Monica Fin Autobiographical Studies: A Survey

Autobiography has a prominent be incidental, with the majority place in the history of Serbian of contributions being articles as one of its most about individual authors or prevalent and practised genres, works. This applies not only to especially in modern and con- Serbian literary theoreticians temporary times. Throughout and historians but also to other different ages, Serbian autobio- European scholars. Some schol- graphical literature has encom- ars have gone so far as to speak passed a wide variety of sub- of a ‘lack of criticism’ regarding genres and literary approaches. Serbian autobiographical writ- Given the popularity of autobio- ings (Vaglio, 2004). Personally, I graphical genres in Serbian liter- think the problem is not a lack ature, one would expect there to of critical concern regarding this be a great interest in the subject particular genre but rather a and an equal abundance of criti- need to open a serious discus- cal studies. Indeed, autobiog- sion on this matter that should raphy has been an object of re- involve both literary theoreti- search for scholars of Serbian cians and historians. literature for quite some time. As I will try to illustrate in this One of the first studies in the paper, scholars of Serbian litera- field, entitled Memoari, mono- ture have so far adopted two dif- grafije, biografije (Memoirs, ferent approaches to autobio- Monographs, Biographies; see graphical material: theoreticians Ignjatović, 1988), was written have been more interested in towards the end of the 19th cen- narrative theory and intertextu- tury by the Serbian writer Jakov ality, while historians have fo- Ignjatović, whose memoirs are cused mainly on analysing vari- among the finest products of au- ous examples of this genre tobiographical writing in the throughout history. It is high history of as a time that scholars joined forces whole. to find some common ground. Although literary criticism on But while some efforts in this di- Serbian autobiography can be rection have been made in re- traced back to the 19th century, cent years, what is still lacking is the general approach towards a systematic and thorough gen- this particular field still tends to eral overview of the develop-

AvtobiografiЯ - Number 4/2015 DOI: 10.25430/2281-6992/v4-367-382 367 distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Materials and Discussions

ment of autobiographical gen- an autobiography. I should start re(s) throughout the different by saying, however, that my re- ages of Serbian literary history, search was not based on all the as well as a comprehensive an- extant criticism but on what I thology of Serbian autobio- believe to be an adequate num- graphical writings1. ber of the most representative The aim of this paper is to pre- and significant samples pro- sent a survey of the most signifi- duced by Serbian scholarship2. cant studies pertaining to Serbi- In examining the literature pro- duced so far by Serbian scholars 1 Over the last three decades, autobiog- of autobiography, I came to real- raphy has also been a frequent topic of ise that criticism on this subject discussions among Croatian scholars. is beset by several difficulties, of The first significant steps to address the which I would like to point out question of autobiographical writing in Croatia were taken in the 1990s by Mir- three: the problem of periodiza- na Velčić (Otisak priče: intertekstualno tion; the problem of defining a proučavanje autobiografije, 1991) and literary canon of Serbian autobi- Vinko Brešić (Autobiografije hrvatskih ography; and, finally, the diffi- pisaca, 1997), whose works are still con- culty of merging theoretical and sidered milestones. In recent years, the two foremost experts are without a historical studies in this field. doubt Andrea Zlatar-Violić (University Accordingly, I have decided to of Zagreb) and Helena Sablić-Tomić divide this paper into three parts (University of Osijek), who have pub- in which I will sum up the find- lished numerous articles and books on the topic. Zlatar-Violić’s Autobiografija ings of my research. u Hrvatskoj (1998), in particular, pro- vides a historical analysis of autobiog- raphies in Croatia from the 14th to the 2 I am deeply grateful to the staff of the 19th century. Keeping in mind the most Library of for recent theoretical findings in the field, the support they gave me during my Zlatar-Violić focuses on the most repre- research, particularly to Ms. Jelena Ko- sentative authors and illustrates the vaček-Svetličić, who provided me with a major autobiographical narrative forms bibliography of autobiographical texts in contemporary . held at the Rukopisno odeljenje Matice Helena Sablić-Tomić’s more recent Srpske (Manuscript Department of the work, Hrvatska autobiografska proza Matica Srpksa Library). The bibliog- (2008), is a collection of lectures deliv- raphy, which was drawn up by Professor ered by the author at the University of Božidar Kovaček towards the end of the Osijek since 2002 as part of courses in nineties, consists of 353 entries and is ‘New Croatian literature’ and ‘Contem- still unpublished. I am also grateful to porary autobiographical prose’. In a Professor Nikola Grdinić and Dr. Nataša sense, this work takes up where Zlatar- Polovina of the University of Novi Sad Violić’s stopped, as it deals with Croa- for their much appreciated advice and tian autobiographies of the 19th and 20th for introducing me to some of the most century. recent critical works on the matter. AvtobiografiЯ - Number 4/2015 368 Hilandarska osnivačka povelja 1. The question of periodization (Charter of ), King Mi- lutin’s Ulijarska povelja (Charter The first thing I noticed when I of Ulijarska), ’s Tuga za started to investigate Serbian jedinčetom (Lament for an Only autobiography was the lack of Son) and the preface to Stefan agreement among scholars re- Dušan’s Zakonik (Code of Laws) garding chronological bounda- – have been described as ‘auto- ries. In order to compile a final biographical works’ and have systematic canon of Serbian au- even been designated as ‘real au- tobiographical literature it tobiographies’. However fasci- should first be determined, as nating, in some cases such at- accurately as possible, how far tributions have proved to be back into history the modern disputable, if not completely un- autobiographical mode extends. justified. Unfortunately, as in some other Autobiography is not always an literary traditions, historians immediately recognizable ob- have yet to agree as to when au- ject, and this is especially true of tobiographical writings first ap- autobiography in medieval cul- peared in Serbian literature and, ture when individuality was con- most importantly, how they may sidered almost a ‘sin of vanity’ be recognized. In this first sec- and authors were expected to tion I will try to draw some follow earlier established tradi- broad lines regarding the matter tions according to the literary of periodization. genre they practised. Such writ- Scholars of autobiography usual- ings as letters, wills, official ly agree that in ancient and me- proclamations and any other dieval literature the ‘autobio- medieval texts that contain graphical impulse’ emerges only fragments of personal infor- in a fragmentary way, so that it mation (and in which medieval is difficult, if not impossible, to Serbian literature is particularly find real autobiographies. Nev- rich) are thus qualitatively dif- ertheless, Serbian medievalists ferent from modern autobiog- have been eager to trace the first raphy. In such documents, auto- examples of autobiographical biographical elements are usual- writing as far back as the age of ly incidental and no more than ancient literature (since the 12th fragmentary, because these century). Some of the most rep- works were not meant to be read resentative works of the time – as ‘writings of the self’. In Serbi- most notably Simeon Nemanja’s an medieval literature, as in

AvtobiografiЯ - Number 4/2015 369 Materials and Discussions

many other traditions, autobiog- The last decades of the 18th cen- raphy was still instrumental to tury and the first half of the 19th other ends, usually political3. constitute what Jovan Deretić Consequently, most Serbian lit- defines as the “great era of Ser- erary historians are eager to nar- bian autobiography” (Deretić row the chronological bounda- 1981: 27–28). Dositej Obradović’s ries we mentioned before and Život i priključenija (Life and Ad- converge in ascribing the begin- ventures), published in Leipzig nings of Serbian autobiograph- between 1783 and 1788, is usually ical writing to the 18th century. considered the first and most Early materials are scarce and popular example of Serbian their purpose is very often hor- modern autobiography. Dositej’s tatory; nevertheless, we may re- eclectic works and modern gard the era (ca. 1690– thought have deeply influenced 1770) as the ‘seed-time’ of Serbi- Serbian cultural history, not on- an autobiography. The first in- ly the age in which he lived but tellectuals to include clearly au- also in later years. This influence tobiographical portions of writ- is seen in literature, too: echoes ing of any length in their works of Dositej’s work are manifold are Partenije Pavlović and Jovan throughout 19th and 20th century Rajić: these two authors thus Serbian literature, especially in constitute the forerunners of narrative prose. Dositej’s auto- Serbian modern autobiography, biography, in particular, is usu- which was ultimately to flourish ally described as a turning point in the age of the Enlighten- in the development of modern ment4. Serbian literature, marking the transition from medieval hagio-

3 Among the ‘autobiographical frag- graphical writings (Žitije) to ments’ scattered throughout Serbian modern secular autobiographies. th medieval literature, those which have The first decades of the 19 cen- the most resemblance to the modern tury saw a steady succession of genre are probably Jefimija’s (Jelena memoirs, autobiographies, dia- Mrnjavčević) writings, primarily on ac- count of their highly emotional tone. ries and travel writings, many of 4 Partenije Pavlović’s autobiographical which are characterized by a notes were written before 1760, redis- clear, sometimes even openly th covered only in the late 19 century and declared aim of imitating Dosi- finally published at the beginning of the 20th century. Jovan Rajić left two auto- biographical works, entitled Morepla- vanie Ivana Raića (finished by 1758 but published in instalments only in 1905) (written between 1776 and 1795, and and Točnoje izobraženije katihizma published only in 1884). AvtobiografiЯ - Number 4/2015 370 tej’s Život i priključenija5. These had participated, reporting his- works played a crucial role in torical events as they actually the development of Serbian lit- happened6. Accordingly, the erature as a whole, especially as memoirs written in the first half precursors of the modern novel. of the 19th century have often Whereas the authors of the first been described as ‘documentary Serbian autobiographies offered prose’, since historiography is accounts of their lives as exem- combined in them with personal pla, the confessional tendency experience. Some of these works receded at the beginning of the (e.g. Gerasim Zelić’s Žitije, pub- 19th century, while narratives lished in Budapest in 1823) were whose key themes were military conceived of as a sort of apology service and foreign travel be- to future generations, which is came more numerous. In writing one reason why they are often their memoirs, Serbian authors – richly documented. many of whom had held high In the second half of the 19th positions in the ecclesiastical or century, particularly in the age secular system – mainly focused of Realism, Serbian authors of on descriptions of the cam- autobiographies already seemed paigns and battles in which they to be writing within a tradition rather than practising a new

5 genre. As the private lives of in- Luca Vaglio has recently suggested a dividual persons finally became possible periodization for the history of the autobiographical genre in Serbian important in themselves, literature whose point of reference is whether or not they would be Dositej himself (see Vaglio, 2013). regarded as exemplary, the do- Vaglio separates a first ‘post-Dositejan’ mestic milieu also began to be phase, to which belong some autobio- graphical works written and/or pub- lished between 1823 and 1840/1841, from 6 It is important to notice a general ten- a second ‘post-Dositejan’ phase, which dency of Serbian criticism to include in begins in the mid-19th century and ex- the same category both autobiographies tends to the early 20th century. In be- and memoirs, which are traditionally tween these two phases there is a hiatus distinct in other critical traditions. A of a few decades during which no (rele- case in point is that of Milorad Pavić: in vant) autobiographies emerged. Among his stressing of the importance of this the authors who belong to the ‘first genre in the development of Serbian phase’ are Gerasim Zelić, Sava Tekelija, prose literature between the second half Joakim Vujić, Milovan Vidaković and of the 18th century and early 19th centu- Sima Milutinović Sarajlija, while Stefan ry, Pavić speaks of “memoarska Mitrov Ljubiša, Jovan Hadžić, Nikanor književnost” or “memoarski spisi”, Grujić, and Jovan Subo- without distinguishing autobiographies tić (all professional writers) could be from memories in the true sense of the ascribed to the ‘second phase’. word (Pavić, 1991: 93). AvtobiografiЯ - Number 4/2015 371 Materials and Discussions

depicted by writers. In addition, ography consists of over 700 en- readers had become more nu- tries and includes only printed merous and their interests more texts. Nevertheless, Merenik universal, a factor that began to acknowledges in the preface to influence both publishers and her paper that the results of her writers. Serbian literature was work are not to be considered clearly undergoing a rapid and complete or definitive. fundamental transformation – As far as Serbian medieval litera- one which resulted not only in ture is concerned, the most ex- the writing of more autobiog- haustive achievement is still the raphies but also in a greater will- collection Pisah i potpisah, edit- ingness on the part of authors to ed by Radmila Marinković in publish them. From the second 1996. This volume collects to- half of the 19th century to the gether a large number of autobi- present, the most important ographical fragments that were changes that have taken place in originally parts of charters, epis- the genre have been conse- tles, inscriptions, epitaphs and quences of a deepening of psy- hagiographies ranging from the chological insights and the bor- 11th to the 17th century. The pub- rowing of techniques that have lication set out with the inten- proved useful in other accounts tion of listing every fragment of of life experience, most notably autobiographical writing in Ser- in the writing of novels. bian medieval literature and identifying the author of every 2. The Serbian autobiographical single text —an aim which the canon editor actually managed to achieve. The decision to include Since scholars are still arguing in the collection all fragments over the ‘beginning’ of Serbian written in the first person singu- autobiography, a potential can- lar seems quite disputable, how- on of Serbian autobiographical ever, at least from a methodo- writings has yet to be defined. logical point of view. A first (partial) attempt to pro- In the definitions of autobiog- duce a bibliography of Serbian raphy offered in contemporary memoirs, autobiographies and theories, much emphasis is diaries was made in 1999 by placed on the notions of identi- Slavica Merenik and edited as ty, individuality and subjectivity; part of a collection of studies en- by contrast, one of the basic as- titled Pero i povest: srpsko sumptions in approaching medi- društvo u sečanjima. This bibli- eval culture is that personal

AvtobiografiЯ - Number 4/2015 372 identity was almost completely of genre rather than the princi- suppressed by social identity in ple of authorship, meaning that those ages, insofar as medieval genre was the crucial factor in people were reduced to the determining what writers would function they had in society. say about themselves and their Given that the same rule applied lives. For all these reasons, most to all forms of art, the right to (or almost all) of the autobio- write an autobiography was graphical fragments collected in granted exclusively to individu- Pisah i potpisah are qualitatively als of socially recognized im- different from modern autobiog- portance, and writers (or better, raphy: in truth they were not scribes) were seen as mere ‘in- meant as ‘writings of the self’ struments of God’7. In the after- and therefore can hardly be part word to Pisah i potpisah, of the Serbian autobiographical Marinković herself points out canon. that “ancient autobiographers” The task of establishing an an- (stari autobiografi) should be thology of Serbian autobio- seen as mere “onlookers and graphical writing becomes easier guarantors of the events they as we approach the modern age, witnessed” rather than as proper even if the majority of the very authors (Marinković, 1996: 239). first Serbian autobiographical Furthermore, she states that au- works remained only in manu- tobiography and memoirs did script for a hundred years or not exist as independent genres more before being published. in medieval Serbian literature (Among the few exceptions to and that it is not possible to dis- this rule there stand out certain tinguish between literature ‘classics’, such as Dositej Obra- (književnost) and the basic act of dović’s Život i priključenija and writing (pismenost). Finally, we Ljubomir Nenadović’s letters need to keep in mind that the (1852–1889)8, which found a poetics of medieval literature permanent place in Serbian lit- was dominated by the principle 8 Pisma iz Švajcarske (Letters from Swit- 7 As a consequence, the author was to zerland, written in 1847, published in be recognized only when alterations 1852 and 1855), Pisma iz Italije (Letters and mistakes surfaced, leading to the from Italy, written in 1851, published in development of a ‘topos of modesty’ 1869/69 under the title Vladika (topos skromnosti) employed by scribes Crnogorski u Italiji), Pisma iz Nemačke to define themselves as “sinful”, “inade- (Letters from Germany, published in quate”, “unworthy” and to admit their 1870) and Pisma sa Cetinja or O ignorance and incompetence to write Crnogorcima (Letters from or On about a specific topic. the Montenegrins, published in 1889). AvtobiografiЯ - Number 4/2015 373 Materials and Discussions

erary history almost immediate- nadović, Jakov Ignjatović and ly upon their first publication). Branislav Nušić10. This situation changed in the se- A more solid corpus of Serbian cond half of the 19th century, autobiographical writing seemed from which time the majority of to take form towards the end of Serbian autobiographies and the 1980s when one of the most memoirs have been published prominent Serbian publishing either immediately after being houses, the -based No- written or after only a short de- lit, launched the publication of lay. the series Memoari, dnevnici, au- A first collection of 18th-century tobiografije (Memoirs, Diaries, Serbian autobiographical writ- Autobiographies). According to ings was issued in 1964 as Vol- the original scope of the project, ume 29 of the series entitled the series was to consist of 25 Srpska književnost u sto knjiga works (28 volumes), 21 of which (Serbian Literature in One Hun- were published between 1988 dred Books)9. The volume, enti- and 1989. The series includes tled Memoari XVIII veka (18th not only the ‘classics’ mentioned Century Memoirs) and edited by above (Dositej Obradović, Milorad Pavić, includes excerpts Mateja Nenadović, Jakov Ignja- from the memoirs of twelve dif- tović), but also some autobio- ferent authors (i.e., S. Piščević, graphical writings (exclusively G. Zelić, S. Tekelija, M. Vida- prose) that had not been re- ković, P. Jokić, A. Protić, P. printed since their first publica- Čokorilo, J. Đorđević, M. tion or which had thenceforth Miličević. P. Todorović, M. been published only in instal- Garašanin, and Č. Mijatovič). In ments (e.g. Simo Matavulj’s the preface, Pavić suggests that a complete anthology of Serbian memoirs can be achieved by tak- 10 ing Volume 29 together with These writers did not find a place in other books issued as part of the Volume 29 because they stand out by themselves as key figures in the history Srpska književnost u sto knjiga of Serbian literature and culture; conse- series, specifically those dedicat- quently, each of them was granted a ed to Konstantin of Ostrovica, single book in the series Srpska Dositej Obradović, Vuk književnost u sto knjiga. Pavić also writes that Serbian memoirs are always Karadžić, Matija i Ljubomir Ne- very similar (if not equal) to travel writ- ings, which are collected in Volume 62 9 For a bibliography of 18th-century of the same series under the title Izbor Serbian memoirs, see Mićić 1993 and srpskog putopisa (A selection of Serbian 1997. travel writings). AvtobiografiЯ - Number 4/2015 374 Bilješke jednog pisca - Notes of a on; what is more, the Memoari, Writer). dnevnici, autobiografije series Among the 28 volumes pub- managed to provide a basic cor- lished by Nolit, I would like to pus of autobiographical writings say a few words about Volume in the , at least 16, entitled Memoarska proza as far as the modern and early XVIII i XIX veka, which may be contemporary age are con- described as a sort of ‘series cerned. Clearly, the next step within the series’. The two- would be to issue a similar series volume collection, edited by for Serbian autobiographical Dušan Ivanić, provides a com- works of the 20th century. prehensive anthology of 18th and 19th century memoirs that in- 3. Serbian autobiographical stud- cludes not only the works of ies ‘professional writers’ (e.g. Joakim Vujić, Milovan Vidaković In this final section I will focus and Sima Milutinović Sarajlija) my attention on literary criti- but also those of prominent ec- cism pertaining to autobio- clesiastic figures (Metropolitan graphical writing in . As I Vikentije Jovanović, Archiman- mentioned at the beginning of drite Jovan Rajić, Bishop Ni- this paper, my aim is not to pro- kanor Grujić) and prominent vide a survey of all the extant secular figures (Prince Miloš criticism on Serbian autobiog- Obrenović). In addition, it raphy but to focus on some should be noted that it was the studies that I believe to be first collection of Serbian mem- among the most notable oirs to take female writing into achievements in the field. account (i.e. Milica Stojadinović In October 1990 the Novi Sad- Srpkinja), as well as (au- based Committee for 18th- to)biographical sketches dedi- Century Studies (Odbor za cated to some key figures in Ser- proučavanje 18. veka) held a bian modern culture (for in- conference dedicated to the stance, Đorđe Rajković’s ‘literary problem of autobiography and memoirs’ on Vuk Karadžić and autobiographical studies in Ser- ’s ‘notes’ on Petar II bian literature. The proceedings Petrović-Njegoš). from the symposium were pub- Thanks to this ambitious though lished in 1993 under the title Au- unfinished undertaking, several tobiografije i memoari in the first autobiographical works finally issue of the literary journal XVIII entered the Serbian literary can- stoleće (18th Century), edited by

AvtobiografiЯ - Number 4/2015 375 Materials and Discussions

Professor Nikola Grdinić (Uni- writings, from medieval to con- versity of Novi Sad). As stated in temporary authors12. It may be the foreword to the volume, interesting to observe that the contributors were given only author most studied by far was two guidelines to follow, i.e. Miloš Crnjanski, followed by time (18th century) and genre other ‘classics’ of Serbian auto- (autobiography and memoir), biographical prose such as Dosi- and were asked to investigate tej Obradović, Branislav Nušić these according to their personal and, among contemporary writ- interests and competences. The ers, Danilo Kiš and David Alba- results of this initiative proved hari. Although this volume of- to be quite remarkable, as schol- fers a broad range of high- ars managed to combine mod- quality studies, perusing the sin- ern literary theories with tradi- gle papers gives one the general tional historicism in their ap- impression that the scholars proach to specific questions tended to research Serbian au- concerning Serbian autobiog- tobiography not (or not only) as raphy11. an independent genre but rather Another significant attempt to as a (more or less relevant) fea- analyse the products of autobio- ture in the structure of a par- graphical writing in Serbian lan- ticular work. guage throughout history was The new millennium has seen provided by an international the publication of a series of conference held in Belgrade in noteworthy books and papers 1997 under the title Naučni written by some of Serbia’s most sastanak slavista u Vukove dane. prominent literary theoreticians The collection of papers pub- who have devoted their atten- lished after the conference, tion to the study of autobio- Srpska autobiografska graphical genres. kniževnost, offers a historical Radoman Kordić’s book Autobi- perspective on the uses of auto- ografsko pripovedanje (Autobio- biography in Serbian literature, graphical Storytelling), for in- ranging from poetry to prose stance, took shape during the last decade of the 20th century 11 For example, concerning the problem and was finally published in of autobiography in ancient and medie- 2000. The first two chapters of val European literature, the need for a the book (i.e. Fantazmatski proper definition of autobiography, the difference between autobiography and memoir, and the presence of fiction and 12 Only half of the 56 papers given dur- non-fiction in autobiographical writ- ing the conference were published, ings. however. AvtobiografiЯ - Number 4/2015 376 smisao pripovednih oblika i re- Other’ and autobiography as tes- torike u memoarima and Tekstu- timony. Kordić’s research con- alne strategije u autobiografija- centrates on the works of mod- ma XVIII veka) were originally ern and contemporary authors, written as conference papers both Serbian (Rade Kuzmanović, and therefore focus exclusively Dragan Stojanović’s Dvojež, Ra- on 18th-century Serbian autobio- dovan Konstantinović’s Dekar- graphical works, specifically on tova smrt, Jovica Aćin’s Leptirov Simeon Piščević’s Memoirs and sanovnik) and foreign (Nikolaj on Gerasim Zelić’s Žitije. As Berdiaev’s Samopoznanie, Kordić explains in the preface, Jacques Derrida’s Moscou aller- these first two papers inspired retour, Slavoj Žižek’s The Metas- him to broaden his field of re- tases of Enjoyment, Tolstoy and search and to investigate the Kafka). According to Kordić, his problem of the incidence of au- final aim was to unveil “the aes- tobiography in storytelling, par- thetic, literary, discursive, mate- ticularly as regards fictional rial truth” of these texts, which prose, a matter that deserves “no other form of archaeological “special and serious discussion” investigation has so far managed (Kordić 2000: 8). Later on Kor- to fathom” (Kordić 2000: 9). dić tries to identify the mecha- A similar theoretical approach nisms by which autobiography was chosen by Nikola Grdinić in became a structural feature of the paper Autobiografija – prob- prose fiction, concentrating on lem proučavanja (2003), in works whose structure is not as which he ‘deconstructed’ the obvious and clear as that of 18th- problem of how to study autobi- century Serbian memoirs and ographical genre(s) and nar- autobiographies. In his book, rowed it down to three main Kordić guides us through the questions: the proper use of changes that affected the poetics terminology; the fictional versus of prose fiction over the last two non-fictional nature of autobi- centuries, focusing on the differ- ography; and the relationship ent roles played by the autobio- between the subject and the ob- graphical element, as well as on ject. The article stands out as a its incidence in narrative strate- valuable addition to studies in gies. The remaining four chap- the field, offering a more nu- ters of the book examine the use anced and specific view of the of cultural models in autobiog- history of Serbian autobiography raphies, autobiography as a – a view resulting from a solid scheme, autobiography of ‘the theoretical understanding of this

AvtobiografiЯ - Number 4/2015 377 Materials and Discussions

genre. Grdinić’s statements about the results of her enquiry, about the emergence, content so much so that she raises and formal characteristics of doubts as to the very existence Serbian autobiography are con- of autobiography. However, it sistently supported by solid the- soon becomes clear that she is oretical principles. only challenging the reader to More recently, the Novi Sad-based follow her into a quest for the cultural journal Polja also devoted a final answer, which will start major portion of one of its issues from the 18th century (“The cen- (No. LIV/459, September–October tre of the autobiographical plan- 2009) to the study of autobiography, etary system”, Stefanović 2010: publishing Serbian translations of 20) and will follow paths that are some significant theoretical texts in far from traditional. By denying autobiographical criticism. Among the usual ‘literary-historical’, others, the issue features contribu- ‘chronological/diachronic’ ap- tions by Philippe Lejeune (Autobio- proach, Stefanović is well aware grafski sporazum, dvadeset pet godi- that her study may be judged as na kasnije) and Andrea Zlatar- unsystematic; nevertheless, she Violet, one of the most prominent insists that her book should be contemporary scholars of Croatian read ‘circularly’, as each chapter autobiography (see note 1), whose is devoted to a specific theoreti- paper consists of a survey of the his- cal problem (Ibidem). An expert tory of autobiographical criticism in 18th-century Serbian litera- (Autobiografija: teorijski izazovi)13. ture, Stefanović is not new to Another study that certainly de- this kind of work: she has edited serves mention is Mirjana Stefa- various texts throughout the nović’s book Autobiografija, years showing accuracy and published by Službeni glasnik in methodological skill. A good ex- 2010 as part of the series ample of her meticulous accura- Pojmovnik (Thesaurus). As the cy can be found in the bibliog- author states in the preface, the raphy at the end of the volume aim of the book is to provide an Autobiografija. answer to the basic question: Among the most recent and in- ‘What is autobiography?’ (‘Šta je teresting additions to the field of autobiografija?’, Stefanović 2010: Serbian autobiographical studies 10). At first, Stefanović herself is Žaneta Duvnjak-Radić’s book seems to be quite sceptical Autobiografija, fikcija i ja (2011). Like the other scholars men- tioned so far, Duvnjak-Radić de- 13 The complete issue is available at cided to focus on the issue of http://polja.rs/polja459/index459.htm. AvtobiografiЯ - Number 4/2015 378 form by exploring different au- (especially as it comes from a tobiographical sub-genres in young scholar), although it modern Serbian literature, with should be noted that the survey particular attention to the works does not extend beyond the end of Matej Nenadović, Jakov Ignja- of the 19th century. tović and Simo Matavulj. In her I would also like to mention the preface, the author concisely work of another young scholar, summarizes her methodological Dr. Nataša Polovina of the Uni- credo by stating that the ques- versity of Novi Sad, whose doc- tion of ‘how’ is more important toral dissertation, entitled Auto- than the question of ‘what’ biografski fragmenti u srpskim (“Ukratko, pitanje KAKO važnije spisima XIV veka (2014), has je od pitanja ŠTA”). As suggested confirmed that the problem of by the title of the book, autobiography in medieval Ser- Duvnjak-Radić’s research re- bian literature is a complex one volves around the concepts of that still has not been sufficient- autobiography (“a literary genre ly researched to this day. In par- that escapes rules, yet functions ticular, Polovina has proved how well through different literary prior efforts in this field have times and trends”, Duvnjak only aimed at collecting and Radić 2011: 15), fiction (“a liter- partly describing medieval ‘au- ary/philosophical concept which tobiographical’ texts without at- is normally employed in defin- tempting to interpret them sys- ing non-reality, as well as the re- tematically or to relate them to ality of a literary work”) and, fi- the peculiarities of Serbian and nally, the 1st person subject as Byzantine medieval literary tra- “the premise of all autobio- dition. Since fragmentariness is graphical writing” (Duvnjak the central feature of medieval Radić 2011: 7)14. The first chapter autobiographical writing, one of comprises an attempt to sum- the aims of Polovina’s research marize the development of au- was to establish the basic func- tobiographical prose in Serbian tion of autobiographical frag- literature over time. This is an ments in medieval Serbian liter- initiative that deserves praise ature in order to see whether they were used to preserve memory and resurrect the past 14 As stated in the preface, the book Au- or simply to allow authors to tobiografija, fikcija i ja originates from Duvnjak-Radić’s Master’s dissertation, speak about their own religious entitled Problem fikcionalnosti autobio- and spiritual development. In grafske proze. Autobiografska proza 19. any case, by analysing Serbian veka: Nenandović-Ignjatović-Matavulj. AvtobiografiЯ - Number 4/2015 379 Materials and Discussions

14th-century writings, Dr. Polov- tobiography. Its Emergence, Ma- ina has demonstrated that the terials, and Forms (1954: 1), autobiographical principle in Wayne Shumaker writes that medieval times cannot be re- “the critic and the historian are garded as a sign of the search for like men who stand outside a self-expression but rather as a doorway inviting each other, by reflection of the spirit of an era. gestures and smiles of encour- Finally, I would like to draw at- agement, to go first to the buffet tention to the most recent pub- supper within, while the bread lication I have managed to con- and ham and cheese lie undis- sult in preparing the present pa- turbed on the table”. This seems per, Dušan Ivanić’s book to have been at least partly the Događaj i priča (Event and Sto- case of Serbian autobiographical ry). This is essentially a collec- criticism to date. tion of studies on Serbian auto- Given the abundance of materi- biography – studies which were als at our disposal, I am inclined published over the last two dec- to think that any serious at- ades (1990-2009) as single arti- tempt to organize, classify and cles or as prefaces/postfaces to analyse the products of autobio- anthological editions. As the ta- graphical writing in Serbian lan- ble of contents immediately guage throughout history will suggests, Ivanić is inclined to re- take many years. Nevertheless, I search autobiographical genres believe that a comprehensive from a historical perspective. history of Serbian autobiography His studies are thus mostly de- is not only possible but also voted to so-called ‘dokumentar- deeply needed, and that such an no-umetnička proza’ (documen- accomplishment can only be tary-artistic prose), i.e. to auto- achieved by cooperation be- biographical writings which the tween theoreticians and histori- Serbian scholar describes as ans. The most valuable results in “non-fictional” (since they are the study of Serbian autobiog- based on real historical facts) raphy to date have undoubtedly though characterized by all the been achieved by combining sol- peculiarities of “artistic storytell- id knowledge of literary history ing” (Ivanić 2015: 187). with valid theoretical principles; this is clearly the goal we should 4. Conclusion pursue in the years ahead.

In the opening chapter of his well-known volume English Au-

AvtobiografiЯ - Number 4/2015 380

Bibliography

Brešić 1997: V. Brešić, Autobiografije hrvatskih pisaca, AGM, Zagreb, 1997. Deretić 1981: J. Deretić, Srpski roman 1800-1950, Nolit, Beograd, 1981. Duvnjak-Radić 2011: Ž. Duvnjak-Radić, Autobiografija, fikcija i ja: (problem fikcionalnosti autobiografske proze), Službeni glasnik, Beograd, 2011. Grdinić 1993: N. Grdinić (ed.), Autobiografije i memoari: radovi sa naučnog skupa održanog u Novom Sadu i manastiru Sv. Arhangela kod Kovilja, 18. i 19. Oktobra 1990. godine. XVIII stoleće, Kulturno-prosvetna zajednica Vojvodine, Novi Sad, vol I, 1993. Grdinić 2003: N. Grdinić, Autobiografija – problem proučavanja, «Zbornik Matice Srpske za književnost i jezik», 2003, LI, 3, pp. 665-674. Ignjatović 1988: Ј. Ignjatović, Memoari, monografije, biografije, in Misli o srpskom narodu. Sabrana dela Jakova Ignjatovića, Matica Srpska, Novi Sad / Jedinstvo, Priština, vol. 10, 1988, pp. 355-417. Ivanić 1989: D. Ivanić (ed.), Memoarska proza XVIII i XIX veka: zbornik. Memoari, dnevnici, autobiografije, vol. 16 (1 and 2), Nolit, Beo- grad, 1989. Ivanić 2015: D. Ivanić, Događaj i priča: srpska autobiografsko- memoarska proza, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta, Niš / Filološki fakul- tet Univerziteta, Beograd, 2015. Kordić 2000: R. Kordić, Autobiografsko pripovedanje, Narodna knjiga/Alfa, Beograd, 2000. Marinković 1996: R. Marinković (ed.), Pisah i potpisah: autobiogra- fske izjave srednjeg veka, Nolit, Beograd, 1996. Merenik 1999: S. Merenik, Bibliografija objavljenih srpskih memoa- ra, autobiografija, dnevnika, in A. Vuletić et alia (ed.), Pero i povest: srpsko društvo u sečanjima, Filozofski fakultet, Beograd, 1999, pp. 191- 233. Mićić 1993: R. Mićić, Srpska autobiografska i memoarska proza 18. veka: bibliografija bibliografija, in N. Grdinić (ed.), Autobiografije i me- moari: radovi sa naučnog skupa održanog u Novom Sadu i manastiru Sv. Arhangela kod Kovilja, 18. i 19. Oktobra 1990. godine. XVIII stoleće, Kul- turno-prosvetna zajednica Vojvodine, Novi Sad, vol I, 1993, pp. 149-151. Mićić 1997: R. Mićić, Srpska autobiografska proza u 18. i u prvoj po- lovini 19. veka. Književnoistorijski i bibliografski aspekti istraživanja, in AvtobiografiЯ - Number 4/2015 381 Materials and Discussions

N. Grdinić (ed.), XVIII stoleće. Problemi proučavanja književnosti i kul- ture, Kulturno-prosvetna zajednica Vojvodine, Novi Sad, vol. II/1, 1997, pp. 197-210. Novaković 1961: B. Novaković (ed.), Izbor srpskog putopisa. Srpska književnost u sto knjiga, vol. 29, Matica Srpska, Novi Sad / SKZ, Beo- grad, 1961. Pavić 1964: M. Pavić (ed.), Memoari XVIII veka. Srpska književnost u sto knjiga, Matica Srpska, Novi Sad / SKZ, Beograd, vol. 29, 1964. Pavić 1991: M. Pavić, Predromantizam. Istorija srpske književnosti, Naučna Knjiga, Beograd, vol. 4, 1991. Polovina 2014: N. Polovina, Autobiografski fragmenti u srpskim spi- sima XIV veka, Ph.D. diss., Filozofki fakultet Univerziteta, Novi sad, 2014. Sablić-Tomić 2008: H. Sablić-Tomić, Hrvatska autobiografska proza: rasprave, predavanja, interpretacije, Naklada Ljevak, Zagreb, 2008. Srpska autobiografska književnost 1998: Srpska autobiografska književnost. Naučni sastanak slavista u Vukove dane, knj. 27/1, Beograd, Novi Sad, Manasija 9-13.9.1997, «Naučni sastanak slavista u Vukove dane», XXVII, 1, Filološki fakultet / MSC, Beograd, 1998. Stefanović 2010: M. D. Stefanović, Autobiografija, Službeni glasnik, Beograd, 2010. Vaglio 2004: L. Vaglio, L’autobiografia di Simo Matavulj: Bilješke jednog pisca, «Europa Orientalis», 2004, XXIII, 2, pp. 319-336. Vaglio 2013: L. Vaglio, Le autobiografie di Milovan Vidaković e Sima Milutinović Sarajlija tra Illuminismo e Realismo, «Ricerche Slavistiche», 2013, XI, 57, pp. 503-543. Velčić 1991: M. Velčić, Otisak priče: intertekstualno proučavanje autobiografije, August Cesarec, Zagreb, 1991. Zlatar-Violić 1998: A. Zlatar-Violić, Autobiografija u Hrvatskoj: nacrt povjesti žanra i tipologija narativnih oblika, Matica Hrvatska, Zagreb, 1998.

AvtobiografiЯ - Number 4/2015 382