
I, ______, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in:
It is entitled:
This work and its defense approved by:
Chair: ______
Njegoš’s Montenegro, the Great Powers, and Modernization in the Balkans: 1830-1851
A dissertation submitted to the Division of Graduate Studies and Research at the University of Cincinnati
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History, College of Arts and Sciences
June 2004
By Natasha Margulis B.A. Miami University, 1994 M.A. University of Cincinnati, 1997
Committee Chair: Dr. Thomas L. Sakmyster Abstract “Njegoš's Montenegro, the Great Powers, and Modernization in the Balkans: 1830-1851”
I analyze the role of Petar II Petrović Njegoš as Montenegro's vladika (the hereditary bishop-prince and ruler), as a European statesman, and as a modernizer in the nineteenth century. Although Njegoš is most known for his poetry, the most famous of which is Gorksi Vijenac (The Mountain Wreath), I examine more than his literary works by evaluating his political, social, and economic accomplishments and failures as the traditional ruler of Montenegro, a nationalist, and a diplomat. I scrutinize the successes and failures of Njegoš’s politics in two environments – that of nineteenth century Montenegro and of the European power struggle in the Balkans. Njegoš believed that in order to accomplish stability in his country, he had to establish Montenegro as a political presence in the European state-system, as well as modernize certain aspects of Montenegro’s internal political, economic, and social structures. In his foreign policy, Njegoš diplomatically maneuvered between the Russian, Austrian, and Ottoman Empires. Njegoš’s attempts to transform Montenegro from a tribal state into something that would resemble a European “nation-state” met with a mixed response from his fellow Montenegrins, although his reforms were generally approved and sometimes funded by the European Great Powers. Yearly Russian monetary assistance to Montenegro made Njegoš's internal restructuring possible. His reforms, including the opening of the first elementary school, the formation of a Senate, the creation of his uncle Petar I as a saint, and the establishment of a national treasury and system of taxation, were met with some approval and more noticeable resistance from Montenegro's tribes. Yet he paved the way for the next two generations of Montenegrin rulers to become princes and kings, enabling them to better participate in the increasingly secular world of nineteenth and twentieth century Europe. His life story, especially in regards to his time as vladika of Montenegro, provides important insight into the process of state-building in the Balkans in the nineteenth century, as well as a striking example of Balkan political, economic, and cultural interactions with Western and Central Europe.
Acknowledgements
I was able to try out some of the arguments from my dissertation at The Graduate
Student Workshop at The Kokkalis Program on Southeastern and East-Central European
Europe and the Junior Scholars’ Workshop at the Woodrow Wilson Center. John Lampe
provided me with illumination, while Larry Wolff offered me inspiration. I am especially
grateful for the email correspondence from Christopher Boehm and Michael Palairet in regards to their research on the Balkans. I would like to thank the Montenegrin Trade
Mission for arranging my first stay in Podgorica. I am extremely grateful to all of the staff members at the University of Illinois-Urbana Slavic Library; the National Museum
Archives, the National Library, and the Njegoš Museum in Cetinje; and the Historical
Archives in Kotor. The Charles Phelps Taft Memorial Fund, the von Rosenstiel Fund, the Graduate Student Association Fund, and the History Department at the University of
Cincinnati provided the money for research and conference trips. Interlibrary Loan at
Langsam Library (University of Cincinnati) went out of their way to find all of the books
I needed. Bogdan Rakić gave me the skills I needed in Serbian/Croatian to conduct my research, and the Azbukum Language Center in Novi Sad enhanced these skills.
Research for this dissertation was supported in part by a grant from the
International Research and Exchange Board (IREX) with funds provided by the National
Endowment for the Humanities, the United States Department of State, which administers for the Title VIII Program, and the IREX Scholar Support Fund. None of
these organizations are responsible for the views expressed.
I would especially like to thank Maura O’Connor and Joseph Foster for their
continued support and encouragement during my doctoral candidacy, and Maria Bucur who took time out of her busy schedule to serve as a reader for my committee. I do not
think I would have been able to accomplish all that I have without my advisor, Thomas
Sakmyster, who always pointed me in the right direction, provided me with sound advice, and encouraged my research of this very challenging field of history.
I want to thank my family for their patience and encouragement; my husband’s family for their continued support and understanding; and most importantly, my husband
Bill’s proofreading and unshakeable belief that I could write this dissertation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE...... II_
TERMS AND PRONUNCIATION...... XII
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... XIII
CHAPTER 1: AN INTRODUCTION TO MONTENEGRO ...... 1
CHAPTER 2: NJEGOŠ'S FIRST YEARS AS RULER (1830-1833)...... 30
CHAPTER 3: NJEGOŠ’S REFORMS AND THE RUSSIANS (1834-1836) ...... 55
CHAPTER 4: NJEGOŠ’S AND MONTENEGRO’S IMAGE (1837-1839) ...... 79
CHAPTER 5: NJEGOŠ VS. THE HABSBURGS & OTTOMANS (1839-1846)...... 98
CHAPTER 6: NJEGOŠ WINS BACK HIS MONTENEGRINS (1847-1851) ...... 119
CONCLUSION ...... 144
GLOSSARY...... 149
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 150
Preface: In an antique store in the old city (Stari Grad) of Kotor, Montenegro, I asked the
salesclerks if they had anything related to “Njegoš.” The male sales associate was quick
to point out the medals and guns of King Nikola (Nikola Petrović Njegoš, 1861-1921<),
while the female associate showed me a collection of icons of St. Petar of Cetinje (Petar I
Petrović Njegoš, 1781-1830<).1 But I was more interested in a postcard on the table, which was printed on the fiftieth anniversary of Petar II Petrović Njegoš’s death
(1851
simultaneously. To the Montenegrins, he is their beloved “Rade” – the name with which
he was christened; he was one of their great rulers, almost a prince, and one of the
founders of the modern republic of Montenegro. But to another South Slav or academic
scholar, he is “Njegoš” – the name with which he signed his famous poems. And Njegoš is how he is known by the outside world, if he is known at all, through his contributions
to South Slavic literature, especially the epic poem The Mountain Wreath (Gorski
Vijenac). The Montenegrins, who remained largely illiterate until World War I, do not remember him first as a poet, as evidenced by my experience in the antique shop. He was someone much more complex; Vladika Rade of the Montenegrins has been shrouded by legends and misinformation.
Petar II Petrović Njegoš (☼1813-1851<) has been called “the greatest poet in
Serbian literature,” “the Serbian Milton,” and even “the Serbian Shakespeare.” His most famous poem, The Mountain Wreath, has been referred to as the magnum opus of South
1 All dates given alone in parentheses, such as (1862-1921) indicate the length of rule or service. The symbol < indicates year of death (1862-1921<) and ☼ indicates year of birth (☼1813- 1851<).
ii Slavic literature.2 His poetry has been compared with that of the world’s greatest poets,
including Homer, Pushkin, and Dante, although his name is unknown to many scholars.
He is recognized primarily by his last name, Njegoš, and it seems that those who refer to
him in this way have a tendency to recognize his poetic accomplishments but neglect the
other roles he played in life: a ruler (both secular and religious) of Montenegro, a state
builder and modernizer, as well as a European statesman. Although he would later
change his name to Petar when consecrated as bishop, his people called him Rade in
order to not confuse him with his uncle, Vladika Petar, who had ruled Montenegro for
over fifty years. Njegoš succeeded his uncle in 1830 as the ruler of Montenegro for
twenty-one years until he died of tuberculosis in 1851. During his short lifetime, he was
able to build on the foundation created by his uncle and accomplish many things for
Montenegro. He paved the way for the next two generations of Montenegrin rulers to
become princes and kings, enabling them to better participate in the increasingly secular
world of nineteenth and twentieth century Europe. While Njegoš's life would begin quite
unremarkably, the son of a petty landowner in the mountains of Montenegro, he would
die as an international statesman, poet, and prince whose loss was mourned from England
to Russia.
Njegoš and his Montenegrins are fascinating historical subjects, especially since
there are few works on either in English. And as Michael Petrovitch states in his introduction to Milovan Djilas's biography of Njegoš, although the subject seems to be
“more suited to one of those dull dissertations about obscure figures whom some apprentice scholar is always grateful to dig up for the price of a doctorate,” Njegoš was
2 Petar II Petrović Njegoš, The Mountain Wreath, trans. Vasa D. Mihailovich (Irvine, California: Charles Schlacks, Jr., 1986), vii; Žika Rad. Prvulovich, Religious Philosophy of Prince-Bishop Njegoš (Birmingham: Žika Rad. Prvulovich, 1984).
iii an “extraordinary ruler and poet of an extraordinary country.”3 Njegoš was so
extraordinary that, one hundred and fifty years after his death, public debates concerning
South Slavic national identity and ethnicity centered on his poetry and his life.
Through a variety of historical forces, by the 1990s, Njegoš became identified
with Yugoslavia when Yugoslavia was associated with the hegemonic aspirations of
Greater Serbia under Slobodan Milošević. While Yugoslavia violently dissolved, the
memory of Njegoš became hotly disputed. In 1993, Montenegrin demonstrators disrupted an international symposium on Njegoš in order to protest “the selling away of
Montenegrin values, including Njegoš himself” to Serbia. The protestors demanded
respect from Serbia for “Montenegro as a state” and chased the car containing the
Montenegrin President Momir Bulatović yelling “Where are you going, traitor of
Montenegro?”4 In 1998, shortly after the Dayton Accords, Carlos Westendorp (High
Representative to Bosnia and Hercegovina from 1997 to 1999) is believed to have issued
a ban on Njegoš's poetry in Bosnian school books. Some Bosnian Muslims, like effendi
Ustafa Cerić from Banja Luka, condemned Njegoš's Mountain Wreath as “the book with
the highest concentration of hate that I have ever seen in the entire world.”5 During the
crisis in Bosnia, Njegoš medals were awarded by the Republika Srpska to those who had
helped the Serbs during the war, including two Orthodox priests, the Russian Minister of
3 Milovan Djilas, Njegoš: Poet, Prince, Bishop, trans. and introduction by Michael B. Petrovich (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966), xiii. 4 October 4, 1993 Vreme News Digest Agency No 106, http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/serbian_digest/106/t106-7.htm:28.8.2003. 5 “NWO Inquisition in Bosnia/Njegos”- TiM GW Bulletin 98/7-1 (7/1/98), http://www.truthinmedia.org/bulletins/tim98-7-1.html:28.8.2003. Adnan Selimovic, RTRS: May 24, 2001 - 20 hrs Transcript of an interview given to RT RS on 8th May by the Reis - ul - Ulema, efendi Mustafa Ceric (http://www.ohr.int/ohr-dept/presso/bh-media-rep/round- ups/default.asp?content_id=5707: Barnes & Noble Books, 29.8.2003) Swans' Past Commentaries - ga070, http://www.swans.com/library/art5/ga070.html:29.8.2003.
iv Foreign Affairs, and the OSCE Chairman-in-Office.6 And on 2 July 1999 in Pristina,
Kosovo, the monuments to Vuk Karadžić and Njegoš were pulled down during an
Albanian rally. A crowd of 1500 protestors shouted “NATO! UCK!” as they knocked over the Njegoš statue and sliced off its “pointing finger.” The statues were then dragged behind tractors down Pristina's streets and abandoned in a dumpster.7
For some, like the Bosnian Muslims, rejection of the Former Yugoslavia included
rejecting one of the South Slavs' greatest poets. For others, like the Montenegrins, open
approval of the Serbs for Njegoš's poetry meant the manipulation and dominance of
national identity and meaning. Njegoš's association with Yugoslavia’s past was not a
new concept. Milovan Djilas, a former vice-president of Yugoslavia and Communist
Party founder acknowledged that his renowned biography of Njegoš, was written “in the
fervor of a Marxist intellectual and Communist” and was well received by his compatriot
Josef Broz Tito.8 Željko Raznatović, the infamous “war criminal” General Arkan, was identified as an avid admirer of Njegoš.9 More recent events in Montenegro, such as the formal reception for the Japanese translation of The Mountain Wreath in Cetinje and
Belgrade in 2003, have been more favorable in remembering Njegoš and his poetry.10
6 Adnan Selimovic, OHR SRT News Summary, 17 Dec. 1997, http://www.ohr.int/ohr- dept/presso/bh-media-rep/summaries-tv/rtrs/default.asp?content_id=2530:29.8.2003. 7 Monuments, http://www.kosovo.com/monuments.html:28.8.2003. Yugoslavia: UN Struggles To Build Multiethnic Institutions In Kosovo, http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1999/07/F.RU.990707140100.html:29.8.2003. 8 Milovan Djilas, Rise and Fall (San Diego, New York, London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1983), 286. 9 Laura ([email protected]), nettime:
v And the Montenegrins are not sure what to exactly do about Njegoš.11 The
academic and public focus has been predominantly on Njegoš's poetry, while his life and
historical accomplishments as a Montenegrin ruler have suffered from neglect and
misinformation. The objectives of this work are to provide an understanding about who
Njegoš was and what he did/did not accomplish as a Montenegrin vladika and European statesman. Perhaps this will help us understand why he is such an important symbol today in the dissolution of the Former Yugoslavia and the discussion of modern Balkan
identity and nationalism. Despite the obvious references to his poetry, the historical
figure of Njegoš has been distorted by goals of the various political, national, and
religious groups who have claimed him since his death in 1851.
Throughout this dissertation, I analyze the role of Petar II Petrović Njegoš as
Montenegro's vladika (the hereditary bishop-prince and ruler), as a European statesman, and as a modernizer in the nineteenth century. I examine more than his literary works by assessing his political, social, and economic accomplishments and failures as the traditional ruler of Montenegro, a nationalist, and a diplomat. In his foreign policy,
Njegoš maneuvered between the Russian, Austrian, and Ottoman Empires. And as sovereign of this small mountainous country, he faced a formidable challenge in creating an independent, politically and economically viable Montenegro. He believed that in order to accomplish stability in his country, he had to establish Montenegro as a political presence in the European state-system and to modernize Montenegro’s internal structures.
11 Andrew B. Wachtel, “How to use a Classic: Petar Petrović Njegoš in the Twentieth Century,” in Ideologies and National Identities: The Case of Twentieth-Century Southeastern Europe, Lampe, John and Mazower, Mark, eds. (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2004), 147.
vi Njegoš’s attempts to transform Montenegro into something that would resemble a
European state met with a mixed response from his fellow Montenegrins. From the
opening of the first elementary school, the formation of a Senate, and the establishment
of a national system of taxation, Njegoš’s efforts at internal restructuring met with both
approval and resistance from Montenegro's tribes. In order to understand what Njegoš
was and was not able to accomplish as a modernizer, I provide an anthropological as well
as an historical picture of nineteenth century Montenegro. My dissertation introduces
Montenegro in the first half of the nineteenth century as it may have been when Njegoš
inherited it from his uncle in 1830. I utilize correspondence with Njegoš, letters and reports from officers and diplomats of the Great Powers about the situation in
Montenegro, newspaper articles, Njegoš's literary works, and European travel accounts,
based on archival sources in Austria and Montenegro and published primary and
secondary literature in books and periodicals from the U.S. and European libraries.
From all of these sources I discern the reality of Njegoš's accomplishments from
the legend that has surrounded him since the end of the nineteenth century. Admittedly,
this is a difficult task. The primary sources relating to Njegoš have slowly begun to
disappear in time. Fewer than two thousand letters from his twenty years of correspondence are still in existence. The bulk of these are stored in the Cetinje archives
at the National Museum. Although today the preservation of these documents has
reached the level of a professional art, for many of these documents it has happened too
late. The original text of almost two thirds of these letters has been effaced by fire, mold,
rodents, or rot. Luckily, other documents were preserved in the archives of Kotor, Zadar,
vii and Vienna, and many of these have been published by scholars in collections of Njegoš's
work, books, and periodicals.12
I scrutinize the successes and failures of Njegoš’s politics in two environments –
that of nineteenth century Montenegro and of the European power struggle in the
Balkans. I intend for my dissertation to be an alternative to the treatment of national
literature as history in the Balkans as well as a supplement to the more traditional models of state-building and modernization. My approach to modernization is, in part, based on
John Allcock’s argument in Explaining Yugoslavia. His definition of modernization
includes “the spread of greater control of information and social supervision and greater
control of the means of violence.” He argues that modernization is not the replacement
of a traditional society by a modern one, but an incorporation of the pre-modern culture, a
process which “does not consist in the simple abandonment of traditional identities, but in
their reconstruction.” 13 Therefore, his use of modern does not exclude the Balkans from
Europe.
This more flexible definition of modernization accurately reflects what Njegoš
was trying to accomplish in Montenegro. In recent scholarship on European history,
there has been recognition that the Southern/Eastern parts of that continent have often
been ignored. And as regions of Eastern Europe and the Balkans have frequently been
left out of the general European historical narrative, so has Montenegro been omitted
from Southeastern European history. This dissertation is an attempt to write a history of
12 Jevto Milović's Građa are a Njegoš scholar's dream come true. Although only four books have been published so far (for the years 1832, 1845-1851) these works contain almost all of the letters from Cetinje, Kotor, Zadar and Vienna for those years. Other letters have appeared in collected works of Njegoš (various publication dates) as well as the Montenegrin journal Istorijski Zapisi/Zapisi. 13 John Allcock, Explaining Yugoslavia (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 16, 19.
viii Montenegro in order to provide an understanding of Montenegro’s process of state-
building as a prelude to the definition of national identity and self-rule.
Njegoš’s period of rule can be broken down into several major periods, around
which the chapters for my dissertation are crafted. First, though, I begin with a brief
introduction (chapter one) to the history and culture of the Montenegro which Njegoš
inherited in 1830. Montenegro’s history, economy, and culture are discussed in order to
give the reader a better understanding of the country over which Njegoš ruled and the
changes he tried to institute.
In Chapter two I examine the years from 1830-1833, when Njegoš was quite new
to the role of vladika. Until his trip to Russia in 1833, Njegoš tried to follow in the sure
footsteps of his uncle Petar, who had been much beloved and respected by his people. At
the same time, Njegoš established new institutions in the Montenegrin government (the
Senate, Gvardija, and perjanci) and eliminated the position of civil governor. His
process of internal reconstruction of the Montenegrin government became the foundation
upon which further reforms and internal changes were built.
Chapter three covers the years of 1834 to 1837, the period in between Njegoš’s
two trips to St. Petersburg. During this time, Njegoš focused on internal reforms. He
used the renegotiated Russian subsidies to buy a printing press in Cetinje and established
the first elementary school in Montenegro. He was well aware of the difficulties that his people faced, and he attempted to strengthen the Senate and Gvardija in order to create internal stability.
ix In Chapter four, I examine the period after his second trip to Russia (1837-1839), which is characterized by Njegoš’s attempts to alter the image of Montenegro. After being consecrated as vladika in St. Petersburg, Njegoš initiated further reforms. He attempted to patch relations with Russia, while transforming Cetinje into something that would more resemble a capital, attracting foreign travelers and dignitaries to his small country. Yet he struggled in his attempts to feed his people after crop failures and
Turkish attacks threatened the lives of many Montenegrins.
Chapter five focuses on the peace negotiations Montenegro conducted with its two Great Power neighbors, the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires, from 1840-1846.
During these years, Njegoš had some success with the Austrians in negotiating borders, but he was not as successful with the Ottomans. He signed some agreements with the
Bosnian and Hercegovinian veziers, but these treaties went unrecognized by the Sultan and the Ottoman Porte.
Njegoš's final years are discussed in chapter six (1847 -1851). Negotiations with the Turks took place amid violence and, in 1847, Njegoš published his most famous work, The Mountain Wreath. The anti-Turkish sentiment which permeates this poem was inspired by his recent failures in relations with the Ottoman Empire. Yet his role in 1848, the “Year of Revolutions,” was minimal. He supported the Habsburgs in the face of revolution, hoping that they, in return, would help him against the Skadar vezier. Yet at the same, he assisted an Austrian tribe in its rebellion against the Regional
Administration of Kotor. He tried to balance the internal stability of Montenegro while fending off the external threat of chaos. In desperation, he went to Vienna to negotiate some kind of assistance from Russia and Austria. The Skadar vezier took advantage of
x his absence, luring thousands of Montenegrins over to his side with gifts of food and weapons. Njegoš was able to bring most of his people back into the fold, but at the height of his success, he was struck by a fatal illness. Knowing that he might not have long to live, Njegoš began preparing for his successor. When Njegoš died in 1851, the way was opened for a new type of ruler for Montenegro - a secular prince. The position of vladika died with Njegoš, the last Petrović to rule Montenegro as the head of both the
Montenegrin church and state.
xi Terms and Pronunciation
The term Montenegro will be used throughout this dissertation to refer to the united tribes of Montenegro and Brda (in the historical record, this entity is often referred to as Montenegro-Brda). The inhabitants will be referred to as Montenegrins and Brđani respectively. The term Boka Kotorska will be used in reference to the district of Kotor, including Stari Grad and the small villages and tribes which surround the Bay of Kotor.
I will attempt to use the most familiar names for places found in the historical record, and their alternatives will be given after the first time in parentheses. All dates are given in the new style, even though Montenegro used the old style (-12 days) until the end of
World War I.
All translations are my own unless otherwise indicated. Throughout the text, foreign words will be in italics and defined when first used. They are also listed in a glossary at the end of this dissertation. The following is a guide to Serbian-Montenegrin pronounciation. Unless otherwise indicated, the sounds are similar to English.14
c – ts as in cats č – ch as in church ć – a softer sound than č, like t in action dž – like the dg in judge đ – a softer sound than dž, more like the j in jungle h – ch as in the German ich i – long e as in feet j – y in yellow lj – l+y nj – n+j r – may serve as a vowel when trilled š – sh as in shush ž – zh as in the word azure
14 This table is based on the work of Thomas Magner, Introduction to the Croatian and Serbian Language (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997).
xii List of abbreviations
CD(number) I, II, or III Petar II Petrović Njegoš, Celokupna Djela P. P. Njegoš, vol. 7, 8 or 9 (Beograd: Prosveta, Izdavačko Preduzeće Srbije, 1955).
1982 Petar II Petrović Njegoš, Celokupna Dela Petra II Petrovića Njegoša, Banašević, M., etc., vol. , (Beograd: Prosveta, Izdavačko Preduzeće Srbije, 1982).
HHSA Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Abteilung Haus-, Hof-, und Staatsarchiv
IP Njegoš, Petar II Petrović. Celokupna dela. Andrić, Ivo. Vol. 21, Izabrana pisma. Beograd: Prosveta, 1967.
IZ/Z Istorijski Zapisi/Zapisi, Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod
PPNG1832, 1845, 1848, or 1850. Milović, Jevto. Petar II Petroviæ Njegoš: graða. Nikšić: ITP „Unireks” D.D. Nikšić, Istorijski Institut SR Crne Gore Podgorica, 1986-1993.
xiii
Chapter 1: An Introduction to Njegoš’s Montenegro
Everywhere the Serbian cap has been destroyed! Lions have become farmers, the fearful and greedy converted to Islam – may their Serb milk be tainted with the plague! Those who escaped the Turkish saber, those who did not blaspheme the True Faith, those who did not want to be bound by chains, took refuge here in these mountains so that we die and shed our blood together, to protect our sacred testament, our beautiful name, and our holy freedom. Njegoš, Kolo, The Mountain Wreath, 258-268.15
Perhaps the best way to start out any work on Petar II Petrović Njegoš and
Montenegro is with a brief quotation from The Mountain Wreath (Gorski vijenac). This epic poem has captured the imaginations of the South Slavs in their construction of states and national identity since it was published in 1847. As a “poet with a hand on the pulse of the people,” Njegoš spoke to generations about the struggle of the Montenegrins for
independence and survival. 16 The Mountain Wreath is not a historical document and the
battle described in it may have never taken place. But this poem was not taken as an
historical account, despite Njegoš’s subtitle “An Historical Event at the End of the
Eighteenth Century.”
The poem is significant because of its historic value, because, as Milovan Djilas
describes it, “[t[he massacre stood for a hatred that was not petty and everyday, but
something that welled up from vital deep-seated impulses heightened to the level of an
15 These particular verses are my own translation based on the three English translations of The Mountain Wreath. Unless otherwise indicated, all citations of The Mountain Wreath are from the translation by Vasa D. Mihailovich (Irvine, California: Charles Schlacks, Jr., 1986). 16 Zorka Milich, in A Stranger's Supper, No. 17, Twayne's Oral History Series, Ritchie, Donald A. (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995), 14.
1 absolute and unalloyed ideal.”17 Most importantly for this dissertation, The Mountain
Wreath’s Montenegro operated under the same morals, customs, and traditions as
Njegoš’s Montenegro. Something about this Montenegro resonated with South Slavs throughout the Balkans, and Njegoš’s work was appropriated by various political groups
“to advance their own political agenda.”18
Further research into the uses of Njegoš’s poetry for political ends might tell us a
lot about the debates regarding Yugoslavia and nationalism in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries. But this study is more concerned with the political, social, and
economic context for Njegoš’s work. What kind of ruler was Njegoš, what were his
goals, and what did he accomplish for Montenegro during his short period of
sovereignty? The Mountain Wreath does not provide the answers to these questions, but
it is an appropriate introduction to an examination of Njegoš’s life and work from 1830-
1851.
In this scene, cited at the beginning of this chapter, from Njegoš’s epic poem The
Mountain Wreath, the Montenegrin tribal leaders watched as the people danced a kolo at
the skupština (the national assembly) on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. As
they danced, they sang about Montenegro’s important role in the Balkans – to fight
against those of the Islamic faith in order to preserve Montenegrin customs, honor, and
freedom. Njegoš’s poem, written in 1846/47, depicted the events surrounding an
eighteenth century battle in which the Montenegrin tribes joined together to purge their
17 Djilas, Njegoš, 316. 18 Srdja Pavlović, “Who are Montenegrins? Statehood, Identity, and Civic Society,” in Montenegro in transition: problems of identity and statehood, Bieber, Florian, ed. (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlaggesellschaft, 2003), 97
2 small country of converts to Islam, whom they referred to as Turks.19 The lyrics of this kolo are similar in style to those of a Greek chorus, and the dancers sing that it is the duty of the Montenegrins to fight the Turks in the name of Serbdom and the Battle of Kosovo
Polje in 1389. While the Ottomans dominated the Balkan Peninsula, the Montenegrins viewed themselves as an unconquered bastion of the Serbs. Unlike other Balkan peoples, they refused to pay taxes to the Sultan, submit to vassalage, or serve in the Sultan’s military ranks.
Montenegro was a distinct geographical community whose history was intertwined, but never completely fused with that of Serbia until the twentieth century.
Neither Roman nor Byzantine empires had been able to establish much of a presence in this remote and inaccessible part of southeastern Europe. In the fourteenth century,
Serbia and Montenegro, among other Balkan countries, were ruled by Stefan Nemanje.
When the Nemanjić empire fell apart, Montenegro (at the time called Zeta) became separated from the Great Serbian Empire. But the “imagined” separation of Montenegrin and Serbian histories took place at the legendary Battle of Kosovo Polje (1389).20 The myths regarding the Montenegrin population and Kosovo were probably not in existence before the nineteenth century. In fact there was no need for them before that time, as the
Balkan peoples were late-comers to the process of state-building and the creation of national identities.
Some legends concerning Montenegro and Kosovo suggest that the surviving
Christians fled to the mountains of Zeta in order to escape Ottoman conquest and
19 This reference to Ottoman subjects and Islamic converts as Turks was not unique to Montenegro, but was prominent throughout the Balkans. 20 Tim Judah, The Serbs: History, Myth & the Destruction of Yugoslavia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 9.
3 continue a guerrilla-like resistance to the Sultan’s rule. Montenegro was a good location
to establish the mythical foundations of resistance to the Turks. The Ottomans easily
conquered the lush valleys and riverbeds while the Montenegrins sought protection high
up in the infertile and unproductive limestone mountains (karst). The rugged and harsh mountains of Montenegro made it easier to fend off Ottoman assaults, which the
Montenegrins would do until the twentieth century.
Montenegro was notorious for its harsh environment and its poverty.21 Western
European travelers to the area remarked on the absence of vegetation, its overabundance of karst, and the hardiness of its inhabitants. Even Europeans who had never traveled to
the area, like Sir Alfred Lord Tennyson, were impressed by the heroism of the
Montenegrins in their struggle to survive in such an environment. In his poem entitled
“Montenegro,” he romantically depicted the valor of the Montenegrins in their struggles
against the Ottomans:
They rose to where their sovereign eagle sails, They kept their faith, their freedom, on the height, Chaste, frugal, savage, arm'd by day and night Against the Turk; whose inroad nowhere scales Their headlong passes, but his footstep fails, And red with blood the Crescent reels from fight Before their dauntless hundreds, in prone flight By thousands down the crags and thro' the vales. O smallest among peoples! rough rock-throne Of Freedom! warriors beating back the swarm Of Turkish Islam for five hundred years, Great Tsernogora! never since thine own Black ridges drew the cloud and brake the storm Has breathed a race of mightier mountaineers.22
21 Michael Palairet, The Balkan Economies c. 1800-1914: Evolution without development (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 146. 22 Sir Alfred Lord Tennyson, “Montenegro,” Modern History Sourcebook: Alfred Lord Tennyson: Montenegro, English, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/tennyson- montenegro.html: Paul Halsall, November 1988.
4 Tennyson’s images of chastity and frugality were coupled with heroic savagery. This
seemingly disparate depiction of Montenegro’s people stemmed from the Romantic
Movement, whose authors and philosophers ennobled the peasants of Europe with a kind
of primitive simplicity and heroism, and in the case of the Balkans, with barbarity and
backwardness. To many Europeans, the Montenegrins seemed to care very little for the
laws of civilization. Some Europeans who traveled to this area in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries were attuned to this negative image of Montenegro, one which the
Austrian government in Dalmatia played a large part in perpetuating. To these travelers,
writers, and politicians, the Montenegrins were a kind of noble savage, or what the
subjects of Larry Wolff’s book referred to as “demi-savages” caught somewhere in between civilization and barbarism.23 In this first chapter, I will attempt to recreate
Montenegro, not how Western Europeans perceived it, but how it might have actually been at the time of Njegoš’s ascension to power in the 1830s.
The name “Montenegro” comes from the Venetian (a dialect of Italian) and it means “black mountains” or “hills.” Montenegro was, until the sixteenth century, one giant forest similar to the Black Mountains of Germany; it was called the “black mountain” (Montenero – Italian, Schwarzgebirge – German, Kara dag – Turkish,
Černogorija - Russian) because of the darkness produced by the trees. Western European languages embraced the term Montenegro in reference to this small Balkan country and the Montenegrins (as well as other South Slavic speaking peoples) called it Crna Gora.
23 Larry Wolff, Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), 22.
5 One of the earliest references to Montenegro came from a document from the
Venetian Republic in the fifteenth century.24 Previous to this, in Byzantine sources, the
area was known as Zeta (Zenta) because of its proximity to the Zeta River.25 Zeta was
ruled by the Vojislavići Dynasty from the eleventh century until 1189 when it lost its
independence and became part of Stefan Nemanje's vast Balkan state. In 1360, Zeta once
again gained independence, this time under the Balšič dynasty (1360 to 1421). The third
dynasty to rule Montenegro was the Crnojevići (1421-1496). It was during Crnojevići
rule that the independent area of Zeta was gradually replaced by, what onehistorian
described as, “a new territorial and political notion – Montenegro.”26 Ivan Crnojević,
who is often referred to as the founder of Montenegro, established his capital at Žabljak
near Lake Skadar.27 His son Đurađ (Georgije) established a printing press there in 1493,
shortly after its invention by Gutenberg.28 Crnojević moved his capital to Cetinje to escape Ottoman attacks. Over one hundred years after the Battle of Kosovo, Montenegro fell to the Ottoman Empire in 1496, and was designated as a region under the authority of the bey of Skadar.
But from the very beginning of Ottoman rule, the Montenegrins rebelled against all forms of taxation and other demands which were placed on them. Although a part of
24 Jovan Erdeljanović, Stara Crna Gora i Bokelji, (Old Montenegro and Boka) (Podgorica: Narodna Biblioteka "Radosav Ljumović," 1997), 13. 25 Vasilije Petrović, "Istorija o Crnog Gori (A History of Montenegro)," in Povjesnica crnogorska: odabrane istorije Crne Gore do kraja XIX vijeka, Miljić, Marijan Mašo, ed. (Podgorica: Unireks, 1997), 13. 26 Šerbo Rastoder, "A short review of the history of Montenegro," in Montenegro in transition, problems of identity and statehood, Bieber, Florian (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlaggesellschaft, 2003), 110. 27 Dimitrije Milaković, "Istorija Crne Gore (A History of Montenegro)," in Povjesnica crnogorska: odabrane istorije Crne Gore do kraja XIX vijeka, Miljić, Marijan Mašo, ed. (Podgorica: Unireks, 1997), 181. 28 Petar I Petrović, "Kratka istorija Crne Gore (A Short History of Montenegro)," in Povjesnica crnogorska: odabrane istorije Crne Gore do kraja XIX vijeka, Miljić, Marijan Mašo, ed. (Podgorica: Unireks, 1997), 51.
6 the population converted to Islam, the rest retreated to the more mountainous and
inaccessible areas from where they could reject Ottoman authority. Because of these
problems with subjugation, the Ottomans made Montenegro into a vilajet, which meant
that a Muslim did not directly rule this region.29 By the end of the sixteenth century,
there was a growing resistance in Montenegro which pushed for independence from
Ottoman control. A tribal society began to develop around the Metropolitan (the vladika
or bishop) who presided over an assembly of tribal chiefs (skupština). Led by the
Vladika Visarion in 1688, there was a general uprising (ustanka) when the Montenegrin
tribes joined with the Venetian Republic to defeat the Ottoman Empire.30 Although its
independence went unrecognized by the Great Powers in the resulting peace treaties, like
the Treaty of Karlowitz (1699), Ottoman authority became “unnoticeable” in many parts
of Montenegro.31
By the end of the seventeenth century, one family, the Petrovići (the fourth and final Montenegrin dynasty which lasted until 1918), came to dominate the position of vladika. In 1696, Danilo Sčepović Petrović became vladika of Montenegro. When he assisted on the side of the Russians in their war with the Turks, he was rewarded in 1711 by financial assistance from Peter the Great.32 In 1717, the Venetians (along with some
Montenegrins) were concerned about Russian influence in this area so they established
29 Rastoder, “A short review of the history of Montenegro,” 112. 30 Sima Milutinović Sarajlija, "Istorija Crne Gore od iskona do novijeg vremena (A History of Montenegro from Medieval Times to the Present)," in Povjesnica crnogorska: odabrane istorije Crne Gore do kraja XIX vijeka, Miljić, Marijan Mašo (Podgorica: Unireks, 1997), 93. 31 Rastoder, “A short review of the history of Montenegro,” 115. 32 Dimitrije Milaković, "Istorija Crne Gore (A History of Montenegro)," in Povjesnica crnogorska: odabrane istorije Crne Gore do kraja XIX vijeka, Miljić, Marijan Mašo, ed. (Podgorica: Unireks, 1997), 326.
7 the position of guvernador (civil governor) which they intended as a complement to the
vladika's religious and Russian authority.
The succeeding Petrovići began to engage Montenegro more directly in Europe.
Danilo's successor, Sava Petrović (1735-1771<) involved Montenegro in Russian and
Austrian wars against the Ottoman Empire. Vladika Vasilje (1750-1766<) went to
Russia in 1752 where he published the first history of Montenegro, Istorija o Crnoj Gori
(History of Montenegro) in 1754. Vasilje's death in Moscow left a vacuum of power
which was quickly filled by a man falsely claiming to be Peter III, the late husband of
Catherine the Great. He ruled Montenegro under the name Sčepan Mali (Stephen the
Small) and despite many attempts to prove that he was a fraud, he remained in power until 1773.33 Sava resumed the role of vladika until his death in 1781.
His successor, Petar Petrović (1784-1830<), Njegoš's uncle, ruled Montenegro for fifty years. During his reign he united the area of Old Montenegro (Stara Crna Gora)
with the four nahije from Brda. He also created Montenegro's first written laws
(Zakonik) and established the Kuluk, an administrative and legal authority to carry out
these laws. Vladika Petar assisted the Russians and Austrians in the Napoleonic Wars
against the French, from whom he took over control of Boka Kotorska in 1806. But at the Congress of Vienna, Montenegro was not rewarded for its assistance by the Great
Powers, and the territory was handed over to the Austrians, thereby denying the
Montenegrins any access to the coast. The population of Montenegro remained landlocked and cramped, unable to expand into more fertile land.
Although nineteenth century Montenegro was overpopulated, its exact size and population are difficult to estimate. Even the Montenegrin government was unsure
33 He was murdered by his own servant who was in the pay of the Ottoman Empire.
8 exactly how large its state was, as the area had not been adequately surveyed or mapped.
The borders ran to the north/west with Hercegovina, to the east with Ottoman Albania,
and to the south with Austrian Albania.34 In the 1835 edition of the Montenegrin
almanac Grlica, Dimitrije Milaković, the national secretary and editor of the almanac,
estimated the size of Montenegro to be somewhere around 200 square miles, but he
admitted that he was not completely sure of that information.35 In 1842, Igor
Kovalevsky, a Russian engineer sent to survey Montenegro’s resources, estimated it took
6 days to travel from north to south and 4-5 days from east to west.36
Montenegro's terrain was predominately mountainous, especially in the nahije
(districts) of Stara Crna Gora (Old Montenegro). Montenegro’s Central European
climate was quite healthy, with moderate summers and winters.37 Despite adequate
rainfall, the limestone mountains were so porous that the water washed away any fertile soil and nutrients. In contrast, the lands of the Brda nahije were more arable, with lush
pastures and valleys. Unfortunately, Montenegro lacked any connection to the coast: it had lost its Primorije (coastal) villages to the Venetian Republic in 1718, and these areas had been under Austrian control since the end of the Napoleonic Wars.
On its southern border in the Brda nahija of Crmničani, Montenegro had partial
access to a freshwater lake, Lake Skadar. All four of Montenegro’s major rivers (Crnica,
34 Dimitrije Milaković, , “A short look at a geographical-statistical description of Montenegro,” Grlica, 1835, 41-54 (Cetinje: Mitropolsko knjigopečatnje, 1835; Jugoštampa), 41. 35 Milaković, “A short geographical-statistical description of Montenegro,” 6. 36 This estimate included the amount of time needed to travel the mountainous landscape on foot in an area with only two main roads and with such treacherous terrain that horses were rarely used, carts never. M. G. Kovalevski, “Relation d'une ascension au mont Komm dans le Montegro en 1838,” Bulletin de la Societe geologique de France (Paris) 1 (1839), 113. 37 The cool dry air in the mountains and the sparse settlements provided a barrier to many diseases of the Balkans. It was not Montenegro’s climate which made it unproductive, but rather its poor soil. Christopher Boehm, Montenegrin Social Organization and Values: Political Ethnography of a Refuge Area Tribal Adaptation, AMS Studies in Anthropology (New York: AMS Press, 1983), 15.
9 Zeta, Morača, and Crnojevića) flowed into Lake Skadar. Montenegro’s southern border
with Ottoman Albania was in constant flux around Lake Skadar. This area was once the
capital of Montenegro under the Crnojevići, but like many of the richer areas of the
Balkans, it was difficult to defend from frequent Ottoman attacks. Lake Skadar provided
fish that was in high demand in the markets of southern and eastern Europe.
Montenegro consisted of a subsistence economy, which in harsher years was
unable to provide for its inhabitants because of what an English traveler termed, “the
niggardly penury of nature.”38 Its peasants lived in small villages; there were no cities in
Montenegro. Even its capital, Cetinje, was nothing more than a hamlet tucked into the
mountains. The average Montenegrin herded sheep and goats, and the pastures were
communally owned. The Montenegrins practiced transhumance: in the summer, the
herdsmen took their flocks up to the katuni (summer villages) where they processed their milk products; in the winter, they descended with their flocks to the winter pastures, many of which were in Austrian territory near the coast. This partially nomadic system kept Montenegro’s greatest resource ready to move in case of attack. But as the most desirable pasture fell under foreign control, this process also brought the Montenegrins into more frequent contact with neighboring empires.
Shepherding was an honorable job for Montenegrin males, as it enabled them to be constantly prepared to defend themselves against any raids. But in contrast to what their women did, Montenegrin males seemed lazy. Even in the Balkans today, it is jokingly said that Montenegrin males were the laziest men on earth, that they would go to any end to avoid real work. In truth, because Montenegro was in a constant state of
38 A. A. Paton, Highlands and Islands of the Adriatic, including Dalmatia, Croatia, and the Southern Provinces of the Austrian Empire, 1 vols. (London: Chapman Hall, 1849), 73
10 warfare, the men had to be prepared at all times to use their weapons, which meant they
would not perform any work that involved keeping their eyes away from the horizon;
their arms had to be free at all times to grab their weapons. Women ran the household as
well as planted and harvested crops, hauled water from wells, and carried goods to
market. There were few artisans in Montenegro, not only because the people were too
poor to afford their services, but because it was not deemed a fit job for a Montenegrin
male whose primary occupation was to make war. Montenegro had, in many ways, a
highly adaptive structure centered on war and pastoralism, but it frequently suffered from
overpopulation, starvation, and internal disorder.
Although Montenegro was thought of as one of the poorest countries in all of
Europe and the Balkans, in normal years it was able to sustain its own population and make a significant profit from surplus produce at the local bazaars.39 The local products
of Montenegro (according to Grlica) were: corn, wheat, rye, barley, oats, spelt, potatoes,
beans, peas, lentils, blue and red eggplants, cauliflower, kohlrabi, apples, pears, plums,
quince, walnuts, hazelnuts, mulberries, wine, livestock - mostly sheep and goats, cheese,
butterfat, cream, trout, eel, carp and similar fish, honey, wax, limestone, and bauxite.40
These good were carried to market by mules and humans (mostly women) across the rough passes of the Montenegrin mountains.
By 1835, Montenegro had only two main roads: the first ran from Kotor (in
Austrian territory) through Njeguši, Cetinje, Dobrosko Selo to Ceklino at the Crnojević
River; and the second from Njeguši (in Ottoman territory) through Ćeklić, Bjelica,
39 Palairet, The Balkan Economies c. 1800-1914, 146 40 Dimitrije Milaković, “Kratki pogled na geografièesko-statistièesko opisanje Crne Gore,” (A short geographical-statistical description of Montenegro), Grlica, 1835, 41-54: Cetinje, Mitropolsko knjigopecatnje, 1835, 44-45
11 Kčeva, and Pješivac to Nikšić. The main means of transportation was by foot or by mule,
as the roads were quite treacherous. There were some horses in Montenegro, and the
finest of these were owned by the vladika, but no carts could be used in this part of the
Balkans until the second half of the nineteenth century.41 Poor transportation also
resulted in poor communication with outlying tribes, and this became problematic as the
political structure of Montenegro shifted toward centralization.
The most vital bazaars were located outside of Montenegrin territory. The few internal bazaars were located in the richer nahije (in Riječka and in Bijelopavlići).
Montenegrins frequented bazaars in Austrian (Kotor, Risan, and Budva) and in Ottoman
(Podgorica, Spuž, Nikšić, Žabljak, Bar, and Ulcinje) territory. Montenegrins frequently
purchased gunpowder and lead from the Ottomans because the Austrians forbade the
selling of it to, what they believed, dangerous neighbors who might use it against them.
The trade patterns frequently shifted because of tribal warfare, raiding, external warfare,
and sanitation regulations (mostly imposed by the Austrian government.) The external
bazaars were especially useful in times of famine, when the crops of Montenegro failed.
During these tough times, Montenegrin possessions (such as clothing, furniture, and
guns) were exchanged for the basics of life, usually at a great loss to the Montenegrins.
Montenegrins sold and bought their goods in the local bazaars of their Austrian
and Turkish neighbors. The most important of these was the bazaar in Kotor, where the
Montenegrins sold grain, heads of cabbage, potatoes, cheese, butterfat, eggs, wool, sheep,
dried meats known as kastradine (especially popular in Trieste and Venice), dried fish,
oxen, pigs, pork, potatoes, butter, wax, honey, tallow, hides (woolen and hair), tortoise
shells, fowls, Indian corn, ice, fruit, Turkish and Montenegrin tobacco, charcoal, leaves
41 Stoianovich, Balkan Worlds, 72.
12 and wood.42 The Kotor market was extremely important to the Montenegrins, especially when the Turkish ones were closed or inaccessible because of war. And while it seemed that the Montenegrins were heavily dependent upon this market for buying their essentials (like wine, brandy, salt, oil, and some textiles), the Austrians were even more dependent upon the Montenegrins for their goods to sell throughout the Austrian Empire.
The bazaar in Kotor, which was known as the Montenegrin piazza, was located outside the eastern gate of the walled city and was open three times a week (Tuesday,
Thursday, and Saturday.) Before entering the bazaar, the Montenegrins had to remove
their weapons, and sometimes had to pay customs duties on the goods they were bringing
to sell.
As Montenegro lacked any kind of industrialization and technology, it was highly susceptible to environmental changes and disasters. This contributed to Montenegro’s status as the poorest region in the Balkans. The Montenegrins suffered from crop failures and starvation every two to three years or sometimes even in consecutive years because
of lack of rain or livestock disease. 43 But the community was highly adaptable. In 1817,
for example, there was an unprecedented famine during which the population apparently
ate nothing but grasses and roots for several months.44 They had other ways of saving themselves; emigration and raiding were temporary solutions to the drought and famine.
42 Part of this list is taken from Wilkinson F.R.S., Sir J. Gardner, Dalmatia and Montenegro, 1 vol. (London: John Murray, Albermarle Street, 1848), 393. 43 Vukaljlo-Mišo Gluščević, Migracije Stanovništva Crne Gore u XIX vijeku, (Population Migration in Montenegro in the Nineteenth Century), (Podgorica: Kulturno-prosvjetna zajednica Podgorice, 2000), 18. 44 Montenegrins were blessed by their environment which acted as a natural barrier to disease, otherwise more of them might have succumbed to plague and infection by frequently resorting to these “strange diets.” Gluščević, Migracije Stanovništva Crne Gore u XIX vijeku, 34; William Chester Jordon, The Great Famine, Northern Europe in the Early Fourteenth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 115-116.
13 In order to cope with crop and livestock devastation and the resulting threat of starvation, Montenegrins emigrated to Ottoman lands, Austrian territory, Serbia, and some even as far as Russia. People migrated for other reasons as well: krvena osveta
(blood feud), overcrowding, Turkish repression, and the growing power of the state.45
Others were forced into exile because of murder. Although it has been extremely difficult to track migration and emigration patterns of Montenegro until the second half of the nineteenth century, some general patterns are noticeable. The majority of
Montenegrins went to nearby territories, such as Ottoman or Austrian possessions, in order to work and earn money and return home as soon as they were able. There was also a great migration of the population towards Serbia, conducted with the approval of both governments. Families traveled least often to Russia, not only because of the great distance, but also because the Russian government was not willing to accept any more peasant families into its already strained system.
Montenegrins migrated in families and only rarely as individuals. Sometimes entire villages uprooted themselves because of the fear of starvation. Many people during these hard times looked to the vladika for some sort of relief. Often he was able to provide some food, but accomplished this by selling church and personal possessions to feed his people. Sometimes, to the Montenegrins’ disappointment, he was unable to provide an immediate solution. The Montenegrins did not have the means to process and store grain, forcing the vladika to turn to Austrian and Turkish markets. Problems with resources slowed the centralization of power in Montenegro and made the population susceptible to Turkish bribes of food, clothing, and munitions.
45 Gluščević, Migracije Stanovništva Crne Gore u XIX vijeku, 19.
14 Montenegro was a tribal state which, in order to survive the surrounding predatory empires and its own internal disorders, had relied upon territorial self- government rather than centralized authority. It was divided into administrative districts called nahije. The term nahija is from Turkish (nahiye), meaning a ward, township or region. Ottoman controlled areas were divided into these political units. The first time the term nahija was used in Montenegro dates from the period when the Ottomans controlled most of Montenegro in the mid-seventeenth century, which lasted until the
Montenegrin ustanka (rebellion) of 1684-1685. Unlike most other Balkan areas, the
Montenegrins continued to use the term nahija for their own political administration.
Until the seventeenth, Montenegro consisted of five parts: Katuni, Ljubotin,
Pješivci, Crnica, and Lješkoplje. By the nineteenth century, there were four nahije
(Katunska Nahija, Lješanska Nahija, Riječka Nahija, and Crmnica Nahija), which are referred to as Stara Crna Gora (Old Montenegro) by historians and anthropologists.
Ninteenth century Montenegro also included four nahije from the area known as Brda.
The nahija and plemena of Brda had been traditional allies of the Montenegrins against the Ottomans. In the nineteenth century, Montenegro desperately needed these nahije as part of its state, because these lands could provide Stara Crna Gora with much needed grains and pastures. Brda also had a large population which could strengthen
Montenegrin resistance to foreign aggression. The areas of Brda were more vulnerable to
Ottoman conquest because they bordered Ottoman Albanian, and were important for strategic and economic reasons. Without an external ally, the Brđani were left to their own devices unless they joined with the neighboring plemena of Montenegro. Under
Petar I, the four nahije of Brda (Bjelopavlići, Piperi, Rovačka-Moračka, and Kuči) joined
15 with the Montenegrin nahije to unite against the Ottomans. This configuration was still intact when Njegoš succeeded his uncle in 1830.
Fig. 1.1 Map of Montenegro from Durham, Some Tribal Customs, 35.
The nahije were the largest division into which Montenegrin society and politics can be broken down and they were made up of tribes (plemena.) The nahije were administrative units and the tribes functioned as political entities. The tribe was considered to be Montenegro’s most stable political and military unit. They were also moral units which regulated the behaviors and relationships of their members. In 1835,
Montenegro had 35 tribes.
16 Each tribe had a military leader (vojvoda or serdar) who served as tribal representatives at local and national meetings.46 The Russian ethnographer, Pavel
Rovinskii, described the vojvoda as the first of all military leaders, a “tested warrior” who had been chosen by a council of tribal elders (glavari) because of his abilities as a fighter and a leader of soldiers, rather than age or physical prowess. The vojvoda was a man
“who not only commanded the authority of those under him, but of his enemies as well;” in order to become a vojvoda, a man had to distinguish himself in battle by taking some
Turkish heads.47
The serdar was secondary in importance to the vojvoda, both politically and militarily. While the vojvoda was especially valued in times of war (and Montenegro was almost constantly in a state of war), the serdar served as a government representative in times of peace. Some tribes had both a vojvoda and a serdar to act as representatives to attend national and local skupštine. And because the Montenegrin war battalions were arranged by tribe, these two leaders not only had immense influence over the active male population in times of war, but also within the villages of Montenegro.
The villages (sela) of Montenegro were the main constituents of the plemena.
Each village was the home of usually one clan (bratstvo). These clans were groups of people who shared common descent from one family or individual; membership in a
46 The distinction between the two terms, vojvoda and serdar, are frequently blurred, and both anthropologists and historians have had a difficult time discerning the role of each. Some ethnographers believed that strong plemena had vojvode and weak ones had serdari. Vuk Karadžić, the nineteenth century grammatist and orthographer, argued that in Njegoš`s Montenegro, every nahija had a serdar, and each pleme had a vojvoda, a knez, and barjaktar (flag bearer), and each clan had a starašin (leader). Pavel Apolonović Rovinski, Etnografija Crne Gore, I vol. (Podgorica: CID, 1998), 125; Vuk Karadžić, Montenegro und die Montenegriner, ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der europдischen Türkei und des serbisches Volken (Stuttgart und Tübingen: Verlag der J. G. Cotta`schen Buchhandlung, 1837), 32. 47 Rovinski, Etnografija Crne Gore, vol.I, 124-137.
17 bratstvo was based on agnatic descent lines, through the male side of the family.48
Milovan Djilas reflected in his autobiography upon his own family's lineage, in which the lines of kinship were maintained among distant members of his tribe through the “fable of a common founder”:
[I]t is precisely such fables that make up that real existence in which one lives and thinks… Every clan was forced, lest it fall behind the rest, to weave a legend about its origins, a legend it would then firmly believe.49
This typical belief in the maintenance of an unbroken lineage, although more imagined
than real, was the foundation of some of Montenegro’s unique traditions, such as krvena
osveta, and provided many stumbling blocks to the construction of a stable political state.
At the same time, the clans provided a political, social, and military structure which was
adhered to by all of its members: clan members not only shared the same patron saint but
also the same family name, they fought together in military units, and they decided the
use of communal pastures and forests.50
The head of a clan was called the knez, and in many instances, he was also the
head of the village.51 As the most important person in his clan, the knez summoned
meetings, acted as a judge for relations between families, gave advice, and offered
solutions to daily problems. He had some influence over the serdari and the vojvode,
because nothing happened in a clan without its knez, but his power was infrequently felt
outside of his village.
48 The child only “passes through his mother.” Mary Edith Durham, Some tribal origins, laws and customs of the Balkans (London: G. Allen & Unwin, ltd., 1928), 147. 49 Milovan Djilas, Land Without Justice (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1958), 4 50 Rovinski, Etnografija Crne Gore, vol.I, 112. 51 The term knez can be translated into English as “prince”, but the knezovi of Montenegro really had the power of a duke over a village or hamlet and was selected by his clan.
18 The smallest group in Montenegro’s political structure was the kuća
(household).52 This type of household included a father and mother, their children, and
their older sons and families. The father was the head of the household (domačin or starašina) and represented the household to the community.53 A strong and uncontested
leadership was needed in the household to protect it from raids and krvena osveta, so the
Montenegrin starešina had more authority in his household than he would have had in a
typical Balkan zadruga.54
The Montenegrin household might have been a kutnja zajednica, which means it
was a household that was structured to work “in a state of togetherness.” The lack of
arable land, high mortality rates because of war and krvena osveta, and the continuous
cycle of bad crop yields would have been difficult for a nuclear family to handle. Each
family member played a specific role in the household and in cultivation.
Montenegrin houses were simple units constructed from available materials; most
houses were made of stone. Each house was built to be easily defensible in times of raids
and war. The Montenegrin house was functional rather than comfortable; there was no
chimney and only two small windows which were designed for defensive purposes rather
52 Anthropologists have had difficulty knowing exactly what the average Montenegrin kuća was like in the traditional period, as little data exists. Their assumptions have been based on studies of Serbia and Albania, for which more information about family structure and daily life has been recorded. The traditional family structure in the Balkans was the zadruga, an “economically corporate household [which was] comprised of more than one nuclear family.” Boehm, Montenegrin Social Organization and Values, 32. 53 Boehm in argues that in the karst region of Montenegro, the responsibilities which a zadruga would have were actually controlled by the clan. The area of Brda had more available arable land, which needed more people to cultivate. It is not known if this was the dominant household structure in Montenegro, but the conditions of Brda seemed especially suitable for this arrangement. Boehm, Montenegrin Social Organization and Values, 32-41. 54 Boehm, Montenegrin Social Organization and Values, 35, 40.
19 than to receive sunlight.55 The houses were built to hold animals as well as people, and at the most consisted of two floors. Its human inhabitants slept on benches, rather than on beds. The house was usually connected to a small plot of arable land or forest. In the mountains, the houses were quite narrow and not able to hold many people. Some villages consisted of only ten to twelve houses. Varying sizes of settlements and families such as this made it difficult for contemporaries and travelers to properly estimate the size of Montenegro's population.
It is difficult to estimate the population of nineteenth century Montenegro because of a lack of reliable sources such as census data and tax records. What little information there is seems to be quite open to interpretation.56 Some sort of joint household was necessary, although it may have been spread across several actual houses, or through an entire village. Estimates regarding the population of Montenegro until the twentieth century have bordered on guesses because of this uncertainty concerning household size, and therefore have produced an inconsistent range of statistics for Montenegro.
Traditional estimates, which ranged as high as 135,000 people, might have been exaggerated and the actual population of Montenegro might have been much smaller, perhaps only around 29,000 people at the beginning of the nineteenth century and by
1838, 47,000.57 The majority of the population, though, was undeniably Orthodox in religion.
55 The windows were so small, according to one Montenegrin woman, so that thieves could not fit into them. Christopher Boehm, “Montenegrin Ethical Values: An Experiment in Anthropological Method,” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1972), 269. 56 The population has been estimated, not by inhabitants of each village, but by the number of households per tribe or village. Further information, such as the number of armed people per tribe was infrequently provided. It has been difficult for scholars to determine a precise statistic for the number of people in a Montenegrin household. 57 Palairet, The Balkan Economies, 15.
20 Nineteenth century Montenegrins were of the Eastern Orthodox faith, but their
religion, like their political structure, was unique. The Montenegrins adapted the
Orthodox religion to their war-oriented way of life and historical experience. Orthodoxy,
for them, was not a strict church-dominated existence, but, as one scholar described it, a
“domestic religious experience, a part of daily life.”58 Montenegrin priests were poorly
educated (many were illiterate) and tended to dress and act more like their fellow
tribesmen than clergymen. They were often the leaders of the nation, as they were judges
and mediators in times of peace and military leaders in times of war. Some tribes were even headed by priests, and during Njegoš's time some of them were even Senators.
Rules for the priesthood in Montenegro were not as strict as in other countries: the priests did not have to remain celebrate, but were allowed to marry and divorce up to three times; monks, on the other hand, were only permitted one wife. Only the vladika of
Montenegro was not permitted to marry. For the most part, a priest was indistinguishable from the general populace in the way he lived his life. The clergy of Montenegro were not considered a separate class as they were in most European countries, and in particular, they did not have any economic advantage over the general population.59 The vladika, at least until Njegoš, wore the traditional vestments of his position. Once traveler’s description of church service depicts the role of the priest well: he “deposes his arms on entering the church, but takes them up again after having performed divine
58 Pavichevich, “Education and Modernization in Montenegro, 1831-1918,” 58 59 R. Rešović, “Teokratizam i njegovi odjeci u istoriji Crne Gore (Theocracy and its Relation to History in Montenegro),” in Cetinje i Crna Gora, Jovanović, Andrija, ed. (Beograd: “Davidović” Pavlovića i Druga, 1927), 140
21 service.”60 Montenegro’s religion was fused to its way of life and desire for cultural
survival.
Unlike other South Slavs in the Ottoman Empire, the Montenegrins were not
under the jurisdiction of the Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople. When the first
Serbian Patriarchy dissolved in 1463, the Metropolitanate of Zeta was created under the
jurisdiction of the Archbishopric of Ohrid. After Ivan Crnojević, the founder of
Montenegro, moved his capital and the Metropolitanate to Cetinje, it remained the center of the Montenegrin religion until 1920. The Metropolitanate was placed by the Ottomans
under the formal jurisdiction of the Patriarchy of Peć, created in 1557. This Patriarchy consecrated Montenegrin bishops until it dissolved in 1766 The Serbian Orthodox church fell under the control of the Greek Patriarch in Constantinople; the Montenegrin
Metropolitanate, on the other hand, became officially autocephalous. Montenegrin
bishops were now consecrated by Serbian metropolitans in Sremski Karlovci (in Austrian
territory) and later by the Russians in St. Petersburg. Although some historians argue that
the independence of the Montenegrin church and its vladika came out of necessity, it was
perhaps more the result of an accident.61 The Montenegrin Orthodox experience was
unique; current debates over national identity focus around the recent resurrection of the
Montenegrin Orthodox Church in direct contrast to the Serbian Orthodox Church, which
had enveloped the Montenegrin church in 1920.62
60 Anon., “Montenegro,” The British and Foreign Review; or European Quaterly Journal (London) XI, July (1840), 140 61 Vladika Sava would not pay the money to be under the newly created Constantinople-Greek Orthodox patriarchy, and therefore the Montenegrin church did not receive the firman nor was it recognized by the Turkish or Greek governments. Thomas Fleming, Montenegro: the Divided Land (Rockford, Illinois: Chronicles Press, 2002), 64. 62 Montenegrin Orthdox Church, “The Continuity of Being Autocephalous,” Montenegrin Orthodox Church, http://www.moc-cpc.org/index_e.htm:14.4.2004
22 Montenegrin religious traditions were not the only things distinct about
Montenegrin society. Anthropologist Christopher Boehm classifies Montenegro as a
“mountain refuge area warrior society” with a rudimentary tribal structure that resembled
a secondary state.63 Although it was a predominantly peasant society that shared many
characteristics of the peasant communities of Western and Eastern Europe, it had several
distinct customs which made it stand out even in the Balkans. The Montenegrin customs
of the blood feud, head-hunting, and raiding stood out as distinctive, especially since they offended western sensibilities. These traditions seemed, to outside observers, to be impediments to a centralized state.
One supposed obstacle to centralization was the practice of krvena osveta (blood revenge). A blood feud might begin with:
a verbal insult, blow, or a killing [which] is returned in kind; it may be returned either to the original aggressor or, in the case of a homicide, carried to his close male kinsmen of the original victim.64
Although the process seemed lawless and unpredictable, krvena osveta was complex,
involving certain rules which were instinctively followed by the participants. If feuding
began between two clans of the same tribe, tribal leaders took measures to put a stop to the killing. When krvena osveta went beyond inter-tribal quarrels, it was difficult to regulate and the killing could last for generations. If two clans from different tribes were embroiled in revenge killing, it took the cooperation of the leaders of both tribes to stop the feuding. More frequently, these tribes did not agree to settle, but carried out the
killing on a larger scale.
63 Christopher Boehm, “Mountain Refuge Area Adapatations,” in Cultural Adaptation to Mountain Enviroments, Beaver, Patricia D. and Pennington, Burton L. (Athens: University of Georgia, 1966), 34 64 Boehm, Blood Revenge, 57.
23 The practice of krvena osveta seemed to be an obstacle when it came to the centralization of state powers, because when it came to the blood feud, the power lay with the individual and his tribe rather than with the state. The vladika of Montenegro often had to step in and use his influence to convince the tribes to stop feuding, but when he was successful, it was the result of the sheer force of his personality and not fear of his political power. He could also threaten excommunication from the church, but this often had little effect on the feuding. Vladika Petar was one of the most effective rulers when it came to regulating the blood feud. He convened “the Courts of Good Men” to decide disputes, but these were only temporary entities. He was also able to negotiate a peace between warring tribes by buying up disputed lands.65 If the vladika was not able to mediate, either both sides became so devastated from the killing that they eventually stopped, or something else attracted their attention away from the feud, perhaps a battle with the Turks or a raid.
Another custom which rendered Montenegrin society distinct was the practice of taking the heads of one’s enemy in battle. The Montenegrins were not the only ones practicing this tradition in the Balkans; the Montenegrins (including Njegoš) claimed they learned it from the Turks. Western Europeans were particularly appalled by rotting heads on poles in Cetinje. Taking heads and displaying them as trophies of war provided the Montenegrins with a psychological edge in pitched battles and was a measure of heroic achievement.66 The reputation of a Montenegrin warrior was based upon how many heads he had taken in battle. Sometimes these heads were taken as personal trophies; other times they were exchanged with a knez or even the vladika for medals,
65 Pejović, Crna Gora u doba Petra I i Petra II, 22. 66 Boehm, Montenegrin Social Organization and Values, 70.
24 guns, or money.67 If it was important in their tribal-based culture to take heads in battle,
it was even more important not to lose one’s own. This measure of a man’s honor was so
powerful that Montenegrin companions often took the heads of the badly wounded home
to their families, thereby preserving their honor.
The third way in which Montenegrins earned honor was through the practice of
raiding (četovanje). It was also an important way to supplement a faltering economy. A raiding party might consist of thirty men, “whoever felt like going.”68 Raiding added to
tribal prestige, redistributed wealth, and was most often carried out against Turkish and
Austrian villages. Although there have been claims that raiding parties never attacked
other Orthodox people, this was not the case. Raiding was based on wealth, and not religious ideals. Austrian subjects were frequently attacked, most of whom were
Orthodox. Raiding parties seemed to be outside of the vladika’s control; he had no
means to stop them, nor did he have a reason to, especially when the harvests had been
poor. The only way to get rid of raiding would be to make Montenegro more stabile and
productive.
These three customs (the blood feud, taking heads, and raiding) seemed to be impediments to the process of political centralization of power in Montenegro. The independence of the tribes and their unwillingness to change these customs brought them into direct confrontation with the vladika, and also provided indisputable evidence for the
Great Powers that Montenegro was a wild and barbarous place that could not be
67 According to Paget’s travel account, Njegoš paid twelve shillings for each head brought to him. Lord Clarence Paget, “Visit to the Vladika of Montenegro,” Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine (Edinburgh) IX, CCCLXXII (October, 1846): 36 68 Boehm, Montenegrin Social Organization and Values, 66.
25 controlled. All hope for stability lay in the vladika, who controlled the political and religious aspects of his country.
Because the vladika was traditionally a monk who had risen to the status of
bishop within the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, he was one of the few literate people in
the nation. The ability to read was important because he had to carry out foreign
relations through diplomatic correspondence. When this position became dominated by
one family, the Petrovići, it became customary for the reigning vladika to send his
designated heir for a monastic education in St. Petersburg. Unfortunately, many of these
children did not survive the Russian cold. Sometimes other things prevented the
designated heir from assuming his role as head of Montenegro.69 Obstacles to this
tradition resulted in the succession of an untrained youth (Njegoš) to the position of
vladika; the role of vladika was changed forever because of Njegoš’s lack of training as a
religious leader.
Until 1852, the head of the Montenegrin church and state was the vladika, who
acted as a bishop and a prince. Although he was usually chosen by his predecessor, this
choice had to be voted upon by a general tribal assembly. The succession usually passed down from uncle to nephew because Orthodox bishops were celibate. The vladika resided in the monastery of Cetinje, which was built in 1701 by Vladika Danilo, near the site where Ivan Crnojević’s court stood.
69 The experience of Njegoš’s uncle is a good example of this: Petar I had originally chosen his nephew Mitar, son of his brother Stijepov, as his designated heir, but after several years in Russia, the child died. In 1825, Petar I chose his brother Savo’s eldest son, Đorđije, and sent him to Russia for his education. When it was time for Đorđije to return home to Cetinje for further monastic training, he decided that he wanted to stay in Russia as a military officer and, with the permission of his uncle, transferred to a military school in 1829. Petar I’s third choice was his nephew Radevoj (Njegoš).
26 Until 1840, the Cetinje Monastery served a dual function as the seat of secular
and temporal power, because the vladika of Montenegro acted as the head of both church
and state. When the last Crnojević left for Venice in the sixteenth century, the lands of
Montenegro were without a political leader. This vacuum was filled by the head of
Montenegro’s Orthodox Church, Vladika Vavilo. Throughout the next century, the
vladika was to be the only individual in Montenegro who had anything resembling authority in the state and over time, the position of vladika began to acquire more
temporal duties.
The role and effectiveness of the vladika varied by personality, but, until Njegoš’s
time, all vladika’s led the tribes in battle, consecrated new priests, appealed to the Great
Powers for assistance, and recorded the history of Montenegro. The role of the vladika
became more secularized over time, and Njegoš’s successor, Danilo II (1851-1860), was
able to declare himself a knez (prince) rather than vladika of Montenegro.
The vladika’s power was traditionally associated with the political, religious, and
material backing of Russia. The first Petrović to hold the position of vladika, Danilo,
established Montenegro as a kind of Russian protectorate by securing a yearly stipend
from Peter the Great for state and religious purposes. All vladikas relied heavily upon
this stipend; it was the most important source of funding for Montenegro, because it
greatly exceeded what the Montenegrins could provide for themselves. This reliance
upon Russian monies translated into a symbolic backing of Montenegro by the Russians
in European politics. The Venetians, and then the Austrians, grew increasingly
concerned with Russian influence in Montenegro.
27 Njegoš’s chief political competitor was the guvernador (civil governor), a
position established by the Venetian Republic in 1717 in order to have a possible
counterweight to the Russian-leaning vladika. After the Republic fell, the position of
guvernador was used similarly by the Austrian government. The guvernador used to
reside in Kotor, but when the position came to be dominated by the Radonići, a
competing family to the Petrovići, a permanent residence was established in Cetinje.70
The Radonići built up their prestige and political connections first with the Venetian
Republic, and later with the Austrian Empire, so that they were in a good position to oppose the Russophilic Petrovići and their vladika.71 The power struggle between these
two families occurred at the tribal level as they both belonged to the Njeguši tribe, and at
the national level, between the positions of vladika and guvernador.
The role of the guvernador, although frequently neglected by historians, was
significant within the tribal federation. He had the first word at the gathering of tribal
leaders and at national meetings. He led half of the Montenegrin army in battles against
enemies (the other half was under the command of the vladika.) Like the vladika he
mediated quarrels between various tribes. And he carried out correspondence with
foreign powers, asking for help for Montenegro.72 Many of these duties overlapped with
that of the vladika and frequently brought the two national leaders into conflict.
70 . The Radonići bought the position of guvernador from the original titleholders supposedly for one hundred ducats and the title of serdar; the position became hereditary within this family. Risto J. Dragičević, “Crnogorski Guvernaduri,” in Cetinje i Crna Gora, Jovanović, Andrija, etc (Beograd: „Davidović” Pavlovića i Druga, 1927), 97. 71 Ulrike Tischler, Die habsburgische Politik gegenüber den Serben und Montenegrinern 1791- 1822, Südosteuropäische Arbeiten, Hosch, Edgar and Nerhing, Karl (München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 2000), 178. 72 Dragičević, “Crnogorski Guvernaduri,” 114-115.
28 Despite their familial and political rivalries, the vladika and the guvernador
shared similar struggles. Neither was able to wield effective power over the tribes. Both
of these individuals were viewed as representing the interests of external powers rather
than the good of the tribal federation; the vladika was financially backed by the Russian
Orthodox Church and the tsar, while the guvernador was paid by the Venetian Empire
(and later on, the Austrians.) And, the political accomplishments of either individual
depended almost solely on his force of personality and his ability to work outside of the
realm of Montenegro in order to achieve his goals. This all changed in 1832 when the
position of guvernador was eliminated from Montenegrin politics and all temporal power
was assumed by a young vladika and his newly created government.
The Montenegro which Njegoš inherited from his uncle in 1830 was built upon
this long history of rebellion, as well as tribal rule and it was a tremendous challenge for
him to centralize power in this unruly state. Not only did Njegoš have to break the
continuity of Montenegrin history, but he had to struggle against Montenegrin customs
and belief. In order to modernize his country, he had to change the role of vladika,
eliminate any challenges to his power, decrease the power of the tribes, and keep Russian
money flowing into Montenegro. He would have to create new institutions through
which to rule the country, as well provide the Montenegrins with a means of education.
He also needed to make the Montenegrins feel like they had a stake in this modern state,
so he needed to adapt some traditions to the new system and create new ones, to replace
those that had to be left out. But most importantly, he had to ensure the survival of his
Montenegrins, who were constantly at risk through poor relations with the Habsburg and
Ottoman Empires.
29 Chapter 2: Njegoš's First Years as Ruler (1830-1833)
On the morning of 31 October 1830, Radivoje Tomov Petrović (who was yet to become Petar II Petrović Njegoš), a seventeen-year-old Montenegrin boy, stood in front of a gathering of the most prominent members of his society. He was comparatively tall, around six and a half feet. He had just been informed that his uncle, Vladika Petar, had died the previous day and he had been named his successor. The young boy was quickly tonsured as a monk by the archimandrite of the Ostrog Monastery. He was then proclaimed before everyone gathered to be Montenegro’s spiritual and national ruler for
the rest of his life. Later in life he wrote a poem in which he reflected on this moment when he lost his youth and had to accept “the fickle and changeable world… where freedom is lost and he has to submit to necessity and its every burden.”73 Too quickly he
would learn of the burden of being Montenegro’s vladika. He could do nothing, but watch as the Montenegrin leaders signed documents confirming their acceptance of his as the new sovereign.
Njegoš was a young man who had had no aspirations to rule and had not been trained to live the life of a monk or bishop of the Orthodox Church. His uncle Petar had intended his cousins for that position, but one died in Russia and the other became a
Russian military officer. Thus, his uncle’s testament, written on the night of his death, named Njegoš as his successor. Njegoš spent the next four months preparing to be consecrated as archimandrite of the Montenegrin church and to be recognized as the official and legitimate ruler of Montenegro.
73 Petar II Petrović Njegoš, “Mladost” (Youth), Celokupna dela, ed. Nikola Tomoćić, XI, vol. 1, Pjesme (Prosveta: Beograd, 1982), 126-127.
30 Young, inexperienced, and unsure, he looked back to his uncle’s almost half a
century of rule in Montenegro for an example of how to govern effectively. Then he
turned to men whom his uncle had trusted for advice: Sima Milutinović-Saraljilja, Petar’s
secretary and Njegoš's tutor, and Ivan Vukotić, an emissary from Russia who came to
Montenegro at Petar’s request. Many of the early reforms Njegoš initiated were inspired by ideas from previous vladikas and these men who had been trusted by his uncle.
In order to become the uncontested sovereign of Montenegro, he had to remove challenges to his temporal power. The first three years of Njegoš’s rule as vladika of
Montenegro (1830-1833) were a formative time for him. He learned about his possibilities and limitations as ruler, and most importantly, the limits of his relationship with Montenegro’s traditional protector, Russia. Njegoš inherited not only the position of sovereign, but also a number of long-established problems and a few worn out solutions from his uncle. His correspondence throughout these years was characterized by uncertainty as he tried to adopt his uncle's style of rule in the process of developing his
own.74
Very little is known about Njegoš's childhood and his life up until 1830. He was
born on 13 November 1813 to the Petrovići family in the village and tribe of Njeguši.
Radivoje Tomov Petrović (Njegoš’s birth name) was the second son of Tomo Markov
Petrović, the brother of Vladika Petar, and Ivana Proroković, sister of the legendary
Njeguši Captain Lazar Proroković.75 Njegoš had two brothers and two sisters. His older
brother, Pero (☼1789-1854<), was a prominent businessman, one of the richest men in
74 Dušan Vuksan, “Poslanice Vladike Rade,” (Messages from Vladika Rade,) Zapisi, X, XVIII, 5;6, 295-304;359-367: (Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva, 1937), 295. 75 His parents were from two of the more prominent families in Montenegro. Njegoš’s father Tomov was born in 1762/1763 and died in 1858, seven years after his son. Njegoš’s mother’s birth year is not known and the date of her death is uncertain, but later than Njegoš’s.
31 Montenegro who under Njegoš became the President of the Montenegrin Senate.
Njegoš’s younger brother Joko (☼1821/22-1836<) died in the Battle of Grahovo.
Njegoš's family was well established in its tribe and its nahija, as evidenced by the prominent marriages of his two sisters.76 Yet their lives were not significantly different from that of other Montenegrins. Their home, constructed from the stone of the surrounding mountains, contained only one floor, had no windows or chimney, and housed livestock as well as people. Their father owed various debts in Montenegro and
Kotor and the family dressed like simple Montenegrin peasants, a tradition which Njegoš would continue throughout his rule as vladika.
Njegoš's clan, the Petrovići, had been the dynastic rulers of Montenegro since the late seventeenth century.77 They were part of the illustrious Njeguši tribe, which had
“stoutly maintained” that they had never been vassals of the Ottoman Empire, and
thereby “had preserved 'the spark of Serbian freedom' in all its purity.”78 The Njeguši
tribe was a constituent part of the distinguished Katunska Nahija, which was the first
group of Montenegrins to free themselves from Turkish domination in the seventeenth
century and became, subsequently, the core of nineteenth century Montenegro.79 The
legends and myths of the Montenegrins about their history are intertwined with the
dominance of the Petrovići-Njeguši, who, in many ways, had created Montenegro’s
history. After his succession to vladika, Njegoš would add his contribution to the mythmaking through his poetry and his deeds.
76 His sister Marija married the Serdar of the Kuči, Andrija Pejović, and his other sister Stana married the brother of the Serdar of the Riječi, Filip Đurašković. 77 Vladika Danilo (1696-1735<) was the first Petrović vladika to rule Montenegro. The position of vladika was traditionally passed down from uncle to nephew, as the vladika, an orthodox bishop, was celibate. 78 Djilas, Njegoš, 9. 79 Old Montenegro (Stara Crna Gora) is the term in reference to Montenegro up until Njegoš.
32 Because of his relationship to the vladika, Njegoš had unique advantages over other Montenegrin children. He received an education although he was not trained to rule Montenegro.80 Petar I’s acknowledged successor, Đorđije Savov Petrović (☼1800-
1868<), Njegoš's cousin, had decided to become a Russian military officer after he was sent by the vladika to Russia for a monastic education. Vladika Petar had contemplated choosing a new successor in 1827, when he informed Jeremije Gagić, the Russian Vice
Consul in Dubrovnik,81 that his nephew Đorđije was living beyond Montenegro’s means and “no good will come of it” for the nation. He was considering young Njegoš for the role because “he knows how to read, is of good health, and has a pleasant temperament.”82 Due to Đorđije’s decision, Njegoš became the next in line as successor to his uncle’s position, although he was never formally declared as such until Petar I’s testament.83
Njegoš did not go to Russia, as that opportunity had been squandered by his cousin, but instead was sent for schooling in Boka Kotorska at the same time that Đorđije entered the military academy. Njegoš stayed with an uncle in Hercegnovi (Novi, Castel
80 The vladika's chosen successors were educated in Russia. Frequently these children did not return home, like Petar I’s nephew Mitar, because “Montenegrin youths sickened easily and died quickly on the cold and damp Russian steppes.” Djilas, Njegoš, 32. 81 Gagić (☼1781-1859<) was born in Serbia. He entered Russian service shortly after Karadjordje’s revolt in Serbia at the beginning of the nineteenth century. He had been a close correspondent of Njegoš’s uncle, and became a prominent supporter of Njegoš and his Montenegrins throughout the rule of the young vladika. 82 Petar had hoped to send his new replacement to Russia for a proper education which he “did not have,” but the Russian government was unwilling to waste its money on another Montenegrin child who would die or turn his back on his clerical education, as had been their experiences with Petar’s other designated successors. Petar I Petrović Njegoš: pisma i druga dokumenta, graða, Milović, Jevto, knjiga 2: 1821-1830 (Titograd: Istorijski Institut SR Crne Gore, NIO Univerzitetska Riječ, Arhiv Crne Gore, 1988), 180. 83 Dušan Vuksan, “Vladika Rade i Đorđije,” (Vladika Rade and Đorđije), Zapisi, Godine X, XVIII, 6, 332-336: (Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva), 1937, 527.
33 Nuovo) while he received a basic education from the monk Josip Tropović.84 After this
he returned to Montenegro to assist his uncle in the chancellery at the Cetinje Monastery,
where he copied letters and carried out other tasks for the vladika.85 When the Serbian
poet Sima Milutinović-Sarajlija arrived in Cetinje, he became Njegoš’s tutor while Sima
served as secretary to Petar I (1827-1830).86
Njegoš's time as a student was short and erratic, beginning in 1824 when Njegoš
was eleven, and ending on the day he succeeded his uncle as Montenegro’s ruler. On the
evening before the national meeting that had been called on St. Luke’s Day (31 October
1830), Vladika Petar died at the age of 83.87 He had ruled Montenegro for forty-eight
years, and during that time, had established himself as a beloved leader of his people, a
warrior, and a great religious leader. His death caused anxiety among his Montenegrins
and representatives of the Great Powers. Who would his successor be?
On the day after Vladika Petar’s death, the seventeen-year-old Njegoš was
summoned to the monastery by his relatives. They dressed him in his uncle’s cassock,
“thrust” the vladika’s symbols of power (the cross and staff) into his hands, and shoved
84 Although he was taught by a monk, Njegoš was not learning how to follow the monastic life, but like many Montenegrin children who were taught in the monasteries, learned the basics of reading, writing, arithmetic. Risto Dragićević, “Njegoševo školovanje,” (Njegoš's Education), IZ, I, II, 3-4, 186-208: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore, 1948, 186- 188. 85 Petar I Petrović Njegoš:pisma, 278. 86 Sima Milutinović-Sarajlija (1791-1847) was a Serbian poet and historian who was well- educated and, as an author, well-published. He traveled throughout the Balkans and the Habsburg Empire, rarely staying in his homeland. He was Njegoš’s instructor for a time, but also Njegoš’s friend who greatly influenced Njegoš’s poetry. After Sima’s death in 1847, Njegoš dedicated his poem Luča Mikrokozma (The Ray of Microcosm) to him. 87 For example, in 1825, he ordered two tribes to meet on St. Luke’s Day to negotiate a peace between them, Petar I to Njeguški and Ćeklićki Leaders, 18 February 1825, Petar I Petrović Njegoš pisma, 131.
34 him out to meet the gathered crowd as the new leader of Montenegro.88 Petar I’s
testament was then read to the tribal and clerical representatives of Montenegro and Brda
who had gathered in Cetinje for the skupština, and had not anticipated that they would be
mourning his death instead.89
The testament contained Petar I’s dying requests for his Montenegrins to cease all
internal and external fighting (including with Austria) until St. George’s Day (5 May
1831) and to recognize Rade Tomov (Njegoš) as his successor. The gathered tribal
leaders were faced with a difficult choice: either they had to abide by Vladika Petar’s
requests or to renounce them, which meant forsaking guidance that had been quite
beneficial to them in the past.
There were significant concerns surrounding the late vladika’s testament. Some
of the tribal representatives questioned its legitimacy. They were not convinced that the
testament accurately represented Petar I’s final desires. Many believed that he did not
have the time to prepare his final wishes. Written and signed by the vladika’s secretary,
Sima Milutinović-Sarajlija, the document had not been seen by anyone else prior to its introduction at the skupština. Those who doubted the legitimacy of the testament were disturbed by the requests contained within it.
In his final words, Vladika Petar expressed his desire that the Montenegrins refrain from warfare until St. George’s Day in order to give the Russian emissary time to arrive in Montenegro. This was not an unusual request to make of his people. Although
88 Some of Njegoš’s biographers have depicted the youth as openly reluctant to accept the position of succession. Djilas, Njegoš, 65-66. 89 Along with the majority of Montenegro’s secular leaders, sixteen of “the most distinguished clergymen” attended the gathering as well. Jagoš Jovanović, Stvaranje Crnogorske države i razvoj Crnogorske nacionalnosti, (The Creation of the Montenegrin State and the Developmentof the Montenegrin National Identity) (Cetinje: Narodna Knjiga, 1948), 198.
35 hostilities between warring tribes, feuding families, and antagonistic neighbors were
endemic to Montenegro, it was a tradition in the Balkans for warfare to cease (or at least lessen) from St. Dimetrius’s Day (7 November) to St. George’s Day (5 May).90 In his
testament, Petar insisted that the Montenegrins begin their season of peace several weeks
earlier than in previous years. Still, it was a very bold request to make, since there had been poor harvests throughout Montenegro. Abiding by this appeal meant that the
Montenegrins would not be able to supplement their faltering economy and food supplies
in the winter through raids on their neighbors. The old vladika’s request also left them open to exploitation and attack, especially once nearby Turkish tribes heard the news.
Despite their misgivings, the tribal representatives consented to the late vladika’s wishes
pertaining to the cessation of warfare.
It was routine for the tribal representatives at national and local assemblies to
openly agree to the vladika’s (and other leaders’) wishes, but then ignore them as soon as
they left the meeting. One of the most striking examples of this occured at the 1796 zbor
(debate) which collectively approved Petar I’s Zakonik (legal code). Even the twelve elders who had drawn up the code subsequently ignored these laws after they were put into effect.91 It was easy for the representatives to agree to follow the late vladika’s
wishes for a cease-fire, as he would not be around to make sure they adhered to their
90 This practice was so pervasive, that even the Ottoman Turks adopted these saints’ days as a system for collecting taxes and conducting diplomacy instead of warfare.St. George’s Day and St. Dimetrius’s Day (Kasim) are the “terminal dates” for the winter and summer seasons in the Mediterranean. Starting with St. Demetrius’s Day towards the end of October, harvesting and pasturing, trade, peace, and diplomacy became prevalent as the weather became worse and crops had to be harvested. Traian Stoianovich, Balkan Worlds, the First and Last Europe (Armonk, New York, London, New England: M.E. Sharpe, 1994), 63-64; Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II (New York, Cambridge, etc.: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1972), 246-259; Pejović, Crna Gora u doba Petra I i Petra II, 21. 91 Boehm, Montenegrin Social Organization and Values, 62.
36 promises. The real dilemma was with his other request, the nomination of his young,
untrained, and inexperienced nephew to rule the nation.
Although the representatives had believed that the vladika had called them all
together to discuss his request for a cessation of hostilities, there was no indication that he
had intended to name a successor.92 The chiefs were uncertain about what to do and even
the members of the Petrovići family were divided over the vladika’s testament. Some,
like Njegoš’s uncle Sava, had personal objections to the choice.93 Many of the tribal
representatives objected to Njegoš’s nomination as successor, as they were concerned
that he was not properly prepared to do the job. Those who supported Vladika Petar’s choice may have done so for personal reasons as well, but their motives went unrecorded.
Njegoš’s biggest supporter was his close relative, Stanko Stijepov Petrović, a prominent warrior and leader in Montenegro. He supported Petar I’s testament, urging the other
Montenegrins to do so as well. Because of Stanko’s reputation, other leaders endorsed the choice of Njegoš as successor to Vladika Petar.94
Montenegrin tradition, at least for the time being, had won out; since there was no
monk available, the tribal leaders reluctantly accepted Njegoš as the spiritual and
temporal leader of Montenegro. On 1 November 1830, the Montenegrin representatives,
including Guvernador Radonić, signed a document recognizing Njegoš as their “religious
and national leader” for life. A copy of the letter was sent to the Russian representative
92 In fact, Petar I, unbeknownst to the Montenegrins and to Njegoš, had for some time been considering his nephew for an important role in Montenegrin political affairs. Petar I to Jeremije M. Gagić, Cetinje, 20 Jan. 1827, Petar I Petrović Njegoš: pisma, 180. 93 Sava believed that his son Đorđije, the military cadet, was the rightful successor as he had been the last person officially chosen by the vladika. 94 Such as Serdar Mihail Bošković of Bjelopavlići, Stefan Vukotić of Čevski, and Serdar Filip Đurašković of Rijčka. Dimitrije Milaković, “Istorije Crne Gore,” 283-414 (Podgorica: Unireks, 1997), 412.
37 in Dubrovnik along with a second letter that was signed by all of the spiritual leaders of
Montenegro confirming Njegoš’s selection as ruler.95 In all, there were forty-three
different signatures that affirmed Montenegro’s acceptance of Njegoš as the spiritual and
national ruler. By signing these two documents, the leaders of Montenegro and Brda
were going one step further in acceding to the vladika’s wishes than they had in the past.
By preparing and signing a written document, they were unknowingly taking the first
tentative step in the transformation of their country from a traditional to a modernizing society.
As part of the process, young Njegoš was tonsured as a monk by Archimandrite
Josif Pavičević of the Ostrog Monastery. His first initiative, after being officially recognized as Petar I’s successor, was to inform the Great Power representatives of his uncle's death and of his own assumption of the position of ruler in Montenegro. His first contact was with the Russian Vice Consul in Dubrovnik, Jeremije Gagić. This first letter
was significant because it illustrated the path Njegoš would follow throughout his rule –
of turning to Russia for approval, support, and assistance, but only after Njegoš had done
what he thought was necessary. Njegoš's contact with Gagić occurred almost two weeks after his uncle's death and his own succession to power.
His introductory letter to Gagić described a conversation that supposedly took place between himself and his uncle on Petar I’s deathbed:
I asked him: ‘Uncle, I see that you will die soon, but what will I do now?’ And he straightened and sat up on the bed, and replied: ‘I cannot help you now with anything, but listen to my last words to you: pray to God and
95 Dušan Vuksan, “Kroz Njegoševa pisma,” (Through Njegos's Letters,) Zapisi, XI, XIX, 1, 2, 1- 14; 65-76: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva, 1938, 1. The original letter of Njegoš's confirmation of selection was sent to Gagić by Njegoš himself. 20 October 1830, as cited in Jevto Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, (Njegoš in pictures and words) (Titograd: Grafički Zavod, 1974), 23-24.
38 stay with Russia.’ After he said this, he surrendered his soul into the hands of God.96
Although the scene was somewhat dramatic, especially for an official letter of
correspondence with the Russian Vice Consul, it presented a very poignant depiction of
how Njegoš wanted to be viewed by Gagić and Russia. In the letter, Njegoš openly
stated his intention to follow his uncle’s lead, especially when it came to maintaining
relations with Russia. He had no other legitimate claim to power other than his uncle's
testament, so if Gagić and Russia supported the last wishes of Vladika Petar, then they
would have to approve of him, too. The touching dialogue between the dying vladika and his nephew/successor was not meant to convince Gagić of anything else than that
Njegoš intended to follow the path on which his uncle had already started, one that was materially assisted by the Russians. Petar I had been promised a continuation of the
Russian subsidy by Tsar Alexandar I. This money became an important resource for
Montenegro’s new vladika.
In February 1831, Njegoš was consecrated as archimandrite by Prizren’s vladika
Hađi-Zaharija Ananija at the Upsenski church on the island of Komo on Lake Skadar. At this time he took the name of Petar, in order to show his dedication to carrying on his
uncle’s tradition of rule. But Njegoš made no initiatives as a ruler until one year after the
death of his uncle when he called a national meeting. At this gathering on 2 October
1831, Njegoš took his first steps in modernizing Montenegro and consolidating his own
rule. He created new government institutions, through which he intended to centralize the
power that had previously rested in the tribes. He also introduced the Russian emissary,
Ivan Ivanović Vukotić, to the Montenegrin people.
96 Njegoš to Gagić, 30 October 1830, IP, 1.
39 Vukotić and his nephew, Matej Petrović Vučićević, had arrived from Russia in
September 1831. Vladika Petar had summoned Vukotić, who had eagerly stepped into the role of Montenegrin ambassador upon the late vladika’s request. He had operated on
Montenegro's behalf in Russia for several years until his arrival in 1831. As he imagined himself to be a Montenegrin, Vukotić’s objective at the time of his correspondence with
Petar I was to convince the Russian government that support of Montenegro was a viable way to extend its influence throughout the Balkans.97 Throughout their correspondence,
Vukotić promised Petar a significant amount of his own money to help the Montenegrin
cause. He was also entrusted with the Russian money intended for the Montenegrins, but
he was not able to bring it to Vladika Petar before his death. Although the money had
been owed to Montenegro since 1827, it took until 1831 for the overdue pension to be
sent.98 The Russian foreign ministry provided Vukotić with 7,200 gold rubles, half of the
backlogged subsidy intended for the Montenegrin government, and ordered him to send a report back on the conditions of Montenegro under the new vladika before the remaining
amount could be sent.
Vukotić and Vučićević arrived in Cetinje in September 1831 with Dimitrije
Milaković, who would become Njegoš’s secretary and most trusted companion. A month
later, they were introduced to the Montenegrin people when Njegoš announced his first
reforms in Montenegro. The time which Vukotić spent with Njegoš before his
97 Vukotić was originally from the village of Golubovci in Zeta, a territory under Turkish cotrol. Branko Pavićević, “Pripreme za dolazak Vukotića i Vuèićevića u Crnu Gori 1831. godine,” (Preparations for the Arrival of Vukotić and Vučićević in Montenegro in 1831), IZ, Godine XXI, XXV, 1968, 533. 98 Pavićević, “Pripreme za dolazak Vukotića i Vučićevića,” 543.
40 introduction to the people was crucial, as it is believed that Vukotić had a profound
impact upon the reorganization of the central government.99
On 2 October, Njegoš announced at the national gathering that he was creating a
Senate and Gvardija (national court and police system), which included an elite division of personal bodyguards (perjanici) for the vladika. Vladika Petar had tried to bolster a centralized government, but was unable to make it last. For example, Petar I had attempted to create a senate and court system (Kuluk) that were designed to diminish the traditional powers of the tribal leaders. The Kuluk had been largely ineffective, mostly because the government had lacked the financial resources necessary for its maintenance.
He also convened regional courts (The Courts of Good Men) to resolve certain disputes,
but these were temporary bodies which had to be reconstituted for each occasion. And
Petar’s Zakonik (legal code) was unable to prevent future conflicts or even resolve past
disputes.100 By contrast, the institutions created by Njegoš were immediately put into
effect and they survived as an essential part of the Montenegrin government long after
Njegoš's own death in 1851.
The meeting in Cetinje, at which these reforms were introduced, was attended by
the leaders of Montenegro, and even some from outside of Montenegro, such as from
Grahovo and Kuči.101 Vukotić presented to this assembly a proclamation from the tsar
99 In his article “Pripreme za dolazak u Crnu Goru,” Branko Pavićević, using Russian sources, argued that Vukotić had expressed plans to create a central government, open an elementary school, and exploit Montenegrin resources for Russian purposes as far back as 1823. Pavićević, “Pripreme,” 531-532. 100 Pejović, Crna Gora u doba Petra I i Petra II, 22-23. 101 In his article and the Senate and the Gvardija, Jevto Milović says there were five nahija represented, but he doesn't explain this. Star Crna Gora is considered by most historians to have contained four nahija, so it is surprising that Milović would mention five. (Milović, Jevto M. “Crnogorski Praviteljstvujušči senat i gvardija IZ 1831. godine.” (Montenegrin Praviteljstvujusci Senate and Gvardija from 1831) IZ. Godine XVII. XXI. 4. 758-761: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1964, 759).
41 and a gift of 2000 florins.102 He then distributed the presents from the tsar: Njegoš
received a missal (worth around 500 florins) and a chalice for the Cetinje monastery;
Archimandrite Josif Pavičević of the Ostrog Monastery and Iguman Mojsije Zečević were given the Cross of St. Peter; and the tribal leaders each received three florins.
The meeting concluded with the creation of the Senate, the Gvardija and the perjanici.103
Njegoš created these institutions to alleviate the tensions between the tribes, and,
as a result, strengthen the power of the central government. The Senate, with
representatives from the eight nahije of Montenegro and Brda, had its seat in Cetinje.104
It functioned as a legislature and a court, and it consisted of a president, a vice-president, a secretary, and sixteen senators. The Senate was created as a supra-tribal agency whose members would be able to negotiate disputes between tribes and nahije as protected authorities. It maintained relations between the capital and the rest of Montenegro, as it was intended to replace the power of the tribes by granting certain individuals a place in the Senate in return for their impartiality.105 To ensure that they could remain impartial,
they were paid a yearly salary. This was a new kind of power that was not based on
Montenegrin tradition and tribal prestige. But the Senate alone could not reform the
problems of the Montenegrin infrastructure, as it was unable to implement its own
decisions at the local level.
102 This declaration from the tsar turned out to be a fake. Vukotić then delivered the presents from the tsar: Njegoš received a missal (worth around 500 florins) and a chalice for the Cetinje monastery; Archimandrite Josif Pavičević of the Ostrog Monastery and Iguman Mojsije Zečević were honored “in the name of the tsar” with the Cross of St. Peter; and the tribal leaders each received three thalers. 103 Milović, “Crnogorski Praviteljstvujušči”, 758-761. 104 The Senate’s official title was Praviteljstvujušči senat crnogorski i brdski (The Supreme Administrative Senate of Montenegro and Brda). Jovanović, Stvaranje Crnogorske države i razvoj Crnogorske, 199. 105 Dušan Martinović, Cetinje - postanak, razvoj i turističke mogučnosti, (Cetinje - Its Origin, Development, and Tourism Possibilities) (Cetinje: Obod, 1977), 105
42 The Gvardija's was therefore created to enforce the legislation and other decisions
of the Senate, acting as a kind of “internal police” as well as a local court.106 The
Gvardija had active representatives in each of the tribes, and employed 164 men in its
force. The head of the Gvardija was the captain, who was personally chosen by Njegoš,
a man whom he could count on for his loyalty. While the Senate had been based on the
Montenegrin tradition of tribal representation, the Gvardija was, according to Djilas,
“something new, or nearly so.”107 The real innovation of the Gvardija was Njegoš’s
creation of elite corps, the perjanici.
The perjanici were Njegoš's personal bodyguard; they were “unconditionally and
boundlessly devoted to the vladika.”108 The thirty members of this special division were chosen, not by their position in their tribes, but for their physical strength, youth, and
good looks. By selecting the members of this group himself, Njegoš used the perjanici to assume control of Montenegro from outside the tribal system. The perjanici stood out from the general population because of their rich costumes and weaponry. In fact, the name came from the feather which they wore on their caps (perjanica). Njegoš made sure that his personal bodyguards had exceptional arms and clothing, and they were the first institution to have a national uniform.
The perjanici were unique as an institution, because they were not hampered by the power struggles in and among the tribes; their reputations were made through their service to Njegoš and they were Njegoš's “right hand, eyes, and ears.”109 When Njegoš
106 Martellini to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 20 May 1832, PPNG 1832, 193. 107 Djilas, Njegoš, 91. 108 Jegor Kovaljevski, Crna Gora i Slovenske zemlje, (Montenegro and Slavic countries) (Podgorica: CID, 1999), 16 109 Nikola Škerović, “Perjanci,” (Bodyguards), Istorijski Zapisi, IV, VIII, 7-9, 399-402: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore, 1951, 399-400.
43 began receiving foreign guests in the late 1830s, the perjanici acted as his waiters.
European travelers did not find this unusual, and one traveler remarked why this was a
good use for them: “to secure the vladika against the treachery to which the banquests of
the great have been sometimes exposed.”110 They accompanied Njegoš everywhere and
were a visible part of Montenegro’s government, even outside of the country. Although the perjanici were paid the same as other members of Njegoš's government, they received prestige and reputations that were unequalled in the Senate and the Gvardija. These three salaried institutions were the basis of Njegoš’s new Montenegro.
Njegoš believed that a salaried government would reduce intertribal disputes and centralize power into the hands of the vladika. But these institutions were not solely capable of modernizing Montenegro or reducing tribal conflict. The Senate was strongly biased when it came to intertribal relations, as the reputation of a senator came from his prestige within his tribe. The Gvardija, with its representatives and courts in all of the
Montenegro, was in a better position to carry out a disinterested policy. However, despite the fact that the Gvardija and Senate provided a fairly effective counter weight to the fractious power of the tribes, these institutions failed to prevent the internal power struggles that soon developed between Njegoš and Guvernador Radonić, and Njegoš and
Vukotić, the Russian emissary.
When Njegoš inherited the position of vladika from his uncle, he also inherited that position’s chief rival to power: the guvernador (civil governor). The position of
guvernador was, in the words of one historian, “like a flower from a foreign soil, which
was not able to become useful in Montenegro” as it had been created by the Venetian
Republic in the eighteenth century in order to have some influence on events in
110 Paget, “Visit to the Vladika of Montenegro,” 442
44 Montenegro.111 In the nineteenth century, the Austrians, who inherited the former
domain of the Venetian Republic, hoped that the position of guvernador would operate
for them in similar manner as it had for the Venetians.
Because of the position’s connection to the Venetian Republic and the Habsburg
Empire, the loyalties of the guvernador were frequently suspect. Njegoš’s ascension to
power called those loyalties into question. The guvernador was an obstacle to the
vladika’s temporal powers, because he sometimes had equal status when it came to
matters of state. Along with the vladika, the guvernador led the Montenegrins in war,
assembled national meetings, and participated in foreign policy diplomacy. But in
Njegoš’s new system, there was no room for a guvernador, whose roles had been divided
up among the Senate and Gvardija. It is not surprising that the position of guvernador
was eliminated within the first few years of Njegoš's rule, while the position of vladika
began to take on a different shape.
The most recent guvernador, Vukolaj Radonić (1802-1832), had a history of
contesting the vladika’s secular powers. He had utilized the state seal for unapproved
correspondence with Austria and Russia, an act for which Njegoš’s uncle Petar had
removed Radonić’s title and seal.112 And upon the death of Vladika Petar, the Radonići
had proven themselves to be troublemakers. Vukolaj Radonić had proven that he could not be trusted, when he openly opposed Njegoš’s ascension to power, but still signed the document which declared him the new ruler of Montenegro. Radonić’s untrustworthiness
111 The foreign soil to which Tomanović is referring is that of the Venetian Republic, which had essentially created and funded the position of guvernador in the eighteenth century. Tomanović, Petar Drugi, 9. 112 Dušan Vuksan, “Guvernadurovići u doba vladike Rada,” (The Governorship in the Time of Vladika Rade), Zapisi, XI, XIX, 6, 335-343: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Institut i Društva, 1938, 335-36.
45 was further underscored when he secretly met with Austrian representatives in November
1830.113 Once the tribal leaders found out about this, they summoned him immediately
back to Montenegro. They wanted to kill him on the spot, but Njegoš, for reasons
unstated, intervened on Radonić’s behalf.
Njegoš knew that problems with the guvernador would not be resolved without
decisive action. A week after the incident, he hinted in a message to the Russian Vice
Consul in Dubrovnik that severe punishment would be imposed upon Radonić if he did
not reform his ways.114 Immediate action was not taken against the Radonići and
subsequent events in 1830 and 1831 exacerbated the problem and in the beginning of
January 1832, Guvernador Vukolaj Radonić was accused and convicted of treasonous acts. He had written to Russia in the name of all of the leaders of Montenegro-Brda, using the national seal; he had lied to the Senate and Gvardija concerning the whereabouts of this seal; and he had met in secret with a number of people, including the general in command of Austrian forces. As a result, the Senate eliminated the position of governor, imprisoned Vukolaj and his brother in the Cetinje Monastery, and exiled the
Radonići family from Montenegro.115 The Radonići left for Kotor on 18 January 1832.
The complete banishment of the Radonići from Montenegro was not easily accomplished. As the richest tribe in the Katunska Nahija, the Radonići possessed a vast network of family and friends as they had intermarried with some of the most respectable
113 Djilas did not believe the allegations that Radonić had secretly met with the Austrians. He insisted that these were just fabrications of the court in order to get rid of the position of guvernador and the Radonići. There is little evidence to support either claim, but the Senate had issued an official letter which described the reasons for the Radonići’s exile and imprisonment, and this was accepted by the Russians and the Montenegrins, perhaps even the Austrians. Djilas, Njegoš, 82-83. 114 Njegoš to Gagić, 22 November 1830, IP, 2. 115 Risto J. Dragićević, “Njegoševo ukidanje gubernadurstva,” (Njegos's Suspension of the Governorship), IZ, 16-18; Tomanović, Petar Drugi, 10.
46 tribes in Montenegro-Brda, including Njegoš”s family.116 The act of exiling the Radonići
went beyond the elimination of the guvernador's power in Montenegro, as it put the
family entirely outside of the realm of Montenegrin politics and society. This, the Senate
hoped, would greatly reduce the family's ability to avenge their loss of status and power
through krvena osveta.117 Their exile would not have been possible if Njegoš had not first established the Senate and Gvardija to first legislate, and then enforce, the banishment of the guvernador and his family.
The Radonići fled to Austrian territory, an act which exacerbated Montenegrin
problems with Austria. Because the sentencing of the Radonići was carried out in the
presence of a Russian emissary, the Austrian government believed that their exile was the
will of the Russian government. Njegoš and the Senate were quick to inform the local
Austrian commander of the sentence, as they knew that the Radonići would seek refuge
in Kotor. Njegoš did not want them to be harbored in neighboring Habsburg territory,
because it kept alive the possibility of revenge.118 He did not know that the Austrians
were reluctant to admit the family because of “sanitation restrictions” due to a recent
outbreak of cholera. But the Dalmatian government knew that they also had to reward
the guvernador’s “frequent and beneficial clandestine communications from
Montenegro.”119 At the end of January, Njegoš issued a second request that the Radonići
116 Jagoš Jovanović, “Uloga Vukotić i Vučićević u Crnoj Gori,” (“The Role of Vukotić and Vućičević in Montenegro”), IZ, 1951, 295. 117 Petar Stojanović, “Progonstvo iz zemlje kao mjera odmazde i prevencije u Crnjoj Gori u Sjevernoj Albaniji: osvrt na stanje u XIX i na poèetku XX vijeka,” (Exile from the land as a measure of retaliation and prevention in Montenegro and Northern Albania: a review of the situation in the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century), Glasnik Cetinjskog Muzeja, IX, 5-32: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva, 1976, 19. 118 Njegoš to Martellini, 6/18 January 1832, PPNG 1832, 15; Martellini to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 18 January 1832. 119 Martellini to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 18 January 1832, PPNG 1832, 16.
47 not be permitted to stay in the city of Kotor, but be relocated to a more remote location in
the region.120 The Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo (the governing body for Austrian
Dalmatia) decided that the “large family” (six houses) of the Radonići should be
transferred from Kotor to Castelnuovo in order to comply with the vladika’s wishes and,
therefore, keep the peace with Russia.121
Although a Russian protectorate had not been formally established in
Montenegro, the Austrians believed that Montenegro had Russia's unconditional support.
The arrival of the Russian emissary Vukotić had only further confirmed their suspicions.
Throughout the years of 1831 and 1832, Vienna received a series of alarming reports from informants and agents in Montenegro. Vukotić was said to be interfering with the temporal powers of the archimandrite, touting himself as “General of his Majesty the
Tsar” and announcing that Montenegro’s historical borders must be reestablished.122 On the day he was “nominated” to the position of President of the Senate, Vukotić held a large luncheon (around 200 guests) in honor of the health of the Russian tsar and family.123
The Austrians were starting to believe that Njegoš’s reforms, especially in regards
to strengthening the central government, were part of a Russian plan to gain a stronghold
in the Balkans. Austrian reports about Vukotić’s actions, although contradictory and
unreliable, were written under the assumption that the Russian government had gained
total power in Montenegro through their emissary.
120 Martellini to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 19 January 1832, PPNG 1832, 22; 121 Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Martellini, 27 January 1832, PPNG 1832, 28; Dragićević, “Njegoševo ukidanje gubernadurstva,” 135. 122 This mean the return of Boka Kotorska, which was Austrian controlled, to Montenegrin hands. Stocka to Lillienberg, 15 March 1832, PPNG 1832, 82. 123 Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Sedlnitzky, 23 February 1832, PPNG 1832, 54.
48 In reporting to other branches of the government in Dalmatia, Austrian
representatives throughout the Balkans expressed alarm at the changing circumstances in
Montenegro. The dismissal of the guvernador and the exile of his family were depicted
by Austrian officials as a “revolution [which] has broken out in Montenegro.”124 The
reports expressed increasing concern that the Montenegrins were mobilizing war
munitions and supplies. The transport of two cannons to the Stanjevići Monastery so alarmed the regional commander of Kotor that he insisted on military reinforcements for the entire region.125 In preparation for revolution, the Austrians in Kotor were busy
compiling their own stock of munitions, ordering gunpowder and lead bullets from
Trieste and amassing troops along the border, with regular border patrols to protect them
from the “barbarous, thievish, and well-armed nation” next door.126
The Austrians were wrong in assuming that the Montenegrins were arming themselves in order to launch an attack on Austrian territory. Under the influence of the the Russian emissary Vukotić, the Montenegrins were preparing for an attack on Ottoman territory. Vukotić had long believed that Montenegro must regain possession of
Podgorica (in Zeta) in order to be better able to feed its people; perhaps he also had hoped to win back his birthplace for his recently adopted nation.127 Soon after his arrival
in Cetinje, he began to push for military action to seize this territory. He persuaded
Njegoš and the tribal leaders that an attack should be launched in early March 1832.
Assiging himself the title of “General,” Vukotić led one of the three attack divisions,
Njegoš another.
124 Stocka to Lillienberg, 1 February 1832, PPNG 1832, 33. 125 Martellini to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 12 March 1832, PPNG 1832, 78. 126 Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Mittrowsky and Sedlnitzky, 2 February 1832, PPNG 1832, 41; Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Mittrowsky, 23 February 1832, PPNG 1832, 55. 127 Pavićević, “Pripreme za dolazak Vukotića i Vuèićevića u Crnu,” 534.
49 Podgorica, at that time a walled city, was able to withstand the attack of the
Montenegrin army and the battle lasted only eight days. The offensive was a clear failure
and, despite the relatively small number of casualties, it embittered the young vladika
against Vukotić. This was Njegoš’s only experience at war, and he quickly found out
that he could not live up to his uncle’s military prowess. Because of the attack on
Podgorica, the Russian government became dissatisfied with Montenegro and its young
vladika.
The failed attack on Podgorica prompted the Russians to reprimand the
Montenegrins. The Russian foreign ministry was quite fearful that this unsanctioned
initiative of the Montenegrins might have undesirable repercussions in the Balkans.
Knowing that a harsh letter would not be enough, they sent the Russian Vice Consul in
Dubrovnik, Jeremije Gagić, to Cetinje with instructions “to bring Montenegro to its senses.”128
Gagić arrived in Kotor on 25 June 1832, three months after the attack on
Podgorica. He had given Njegoš and his government very little warning about his arrival,
and there was little time to assemble all of the Montenegrin representatives for a national
skupština on 28 June. At this meeting, Gagić read a pre-written document from the tsar’s
foreign secretary, Count Nesselrode. The letter addressed the issues of the vladika’s
subsidy (which had not been received for some time), the purpose of Vukotić and
Vučićević’s trip to Montenegro, and Montenegro’s policy toward the Ottoman Empire.
Nesselrode advised the Montenegrins to refrain from taking up any position against the
128 As cited in Dušan Vuksan, “Gagićeva misija 1832 y Crnoj Gori,” (Gagić's 1839 Mission to Montenegro), Zapisi, XIX, 3, 129-138: Mart 1938, 129.
50 Porte, as by doing this they revoked their right to claim “charity” from Russia. The assembly was also warned to be careful in their relationship with Austrian Dalmatia.
The overriding purpose of this meeting was to threaten the Montenegrins into compliance with Russian policies in the Balkans or otherwise suffer the consequences
(Russian protection and material assistance would be withdrawn.)129 The tribal and
clerical representatives, after hearing the requests made by the Russian government
through Gagić, “solemnly took an oath” to follow Russian advice. To formalize the
matter, the literate attendees signed the meeting’s minutes.130 Gagić sent a copy of the meeting’s signed minutes back to the Russian foreign office complete with a small report on the information he gathered on Montenegro in the short time he was there (an
unannounced secondary purpose to his visit.)
Gagić’s report described the Montenegrin government as simple but organized to
answer the will of the people. He seemed concerned, though, that the President of the
Senate was Vukotić, and not Njegoš, “who was the ‘head of the nation’ as the
Montenegrins called him.” Gagić believed that in order for Montenegro to maintain its
current political status, it needed at least 3,000 ducats yearly, for “without this it would
only destroy itself” and resume its former condition of anarchy. He asked the Russians to
129 Catharine II had demanded that the Montenegrins get rid of Sćepan Mali, a man who claimed to be her murdered husband (Peter III) and was accepted as the ruler of Montenegro. In a letter to the Montenegrins, she told them they had to get rid of him or the Russians will “find ourselves in the disagreeable necessity not only of depriving you of our Imperial protection and of all those bounties which you can expect from time to time of our Imperial generosity in accordance with past examples, but of taking such measures as will no less effectively fulfill our wish, even if we must circumvent you and bring injury and ruin upon the Montenegrin people…” Michael Boro Petrovich, "Catherine II and a False Peter III in Montenegro," American Slavic and East European Reviews 14, 2, 177. 130 There were only six signatures, as the majority of Montenegrins, even their leaders, were illiterate. Vuksan, “Gagićeva misija 1839 y Crnoj Gori,” 134n.
51 sympathize with, rather than criticize, the Montenegrins for some of the things they did,
including the attack on Podgorica, because of their “desperate circumstances:”
Rocky, wild and sterile Montenegro [is] without any kind of industry or trade, and [has] no communication with anyone except for the Austrians… [The Montenegrins were] surrounded by and irreconcilable with the Turks, their enemies with whom they were not in a position to fortify a peaceful existence.
According to his report, the Montenegrins were only “defending their greatest wealth -
their freedom.”131
Gagić was a pragmatic politician who realized that his job as Vice Consul would
be made easier if the Montenegrins were not so much of a problem. To this end, he
recommended that the rich historical area of Zeta, of which the Montenegrins had tried to
gain control in their attack on Podgorica, be yielded to Montenegro so that it could feed its own people. But the Russian government was not willing to support Montenegrin claims for fear of upsetting its relations with the Ottoman Empire; access to the
Bosphorous weighed too heavily on their minds.
A year after Gagić’s visit, the Montenegrin Senate decided that Njegoš needed to
go to Russia to be officially consecrated as vladika by the Russian Holy Synod. Njegoš
eagerly acceded to this request, as he already decided that this was an important step to
secure his position in Montenegro. But to Russian officials thought Njegoš’s request to
visit Russia seemed rather audacious for such an inexperienced ruler.
Njegoš had first approached Gagić about a trip to Russia in May 1831. At that time, Gagić had been opposed to it.132 He had advised the young vladika that it was a
131 This phrase would appear frequently in Njegoš’s correspondence. Vuksan, “Gagićeva misija 1832 u Crnoj Gori,” 135-137. 132 Njegoš to Gagić, 26 May 1831, IP, 7.
52 very inopportune time to be traveling.133 He believed that Njegoš was too inexperienced
as a ruler and a statesman, and warned him that he could serve his people better by
remaining in the country:
I would not advise you to leave Montenegro and proceed to Russia… where they would question what kind of shepherd you are to leave in a time of tumult and discord among your herd and deliver them to the wolves for plundering.134
Gagić was concerned that Njegoš could destroy his reputation in Russia by going to St.
Petersburg without a “great and important cause.”135
On 4 June 1833, a national sobranije (council) decided that it was in the national
interest to send Njegoš to Russia and have the tsar make him the metropolitan of
Montenegro.136 Njegoš briefly informed Gagić of his plans to travel within the next eight
days, leaving him no opportunity to object.137 Njegoš departed Cetinje for Kotor on 15
June 1833, leaving Vukotić, who was now gravely ill, in control of the country. On 19
June, Njegoš and company sailed for Trieste where he stayed for three days before continuing on to Vienna.138
The Montenegro Njegoš left behind had grown increasingly stable. During the second half of 1832, there were no major conflicts with the Turks and Russian monies were being regularly received. The Senate and Gvardija were functioning, in his
133 Gagić reasons were: the Russian emissary, Vukotić, was to arrive soon in Montenegro, disease (cholera) was rampant in the Balkans, and Russia was at war with Poland. 134 As cited in Risto J. Dragićević, “Crna Gora za vrijeme prvog Njegosevog odlaska u Rusiju,” (“Montenegro at the Time of Njegos's First Departure to Russia”), IZ, VIII, XI, 1-2, 155-172: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva, 1955, 156. 135 Dragićević, “Crna Gora za vrijeme prvog Njegosevog odlaska u,” 157. 136 Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 39. 137 Njegoš to Gagić, 26 May 1833, CD I, 162. 138 Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 40.
53 absence, as a centralized government. And the main challenge to the vladika’s power,
the guvernador, was banished from the land.
Njegoš was eager to see the world, as his predecessors had done, for he had never
traveled any further than Hercegovina and Boka Kotorska. This trip to St. Petersburg
would not only provide him legitimacy for his rule based on the Russian government, but
it would instill in him a new found confidence as ruler of Montenegro. Prior to his trip, he had relied heavily upon his uncle’s example to rule, but he would quickly learn that
this would not sustain him throughout his time as vladika. Njegoš now sensed that he
had to learn how to make the position his own. And it was his trip across Europe to the
Russian capital which inspired him to do this.
54 Chapter 3: Njegoš’s Reforms and the Russians (1834-1836)
Njegoš’s first trip to Russia was a decisive moment for him as the ruler of
Montenegro. The extended financial support he received from St. Petersburg enabled him to solidify his power in Montenegro, but, even more importantly, the official recognition of his position in Montenegro by Tsar Nicholas I gave him the legitimacy to gather all secular power for himself in Cetinje. This journey provided him with the opportunity to participate actively in the world of European diplomacy, as he traveled through several European capitals. It also offered him a new perspective on Montenegro; through his travels, he came to realize the isolation of his country, his people, and himself from the rest of Europe. His first published collection of poetry, the aptly titled “The
Hermit of Cetinje” (Pustinjak Cetinjski), reflected on how Njegoš perceived his position in both Europe and Montenegro, a theme that frequently occurred in his poetry and his letters.139
Njegoš’s trip across Europe to the Russian capital took him through the major
cities of Central and Eastern Europe: Dubrovnik, Trieste, Ljubljana, Vienna, Leipzig,
Warsaw, and finally, St. Petersburg. Unlike many of his fellow Montenegrins who had
never traveled beyond the Ottoman bazaars, Njegoš was able to see the world and
became Montenegro's sole connection to it.
Perhaps the most important stop which Njegoš made was the two weeks he spent in Vienna. During his first visit to the Austrian capital, he introduced himself as a poet and a literary patron in the South Slavic world. In Vienna, Njegoš met the famous
139 The Mountain Wreath was the most notable example of this, as one of Njegoš’s central characters, Vladika Danilo (Njegoš’s ancestor), laments: “What can I do? Who is there to help me?... I’m a lone straw tossing in the whirlwind, a sad orphan without friend or kinfolk.” (lines 33-35).
55 Serbian linguistic reformer, poetry collector, and patriot, Vuk Stefanović Karadžić. Vuk
had been an acquaintance of Njegoš's uncle Petar, but the relationship between the young vladika and this Serbian literatus was quite different. In Vuk, Njegoš found someone
with whom he could converse about poetry and literature; in Njegoš, Vuk found a
potential publisher and source of Montenegrin epic poetry.140 Vuk was instantly
impressed with the young vladika:
Petar Petrović is not yet twenty years old, but bigger and more handsome than any grenadier in Vienna! Not only does he write fine verses… He thinks that there is no finer language in the world than our popular tongue (and he's right to think so, even if it were not true).141
Njegoš’s relationship with Vuk Karadžić was unique and noteworthy. They both shared a love for literature and for Serbdom. With other individuals whom he met, his rapport was more businesslike, especially when the individuals were politically significant to his role as European statesman. Njegoš’s first trip to Russia was the most positive of his many attempts to visit the capital. The Russian Tsar had decided “to impress the world at large” by lending “special significance” to Njegoš’s consecration.142
When Njegoš arrived in St. Petersburg on 20 July 1833, he was received as the
guest of the Russian Tsar and the imperial government. Milovan Djilas depicts Njegoš’s
first trip as an eye-opener for the young vladika: “From his troubles to his woes, his sandals and his goats, a Montenegrin lad had been thrust into an imperial court whose
140 Oddly enough, it would be Njegoš who asked Vuk to publish something for him after their first meeting, as the printing press had not been established yet in Montenegro. Njegoš asked Vuk to have his first collection of poetry published, Glas Kamenštaka (Voice of the Highlander), which Vuk was not able to do. Njegoš to Vuk Karadžić, August 1833, CDI, 164, and 23 August 1833, 165. 141 Vuk Karadžić to to Archimandrite Lukian Mušički, 22 August 1833, in Duncan Wilson, The Life and Times of Vuk Stefanović Karadžić, 1787-1864: Literacy, Literature, and National Independence in Serbia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 274 142 This was perhaps a demonstration of Nicholas’s devotion to Pan-Slavism. Djilas, Njegoš, 113.
56 oriental splendor was all the more dazzling because it cultivated the Western manner.”143
Njegoš believed that he was warmly received in the Russian capital, and in comparison to his later trips, this was true. He enjoyed the “gracious attention” he received towards himself and his homeland.144 Njegoš was overwhelmed by the size of St. Petersburg:
The vastness of the city, the symmetry of its streets, the majesty of its buildings, and thousands of similar sights, all new to me, are the cause of my tardiness [to write]. Is it any wonder that I am tardy and find it hard to sit down and write when I hardly know if I am on earth, for I think that I have been lifted by the wings of Daedalus to observe from the air, as in a dream, the capital of a truly great tsar who is one with us in religion and race… Every unbiased person who comes here must and will say, ‘The Russian people are great, and the tsar of the Russian people is great. The omnipotent hand of the Creator has poured blessings on the tsar of Russia and on his house. The omnipotent will of the Creator has raised Russia to such a height. The omnipotent hand of the Master has showered the rich gifts of enlightenment and philanthropy on Russia’s nobles.’145
He was even more impressed by the Russian Holy Sinod and Tsar Nicholas.
On 18 August 1833, in the Spasopreobraženski Cathedral, Njegoš was made the
Metropolitan of the Montenegrin Orthodox Church. He was the first (and last) ruler of
Montenegro to receive such an honor. The ceremony, which was conducted in the presence of the tsar, gave Njegoš a unique opportunity to speak with this important figure in European diplomacy. As impressed as he was with the majesty and splendor of St.
Petersburg, he was even more in awe of Russia’s Tsar, who had advised him to be not only a clergyman, but a warrior for his people. Njegoš later turned to the tsar, at many points in his career, to plead for his direct intervention.
143 Unfortunately, much of the correspondence which Njegoš carried on from Russia has not been preserved, that is if it ever existed. The information concerning his first trip, then, is not as precise as that which is available concerning his second visit to Russia in 1837. See the article by Risto J Dragičević, “Crna Gora za vrijeme prvog Njegosevog odlaska u Rusiju,” (“Montenegro at the Time of Njegos's First Departure to Russia”), IZ, VIII, XI, 1-2, 155-172: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva, 1955; Djilas, Njegoš, 113. 144 Njegoš to K. K. Rodofinikin, 18 December 1833, CDI, 181. 145 Njegoš to Karadžić, 1833, IP, 16. English translation from Djilas, Njegoš, 114.
57 Njegoš left Russia one month after his consecration. He stayed in Kotor for three
days before arriving in Cetinje, on 11 December 1833, where one hundred Montenegrins
greeted him outside of the city. He had been away from Montenegro for six months, almost a sixth of his time as ruler. He brought back with him purchases from Russia to update life in Cetinje: church and school books, tableware, some small ovens, church
vestments, and a printing press.146 Njegoš was preparing to set up a publishing house and
a school in the monastery, as well as a place to receive foreign guests.
Njegoš’s warm reception in the tsar’s capital gave him a new confidence in his
own abilities to rule. Now he had more than his uncle’s final wishes to support his
sovereignty – he had the open backing of one of the greatest empires in Europe. It was of no small consequence to have been formally recognized by the Russian Tsar and Holy
Synod as the legitimate ruler of Montenegro. Djilas believed that, because of this
Russian trip, Njegoš “came of age and attained maturity as a ruler.”147 As he had already
exiled the traditional challenger to the vladika's power, the guvernador, he now had to
take back the remaining secular control which the Russian emissary and now President of
the Senate, Vukotić, had seized from him.
This task was made easier by the departure of Vukotić, who, because of failing
health, left Cetinje to seek “doctoring,” but did not return. For once Njegoš benefited
from Montenegro's lack of doctors, as Vukotić had to leave behind any influence he might have gained from Njegoš's departure in order to seek treatment for a chronic
146 These items alone modernized the Cetinje Monastery, which during the time of Petar I did not even have an oven. Njegoš returned with the following “civilized” items: several pieces of home furniture, a bundle of bed things, four bundles of linens, four pieces of ovens, silver setting for 18 people, silver watches, 400 different Russian books, four small bronze guns As cited in Dragićević, “Crna Gora za vrijeme prvog Njegosevog odlaska,” 170-171. . 147 Djilas, Njegoš, 127.
58 illness. Gagić, who had only recently become aware of Vukotić's actions in Montenegro
and the national leaders’ disapproval of his power. He made up for his previous
overestimation of Vukotić’s usefulness by encouraging him to leave Montenegro before
Njegoš returned from Russia.148 The disastrous Podgorica campaign and his failing
health had prevented Vukotić from seizing secular control in Njegoš’s absence.
Njegoš returned from St. Petersburg as a stronger leader. His consecration as
metropolitan, although orchestrated by the Holy Synod, actually bestowed upon Njegoš
political prestige, because the tsar participated in the ceremonies. And during this trip,
Njegoš had successfully renegotiated Montenegro’s yearly subsidy from Russia. During
the last years of Vladika Petar’s rule, the pension from Russia had not been regularly
received and Njegoš realized that he could not make financial ends meet on his own.149
The money which Njegoš received from St. Petersburg, as one historian described it, was like a “beautiful rain which fell on the country;”150 it enabled Njegoš to pay the salaries
of his Senate and police force, as well as institute social reforms upon his return from
Russia.
Although the tsar officially recognized Njegoš as ruler of Montenegro, the
Russian government did not commit any further to the protection of the Montenegrins,
perhaps hoping that giving Njegoš financial assistance made the matter unnecessary. The
Russians had, for some time, been avoiding a declaration of total protection for
Montenegro, despite the promise they had made to the skupština in 1832. Most likely
148 Dragićević, “Crna Gora za vrijeme prvog Njegoševog odlaska,” 161-162. 149 The latest pension, which had been granted to Vladika Petar by Tsar Alexander I, amounted to 300 sequins yearly (which was delivered in three installments), but this money had only been received for the years 1825, 1826, and 1827.1000 cekina (sequins) was equal to 27,505 Russian rubles in 1833. Pavićević, “Pripreme za dolazak Vukotić,” 530. 150 Tomanović, Petar Drugi, 67.
59 this was because the conditions for this, that the Montenegrins live in peace with their neighbors, had not been met. Weekly raids into neighboring territories (both Austria and
Turkey) had become more frequent as the nation lacked the resources to sustain itself.
Njegoš was not content with the status of Russian patronage, as he believed that he had done everything within his power to meet Russian expectations.
Patronage aside, Njegoš's first trip to Russia was a financial success and a
“cultural turning point” for Montenegro.151 With Russian money, Njegoš bought a printing press. He paid 3,000 rubles for it and it did not come with a complete collection of church or literary letters. Although small and incomplete, it was the beginnings of
Njegoš’s small publishing establishment in the Cetinje Monastery. Since no one in
Montenegro had any experience with the technology, he brought over a Russian publisher/typesetter, Mihail Petrov, to run the press and train others in its usage.152
Njegoš was unable to immediately begin publishing, as the printing press, its publisher, and his books failed to arrive with him in Cetinje in December. They were held up in Kotor, because they had to be approved by the Austrian censor before they were permitted to leave Austrian territory.153 When the printing press arrived, Njegoš had to ask Vuk Karadžić to purchase the missing type, including the apostrophe and the abbreviations for the months, and to send to him the “special” Serbian letters (љ, њ, and j) that had to be ordered from Ljubljana.154
151 E.D. Goy, The Sabre and the Song, Njegoš: The Mountain Wreath (Belgrade: P.E.N. Publications, 1995), 13. 152 The Montenegrins last had a printing press in the sixteenth century (344 years previously) shortly after Gutenberg’s invention in Central Europe, but it was destroyed by the Turks. Tomanović, Petar Drugi, 49. 153 Njegoš to Gabriel Ivačić, 13 December 1833, 178, and 8 January 1834, CDI, 195. 154 Njegoš to Vuk Karadžić, 20 November 1833, 173 and 19 April 1834, CDI, 230.
60 Even without a complete typeset, Njegoš began publishing a variety of materials: books of his own poetry, literary works of his acquaintances (including Karadžić and
Milutinović), school textbooks, psalters and other church books, an almanac, and proclamations to his people.155 One of the first books published in Cetinje was a
collection of Njegoš's own poetry entitled Pustinjak Cetinjski (The Hermit of Cetinje.)
This collection contained eleven poems, all written by Njegoš the previous year in
Russia. The themes of these poems ranged from religion and Montenegro, to the Russian tsar and family; it even included a sarcastic ode to the Ottoman Sultan (“Odu sultanu turskome”). Through these poems the reader learns about the unhappy fate of the Serbian people, Njegoš’s disdain for the Ottoman Empire, his gratitude towards the Russian government, and even more importantly, his perception of himself and Montenegro in relation to Europe.156 This book, along with a smaller book of poems published in 1834
in Cetinje, Lijek jarosti Turske (The Flow of Turkish Ire), were the only collections of his
poetry to be published on his own printing press. Other poems, though, were published
as events necessitated and even appeared within the covers of the almanac, Grlica (The
Morning Dove).
The most significant publication from the vladika’s printing press was the first
Montenegrin almanac (Grlica), which appeared for the first time in 1835 and was printed
regularly until 1839. This short-lived almanac was edited and administered by Njegoš’s
155 Njegoš to Vuk Karadžić, 19 April 1834, CD I, 230. 156 During his trip through Vienna and St. Petersburg, Njegoš came into contact with the modern world of Europe. He felt, in relation to this world, like a hermit who had come from the wilderness. His wilderness was not full of rich forests and fertile lands, but of karst, mountains, and poverty. Pushkin had described himself as the “Odessa Hermit,” but he was not referring to his political position in the world, as Njegoš was, but to his own isolation from the social situations which he had become used and his desire to fall in love. Djilas, Njegoš, 123; Elaine Feinstein, Pushkin, a Biography (New York: The Ecco Press, 1998), 84.
61 secretary, Dimitrije Milaković.157 Although the contents of Grlica varied from issue to
issue, its set format provides an interesting look into what Njegoš and his government
thought was important information to know about Montenegro and the world. Each
almanac began with a dedication to Montenegro’s youth, a calendar of past “memorable”
events (with an emphasis on those which were important for Orthodox Christianity), the
dates for Passover and other church celebrations, a daily calendar (of dates, phases of the
moon, and saints), seasonal predictions for the year, and a genealogy of current European
rulers. The remaining contents varied, and included information on significant
geographical areas in the Balkans (Montenegro, 1835; Boka Kotorska 1838; and
Dubrovnik 1839), Vladika Petar’s history of Montenegro (1835-1837), Montenegrin
heroic epic poetry (1835-1838), and other poems and morality tales. The main
contributors to these issues were Dimitrije Milaković and Njegoš, usually anonymously.
Milaković provided the brief descriptions and translated some stories and poetry from
Russian for these volumes, while Njegoš supplied original poetry from himself and his
former tutor, Sima Milutinović.
Although the contents of the almanac were written in the Serbian/Montenegrin
language, Njegoš undoubtedly published the almanac for an outside audience, and not his
fellow Montenegrins; the majority of Montenegrins were illiterate and even the local
157 He was not in charge of the 1837 printing, as he was in Russia. Archimandrite Petronije Lujanović, an instructor in Njegoš's school, took over as editor for that year. Njegoš`s printing press was referred to by different names: “u Mitropolitskoj knjigopečatnji” (the Metropolitan`s printing press) (1835-1837) and “u knjigopečatnji Pravitelja Crnogorskoga” (the Montenegrin Senate`s press) (1838-1839).
62 clergy were, for the most part, unable to read.158 Each issue was dedicated to the youth of
Montenegro, and perhaps, Njegoš intended for these issues to be read by these future
Montenegrins who had received an elementary education.
With the books he had purchased in Russia, along with the printing press and
money he brought back with him, Njegoš established the first Montenegrin elementary
school in the spring of 1834. Even though he was the first vladika to establish a school in
Montenegro, Njegoš was not the first Montenegrin vladika who wanted to educate his people. Njegoš's predecessors, beginning with Metropolitan Vasilje Petrović (1750-
1766), had asked for material support from Russia with similar goals, but had not received enough assistance to be able to accomplish anything.159 Montenegro's
subsistance economy, coupled with tribal disputes, famines, and Turkish attacks made
educational goals seem insignificant in comparison to basic survival.160 As a temporary
solution, Vasilje began sending Montenegrin youths for education in Russia, especially
those who were chosen as successors to the position of vladika. It was this tradition
which produced the opportunity for Njegoš to become Vladika Petar's heir to the throne.
Education gave the Petrovići advantages over other families in Montenegro, making them able to read about and experience the outside world.161
158 Milovan Djilas believed that during Njegoš's lifetime, the sale of books in Montenegro amounted to “only one per four thousand souls,” a number from which Njegoš alone bought a third, while the rest were purchased by his “unanimously illiterate chieftains, no doubt thanks to his influence.” Djilas, Njegoš, 131. 159 Pavićević, “Pripreme za dolazak Vukotić,” 551. 160 Pejović, Crna Gora u doba, 231. 161 “Elementary literacy” previously had been taught in monasteries. There were also private tutors, who taught students how to read and write in their homes. Still Montenegro had an extremely low literacy rate. Although it is difficult to know how many Montenegrins were literate in the first half of the nineteenth century, Pavichevich argues that the number might have been one hundred literate men. Helen Pavichevich, “Education and Modernization in Montenegro, 1831-1918,” (Doctor of Philosophy diss., Loyola University, June 1976), 102.
63 Even before he opened the first school, Njegoš was interested in securing an
education for Montenegrin youths.162 By opening an elementary school in Montenegro,
Njegoš provided an opportunity for more families to have literate family members. He
also was preparing a new generation of Montenegrins, those youths to whom Grlica was dedicated, to be able to participate as citizens in a modern state. Thirty students from across Montenegro studied at the Cetinje Monastery during that first year. Njegoš paid for each student’s room and board. They learned reading, writing, mathematics, church history, and Serbian grammar. The students were taught from books which had been purchased from Russia and textbooks which had been published on Njegoš’s printing press.163
Although a tremendous step forward for the Montenegrins, the monastery school
did not seem like the most ideal situation for educating children.164 Archibal Andrew
Paton, a British traveler and diplomat who visited Montenegro in 1846, described the
students as “urchins in drab clothes and close-clipped heads” who were at constant risk because of the powder magazine located in the Cetinje Monastery. But Njegoš believed so much in the necessity of education that he opened another school in Dobrsko Selo (not far from Cetinje) in 1842.165 It seemed that the school was off to a good start, but
education did not become the primary goal for the average Montenegrin, who was
162 In a letter to the regional commander of Boka Kotorska, Gabriel Ivačić, Njegoš requested permission to send ten Montenegrin children to school in the city of Kotor. Njegoš to Gabrile Ivačić, 1833, CDI, 189. 163 These books included the following: Srbiski bukvar (Serbian primer), Srbska gramatika (Serbian grammer), and Preprava za istoriju svijeta (A History of the World). Pejović, Crna Gora u doba Petra I i Petra II, 234. 164 This was probably due to the fact that Paton did not get to meet Njegoš in Cetinje, and therefore was not shown Montenegro as the vladika “gentleman” would have wanted Paton to see it. A. A. Paton, Highlands and Islands of the Adriatic, including Dalmatia, Croatia, and the Southern Provinces of the Austrian Empire, 1 vols. (London: Chapman Hall, 1849), 77, 78. 165 Pejović, Crna Gora u doba Petra I i Petra II, 235.
64 preoccupied by the struggle against Turkish domination.166 This became evident when,
in 1837, the school had to be closed down while it students went off to fight the Turks.
Also, the Montenegrin schools were not capable of providing all students with a proper education, and Njegoš still wanted to send some children to Russia for schooling. He had difficulties finding the means to give students a proper education.167 Still, he was
successful in producing some future citizens; several of the first generation of students to
be educated in Cetinje went on to become important figures in Montenegrin and Balkan
politics and culture, including Njegoš's secretary and biographer, Milorad Medaković.
Njegoš’s embarked upon another social project which would have a greater
impact on the lives of his fellow Montenegrins. He wanted to canonize his uncle,
Vladika Petar, as a saint of the Orthodox Church. As the hierarch of an autocephalous
church, Njegoš, in theory, had the right to name his uncle a saint. However, Njegoš
bypassed traditional procedures for designating a saint.168 Instead, he used his new
printing press to validate his actions. On the surface, Vladika Petar’s canonization
seemed to be a legitimate attempt to reach his Montenegrins, but it was undoubtedly a
way for Njegoš to solidify his own secular and religious power in Montenegro.
Four years after Petar’s death (on 30 October 1834, St. Luke’s Day), Njegoš
canonized his uncle as a saint by issuing a printed proclamation to the people of
166 Pejović, Crna Gora u doba Petra I i Petra II, 235 and Jevto Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, (Njegoš in pictures and words (Titograd: Grafički Zavod, 1974), 52. 167 Njegoš to A. S. Norof, 30 December 1834, CDI, 321. 168 According to Blackwell’s Dictionary of Eastern Christianity, the process of approving a saint (canonization) involved an “investigation of the candidate’s life, writings and influence, of miracles worked before or after death, and of evidence for an existing cult.” After a saint has been approved for canonization, it was traditional to write an akolouthia (written declaration of how the feast day of the new saint was to be carried out) and an official icon was “prepared.” He had only waited four years after his uncle’s death and may have had an icon prepared, but there is no indication that he submitted the other documents (he may not have known what to do.) Ken Parry, and Melling, David J., et al., eds., The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (London: Blackwell Press, 2000), 111.
65 Montenegro and Brda. In this proclamation, he described the opening of Petar’s grave
and the discovery that the old vladika’s body was completely intact. Although some
travelers who had viewed Petar's body instate said that he had been embalmed,169 the
Montenegrins believed that it was a miracle that Petar's body showed no signs of decay
after being buried for four years.170 During his life Petar had been called a saint by his
people and the title was easily conferred on him upon death.
In his proclamation, Njegoš rhetorically asked the Montenegrins if Petar should
be made a saint to be “accepted by God for us as one of his sons.” At the same time he
threatened his people with the ghost of his late uncle: “Saint Peter, in this world and
beyond, will pursue any Montenegrin who fails to maintain concord, peace, and
harmony.”171 Njegoš intended for his uncle to be a national saint for Montenegro, just as
the tribes had their own patron saints.
Despite Njegoš’s obvious political motives, Petar’s canonization was universally
accepted in Montenegro because, as Njegoš put it, the people “loved him …and
considered him a pillar of piety.” And the Montenegrins welcomed Petar I as an
intercessor on their behalf in the heavenly kingdom. Njegoš’s proclamation called them
to gather in Cetinje in order to honor and give offerings to late vladika, which the
Montenegrin people did “with all of their hearts.”172 This could be considered one of
169 Paget, “Visit to the Vladika of Montenegro,” 39. 170 Though it was not official Orthodox Church doctrine, the Montenegrins believed that decay of the body after death was necessary in order “to give eternal life to the soul.” Louis Andrew Vucinich, God and the Villagers, A Story of Montenegro (Buffalo: Buffalo State College Foundation, Inc., 1974), 51. 171 Njegoš to Crnogorci and Brđani, 18 October 1834, CDI, 300. The translation of this final quote is from Djilas, 139.. 172 Njegoš to S. D. Nečaljev, 8 November 1834, CDI, 308.
66 Njegoš’s few openly religious acts, but he was more interested in its “political uses.”173
Although Njegoš left no personal insights into this, or many others of his actions, it is not surprising that he did this to consolidate his people behind his rule. Petar I had successfully ruled Montenegro for almost half a century and had proven himself to be a devoted religious and military leader. Njegoš, on the other hand, had only been in power for four years, and had as yet, little to show for it. By recognizing Petar I as a saint, and therefore a guiding force and symbol for the Montenegrins, Njegoš was legitimizing his own rule in Montenegro. This was only one step in consolidating power in Montenegro behind the central figure of a secular vladika and indirectly involved the will of the people.174
Njegoš’s canonization of his uncle may have fostered some easiness outside of
Montenegro. Milovan Djilas suggests that his actions “provoked dissatisfaction in higher ecclesiastical circles, especially in Russia,” but the historical record has little to say about
this. Despite what the external world may have thought of the canonization, Njegoš was
only concerned with what this would accomplish for him internally. Njegoš's rule in
Montenegro, although so far uncontested, was still insecure and as Djilas argues, he
“wished to lean for support on his uncle's mystical influence, which was rapidly growing
stronger through folk legends.”175 Vladika Petar’s canonization could not have come at a
173 As cited in Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 54. 174 Njegoš was more successful than he could have planned, as St. Petar of Cetinje is still recognized by the Serbian and Montenegrin Orthodox Churches. For example, he can be found in Vladika Nicholas Velimirov`s book of saints Ohridski Prolog, the standard books of saints for these two orthodox churches.Vladika Nicholas Velimirović, “Pravoslavni duhovni centa Vladike Nicholasa Velimirovi, Ohridski Prolog,” 31/18 Okotober, serbian, http://www.vNicholas.org.yu/prolog/ok18.htm. Vuk Karadžić, who was in Cetinje at the time of Njegoš`s declaration of Petar`s sainthood, is probably the source of information that Petar was called a saint during his lifetime as well. See Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 54. 175 Djilas, Njegoš, 139.
67 better time, because Njegoš soon faced a formidable challenge in the region of Grahovo,
an area whose inhabitants claimed they were Montenegrins despite their location in
Hercegovina.
Like other Montenegrins, the inhabitants of Grahovo (Grahovljani) wanted their
freedom from Turkish subjugation, which came in the form of tributes and taxes. As
regular participants in Montenegro’s national skuptština, the Grahovljani thought of themselves as Montenegrins and, therefore, appealed to Njegoš for assistance when, in
August 1836, they refused to pay a tribute (harač) of two silver florins per household to the Ottoman government.176 In response, local Ottoman officials, including Smail-aga
Čengić and Hasan-beg Resulbegović, led troops to attack the rebellious Grahovoljani.177
Ottoman soldiers scorched the area and inflicted, according to Njegoš, “anarchy
and infamy,” by burning houses as they went.178 Men from Grahovo and Njegoš’s nahija
(Katunska) fought the Turks until the house of Javkov Daković, the vojvoda of Grahovo
was besieged. Daković was driven to surrender, and forced into negotiations with Smail-
aga Čengić, when the Montenegrins were defeated by the Ottoman’s superior military
and cavalry. The casualties were high for the Montenegrins: forty-four Montenegrins heads had been taken and over one-hundred people were believed to be dead, including members of Njegoš's clan, the Petrovići (including his youngest brother Joko).179
176 Branko Pavićević, “Njegoš i Jakov Nicholasević Ozereckovski,” (Njegoš and Jakov Nicholasević Ozereckovski), IZ, 20, XXIV, 1, 5-44: Titograd, Organ Istorjskog i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod, 1967, 22. 177 Njegoš to Gagić, 3 August 1836, CDI, 407. 178 Njegoš to Gabrijel Ivačić, 18 August 1836, CDI, 410. 179 Boško Đuričković, “O poginulim Petrovićima u boju na Grahovu (11/23 avgust 1836),” (About the Petrovići killed at the Battle of Grahovo 11/23 August 1836), IZ, god. XXXII, knj. XLI, 4, 103-110: 1979, 103-104.
68 Grahovo was one of the biggest military defeats suffered by the Montenegrins
during Njegoš's reign. It was even worse than the failed Podgorica campaign which had
so angered the Russians, in part because Podgorica could be blamed on Vukotić. Its
devastating effect on Montenegro and its ruler was captured in a national song:
On Grahovo's wide and spacious plain Of Petrović men full nine were slain By Čengić Aga's gleaming sword, To the shame of Montenegro's lord [Njegoš.]180
This loss “struck” at Njegoš's “whole being” because his countrymen were dishonored and defeated and his youngest brother was lost in the battle.181
Russian officials were appalled by the events at Grahovo, and seemed on the
verge of withdrawing all financial assistance because of Njegoš's inability to maintain
peace with his neighbors. In a letter to Gagić, Njegoš defended Montenegrin involvement at Grahovo, placing blame entirely on the Turks who had tried to tax the free
Grahovljani:
You know, Honored Sir, that there are evil and sinister people who are able to incite a nation to rebel and who would be dangerous to the foundation of strongly fortified nations, let alone to this free people, who have never been accustomed to the reins of government being held over them.182
Meanwhile, the Turks, as if sensing Montenegro’s weakness, began massing troops along
Montenegro’s borders with Hercegovina. As tensions between the Montenegrins and
their Ottoman neighbors began to build, Njegoš had to contend with the possibility of losing Russian funding if the Montenegrins defended themselves from Turkish attacks.
180 As cited in Djilas, Njegoš 143. 181 Djilas, Njegoš, 141. 182 Njegoš to Gagić, 13 May 1836, CDI, 404.
69 At the end of September 1836, Ali-Pasha Stočević (the vezier of Herecegovina) and 12,000 soldiers again attacked the Grahovljani, killing forty more Montenegrins.183
Njegoš was outraged this, and in an impassioned letter to Ali-Pasha in October, accused him of treachery: “Why[…] do you not write to tell me that you and your soldiers are going to pillage my people; I am prepared to protect my borders and the people who are mine.” Njegoš informed Ali-Pasha that he wanted to live in peace with the “great
Ottoman Porte” but could not as long as the Turks kept demanding that the Montenegrins pay tribute.184
Because he believed that he was getting nowhere with this correspondence,
Njegoš thought he should travel once again to St. Petersburg to defend his actions.
Before departing for Russia he asked all of the Montenegrins “to live in peace and harmony” until he returned, even though he anticipated future Turkish attacks on
Montenegrin territory.185 Without first gaining permission from the Russians, Njegoš left
for St. Petersburg in November 1838..
Since his first trip to Russia in 1833, Njegoš seemed to have made significant
progress towards modernizing his small nation. The introduction of the Senate, the
Gvardija, an elementary school, and a printing press were visible signs of the changes he
was enacting at a deeper level. But the Russians, who supplied the money which Njegoš
used to initiate reform, were more interested in the Montenegrins maintaining peaceful
relations with its Great Power neighbors than with structural changes in government. As
the problems with Montenegro’s neighbors increased, especially with subjects of the
Ottoman Empire, Njegoš found it increasingly difficult to please the Russian government.
183 Njegoš to Gagić, 5 October 1836, CDI, 420. 184 Njegoš to Ali-Paša Rizvanbegović, 6 October CDI, 1836. 185 Njegoš to Crnogorci and Brđani, 12 November 1836, CDI, 429.
70 The warm welcome which Njegoš experienced in 1833 turned into a cold shoulder by
1836.
Njegoš’s reputation with the Russian government was in peril because of lies
spread by Ivan Vukotić upon his return to Russia and also because of Montenegrin
actions at Grahovo. He could not risk Russian displeasure, which would mean the
discontinuation of financial assistance, and as a result, a collapse of the government that
he had been working hard to modernize.
Njegoš’s second trip to Russia did not proceed as smoothly as his first, in part due
to his failure to obtain prior approval to embark on this trip. Njegoš and his cousin
Đorđije left for Vienna on 1 December 1836. As he waited in Vienna for permission to travel on to St. Petersburg, Njegoš became desperate. He sent an impassioned plea directly to the tsar: “Look with your honorable and great soul on this request of the
Montenegrin people.”186 While he awaited the tsar’s response, he rented a private room
in Vienna for a month in January, 1837.
During his first trip to Vienna, Njegoš had won the favor of the Austrian
Chancellor Metternich, who thought the young vladika, “the head of a violent, warlike
nation,” was leading his people in the right direction, towards peace.187 Like many
foreign officials, Njegoš was invited to join Metternich and his wife Melanie for lunch.
Metternich’s wife was intrigued by the exotic appearance of their Montenegrin guest. In
her memoirs, she described Njegoš as “a giant, who thinks little of his people, if only as
much as to dream about them cutting the heads off of Turks.” Despite Njegoš’s inability
to speak French or German, he was able to convey to Princess Melanie his exasperation
186 Njegoš to Tsar Nicholas I, 23 December 1836, CDI, 432. 187 Vas Popović, “Meternih o Njegošu g. 1837,” (Metternich about Njegoš in 1837), Brastvo, XXI, 178-180: Beograd, Društvo sv. Save, 1927, 179.
71 at always being at war with the Ottoman Empire.188 But her husband was less impressed
with Njegoš than he had been on his previous trip to Vienna. No longer did he think of
Njegoš as a capable ruler, but instead Metternich was certain that the young vladika had
been “discredited” in Montenegro.189
What caused Metternich’s change in opinion? Despite his impatience to travel on to St. Petersburg, Njegoš had treated the Austrian Chancellor with the greatest of respect, and even wrote a poem in honor of Metternich and his wife for the New Year. In this poem, Njegoš expounded Metternich’s virtues as a “wise and sensible” diplomat whose
“intuitive mind” was able to work out the problems of Europe.190 Yet Njegoš had not
even been permitted to personally deliver the poem to him.
Metternich's reassessment of Njegoš’s competency as ruler of Montenegro
perhaps stemmed from the vladika’s deliberate slighting of the Ottoman ambassador in
Vienna, Ferid Ahmed-Pasha. On several occasions, Metternich tried to convince Njegoš
to speak with this Turkish ambassador, but he refused. When Metternich persisted in
urging him to speak with Ahmed-Pasha, Njegoš had infuriated him by replying: “we do
not have anything to discuss with the Turks that we are not able to do with our rifles.”191
Metternich had hoped that a casual conversation between the two might have reduced tensions between the Ottoman Porte and the rebellious Montenegrins. But when Njegoš
188 According to Melanie, Governor Lilienberg, and several other Austrian officials were also in attendance at this lunch, and “assisted in the conversation whenever possible.” Clemens Wenzel Metternich, “Journal de Princesse Mélanie,” Mémoires, documents et écrits divers laissés par le prince de Metternich, chancellor de cour et d'Etat, de Klinkowstroem, M.A., vol. 6 (Paris: E. Plon et cie., 1880-1884), 169. 189 Popović, “Meternih o Njegošu,” 179. 190 Petar II Petrović Njegoš, “Knezu Meternihu” (Prince Metternich), Celokupna Dela, eds. Tomićić, Nikola and Komnenić, Milan, XI, vol. 1, Pjesme (Beograd: Prosveta, 1982). 191 Wilhelm Hope to ?, 5/17 January 1837, cited in Pavle Popović, “Petar II Petrović Njegoš u Beču u godinama 1836-1837,” (Petar II Petrović Njegoš in Vienna in the years 1836-1837), Srpski književni glasnik, XXV, 8,9, 585-592, 677-684: Beograd, 1910, 588.
72 refused even to speak with Ahmed-Pasha, Metternich suspected that the young vladika was not a capable ruler and could not foresee what was best for his people (or at least in this case, what was best for Metternich’s Concert of Europe.) Metternich turned against
Njegoš, making the vladika's reception in Austrian diplomatic circles exceedingly unpleasant.
On 24 January 1837, Njegoš received a message from the tsar’s foreign policy minister, Count Nesselrode, insisting that he return home. The Russian government was adamant that Njegoš return immediately before “crime and murder” revisited his land.192
Instead of convincing him that it was in his best interests to give up, this message only served to fuel Njegoš’s stubborn refusal to return. In the ultimate act of defiance, he declared that he would visit Paris instead.
Njegoš’s reaction to Nesselrode’s letter was immediately reported to the Russian government through their representative, Lieutenant-Colonel Jakov Nikolajević
Ozereckovski. Ozereckovski worked for the infamous Baron Benckendorf, the tsar’s close friend and head of the Third Section (the Russian secret police.) Although he and
Njegoš became quick friends, Ozereskovski was in reality a Russian spy. Njegoš, shunned in Viennese diplomatic circles and misunderstood by Russian representatives, was pleased to meet someone with whom he could carry on friendly conversations.193
As communicated through Ozereckovski, the Russian government told Njegoš that he had to ask the Austrian government for a passport for Paris. But Metternich was also unwilling to grant Njegoš permission to visit Paris, because he believed that the
192 As cited in Jevto Milović, “Wien als erste Station der Russlandreise von Njegoš,” (Vienna as the First Station on Njegoš's Trip to Russia), Sudost-Forschungen, 30, 260-291: Leipzig, 1971, 264. 193 Pavićević, “Njegoš i Jakov Nicholasevič Ozereckovski,” 7.
73 young vladika was a “dangerous young man” who had “impractical ideas.”194 Although
he had once welcomed him, Metternich was now convinced that Njegoš was really too
inexperienced, and therefore unable to “conceal his predilection toward the reigning ideas
of the century;” he could easily “fall into the hands of revolutionary factions.” 195
Because he believed that Austria had a moral as well as a material interest to protect
Montenegro, Metternich assumed that it was up to him to discourage revolutionary ideals
as well as anarchy in Njegoš's country. Yet instead of openly rejecting Njegoš’s request
to visit Paris, he instead informed him that he was unable to grant passports to foreigners.
He suggested that the vladika apply for a visa from the French Consul in Vienna.
Both the Russians and the Austrians hoped to discourage the young vladika from
undertaking a trip to Paris. Through Friedrich Orešković, Metternich learned that
Njegoš's desire to visit France was little more than an empty threat. Njegoš had confided
to Orešković that he wanted to learn French “because of frequent correspondence and
verbal relations with Austrian bureaucrats” and because of “irregular visits of foreigners
to Montenegro.” His desire to visit Paris was equal to his desire to see many other
European capitals.”196 Still, Njegoš was insistent in his demands to visit France. He
believed that no one had the right to deny him a trip to Paris, because “I am a free man. I
belong to neither Russia, nor Austria, nor Turkey, as I belong to no one.”197 Njegoš’s
intention to travel to France was a distraction which kept him occupied while he waited
194 As cited in Milović, “Wien als erste Station der Russlandreise von,” 264. 195 As cited in Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 67. 196 Jevto Milović, “Boravak Antida i Franciske Jaume u Crnoj Gori,” (Antide and Francesca Jaume's Stay in Montenegro,) Istorijski Zapisi, XVII, XXI, 1, 45-68: Titograd, Organ Istorisjkog Institut i Društva SRCG, 1964, 66; Report from Friedrich Orešković, 14 February 1837, in Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 79. 197 Report from Friedrick Orešković, 9 February 1837, in Milović, “Wien als erste Station der Russlandreise,” 278.
74 in Vienna for permission to visit Russia. He quickly gave up on the idea when he
received permission to go to St. Petersburg.
Both the Austrian and Russian governments were relieved that Njegoš was not
going to Paris.198 Yet while the Austrian government was able to relax once Njegoš left
Vienna, the Russians were busy trying to gain an accurate understanding of the
conditions in Montenegro. Not completely convinced that Njegoš should visit St.
Petersburg , the Russian government kept him at a great distance from the capital until
the situation could be further assessed.
Njegoš left Vienna on 19 February 1837, but he was not permitted to travel
directly to St. Petersburg and instead was forced to stop off in Pskov, a city 186 miles
southwest of the Russian capital.199 He remained there from March until May 1837. He
tried to ameliorate the tensions between him and the Russian government, but his letter to
Nesselrode seemed more patronizing than patient: “if you foresee that my arrival in St.
Petersburg will be unwelcome to His Majesty, I would not decide to go for all the
world.”200 Because he was beginning to feel rejected by the Russian government and
Montenegro’s subsidy seemed even more at risk, Njegoš became even more determined to plead his case in front of the Russian tsar. He continued to send impassioned entreaties to Russian officials, arguing that he was doing his best for his Montenegrins, because his “soul cannot tolerate anarchy… I do not have any other means for staying vladika of Montenegro outside of heartfelt wants and good desires.”201
198 Lilienberg to Metternich, 15 February 1837, in Milović, “Wien,” 281. 199 http://pskov.freeyellow.com/pskov/pskov.htm:.Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 81. 200 Njegoš to Nesselrode, 22 February/ 2 March 1837, CDI, 437. 201 Njegoš to Nesselrode, 26 February / 6 March 1837, CDI, 437.
75 Since Njegoš would not return home, the Russian Foreign Ministry ordered
Jeremije Gagić to visit Montenegro in the vladika’s absence. Gagić was sent to gauge the level of approval of Njegoš’s rule and to encourage the Montenegrins to live in peace with the Austrian and Ottoman Empires. He arrived in Cetinje on 16 March 1837 in the company of Njegoš's brother Pero, who had been in Kotor purchasing grain for the starving Montenegrins.202
The primary goal of Gagić’s trip was to investigate the information that the
Russians had been hearing about the vladika, most of which had come from Ivan
Vukotić, who had returned to Russia after leaving Montenegro in 1833. Njegoš had been accused of selling valuables (which had been gifts from Russia) and neglecting the needs of his people. Gagić visited the Cetinje Monastery to question Archimandrite Petronije
Lujanović, from whom he learned that all of the church valuables which had been
received from Russia were “accounted for.”203 On the following day, Gagić met with
senators and other leaders in order to gauge their satisfaction with Njegoš’s rule and the
current situation in Montenegro. From them he learned of the wrongs perpetrated by
Vukotić while in Montenegro and of their preference to be ruled by the Petrovići. The
Montenegrin leaders reminded Gagić that they were unable to live without assistance from Russia, which was why they had sent Njegoš to St. Petersburg to request help from the tsar.204
Gagić, satisfied with the information he had retrieved from the Montenegrins,
returned to Dubrovnik and filed his report, in which he confirmed that the accusations
202 Pavićević, “Njegoš i Jakov Nicholasević,” 14. 203 Tomanović, Petar Drugi, 75. 204 Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 82.
76 made by Vukotić in Russia were all lies.205 Gagić’s report convinced the Russian
government to permit Njegoš to visit St. Petersburg.
Njegoš was unaware of Gagić’s trip to Montenegro as he was focused only on his trip to St. Petersburg. On 30 May 1837, Njegoš finally arrived in the Russian capital – he had left Montenegro in February 1837. He sent a letter to Montenegro’s Senate and
Gvardija, informing them of his safe arrival in the Russian capital from which he hoped he would “not quickly be leaving for Montenegro.”206 During his stay in St. Petersburg,
he clarified his defense against the accusations made by Vukotić against him and
reiterated his request that Vukotić make financial amends for all of the wrongs that he
had committed against Montenegro.207 A day later he wrote a letter to the tsar, asking him for his advice as well as financial assistance for Montenegro because “as you can see, it is not possible for me to rule my nation without help.”208
Njegoš’s defense, combined with Gagić’s report from Montenegro, had convinced
the Foreign Ministry to resume traditional relations with Montenegro. The Russian
government reiterated its financial commitment to Montenegro by promising Njegoš
80,000 rubles over the next ten years. The first installment of Njegoš's yearly assistance
was to be sent to Trieste with Njegoš's friend from Vienna, Lieutenant-Colonel Jakov
Ozereckovski. Through his stubborn refusal to go home and his persistence in protecting
his honor, Njegoš succeeded in defending himself against the accusations made against
205 Njegoš to Gagić, 1837, CDI, 496. 206 Njegoš to Senate and Gvardija, 1837, CDI, 441. 207 According to Njegoš, Vukotić owed the Montenegrins a substantial sum of money. Before he had even entered Montenegro, Vukotić had promised Peter I that he would provide “his homeland” with 20,000 ducats to start, and every year 2,000 more. He later used 5,000 ducats of Montenegrin money to attack the Ottomans at Podgorica in 1832. Njegoš to Rodofinkin, 11 June / 24 June, CDI, 442. 208 Njegoš to Tsar Nicholas I, 125 June 1837, CDI, 443.
77 him by his opponents and had regained the support of the Russian tsar and his
government.
The Montenegro to which Njegoš returned had not changed much since his departure. The reforms he had enacted in 1831 and 1833 were still in place, yet the growing distress of his people could not be quelled by saints, books, or even money.
Increasing tensions with neighboring Austria as well as mounting pressure from the
Ottomans dictated that Njegoš needed to make further reforms in his government, which had been corrupted by the influence of the tribes, so that he could forcefully demonstrate to his people of his commitment to centralization and stability. His most recent trip, and the tribulations that had accompanied it, had further transformed Njegoš into a secular sovereign. He permitted, for the last time, a painting of himself to be done in his church vestments on his return through Trieste in the summer of 1837. He now faced the inquiring gaze of Europe as a prince who wore the native costume of his people.
78 Chapter 4: Njegoš’s and Montenegro’s Image (1837-1839)
Although the Russian government had given him permission to visit St.
Petersburg for a second time, and Njegoš had dispelled the accusations that had been made against him, he was nonetheless regarded as a unreliable source of information about Montenegro’s situation. Too frequently he had not informed the Russian government about his actions until after the fact, including the Battle of Grahovo and his recent attempt to visit St. Petersburg in 1836. He also had left his country in a time of great need, and the Russian government could not help but wonder what kind of ruler would do that to his people.
Therefore, the Russian government wanted to pay closer attention to what the young vladika was doing, and this process was best facilitated by providing Njegoš with money and companionship. When Njegoš left St. Petersburg at the end of June 1837, his return trip was completely paid for by the Russian Foreign Ministry. He was escorted to the Russian border by an equipage of seven horses and his traveling companions, assigned to him by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, were given passports to continue with him to Warsaw. Njegoš would travel on to Trieste, where he would meet up with another companion assigned to bring him to Montenegro. Njegoš sent a letter ahead to Montenegro informing them to prepare for the arrival of a “distinguished” guest.209
This guest, the first Russian to be sent in an official capacity besides Gagić, was the spy from Vienna, Lieutenant-Colonel Jakov Ozereckovski. He escorted Njegoš back from Trieste to Cetinje in order to completely investigate the situation in Montenegro and
209 Njegoš to Radovan Mrčarici-Piperi, 18 July 1837, CDI, 445.
79 possibly influence the vladika to do Russia’s bidding.210 Njegoš and Ozereckovski arrived in Cetinje towards the end of August 1837, and Ozereckovski was introduced to the Montenegrin people at the nationa zbor (meeting) on 3 September 1837. Njegoš
wanted to impress the Montenegrins he had abandoned for seven months, so he
distributed food and wine to all those in attendance (approximately two thousand
Montenegrins). He updated the people in regards to his trip to Russia, informing them
that he intended to make further reforms in Montenegro that would lessen the “local
quarrels and discord which destroyed the relative independence of local communities.”
Then his benevolent demeanor changed when he warned the Montenegrins that peace
was going to be established on the borders with the Ottomans; he threatened severe
punishment for any individual who did not observe this peace.211
Then, Ozereckovski presented Njegoš with the first installment of Montenegro's yearly assistance as a sign of goodwill from the Russian government. 212 Njegoš already
had plans for the Russian subsidy: the first third of it, meaning the amount Ozereckovski presented to him at the meeting, was for government salaries. Njegoš planned for the rest to be used to build a new meeting place for the Senate and a magazine for grain.213
It was Njegoš’s intention to use this Russian money to create an administration
which could function throughout all of Montenegro, and not just in Cetinje.214 He first of restructured the central government, by redesigning the Senate to be totally dependent
210 Jevto Milović, “O boravku Jakov Ozereckovksog u Crnoj Gori,” (About Jakov Ozereckovski's Visit to Montenegro,) Istorijski Zapisi, Godine VI, IX, 1, 114-123: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore, 1953:114 211 Pavićević, “Njegoš i Jakov Nicholasević Ozereckovski,” 6, 12-13. 212 26.666 rubles and 66 kopecks or 11,631 f. 2 k. Njegoš to Ozereckovski, 29 August 1837, CDI, 447. 213 Njegoš to Gagić, 18 January 1838, CDII, 7. 214 Pavićević, “Njegoš i Jakov Nicholasević Ozereckovski,” 10, 15-16.
80 upon him, even for food. He appointed new Senators to take the place of those who had
been in serving since 1831. 215 He placed two family members at the head of this newly
restructured institution (his brother Pero was president and his cousin Đorđije, vice- president) and appointed his reliable friend, Dimitrije Milaković, as the Senate's official secretary. He also expanded the strength and size of the Gvardija, which now totaled more than 400 armed men. He gave a more visible presence to his perjanici by providing them with red caps from Russia that had been embroidered in gold with the initials of their nahija (e.g., NK stood for men from the Katunska Nahija).216 And he increased the
salaries of all government employees. Through the placement of trusted men into
prominent positions in the government and the increased dependence of his
administration upon salaries, Njegoš could be assured that his orders would be carried out.
In order to compensate for increased salaries and government expenditures,
Njegoš instituted a system of taxation in the country. According to the proclamation
issued on 30 September 1837, every St. Mitrov's Day (St. Dimitrije’s Day, 26 October), a
danak (household tax) was to be paid by the entire nation. Each household paid a set
amount based on their level of prosperity which, according to Njegoš, was self-evident:
“everyone knows which class you belong to.”217 Anyone who did not pay the tax would
be treated as an “enemy of the nation and its peace.” 218
215 He hoped that this Senate would be completely loyal to him, but, as he would later discover, even men he had chosen as Senators would turn on him in times of trouble. Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 87. 216 Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi. 85. 217 The richest Montenegrins paid one and a half florins, the middle one florin, and the poorest only half a florin. Njegoš to Montenegrins and Brđani, 1838, CDII, 164; Njegoš to Montenegrins and Brđani, 18 September 1838, IP, 55. 218 Njegoš to Montenegrins and Brđani, 18 September 1838, IP, 55.
81 Njegoš knew his Montenegrins well enough to suspect that there would be some
resistance to taxation. Montenegrins traditionally refused to pay the Ottomans or anyone
else any kind of tax or tribute as it denoted that they were not free individuals to do as
they wished. Yet he hoped that they loved or feared him enough as vladika to do as he commanded, or at least that his government in good enough shape to handle the situation.
When the first tax collection day came, on the first St. Dimitrije’s Day 26 October 1837, some Montenegrins openly resisted paying.219 Although the historical record does not
tell us exactly what happened to those who did not pay, there are some legends that are
still around today which say that Njegoš had to go around to some tribes, armed with his
saber and pistols, to personally collect the tax.
In order to handle this new influx of money, Njegoš created a Ministry of Finance
and he appointed the Senate’s secretary, Dimitrije Milaković, as its first minister.220 The
Minister of Finance was in charge of all Montenegrin resources within the country.
Njegoš retained control over the money that was held in banks and by trusted individuals, which at the time of his death equaled 253,583 florins.221 As Minister of Finance,
Milaković was put in charge of the Russian subsidy, even though it was directly sent to
Njegoš, and he kept an accurate record of tax collection.
The tax system, although not a complete success, did bring in some money that
could pay part of the government’s expenditures. The tax records indicate that not
everyone paid with cash. Some people paid in guns and food, while others were given a
219 The most resistance to taxation occurred in Montenegro's richest nahije, in Riječka and Crmnička. Tomanović, Petar Drugi Petrović-Njegoš kao vladalac, 67. 220 Njegoš to Milaković, 16 August / 29 August 1837, CDI, 448; and Njegoš to Milaković, 17 / 30 August 1837, CDI, 449. 221 Vuksan, “Financije Vladike Rade 1838-1841,” 91-92; Njegoš to Montenegrins and Brđani, 18 September 1838, IP, 55.
82 chance to pay their taxes at another time; some, including Njegoš’s own tribe, did not pay
at all.222 The greatest amount of taxes was collected in the first year, at 14,000 florins
(1837) and only 12,000 florins each subsequent year until 1841.223 But it cost more than
34,000 florins to run the government. Payment of taxes dropped off after that as costs to
run the government rose. For a ten year period, the cost of running Njegoš’s government
was more than 340,000 florins, 73% of which (almost 250,000) went to salaries.224 Yet,
based on projections from Dimitrije Milaković’s financial records, only 122,000 florins
of taxes were collected over this same period of ten years, an amount that was not even enough to pay half of the necessary salaries in the Senate, Gvardija, and perjanici.
Although Njegoš had long term plans to make Montenegro independent from Russia, these figures were not indicative of this change taking place anytime soon. Njegoš understood, at an instinctive level that Montenegro would have to rely upon Russian
sources for quite some time. He put all of his efforts into maintaining a relationship with
the Russian government that would ensure the regular payment of the subsidy.
The Russian Lieutenant-Colonel Ozereckovski was a witness to Njegoš’s initial
reform efforts in 1837. During his stay in Montenegro, Ozereckovski reported on the
economic and political situation in the country, and most importantly, Montenegrin
reactions to the vladika’s reforms. Ozereckovski was an enthusiastic supporter of
Montenegro and the Montenegrins. His weekly intelligence reports described Njegoš as a good leader and statesman and he gave the impression that, for the most part, the
Montenegrins supported the actions of their ruler.
222 Milović, “Danak za 1843,”569-574. 223 The information concerning Montenegro's finances during Njegoš's time is rather limited, as only one book of Dimitrije Milaković's financial records has been found, containing records only for the years 1838-1841. Vuksan, “Financije Vladike Rade 1838-1841,” 91. 224 Rovinski, Rovinski o Njegošu, 188-189.
83 Ozereckovski was not content to merely explain the events in Montenegro, and like some of the Russians who followed him, he had to become involved. He blatently
disregarded Russian warnings to Njegoš when he encouraged the Grahovljani “to throw off the Turkish yoke,” assuring them protection.225 Luckily this promise was not put to
the test. Ozereckovski was over eager to help his Montenegrin “brothers,” but was unable
to offer them any further assistance, becaise he became quite ill at the beginning of
October.226
The Austrian Government in Dalmatia was concerned about Ozereckovski’s presence as another Russian representative in Montenegro.227 Austrian officials deemed
his trip to Montenegro to be a sign of new Russian support for the vladika. They
followed Ozereckovski's steps closely, and when he became ill in October, they were
quick to offer assistance. The Austrians planned on using their local doctor as a spy.228
Njegoš was relieved by the doctor’s assistance for his friend, and was equally thankful that he refused any payment for his services. Ozereckovski left on 22 October 1837 for
Kotor where he would be able to obtain better medical treatment.
During his time in Montenegro, Ozereckovski had developed a strong friendship with Njegoš, who was sad to see him go. Njegoš wrote a poem in honor of their friendship, “Polazak iz Crne Gore g. polkovnika Ozereckovska” (“Colonel
225 Pavićević, “Njegoš i Jakov Nicholasević Ozereckovski,” 10-11, 15-17, 22. 226 Milović, “O boravku Jakov Ozereckovksog u Crnoj Gori,” 115. 227 The Regional Commander Gabrijel Ivačić began a series of reports to the Austrian government in Dalmatia about “individuals [i.e. Ozereckovski] who were in the Vladika's company.” Pavićević, “Njegoš i Jakov Nicholasević Ozereckovski,” 11. 228 He followed in the footsteps of Dr. Nikola Pineli, who had been treating Ivan Vukotić before Njegoš's first trip to Russia. Jevto Milović, “Austrijski izvještač dr Nikola Pineli, jula 1832,” (The Austrian Report from Dr. Nikola Pineli, June 1832,) in Petar II Petrović Njegoš u svom vremenu, Knjiga 5, Posebni Radovi, Milović, Jevto (Titograd: Crnogorska akademija nauka i umjetnosti, 1984). Milović, “O boravku Jakov Ozereckovksog u Crnoj Gori,” 116.
84 Ozereckovski's departure from Montenegro,”) which he published in the 1839 edition of
Grlica. In the poem, Njegoš commended Ozereckovski for sharing his “honest soul” and
“good humor” with him.229 He also composed a letter to Tatišćev, the Russian
representative in Vienna, thanking him and the Russian government for sending
Ozereckovski to Montenegro.230
Ozereckovski was an important source of information about Montenegro, and
Russian officials trusted his evaluations. The Russian government was assured by
Ozereckovski that Njegoš was the right person to be in power in Montenegro: he assured
them that those who opposed Njegoš's rule “were not true Montenegrins” and that Njegoš
was a “great man.” His reports were read by Tsar Nicholas I and many important
Russian officials, including the Russian consul in Vienna (Tatiščev), the Consul in Pskov
(Rodofinikin), the head of the Foreign Ministry (Nesselrode), and the head of the Third
Column (Benckendorf); all of these men had some experience in dealing with Njegoš.231
Even though Ozereckovski's reports about Njegoš's reforms were very optimistic, he was not in Montenegro long enough to see the results, especially the armed resistance and open revolts of the Montenegrins who opposed Njegoš’s new system of taxation. Future reports from other Russian officials about the conditions in Montenegro were neither as positive nor as comprehensive, and the Russian government did not behave as favorably towards the Montenegrins as they had during Ozereckovski's time.
229 Grlica, 1839, 124-125 230 He told him that he and his people were sad to see him go, and that the “wise advice” which Ozereckovski gave them was especially “dear to me” as it “validated” the instructions given to Njegoš by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Njegoš to Tatišćev, 25 October / 7 November 1837, CDI, 475. 231 Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 92.
85 Most of the information which Ozereckovski collected about Montenegro was fed directly to him from Njegoš and Milaković; the Russian government, through
Ozereckovski, might have only known what the vladika and his secretary wanted them to know. Ozereckovski emphasized the important of Montenegro as a strategic place from which Russia could predict European involvement in the Balkans.232 Despite what seems
to be an obvious bias towards Njegoš and his people, Ozereckovski’s reports about
Montenegro were held in high esteem in the Russian government.
When he returned to St. Petersburg at the beginning of 1838, Ozereckovski presented Tsar Nicholas with an album he had made of Montenegro, which contained a
map, sketches of the landscape and people, and a written description of the country.233
He also presented the tsar with a manuscript that contained the first part of Vladika
Petar’s history of Montenegro and Dimitrije Milaković's “A short description of the geographical and statistical nature of Montenegro,” both of which had been published in the first edition of Grlica in 1835. The tsar was so pleased with Ozereckovski's candid reports about Montenegro that he rewarded him with a diamond encrusted cigarette case.
The Lieutenant-Colonel returned to Vienna, where he forged a successful career as a member of the Russian Foreign Ministry.234
Ozereckovski's reports convinced the Russian government to provide a more
tangible example of Russian assistance for Montenegro. Based on Ozereckovski's
232 Ozer conceitedly believed that he was one of the few diplomats at the time who recognized “the essential difference” between Russia and Austria in regards to the Eastern Question. The Austrians, according to Ozereckovski, were more interested in expansion while the Russians were interested in “intervention.” Pavićević, “Njegoš i Jakov Nicholasević Ozereckovski,” 29-33. 233 In the album, Ozereckovski portrayed the “far away country” of Montenegro as “extremely devoted” to Russia and Tsar Nicholas. Pavićević, “Njegoš i Jakov Nicholasević Ozereckovski,” 27. 234 Pavićević, “Njegoš i Jakov Nicholasević Ozereckovski,” 8.
86 information, the tsar had decided that Montenegro’s greatest need was grain, and he
intended to provide the Montenegrins with a reserve that could be used in barren years.235
The Russians government thought that a shipment of grain would not be as threatening to send as a ship of rubles, and could not be misinterpreted by the Austrians and Turks. In
1838, Montenegro was sent 10,000 četvrti (around 2,000,000 kilograms) of grain.
The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs had not anticipated that the Austrians would interfere with the transportation of grain into Montenegro. The grain, according to
Austrian regulations, was subjected to quarantine.236 The first transport of grain arrived
in Dubrovnik at the beginning of November 1838. When the wheat and rye was placed
into quarantine for 35 days, not even Gagić could not intervene to lift the regulations.
Njegoš decided to forgo the expense of unloading the grain and opted to sell part of the
shipment in Albanian markets for corn. He also attempted to negotiate with the Russians
for the cost of the grain to be sent to him instead of future shipments of grain, because
Njegoš thought it would be easier to buy grain himself than work through Austrian regulations regarding quarantine.237 This plan greatly insulted the Russian government,
who believed that Njegoš was more interested in the worth of the grain, yet they finally
agreed to send the Montenegrins 20,000 rubles to be delivered in two installments.
The Russians failed to understand the difficulties which sending a shipment of
grain from Odessa entailed for the Montenegrins. Njegoš continued to plead with them
to send money instead of grain as late as 1841, but his plan to buy grain, instead of
235 Branko Pavićević, “Ruska pomoć u žitu Crnoj Gori 1838. god.,” (Russian Support in Grain to Montenegro in 1838), Istorijski Zapisi, XXI, XXV, 1, 13-19: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Institut i Društva SRCG, 1968, 13. 236 Pavićević, “Ruska pomoć u žitu Crnoj Gori 1838,” 14-15. 237 Njegoš to Gagić, 23 February 1839, CDII,175.
87 having it shipped, was unsuccessful.238 Njegoš’s brother Pero, a successful merchant and
President of the Senate, was in charge of selling and buying the grain. Yet by March
1839, he was having difficulty buying any. The Paštrovići in Austrian territory would not
sell to him because of their problems with the Crmničani, a Montenegrin tribe, so he
eventually purchased grain from the Riječka Nahija, whose distance from Cetinje made it difficult to transport in the winter.239 In 1846 another drought struck Montenegro and the
markets were empty.240 Russian assistance had made it considerably easier for Njegoš to
carry out his reforms, but could not help when it came to famine.
Although Montenegro’s ability to sustain itself in hard times was one of Njegoš’s
long-term objectives, he had more immediate problems to worry about. The Austrian
subjects in Primorije (inhabitants of the coast) were complaining about Montenegrins
violating their territory. The Dalmatian government wanted to use border negotiations as
a way of resolving these issues. Friedrich Orešković, the Austrian spy from Vienna, was
assigned to the border committee in Kotor.
Orešković was sent to Montenegro in part because the Austrians were becoming
increasingly concerned about Njegoš's associations with “liberal” individuals.241 Yet
despite his position as an Austrian spy, he became a close friend of Njegoš, and in 1840
238 Njegoš to Gagić, 28 July 1841, CDII, 367. 239 Njegoš to Gagić, 20 March 1839, CDII, 179. 240 Njegoš estimated that it would take 100,000 rubles worth of grain to be able to provide enough food for the Montenegrins to survive a difficult year. Pavićević, “Ruska pomoć u žitu Crnoj Gori 1838,” 18. 241 When Njegoš invited a French instructor, Antide Jaume, to teach him French in Cetinje, the Austrians were alarmed by Njegoš’s supposed radical associates. Jaume had been residing in Trieste when he met Njegoš through Trieste's French Consul Levesar. Njegoš invited Jaume to Montenegro to teach him French for two years, offering him a gold ducat for every day after his departure from Trieste. The plan was for Jaume to teach Njegoš in Cetinje, while his wife remained in Kotor until a house could be built for them in Montenegro's capital. Petar Kolendić, “Dolazak Antida Žoma u Crnu Goru ,” (The Arrival of Antida Zom in Montenegro), Istorijski Zapisi, I, II, 5-6, 241-247: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Drustva Narodne Republike Crne Gore, 1948, 242; Njegoš to Orešković, 24 December 1837 / 6 January 1838, CDI, 494.
88 he was formally recognized as Njegoš’s pobratim (blood-brother).242 Although he was
unsure about Montenegro’s goals for independence, Orešković was impressed with the
way Montenegro’s vladika handled things.243
Orešković, who came to Montenegro after Ozereckovski left, saw what the
Russian Lieutenant-Colonel was unable to: resistance to Njegoš's reforms. He saw how
the Moračani, a rich Brda tribe, had refused to pay the tax.244 But he also observed how
Njegoš quickly put down the rebellion and he witnessed Njegoš’s attempt to strengthen
his “moral authority” by building a road to encourage trade from the Riječka Nahija to
Kotor.245 This road did not come about, mostly due to a lack of funding, but despite the slow transition, Montenegro was becoming more accessible to travelers from abroad.
Njegoš was slowly able to overcome Montenegro’s isolation by the end of the
1830s. This became quite evident with the visit of the Saxon King Friedrich August II at
the end of May 1838. August II visited Montenegro on a botanical expedition through
Istria and Dalmatia.246 Although Cetinje was only a stop on a tour through the Balkans in
search of rare flora, the visit of this “rare guest” attracted the attention of Europe to
Montenegro.247 The king's visit, for the most part, was short and uneventful. The Saxon
242 Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 162. 243 Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 163. 244 Their knez, who was also the head of the Moračani Gvardija, led the rebellion; despite his high rank in Njegoš’s police force, his loyalty seemed to have ended when tax time came. 400 armed Moračani were prepared to take heads of anyone who opposed them. 245 He especially wanted to funnel the rich trade from Bjelvopavlići into the Austrian markets, thinking that this might also contribute to a more secure peace on Montenegrin borders. Orešković to Lilienberg, 10 July 1840, in Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 157-159, 165. 246 He was accompanied by the Italian botanist from Trieste Bartolomeo Biasoletto (who recorded the King's trip), chief of courts Minkvic, the traveler Mandelslo, the King's personal doctor Dr. Amon, as well as Friedrich Orešković, the Austrian spy, who acted as translator, and the commandant of the Kotor fortress, Teodor Karačaj who had joined them in Kotor. 247 Danilo Lekić, “Francuska verzija o putu saksonskog kralja u Crnu Goru,” (The French Version of the Saxon King's Trip to Montenegro), Istorijski Zapisi, VII, X, 2, 582-587: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodna Republika Crne Gore, 1954, 582.
89 King considered his trip a success, not because he had established political relations with
Montenegro, but because he had discovered several rare plants, one of which was named after him. The details of the king’s trip were reported throughout European papers. Yet these articles contained many inaccuracies that reflected poorly upon the vladika and his people.
Europe’s fascination with the Saxon king's visit was not due to his botanical discoveries. Periodicals in France, Austria, Germany, and Italy carried accounts of
Friedrich August's adventures in Montenegro. An inaccurate and condemnatory French article appeared in a science journal in 1839. It reflected the Europeans' general ignorance about Montenegro, as it contained inaccuracies and deliberate falsifications that conflicted with actual reports. The French article described difficulties the king had in eating in Montenegro, because the people there possessed neither “knife, fork, [nor] other table utensils. The king was only able to eat because one of his officers “hacked
[the food] to pieces with his saber.” The article congratulated the king for “his great
courage” in visiting the “partially civilized…vindictive, blood-thirsty” Montenegrins
“who hated strangers.”248 Another article, which appeared in the Frankfort Journal, a
German language publication, contained strikingly similar misinformation.
These articles, which were published in respectable journals, little resembled the
information found in the true report from one of the king’s companions, a botanist named
Bartolomeo Biassoleto. Biassoleto’s account did not contain the outlandish statements
which appeared elsewhere, such as Montenegro’s lack of utensils or the blood-thirstiness
248 The original and most accurate account was written by one of August's companions, the well- known Italian botanist Bartolomeo Biassoleto, whose work was first published in Italian in Trieste in 1841. “Excursion du roi de Saxe au Montйnйgro,” (The Saxon King's Trip to Montenegro), Nouvelles annales des voyages et des sciences gйographiques, 84, 4, 237-238: Paris, Librairie de Gide, 1839, 237-238.
90 of Montenegro’s inhabitants. But Biassoleto’s account was published much later (1841),
after several of these falsified accounts had already come out. It is possible that the
Europeans did not even give this accurate account a second glance.
Europeans were interested in Montenegro, but not because of its rare flora. As
these articles indicated, Western Europeans were eager for a glimpse into this savage
society, where men ate without utensils. The significance of the Saxon King's visit for
Montenegro was that opened the doorway of curiosity for Europe in such a way that
following the 1838 visit, there would be a constant flow of foreign travelers into
Montenegro.
Njegoš saw the Saxon King’s trip as an example of the necessity of having a place
to house foreign visitors. Njegoš decided to use Russian money to fund a project that had
been suggested to him by Lieutenant-Colonel Ozereckovski. Ozereckovski had offered
Njegoš sound advice regarding the investment of Russian funding into transforming the
appearance of Montenegro's capital, a change that would mirror Njegoš’s political and economic reforms. As he was becoming more of a temporal ruler, or according to
Ozereckovski, more of “a knez” than a vladika, Njegoš needed to transform Cetinje from a religious to secular capital.
Njegoš agreed with Ozereckovski that it was important to shift the focus away from the Cetinje Monastery. He wanted people to come and visit him in Montenegro, so he constructed rooms for guests in the Biljarda, as there were no inns at this time in
Cetinje and he was quite self-conscious about how the monastery appeared to
91 outsiders.249 Vuk Karadžić, in his monograph Montenegro und die Montenegriner
(Montenegro and the Montenegrins), described the Senate in such a way that supposedly
upset the young vladika:
Two doors constitute an entrance into [the Senate]. Through the first door and there is a partition, which served as a stable for livestock and donkeys[…] Through the right door, there is a room full of straw which the Senators use as places to sleep at night, and on the wall they hang their rifles; through the left door on the side wall there is a stone bench, and in the middle on the ground there is a place for the herd and for a fire.250
On the surface, Vuk's description was not condemnatory, as it depicted the building
which housed the Senate as being very similar to a Montenegrin home. Still, there was
probably no major capital in Europe which made its governmental meeting hall open to
its representatives' animals. But Vuk was under the impression that it had upset Njegoš:
“I heard from Montenegro that the Vladika is not very satisfied - but I made no mistake in writing the truth.”251 Vuk’s realistic depiction of Montenegro was an example of why
Njegoš was constructing the Biljarda.252
Njegoš thus began construction of a large government building, which he hoped
would replace the secular functions of the Cetinje Monastery.253 Funded entirely by the
Russian subsidy, construction of this building began in 1837 and was finished in 1841. It
249 Even though they knew Njegoš ruled in what one traveler referred to as the style of an “European aristocrat”, the king’s traveling companions “did not dare to think of [the Cetinje Monastery] as a palace.” Bartolomeo Biazoleto, “Saksonski kralj kod Njegoša,” (The Saxon King at Njegos's,) Istorijski Zapisi, Godine I, II, 3-4, 226-238: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore, 1948, 230. 250 Vuk Karadžić, Montenegro und die Montenegriner, ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der europäischen Türkei und des serbisches Volken (Stuttgart und Tübingen: Verlag der J. G. Cotta`schen Buchhandlung, 1837), 50. 251 As cited in Dušan Vuksan, “Vladika Rade, Vuk, i Kapetan Orešković,” Zapisi, XIV, 6, 321- 327: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva, 1935, 321. 252 M.T. Selesković, “Poseta Gustava ritera fon Franka Njegošu,” (Gustav Ritter von Frank's visit to Njegoš), Letopis Matice Srpske, 306, 34-47: Novi Sad, Matica Srpska, 1925, 35. 253 At the time of Ozereckovski’s visit, Cetinje consisted only of the monastery, and five or six stone houses, which were occupied by merchants. Pavićević, “Njegoš i Jakov Nicholasević Ozereckovski”, 20-21.
92 was a visible sign that Njegoš was using Russian money to create a stable and reliable
form of government in Montenegro.
The building was to be the location of Senate meetings and Senators' temporary
residences, guest housing, a school, and grain silo. One room was set aside for a billiard
table Njegoš had ordered from Trieste, and thus the building became known as the
Biljarda. This same room was the meeting place of the Senate. Travelers to Montenegro
thought of this, as one traveler put it, as a novelty, which combined “pleasure and
business.” 254 The substitution of a meeting hall which had housed animals for one with a
billiards table seemed equally ridiculous to Western European visitors.
The Biljarda resembled more a fortress or barracks than a palace. The English
traveler Sir Wilkinson described it as a “long white-washed building” with two floors and
“an open court before and behind it” surrounded by walls that were “flanked at each corner by a small round tower.”255 As the first secular government building built in
Cetinje, it was also its first place of residence, excluding the monastery.256 By
constructing the Biljarda, Njegoš was encouraging Montenegrins to come and live in the
capital by providing for them a stability in government that they had previously lacked.
And he was trying to create an environment that was acceptable to visitors as well.
Njegoš moved into the Biljarda in 1839, two years before it was completed.257
The first guests which the Biljarda housed were the English travelers Edward Mitford and Henry Layard at the end of August 1839; in their travel accounts they attributed the comfort and function of the building to Njegoš's attempt to civilize his people, but its
254 Paton, Highlands and Islands, 78 255 Wilkinson, Dalmatia and Montenegro, 504. 256 Risto J. Dragičević, “Njegoševa “Biljarda,” (Njegos's “Biljarda”), Istorijski Zapisi, I, I, 3-4, 113-138: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva, 1948, 115. 257 Dragićević, “Njegoševa,” 124.
93 function as a government building was “without any kind of architectural pretensions”258
Out of the twenty-odd rooms in the building, Njegoš maintained only three for his
personal use: a spartan sleeping room containing his bed and a chair, his writing room,
and a room for his library, which he had inherited in part from his predecessor. His walls
were decorated with portraits (of Napoleon, Byron, Tsar Nicholas, and Karageorge) and a
few weapons that had been passed down to him by his uncle Petar I.259
Even with the construction of the Biljarda, Cetinje never came close to
resembling a European capital. The first sight which greeted visitors was the Tablja, a
small tower that was topped by spikes and occasionally the rotting heads of enemies
taken in battle. Njegoš originally had intended for the Tablja to be a fortress built to
protect Cetinje with cannons and soldiers. Its construction had been started in 1835, long before the Biljarda, but it was never finished.260 Travelers left with this striking image of
barbarism which they associated with the Montenegrins. Some of the decorations of the
Biljarda, including the trophies of battle, further reinforced their impressions of savagery in Montenegro.
Despite these images of violence, visitors left with a feeling of experiencing some kind of civilization within the wilds of the Balkans. Life (or so it seemed) in the
Biljarda was quite luxurious for travelers. Many travelers commented that the rooms in which they stayed were “far superior” in neatness “to many inns of much higher pretensions;” they ate the best and most tasteful foods; “champagne flowed abundantly
258 As cited in Dragićević, “Njegoševa,” 125. 259 His secretary, Dimitrije Milaković, as well as his cousin and vice-president of the Senate, Đorđije, remained in the monastery with their servants, at a cost, according to Ivačić, of 120 florins per month which was covered by Njegoš as part of governmental expenses. Milović, “Njegoševa 'Biljarda',” 4. 260 Jevto Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 49.
94 and unexpectedly;” guests were treated to an assortment of foreign and domestic wines;
played billiards and cards; rode horses; and spoke French.261 The Biljarda was described
by these travelers as a “modern salon,” especially when Njegoš was around.262
As his reconstruction of Cetinje seemed to indicate, by 1838, Njegoš was in total political control of Montenegro. Despite his inability to correct misinformation published in foreign papers, Njegoš was the sole source of information about Montenegro, a situation which he used to his country’s best advantage. He told Russian and Austrian representatives what they should know about his country, and even manipulated Russian and Austrian spies to carry this information back for him. As he had through
Ozereckovski’s reports, Njegoš informed the Russians exactly what he wanted them to know – the effectiveness of his government, the strength of his reforms, and the support for his rule. Njegoš also attempted to attract Russian interest in Montenegro's potential for resources, and in 1838 he was successful in peaking Russian curiosity enough so that a mining engineer was sent to investigate some of Ozereckovski's claims about gold in
Montenegro.
Jegor Kovaljevski was sent to Montenegro because the Russian government was interested in the material possibilities of Montenegrin resources. The Russians also hoped that he would develop a personal relationship like the one Ozereckovski had with
Njegoš, as a private as well as a business contact might render the Montenegrins more agreeable to Russian needs. The Russian government was particularly interested in
Kovaljevski’s assessment of Montenegro's natural resources, especially in relation to gold. Ozereckovski’s reports had encouraged St. Petersburg to explore Montenegro's
261 Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 104 and Paget, “Visit to the Vladika,” 442. 262 Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 105.
95 potential for raw materials, especially a city named Zlatica, which he had been led to believe by its name, was a possible source of gold.263 On the chance that his exploration
of Montenegro's resources produced positive results, Kovaljevski was to develop a plan
for the empire to exploit those resources. He had ten months in which to conduct his
investigation, at the end of which he had to file a report on his findings.264
Fully briefed by the Russian consular in Vienna, Kovaljevski arrived in Cetinje on
22 March 1838. While in Montenegro, Kovaljevski traveled in the company of several of
Njegoš's perjanici as he explored the countryside. By August, Kovaljevski had visited most of the country, including Zlatica, and concluded that Montenegro had no available resources outside of Klobuk, a village north of the border of Montenegro in Hercegovina that had some lead and copper, but there was no gold in all of Montenegro.265
Kovaljevski left Montenegro earlier than he had planned, not because his survey
was complete, but because he made the mistake of becoming involved in Montenegrin-
Austrian relations. In early August 1838, he joined the Montenegrins in a border
skirmish against the Austrians. He volunteered to join the battle led by Njegoš's nephew
Đorđije, who had controlled Montenegrin military maneuvers since his return from
Russia. On 8 August, after an overwhelming defeat of the Austrians, Kovaljevski and
Đorđije negotiated the peace for Montenegro.266
263 The name Zlatica comes from the South Slavic word for gold, zlata. In this case, it should have mean “fool’s gold” because there was no gold there, or anywhere else in Montenegro. 264 Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 105. 265 Besides his reports to the Russia government, he published a short article on the geography of Montenegro in the Bulletin de la Société geologique de France, in which he described himself as “probably the first naturalist who has penetrated into this wild region.” He also published a travel journal in 1841 which documented his exploration of Montenegro, in which he indicated that he had probably visited every village in the country. M. G. Kovalevski, “Relation d'une ascension au mont Komm dans le Montenegro en 1838,” Bulletin de la Societe geologique de France (Paris) 1 (1839), 112. 266 Milović, “O boravku Jakov Ozereckovksog u Crnoj Gori,” 297, 303.
96 The Austrians were shocked to discover the Russian representative among the combatants, as their most up-to-date information had emphasized Russian non- involvement in border disputes and negotiations in relation to the Austrian and Ottoman
Empires. To keep peace with the Austrians, the Russians requested that Kovaljevski return immediately to St. Petersburg.267
The controversial participation of a Russian official in Montenegrin events was
assumed to have been the work of Njegoš. Yet the vladika had not authorized his
Montenegrins to engage in a battle with the Austrians in the first place. Despite Njegoš’s
efforts at internal reorganization, the Montenegrin government was unprepared to deal with the border demands of a Great Power neighbor. The Senate and Gvardija were
established fundamentally as internal institutions and had only minimal influence beyond
the mountains of Montenegro.
267 Branko Pavićević, “Memorandum Jegora Petroviča Kovaljevskog o Crnoj Gori 1838. godine,” (Memorandum from Jegor Petrović Kovaljevski about Montenegro in 1838), Istorijski Zapisi, XX, XXIV, 2, 213-228: Titograd, Organ Istorjskog i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod, 1967, 225.
97 Chapter 5: Njegoš vs. the Habsburgs & Ottomans (1840-1846)
As the episode with Kovaljevski had illustrated, the Russian Foreign Ministry was
easily upset over incidents involving Montenegro and Austria (especially if it involved a
Russian official.) Yet occasional problems with the Austrian citizens of Boka Kotorska
became more frequent, and by the late 1830s, the Dalmatian Government was demanding
that border negotiations take place between the two countries. The Russian government, too, was pressuring Montenegro to negotiate peace treaties with both the Habsburg and
Ottoman Empires. All of this fell heavily upon the shoulders of Njegoš, who was the
only person in Montenegro capable of carrying out diplomatic talks with foreign powers,
as the country had no foreign minister.
Njegoš thus began to focus more intently on foreign relations with the Austrian
and Ottoman Empires. He had hoped that his reforms would create sufficient stability
and progress in Montenegro to allow him to deal with these Great Powers from a position
of strength. Yet despite his best intentions and efforts, Montenegro in the 1840s was
neither self-sufficient nor stable. Violence, including banditry and warfare, remained
endemic, and the power of the tribes had not lessened in the face of the new government
institutions. Njegoš’s self-chosen Senators often turned their backs on him and
Montenegrin tribes even defected to the Ottomans. The country seemed to be on the
verge of anarchy.
While retaining the good will of his patron, Njegoš had to placate the two
neighboring powers that threatened Montenegro’s independence and territorial integrity.
Disputes over pasture and communal rights led to bloody clashes between Montenegrin
and Austrian subjects. Still these struggles with the Austrians were nothing compared to
98 the impending violence on Montenegro’s borders with Bosnia, Hercegovina, and
Albania.
Njegoš had been faced with these outside threats soon after he was named vladika. Shortly after Njegoš's uncle's death in October 1830, the Austrian government had tried to gain control of the monasteries of Stanjevići and Maini. Both of these monasteries, according to the Austrians, were located in territory that the Habsburgs had inherited from the former Venetian Republic. The Montenegrins had been permitted to use these monasteries while Vladika Petar lived. Upon his death, control reverted back to the territory’s owners.
The Dalmatian Government deemed Petar I's death as an appropriate moment to reclaim possession, Austrian officials had hoped to advantage of the successor’s youth and inexperience, but they were unable to manipulate Njegoš into handing over possession of Stanjevići and Maini. At one point, the Montenegro guvernador Radonić had been consulted by Austrian authorities. For a time, it seemed as if they had given up, but the Austrians were at heart more bureaucrats than warriors. For several years they attempted to prove their legitimate ownership of the properties by searching through the archives of the former Venetian Republic.
Njegoš believed that the monasteries were indisputably Montenegrin possessions.
The Maini Monastery, he argued, was built by the Montenegrins on Venetian territory, that was eventually purchased with the help of the Metropolitan of Cetinje. The
Stanjevići Monastery, on the other hand, was not even located on Austrian land. Njegoš knew that the Austrian officials were trying to take advantage of his inexperience, yet he
99 accused them of knowing the truth, but being motivated by greed, they wanted “to take
however much they can from the Montenegrins up to the top of the mountains.”268
The leaders of the Dalmatian Government may have been motivated by avarice, but they had another motive for wanting to claim possession of Maini and Stanjevići.
The government was convinced that possession of these monasteries was a strategic necessity that justified their claim to these properties.269 Austrian officials were afraid
that the Montenegrins would use both Maini and Stanjevići as fortresses against them.
And Dalmatian Governor Lilienberg was extremely concerned that whenever the young vladika visited a monastery, he would have influence on the nearby Orthodox population.270
Yet after many years of searching and debate, the Austrians were unable to prove
their claims of ownership. According to the Austrians' chief negotiator, Bernard Caboga,
there was little evidence to confirm Austrian/Venetian ownership as far back as the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. They would have to secure these monasteries through
other means.
The first monastery to be negotiated for was Maini, located outside the city of
Budva. This monastery was deemed to be the better of the two, largely because of its
property. It had been an important site for South Slavic literature in 1834 when Njegoš
composed his poem “Svobodijada” (Ode to Liberty) during a brief stay in the monastery.
268 Njegoš to Gagić, 20 December 1830, IP, 3. 269 Jevto Milović, “Prodja manastira Maina Austrija,” (The Sale of the Monastery Main to Austria), IZ XVI, XX, 3, 403-424: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod, 1963, 404. 270 Dušan Vuksan, “Financije Vladike Rade 1838-1841,” (The Finances of Vladika Rade 1838- 1841), Zapisi, Godine VI, X, 2, 90-97: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva, 1932. Jevto Milović, “Prodaja manastira Maina Austrija,” (The Sale of the Monastery Main to Austria,) Istorijski Zapisi, XVI, XX, 3, 403-424: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod, 1963, 407.
100 But strategic and cultural importance was outweighed by the Montenegrins’ need for
hard cash.
Njegoš initially offered Maini to the Austrian government at the price of 50,000 florins, but he later dropped his price to 40,000 for the monastery, the land it sat on, and its furnishings. They finally talked him down to 17,000 florins, 2,000 of which would be paid to him immediately. Njegoš accepted the offer, but bitterly informed the Austrian negotiators that he had yielded to their demands only in the interest of maintaining a good relationship with the Austrian government.271 The Austrians were content with their purchase, as they intended to use the Maini Monastery as an “observation point” from which to keep an eye on the Montenegrins.272
In September 1837 a border commission finalized the sale of Maini. The
purchase of this monastery was a significant step in Austrian-Montenegrin relations, and,
according to Governor Lilienberg, “indispensable” when it came to negotiating further boundaries with the Montenegrins.273 Because they had been able to talk Njegoš into
giving up Montenegrin property for so little money, the Austrian officials thought this
might be to their advantage in future negotiations. And this “acquisition” gave the
Austrians a “moral and political advantage” when it came to removing Montenegrins and their property from Boka Kotorska.274
The sale of Maini was the first step in initiating border negotiations between
Montenegro and Austria. Negotiations were slow, and it seemed that more time was spent in the early years trying to arrange meetings that everyone could attend than actual
271 Njegoš's Clarification 17 February 1837, in Milović, “Wien,” 284. 272 Lilienberg to Metternich 21 February 1837, in Milović, “Wien,” 285. 273 Lilienberg to Metternich, 17 February 1837, in Milović, “Wien,” 283. 274 Lilienberg to Metternich, 17 February 1837, in Milović, “Wien,” 284.
101 negotiations. In the meantime, until a peace could be reached through diplomatic means,
Njegoš had to convince the Austrians of his sincerity and desire to maintain some kind of
order on the borders.
In correspondence with Austrian officials, Njegoš insisted that he was “using all
possible means to resolve this and live in a peaceful manner.”275 He admitted that he had little control over his own Montenegrins who were committing “evil acts against Austrian citizens” without Njegoš’s knowledge or encouragement.276 The problems between
Montenegro and the Austrian Empire were not on a diplomatic level, but originated in the
daily contact between subjects. These issues revolved around borders, pastures,
passports, trade, livestock, and krvena osveta (blood revenge), and the Austrians believed
that they could only be resolved diplomatically. Njegoš, on the other hand, knew that
border negotiations would not solve the daily problems between Montenegrin and
Austrian subjects, yet he went through the diplomatic motions anyway.
Njegoš had learned from experience that his Montenegrins, despite his own
diplomatic efforts to appease the Austrians, believed themselves to be a free people who
did not have to be concerned with trade regulations, travel permits, pasturing rights, and
legal codes. He recognized that the Austrians were unable to comprehend this, yet he had
to make every possible attempt to maintain a diplomatic peace with the Kaiser’s
government. Relations between the two neighbors were severely tested when the
Montenegrin Crmničani went to war with the Austrian Paštrovići.
The feud between the Crmničani and Paštrovići predated Austrian control of Boka
Kotorska. Before Njegoš and the Austrian border committee could meet regarding this
275 Njegoš to Lilienberg, 6 April 1838, CDII, 42. 276 Njegoš to Ivačić, 16 February 1838, CDII, 20.
102 issue, the Paštrovići attacked the Crmničani village of Utrg on 22 July 1838. Austrians
soldiers stationed in the area joined in while the Paštrovići burned down the Crmničani’s cabins where they spent the fall and winter with their livestock.277 In order to put an end
to the fighting, Njegoš sent members of the Senate, Perjanici, and Gvardija to handle
matters. The party was headed by Njegoš’s cousin Đorđije and the Russian mining engineer Jegor Kovaljevski. This was the battle that, mentioned in the previous chapter, had gotten the Russian engineer sent home from Montenegro. Sent by Njegoš to supposedly work out some kind of settlement, the Montenegrins instead ended up joining in the fight at the beginning of August, 1838. The battle lasted five days and ended in a
Montenegrin victory. The Austrians believed that Njegoš was behind the outbreak of hostilities.278 Five months previously, he had promised the Crmničani complete protection from Austria and the Paštrovići.279
The battle, for the Austrians, was frightening example of the savagery of their
Montenegrin neighbors. Austrian troops were unnerved by screaming Montenegrins who
assaulted them on all sides. The disorderliness and unruliness of Montenegrin attacks
contrasted sharply with the “discipline and strength of trained troops.” Bullets flew in
every direction, ripping in half the mouthpiece of an Austrian trumpeter. One Austrian
277 Njegoš to Gagić, 25 July 1838, CDII, 91. 278 Anton Semek, “Repressaliengefechte gegen die Montenegriner im Jahre 1838,” (Reprisals Against the Montenegrins in 1838), Mittheilungen des K. und K. Kriegsarchiv, IV, 161-213:1906, 170. 279 Jevto Milović, “O boravaku ruskog rudarskog kapetana Jegora Petrovièa Kovaljevskog u Crnog Gori od 2. jula do 17. septembra 1838 (The Stay of Russian Mining Engineer Captain Jegor Petrović Kovaljski in Montenegro 2 July - 17 September 1838),”. in Petar II Petrović Njegošu u svom vremenu, Knjiga 5, Crnogorska Akademija Nauka i Umjetnosti (NIO “Univerzitetska Riječ,” 1984), 298.
103 officer was mutilated in a horrific manner: both of his eyes had been ripped out and army
bread shoved into the bleeding sockets.280
On 7 August, hostilities ended and within twenty-four hours, a cease-fire was
negotiated.281 But Njegoš was concerned that a peace with Austria might never be
reached, as it seemed impossible to divide up the border between the Crmničani and
Paštrovići. He knew that the real difficulty would be getting a commission to resolve the land and resource dispute between the Crmničani and Paštrovići tribes. The Austrian border committee intended for the entire mountain, including water and most of the
Crmničani houses, to be ceded to the Paštrovići. As an alternative solution, Njegoš proposed that the borders stay as they were, with the Paštrovići and Crmničani given equal access to roads and rivers.282
Njegoš was not able to direct all of his energies to resolving the Paštrovići-
Crmničani dispute, because to the northeast of Kotor, Austrian subjects were coming into
conflict with members of Njegoš’s own tribe, the Njeguši. Each year the Njeguši
brought their livestock to the rich pastures of Kotor in the fall and winter months. By
August 1838, it became clear that the local Austrians were not going to allow the
Montenegrins to use these lands this time. At the same time, Njegoš also had to deal with
a conflict over pasture rights between the Austrian Pobori and Montenegrin Mirčani. The
Austrian Pobori had ignored the boundaries established by Petar I in 1822.
Njegoš was unable to focus on the Paštrovići-Crmničani disputes because of these other conflicts and, in the meantime, the cease fired had expired. The Crmničani took advantage of this lapse and attacked an Austrian “sanitation post” at Umiljeva Ulica in
280 Semek, “Repressaliengefechte,” 192-194. 281 Semek, “Repressaliengefechte,” 199-201. 282 Njegoš to Lilienberg, 12 August 1838, CDII, 108.
104 November 1838. Skirmishes like this between the Montenegrins and Austrians continued
to waylay any attempts for the border committee to meet. Njegoš tried locking up
Montenegrin leaders who refused to stop attacking Austrian subjects, but with little
result. 283 He could neither control the Crmničani nor prevent other Montenegrins from joining up with them, as was the case in April 1839.284 And Njegoš was unable to
negotiate a peace between the two warring tribes, even with the help of four perjanici.285
In March 1839, hoping to appease the Dalmatian government on another front,
Njegoš sold them the second monastery at Stanjevići.286 He decided that the money and
the reconciliation with the Austria government could be “useful for the nation.”287 As an
example of Njegoš’s willing to negotiate, the sale of this monastery paved the way for better relations with the Austrians. It also served as a model for the complete elimination
of Montenegrin property in Austrian held lands.
In September 1839, Njegoš traveled to Kotor for border negotiations. Over the
course of the next several years, the committee negotiated borders and pasture rights
between Montenegro and Austrian Boka Kotorska.288 Throughout the negotiations, the
mountain territories were divided up and the Austrians gained possession of most of the
283 He imprisoned the leader of the Crmničani, Jovo Plamenac, but this only served to embitter that family against him. Njegoš to Gagić, 31 March 1839, CDII, 181. 284 Riječka Nahija joined up with the Crmničani when Austrian soldiers joined with the Paštrovići. Njegoš to Ivačić, 13/25 April 1839, CDII, 184. 285 Njegoš to Ivačić, 10/22 February 1839, CDII, 258. 286 Njegoš to Ivačić, 29 March 1839, CDII, 180. 287 Njegoš to Gagić, 8 May 1839, CDII, 189. 288 In the fall of 1839, the committee agreed that the Montenegrins would receive the upper two thirds of Pestingrad for their winter pastures, and the Dobroćani the lower third.It took six days to reach a decision regarding the borders in Dobrota, an Austrian village directly to the west of the wall-city of Kotor whose pasture area was hotly contested between the Montenegrins and the citizens of Primorije, in the region of Pestingrad. Montenegrin shepherds took their flocks to Pestingrad as part of their transhumant migration in the winter. Frequent bloody conflicts broke out between the Dobroćani and the Montenegrins, especially the Njeguši, and border negotiators wanted to ensure that these would not occur in the future.
105 desirable land, although the Montenegrins were compensated for the land they had to
give up.
Negotiations had to be put on hold in the spring of 1840, because of the death of
the Governor of Dalmatia, Baron von Lilienberg. The committee, which still included
Njegoš as one of the primary negotiators, did not reconvene until November 1840.
Negotiations were completed in July 1841 after the border between the Crmničani and
Paštrovići was delineated. Njegoš was relieved when border negotiations were finally completed. Although the process had been fraught with difficulties, he hoped that these
negotiations would improve relations between the two neighbors.289 The negotiations
had benefited Montenegro, whom the Austrians had to pay 80,000 florins in order to fix
the borders in their favor.290 The troubles with the Austrian government and its subjects did not inspire Njegoš to write poetry, as the difficulties with Ottoman subjects would.
Most importantly, the border treaty which Njegoš had signed with Austria introduced
Montenegro to the diplomatic community of Europe.291
While the Austrian government had been interested in negotiating property lines and pasture rights with the Montenegrins, the Ottoman veziers were more interested in the subjugation of Njegoš’s people. Peace with the Ottoman Empire was even more important for Montenegro than with the Austrians, as it involved basic survival.
289 He informed Nesselrode of Čevkin’s usefulness in “protecting our rights” and hoped he would be available to help with Montenegrin-Turkish negotiations. Njegoš to Nesselrode, 18 July 1841, CDII, 361. 290 Pavićević, “Čevkinova uloga u radu na razgraničenju Crne Gore,” 189-190. 291 Cyprien Robert, Les Slaves de Turquie: Serbs, Montenegrines, Bosniaques, Albanais et Bulgare; Leurs Resources, Leurs Tendences et Leurs Progres Politique, (The Slavs of Turkey: Serbs, Montenegrins, Bosnians, Albanians and Bulgarians; Their Resources, Their Leanings and Their Political Progress) (Paris: L. Passard & Jules Labitte, 1844), 181.
106 Unlike his experience with the Austrians, Njegoš had to negotiate with each
Ottoman leader individually. In 1837, Njegoš contacted Osman-Pasha of Skadar, Ali-
Pasha of Hercegovina, and Mehmed-Pasha of Bosnia. But none of these men were
willing to negotiate. Despite the Russian government’s insistence of maintaining peace
with the Ottomans, Njegoš was not able to negotiate anything with the Sultan’s
representatives until 1838/39.292
In November 1838, Njegoš hosted representatives from two of these three viziers
(Skadar refused to send any) and the men stayed in Njegoš's new building, the Biljarda.
During their stay Njegoš was able to negotiate an individual peace with both the Bosnian and Hercegovinian veziers.293 This was the first preserved written peace agreement
between Montenegro and the Ottomans that treated Montenegro as an “independent”
nation. Unfortunately, this peace was never recognized by the Sultan; it only existed between Bosnia, Hercegovina and Montenegro.294 Although he would have uneasy
relationships with Bosnia and Hercegovina, Njegoš was never successful at coming to
some kind of agreement with the Skadar Vezier, who was never interested in peace.
In the summer of 1839, the Skadar Vezier ordered an attack on the Bjelopavlići
(in Brda). The Montenegrins won this battle and the Turkish leader, Bećir-Beg Bušatlija,
lost his life and his head. More than fifty Turkish heads were sent to Cetinje, where they
292 Njegoš to Mehmed-Pasha, 16 June 1838, CDII, 77. 293 The problem of Grahovo was left unresolved. Njegoš made several more attempts to finalize negotiations towards Grahovo, and despite a seemingly positive and friendly correspondence Ali- Pasha, his son Hasan-Beg, and Mehmed-Pasha, the issue remained unsettled. Njegoš to Gagić, 15 July 1838, CDII, 82; Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 100; Njegoš to Mehmed-Pasha, 28 December 1838, 161; Njegoš to Hasan-Beg, 28 December 1838, 162; Njegoš to Ali-Pasha, 28 December 1838, CDII, 163 294 Njegoš to Gagić, 24/5 November October 1838, CDII, 132; Njegoš to Hajin-pasha, 5/17 November 1838, CDII, 140.
107 were hung upon the Tablja.295 This victory against the Skadar Turks was significant, as indicated by the fact that Njegoš commemorated the event with a poem.296
Turkish attacks continued on the border between the Ottoman Empire and
Montenegro.297 Unable to negotiate a peace with Skadar, Njegoš instead focused on keeping up the morale of his Montenegrins. He summoned twenty-two men to Cetinje to receive commendation for their deeds in battle. He awarded them silver medals “in the name of their faith, homeland, and the Russian Tsar Nicholas” for accomplishments in battle.298 By 1840, Njegoš began issuing his own silver medals for bravery in battle against both the Turks and the Austrians.299 He had to use every opportunity to spur his people to action.
In October 1840, Njegoš grew anxious about Grahovo. He particularly wanted revenge against Smail-Aga Čengić, the leader of the Hercegovinian attack on the
295 He led at least 2,500 regulars against 500 Montenegrins to take control of the road leading to the Turkish fortress of Spuž. Jevto Milović, “Turski napad na brđanska naselja u Bjelopavlićima od 6/18. 1839. godine pogibija Bećir Bega Bušatlije,” (The Turkish attack on the Brda colony of the Bjelopavlici on 6/18 1839 the downfall of Bećir Beg Buatlija), Glasnik Cetinjski Muzej, V, 45-68: Cetinje, Izdavačko-štamparsko preduzeće “Obod,” 1972, 47, 53. 296 This poem was published anonymously in his Ogledalo Srpsko (The Serbian Mirror). “Pogibija Bećir-Beg Bušatlije, 1839. god. 15. junija (“The downfall of Bećir Beg Bušatlija”). 297 Frequently hit were the Crmničani, who amounted to no more than 2,000 people, and who were still seeking revenge against the Austrians for the damage they suffered from attacking an Austrian military post, and were battling the Paštrovići. Njegoš to Gagić, 29 July 1839, 224; Njegoš to Ivačić, 26 October 1839, CDII, 235.. 298 These medals had been made in Russia. Jevto Milović, “Crteži dviju medalja iz Njegoševa doba,” (The Designs for Two Medals in the time of Njegoš,) Istorijski Zapisi, XVI, XX, 3, 483- 486: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Institut SRCG, 1963, 483. 299 Aleksandar Čevkin received the first example of these medals, which he immediately sent to Schaller in Zadar. The medals were two sided: on the one side there was an image of an eagle, which was based on the symbol for the Crnojevići which appeared on the monastery; on the other side were two crossed sabers above some branches. Above the sabers were the words “faith, freedom, for bravery.” By 1847 he was issuing his own medals in Cetinje which were called the “Obilić” because they contained the likeness of Miloš Obilić, who was to Njegoš a “true hero.” Austrian officials, like Baron Anton Mitrovsky, were appalled at the idea that Njegoš was rewarding men for battles against the Austrians. As cited in Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 212; Milan Rakočević, Crnogorski Prometej, (Montenegro's Prometheus,) (Ljubljana: Izdanje Piščevo, 1940; Društvo za očuvanje Baštine, 1998), 175.
108 Montenegrins in 1836.300 He openly encouraged Čengić’s assassination, warning the
Drobnjaci of Grahovo that Čengić will “raze Drobnjak to the ground unless he was killed first.”301 He even promised to send military assistance if necessary.
Inspired by the vladika, the Drobnjaci waited for Čengić to collect the yearly harač.302 On 5 October 1840, Čengić was murdered while drinking coffee along with many of his men who had been sleeping. His head, his weapons, and his two horses were sent to Cetinje as evidence of the deed. Njegoš rewarded the assassin, Novica Cerović, with a position in the Senate and made him vojvoda for Drobnjaci.303 Čengić’s head was displayed as a trophy of war in the Biljarda by the head of Mahmut-Pasha Bušatlija of
Skadar, who had been killed in 1796. It was rumored that anyone who entered the vladika's court had to bow to both of these heads in order to receive assistance from
Njegoš. Some stories have described Njegoš as being so pleased with Čengić's murder, that for the first several days after the event, he was not able to eat lunch without Čengić's head on the table.304
300 Besides the vezier, Čengić was the most important man in Hercegovina. Čengić was the Muslim in charge of Gacko, Pjevalje, Kolašin, and Drobnjaci. He frequently attacked Montenegrin border communities and was notorious for his opposition to the Slavic raja of the Ottoman Empire, as he had fought against the Serbian uprisings 1809-10, and had joined Ali- Pasha Rizvanbegović against the renegade Husein-Beg Gradaščević (“the Dragon of Bosnia”) in 1833. Đukić, “Petar Petrović II i Ali-paša Stočević,” 201. Jevto Milović, “O pogibiji Smail-aga Čengića 5. octobra 1840.,” in Petar II Petrović Njegoš u svom vremenu, Knjiga 5, Posebni Radovi, (Titograd: Crnogorska akademija nauka i umjetnosti, 1984), 418. Njegoš to Gagić, 4/16 October 1840, CDII, 300. Kasim Gujiic, Smrt Smailage Cengic, The Death of Smail Aga Cengic (Zagreb: Hrvatskog Kola, 1937), 6. 301 As cited in Hajrudin Ćurić, ““Iliriske Narodne Novine” o pogobili Smail-aga Čengića,” (“The Illyrian National News” about the Death of Smail-aga Čengić), Istorijski Zapisi, XVI, XX, 3, 476-483: Titograd, Organ Isotorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod, 1963. 302 Ottoman imperial tax paid by every head of the household. Zlato Lukic, “Kratak pregled povijesti/istorija Bosne i Hercegovine,” Serbian/Croatian, http://hjem.get2net.dk/VRBAS/pedia/historija.html: Bosna Pedia® - Historija, 2001. 303 Curić, “„Ilirske Narodne Novine,” 477. 304 I have not found any evidence for either of these two legends, they were mentioned in Gujiić, Smrt Smailage Čengić, 20.
109 News of Čengić's death traveled quickly. He had been a popular hero to the
Hercegovinian Muslims, and his death necessitated that revenge be taken against the
Montenegrins.305 Ali-Pasha warned Njegoš of how the assassination was being received among Ottoman subjects: “you have been handed [Čengić's] head which is a great gift for you to receive and an unexpected wound for all Muslims.”306 Ali-Pasha, who secretly hated Čengić, felt he had to respond to his murder with frightening violence, because he feared an uprising of Orthodox Hercegovinians.307 He gathered his forces outside of
Grahovo, where they waited on the border until Njegoš revealed the names of the guilty
men. When Njegoš refused to comply, Ali-Pasha ordered his troops to burn the
Drobnjaci’s houses and confiscate their livestock and possessions.
The Turkish attack on the Drobnjaci resulted in the death of one-hundred and
thirty Montenegrins, whose heads were sent in triumph to Ali-Pasha. Turkish troops
were stationed in the area and the Drobnjaci once again became “loyal raja” of the
Ottoman Sultan.308 Both the harač and Čengić's body (minus the head, which Njegoš had) were sent as payment to the Hercegovinian vezier, while the heads of the Drobnjaci were posted throughout the Montenegrin krajina as an example to others.
Although Njegoš had not been able to come to the Drobnjaci’s rescue as he had
promised, in November 1840 he concluded a peace with Ali-Pasha that lasted until 5 May
1841. Still, Njegoš was concerned that peace would not last with the Turks because they
were not in agreement amongst themselves and the Ottoman leaders might individually
305 Curič, “Ilirske Narodne Novine,” 478. 306 As cited in Milović, “O pogibiji Smail-aga Cengica 5,” 423. 307 Curić, “'Ilirske Narodne Novine',” 478. 308 As cited in Milović, “O pogibiji Smail-aga Čengića 5,” 425.
110 attack Montenegro’s pastures and borderlands.309 Njegoš sent Dimitrije Milaković to
Trieste to obtain military supplies from the Russian government in the name of Njegoš
and the Senate. This was all done in anticipation of further Turkish retribution.
Njegoš revisited the problem of Grahovo in the summer of 1842. In June, both
Njegoš and Ali-Pasha had assembled troops, but a battle never took place because of peace negotiations.310 Njegoš met Ali-Pasha on neutral ground in Dubrovnik in
September 1842. During these negotiations, Njegoš and Ali-Pasha became pobratimi
(blood brothers) and exchanged gifts to honor their new relationship: Ali-Pasha presented
Njegoš with a Turkish rifle, and Njegoš gave him a gold clock. While in Dubrovnik, they
lunched, rode horses, and listened to music together.311 The relationship between
Montenegro and Hercegovina, at least as long as it was based on the relationship between
the two leaders, seemed to be heading towards harmony. Njegoš realistically summed up
the experience, reflecting that he had made peace with the Hercegovinian Vezier but not
with the Ottoman Porte.312
After the Dubrovnik meeting, the correspondence between Njegoš and Ali-Pasha was extremely friendly, as can be seen in this salutation: “From Ali-Pasha, vezier of
Hercegovina, pobratimo of Petar Petrović, the vladika of Montenegro; greetings my
309 Njegoš to Gagić, 4/16 May 1841, CDII, 353. 310 Along with two Senators and several Perjanci, Njegoš met with Hadži-Ali-Beg Rizvanbegović (the son of Ali-Pasha) and Baš-Aga Redžipašić. Together they concluded a peace agreement which lasted from 24 July to 5 October 1842, but it unfortunately left the issue of Grahovo unresolved. Đukić, “Petar Petrović II i Ali-pasha Stočević,” 207-08. 311 Jevto Milović, “Pogibija Ali-pašinih poslanika na Bašinoj vodi 7. avgusta 1843.,” in Petar II Petrović Njegoš u svom vremenu, Knjiga 5, Posebni Radovi, Milović, Jevto (Titograd: Crnogorska akademija nauka i umjetnosti, 1984), 484. 312 Milović, Njegoš u slici i riječi, 173.
111 friend.”313 They continued to exchange gifts once they returned home and Ali-Pasha
even sent his nephew to Cetinje, although Njegoš never let any of his friends or relatives
cross the border to Hercegovina.314
Ali-Pasha and Njegoš made several attempts after the Dubrovnik agreement to meet and discuss the areas of Grahovo and Banjani. Although Ali-Pasha believed that both of these areas were rightfully his, he was unable to meet for further negotiations because he became ill. As a result, the agreement signed in Dubrovnik expired, and by
August 1843, 15,000 Montenegrin and Hercegovinian troops gathered again.315 Njegoš
set up another meeting in the hope of averting hostilities. He believed that he would be
able to negotiate a peace with Ali-Pasha’s representatives as “quickly” as he had in
Dubrovnik in 1839.316 But as he awaited their arrival at the Ostrog Monastery, he learned
from one of his bodyguards that Osman-Pasha had ordered Ali-Pasha to murder Njegoš.
This information was overhead by Njegoš's most trusted perjanik, Radovan Piper,
who had been frequently used as a messenger between the two men.317 Radovan reached
Njegoš before Ali-Pasha's representatives arrived at the Ostrog Monastery. Njegoš acted
immediately upon this information as if he believed it was the intent of Ali-Pasha's
representatives to kill him. When the men finally arrived on 7 August, Njegoš did not
313 For example, see Ali-Pasha to Njegoš, August 1838, Dušan Vuksan, “Prepiska vladike Rade s Ali-Pašom,” (Vladika Rade's Correspondance with Ali Pasha), Zapisi, IV, VII, 2,3,5,6, 107-115; 175-184; 303-309; 371-376: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Instituta, 1930), 107. 314 The Austrians in Kotor were quite suspicious of Njegoš's friendly dealings with Ali-Pasha, who they believed was encouraging the vladika to make unfriendly attacks on Austrian soldiers, although no evidence existed for this. Milović, “Pogibija Ali-pašinih poslanika na Bašinoj vodi 7,” 486; Broj 4, 16 July 1838, Dušan Vuksan, “Kakva su saopštenja donosile srpske novine o Crnoj Gori nazad sto godina,” (What was being published about Montenegrin in Srpske Novine one hundred years ago,) Zapisi, XX, 6, 355-363: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Institut Crne Gore, 1938, 356-57. 315 Milović, “Pogibija Ali-pašinih poslanika na Bašinoj vodi 7,” 492. 316 Njegoš to Gagić, 29 April 1843, CDIII, 47. 317 Njegoš to Ali-Pasha, 6 November 1838, V; Ali-Pasha to Njegoš, 16 December 1838; VIII; Vuksan, “Prepiska vladike Rade s Ali-Pašom.”.
112 receive them, but told them from an open window to return to Nikšić.318 Njegoš’s
perjanici accompanied them back. At a bridge on the way to Nikšić, the Montenegrins
attacked the Turks, killing some of Ali-Pasha's representatives.
Njegoš seemed to be guilty of ordering the attack, but one account of these events confirmed his innocence. Radoje Kontić, whose family members were in the
Montenegrin party, depicted Njegoš as innocent. He said that Njegoš had been warned personally by Ali-Pasha that opponents of the Bosnian vezier were among the Turkish delegation.319 According to Kontić’s memoirs, Njegoš did not carry out negotiations with the delegates, but instead excused them after giving them gifts. During the return trip, the representatives were attacked by the accompanying Montenegrins at Bašina Voda, who had yelled, “Those of you who are Montenegrin keep to custom and take the Turks!”320
Kontić believed that the delegates were murdered because of krvena osveta, in revenge
for the earlier murder of one of the Kontić brothers, Stevan. His account provided a
picture of the events of 1843 which did not involve the Montenegrin vladika in the murder of the Turkish representatives.
But Njegoš did have Kontić’s memoirs to prove his innocence. Knowing that these events would anger the Russians, Njegoš immediately wrote Gagić and described the difficulties he had encountered in trying to get Ali-Pasha to meet with him. Through his description of the events surrounding the murder of Ali-Pasha’s representatives in
Montenegrin territory, Njegoš tried to convince the Russians that the Montenegrins
318 Ivačić to Guberniljalno predsjedništvo, 10 August 1843, Milović, “Pogibija Ali-pašinih poslanika na Bašinoj vodi 7,” 499-501. 319 Jov. V. Magovičević, “Još nešto o odnosima vladike Rada i Ali Pasha Stočević,” (Further information about the Relations between Vladika Rade and Ali Pasha Stočević,) Zapisi, VIII, XIV, 2, 65-71: Cetinje, Glasnik Istorijskog Instituta Crne Gore, 1935, 66. 320 Magovčević, “Još nešto o odnosima vladike Rada i Ali Pasha,” 67.
113 wanted to live in peace with the Ottomans, but the Turkish leaders made this impossible.
Njegoš also emphasized his lack of control over his Montenegrins, who in this instance
took it upon themselves to attack Ali-Pasha’s representatives after a failed meeting with
their vladika. He warned Gagić that a peace with the Turks was now in “no way
possible” because they did not want peace, but revenge.321
Whether Njegoš was innocent or not, his former pobratim Ali-Pasha believed that
Njegoš had ordered the murder of his delegates. Ali-Pasha was indignant that “this
unfaithful vladika had declared his unfaithfulness.”322 Montenegro was plunged into a
two-sided war in which Ali-Pasha seemed to be acting in coordination with Osman-Pasha
of Skadar to attack the Montenegrins. Hercegovinian soldiers gathered in Grahovo to
face off against the Montenegrins there, while the Albanians attacked Montenegrin
border villages in the krajina.323
As punishment for the murder of his representatives, Ali-Pasha had apprehended
the guilty Montenegrins, and, according to Njegoš, impaled three of them “on poles, three
were thrown into chains for three years and for the others there is no doubt what was
done with them in my krajina”324
To make matters worse for Montenegro, on 16 September 1843, the Skadar
Vezier, Osma-Pasha Skopljak, captured the two small islands of Vranjina and Lesendro
in Lake Skadar. The loss of the islands was not only a strategic concern for Montenegro,
321 Njegoš to Gagić, 9 August 1843, CDIII, 73. 322 Ali Pasha to Rosner, 1 August 1843, in Milović, “Pogibija Ali-pašinih poslanika na Bašinoj vodi 7,” 503-504. 323 Njegoš to Gagić, 24 September 1843, CDIII, 81. 324 Njegoš to Gagić, 24 August 1843, CDIII, 79.
114 but also deprived the Montenegrins of revenues from fishing in the lake.325 The
Montenegrins did not have the means to take back the islands as they possessed neither
boats nor cannons of great caliber.326
By the end of October Ali-Pasha’s representative, Osman-Aga Zvorničanin, and
Njegoš’s secretary had successfully negotiated a peace. This agreement established a
border police (panduri) to be maintained by both sides and bought the Montenegrins at
least a year of peace with Hercegovinia. But the Montenegrins were yet not safe, because
Osman Pasha and his Skadar army were still attacking from the Albanian border.327
Unable to resolve the conflict with the Skadar vezier, Njegoš sought assistance
from the Austrian government. He hoped to get money from the Austrians. In January
1844, he wrote the Austrian government asking for monetary reimbursement, totaling
7000 ducats, for the seven months in 1814 during which Montenegro administrated the
Bay of Kotor. He also requested that prices for Montenegrin goods in the Kotor bazaar be slightly increased, so that his people could survive. For example, he asked that a pound of Montenegrin cheese which used to cost 3 kreuzers should now be worth 3 ½ kreuzers. 328 Finally, Njegoš hoped that he would be able to persuade the Austrians to
assist Montenegro in the war against the Turks.
325 Charles Lamb, “A Ramble in Montenegro,” Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine LVII, CCCLI (January, 1845): 37 326 Stranjaković, “Nešto iz odnosa Crne Gore sa Turskom 1843 i 1844,” 12. 327 The panduri were there to keep the peace and prohibit travel through either country without a passport. It is interesting to note that while Njegoš was agreeable to these terms, he was constantly battling with the Austrian administration in Dalmatia about Montenegrins traveling through Austrian territory without passports. For the first year, this treaty seemed to have been upheld, and Ali-Pasha paid Njegoš the agreed upon sum of 2,000 fiorina for the panduri, but did not pay him anything after that. By 1846, the panduri no longer existed. Đukić, “Petar Petrović II i Ali-Pasha Stočević,” 211-213. 328 Njegoš to Austrian Chancellory, 19/31 January 1844, CDIII, 119.
115 The new Governor of Dalmatia, Johan Turskii, informed Njegoš that it was
impossible for the Austrians to help out, because Njegoš’s requests involved political
rights and not money.329 The Austrians refused to recognize Montenegro's role in ousting
the French from Boka Kotorska, as their official position was that this liberation had been
accomplished by the collaboration of the three Great Powers. Because the Austrians had denied Njegoš any help, he saw no other option than to travel to Vienna and plead his case.
On 9 January 1844, Njegoš left for Vienna where he stayed until the end of
April.330 While there, he met with the Russian representative, Baron Medem. Through
Medem, the Russian government advised Njegoš to return to Montenegro while the
Russians carried out negotiations on his behalf in Constantinople. Njegoš urged the tsar’s minister to take immediate steps to have the islands of Lesendro and Vranjina returned.
Njegoš attempted to negotiate a peace with Osman-Pasha from Vienna. Without
receiving a reply, Njegoš sent Filip Vuković to purchase cannons, weapons, and military
supplies in Zadar.
Njegoš was dismayed to discover that a Montenegrin under his orders was not
permitted by the Austrian government to “freely purchase anything for his country’s
military needs.”331 At the same time he was attempting to buy arms to fight the Turks,
329 Turskii to Njegoš, 22 February 1845, PPNG1845, 16; Petar D. Šerović, “Jedno pismo austrijskog sreskog načelnika u Kotoru, upućeno Njegošu 1845,” (One Letter from the Head of the Austrian District in Kotor, Informing Njegoš) 1845, Istorijski Zapisi, VIII, XI, 1-2, 350-353: Cetinje, Glasnik Istorijskog Instituta Crne Gore, 1955, 350. 330 This time Njegoš’s trip had not been voted on by Montenegrin chiefs and Senate, but decided solely by the vladika. Ivačić in Kotor knew that Njegoš was making preparations for a trip to Vienna and St. Petersburg even before he had informed his Montenegrin Senators. Jevto Milović, “O pokušaju građenja nekoliko brodova topovnjača za Crnu Goru 1844.,” in Petar II Petrović Njegoš u svom vremenu, Knjiga 5, Posebni Radovi, Milović, Jevto (Titograd: Crnogorska akademija nauka i umjetnosti, 1984), 513. 331 Njegoš to Turskii, 6/18 October 1843, CDIII, 83.
116 Njegoš sent his secretary to St. Petersburg to ask the Russian government for assistance
and inquire about the overdue pension for 1844.332
He believed that the Russians had not sent the subsidy because of Njegoš’s obvious failure to negotiate a peace with the Ottomans. Albanian attacks began to
increase on Montenegro’s borders, perhaps even more viciously than before. One attack
occurred on market day, when the Turks knew that the Montenegrins would be less able
to defend themselves.333
In the summer of 1844, while Njegoš was in Vienna, Osman-Pasha tried to entice
the Kuča Nahija over to his side. This area was surrounded on three sides by Ottoman
territory and seemed quite open to influence or intimidation. Njegoš had warned his
people against accepting clothing, money, and weapons, but assistance from Russia had
been slow in coming and the Montenegrins were in desperate need of grain.334 The
Skadar vezier fortified the captured islands of Lesendro and Vranjina with five hundred
cannons and ships, making it practically impossible for the Montenegrins, who were
already at a severe military disadvantage, to recapture them.335 As a final devastating
measure, he closed Albanian bazaars to the Montenegrins. Njegoš was growing weary in
the face of what he termed Turkish “fanaticism.”336
After his most recent request to visit St. Petersburg had been denied, Njegoš
remained in Vienna until April 1847. During this time, he accomplished one of his most
important cultural contributions; he published one of the greatest works of South Slavic
332 Milović, “O pokušaju građenja nekoliko brodova topovnjača,” 512. 333 Njegoš to Gagić, 23 June/5 July 1844, CDIII, 170. 334 Grain was Montenegro’s “first priority,” although Njegoš did not received money for grain until the end of September 1844, by which time Osman-Pasha had already distributed grain to anyone who would come over to his side. CDIII, Njegoš to Gagić, 28 September 1844, 201. 335 Njegoš to Gagić, 7/19 July 1844, 174; Njegoš to Medem, August 1844, CDIII, 195. 336 Njegoš to Gagić, 14/26 August 1844, CDIII, 191.
117 literature, The Mountain Wreath (Gorski vijenac). But his nation, without his guidance, was falling apart in the face of the threat from Albania. The Montenegro to which
Njegoš would return home had grown internally weaker since Njegoš’s last reforms.
Local tribes were revolting against taxation and Montenegro’s borders with the
Hercegovinian and Skadar veziers were quite precarious. Njegoš had accomplished little in these years for Montenegro. The fragile peace he had established with the Ottomans veziers was threatened by his inability to control his people. He was constantly being put off by the Great Powers, who believed that they were negotiating for him in
Constantinople. While Njegoš struggled to procure war munitions and diplomatic assistance from Austria and Russia, his Montenegrins thought that he had abandoned them to starvation and war. Because of his frustration and disillusionment, his epic poem became a testimony to his struggle as vladika to rule an unruly nation.
118 Chapter 6: Njegoš Wins Back his Montenegrins (1847-1851)
As Njegoš entered his seventeenth year as vladika of Montenegro, famine, border
attacks from Skadar, revolutions in the Habsburg Empire, and a terminal disease all
challenged his sovereignty over his people. He left Montenegro for Vienna out of
political frustration as he was unable to solve Montenegro’s problems from Cetinje, but
his absence did little to benefit his country.
1846 had been dry and barren, and, as Njegoš described in a letter to Gagić, worse
than “the plague.”337 Crops failed, the winter snow was heavy and deep, and Turkish
bazaars were closed to the Montenegrins, who were forced to rely on the market in Kotor.
It was during this period that Montenegro came closest to the “anarchy” which the
Austrians had most feared. 1847 was a year of political and economic crises that Njegoš
and his Montenegrins barely survived, but it was a year of cultural significance for the
South Slavs, when Njegoš wrote his epic poem Gorski vijenac (The Mountain Wreath) in
1846/1847. He found solace in his poetry, in which he could express his frustrations as the political leader of Montenegro. Although the poem’s themes revolved around the
Montenegrin struggle against Turkish domination, he hinted at the setbacks in his relationships with the Austrian and Russian Empires.
Njegoš thought he had resolved issues with the Austrian government during the past years of border negotiations. But when a raiding party of eighty Montenegrins stole forty head of livestock from Boka Kotorska, Njegoš realized that he was still unable to control the actions of his Montenegrins, who viewed the Austrians as “naïve” in
337 Popović, “Crna Gora u 1847 godini,” 11.
119 comparison to the Turks, and therefore easier targets.338 The Austrian government so
greatly feared the Montenegrins during these hard times that they began fortifying themselves against any possible incursion, especially in Kotor “where neither streets nor paths [were] now available” because they had been commandeered by the military.339
In spite of these desperate circumstances, Njegoš left Montenegro in order to seek
assistance from Austria and Russia, because he believed that he could do nothing for his
people at home.340 He departed on his fourth trip to Vienna in September 1846, leaving
his brother Pero, the president of the Senate, in charge of the country.341 On his way to
Vienna, he purchased grain in Trieste to be sent back to his starving countrymen. He
paid for this grain by selling the diamond ring he had received from the Austrian Kaiser
in 1841 in recognition of Austrian-Montenegrin border negotiations. But it took more
than a month for the grain to arrive, and by January 1847, Njegoš received reports from
Pero that his “people were doing anything to live.”342
Pero warned Njegoš that the Skadar Turks had decided to take advantage of the
situation in Montenegro and of the vladika's absence. Osman-Pasha was bribing the
desparate Montenegrins with grain, and many of them, especially men from the Brda
tribes (such as the Piperi and Martinovići) were accepting his gifts. These men, believing
338 Petar Popović, “Crna Gora u 1847 godini,” (Montenegro in 1847,) Istorijski Zapisi, V, VIII, 1- 3, 11-18: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Institut i Društva SRCG, 1952, 17. Report from Bocca di Cattaro, 17 December 1846, PPN1845,329. 339 Police Headquarters in Zadar to Sedlnitzky, 4 January 1847, PPNG1845, 332. 340 His recent correspondence with Gagić had up to that point not been very enthusiastic or helpful. Branko Pavićević, “O neostvarenoj Njegoševoj zelji da posjeti Petrograd 1846.,” (About Njegos's Unrealized Wish to visit Petersburg in 1846), Istorijski Zapisi, V, VIII, 1-3, 72-80: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, 1969, 72. 341 Njegoš to Griez, 18 September 1846, CDIII, 450; Njegoš to Gagić, 22 September 1846, 452. 342 Pero to Njegoš, 20 January 1847, PPNG1847, 339a.
120 that the gifts were “good for the growth of the nation,” had to be forcefully restrained
from going to Skadar. 343
In October 1846, emissaries from Piperi were warmly received by Osman-Pasha
in Skadar, where they were presented with gifts of clothing, weapons, and some money.
They were promised in return for their loyalty to the Skadar vezier that they would be well supplied with grain and did not have to pay the required harač.344 The altered allegiance of the Brđani tribes provided a new danger: the road through Hercegovina and
Albania was now “open and free”for the Turks to use for invasion of Montenegro.345
Njegoš’s absence had driven his people to desperation in these difficult times.
Georgije Srdić, the secretary of the Montenegrin Senate, urged Njegoš to return home quickly so that all of those who sold themselves out to the Turks would repent of what they had done.346 Pero informed him in January 1837 that the grain that Njegoš had
purchased in Trieste had not yet arrived. Osman-Pasha was offering grain until St.
George's Day in May to any who would serve him.347
By March 1847, the Skadar Vezier had sent bread, weapons, and over 25,000
stare of grain to Skadar for distribution to the renegade Montenegrins.348 Because of his
largesse he seemed to be quite successful in convincing Montenegrins to come over to his
side. Some tribes had gone over to the Ottoman side fully expecting to maintain their allegiance to Njegoš once they had received their rich gifts. But Pero made an example
343 Popović, “Crna Gora u 1847 godini,” 12-13; Pero to Njegoš, 3/20 January 1847, PPNG1847, 339a. 344 Griez to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 18 October 1846, PPNG1845, 285. 345 Sedlnitzky to Metternich, 14 February 1847, PPNG1845, 358. 346 Srdić to Njegoš, 3 November 1846, PPNG1845, 295. 347 Pero to Njegoš, 8/20 January 1847, PPNG1845, 339a. 348 Milović, “Napori skadarskog vezir Osman-paše da zavadi i,” 547.
121 of one such tribe, the Limljani, whose houses were emptied and burned after they went to
Skadar to pledge themselves to the Sultan's government.349
Because of Njegoš's continued absence, the Montenegrin Senate had to take measures against the renegades, imprisoning any who were found in Cetinje. The Senate utilized Njegoš’s national police to their fullest extent by ordering the Captain of the
Gvardija, Njegoš's uncle Laza Proroković, to take some perjanici to persuade the Brđani
tribes to return to Montenegro. Pero tried giving money to the leaders of the rebellion,
but could not compete with the generous bribes being offered from Skadar.350 The
Senate, on the advice of its vice president Đorđije, tried to use military force to prevent
the Crmničani from submitting to the Ottoman government. But his troops were without
success and 500 Crmničani received rewards in Skadar directly from the vezier.351
While Osman-Pasha flattered the starving Montenegrins with his gifts, Njegoš was still trying to convince the Russian government to support Montenegro in their daily struggles along the borders with Turkish Albania.352 Njegoš was warned by the Tsar’s
Foreign Minister, Nesselrode, that his homeland was his priority:
No matter how friendly your visit to the tsar would be, your trip to Petersburg would remove you from your homeland, where you are needed to maintain your vigil of keeping watch on your enemies… his Majesty does not want you to lose hope, and will receive you at some later time in his capital...353
Although the Russians denied him permission to travel to St. Petersburg, Njegoš stayed
in Vienna until February 1847, hoping that his refusal to return home would emphasize
the dire need of his Montenegrins. He wanted the Russians to know that he would not
349 Griez to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 20 January 1847, PPNG1845, 339. 350 Griez to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 10 February 1847, PPNG1845, 356. 351 Ballarin to Griez, 10 April 1847, PPNG1845, 372. 352 Report from Skadar, 25 March 1847, PPNG1845, 367. 353 Nesselrode to Njegoš, 4/16 November 1846 DAMCG, PIIPN.
122 accept anything but a direct intervention on his behalf with the Sultan. During this
extended stay, he reiterated his requests for increased Russian funding.354
He submitted a more concise version of his demands to Nesselrode in which he
emphasized Peter the Great's commitment to the Montenegrins in 1714 when he gave
money to them in the face of battle with the Turks. By pointing out what he believed to
be obvious connections between 1714 and his present struggles with Osman-Pasha,
Njegoš stressed the moral and political significance of Montenegro to the Russians in the
Balkans.355
Njegoš’s idle time in Vienna was spent in a way which sharply contrasted with the crisis at home: he attended balls, rode in carriages, and conversed in salons while his
people struggled to survive.356 His most significant accomplishment was the publication
of his historical epic poem, The Mountain Wreath, in the Armenian Monastery in Vienna.
This poem had been approved for publication by the Austrian censor Franje Miklošić, despite its controversial stance toward the Ottoman Empire.357
Considered to be his finest work, Njegoš's The Mountain Wreath depicted an
eighteenth century battle between Montenegrins and Turks as led by Njegoš's ancestor,
Vladika Danilo. In this battle, the Montenegrin tribes joined together in a “baptism of
354 Njegoš believed that he needed around 40,000 ducats yearly to keep order in Montenegro. As cited in Pavićević, “O neostvarenoj Njegoševoj zelji da posjeti,” 77. 355 He also presented a request for the Holy Sinod to send more liturgical books for use in Montenegro, as the Cetinje printing press did not possess all of the means to supply the country with the needed books. He once again requested to travel to St. Petersburg, and added his personal request to visit his nephew Pavle's grave, a request which had been previously denied in 1842. As cited in Pavićević, “O neostvarenoj Njegoševoj zelji da posjeti,” 77-78. 356 Report from Vienna, 27 January 1847, PPNG1845, 345. 357 Savo Vukmanović, “O originalnom rukopisu „Gorskog vijenca,” (About the orginal manuscript of “The Mountain Wreath”), Glasnik cetinjskih muzeja, II, 157-168: Cetinje, Glasnkik cetinjskog muzeja, SRCG, 1969, 159, 161.
123 death” to rid their country of all converts to Islam.358 It is not surprising that in this epic
poem, Njegoš took a negative stance towards the Ottoman Turks, who throughout the
course of his rule, attacked Montenegro over two-hundred and twenty-four times.359 A
Montenegrin was born knowing this kind of hatred of the Turks, which an English traveler described as “the dawning idea of the Montenegrin child, and the master-passion of the dying warrior.”360 Njegoš published this poem in 1847, not because he anticipated the following year’s national revolutions, but because he happened to be in Vienna after he wrote it and needed something to do while he waited for a response from the Russian government.
The Mountain Wreath captured the imagination of the South Slavs in their national struggles, and because of it, Njegoš became known as the father of Serbian literature. However, his poetry, like the almanac he published in the 1830s, was better known to those who lived outside Montenegro: the majority of Montenegro’s peasant population was illiterate, and even many of the clergy and Njegoš’s senators were unable to read his works. Although he had seen much of The Mountain Wreath through to its publication, he left it up to his secretary, Milorad Medaković, to finish its publication while he returned to Montenegro.
Njegoš left Vienna because he had finally received a reply from the Russian government through their representative Medem in the middle of January. According to the instructions given to Medem, Njegoš was allotted five more years of Russian assistance, starting with 1847, which totaled 22,850 rubles, an amount which was
358 Benoit Brunswick, ed., Recueil de documents diplomatiques relatifs au Monténégro, (A Collection of Diplomatic Documents Related to Montenegro) (Constantinople: M.S.-H. Weiss, 1876), ix. 359 Jovanović, Stvaranje Crnogorske države i razvoj Crnogorske, 220. 360 Paget, “Visit to the Vladika of Montenegro,” 429.
124 considerably less than he had anticipated. Medem privately advised the vladika to return home, as his request to visit St. Petersburg had been denied.361
Njegoš’s left Vienna on 13 February 1847. When he arrived in Cetinje at the end
of March, he quickly realized that the situation in Montenegro was more desperate than
he had thought. He immediately wrote to Gagić requesting further Russian assistance. In his letter, he admitted that his Montenegrins were presently fighting the Skadar Pasha's troops, but defined the struggle as a fight for “freedom” in the face of starvation and treachery. According to Njegoš's estimations, Osman-Pasha, in the course of five to six months, had given the Montenegrins almost a year’s worth of Russian subsidy (9000 florins). Njegoš needed the Russians to balance the scales so that he could buy back the loyalty of these turncoat tribes. He also requested that the Russian government send a consular agent to Skadar to work on behalf of “the Christians” of Montenegro.362
After Njegoš's return, the situation in Montenegro slowly became better.
Hundreds of those who had gone over to Osman-Pasha came back to Cetinje to receive
Njegoš’s forgiveness. On 12 April, Njegoš offered pardons for the two-hundred
Crmničani and three-hundred Piperi and Martinići if they turned away from the Ottoman
Porte. His promise of amnesty was accepted by four of their five leaders. Those who abandoned Osman-Pasha in favor of Njegoš were rewarded by their vladika with money, as well as soup, bread, and grain. Although this seemed meager in comparison what the
Turks had given them, the Montenegrins were really won over by the goodwill of their
vladika.
361 As cited in Pavićević, “O neostvarenoj Njegoševoj zelji da posjeti,” 79. 362 Njegoš to Gagić, 6/18 April 1847, CDIII, 456; 30 April 1847, CDIII, 463; Popović, “Crna Gora u 1847 godini,” 15; Griez to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 14 April 1847; PPNG1845, 373; Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Inzaghy and Sedlnitzky, 30 April 1847, PPNG1845, 379; Director of Police to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 2 May 1847, 381.
125 In Cetinje, Njegoš distributed cooked grain to the needy, but refused alms to the
poor as he had already given away too much money to buy back his Montenegrins’
loyalty.363 By June, the “disloyal Montenegrins” of Piperi and Crmničani had agreed to
return everything they had received from the Skadar Pasha in exchange for Njegoš’s
benevolence and grain.364 But some leaders of the rebellion, such as the captains of the
Piperi and the Crmnici, refused Njegoš’s offer.
Njegoš decided to use violence to persuade the rest of his Montenegrins to return.
First, he made an example by executing Todor Božović Muškin, who had been made
Serdar and Senator of the Piperi by Njegoš. Senator Muškin had remained in Cetinje, while his brothers went to Skadar to pledge their loyalty to the vezier. When they
returned, Njegoš had all three (Todor, Ivan, and Miloš Mušikin) arrested and executed
which he watched through the window of the Biljarda. Their weapons and clothing were sold and the money made from them was used to buy bread for the poor.365 Execution
was the strongest form of social ostracism, and Njegoš had strengthened its political
potency by allowing his inter-tribal institutions to legislate and carry out this form of
capital punishment. Njegoš knew that if he offered the Mušikins the same deal that had
been given the Radonići (i.e. exile), he risked losing other border tribesmen to the
363 Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Inzaghy and Sedlnitzky, 15 May 1847, PPNG1845, 386. 364 Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Inzaghy and Sedlnitzky, 8 June 1847, PPNG1845, 396. 365 Report from Cetinje from 10/22 October 1847, PPNG1845, 468; Griez to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 18 May 1847, 390; Ballarin to Griez, 19 June 1847, 402; Niko S. Martinović, “O jednom nerasvijetljenom pokušaju trovanja Petra II Petrovića Njegoša,” (About one failed attempt to poison Petar II Petrovic Njegos,) Istorijski Zapisi, II, III, 3-4, 113-119: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore, 1949, 118.
126 Turks.366 He hoped that the public execution of the Mušikins would frighten others
enough to maintain their loyalty to Montenegro.
Njegoš also decided that a show of military strength might convince many to
return their loyalties to him. On 12 July, he sent Pero, six Senators, eight perjanici, and
twenty other Montenegrins to Crmnica armed with cannons in order to convince the three
villages of Gluhindo, Boljevich, and Limjani to reconcile with Njegoš. All of the villages
were promised amnesty except for the heads of the Plamenac family, who had led the
rebellion. On 25 July forty-two armed Montenegrins surrounded the Plamenci houses in
the village of Boljevići.367 Joko Plamenac was captured and later executed, while many
of the family members fled to Albania; their empty homes were taken over by the poor
from the Katunska Nahija.368
One of the family’s headmen, Marko Plamenac, fled to Skadar and Njegoš offered
a reward of 100 gold ducats for him, alive or dead.369 He was assassinated on 4 October
by a young man, who was awarded an Obilić medal and a silver-etched rifle for his bravery, despite the fact that he was a Turkish citizen.370 Plamenac’s murder was
especially convincing for those prominent families who had not yet reversed their
loyalties371
366 Christopher Boehm, “Capital Punishment in Tribal Montenegro: Implications for Law, Biology, and Theory of Social Control,” Ostracism: A Social and Biological Phenomenon (New York) Ethology and Social Biology 7, iii (1986), 164. 367 Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Inzaghy and Sedlnitzky and General Command, 3 August 1847, PPNG1845, 428. 368 Griez to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 7 August 1847, PPNG1845, 432; Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Inzhagy, Sedlnitzky, and Predsjedništvo generalne komande, 3 August 1847, 428. 369 Report from Skadar, 24 June 1847, PPNG1845, 405. 370 Report from Cetinje, 10/22 October 1847, PPNG1845, 468; Griez to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 22 October 1847, 467; Ballarin to Griez, 29 October 1847, 469. 371 Popović, “Crna Gora u 1847 godini,” 16-17; PPNG1845, Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Inzaghy and Sedlnitzky, 22 November 1847, 480.
127 Despite the slow return of the border tribes’ loyalty to his sovereignty, in October
1847, Njegoš pleaded with Osman-Pasha as a “brother” and “friend” to resolve their
differences. Njegoš attempted to appeal to Osman-Pasha's Slavic background, for, like
many of Njegoš's opponents in Bosnia, Hercegovina, and Albania, he was of Slavic
descent. Yet he responded angrily to Osman-Pasha's accusations that all Montenegrins
were hajduks (highway bandits, brigands), a term which had undeniable negative
connotations:
I heard that you call all Montenegrins hajduci. This name is not shameful. Hajduk means cavalier (chevalier, Ritter)… It is true that some Montenegrins murder, plunder, and cheat, but they are only ungovernable and savage when tricked by Turkish tyranny, and therefore they do this from heroic necessity.372
However, Njegoš was unable to get Osman-Pasha to agree to a peace and was forced to
turn his energies elsewhere.
In the meantime, Montenegro’s relationship with Austria further deteriorated, as the Dalmation government had begun spending large amounts of money on border
defense. The Austrians started construction of a fortress at Mirac, a village which lay on
the border with Montenegro, and the building of a bridle path along the border from
Trinita through Stanjević to Mirac. Work on the road coincided with the final date for the
expropriation of Montenegrin property in Austrian territory, a process which had begun
in 1846.
Kaiser Ferdinand I had decreed on 11 October 1845 that the Montenegrins were
not permitted to own any kind of “immovable property” within Austrian territory. The
Dalmatian government announced the Kaiser's decision, which was frequently referred to
as the Expropriations Act, on January 1846. The Montenegrins were given two years
372 Njegoš to Osman-Pasha, 5 October 1847, CDIII, 482.
128 from the day of the announcement to dispose of all of their possessions in Austrian
territory.373
The Austrians had not counted on the unwillingness of the Montenegrins to sell
their land. Njegoš informed the new Dalmatian Governor Turskii in March 1846 that the
Montenegrins did not want to sell to anyone from Kotor, who were not interested in
buying what they offered.374 Other Montenegrins, like the Mirčani, had homes on the
Montenegrin side and their lands in Austrian territory, but they were not selling their
property because they were unable to live without it. Njegoš made little effort to enforce
this Austrian decree, and the Austrian government started to think that the tribes like the
Mirčani had made “no initiative” to sell their land according to an order from Njegoš.
Njegoš believed that if the Austrian government wanted Kaiser Ferdinand's decree to be followed, it would have to step in and buy up the small portions of Montenegrin land which its subjects were unable or unwilling to do.
Njegoš appealed to Eduard Griez von Ronse, the new regional commander of
Kotor about the situation at Mirca. He explained that he was unable to do anything about
the Mirčani, who “against my wishes” were prepared to defend their land despite the fact
that it lay in Austrian territory.375 In truth, the Austrians were befuddled by the “passive
resistance” of the Montenegrins to the Expropriations Act. They had become accustomed
to the violent attacks on their territory by Montenegrin “robber bands.” The Dalmatian
government was convinced that the Montenegrins could sell all of their land and homes
within the region of Kotor, but when they spoke with Njegoš and the Senate about this, they were informed that this was impossible.
373 Staatskanzlei, Staatenabt. Türkei III/Karton 12 HHSA. 374 Njegoš to Tursky, 8 March 1846, CDIII, 401. 375 Njegoš to Griez, 11 August 1847, CDIII, 474.
129 Njegoš intervened on behalf of his Montenegrins. He asked for the regional
commander of Kotor, Griez, to try and see things “through the eyes of the Mirčani,” who
could not live without their land. He requested extra time, one more year, so that the
Montenegrins could sell their property. And he insisted that the Austrian government
should purchase un-saleable lands.376 The Austrians were frustrated with Njegoš’s lack
of cooperation on their behalf, but decided to review the expropriation progress.
A new report, which amended the original from 1841, indicated that the
Montenegrins owned less property in Austrian territory than they had at the time of the
initial survey. Despite the Montenegrins’ obstinacy in selling their territory, they had
actually been adhering to the Expropriations Act.377 And because the worth of
Montenegrin property in the region of Kotor was “not readily available,” Njegoš was
granted a third year by Kaiser Ferdinand so that his Montenegrins could voluntarily sell
their property, although it was not guaranteed that the Austrian government would be the
purchaser.378
As a gesture of good will, Njegoš promised Griez that the Montenegrins would
not assault Austrian citizens and soldiers, border guards, and the fortress at Mirac.379 The
Austrians, in return, lifted customs duties and tariffs Montenegrins goods in Austrian territory. Yet despite an open declaration “for the prosperity of the Montenegrins,” the
376 Njegoš to Griez, 30 January 1848, PPNG1848, 26; Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Griez, 2 February 1848, 31; Njegoš to Griez, 2 September 1847, CDIII, 478. 377 Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Sedlnitzky, 11 February 1848, PPNG1848, 36. 378 Griez to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 15 May 1848, PPNG1848, 124; Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to General Command, 18 February 1848, 39; Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Griez, 19 February 1848, 40; Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Griez and Court Chancellory, 27 February 1848, 43. 379 Njegoš to Griez, 13/25 March 1848, PPNG1848, 57; CDIII, Njegoš to Griez, 13 March 1848, 498; Njegoš to Gagić, 15 March 1848, 499.
130 Dalmatian government secretly began preparing their defenses because they believed that any orders from the vladika would not be obeyed.380
The Austrians were concerned about the level of violence near their territory as the battles between the Albanians and Montenegrins continued. Austrian subjects and
officials were appalled by the Montenegrins’ “barbaric custom” of taking the heads of
one's enemies and delivering them to their leader “in triumph.”381 They correlated these
atrocities with the lack of control that Njegoš had over his own people. Soon the “entire
population” of the Kotor region was clamoring for weapons, when the Dalmatian
government admitted that it did not have sufficient troops to further garrison the city.382
The inhabitants of Boka Kotorska were more concerned about a Montenegrin attack than the revolutions in the Habsburg Empire, which seemed far away and meaningless in comparison. They were interested in increased security for their homes and property, and not in personal, ethnic, or religious freedom.383 And the nightly attacks
on Dobrota followed traditional Montenegrin patterns and were not motivated by
revolutionary ideals.
Some Austrian subjects were so afraid of the Montenegrins who they saw
preparing for war, that they considered joining with the revolutionaries in Trieste.384 Fort
construction at Mirac suffered from constant interruptions (i.e., attacks by the
380 Griez to Njegoš, 29 March 1848, PPNG1848, 66; PPNG1848, Tursky to Griez, 27 March 1848, 61; Griez to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 26 March 1848, 60. 381 Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Inzaghy and Sedlnitzky, 14 March 1848, PPNG1848, 53. 382 Griez to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 2 April 1848, PPNG1848, 75. 383 Only a few in the region of Kotor suffered from “Konstitutionsfieber”, and these were “obscure men, many of them nobles” from Kotor, Dobrota, Perzanjo, Risano, Perasto, Stoliv, and Teodo. Griez to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 2 April 1848, PPNG1848, 75. 384 The Canale consisted of 2-3,000 people who were predominantly Catholic, Rosner to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 12 June 1848, PPNG1848, 160; Griez to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 27 May 1848, 131.
131 Montenegrins) and work had to be suspended “in the interest of the state… and for the
peace of this province.”385 The Austrians had lost all faith in Njegoš's ability to control
his people.
This was their overriding concern, rather than the Revolutions of 1848, which had
little impact on Montenegro where “there was nothing to organize.”386 Despite
Metternich's suspicions in 1836 of the young vladika's liberal tendencies, Njegoš was too preoccupied with stability in his own country to be able to organize a revolution on a grander scale. Njegoš was interested in freedom, which he believed to be the
Montenegrin way of life, but he personally admitted that he was more of an “enemy of anarchy.”387 Njegoš's Montenegrins, on the other hand, were like the majority of the
population of the Balkans who knew little about the Revolutions of 1848.388 When
Montenegrins attacked Austrian territory in 1848, it was for the same reasons they always
had: to supplement their poor economy.389
To further emphasize his willingness to work with the Habsburg Empire, Njegoš
issued a declaration to his Montenegrins and Brđani on 20 May 1848 to support Ban
Jelačić, the Croatian nobleman who sided with the Habsburg Monarchy against the
Hungarian revolutionaries. Njegoš realized that supporting revolution meant going against the Austrians, with whom he was desperately trying to keep peace. As a show of
support for Jelačić, Njegoš offered to send two thousand men to Hungary despite
385 Tursky to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 29 May 1848, PPNG1848, 132. 386 Djilas, Njegoš, 397. 387 Njegoš to Stadion, 28 February 1849, CDIII, 543. 388 Peter Sugar, “Nationalism and Religion in the Balkans Since the 19th Century,” East Europe and Nationalism (Aldershot: Variorum, 1999), 8. 389 Bogumil Hrabak, “Tri vesti o Crnogorcima u 1848 godini u Carigradskog Francuskoj štampi,” (Three Reports about Montenegro in 1848 in the French Constantinople Press,) Istorijski Zapisi, Godine VII, X, 2, 587-591: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore, 1954, 588.
132 Austrian protests that these men were not necessary. Jelačić did not respond to Njegoš's offer of troops, because Dalmatian headquarters had intercepted the letter.
As part of his show of support for the Habsburg Monarchy, Njegoš wrote the inhabitants of Boka Kotorska, asking them to join Montenegro in support of their Kaiser
and the Ban of Dalmatia: “Boka and Montenegro are connected like the soul and the
body, as one nation and spirit, one custom and language, and the one would not be able to
live without the other.”390 Eduard Griez misinterpreted Njegoš’s outreach to Austria’s
Orthodox as an attempt to create a “Slavic Reich here in South Europe.”391 In order to
combat this new threat, he ordered the citizens of Boka and Dubrovnik to ignore Njegoš's
proclamations of goodwill and to be wary of the Montenegrins, who “only know how to
use violence against Austria.” For this reason, he asked that Kotor be strengthened by
two more military companies.392
The inhabitants of Boka Kotorska, meanwhile, had confirmed that they were
subjects of the Habsburgs and not interested in separating from the empire. 393 There was
only one major rebellion during the time of revolutions, and it involved Montenegro in
such a way that it upset relations between Njegoš and the Dalmatian Government.
When the district of Kotor attempted to collect taxes from one of its orthodox
tribes, the Župani, they were met with an armed rebellion for “absolute independence.”394
Led by an Orthodox priest, the Župani wanted to unite with Montenegro as well as refuse
390 Njegoš to Bokelji and Dubrovčani, 1 June 1848, PPNG1848, 135; Njegoš to Bokelji, May 1848, PPNG1848, 134; Njegoš to Bokelji and Dubrovčani, 1 June 1848, 135, 136. 391 Griez to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 11 June 1848, PPNG1848, 158. 392 Order from Eduard Griez Regarding Njegoš's Proclamation to Bokelji and Dubrovčani, 14 June 1848, PPNG1848, 166, 167Griez to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 3 June 1848, 137. 393 Miroslav Luketić, “Koncept pisma bokeljskih glavara hrvatsko-slavonskom saboru 1848. godine,” Kazivanja o prošlosti, (A Narrative about the Past) (Budva: Istorisjki arhiv Budva, 1988), 37. 394 Griez to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 19 June 1848, PPNG1848, 175.
133 payment of taxes to the Austrian empire. They gathered at the monastery in Lastua, where they sent a dispatch to Njegoš for help, as they viewed him as a natural ally and source of support. Initially, Njegoš refused to assist them, as he knew that Montenegro’s relations with the Austrian government would suffer for it.395 But when the Austrians, in
retaliation, closed the gate that connected Župa with the city of Kotor, Njegoš was unable to stop his Montenegrins from joining up with the Župani in raids against their neighbors.
In late August, when the Župani once again asked Njegoš for help, he was too
caught up in the troubles of his own country, which had suffered from drought since
May. Once again, even though he declined, more Montenegrins joined with the rebellion
and Njegoš claimed to not know why they were doing this.396 At the end of September,
Austrian soldiers attacked the revolting factions, because their indirect measures (of
banning the Župani from market and hindering traffic) had failed. At that time, Njegoš
sent several of his perjanici to convince his Montenegrins to return, but were
unsuccessful.397 The fighting between the Župani and Austrians became more intense, as
Griez, a recently injured combatant, was convinced after seeing them in action, that they
could be subdued only by a show of power.
By the second week of October, when the Župani were ready to negotiate, they
asked Njegoš to mediate for them with the Austrian government. This bought them
several months of peace with the Župani, but Austrian officials were still convinced that
“peace and security” could not be established in Kotor without the use of military
395 Griez to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 2 August 1848, PPNG1848, 218. 396 Njegoš to Griez, October 1848, CDIII, 533. 397 Griez to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 28 August 1848, PPNG1848, 252; Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 28 October 1848, 327; Dojmi to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 29 September 1848, 270.
134 violence.398 In February, the Župani once again refused to pay taxes and were joined
heartily by the Montenegrins in their rebellion. Austrian officials began discussing
means of “pacification,” because with Montenegrin help, the Župani could put up “a
strong resistance.” And the Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo was convinced that the
“mischievous and two-faced vladika” was somehow behind these “subversive activities.”399
Njegoš's influence was growing in Boka Kotorska and, at the end of February, he
sent representatives to Župa offering his protection. Griez believed this new connection
with the vladika and the Župani was the reason for the reigning “confusion” in Kotor. In
his opinion, Kotor needed more military power to counteract the vladika's influence so
that it could “be prepared for unfriendly attacks on the population.”400 By 1849, he had
convinced the Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo of Njegoš’s “undoubted appetite… for the
consolidation of [his] supremacy over the region of Kotor.”401
In order to combat Njegoš growing influence over their Orthodox population to
unite with him, the Austrians attempted to “set up a moral influence” in Kotor “as a dam
against anarchy.” They did this by strengthening of Boka Kotorska's military forces and
replacing the paranoid regional commander Griez with the experienced Gabriel Ivačić, a
man who had been able to maintain peaceful relations with Montenegro during his term
as regional commander.402
398 Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Reiche, 4 October 1848, PPNG1848, 283. 399 Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Stadion, 4 February 1848, PPNG1848, 396. 400 Griez to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 23 February 1849, PPNG1848, 399; Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Stadion, 23 February 2849, 400; Buio to Strasold, 5 March 1849, 404. 401 Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Bach, 14 November 1849, PPNG1848, 512. 402 Stadion to Strasoldo, 21 March 1849, PPNG1848, 419; Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Stadion, 22 March 1849, 420; Stadion to Strasoldo, 28 March 1849, 422.
135 The Montenegrins, who had undergone another difficult year in terms of harvest
and war with the Turks, were expected to attack Kotor's pastures and livestock in the
winter of 1849-1850.403 Austrian officials watched in alarm as an important meeting took place at the Biljarda in Cetinje in August, which was attended by 70 national leaders of
Montenegro, Brda, Hercegovina, Metohija, and Northern Albania.404 The meeting
concerned Christian collaboration against their Turkish oppressors, but it did little to
contribute to Austrian feelings of security in the Balkans.
Shortly after this meeting, Njegoš and Ali-Pasha made a pact to supply each other with war munitions, which the Austrians had forbidden to be sold or transported to the
Montenegrins.405 A shipment of cannonballs Njegoš had purchased from Britain had
been withheld in Trieste for this reason. Ingredients which could be used to make war
munitions, such as potassium nitrate and scrap metal, were detained in the customs house
and heavily dutied.406 Njegoš and Ali-Pasha set up this agreement because they could
transport war materials directly to each and not have to pass through Austrian territory.
Their implementation of this agreement never came to pass between, because
Njegoš became ill. He had rented an apartment in Kotor so that he could be treated by
the Austrian doctors.407 Because he had been suffering upper respiratory problems since
November 1849, the doctors suggested that Njegoš spend some time traveling in Italy for
his health. On 8 June 1850, Njegoš left Kotor on a steamer bound for Zadar.
403 Ivačić to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 16 November 1849, PPNG1848, 513. 404 Jovanović, Stvaranje Crnogorske države i razvoj Crnogorske, 217-218. 405 Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Military Command, 28 February 1850, PPNG1850, 40; Rešetar to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 2 March 1850, 42; Reiche to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 2 March 1850, 44; Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Bach, 3 March 1850, 47; Bach to Gheltaldi, 28 March 1850, 67, 68; Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Rešetar, Mamula, and Military Command, 3 April 1850, 72. 406 Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Njegoš and Ali-Pasha, 3 April 1850, PPNG1850, 73. 407 Njegoš to Miklošič, 12 March 1850, CDIII, 572.
136 For Njegoš, this represented a withdrawal from the political and military problems he had dealt with over the past several years. The strains he had placed upon his body and mind for his people were taking their physical toll. Although doctors were not sure in the beginning what he suffered from, Njegoš probably suspected he had a life threatening illness; before he left for Italy, he composed his final testament.
He had spent the decade of the 1840s trying to negotiate a viable existence for
Montenegro. Njegoš’s time was consumed by negotiations with the Great Powers
Vienna. His absence from home had hurt his people, who were unable to see what he was doing for them. While he enjoyed the splendors of Vienna, the Montenegrins were left to defend themselves from starvation and Turkish attacks. Many, in a moment of weakness, had chosen to accept assistance from the Skadar Vezier, who knew the opportune moment to strike. While the Senate and Gvardija tried to maintain the solidarity of the tribes, it was not until Njegoš returned that they had any success in bringing people back into the fold.
While the Turks were simultaneously attacking and bribing the Montenegrins, the
Austrians were stealing their land. Njegoš desperately tried to negotiate with the
Dalmatian government for some kind of respite for his Montenegrins. As he sank in
Austrian officials’ opinions, he discovered that he had a growing influence over Kotor’s
Orthodox population. He barely had begun to exploit this new strength when the illness against which he had been secretly struggling sapped all of his vitality. Once again, he had to leave his Montenegrins to their own means.
As his health began to fail, Njegoš’s thoughts turned frequently away from politics and towards his own mortality, but he found little solace in either. He once again
137 turned to his poetry as his true legacy to his people. Still, there was some hope in his
recovery, and he made every effort to regain his health by traveling, at his doctors’
insistence, throughout Italy. This was a lonely prospect for the ailing vladika, but in his
absence he came to appreciate his country in ways he had not anticipated. He also knew that if he should die, his successor had to be prepared to take Montenegro in a new direction, one which Njegoš had only just begun to initiate.
When Njegoš attempted to leave for Italy in June, he was too weak to stand and was denied permission to travel further. After he was strong enough, he departed Cetinje for Vienna, leaving his brother Pero once again in charge. He left amid rumors of poisonings and rebellions, as the foreign press speculated on his reasons for leaving
Montenegro.408 In Vienna, Njegoš sought the advice of Austria’s foremost doctors who
suggested, as had previous doctors and friends, that Njegoš spend the winter in Italy. 409
During his two trips to Italy, Njegoš visited Venice, Rome, and Naples, places which he selected for their “beauty” and “fame.”410 While there, the nature of Njegoš's
correspondence changed. Rather then his usually business-like style of composition,
Njegoš now wrote letters to friends and associates that were focused on his personal
reflections about death, religion, and the future of his people. He was frequently awake,
as he could not sleep for long intervals, and ate very little, so he spent a lot of time
contemplating his fate. In a letter to Ilija Garašanin, the Serbian nationalist and interior
minister, Njegoš expounded upon the fate of his people should he die:
408 Djilas, Njegoš, 429. 409 L. Klačić, “Njegoševa misija u Beču 1850. godine,” (Njegoš’s Mission in Vienna in 1850), Istorijski Zapisi, XIV, knj. XVIII, sv. I, 71-120, 75-76. 410 Djilas, Njegoš, 438.
138 Everyone is mortal and can die. I am not sorry for what cannot be… but I am afraid that after me all misfortunes will return to Montenegro that had been there before me…411
And to Petar Marinković: “In my sickness I think about death, but this thought does not
hurt me… I am not afraid.”
His letters to Vuk Karadžić were not about the world of literature which he had previously loved to discuss, but were filled with minute descriptions of his hotel rooms and travel plans.412 His new philosophy became “he who does not travel does not live”
and he began to see the world as “an open book,” “a window” for understanding one's
life. Perhaps he feared that if he stopped traveling, he would die, yet at the time, he
longed to return home to Cetinje. His trip had rejuvenated his health, but he grew increasingly worried about the reports he had been receiving from home concerning a new Turkish threat to his small country.
Njegoš was already on his way to Venice when rebellions broke out in
Hercegovina and Bosnia against the Sultan's tanzimat (reforms). Relations between the
Ottomans and the Montenegrins seemed to have reverted back to their 1840 status, when the Turks and the Montenegrins started fighting again in Drobnjak. This time, the
Montenegrins fought on the side of Njegoš’s pobratim (blood-brother), Ali Pasha, who
led the revolts in Hercegovina. By February 1851, Ali-Pasha lost to the powerful Omar-
Pasha, and the former “Sultan of Mostar” was paraded through its streets on a donkey
with its tail in his hands. He was murdered and buried in a garden under an apple tree in
411 Njegoš to Garašanin, 6 July 1850, CDIII, 586. 412 Njegoš to Karadžić, 25 December 1850, CDIII, 596.
139 Banja Luka seven months before Njegoš died.413 After defeating Ali Pasha, Omar-Pasha lined up his troops to attack Montenegro, to take advantage of Njegoš’s recent absence.414
Njegoš was with Ljubomir Nenadović, the Serbian writer, when he received the coded message containing the news of Ali-Pasha's death. Upon reading the message,
Njegoš exclaimed, “that dog [Omar-Pasha] will not let me be ill and die in peace.”415
The loss of his former ally at the hands of the Skadar vezier only further emphasized to
Njegoš his own mortality.
The Austrians were not concerned about the increase in Omar-Pasha’s attacks, but were obsessed by the murder of a local ship captain in their territory.416 Dalmatian officials were frustrated, because despite Austrian prohibitions on gunpowder and war munitions, they were unable to prevent murder and theft on a weekly basis. And though it had seemed in the past that Montenegro’s vladika had little control over his own people, the Dalmatian government was becoming increasingly convinced that any
413 Đukić, “Petar Petrovć I i Ali-paša Stočević,” 215. 414 Rosner to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 20 October 1850, PPNG1850, 148; Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Bach, 24 October 1850, 149; Rosner to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 27 October 1850, 150; Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Atanskorski, 28 October 1850, 152; Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Bach, 30 October 1850, 153; Rescetar to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 2 November 1850, 155; OD Number 179, 8 November 1850, 157. 415 Petar Petrović and Nenadović Njegoš, Ljubomir, Gorski vijenac; Razgovori s Njegošem, Kalezić, Vasilije (Beograd: Biblioteka „Opšta izdanja,” 1995), 299. 416 On the night of 26 December 1850, in Draxin Vart in Orahovac, Montenegrins from Perovići in Cuce robbed and murdered the Dalmatian sea captain Nicolo Vucassović, wounded his wife, “maltreated his daughter, and robbed the family of possessions worth 2,000 florins. Risano and Austrian officials believed that this “deplorable” murder/robbery took place as revenge for a robbery in Giurich which had happened two years previously. After further investigation, they discovered that Vucassović had paid the assassins a year's tribute for protection. Regional Commander Kotor to Bach, 16 November 1850, PPNG1850, 161; Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Bach, 5 December 1850, PPNG1850,166; Ballovich Podea to Pretor in Budva, 27 December 1850, 180; Nikola Kossovac to Official, 27 December 1850, 182; Rescetar to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 28 December 1850, 183; Rescetar to CZV, 28 December 1850, 184; Rescetar to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 31 December 1850, 185; Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Rescetar 2 January 1851, 187; Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Bach, 2 January 1851, 188; Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Bach, 2 January 1851, 190.
140 replacement might be even less capable of controlling the Montenegrins. The
Vucassović assassination forced Austrian headquarters to worry about Njegoš's health
because “only the personal influence of the Vladika is able to rein in these savage folk.”
Through years of experience with Njegoš and Montenegro, they believed that if he
“succumbed to death,” there would be unpredictable “consequences” in Cetinje and Boka
Kotorska.417
Njegoš’s returned from Italy in the summer of 1851 because he refused to die in a
foreign land. Njegoš’s close associate, General Stratimirović, believed that Njegoš just
wanted to die “among his heroes.”418 Because of his trip, he had regained some of his
health and it was business as usual in Cetinje. He carried out the daily correspondence
with the regional commander in Kotor (at this time, Pavle Rescetar) regarding
Montenegrin infractions against Austrian citizens. He also attempted to sell the grain that
he had bought for emergencies in Trieste, because the Montenegrins had a year of good
harvests.419 But his full return to the daily politics of Montenegro had sapped his strength by September, when his brother Pero assumed responsibility for his correspondence.
Njegoš was very weak, unable to stand up, and his hands and stomach were swollen. His
“horrible cough” gave him no peace, and he was unable to sleep. The Montenegrin people, especially those who were loyal to him, were unable to imagine the eventuality of his death; whenever a perjanik was asked how the vladika felt, he replied, “Well!”420
417 Rescetar to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 8 July 1851, PPNG1850, 360; Gendarmerie to Back, 15 July 1851, PPNG1850, 367. 418 General von Stratimirović, Was ich erlebte: Erinnerungen, (Through What I Lived: Memories) (Wien: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1911), 84 419 Njegoš to Gagić, 6 September 1851, CDIII, 610; Djilas, 453. 420 Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Bach, 21 October 1851, PPNG1850, 439.
141 On 28 October 1851, Njegoš decided to go to Kotor because of his failing health,
but he never made the trip. He died at 10AM on 31 October 1851.421 Njegoš's body was
kept in the monastery for four days because of bad weather. On the fourth day, his body,
with its unclosed eyes, was viewed by thousands of Montenegrins who had gathered in
Cetinje to mourn the loss of their leader.422 At this time, his testament, which had been
brought from Dubrovnik by Njegoš's most trusted perjanik, Radovan Piper, was read to
the people:
Thank you, Lord, for bringing me to the shores of your world and nourishing me in the rays of your wondrous sun. Thank you, Lord, for favoring me above millions on earth with a body and a soul. How many years since my childhood have I exalted your unattainable majesty in hymns of divine joy and amazement at your magnificence, how often have I considered and lamented the wretched destiny of mankind. Your word has created all from nothing; all things are subject to your law. Man is mortal and must die. With hopefulness I come before your sacred altar, I caught a glimpse of its shadow on the shore from which I measured my mortal steps. I calmly heed your call, either to sleep eternally in your bosom or to glorify you forever in the heavenly choir…423
For a vladika whose focus was on more earthly matters, Njegoš’s final testament was
peppered with religious language that reflected his meditation on the afterlife. Yet he
took care of his responsibilities as well: he named his nephew Danilo as his successor,
but appointed Pero as temporary ruler while Danilo was educated in Russia.
Word of Njegoš's death was received with great emotion outside of Montenegro.
The Serbian Knez Mihailo Obrenović held a memorial service for Njegoš in Vienna on 11
November. The Turks in Scutari, on the other hand, celebrated the vladika's death.424
421 Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Bach, Jellačić, 20 November 1851, PPNG1850, 484. 422 Djilas, 463; Rescetar to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 8 November 1851, PPNG1850, 469. 423 Translation partially based upon Djilas, 431-432; 452; Njegoš's Testament, 20 May 1850, IP1967, 144. 424 Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Bach, 12 November 1851, PPNG1850, 474.
142 And, despite a report of the peaceful acceptance of Njegoš’s death, the Austrian government prepared for the worst, stationing one-hundred men in the region to handle the “consequences” of Njegoš's death.425
Danilo, Njegoš’s twenty –four year old nephew, received word of his uncle’s death and of his own succession to the throne on 8 November while in Vienna. Instead of continuing on to Russia for an education, he headed back to Montenegro “for the good of the nation.” He returned to his homeland on 13 December, and the Austrians, unaware of the internal rivalry among the Petrovići, believed that Danilo had been designated the new vladika on 15 December.426 Just as there had been in 1830, there was now some dissension regarding Njegoš’s choice of his nephew Danilo as the ruler of Montenegro.427
In spite of the controversy, Danilo was blessed as the new ruler of Montenegro during the
New Year’s skupština.428
425 The Dalmatian government reported that Njegoš had gathered all of the Montenegrin leaders around his deathbed while his testament was read. Danilo was proclaimed as successor and Pero the acting regent until Danilo's return. The Austrian “spy” said that Đorđije “the pretendant to the throne, took Pero's hand, kissed it, and named him his sovereign. His example was followed by others.” Supposedly, Pero immediately took possession of Njegoš's apartment, correspondence, money, and jewelry as well as the position of power within Montenegro. Rescetar to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 31 October 1851, PPNG1850,454; 3 November 1851. 426 Rescetar to Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo, 20 December 1851, PPNG1850,502: Gubernijalno Predsjedništvo to Bach, 26 December 1851, 505. 427 Pero and Đorđije both thought they had legitimate claims to the throne. 428 Jovanović, Stvaranje Crnogorske države i razvoj Crnogorske, 226-227.
143 Conclusion
Njegoš’s successor, his nephew Danilo, inherited a Montenegro that was quite
different than the one Njegoš’s uncle had given to him in 1830. Montenegro was now
governable by one person whose secular challenges to power had been eliminated (as in
the case of the guvernador.) The divisive power of the tribes had been defused by the
creation of a Senate and Gvardija, over which the vladika reigned supreme. Montenegro
now had a Minister of Finance and a system of taxation, which had lessened the country’s
dependence upon Russian subsidies. Njegoš’s struggles to win Russian approval made
him more distrustful of Montenegro’s protector and more wary of Russian offers of
assistance. He created some precedence for dealing with the Austrian government and its
subjects, by turning to them when the Russians had refused to help.
Perhaps Njegoš’s most important contribution was giving his people a way to think about themselves as Montenegrins. He provided the groundwork for a system of education through which Montenegrin citizens could be created. He gave them a saint with whom they could identify, as many had been alive when Petar I had ruled
Montenegro. And he provided them with a literature, which they could, in time, embrace as their heritage. Because of his failure to negotiate a peace with the Ottoman Empire, he wrote an epic masterpiece that embodied South Slavic national feelings and goals that are still recognized in the twenty-first century. The structures of Njegoš’s government were
the foundations of the Montenegrin state that would last until the end of the nineteenth
century. These changes, which Njegoš had enacted over his twenty years as vladika, had enabled Danilo to choose “worldly over spiritual power.” In 1852, Danilo abolished the
144 connection between vladika and ruler of Montenegro and proclaimed himself a secular prince.429
This dissertation has been an attempt to write, for a western audience, a history of
Montenegro during the period of 1830-1851. Prior to this, there has been very little available in English on Njegoš and Montenegro. Njegoš, today, is to many people a great poet whose historical accomplishments as ruler of Montenegro have taken second place.
This dissertation attempts to explain these accomplishments as separate from his writing.
Njegoš as a historical subject has suffered from neglect. As Edward Goy so poignantly stated: “History is composed of a myriad of individual lives and these, taken together, form a fateful abstraction.”430 The life of Njegoš needs to be written in order that a more complete understanding of the Balkans can take place. I have not discussed
Njegoš’s literary works for several reasons. First of all, it has been well researched; authors have been debating the literary significance of Njegoš’s writings far longer than most subjects relating to Montenegro. Secondly, all but two of his poems are unavailable in English; providing accurate translations is a project in itself. And finally, this dissertation is only intended as an introduction to the possibilities that Montenegrin history holds for exploration.
Montenegro has not been entirely ignored in historical writings on the Balkans, but has only been superficially written about in the standard works in English. For example, L.S. Stavrianos’s The Balkans since 1353 only devotes a handful of pages to
Montenegro. He sets the reader up for a significant discussion for history that includes
Montenegro, but then does not explore the implications of his oft-quoted observation that
429 Mamula to Austrian Minister of the Military, 31 December 1851, PPNG1850, 508; Copy of Letter from Danilo Petrović, 11 November 1851, 473. 430 Goy, The Sabre and the Song, 22
145 “[t]he role of Montenegro in South Slav and general Balkan affairs has been quite out of
proportion to her ridiculously meager material resources.”431 Barbara Jelavich warns
readers to not expect a discussion of Montenegro’s importance for Russian foreign policy
in the Balkans “because its size precludes it from a major role in international affairs.”
Yet at the same time, she describes Montenegro as an important strategic position “from which Russia could conduct policy in the Balkans against other powers.”432 John Lampe and Marvin Jackson preempt Montenegro from their analysis of Balkan economic history because of its “stagnant rural economy.”433 More recent works on the Balkans, such as
Misha Glenny’s Nationalism, War and the Great Powers: 1804-1999, only mention
Montenegro as a side note to the Eastern Question. The few assumptions that have been made about Montenegro need to be questioned, especially in regards to its size, its poverty, and its role in the Balkans. Some scholars, such as the economic historian
Michael Palairet, the historian Ivo Banac, and the sociologist John Allcock, are beginning to incorporate Montenegro into their intensive studies of the Balkans and Yugoslavia.
It has generally been assumed that the Russians played a significant role in shaping the history of Montenegro. As these chapters have illustrated, the Russian government was only a source of financial support, rather than a moral or diplomatic protector of the Montenegrins. The Austrians, on the other hand, played a more noticeable role. Daily relations with the government in Kotor gave the Montenegrins valuable political experience, as well as provided them with a sense of how to define
431 L.S. Stavrianos, The Balkans since 1453. (New York: New York University Press), 2000 (1958), 237. 432 Barbara Jelavich, A Century of Russian Foreign Policy: 1814-1914 (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1964), 61. 433 John R. and Jackson Lampe, Marvin L., Balkan Economic History: 1500-1950, From Imperial Borderlands to Developing Nations (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982), 280.
146 themselves in the European state system.434 Montenegro was at peace with some, but not
all of the Ottoman veziers in neighboring territory. The neighboring Pashas conducted
foreign policy separate from each other and from the empire. Therefore, traditional
assumptions about Montenegrin experience with the Ottoman Empire have turned out to
be more violent and complicated than had been previously believed.
I have undertaken this research with the primary goal of adding to the general
European narrative. A solid national history of Montenegro first needs to be written in
order to accomplish this. Perhaps the easiest way to bring in this new information will be
to contrast the Great Powers experiences with Montenegro in regards to previous beliefs
about Montenegro’s role in the Balkans. Once these have been merged, then a world of
possibilities has been opened for integrating Montenegro (and other Balkan countries)
into an even broader narrative of global history.
While the most recent trend in the field is to veer away from national histories, the
Montenegrins still need to write and debate their own history now that Yugoslavia no
longer exists. The domination of Montenegro by the Serbs, and then by Yugoslavia, in
the early decades of the twentieth century resulted in the downplaying of Montenegrin
history. Njegoš was claimed as a Serbian poet, while his role as Montenegrin vladika
went unacknowledged. By adding the Montenegrins to their history, the Serbs were able
to create a continuity that they had previously lacked: the Montenegrins, who claimed
they had never been completely conquered by the Ottoman Empire, were saved from the
434 Treadway has followed familiar paths and built upon well-established hatreds. He argues that Austria-Hungary was “most responsible for impeding the realization of Montenegrin aspirations.” While this may have been true for his period of study (1908-1914), it does not apply to earlier periods of Montenegrin history. In fact, Montenegrin prejudice against the Austrians came from these years preceding World War I and worked its way into scholarly writing. Treadway, The Falcon and the Eagle, 201.
147 fate of the Serbs, who felt they had lost five hundred years of history. Ironically, it is this
period in which Montenegro had a distinct and separate history from the rest of the
Balkans which goes unwritten, especially for westerners.
As a result, the Montenegrins’ role in the Balkans is barely mentioned in some of
the key English works on the Balkans. The myth of Montenegrin independence was
based on the historical fact that they were never truly subjugated by the Ottoman Empire.
Because they were not ruled in the same way as other Balkan nations, the Montenegrins
could claim the distinction of not sharing the same feudal institutions and legacies. Not
only was Montenegro an exception to Ottoman dominance, but it was also an exception
to the Yugoslavian experience; the Montenegrins did not suffer the wars that wracked the
other former republics. Montenegrin history seems to contain many important exceptions
to the traditional history of the Balkans.
The Balkan experience as a whole may be better understood through a study of
Montenegrin history, a history which seems at odds with everything else. Usually the
exceptions to the rules can tell us more about the system than the rules can themselves.
This is certainly the case with Montenegro, which was neither a part of the Ottoman
Empire, Venetian/Habsburg Empire, nor even the European state system. The fact that
Montenegro remained independent from the Ottoman Empire while the rest of the
Balkans had succumbed to this Great Power cannot be solely explained by its poverty and
inaccessibility.
148 GLOSSARY
bratstvo – clan, unit which makes up a tribe (pleme) Brđani – inhabitants of Brda cekina - 1000 cekina (sequins) = 27,505 Russian rubles domačin – head of household Gorski vijenac - The Mountain Wreath (1847), Njegoš’s most famous poem Grlica – a morning dove; the name of Njegoš’s almanac published from 1835-39 harač – household tax guvernador – civil governor kastradine – smoked meat from Montenegro which was very popular in Austrian markets katuni – cabins were Montenegrins go with their herds for the winter knez – head of a village, similar to a duke; eventually came to signify a prince kolo – a circular dance; in The Mountain Wreath Njegoš uses kolo like a Greek chorus krvena osveta – blood feud kuća – household, house Kuluk – Petar I’s court system kutnja zajednica – household that worked together; larger than a nuclear family nahija (plural nahije) – administrative district; is made up of tribes piazza - market pleme (plural plemena) – tribe selo (plural sela) - village serdar – tribal leader in peace time skupština – a meeting or leaders, could be national or local Stara Crna Gora – Old Montenegro; what historians call the tribal confederation before King Nikola starašina – head of household; domačin Stari Grad – The Old City; Kotor ustanka – rebellion, uprising vilajet – an Ottoman-controlled province that is not directly under a Muslim leader vladika – bishop; in the case of Montenegro the title is for both religious and secular ruler vojvoda – supreme tribal military leader zadruga – communal household Zakonik – Petar I’s written civic code (1789)
149 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aleksić-Pejković, Ljiljana. “Crna Gora i Srbija kao centri nacionalno-oslobodilačke borbe južnoslovenskih naroda do 1878. godine.” (Montenegro and Serbia as the Center of National Liberation Struggle for the South Slavic People until 1878). Istorijski Časopis. 29-30. 299-313: Yugoslavia, 1982-1983.
Allcock, John B.. Explaining Yugoslavia. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000.
Amero, Justin. “Le Montenegro et ses pretentions a l'independance” (Montenegro and its Intentions for Independence). Le Correspondant (Paris) 44, 8 (1858): 264-286.
Ancel, Jacques. Manuel Historique de la Question d'Orient (1792-1923) (Historical Manual of the Eastern Question 1792-1923). Paris: Library Delgrave, 1923.
Anderson, M.S. The Eastern Question 1774-1923: A Study in International Relations. London: Macmillan, St. Martin's Press, 1966.
Andrić, Ivo. The Bridge on the Drina. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1977.
———. Njegoš kao tragični junak kosovske misli. (Njegoš as a Tragic Hero of Kosovo's Thought). Priština: Girgorije Božović, 1995.
Anzulovic, Branimir. Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide. New York: New York University Press, 1999.
Anshakov, IU. P.. Stanovlenie Chernogorskogo gosudarstva i Rossija (1798 - 1856 gg.). (The Emigration of Montenegrins to the Russian Empire (1798-1856). Moskva: Rossiiskaia akademiia nauk- Institut slavianovedeniiia, 1998.
Atanasijević, Ksenija. “Jedan pogled na Njegoševo mislilaštvo.” (A Look at Njegoš's thoughts) Srpski književni glasnik. XLII. 18-25: Beograd, 1834.
Aubin, Michel. Visions Historiques et Politiques dans l'oeuvre poetiques de P.P. Njegoš (Historical and Poetic Visions in the Poet Works of P.P. Njegoš). Richelieu. Publications de la Sorbonne. Paris-Sorbonne: Universite de Paris IV, 1972.
Banašević, Nikola. “Njegoševo učenje stranih jezika.” (Njegoš's Foreign Language Study) Zapisi. III. V. 4. 193-202: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1929.
Batovski, Henrik. “Jedan prilog pitanju: Njegoš in 1848.” (One Supplement to the Question: Njegoš in 1848). Istorijski Zapisi. XVIII. XXII. 4. 653-661: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1965.
150 Beissinger, Margaret. “Epic, Gender, and Nationalism: The Development of Nineteenth Century Balkan Literature.” In Epic Traditions in the Contemporary World: The Poetics of Community, Beissinger, Margaret; Tylus, Jane; Wofford, Susanne eds. 69-85. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.
Berić, Dušan. “Dalmatinska štampa o sadnjim godinama života i smrti Njegoša.” (The Dalmatian Press on the Later Years of the Life and Death of Njegoš) Istorijski Zapisi. V. VIII. 1-3. 47-61: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodna Republike Crne Gore. 1952.
Biazoleto, Bartolomeo. “Saksonski kralj kod Njegoša.” (The Saxon King at Njegoš's) Istorijski Zapisi. Godine I. II. 3-4. 226-238: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1948.
“Bibliografija.” (Bibliography) Glasnik Cetinjskih Muzeja savremena istorija Crne Gore i njen muzeoloski izraz. I-V. Cetinje, Izdavačko-štamparkso preduyeće “Obod.” 1968-1972.
Bieber, Florian, ed. Montenegro in Transition: Problems of Identity and Statehood. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlaggesellschaft, 2003.
Bjelić, Dušan and Savić, Obrad, eds. Balkan as Metaphor, Between Globalization and Fragmentation. Cambridge, Massachussetts: The MIT Press, 2002.
Bjelica, Isidora. Tajni život P.P. Njegoša. (The True Life of P.P. Njegoš). Beograd: Knjiga-Komerc, 2003.
Boehm, Christopher. Blood Revenge: The Enactment and Management of Conflict in Montenegro and other Tribal Societies. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1984; University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987.
———. “Capital Punishment in Tribal Montenegro: Implications for Law, Biology, and Theory of Social Control.” Ostracism: A Social and Biological Phenomenon (New York) Ethology and Social Biology 7, iii (1986): 157-172.
———. “Execution Within the Clan as an Extreme Form of Ostracism.” Social Science Information (Paris) 24 (1985): 309-321.
———. “Montenegrin Ethical Values: An Experiment in Anthropological Method.” PhD diss., Harvard University. 1972.
———. “Mountain Refuge Area Adapatations.” In Cultural Adaptation to Mountain Enviroments, Beaver, Patricia D. and Pennington, Burton L.. 24-37. Athens: University of Georgia, 1966.
151 ———. Montenegrin Social Organization and Values: Political Ethnography of a Refuge Area Tribal Adaptation. AMS Studies in Anthropology. New York: AMS Press, 1983.
Bogdanović, Milan V.. “Vratimo Njegoša literatura.” (A Return to Njegoš's Literature) Srpski književni glasnik. 2. 16.7. 577-579: Beograd, 1925.
———. 1847 godina i Njegoš (1847 and Njegoš). Kolarčev narodni univerzitet. Beograd: Knizinca za narodno prosvecivanje, 1947.
Bogetić, Ljubinka. “O ustanovi stanka u Crnoj Gori XVIII i XIX veka.” (About the Institutional Situation in Montenegro in the 18th and 19th Centuries) Istorijski Zapisi. XV. XIX. 2. 279-291: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1962.
Bojanić, Slavko. “Uloga 'Grlica' u razvitku crnogorske istoriografije.” (The Role of 'Grlica' in Development of Montenegrin Historiography) Istorijski Zapisi. LXIII. 1-2. 197-203:1990.
Bojović, Jovan. “Položaj srpske pravoslavne crkve u Crnoj Gori sredinom XIX vijeka.” (The Position of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro in the Middle of the 19th Century) Istorijski Zapisi. LXVI. 1-4. 157-161: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1993.
———ed.. Le Monténégro dans les Relations Internationales. (Montenegro in International Relations). Titograd: Institut d'Histoire de la R.S. de Monténégro, 1984.
Bonači, Ivan. “Njegoš u Splitu.” (Njegoš in Split). 15. 992-995: Titograd, 1960.
Borocki, Benjamin. “Način života u Crnoj Gori.” (The Way of Life in Montenegro) Zapisi. XIV. XXIII. 4. 225-227: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1940.
Bracewell, Wendy. “National Histories and National Identities among the Serbs and Croats.” In National Histories and European History, Fulbrook, Mary. 141-160. Boulder, San Francisco: Westview Press, 1993.
Braudel, Fernand. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II. 2 vols. New York, Cambridge, etc.: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1972.
Brković, Živko. Sudbina rukopisa “Gorskog vijenca”. (The Fate of the Manucript of “The Mountain Wreath”). Beč: Jermenski mehitaristićki manastir, 1987.
152 Brunswick, Benoit, ed.. Recueil de documents diplomatiques relatifs au Monténégro. (A Collection of Diplomatic Documents Related to Montenegro). Constantinople: M.S.-H. Weiss, 1876.
Calhoun, Major Steven C.. “Montenegro's Tribal Legacy.” Military Review, July - August (2000): 32-40.
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The Other Balkan Wars. A Carnegie Endowment Book. Washington, D.C: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1914; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1993.
Cerović, Stanko. Njegoševe tajne staze (Njegoš's Exact Path). Podgorica: Montenegropublic, 1996.
“Clans.”http://www.vijesti.cg.yu/naslovna.phtml?akcija=vijest&id=49397/www.vijesti.c g.yu/naslovna.phtml?akcija=vijest&id=49397/www.njegos.org/clans/clans.htm:.
Clogg, Richard, ed. Balkan Society in the Age of Greek Independence. Totowa, New Jersey: Barnes and Noble Books, 1981.
Council of the Montenegrin Clans. map. “Statistical map of Montenegro made by Council of the Montenegrin Clans.” http://www.njegos.net/en/news/archives/200112/tnnnews20011205- 01.html:05.12.2001.
Ćetković, Jovan. “Dva momenta iz vladavine Petra II Petrovića Njegoša.” (Two Moments from the Rule of Petar II Petrović Njegoš) Istorijski Zapisi. IV. VIII. 7- 9. 360-379: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1951.
Ćurić, Hajrudin. “Crnogorsko-hercegovinian odnosi u doba Petra II Petrovića Njegoša.” (Montenegrin-Hercegovinian Relations in the Time of Petar II Petrović Njegoš) Istorijski Zapisi. IV. VII. 7-9. 334-352: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1951.
———. “Crnogorsko-Hercegovački ugovor u Trebinju.” (The Montenegrin- Hercegovinian Agreement in Trebinje) Istorijski Zapisi. XVI. XX. 3. 487-495: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1963.
———. “’Iliriske Narodne Novine’ o pogobili Smail-aga Čengića.” (“The Illyrian National News” about the Death of Smail-aga Čengić) Istorijski Zapisi. XVI. XX. 3. 476-483: Titograd, Organ Isotorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1963.
153 Dašić, Miomir. “Pregled teritorijalnog širenja crnogorske države.” (A Look at the Territorial Expansion of the Montenegrin State) Istorijski Zapisi. LX. 1. 115-?: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1987.
Davies, Norman. Europe: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
“Dimitrije Milaković predsjedniku ministarskog savjeta grofu Neseljrodu.” (Dimitrije Milakovic's, the Minister President, advice to Count Nesselrod) Zapisi. XI. XX. 1. 36-38: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1938.
Djilas, Milovan. Land without Justice. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1958.
———. Njegoš: Poet, Prince, Bishop. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966.
———. Rise and Fall. San Diego, New York, London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1983.
Djordjević, Dimitrije and Fischer-Galati, Stephen. The Balkan Revolutionary Tradition. New York: Columbia University Press, 1981.
“Documenta iz bečkog arhiva iz sredine XIX vijeka.” (Document from Vienna's Archives from the Middle of the Nineteenth Century). Zapisi. XIII. XXIII. 6. 369-380: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Drustva. 1940.
Dragićević, Risto. “Arhivski podaci o licima “Gorskog Vijenca.” (Archival Data about the Characters in the Mountain Wreath) Istorijski Zapisi. 1. I. 1-2. 23-47: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1948.
———. “Bibliography radova g. D. D. Vuksana o Vladici Radu.” (Bibliography of works by D. D. Vuksan about Vladika Rade) Zapisi. XIII. XXXIV. 4. 249-252: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1940.
———. “Crna Gora krajem 1851. godine.” (Montenegro at the End of 1851) Istorijski Zapisi. VI. IX. 2. 407-428: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1954.
———. “Crna Gora za vrijeme drugog Njegoševog odlaska u Rusiju.” (Montenegro at the Time of Njegoš's Second Departure for Russia) Istorijski Zapisi. V. VIII. 4- 12. 254-278: Cetinje, Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1952.
———. “Crna Gora za vrijeme prvog Njegoševog odlaska u Rusiju.” (Montenegro at the Time of Njegoš's First Departure to Russia) Istorijski Zapisi. VIII. XI. 1-2. 155- 172: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1955.
154 ———. “Dokumenta poklonjena muzeja na Cetinju.” (Documents Given to the Museum in Cetinje) Zapisi. XII. XXI. 6. 372-374: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1939.
———. “Država uprava u Crnoj Gori.” (State Administration in Montenegro) Zapisi. XII. XXI. 4. 223-228: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1939.
———. “Godina Njegoševog rođenja.” (The Year of Njegoš's birth) Istorijski Zapisi. I. II. 5-6. 259-268: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1948.
———. “Ko je trovao Njegoša u Kotoru 1834. godine.” (Who poisoned Njegoš in Kotor in 1834) Istorijski Zapisi. XVII. XXI. 1. 164-167: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1964.
———. “Njegoš nije mogao vidjeti mrtvog Puškina.” (Njegoš was not able to see Dead Pushkin) Istorijski Zapisi. I. II. 3-4. 219-225: Cetinje, Organi Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1948.
———. “Njegoševa “Biljarda.” (Njegoš's “Biljarda”) Istorijski Zapisi. I. I. 3-4. 113-138: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1948.
———. “Njegoševi roditelji i braća.” (Njegoš's Parents and Siblings) Istorijski Zapisi. i. II. 1-2. 9-38: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1948.
———. “Njegoševo školovanje.” (Njegoš's Education) Istorijski Zapisi. I. II. 3-4. 186- 208: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1948.
———. “Njegoševo ukidanje gubernadurstva.” (Njegoš's Suspension of the Governorship) Istorijski Zapisi. II. III. 1-2; 3-4. 1-22; 134-155: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1949.
———. “Poluostrvo Prevlaka kao poklon Njegošu.” (The Peninsula of Prevlak as a Gift to Njegoš) Istorijski Zapisi. V. VIII. 4-12. 365-368: Cetinje, Organi Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1952.
———. “Putshestvija Egora Tsetrovicha Kovaljevskogo (The Travels of Jegor Cetrović Kovaljevski).” Istorijski Zapisi. X. XIII. 1-2. 371-374: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1957.
———. “Stogodišnjica jedne štamparske greške u Njegoševoj 'Kuli Đurišević'.” (The Centennial Celebration of one publication error in Njegoš's “Kuli Durišević”) Istorijski Zapisi. III. V. 4-6. 181-187: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1950.
155 “Drugi Njegošev pogreb.” (The Second of Njegoš's Funerals) Istorijski Zapisi. XV. XIX. 2. 291-302: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1962.
Duff, Sir Mountstuart E. Grant. Notes from a diary: 1851-1872. 1 vol. London: John Murray, 1897.
Durham, Mary Edith. High Albania: A Victorian Traveller's Balkan Odyssey. Great Britain: Edward Arnold, 1909; Phoenix Press, 2000.
———. Some tribal origins, laws and customs of the Balkans. London: G. Allen & Unwin, ltd., 1928.
———. Through the Land of the Serb. London: Edward Arnold, 1904.
Durković-Jakšić, Ljubomir. Bibliografija o Njegošu. (Bibliography about Njegoš). Beograd: Prosveta, Izdavačko Preduzeće Srbije, 1951.
———. “Da li je objavljen čulićev prevod “Gorskog vijenca”?” (Was there a public announcement of the translation of “The Mountain Wreath”?) Istorijski Zapisi. III. V. 4-6. 251-253: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1950.
———. “Kako je Njegoš nabavio krst cara Dušana.” (How Njegoš Purchased Tsar Dušan's Cross) Istorijski Zapisi. Godine IV. VII. 1-3. 41-49: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Drustva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1951.
———. Njegoš i Lovćen, Pobodom 120-godišnjice Njegoševe smrti 1851-1971. (Njegoš and Lovćen: On the 120th aniiversary of Njegoš’s Death 1851-1971) Beograd: Glas, 1971.
———. “Njegoševa Crna Gora i Poljaci.” (Njegoš's Montenegrins and the Polish) Zapisi. XII. XXI. 6. 336-347: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1939.
———. Njegoševa pripovetka. (Njegoš's Short Story). Beograd: Univerzitetska Biblioteka “Svetozar Marković”, 1974.
———. “O poseti saksonskog kralja o Njegošu 1838.” (About the Visit of the Saxon King to Njegoš in 1838) Istorijski Zapisi. V. VIII. 1-3. 36-46: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1952.
———. “O vezi braće Mažuranić c Njegošem.” (About the Connection between the Mažuranić Brothers with Njegoš) Istorijski Zapisi. Godine IV. VIII. 7-9. 353-359: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1951.
156 ———. “Poljska štampa o Njegošu.” (The Polish Press about Njegoš) Istorijski Zapisi. V. VIII. 4-12. 369-371: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1952.
———. Srbijanska štampa o Njegošu i Crnoj Gori (1833-1851) (Serbian Publications about Njegoš and Montenegro 1833-1851). Beograd: Srpska Akademija Nauka, 1951.
———, Ljubomir. Srbijansko-Crnogorska saradnja (1830-1851). (The Serbian- Montenegrin Collaboration 1830-1851) Vol. 6. Istorijski Institut, Cindik, Ilija. Beograd: Srpska Akademija Nauka, 1957.
Durkowicz-Jakszicz, Lubomir. Petar II Petrovic-Njegos (1813-1851). Warszawa: Nakledem Towarzystwa Naukowego Warszawskiego, 1938.
“Dva priloga o odnosima Crne Gore i Boka u 1848. godine.” (Two Supplements about the Relations of Montenegro and Boka in 1848). Istorijski Zapisi. III. V. 1. 131- 133: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1950.
Đorđević, Ljubica. Bibliografija srpskog književnog glasnika 1901-1914. (Bibliography of Serbian Literaray Periodicals 1901-1914). Beograd: Narodnu biblioteku Srbije, 1982.
Đorđević, Tihomir. “Nešto statistike Crne Gore.” (Some Statistics from Montenegro from the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century) Zapisi. I. I. 292-298: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Mu. 1927.
Đorđević, Vladana. Crna Gora i Austrija 1814-1894. (Montenegro and Austria 1814- 1894). Posebna Izdanja. Beograd: Srpska Kralj. Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti, “Rodoljub,” 1924.
Đukić, Pahić. “Petar II Petrović i Ali-Pasha Stočević.” (Petar II Petrović and Ali-Pasha Stočević) Zapisi. VIII. XIII. 4. 201-216: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1935.
Dukić, Trifun. “Njegoš u bečku diplomacija.” (Njegoš in Viennese diplomacy) Letopis Matica Srpska. 353. 342-354: Novi Sad, Matica Srpska. 1940.
Đuričković, Boško. “O poginunim Petrovićima u boju na Grahovu (11-23-Avgust 1836).” (About the death of the Petrovici in battle in Grahovo 11/23 August 1836) Istorijski Zapisi. XXXII. XLI. 4. 102-110: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1979.
Ebel, Wilhelm. Zwölf Tage auf Montenegro (Twelve Days in Montenegro). Königsberg: Verlag von J. H. Bon, 1842.
157 Erdeljanović, Jovan. Stara Crna Gora i Bokelji. (Old Montenegro and Boka). Podgorica: Narodna Biblioteka “Radosav Ljumović,” 1997.
“Excursion du roi de Saxe au Monténégro.” (The Saxon King's Trip to Montenegro) Nouvelles annales des voyages et des sciences géographiques. 84. 4. 237-238: Paris, Librairie de Gide. 1839.
Feinstein, Elaine. Pushkin, a Biography. New York: The Ecco Press, 1998.
Fischer-Galati, Stephen. “The Habsburg Monarchy and Balkan Revolution.” Austrian History Yearbook 2 (1966): 1-10.
Fisković, Svitko. “Nekoliko bilježaka o Njegošu i o Crnoj Gori iz prve polovine 19 stoleća.” (Several Memoranda about Njegoš and Montenegro from the First Half of the Nineteenth Century) Istorijski Zapisi. V. VIII. 4-12. 221-237: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1952.
Fleming, Thomas. Montenegro: the Divided Land. Rockford, Illinois: Chronicles Press, 2002.
Frankl, Ludvit Avgust. “Knez - Pjesnik.” (Ruler - Poet) Zapisi. XI. XX. 1. 27-35: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1938.
Gerolymatos, André. The Balkan Wars, Conquest, Revolution and Retribution from the Ottoman Era to the Twentieth Century and Beyond. New York: Basic Books, 2002.
Glenny, Misha. Nationalism, War, and the Great Powers: 1804-1999. New York: Viking Penguin, 1999.
Gluščević, Vukaljlo-Mišo. Migracije Stanovništva Crne Gore u XIX vijeku. (Population Migration in Montenegro in the Nineteenth Century). Podgorica: Kulturno- prosvjetna zajednica Podgorice, 2000.
Goldsworthy, Vesna. Inventing Ruritania: The Imperialism of the Imagination. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1998.
Gopčević, Spiridon. Montenegro und die Montenegriner. (Montenegro and the Montenegrins). Leipzig: Verlag von Hermann Fries, 1877.
“Le Gouvernement turc vis-a-vis des grandes puissances.” (The Turkish Government in Relation to the Great Powers) Annuaire des deux mondes (Paris) (1858-1859): 731-742.
Goy, E.D. The Sabre and the Song, Njegoš: The Mountain Wreath. Belgrade: P.E.N. Publications, 1995.
158
Griez, Eduard. “Dnevnik Eduarda Grija od 7 aprila 1842. g.” (The Diary of Eduard Griez from 7 April 1842) Istorijski Zapisi. IV. VII. 1-3. 63-82: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1951.
Gujiić, Kasim. Smrt Smailage Čengić. (The Death of Smail Aga Čengić). Zagreb: Hrvatskog Kola, 1937.
Hadžiselimović, Omer. At the Gates of the East: British Travel Writers on Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Centuries. East European Mongraphs, No. DLXXII. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001.
Halpern, Joel Martin and Kideckel, David A. “Anthropology of Eastern Europe.” Review of Anthropology 12 (1983): 377-402.
Heer, Caspar. Territorialentwicklung und Grenzfragen von Montenegro in der Zeit seiner Staatswerdung (1830-1887) (The Territorial Expansion and Border Questions of Montenegro in the Period of its State-Building 1830-1887). Number 61. Geist und Werk der Zeiten, Arbeiten aus dem Historischen Seminar der Universität Zürich. Bern:1951; Peter Lang Bern, 1981?.
Historical Museum of Serbia. “Liberation, Independence and Union of Serbia and Montenegro.” http://www.njegos.org/past/liunion.htm:.
Hitrova, N.I. Černogorija v nacionaljno-osoboditeljenom dviženin na Balkanah i Russko- černogorskije otnoševnija v 50-70 godax XIX veka. (Montenegro and the National-Freedom Movements in the Balkans and Russian-Montenegrin Relations in 1850s-1870s). Moscow: Izdateljestvo Nauka, 1979.
Hrabak, Bogumil. “Crnogorski vladika - portret iz njegov razgovora.” (The Montenegrin Vladika - Portrait from his Conversations) Istorijski Zapisi. IV. VIII. 7-9. 395- 398: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1951.
———. “Tri vesti o Crnogorcima u 1848 godini u Carigradskog Francuskoj stampi.” (Three Reports about Montenegro in 1848 in the French Constantinople Press) Istorijski Zapisi. VII. X. 2. 587-591: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1954.
Islamov, Tofik. “The Balkan Policy of the Habsburg Monarchy and Austro-Russian Relations.” In Insurrections, Wars, and the Eastern Crisis in the 1870s, Kiraly, Bela K. and Stokes, Gale. 31-41. New York: East European Monographs, No. CICVII, Atlantic Research and Publications, Inc., 1985.
Janković, Preveo D. “Što je engleska publika znala o Crnoj Gori 1839. godine.” (What the English Public Knew about Montenegro in 1838) Zapisi. XIII. XXIII. 2. 121- 122: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1940.
159
Jelavich, Charles and Barbara. The Establishment of the Balkan National States, 1804- 1920. Sugar, Peter F. and Treadgold, Donald W. Vol. VIII, A History of East Central Europe. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1977.
Jelavich, Barbara. A Century of Russian Foreign Policy: 1814-1914. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1964.
———. Russia's Balkan entanglements 1806-1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Jordon, William Chester. The Great Famine, Northern Europe in the Early Fourteenth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.
“Još nekoliko dokumenta iz privatnih arhiva.” (Another Set of of Documents from Private Archives). Zapisi. XII. XXI. 5. 304-312: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1939.
Jovanović, Jaroš. “Crna Gora u revolucionarnoj 1848. godini.” (Montenegro in the Revolutionary Year 1848) Istorijski Zapisi. I. I. 1-2. 3-11: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1948.
———. Stvaranje Crnogorske države i razvoj Crnogorske nacionalnosti. (The Creation of the Montenegrin State and the Developmentof the Montenegrin National Identity). Cetinje: Narodna Knjiga, 1948.
———. “Uloga Vukotić i Vučićević u Crnog Gori.” (The Role of Vukotić and Vučićević in Montenegro) Istorijski Zapisi. IV. VII. 7-9. 294-310: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1951.
Jovanović, Volislav M. “C Njegošem na Bojnom polju.” (With Njegoš on Bolje polje) Crpski književni glasnik. XXIX. 7. 514-522: Beograd, 1912.
Jovićević, Milan. “Crnogorska odlikovanja.” (Montenegrin Decorations) Glasnik Cetinjskih Muzeja savremena istorija Crne Gore i njen muzeološki izraz. I. 149- 169: Cetinje, Izdavačko-štamparsko preduzeće „Obod.” 1968.
Judah, Tim. The Serbs: History, Myth & the Destruction of Yugoslavia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.
Karacsay, Col. Comte de. “Analyse de la carte du Monténégro.” (Analysis of a map of Montenegro) Société de géographie. 2. XIX. 473-475: Paris, Delgrave. 1843.
160 Karidžić, Hamdija. “Odnosi Ali-paše Rizvanbegulović i Vladike Petra II Petrovića.” (The Relationship of Ali-Pasha Rizvanbegulović and Vladika Petar II Petrović) Istorijski Zapisi. V. VIII. 1-3. 69-98: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1952.
Karadžić, Stojan. Njegoš Drobnjački zavjerenici i Smail-aga Čengić. (Njegoš, the Drobnjak Conspiracy, and Smail-aga Čengić). Beograd: Stručna Knjiga, 1997.
Karadžić, Vuk Stefanović. Crna Gora i Boka Kotorska. (Montenegro and Boka Kotorska). Beograd: Nolit, 1969.
———. “Da bi se razumela borba u Crnoj Gori.” (Is it Possible to Understand the Struggle in Montenegro) Stvaranje. XXIV. 1-2. 135-140:1969.
———. Montenegro und die Montenegriner, ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der europäischen Türkei und des serbisches Volken. (Montenegro and the Montenegrins: A Contribution to the Knowledge About European Turkey and the Serbian People). Stuttgart und Tübingen: Verlag der J. G. Cotta'schen Buchhandlung, 1837.
———. “Prvi i drugi srpski ustank.” (The First and Second Serbian Uprisings).Život i običaji naroda srpskog. Novi Sad: Srpska književna zadruga, 1969.
Karpat, Kemal H. Ottoman Population 1830-1914: Demographic and Social Characteristics. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.
Kićović, Miraš. “Njegošev 'Ishodjašči žurnal'.” (Njegoš's “Current Journal”) Istorijski Zapisi. IV. VII. 7-9. 320-333: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1951.
Kilibarda, Vesna. Njegoš i Trst: Italaijanski pisci i putopisci o Vladici-pjesniku, B. Bjazoleto, P. Đenerin, P. Dal Ongaro. (Njegoš and Triest: Italian Authors and Travelers About the Vladika-poet, B. Biassoleto, P. Generin, P. Dal Ongaro). Podgorica: CID, 2000.
Kissinger, Henry. A World Restored, Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace, 1812-1822. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1957; Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1999.
Klančić, Ljubica. “Drugi Njegošev potreb.” (Njegoš’s Other Funeral) Istorijski Zapisi. XV. XIX. 2. 291-302: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1962.
———. “Dva apokrifna pisma.” (Two Apochryphal Letters) Istorijski Zapisi. XIV. XVIII. 3. 503-510: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1961.
161 ———. “Jedan nezapažen nekrolog Njegošu.” (One Unnoticed Obituary of Njegoš) Istorijski Zapisi. XIV. XVIII. 3. 713-717: Titograd, Organi Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1961.
———. “Njegoševa misija u Beču 1850. godine.” (Njegoš's Mission in Vienna 1850) Istorijski Zapisi. XIV. XVIII. 1. 71-120: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta I Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1961.
Kolendić, Petar. “Dolazak Antida Žoma u Crnu Goru.” (The Arrival of Antide Jaume in Montenegro) Istorijski Zapisi. I. II. 5-6. 241-247: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1948.
Kolević, Svetozar. Njegoš u engleskoj i američkoj kulturi. (Njegoš in English and American Culture). Podgorica: Oktoih, 1999.
Kostić, Lazo. Njegoš i Antika: Srpska misao objavila je iz studiju prof. L. M. Kostić u Letopisu 1974-1975. (Njegoš and Antiquity). Melbourne: Polyprint Pty. Ltd., 1976.
———. Religiozno-folklorni stav pesnika Njegoša (povodom 150-godišnjice rođednja pesnikova). (The Religio-folkloric Position of the Poet Njegoš on the 150th Anniversary of His Birth). Munich: Druckerei ISKRA, 1963.
Kovačević, Branko. Njegoš- Društvenopolitička viđenja i pogledi. (Njegoš – Socio- political Vision and Outlook). Podgorica: Unireks, 1996.
Kovalevski, M. G. “Relation d'une ascension au mont Komm dans le Montegro en 1838.” (An Account of an Ascension to Mount Komm in Montenegro 1838) Bulletin de la Societe geologique de France. 1. 113-118: Paris, 1839.
Kovaljevski, Jegor. Crna Gora i Slovenske zemlje. (Montenegro and Slavic countries). Podgorica: CID, 1999.
Kovijanić, Gavrilo. “Jedno Njegoševo pismo.” (One Letter from Njegoš) Istorijski Zapisi. XVI. XX. 3. 495-498: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1963.
Kovijanić, Risto. Književina proučavanja: Njegoš - Mažuranić narodni pesnik. (Literary Study: Njegoš - Mazuranić National Poet). Novi Sad: Matica Srpska Deljenje za Književnost i Jezik, 1986.
Kusovac, Niko. “Presuda iz vremena Vladike Petra II, pisana na Ceklinu 14 aprila 1831 godine.” (The Verdict from the Time of Vladika Petar II Written in Ceklina 14 April 1831). Zapisi. III. V. 1-2. 105-106: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinsjkog Istorijskog Društva. 1929.
162 Lainović, Andrija. “Pariskog vesnik “Le Siecle” (1853. g) za Njegoš.” (The Paris Newspaper “Le Siecle” 1853 on Njegoš) Istorija. 19. 2. 309-323: Yugoslavia, 1983.
Lalić, Radovan. “O tradicionalim vezama između Crne Gore i Rusije.” (About the Traditional Relationship Between Montenegro and Russia) Istorijski Zapisi. IV. VII. 7-9. 273-293: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1951.
Lamb, Charles. “A Ramble in Montenegro.” Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine LVII, CCCLI (January, 1845): 33-51.
Lampe, John R.. Yugoslavia as History: Twice There was a Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Lampe, John R. and Jackson, Marvin L.. Balkan Economic History: 1500-1950, From Imperial Borderlands to Developing Nations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982.
Landemont, Cle Hardy de. “De Cattaro a Cettigne au pas de charge. (On the Path from Kotor to Cetinje).” Le Correspondant (Paris) 233, 7 (1908): 762-77.
Latković, Vido. “Nešto o Njegošu i Bokeljima u godini 1848.” (Something about Njegoš and Boka Kotorska in 1848) Zapisi. XI. XIX. 6. 329-335: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Institut i Društva. 1938.
———. Petar Petrović Njegoš. (Petar Petrović Njegoš). Beograd: Novo Pokolenje, 1949.
———. Petar II Petrović Njegoš Izbor. (Petar II Petrović Njegoš Selections). Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1960.
Lavrov, Petr Alekseevich. Petr II Petrovich Niegosh Vladyka Chernogorskii i ego literaturnaia dieatel'nost. (Petar II Petrović Njegoš, Montenegrin Vladika, and his Literary Works). Moskva: E. Lissnera, 1887.
Layard, Sir Henry. Autobiography and Letters from his Childhood until his Appointment as HM Ambassador at Madrid. Bruce, Hon. William N.. vol. 1. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1903.
Lejean, Guillaume. “La derniere lutte des montenegrins et des turcs.” (The Last Battle Between the Montenegrins and the Turks) Revue de contemporaine. 6. 729-773: Paris, 1858.
Lekić, Danilo. “Francuska verzija o putu saksonskog kralja u Crnu Goru.” (The French Version of the Saxon King's Trip to Montenegro) Istorijski Zapisi. VII. X. 2. 582- 587: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodna Republika Crne Gore. 1954.
163
Leković, Dragutin. “Obodsko-Cetinjska štamparija - Grandiozna vertikala Crnogorsko duhovnosti.” (The Obod-Cetinje Press: Grandiose Vertical Montenegrin Spirituality) Istorijski Zapisi. Titograd, Organi Istorijskog Instiutta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod.
Lincoln, W. Bruce. Nicholas I, Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias. Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1989.
———. Sunlight at Midnight: St. Petersburg and the Rise of Modern Russia. New York: Basic Books, 2000.
Lisac, Andrija-Ljubomir. “Dva službena izvještaja o Njegoševoj smrti i prve novinske vijesti o njog.” (Two Official Reports and the First Newspaper Article about Njegoš's Death) Istorijski Zapisi. XI. XIV. 1-2. 340-353: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1958.
———. “Petar Petrović Njegoš prema Sloveniji i Slovencima.” (Petar Petrović Njegoš toward Slovenia and the Slovenes) Istorijski Zapisi. XVI. XX. 3. 349-374: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1963.
Loiseau, Charles. Le Balkan Slave et la crise autrichienne. (Balkan Slavs and the Austrian Crisis) Paris: Perrin et Cie, Libraires-Editeurs, 1898.
Lord, Albert B. “The Nineteenth-Century Revival of National Literatures: Karadzic, Njegos, Radicevic, the Illyrians, and Preseren.” The Multinational Literature of Yugoslavia, Review of Multinational Literature (St. John's University) V, 1 (1974): 101-111.
Luketić, Miroslav. Kazivanja o prošlosti. (A Narrative about the Past). Budva: Istorisjki arhiv Budva, 1988.
Luketić, Miroslav. “Koncept pisma bokeljskih glavara hrvatsko-slavonskom saboru 1848. godine.” Chap. in Kaživanja o prošlosti (A Copy of a Letter from the Boka Leaders to the Croatian-Slovenian National Meeting in 1848). Budva: Istorisjki arhiv Budva, 1988.
Lukic, Zlato. “Kratak pregled povijesti/istorija Bosne i Hercegovine.” http://hjem.get2net.dk/VRBAS/pedia/historija.html: Bosna Pedia® - Historija, 2001.
Luković, Niko. “Stogodišnjica narodnog ustanka u Grblju.” (The Centennial of the National Uprising in Grblja) Istorijski Zapisi. I. I. 5-6. 249-255: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1948.
164 ———. “Velika narodna skupština Bokelja 1848 godine.” (The Great National Skupstina in Boka 1848) Istorijski Zapisi. 1. I. 1-2. 12-22: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjski Istorijsko Društva. 1948.
MacFie, A.L.. The Eastern Question: 1774-1923. London: Longman, 1996.
Magner, Thomas. Introduction to the Croatian and Serbian Language. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997.
Magovčević, Jov. V. “Još nešto o odnosima vladike Rada i Ali Pasha Stočević.” (Further Information about the Relations Between Vladika Rade and Ali Pasha Stočević) Zapisi. VIII. XIV. 2. 65-71: Cetinje, Glasnik Istorijskog Instituta Crne Gore. 1935.
Maletić, Mark, ed.. Crna Gora. (Montenegro). Beograd: Književne Novine, 1976.
Mamuzić, I.S.. “Još dva priloga o Njegošu i Hravtima.” (Two More Contributions about Njegoš and the Croatians) Zapisi. IV. VII. 2. 91-93: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1930.
Marinelli-König, Gertraud. Die Südslaven in den Wiene Zeitschriften und Almanachen des Vormärz (1805-1848): Versuch einer kritischen Bestandsaufnahme der Beiträge über Bosnien, Dalmatien, die Herzegowina, Istrien, Krain (Kärnten, Steiermark), Kroatien, das Küstenland, die Militärgrenzen, Montenegro, Serbien und Slawonien (The South Slavs in Viennese Newspapers and Almanacs in the Vormärz 1805-1848). Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschafts Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Sitzungsbericht, 603. Band; Veröffentlichungen der Kommision für Literaturwissenschaft Nr. 14. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1994.
Marmier, Xavier. “De Paris au Montenegro.” (The Paris of Montenegro) Bureaux de la Revue contemporaine. 8. 57-74: Paris, 1852.
Martinović, Dušan. Cetinje - postanak, razvoj i turističke moguænosti. (Cetinje - Its Orgin, Development, and Tourism Possibilities). Cetinje: Obod, 1977.
——— ed. Orlić: crnogorski godišnjak stari i novi sa prostu godinu 1866 (Orlić: Montenegro's Old and New Yearly Almanac until 1866). Druga godina. Cetinje: Kneževskoj Pečatnji, 1866; Centralna Narodna Biblioteka SR Crne Gore „Ðurðe Crnojević”, 1979.
Martinović, Niko S. “O jednom nerasvijetljenom pokušaju trovanja Petra II Petrovića Njegoša.” (About one failed attempt to poison Petar II Petrović Njegoš) Istorijski Zapisi. II. III. 3-4. 113-119: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1949.
165 ———. “Rukopis Njegoševe “Slobodijade.” (The Manuscript of Njegoš's “Slobodijada”). 3-22. Cetinje: Centralne Narodne Biblioteke SR Crne Gore “Crnojević”, 1967.
Martinović, Savo Matov. Memoari: Životopis, pisma, pjesme. (Memoirs: Autobiography, letters, and Poems) . Podgorica: CID, 1996.
Mašanović, Dimitrije. Lovćenski Prometej, ličnost i djelo Petra Petrovića Njegoša. (Lovćen Prometheus, the Personality and Work of Petar Petrović Njegoš). Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva, 1991.
Medaković, Milorad. Povestinca Crnegore od najstarijeg vremena do 1830. (The History of Montenegro from Ancient Times to 1830). Zemuna: Knjigopečatnjom Dra Dan. Medaković, 1850.
———. P.P. Njegoš poslednji vladaići vladika Crnogorski. (P.P. Njegoš During his Rule as Vladika of Montenegro). Novi Sad: A. Pajevića, 1882.
———. Život i Običai Crnogoraca. (The Life and Customs of Montenegrins). Novi Sad: Brzotiskom Episkopske Knjegopečatnje, 1860.
Medenica, Radosav. “Interesovanje Nemaca za Njegoševu Crnu Goru.” (German Interest in Njegoš's Montenegro) Zapisi. I. I. 3. 167-173: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1927.
———. “Prikazivanje “Gorskog Vijenca” kao narodne svetkovine.” (The Performing of “The Mountain Wreath” as a National Holiday) Istorijski Zapisi. LX. 1. 76-82: Titograd, Organ Istorijskgod Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1987.
Mihailović, Božo. “Dva podatka o Njegoševog rođenog.” (Two Facts about the Year of Njegoš's Birth) Istorijski Zapisi. VI. IX. 1. 284-285: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1953.
———. “Godina Njegoševog rođenja.” (“The Year of Njegoš's Birth”) Istorijski Zapisi. IV. VIII. 7-9. 380-388: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1951.
Mijušković, Slavko. “Borba za srpski jezik u Kotoru za vrijeme Austrijevske vladavine.” (The Fight for the Serbian Language in Kotor during Austrian Rule) Istorijski Zapisi. XVIII. XXII. 1. 5-33: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1965.
———. “Manufakture u Boki Kotorskoj 1834 godine.” (Textiles in Boka Kotor in 1834) Istorijski Zapisi. IX. XII. 1-2. 326-330: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1956.
166 ———. “Njegoš i Boka.” (Njegoš and Boka) Istorijski Zapisi. XVI. XX. 3. 377-402: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1963.
Milich, Zorka. A Stranger's Supper. No. 17. Twayne's Oral History Series, Ritchie, Donald A.. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995.
Milošević, Anton. “Crtice o boravku Vladike Radu u Dobrota.” (Report about Vladika Rade's stay in Dobrota) Istorijski Zapisi. I. II. 5-6. 349-350: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1948.
Milošević, Miloš I.. “Njegošev stav prilikom austrij-crnogorskog razgraničenja na područuju Dobrote (1837-1841).” (Njegoš's Postion on the Occasion of Austrian- Montenegrin Limitations on the Territory of Dobrota 1837-1841) Istorijski Zapisi. XVI. XX. 3. 425-453: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG „Obod”. 1963.
Milović, Đorđe D.. “Karakter i značaj prčanjske presude narodnog suda iz 1848 godine.” (The Character and Significance of the Prčanj Court's verdict from 1848) Istorijski Zapisi. XI. XIV. 1-2. 307-311: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1958.
Milović, Jevto. “Boravak Antida i Franciske Jaume u Crnoj Gori.” (Antide and Francesca Jaume's Stay in Montenegro) Istorijski Zapisi. XVII. XXI. 1. 45-68: Titograd, Organ Istorisjkog Instiut i Društva SRCG. 1964.
———. “Cetinje i Mažuranićev spjev “Smrt Smail-aga Čengijića”.” (Cetinje and Mazuranić's Poem “Death of Smail-aga Čengijić”) Istorijski Zapisi. V. VIII. 1-3. 175-176: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gre. 1952.
———. “Crnogorski praviteljstvujušči senat i gvardija iz 1831. godine.” (Montenegrin Praviteljstvujušči Senate and Gvardija from 1831) Istorijski Zapisi. XVII. XXI. 4. 758-761: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istorićara SRCG, Obod. 1964.
———. “Crteži dviju medalja iz Njegoševa doba.” (The Designs for Two Medals in the Time of Njegoš) Istorijski Zapisi. XVI. XX. 3. 483-486: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Institut SRCG. 1963.
———. “Da li je Vladika Rade mogao pisati istoriju Crne Gore na francuskom jeziku?” (Would Vladika Rade have been able to write a history of Montenegro in French?) Istorijski Zapisi. III. V. 1. 62-65: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1950.
167 ———. “Danak za 1843 u Crnoj Gori i plate crnogorskim nahijama od 1843 do 1845.” (The Household Tax in Montenegro and the Payments of the Montenegrin Nahije from 1843 to 1845) Istorijski Zapisi. VII. X. 2. 567-575: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1954.
———. Istorijskog-geografiski atlas Crne Gore XVI-XX vijek. (Historical-geographical Atlas of Montenegrin Sixteenth-Twentieth Centuries). Trebinje: DP Štamparija »Trebinje«, 1993.
———. “Iz neobjavljene Njegoševe prepiske.” (From Njegoš's Unfinished Copies). Istorijski Zapisi. I. I; II. 1-2; 3-4; 5-6; 1-2. 69-84; 189-208; 320-337; 65-77: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1948.
———. “Izvesni podaci o Dru Petru Marinkoviću.” (Positive Information about Dr. Petar Marinković) Istorijski Zapisi. III. VI. 10-12. 496-497: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1950.
———. “Jedan austrijski izveštaj iz Njegoševa vremena.” (One Austrian Report from the Time of Njegoš) Glasnik Cetinjskog Muzega savremenoa istorija Crne Gore i njen muzeolopki izraz. III Knj. 179-185: Cetinje, Istorijski Institut SR Crne Gore. ?.
———. “Jedan austrijski poklon Vladici Radu.” (One Austrian Gift to Vladika Rade) Istorijski Zapisi. IV. VIII. 7-9. 406-410: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1951.
———. “Jedna izjava Vladike Rade nekom engleskom lordu.” (One Statement to Vladika Rade from an English Lord) Istorijski Zapisi. III. V. 1. 134-136: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1950.
———. “Neki podaci o izgubljenoj Njegoševoj pohvalnoj pjesmi saksonskom kralju Fridrihu Augustu.” (Some Facts about the Lost Praisworthy Poem from Njegos for the Saxon King Fredrik August) Istorijski Zapisi. III. VI. 10-12. 498-499: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Instituta Narodna Republika Crne Gore. 1950.
———. Njegoš u slici i riječi. (Njegoš in pictures and words). Titograd: Grafički Zavod, 1974.
———. “Njegoševa „Biljarda.” (Njegos's “Biljarda”) Istorijski Zapisi. IV. VII. 1-3. 2-15: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1951.
———. “Njegošev boravak u Beču 1836 i 1837 i njegov pokušaj da pođe u Pariz.” (Njegos's stay in Vienna 1836 & 1837 and his attempt to go to Paris). Istorijski Zapisi. VII. X. 1. 76-118: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodna Republike Crne Gore. 1954.
168 ———. “O boravku Jakov Ozereckovksog u Crnoj Gori.” (About Jakov Ozereckovski's Visit to Montenegro) Istorijski Zapisi. VI. IX. 1. 114-123: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1953.
———. “O kovanju medalju u doba Vladike Rada.” (About forging metals in the time of Vladika Rade) Istorijski Zapisi. III. V. 1. 69-74: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1950.
———. “O Njegošu učenju francuckog jezika.” (About Njegoš's study of the French language) Istorijski Zapisi. V. VIII. 1-3. 99-109: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1952.
———. Petar II Petrović Njegoš u svom vremenu. Knjiga 5. Posebni Radovi. Titograd: Crnogorska akademija nauka i umjetnosti, 1984.
———. “Pogibija i osveta kneza Andrije Kaluđerovića.” (The Death and Revenge of Knez Andrija Kaluđerović) Istorijski Zapisi. III. V. 4-6. 168-180: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1950.
———. “Pokušaji Austrije da otme Njegošu Pod Maini i Stanjevići.” (The Austrian Attempt to seize Maini and Stanjević from Njegoš) Istorijski Zapisi. IV. VII. 7-9. 311-319: Cetinje, Organ Istorisjkog Društva Nardone Republike Crne Gore. 1951.
———. “Posjeta engleskog plemića Viljema Barneta Crnoj Gori.” (The Visit of the English Noble William Barnet to Montenegro) Istorijski Zapisi. IV. VIII. 7-9. 402-404: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1951.
———. “Posjeta kralja saksonskoga Fridriha Augusta vladici Radu 1838.” (The Saxon King Fredrick August's Visit with Vladika Rade 1838) Istorijski Zapisi. II. III. 1- 2. 50-60: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1949.
———. “Prodaja manastira Maina Austrija.” (The Sale of the Maini Monastery to Austria) Istorijski Zapisi. XVI. XX. 3. 403-424: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1963.
———. “Rojz o Crnoj Gori.” (Reutz on Montenegro) Ovdje. X. 107. 30-31: Titograd, 1978.
———. “Šta je bilo c austrijskim oružem koje su Crnogorski saplijenili na Paštrovskoj planinu u borbu od 2 avgusta 1838. godine protiv Austrije.” (How Austrian arms which were seized by Montenegrins in the Pastroviski mountains were used in the battle against Austria on 2 August 1838) Istorijski Zapisi. IV. VIII. 7-9. 404-406: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1951.
———. Staze ka Njegošu. (Paths to Njegoš). Titograd: NIO „Universitetska Riječ”, 1983.
169
———. “Titule Vladike Petrovića.” (The Titles of the Petrović Vladikas) Istorijski Zapisi. LX. 1. 49-59: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG „Obod.” 1987.
———. “Turski napad na brđanska naselja u Bjelopavlićima od 6/18. 1839. godine pogibija Bećir Bega Bušatlije.” (The Turkish attack on the Brda colony of the Bjelopavlici on 6/18 1839 the downfall of Bećir Beg Buatlija) Glasnik Cetinjski Muzej. V. 45-68: Cetinje, Izdavačko-štamparsko preduzeće “Obod.” 1972.
———. “Vladičin boravak u Majinama od 13 februara do 8 aprila 1836. g. i postanak „Slobodijade.” (The Vladika's Stay in Majini from 13 February to 8 August 1836 and the Beginnings of “Slobodijade”) Istorijski Zapisi. III. VI. 7-9. 270-288: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1950.
———. “Wien als erste Station der Russlandreise von Njegoš.” (Vienna as the First Station on Njegoš's Trip to Russia) Sudost-Forschungen. 30. 260-291: Leipzig, 1971.
——— ed. Petar II Petrović Njegoš: graða 1830-1851. Vol. IV, V, VI. (Petar II Petrović Njegoš: sources 1830-1851) Titograd: Istorijski Institut SR Crne Gore NIO “Univerzitetska Riječ,” 1986.
———ed. Petar II Petrović Njegoš: graða 1832. (Petar II Petrović Njegoš: sources 1830-1851) Vol. 2, 1832. Nikšić: ITP „Unireks D.D. Nikšić, Istorijski Institut SR Crne Gore Podgorica, 1993.
——— ed.. Vuk St. Karadžić i Crna Gora, Radovi sa naučenog skupa, Titograd 16. i 17. aprila 1987. Vuk St. Karadžić and Montenegro, Papers from the symposium, Titograd April 16 and 17, 1987). Titograd: Obod, 1987. Crnogorska Akademija Nauka i Umjetnosti Nastvnički Fakultet Univerziteta, Naučin Skupovi, Knjiga 16, Odjeljenje umjetnosti, Knjiga 5, 139-148.
Milutinović, Kosta. “Njegoš i Rusija.” (Njegoš and Russia) Istorijski Zapisi. LXV. 1-4. 13-30: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1992.
———. “Vuk i Njegoš.” (Vuk and Njegoš) Istorijski Zapisi. LX. 4. 19-37: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1987.
Mitford, Edward Ledwich, F.R.G.S. A Land March from England to Ceylon forty years ago. 2 vols. London: W. H. Allen & Co., 1884.
Mitford, Edvard. “Posjeta Njegoša.” (A Visit to Njegoš) Zapisi. XI. XX. 2. 87-92: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1938.
170 Mladenović, Aleksandar. Knjiga o Njegošu: Studije i članci. (A Book about Njegoš: Studies and Articles). Beograd: NIRO Književine novine, Dečje novine, 1989.
———. Prilozi o Njegošu. (Contributions about Njegoš). Valjevo: Biblioteka Posebna Izdana, 1996.
Mojašević, Miljan. Vuk Karadžić, Vilhelm Hope, i Allgemeine Zeitung. (Vuk Karadžić, Wilhelm Hope, and the Allgemeine Zeitung). Beograd: Naućno delo, 1966.
Mojzes, Paul. “The pro-Serb Montenegrins.” The Christian Century 112, 36 (1995): 120- 1205.
“Montenegro.” The British and Foreign Review; or European Quarterly Journal (London) XI, July (1840): 109-150.
Naimark, Norman M. and Case, Holly, eds.. Yugoslavia and its Historians: Understanding the Balkan Wars of the 1990s. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003.
“Nekoliko priloga za istoriju srbijansko-crnogorskih odnos u XIX veku.” (Some Contributions to the History of Serbian-Montenegrin Relations in the 19th Century). Zapisi. XIII. XXI. 3. 147-154: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Institut i Društva. 1939.
“Nekoliko privatno-pravnih dokumenata iz prve polovine XIX vijeka.” (Some Private- Right Documents from the First Half of the 19th Century). Zapisi. XII. XXI. 5. 301-303: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1939.
Nenadović, Ljubomir. O Crnogorcima (About the Montenegrins). Vol. knjiga 21, Novi Sad - Beograd: Matica Srpska - Srpska Književna Zadruga, 1971.
Nikčević, Vojislav P.. Crnogorska Gramaticka. (Montenegrin Grammer). Podgorica: DANU, 2001.
———.. Crnogorski Jezik. (The Montenegrin Language). Cetinje: Matica Crnogorska, 1993.
———. Mladi Njegoš: Pjesnikovi putevi ka sintezi. (Young Njegoš: A Poet's Path to Synthesis). Cetinje: Posebna Izdanja, 1978.
Nikić, Ljubomir. “Anastas Jovanović i Crna Gora.” (Anastas Jovanović and Montenegro) Istorijski Zapisi. X. XIII. 1-2. 286-301: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1957.
Njegoš, Petar II Petrović. Celokupna Djela P. P. Njegoša. Banašević, M., etc.. Beograd: Prosveta, Izdavačko Preduzeće Srbije, 1955.
171
———. Celokupna dela. Andrić Ivo. Beograd: Prosveta, 1967.
———. Celokupna dela. Tomoćić, Nikola. XI. Prosveta: Beograd, 1982.
———. Gorski Vijenac. translated by Aleksandar Mladenoviæ. Beograd: CIP, 2001.
———. Mountain Laurel. translated by D. Mrkich. Ottawa, Canada: Commoners' Publishing, 1998. 2nd edition.
———. The Mountain Wreath of P. P. Nyegosh (Petar II) Prince-Bishop of Montenegro 1830-1851. translated by James Wiles. London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1930; Greenwood Press, 1970.
———. The Mountain Wreath. translated by Vasa D. Mihailovich. Irvine, California: Charles Schlacks, Jr., 1986.
———. Der Bergkranz. trans. A. Schmaus. München: Verlag Otto Sagner, 1963.
———. Njegoševa bilježnica. (Njegoš's Notebooks). Cetinje: Istorijski Instituta Narodne Republike Crne Gore, 1956.
———. Pisma I (1830-1837). Letters I (1830-1837). Beograd: Prosveta, 1951.
———. Pisma II (1838-1842). Letters II (1838-1842). Beograd: Prosveta, 1953.
———. Pisma III (1843-1851). Letters III (1843-1851). Beograd: Prosveta, 1955.
———. Pustinjak Cetinjski, izbor iz celokupnog pesništva. (The Hermit of Cetinje) Matija Beković. 4 vols. Beograd: Slovo Ljubve, 1979.
———. The Ray of Microcosm. translated by Professor Charles A. Manning. Munich: Library Svechanik, Druck “Logos,” 1953.
———. The Ray of Microcosm. Harvard Slavic Studies 3, Translated by Anica Savi- Rebac. Harvard University: Harvard University Press, 1957; Forum - Novi Sad, 1989.
———. Svobodijada, (The Song of Freedom) Martinović, Niko S.. 3-22. Cetinje: Centralne Narodne Biblioteke SR Crne Gore “Crnojević”, 1967.
Njegoš, Petar II Petrović and Nenadović, Ljuba P. Gorski vijenac; Razgovori s Njegošem. (The Mountain Wreath; Conversations with Njegoš) Kalezić, Vasilije. Beograd: Biblioteka „Opšta izdanja,” 1995.
Njegošev album. (Njegoš's Album). Cetinje: Narodna Knjiga, 1951 or 1971?.
172
The Njegoš Foundation . The Njegoš Foundation, Petar II Petrović Njegoš (1813-1851), How the Foundation was Established. Belgrade: The Njegoš Foundation, 1995.
Ongaro, Francesko dall'. Njegoševa priča o vjerenoj Crnogorki. (Njegoš talks about an Engaged Montenegrin Woman). Cetinje: Narodna Knjiga, 1952.
Paget, Lord Clarence. “Visit to the Vladika of Montenegro.” Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine (Edinburgh) IX, CCCLXXII (October, 1846): 428-443.
Palairet, Michael. The Balkan Economies c. 1800-1914: Evolution without development. Cambridge Studies in Modern Economic History, Feinstein, O'Brien, et. al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
———. “The Culture of Economic Stagnation in Montenegro.” The Maryland Historian (College Park) 17 (1986): 17-42.
Parry, Ken, and Melling, David J., et al., eds.. The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity. London: Blackwell Press, 2000.
Paš, Gustav. “Petar II Petrović.” (Petar II Petrović) Zapisi. VIII. XIV. 3. 150-158: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1935.
Paton, A. A. Highlands and Islands of the Adriatic, including Dalmatia, Croatia, and the Southern Provinces of the Austrian Empire. 2 vols. London: Chapman Hall, 1849.
Patrimonio, Christian. “La Formation de l'etat Montenegrin.” (The Formation of the Montenegrin State) Le Correspondant (Paris) 240 (1910): 531-596.
Pavichevich, Helen A. “Education and Modernization in Montenegro, 1831-1918.” PhD. diss., Loyola University. June 1976.
Pavićević, Branko. “Čevkinova uloga u radu na razgraničenju Crne Gore i Austrije 1839- 1841. godine.” (The Role of Čevkin in the Work of Limitations of Montenegro and Austria from 1839-1841) Istorijski Zapisi. XXI. XXV. 2. 176-196: Titograd, Organ Istorijska Instituta i Društva SRCG. 1968.
———. “Istorija crnogorskog naroda: pripremljena 1837. za Nikolaja I.” (History of the Montenegrin Nation: Getting Ready for Nicholas I in 1837) Istorijski Zapisi. Godine LXV. 1-4. 7-11: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1992. ———. “Memorandum Jegora Petroviča Kovaljevskog o Crnoj Gori 1838. godine.” (Memorandum from Jegor Petrovic Kovaljevski about Montenegro in 1838) Istorijski Zapisi. XX. XXIV. 2. 213-228: Titograd, Organ Istorjskog i DruIstoriSRCG, Obod. 1967.
173 ———. “Njegoš i Jakov Nikolajević Ozereckovski.” (Njegoš and Jakov Nikolajević Ozereckovski) Istorijski Zapisi. 20. XXIV. 1. 5-44: Titograd, Organ Istorjskog i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1967.
———. “Njegoševa misija u Rusiji 1837 godine.” (Njegos's Mission in Russia in 1837) Prilozi sa književnost, jezik, istoriju, i foklor. 26. 47-70: Beograd, Kraljevine srba, hrvata i sloventsa. 1960.
———. “O neostvarenoj Njegoševoj zelji da posjeti Petrograd 1846.” (About Njegos's Unrealized Wish to visit Petersburg in 1846) Istorijski Zapisi. V. VIII. 1-3. 72-80: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG. 1969.
———. “Pripreme za dolazak Vukotića i Vučićevića u Crnu Gori 1831. godine.” (Preparations for the Arrival of Vukotić and Vučićević in Montenegro in 1831) Istorijski Zapisi. XXI. XXV. 4. 529-557: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1968.
———. “Ruska pomoć u žitu Crnoj Gori 1838. god..” (Russian Support in Grain to Montenegro in 1838) Istorijski Zapisi. XXI. XXV. 1. 13-19: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1968.
Pavlović, Milivoj. Problemi stila. (Problem Styles). Beograd: Univerzitetski Udžbenik, Beografički zabod, 1960.
Pavlowitch, Stevan K. A History of the Balkans 1804-1945. London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited, 1999.
Pejović, Đoko. Crna Gora u doba Petra I i Petra II, osnivanje države i uslovi njenog razvitka. (Montenegro in the time of Petar I and Petar II, the foundation of the state and how its development came about). Beograd: Narodna Knjiga, 1981.
———. Iseljavanja Crnagoraca u XIX vijeku. (Emigrating Montenegins in the 19th Century). Titograd: Istorijski Institut Narodne Republike Crne Gore, 1962.
———. “Protokol o razgraničenju između Jovičinća i Uganja 1838. godine.” (Protocol about the Limitations Between Jovinčić and Uganji in 1838) Istorijski Zapisi. XVI. XX. 3. 473-476: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, „Obod”. 1963.
———. “Stvaranje države i jačanje jedinstva Crnogorskih i Brdskih plemena (kraz XVII- srijedina XIV vijeka).” (State Building and the Strengthening of Montenegrin and Brda tribes, the end of the 18th century to the middle of the 19th century). Beograd: Književne Novine, Stručna Knjiga, 1976. 217-247.
Perica, Vjekoslav. Balkan Idols: Religion and Nationalism in Yugoslav States. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
174
Peričić, Sime. “Prilog poznavanju trgovine između Kotora i Crne Gore od 1815 do 1850 godine.” (A Contribution to the Knowledge About Trade Between Kotor and Montenegro from 1815 until 1850) Acta historio-oeconomica Iugoslaviae. 3. 61- 74: Zagreb, Komisija. 1976.
Perović, Puniša. “Njegoševo djelo danas.” (Njegoš's Work Today) Istorijski Zapisi. XVI. XX. 3. 341-347: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG. 1963.
Petrovich, Michael Boro. "Catherine II and a False Peter III in Montenegro." American Slavic and East European Reviews 14, 2: 169-194.
Popović, Miloš. “Crna Gora i Crnogorci.” (Montenegro and the Montenegrins) Zapisi. XII. XXI. 1. 24-32: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1939.
Popović, Miodrag. Bonik Cetinjski. (The Invalid of Cetinje). Podgorica: Biblioteka „Njegoš”, 1996.
Popović, Pavle. “Petar II Petrović Njegoš u Beču u godinama 1836-1837.” (Petar II Petrović Njegoš in Vienna in the years 1836-1837) Srpski književni glasnik. XXV. 8,9. 585-592, 677-684: Beograd, 1910.
Popović, Petar. Crna Gora u doba Petra I i Petra II. (Montenegro in the time of Petar I and Petar II). Beograd: Štamparija “Kultura”, 1951.
———. “Crna Gora u 1847 godini.” (Montenegro in 1847) Istorijski Zapisi. V. VIII. 1-3. 11-18: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Institut i Društva SRCG. 1952.
———. “Prilozi čitanju i razumevanju raznih starina.” (Contributions to Writings and Understandings of Different Periods). Istorijski Zapisi. X. XIII. 1-2. 332-343: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1953.
———. “Ranke o Crnoj Gori.” (Ranke about Montenegro) Zapisi. XI. XIX. 3. 139-148: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1938.
Popović, Vas. “Meternih o Njegošu g. 1837.” (Metternich about Njegoš in 1837) Brastvo. XXI. 178-180: Beograd, Društvo sv. Save. 1927.
Potthoff, Wilfred, ed.. Vuk Karadžić im europaïschen Kontext. (Vuk Karadžić in a European Context). Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1990.
“Prepiska Vladike Rada sa srpskim vladarima i drugim licima iz Srbije.” (Vladika Rade's Correspondance with the Serbian Leader and Other People From Serbia). Zapisi. II. III. 1-2; 3. 81-86; 168-173: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1928.
175
Prvulović, Žika Rad. Njegoševa teorija saznanja i sistem. (Njegoš’s Theory of Learning) Birmingham: Lazarica - Serbian Orthodox Church, 1981.
———. Religious Philosophy of Prince-Bishop Njegoš. Birmingham: Žika Rad. Prvulovich, 1984.
Purković, Miodrag. Istorija srpske pravoslavne crkvene opštine u Trstu. (The History of the Orthodox Church in the Region of Trieste)1 vol. Trst: Comunita Religiosa Serbo Ortodossa di Trieste, 1960.
Radosavović, Ilija. Medžunarodni Polozaj Crne Gore u XIX Vijeku. (Montenegrin International Relations in the Nineteenth Century). Beograd: Servis Sveza udruzenja pravnika Jugoslavije, 1960.
———. “Razvoj uređenja sudova u Crnoj Gori.” (The Development of the Judical Structure in Montenegro) Istorijski Zapisi. VII. X. 2. 499-513: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1954.
Radusinović, Pavle S.. Stanovništvo Crne Gore do 1945. godine, opšta crnogorska- geografska i demokrafska razmatranja. (The Population of Montenegro until 1945, a General Speculation on Montenegrin Geography and Demographics.) Posebna izdanja knjiga DXV, Odeljenje društvenih nauka knjiga 80 vols. Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1978.
Rakočević, Milan. Crnogorski Prometej (Montenegro's Prometheus). Ljubljana: Izdanje Piščevo, 1940; Društvo za očuvanje Baštine, 1998.
Rasch, G. “Petar II Petrović.” Zapisi. XIV. 3. 150-158: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta Crne Gore. 151.
Reinach, J. La Serbie et le Monténégro (Serbia and Montenegro). Paris: Ancienne Maison Michel Lévy Arčres, 1870.
Reutz, Alexander von. “Die freien Landgemeinden von Zernagora, Poglizza und Andere.” (The Free Lands of Montenegro, Poglizza, and Others) Dorpater Jahrbücher für Litteratur, Statistik und Kunst, besonders Russlands. 1. 101-121: Leipzig, Carl Franz Köhler. 1833.
Robert, Cyprien. Les Slaves de Turquie: Serbs, Montenegrines, Bosniaques, Albanais et Bulgare; Leurs Resources, Leurs Tendences et Leurs Progres Politique. (The Slavs of Turkey: Serbs, Montenegrins, Bosnians, Albanians and Bulgarians; Their Resources, Their Leanings and Their Political Progress). Paris: L. Passard & Jules Labitte, 1844.
176 The Rockford Center for International Affairs. “Report on the visit to Serbia and Montenegro.” http://www.njegos.net/en/studies/reportsserbiaandmn/reportserbiaandmn.html:Jul y 2000.
Roudometof, Victor. “Nationalism and Statecraft in Southeastern Europe (1750-1923).” Ph.D diss., University of Pittsburgh. 1996.
Rovinski, Pavel Apolonović. Crna Gora u svojoj prošlosti i sadašnosti (Montenegro in the Past and the Present). IV vol. Cetinje: Centralna Narodna Biblioteka SR Crne Gore „Đurđe Crnojević,” 1991.
———. Etnografija Crne Gore (Ethnography of Montenegro). 2 vols. Podgorica: CID, 1998.
———. Petr II (Rade) Petrovic, vladika černogorskii. (Petar II Rade Petrović, Montenegrin Vladika). St. Petersburg: E. Evdokimova, 1889.
———. Rovinski o Njegošu. (Rovinski on Njegoš). Cetinje: Djela o Južnim Slovenima, 1967.
Rudić, Petar. “O pogobiji Petrovići kod Grahovo 1835. godine.” (About the Deaths of the Petrovići at Grahovo in 1836) Istorijski Zapisi. XXXII. LIII. 2. 131-135: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG „Obod”. 1980.
“La Russie.” (Russia) Annuaire des deux mondes (Paris) (1851-1852): 660-682.
Scheffler, H. W. “Ancestor Worship in Anthropology: or, Observations on Descent and Descent Groups.” Current Anthropology (Chicago) 7, 5 (1966): 541-551.
Sekulić, Isidora. Njegošu knjiga duboke odanosti. (A Book Profoundly Dedicated to Njegoš). Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1968.
Sekulić, Laza. “Posvećenje Vladike Rada za episkopa.” (Njegoš's consecration as bishop) Letopis Matice srpske. 346. 312-318: Novi Sad, Matica sprska. 1936.
Selesković, M.T. “(Poseta Gustava ritera fon Franka Njegošu.” (Gustav Ritter von Frank's visit to Njegoš) Letopis Matice Ć. 306. 34-47: Novi Sad, Matica Srpska. 1925.
Semek, Anton. “Repressaliengefechte gegen die Montenegriner im Jahre 1838.” (Reprisals Against the Montenegrins in 1838) Mittheilungen des K. und K. Kriegsarchiv. IV. 161-213:1906.
Seton-Watson, Hugh. The Russian Empire 1801-1917. The Oxford Histoy of Modern Europe, Bullock, Alan and Deakin, F.W.D.. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.
177
Sfikas, Thanasis D. and Williams, Christopher, eds.. Ethnicity and Nationalism in East Central Europe and the Balkans. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999.
Simić, Andrei. “The Blood Feud in Montenegro.” Chap. in Essays in Balkan Ethnology. 83-94. The Kroeber Anthropological Society:1967.
Sokolovitch, Lioubo. “Lettres Yougoslaves (Yugoslav Letters).” de France (Paris) (1890): 826-833.
Spasić, Krunoslav. “Arhiv francuskog ministarstva spoljnih poslova u Parizu o Njegošu i Crnoj Gori njegovog doba.” (Archives of the French Ministery of Foreign Affairs in Paris about Njegoš's Montenegro and his time) Istorijski Zapisi. XVII. XXI. 1. 145-152: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1964.
———. Bibliographie Francaise sur le Montenegro (1800-1939). (French Bibliography about Montenegro 1800-1939). Cetinje: Centralna narodna biblioteka SR Crne Gore „Durde Crnojevic, 1988.
———. Pierre II Petrovic-Njegos et les Francais (Petar II Petrović Njegoš and the French). Richelieu. Publications de la Sorbonne. Paris-Sorbonne: Universite de Paris IV, 1972.
Stamatović, Aleksandar. “Kratka istorija Mitropolije Crnogorsko-primorske (1219-1999) (A Short History of the Metropolitans of Montenegro-Primorije 1219-1999).” Projekat Rastko Cetinje - Povijest.. http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko- cg/povijest/istorijat/istorijat_5.html: Projekat Rastko Cetinje.
Stavrianos, L.S.. The Balkans since 1453. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965; New York University Press, 2000.
Stevanović, Mihailo, etc. Rečnik jezika Petra II Perovića Njegoša. (Dictionary of the Language of Petar Petrović Njegoš). 2 volumes Beograd, Titograd, Cetinje: Vuk Karadžić, Nardona Knjiga, Obod, Prosveta, 1983.
Stevenson, Francis Seymour. A History of Montenegro. The Eastern European Collection. London: Jarrold & Sons, 1912?; Arno Press and the New York Times, 1971.
Stieglitz, Heinrich. Ein Besuch auf Montenegro. (A Visit to Montenegro). Stuttgart: J.G. Cotta'fscher Verlag, 1841.
Stoianovich, Traian. Balkan Worlds, the First and Last Europe. Armonk, New York, London, New England: M.E. Sharpe, 1994.
178 ———. Between East and West: The Balkan and Mediterranean Worlds. 4 vols. vols. New Rochelle: Aristide D. Caratzas, 1992.
Stojačković, Aleksandar. “Crna Gora i njeni obitatelji.” (Montenegro and its Residents) Zapisi. XI. XIX. 5. 283-288: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjksog Istorijskog Društva. 1938.
Stojanović, Petar. “Neki aspekti nasljedno-pravnih odnosa u Crnoj Gori u XIX i na početku XX vijeku.” (Some Aspects of Hereditary Rights Relations in Montenegro in the 19th and at the Beginning of the 20th Centuries) Istorijski Zapisi. XXIII. XXVII. 3-4. 209-250: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1970.
———. “Običaji sječe glave i kidanja nosa u crnogorsko-turskom ratovanju.” (The Custom of Chopping off Heads and the Tearing off of Noses in Montenegrin- Turkish Warfare) Istorijski Zapisi. XXXII. XXXIX. 2. 67-93: Titograd, Organ Istorijskgo Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1979.
———. “Progonstvo iz zemlje kao mjera odmazde i prevencije u Crnjoj Gori u Sjevernoj Albaniji: osvrt na stanje u XIX i na početku XX vijeka.” (Exile from the land as a measure of retaliation and prevention in Montenegro and Northern Albania: a review of the situation in the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century). Glasnik Cetinjskog Muzeja. IX. 5-32: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1976.
Stokes, Gale. Politics as Development: The Emergence of Political Parties in Nineteenth- Century Serbia. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1990.
——— ed. Nationalism in the Balkans: an Annotated Bibliography, New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1984.
Stratimirović, General von. Was ich erlebte: Erinnerungen. (Through What I Lived: Memories). Wien: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1911.
Stranjaković, Drag. “Nešto iz odnosa Crne Gore sa Turskom 1843 i 1844 godine.” (Something about the Relations of Montenegro with Turkey 1843-1844) Zapisi. X. XVIII. 1. 9-16: Cetine, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1937.
Subotić, Jovan. “Slovo Petru II Petroviću Njegošu, gospodaru Crne Gore i Brda.” (Words of Petar II Petrović Njegoš, Ruler of Montenegro and Brda) Zapisi. XIII. XXIII. 1, 2. 32-36; 97-103: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1940.
Sugar, Peter. East Europe and Nationalism. Aldershot: Variorum, 1999.
179 Svinjin, Pavle. “Senat u Crnoj Gori.” (The Senate in Montenegro) Zapisi. XI. XX. 5. 289- 293: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1938.
Šerović, Petar. “Izvještaj srbskog načelnika u Kotoru o najimemovanju Njegošu za arhiepiskopa i mitropolita.” (Report from the Serbian Leader in Kotor about the Appointment of Njegoš as Archimandrite and Metropolitan) Istorijski Zapisi. IX. XII. 1-2. 308-309: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1956.
———. “Jedno pismo austrijskog sreskog načelnika u Kotoru, upućeno Njegošu 1845.” (One Letter from the Head of the Austrian District in Kotor, Informing Njegoš 1845) Istorijski Zapisi. VIII. XI. 1-2. 350-353: Cetinje, Glasnik Istorijskog Instituta Crne Gore. 1955.
———. “Naredba Dalmatinskog namjesnika Lilienberga da se Njegošu onemogući bogoluženje u Boki.” (Order by the Dalmatian Regent Lilienberg to Make it Impossible for Njegos's Religious Service in Boka) Istorijski Zapisi. IX. XII. 1-2. 309-310: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1956.
———. “Poluostrvo Prevlaka u Boku Kotorski kao poklom Njegošu.” (Prevlaka Peninsula in Boka Kotor as a Gift to Njegoš) Istorijski Zapisi. V. VIII. 1-3. 162- 165: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike. 1952.
Škerović, Nikola. “Iz odnosa Crne Gore i Srbije tridestih godina 19. vijeka.” (From the Relations of Montenegro and Serbia in the 1830s) Istorijski Zapisi. XV. XIX. 3-4. 533-540: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Druptva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1962.
———. “Perjanci.” (Bodyguards) Istorijski Zapisi. IV. VIII. 7-9. 399-402: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1951.
———. “Vrenje i zavere protiv Turkse četrdesetih godina XIX v.” (Fermentation and Conspiracy against the Turks in the 1840s) Istorijski Zapisi. VII. X. 2. 474-497: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1954.
Šobajić, Maksim. “Prvi put u Srbiju 1848 godine, iz “Memora” Maksima Šobajića.” (First Trip to Serbia in 1848, from the “Memoir” of Maksim Sobajić) Zapisi. V. IX. 6. 341-346: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1931.
Šoć, Pero Đ. Ogled bibliografije o Crnoj Gori na stranim jezicima. (A Bibliographical Perspective on Montenegro in Foreign Languages) Beograd: Srpska Akademija Nauka, 1948.
———. “Pohod Vladike Rada na Podgoricu.” (Vladika Rade's Campaign Against Podgorica) Istorijski Zapisi. III. VI. 7-9. 293-295: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1950.
180
———. Prilozi za kultura istoriju Crne Gore sa 70 slika. (Essays on the Culture of Motenegro with 70 illustrations). Beograd: Štampa Grafički smetnički zavod “Planeta”, 193?.
———. “Vladika Rade za istoriju Crne Gore.” (Vladika Rade from Historical Montenegro) Istorijski Zapisi. IV. VIII. 7-9. 389-394: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1951.
Tennsyon, Sir Alfred Lord. “Montenegro.” Modern History Sourcebook: Alfred Lord Tennyson: Montenegro. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/tennyson- montenegro.html: Paul Halsall, November 1988.
Terzic, Slavenko. “Ideological roots of Montenegrin nation and Montenegrin separatism.” http://www.njegos.org/past/idroots.htm:.
Tischler, Ulrike. Die habsburgische Politik gegenüber den Serben und Montenegrinern 1791-1822. (Habsburg Politics Regarding the Serbs and Montenegrins 1791- 1822) Südosteuropäische Arbeiten, Hosch, Edgar and Nerhing, Karl. München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 2000.
Todorov, Nikolai. “Common Features of the Nineteenth-Century Balkan Liberation Struggles.” In Insurrections, Wars, and the Eastern Crisis in the 1870s, Kiraly, Bela K. and Stokes, Gale. 3-9. New York: East European Monographs, No. CICVII, Atlantic Research and Publications, Inc., 1985.
Todorova, Maria. “The Balkans: From Discovery to Invention.” Slavic Review 53, 2 (1994): 453-482.
———”Hierarchies of Eastern Europe: East-Central Europe versus the Balkans.” Occasional Papers, East European Program, The Wilson Center (Washington, DC), 46 (1996).
———. Imagining the Balkans. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
———. “Myth-making in European Family History (The Zadruga Revisited).” Occasional Papers, East European Program, The Wilson Center (Washington DC), 19 (1989).
Tomanović, Lazar. Petar Drugi Petrović-Njegoš kao vladalac (Petar II Petrović-Njegoš as ruler). Cetinje:1896.
Tomasevic, Djordje Vid. “Montenegrins and Other Serbs.” http://www.njegos.org/past/vid.htm: Njegos.org, 1/18/02.
181 Tomović, Slobodan, ed. Encyklopedija Njegoš (The Njegoš Encyclopedia). Podgorica: CID, 1999.
———. Njegoševa Luča: Studija. (Njegoš's Luca: A Study). Titograd: Grafički Zavod, 1971.
Trančik, Martin. Abgrund - Brückenschlag: Oberschicht und Bauernvolk in der Region Dubrovnik im 19. Jahrhundert. (The Abyss - The Bridge: The Upper Class and the Peasants in the Region of Dubrovnik in the Nineteenth Century). Zürich: Pano-Verlag, 2002.
Treadway, John D. “Anglo-American Diplomacy and the Montenegrin Question, 1914- 1921.” Occasional Paper, East European Program - The Wilson Center (Washington, DC.), 26 (1991).
———. The Falcon and the Eagle: Montenegro and Austria-Hungary, 1908-1914. West Lafeyette: Purdue University Press.
V., P.S.. “Radovan Piper perjanik i povjernik Njegošev.” (Radovan Piper, Perjanik and Njegoš's Deputy) Istorijski Zapisi. V. VIII. 1-3. 172-175: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Društva Narodne Republike Crne Gore. 1952.
Valentinelli, Giuseppe. Bibliografia della Dalmazia e del Montenegro. (Bibliography of Dalmatia and Montenegro) Zagabria: Col Tipi del Dr. Ljudevito Gaj., 1855.
Velimirović, Vladika Nikolaj. Religija Njegoševa. (Njegos's Religion). Beograd: Biblioteka Pravoslavlje, Štamparija „GLAS,” 1969.
———. Religion and Nationality in Serbia. London: Nisbet & Co., Ltd., 1915.
———. “Pravoslavni duhovni centa Vladike Nikolaja Velimirović, Ohridski Prolog .” 31/18 Okotober. http://www.vnikolaj.org.yu/prolog/ok18.htm:.
Vlačić, Ljubo. “Petrović Petar II Njegoš (po neobelodanjenim tajnim aktima arhive dalmatinskog namesništva).” (Petrovic Petar II Njegos in the Unfinished Secret Record Archives in the Dalmatian Office) Bogoslovlje. XI; XII. 2; 3;4;2;. 173- 187?; 287-297?; 391-405;160-174; 177?-188:1936; 1937.
———. “Zabrana svečanog dočeka Njegoša u Dalmacija na povratku iz Rusije sa posvećenja za episkopa.” (The Ban on the Festive Reception of Njegoš in Dalmatia on his Return from Russia after his Consecration as Archbishop) Zapisi. IV. VI. 6. 367-371: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1930.
Vlahovic, Petar. “The Serbian Origin of the Montenegrins.” www.njegos.org/past/vlahovic.htm:.
182 Vlahović, Vlajko. Njegoš neosvojiva duhovna tvrđava. (Njegos an Impregnable Spiritual Fortress). Münich: Iskra, 1983.
———. “O turskom “Zaudaru” u “Gorskom Vijencu.” (About the “Zaudar” Turks in “The Mountain Wreath”) Zapisi. IV. VI. 3. 157-160: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1930.
Vojnovitch, Count Louis. Dalmatia and the Yugoslav Movement. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1920.
Vransevic, Branislav. “Aussenpolitische Beziehungen zwischen Montenegro und der Habsburgermonarchie von 1848 bis 1918.” (Foreign Relations between Montenegro and the Habsburg Empire 1848-1850) Habsburgsmonarchie 1848- 1918. 6. 2. 376-386: Austria, 1993.
Vrčević, Vuk. “Život Petra II Petrovića Njegoša, vladike crnogorskoga (The Life of Petar II Petrović Njegoš).” Članci i prilozi o srpskoj književnosti prve polovine XIX veka. Novi Sad: Matica Srpska, 1914.
Vucinich, Louis Andrew. God and the Villagers, A Story of Montenegro. Buffalo: Buffalo State College Foundation, Inc., 1974.
Vukčević, Mihailo. “Iz jednog napisa Njegoševog školskog druga.” (From one of Njegoš's School Companions) Zapisi. III. IV. 4. 242-243: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1929.
Vukićević, Milan. “Crnogorski razgovor.” (Montenegrin Conversations) Zapisi. VI. X. 3. 148-157: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1932.
Vukmanović, Jovan. “Fizički lik i izgled Njegošev.” (The Physical Appearance of Njegoš) Glasnik etnografičkog muzeja na Cetinju. III. 77-96: Cetinje, Muzej. 1963.
Vukmanović, Savo. “Dimitrije Milaković.” (Dimitrije Milaković) Istorijski Zapisi. XXXIII. LIII. 3. 99-109: Titograd, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva Istoričara SRCG, Obod. 1980.
———. “O originalnom rukopisu „Gorskog vijenca.” (“About the orginal manuscript of The Mountain Wreath”) Glasnik cetinjskih muzeja. II. 157-168: Cetinje, Glasnkik cetinjskog muzeja, SRCG. 1969.
——— ed. Zbornik Radova o Njegošu. (Collected Works about Njegoš). Cetinje: Obod, 1972.
183 Vuković-Birčanin, Momčilo. Petar II Petrović Njegoš (1813-1851) Kapela na Lovćenu. (Petar II Petrović Njegoš 1813-1851: Chapel on Lovćen) München: Izdanje Pisca, 1983.
Vuksan, Dusan. “Crna Gora i pogranični Turci.” (Montenegro and the Border Turks). Zapisi. VIII; X. XIV; XVII. 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 6. 36-44; 106-111; 170-176; 233-239; 292-300; 360-368; 354-360: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1935; 1937.
———. “Crnogorske financije u XVIII i XIX.” (Montenegrin Finances in the 17th to the 19th Centuries) Zapisi. X. XV. 6. 321-331: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1936.
———. “Da li je Vladika Rade pisao istoriju Crne Gore?” (Did Vladika Rade Write a History of Montenegro?) Zapisi. IX. XV. 4. 193-201: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorjskog Društva. 1936.
———. “Dva pisma Matije Bana Vladici Radu.”. in Zbornik u čast Bogdana Popovića. 138-142. Beograd: Izdavačka knjižarnica Gece Kona, 1929.
———. “Financije Vladike Rade 1838-1841.” (The Finances of Vladika Rade 1838- 1841) Zapisi. VI. X. 2. 90-97: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1932.
———. “Gagićeva misija 1832 u Crnoj Gori.” (Gagić's 1832 Mission to Montenegro) Zapisi. XIX. 3. 129-138: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. Mart 1938.
———. “Guvernadurovići u doba vladike Rada.” (The Governorship in the Time of Vladika Rade) Zapisi. XI. XIX. 6. 335-343: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Institut i Društva. 1938.
———. “Jedan pokušaj prikazivanje “Gorskoga Vijenca” u doba Vladika Rade.” (One Attempt to Perform “The Mountain Wreath” in the Time of Vladika Rade) Zapisi. II. II. 5. 266-268: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1928.
———. “Jedan Austrijski izveštaj o bolesti Vladike Rada.” (One Austrian Report about Vladika Rade's Illness) Zapisi. III. IV. 5. 301-305: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinsjkog Istorijskog Društva. 1929.
———. “Jedan projekat Crnogorskoga zakonika iz doba Vladike Rada.” (One Plan for a Montenegrin Legal Code from the Time of Vladika Rade) Zapisi. Godine I. I. 1. 44-51: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1927.
184 ———. “Jedna pisma Stefana Perovića Cuce Vladici Radu.” (One Letter from Stefan Perović Cuci to Vladika Rade) Zapisi. XI. XVII. 6. 376-377: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1937.
———. “Još nekoliko dokumenata iz privatnih arhiva.” (Another Set of Documents from Private Archives). Zapisi. XII. XXI. 5. 304-312: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1939.
———. “Još o nešto o Vladici Radu i Ali-paši.” (More about Vladika Rade and Ali Pasha). Zapisi. IX. XVI. 1. 58-59: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1936.
———. “Još o pohodu Vladike Rada na Podgoricu.” (More on Vladika Rade's Campaign against Podgorica) Zapisi. VII. XII. 4. 200-204: Cetine, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1933.
———. “Kad je rođen mitropolit Petar I Petrović Njegoš?.” (When was Petar I Petrović Njegoš Born?) Zapisi. XI. XX. 1. 25-26: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1938.
———. “Kako su crnogorci dočekivali vladiku Rada.” (How Montenegrins greeted the Return of Vladika Rade) Zapisi. XII. XXI. 6. 375-376: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Instituta i Društva. 1939.
———. “Kakva su saopštenja donosile srspke novine o Crnoj Gori nazad sto godina.” (What was being published about Montenegrin in Serbian newspapers one hundred years ago) Zapisi. XX. 6. 355-363: Cetinje, Organ Istorijskog Institut Crne Gore. 1938.
———. “Katalog Zetskih i Crnogorsko-primorsko episkopa i mitropolita.” (Catalog of Zeta's and the Montenegrin Coast's Bishops and Metropolitans) Zapisi. VIII. XIV. 2. 71-73: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1935.
———. “Kroz Njegoševa pisma.” (Through Njegos's Letters) Zapisi. XI. XIX. 1, 2. 1-14; 65-76: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1938.
———. “Nekoliko Dokumenata iz Kotorskih arhiva.” (Some Documents from the Kotor Archives). Zapisi. XI. XIX; XX. 3; 4; 5; 6; 1. 172-177; 241-248; 308-312; 372- 378; 45-53: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1938.
———. “O jednom Njegoševom ljekaru.” (About one of Njegoš's Doctors) Zapisi. XIII. XXIII. 2. 95-96: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1940.
———. “Osservatore Romano” o smrti Vladike Rada.” (“Osservatore Romano” about the Death of Vladika Rade) Zapisi. XIII. XXIV. 4. 252-253: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1940.
185
———. “Otmica u doba Vladika Rade.” (A Kidnapping in the Time of Vladika Rade) Zapisi. XIII. XXIV. 4. 252-253: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1940.
———. Petar I Petrović Njegoš i njegovo doba. (Petar I Petrović Njegoš and his time). Cetinje: Narodna Knjiga, 1951.
———. “Pohod Vladike Rade na Podgoricu.” (Vladika Rade's Attack on Podgorica) Zapisi. IV. VI. 5. 282-284: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1930.
———. “Poslanice Vladike Rade.” (Messages from Vladika Rade). Zapisi. X. XVIII. 5;6. 295-304;359-367: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1937.
———. Pregled stampe u Crnoj Gori 1834-1934. (A Look at Publishing in Montenegro 1834-1934). Cetinje: Banobinska Štamparija „Obod”, 1934.
———. “Prepiska vladike Rade s Ali-Pašom.” (Vladika Rade's Correspondance with Ali Pasha). Zapisi. IV. VII. 2,3,5,6. 107-115; 175-184; 303-309; 371-376: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Instituta. 1930.
———. “Proglašenje mitropolita Petra I za sveca.” (The Proclamation of Metropolitan Petar I for Saint) Zapisi. IV. VI. I. 22-28: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1930.
———. “Slučaj Bogete Štiljanovića i Boška Vaskova.” (Incident with Bogeta Stiljanovic and Boško Vaskov). Zapisi. XIII. XXIII. 6. 377-378: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1940.
———. “Umir Pejovića i Prosedoljana pred Vladikom Radom.” (Umir Pejovic and Prosedoljana before Vladika Rade) Zapisi. X. XVIII. 5. 312-313: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1937.
———. “Veze Vladike Rade s engleskom.” (Relations Between Vladika Rade and the English) Zapisi. XIII. XXIII. 2. 120-121: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1940.
———. “Vladika Rade i Ali-paša Rizvanbegulović.” (Vladika Rade and Ali-Pasha Rizvanbegulović) Zapisi. I. I. 3. 129-136: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1927.
———. “Vladika Rade i Đorđije.” (Vladika Rade and Đorđije) Zapisi. X. XVIII. 6. 332- 336: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1937.
———. “Vladika Rade i Matija Ban.” (Vladika Rade and Matija Ban) Zapisi. IX. XV. 3. 129-132: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorjskog Društva. 1936.
186
———. “Vladika Rade i Skadarski Vezieri.” (Vladika Rade and the Skadar Veziers) Zapisi. IX. XVI. 2; 3. 65-68; 129-140: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1936.
———. “Vladika Rade mijenja neke baštine.” (Vladika Rade changes some rules) Zapisi. X. XVIII. 5. 313: Cetinje, Glasnki Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1937.
———. “Vladika Rade u Kotoru 1836 godine.” (Vladika Rade in Kotor in 1836) Zapisi. IV. VI. 3. 129-131: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1930.
———. “Vladika Rade, Vuk, i Kapetan Orešković.” Zapisi. XIV. 6. 321-327: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1935.
———. “Vuk S. Karadžić i Vladika Rade.” (Vuk S. Karadžić and Vladika Rade) Zapisi. X. XVIII. 5. 257-265: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorjskog Društva. 1937.
———ed. Cetinje i Crna Gora. (Cetinje and Montenegro). Beograd: Davidović Pavlovića i Druga, 1927.
———, ed. Spomenica Petra II Petrovića Njegoša 1813-1851-1925 (Rememberance of Petar II Petrović Njegoš 1813-1851-1925). Cetinje: Izdanje glavnog odgora za prednos Njegoševih kosti, 1926; Službeni list Crne Gore, 1999.
Watts-Penny, Kristen. “Women of the Black Mountain: Hospitality and Social Networks in a Montenegrin Town.” PhD diss., University of Virginia. 1985.
White, George W. Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000.
Wilkinson, F.R.S., Sir J. Gardner. Dalmatia and Montenegro. 2 vols. London: John Murray, Albermarle Street, 1848.
Wilson, Duncan. The Life and Times of Vuk Stefanoviæ Karadžiæ, 1787-1864: Literacy, Literature, and National Independence in Serbia. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.
Wolff, Larry. Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994.
———. Venice and the Slavs: The Discovery of Dalmatia in the Age of Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001.
Z, I. Zapisi. The Mountain Wreath. I. II. 1. 56-59: Cetinje, Glasnik Cetinjskog Istorijskog Društva. 1927. Gorski Vijenac. Petrović-Njegoš, Petar II
187 “Zahumsko-hercegovacka eparhija.” http://www.spc.org.yu/Genocid/Zahumsko/zahumskol.html:.
Živanović, Jeremija. “Jedan Njegošev put (po savreminim veleškama).” (One of Njegoš's trips) Godišnjica Nikole Ćupića. 32. 176-194: Beograd, Državne štamparije Kraljevine Jugoslavije. 1913.
Živković, Dragoje. “Kancelarijskio poslovanje i arhivska služba u Crnoj Gori.” (Consular relations and archival business in Montenegro) Glasnik Cetinjskih Muzeja savremena istorija Crne Gore i njen muzeološki izraz. V Knjiga. 241-261: Cetinje, Izdavačko-štamparkso preduzeće „Obod”. 1972.
188