Historicizing Bosnia PDF

Historicizing Bosnia
Kosta Hrmann and Bosnias Encounter with Modernity

MARINA ANTI (MADISON)
n literature on the cultural legacy of Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia

and Herzegovina published prior to the dissolution of the Yugoslav
state, one name invariably appears that of Kosta Hrmann (1850
1923), the first curator of Sarajevos Landesmuseum. Besides his activities
in the museum, Kosta Hrmann was a capable and reliable administrator,
moving steadily up the bureaucratic ladder, having reached, at the height of
his career, the position of Consultant to the Throne and Department Chief in
Sarajevo. For most of the twentieth century in former Yugoslavia he was,
nonetheless, best known as a dedicated ethnographer who collected various
cultural artifacts and preserved a significant collection of Bosniak (Bosnian
Muslim) oral poetry.1
Considering the central role of oral poetry in the 19th-century movements for national liberation in the Balkans, it is not surprising that the legacy of Kosta Hrmann has so far been understood in terms of his contribution to or detraction from the national liberation struggles of the peoples of
former Yugoslavia. Specifically, most works on the topic seem to respond
to the question of Kosta Hrmanns influence on the formation of Bosniak
national consciousness in 19th-century Bosnia and Herzegovina.
In this essay, I will begin by examining three representative works from
the canon of literature on Kosta Hrmann that present his legacy as one of
contribution to the formation of Bosniak nationhood: Ilija Kecmanovis
essay O jednoj neobinoj knjievnoj karijeri u Sarajevu od 1878 do 1919
godine (1963), enana Buturovis study Studija o Hrmannovoj zbirci
muslimanskih narodnih pjesama (1976), and Boris oris work Nada:
Knjievna monografija 18951903 (1978).2 As a careful reading of these
texts will show, despite their differences in interpretation of Kosta Hrmanns work, all three subscribe to what Sreko Daja has called a national/nationalistic approach to history:
Marina Anti
National/nationalistic approach to history sees the nation as a primordial, quasieternal category. The national as a primordial category originates in mythical distances of the past and moves through the historical continuum as a strong and
closed system.3
In former Yugoslavia, as elsewhere, a national/istic approach to history has

often also involved a particular type of mythmaking that is based on a historiographic reading of literature. In the Yugoslav case, interpretations of Ivo
Andri (18921975) almost invariably invoke this practice and as such it is
perhaps not surprising that Andris fictional work on Kosta Hrmann (The
Story of Serf Siman) also plays a central role in the constructions of Hrmanns legacy mentioned above. Therefore, in the second part of this essay,
I will provide a careful, non-historiographic reading of Andris story that
will show how this fictional text presents an opportunity for a different understanding of Kosta Hrmanns legacy, one in direct contradiction to the
national/istic ones. Because, more than anything else, Andris story seems
to historicize, rather than mythologize the moment of modernity and national identity formation in Bosnia under Austro-Hungarian rule.
The opposition I set up here between a historical understanding of the
nation and nationality on the one hand and a mythologized view of these
phenomena on the other hand, follows in the tradition of studies of nationalism inaugurated by Benedict Anderson. Especially significant for our case is
Benedict Andersons concept of the bilingual intelligentsia and its role in
nation building on the periphery. As Anderson says:
The intelligentsias vanguard role derived from their bilingual literacy, or rather
literacy and bilingualism. Print-literacy already made possible the imagined community floating in homogeneous, empty time of which we have spoken earlier. Bilingualism meant access, through the European language-of-state, to modern Western culture in the broadest sense, and, in particular, to the models of nationalism,
nationness, and nation-state produced elsewhere in the course of the nineteenth
century.4
As I will argue in closing, Ivo Andris role, in considerations of Kosta Hrmanns legacy in Bosnia, rests primarily on the ways in which Hrmann can
be understood as the harbinger of modernity and a progenitor or a precursor
of the 20th century bilingual intelligentsia in Yugoslavia of which Andri is
an example par excellence.
Kosta Hrmanns Legacy in National/istic Perspective

Ilija Kecmanovis 1963 essay on Kosta Hrmann is seemingly about the
unusual character of this 19th-century Austro-Hungarian bureaucrat and
his role in the history of Sarajevo under Habsburg rule. When considered in
terms of its historical context and its conclusions, however, this essay appears to be a well-crafted political argument directed at the most
controversial debate in Bosnia during the 1960s and 1970s, namely, the
official recognition of Bosnian Muslims as one of the constitutive Yugoslav
nationalities.5
The contemporary and political nature of Kecmanovis essay is partly
hidden by the fact that it was published in Prilozi za prouavanje istorije
Sarajeva [Sarajevo Historical Studies Supplement], as opposed to some
more openly political journals. Kecmanovi also occasionally refers to our
city in the text as if to indicate that Sarajevo history is the true topic of the
essay. However, Kecmanovis central concern is Kosta Hrmanns legacy
which, he claims, can be summed up as the invention of Bosniak nationhood. In turn, the argument goes, Bosniak nationhood is nothing but an
ideological trick played by the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in an attempt to
occupy and catholicize Serbia.6
As I will document in detail below, Kecmanovi addresses directly the
question of recognizing or not the existence of a Bosniak nation. Furthermore, his perception of this question is formulated in distinctly 20th rather
than 19th century terms. And yet these arguments about Bosnian nationhood are presented in his essay via a biographical sketch of Kosta Hrmann
and a political analysis of his position within the Austro-Hungarian government in Bosnia.
Kecmanovi begins his essay with an interesting conflation of historical
biographical material and Ivo Andris fictional portrayal of Kosta Hrmann:
The character of Kosta Hrmann, as a clerk and a man of the throne, was brought
out into the open (osvijetljen je) with special talent by Ivo Andri in his famous
story of the serf Siman. [...] Characteristic for Kosta Hrmann, who served
Austria in Bosnia from the day it entered Bosnia to the day it left, never forgetting what he wanted, was one disagreement he had with the poet Tugomir Alaupovi [...] All of these acts, both the one with Serf Siman and the one with Tugomir
Alaupovi, and in fact, many others like them, Hrmann carried in his soul,
obviously as a result of the conditions of his life and personal growth as well as the
places from whence he came [emphasis MA].7
Marina Anti
Continuing the biographical portrayal of Hrmann, Kecmanovi proceeds to

discredit him as a poorly educated, incapable administrator of the Museum.
He berates Hrmanns scientific achievements in archeology and downplays
the significance of his collection of Bosniak oral poetry. Kecmanovi acknowledges that Hrmanns editorial position in Nada8 was perhaps the one
important position he held, but even in that capacity, he was supposedly not
an independent actor, but rather an extraordinary executor of a particular
political plan directed from Vienna.9 The remainder of Kecmanovis essay
is devoted to an analysis of this political plan and the Austro-Hungarian
cultural policy in general.
The central tenet of Austro-Hungarian cultural policy in Bosnia, according to Kecmanovi, was the creation of the Bosniak nationhood for the purpose of a denationalization of Bosnia and Herzegovina. As he says:
Along the lines of Kllays politics in the area of culture in Bosnia and Hercegovina, Hrmann got the assignment, as the editor of Nada, to do everything possible
in the magazine to contribute to the denationalization of Bosnia and Hercegovina,
that is, to the creation of a new, even if artificial, Bosnian nation in the Slavic
South.10
All of the cultural activities Hrmann was involved in during his tenure in
Bosnia and Herzegovina are thus to be interpreted as serving the denationalization policy of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Kecmanovi characterizes Hrmanns cultural activities this way:
All these functions Hrmann fulfilled in the area of culture obviously served his
primarily political duties and assignments. Both as the director of the Landesmuseum and as the editor of its Gazette, as well as in his role as the editor of Nada,
and finally, as the organizer of propagandistic exhibitions abroad, he had on his
mind exclusively the cultural/political interests of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy
11
in the occupied lands.
The cultural-political interests in question were ones of:

Austroslavism in the Yugoslav context, which had followers among some Slovenes
and Croats, and even among some Serbs, and was served, allegedly, even by
Strossmeyer in an attempt to, as the historian iro Truhelka claims, bring the
Orthodoxy into the lap of the Catholic church, into one large Slavic church community.12
The conclusion of Kecmanovis argument about Kosta Hrmanns legacy

is thus that the creation of Bosniak nationhood (here attributed to Hrmanns cultural activities) was a product of Austrian anti-Serbian policies.
In the context of 1960s politics in former Yugoslavia, especially the rising tide of opinion in favor of recognizing Bosnian Muslims as a constitutive nationality, Kecmanovis conclusions about Kosta Hrmanns legacy
work surprisingly well as an argument against claims of Bosniak nationhood. For, if Bosniak nationhood is a consequence of Austro-Hungarian
anti-Serbian policies, then any contemporary claims for Bosniak nationhood
are mistaken about the origin of this identity, or in other words, the authority of this national narrative. The connection Ilija Kecmanovi establishes
here between Kosta Hrmanns cultural activities and the claims to Bosniak
nationhood in post-World War II Yugoslavia proceeded to set the terms of
and to dominate the debate on Kosta Hrmanns legacy in the 1970s and
beyond.
enana Buturovis 1976 study of Kosta Hrmannns cultural work in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, which I will consider next, addresses the key concerns raised by Kecmanovis article. Studija o Hrmannovoj zbirci muslimanskih narodnih pjesama [A Study of Hrmanns Collection of Muslim
Poetry] is a longer and much more methodological study of Kosta Hrmanns work in the cultural arena, especially in collecting Bosniak oral
poetry. Buturovi addresses both Kecmanovis biographical argument
against Kosta Hrmanns work, namely that his activities were motivated
only by the desire to provide service to the Austro-Hungarian Throne, as
well as his argument that the idea of Bosniak nationhood came from Hrmanns superior Imperial Finance Minister as well as Governor of Bosnia
Benjamin Kllay (18391903). She addresses the former by arguing that
the inspiration for Hrmanns collection of Bosniak oral poetry (and implicitly all his other ethnographic work on Bosniaks) came not from above but
from below:
It is only in Bosnia, among the Muslims, that Hrmann came to the idea of this collection [...] the basis of this idea were the connections Hrmann had with the Muslim circles which made it possible for him to get to know this extraordinary
cultural, historical and literary phenomenon, and thus present to the world its
significance and novelty in full.13
As for the anti-Serbian policies of the Austro-Hungarian Throne, which

Kecmanovi claims found their embodiment in the promotion of the idea of
Bosniakness, Buturovi proposes that Kllays endorsement of the publica-
Marina Anti
tion of Bosniak poetry (and thus his implicit endorsement of Bosniakness)

can be explained by the simple fact that other national oral poetry collections were already published. After citing Kllays instructions to Hrmann
regarding the publication of this collection, she concludes that it is wrong to
associate the publication of this collection with calculated actions of
Austro-Hungarian cultural politics:
This is why Kllay insists that the introduction should point out that the majority of
Christian Bosnian oral poetry was already published in other well-known collections and recommends that other title The Oral Poetry of Mohammedans in
Bosnia and Herzegovina with which he proves exactly that he, like Hrmann,
treats Muslims as a separate group in the population of Bosnia and Hercegovina [in
other words, he is not claiming everybody in Bosnia is Bosniak]. With this point,
these documents show that it is also wrong to reduce the creation of this collection
to a planned action of Austro-Hungarian cultural politics and link it with the idea
of Bosniakness as one of its manifestations.14
A key moment in the quotation above betrays the ahistorical nature of the
debate between Kecmanovi and Buturovi. Namely, Buturovi introduces
the distinction between the notion of Bosniakness as a national identity on
par with other national identities in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the notion
of Bosniakness as a separatist national claim. As Buturovi herself points
out, Hrmann was accused by contemporaries of creating a Bosnian Muslim nation(ality). He was never accused of endorsing a Bosniak state. It is,
on a very basic level, even absurd to imagine that Hrmann was arguing for
a Bosniak nation-state he was, after all, an Austro-Hungarian official.
Buturovi here implicitly points to the fact that the anxieties around
Hrmanns endorsement or creation of Bosniak nationality in 1888 and
those that preoccupied Yugoslav intellectuals in the 1960s and 1970s (as
evidenced by Ilija Kecmanovis essay) were quite different. In 1888, Serbian and Croatian writers and intellectuals were anxious that the creation of
a Bosnian Muslim national identity was taking away from the Serbian and
Croatian national identities a significant number of the Bosnian population.
With the decrease in numbers, they feared the appeal of the nationalist anticolonial rhetoric would decrease, making it that much more difficult to
overthrow Austro-Hungarian rule. In contrast, the Yugoslav intellectuals of
the mid-20th century were primarily anxious that the Bosnian Muslims, as a
nation, could, at least theoretically, claim Bosnia and Herzegovina as their
nation state, thereby making Croats and Serbs living in Bosnia national
minorities.
But, there is an even more fundamental problem in the conflation of anxieties surrounding the idea of Bosniak nationhood Buturovi points out.
Namely, both Kecmanovi and Buturovi understand and operate with the
notion of nationhood as a formed phenomenon, virtually unchanging in
time. It is, historically speaking, inappropriate to debate Hrmanns participation in the discourse on Bosniak identity in the 1960s and 1970s because,
while he might have shared some ideas about what it means to be Bosniak
with Bosniaks of the mid-20th century, what actually meant to be Bosniak in
the 1880s and in the 1970s are two quite different things. For, national identities are not closed systems originating in mythical distances of the past
and moving through the historical continuum virtually without change.15
This closed national/istic approach to history is the reason why Kecmanovis arguments against the validity of the Bosniak claim to nationhood take the form of a debate on the authenticity of Serbian and Croatian identities and the artificiality of the Bosniak one. This is also why
Buturovis rebuke of Kecmanovi only goes so far in providing a perhaps
understandable, but fundamentally inadequate corrective to Kecmanovis
Serbian nationalist position by arguing, conversely, for the authenticity and
richness of Bosniak culture (the extraordinary cultural, historical and literary phenomenon of Muslim epic poetry, for example). Buturovis objections are just as firmly implanted in national/istic views of history, especially in the sense in which all such historiography seeks simply a confirmation
of the present ideological position in the past. Daja also points to this phenomenon:
The main similarity [of national historiographies, MA] lies in their anachronistic
quest for confirmation of those things in the past considered relevant for the political present, and in the ignoring of (and ignorant attitude to) different
interpretations, particularly those not based on national myths, but on a critical
approach to all known, i.e. available, historical sources.16
So, while Buturovis objections are in some sense understandable, they

would have been much more effective had they pointed out the obvious
ahistoricity of Kecmanovis arguments, their basis in politics of the day,
and thus their irrelevance for either the legacy of Kosta Hrmann or the
definition of Bosniak nationhood. But to provide such a critique one must
begin by acknowledging that all national identities, Serbian, Croatian and
Bosniak alike, are, in fact, historical and constructed.
Neither Kecmanovi nor Buturovi seem ready to accept this view of
the common past. The difference between their positions is simply whether
Marina Anti
this one particular (Bosniak) national identity is constructed and therefore

invalid (Kecmanovi) or not constructed and therefore authentic (Buturovi). In this, they create what we can call, following Daja, the national/istic legacy of Kosta Hrmann.
Besides this positivistic and naturalized understanding of national identity, Kecmanovi and Buturovi also share the general problems of Yugoslav Marxist historiography as outlined by Daja in the article cited above.
This problem is, however, more forcefully evident in the third text on Kosta
Hrmann I chose to consider, namely Boris oris 1978 study of Nada, a
journal under the editorship of Kosta Hrmann. In Nada: Knjievnoistorijska monografija 18951903 [Nada: A Literary-historical monograph
18951903], ori argues for a certain fixity in the relationships between
base and superstructure and culture and politics. In the case of Kosta Hrmanns cultural work, ori confirms Kecmanovis view over and against
Buturovi on the basis of the claim that the colonial hegemony established
by Austria-Hungary could not, by definition, allow for any deviance from
its policies. In other words, the power of this hegemony was such that even
if Hrmann had good intentions, like Buturovi suggests, he could not have
possibly put them into practice. ori says:
The majority of contemporary researchers of Austrian rule in Bosnia, while
evaluating its actions in the political, economic, educational and cultural field,
always have in mind Austrias complete policy towards Bosnia. That policy had its
laws dictated by the interests of the dual monarchy and all research in any aspect
of social life will show that no one went above those dictates, and even when
someone did cross that line, it was crossed for higher, therefore, even longer term
interests of Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. One of such laws was that no project
implemented in Bosnia could work against Austria-Hungary, nor in any way
damage her interests, be they Austrian or Magyar.17
The conclusion ori draws is that Hrmann could not have, even in principle, acted in ways that did not, a priori, serve the Austro-Hungarian interests. This leads ori to reject any possibility of the existence of Bosniak
culture, identity, or language beyond those manifestations of it that were in
the service of empire. Informed by the same paradigm that defines the nation as not constructed, but somehow originating in the mythical past, ori
then arrives at the same conclusion as Kecmanovi, even if he started from
a slightly different point about imperial hegemony.
The question of political and cultural hegemony, however, is hardly this

simple. In a more developed Marxist consideration of hegemony, Raymond
Williams concludes that:
The reality of any hegemony, in the extended political and cultural sense, is that,
while by definition it is always dominant, it is never either total or exclusive. At
any time, forms of alternative or directly oppositional politics and culture exist as
significant elements in the society.18
This vulnerability of hegemony holds just as true for the Austro-Hungarian

rule in Bosnia as it does for any other form of cultural and political hegemonic domination. Furthermore, while we do not want to minimize the power
of, in essence, colonial hegemony at work in Bosnia and Herzegovina under
Austria-Hungary, we also do not want to deny any possibility of resistance,
especially from within hegemonic structures, as was the situation with Hrmann who was a part of the colonial regime.
In contrast, oris claim that everything Kosta Hrmann did had to
comply with the law of necessity that no such activity could be to the detriment of Austro-Hungarian interests is a typically deterministic view of the
cultural realm as fully dictated by socio-economic conditions. Buturovi
recognizes the fallacy of this view, but limits it to the specific case she is
examining. She reflects at one point that if we want to objectively review
and judge the actions of Kosta Hrmann, we need to consider his entire
activity in Bosnia and Herzegovina, because it cannot be explained exclusively in terms of the pro-Austrian politics of its cultural mission.19 What
this argument lacks, however, is an acknowledgment that no modern cultural reality can ever, not just in this case, be explained by its simple correlation to supposed political machinations outside the cultural realm.20
This classical, or rather, reductive Marxist reading of the cultural realm
and its (in)dependence from socio-economic factors goes to the heart of the
problem I want to address next, namely the national/istic and historiographic reading of Ivo Andri that is at work in the remarkable moment
when Kecmanovi conflates historical biography with pure fiction, without
anyone seeming to notice. At the beginning of his essay, Kecmanovi
writes:
All of these acts, both the one with Serf Siman and the one with Tugomir Alaupovi, and in fact, many others like them, Hrmann carried in his soul, obviously
as a result of the conditions of his life and personal growth as well as the places
from whence he came.21
10
Marina Anti
How are we to take Kecmanovis conflation of the fictional encounter between Hrmann and Serf Siman and his real-life encounter with Tugomir
Alaupovi?22 Is it possible that Kecmanovi intentionally conflated historical biography with pure fiction? Or is it that he believed in the rhetorical
power of his text to such an extent that he thought no one would notice? (It
is, of course, quite interesting that no one, including his strongest critic
Buturovi seemed to have noticed!) The answer to these questions lies, I
believe, not with Kecmanovi or his credentials, but rather with Ivo Andri
and how he has been read in Bosnian cultural and intellectual life.
In criticizing Munib Maglajli for a reading of Andri that conflates literature with historiography, Enver Kazaz points to a particular practice that
others have identified as well:23
Especially paradoxical is the fact that the national identity, taken as one among
many possible interpretations of history, has relied on historical arguments, which
means that Andris uvre was not even read as a literary one, but as a historiographical text which was, on the one hand accepted as the unconditional truth/
scientific truth, while on the other as the unconditional lie/hatred for which there is
no argument in the historical continuum.24
This practice of reading a piece of literature as history is the reason why

Kecmanovi can, quite unconsciously, I believe, use Andris text as historical evidence of the character of Kosta Hrmann and it is also why no
one else calls him on this obvious fallacy. As Kazaz continues to argue,
such readings of Andris texts work only to confirm the already ossified,
ahistorical sense of national identity from which they come forth in the first
place:
Interpretive communities (Serbian, Croatian, Bosniak) are grounded on such a
premise, that in fact, they do not even read Andri, but try to ground the identity of
their own historical memory as some form of metanarrative, one that will be
placed above everything else, will encompass all contexts, will be the process of
verification for all other narratives, and in the end will impose itself as the
ahistorical, holistic national identity.25
In other words, reading Andri national(istical)ly is to preclude discussion

of any other possible paradigm the text engages, especially since nationalistic readings, as such, are very deterministic and one-sided. Such readings of
Andri, of which Kecmanovi is an example par excellence, are also rooted
in the reductive Marxist understanding of the cultural realm discussed
above, for they ignore those aspects (in this case of a literary text) that do
11
not adhere to the historical (and in this case, nationalistic) readings of socioeconomic conditions. It is precisely the combination of the national/istic
approach to history and the reductive Marxist reading of culture as determined by the socio-economic realm that provides for readings of Andri
that are both nationalistic and historiographic.
In what follows I will provide my own reading of Andris short story
The Story of Serf Siman that presents an alternative to the reductive, nationally conditioned reading. This reading elaborates the historical legacy of
Kosta Hrmann in so far as one of his greatest legacies resides in the fact of
his appearance in Ivo Andris fiction. This is so not because Hrmann was
somehow an insignificant influence on Bosnian life then or now, but because it could be that the most prominent modern debates on Hrmanns legacy were in part fueled by an image of Hrmann taken out of Andris
fiction. For, after all, it could be that Kecmanovis resurrection of Kosta
Hrmann as a figure relevant for the present, as well as the subsequent arguments for or against Kecmanovis assessment, were inspired precisely
by his (mis)reading of Andris story in the first place. In addition, Ivo Andris stature in debates on Bosnian identity the realm with which Kosta
Hrmanns legacy has been so profoundly enmeshed was and still is both
unprecedented and troubling.26
Hrmanns Legacy in Andris Story of Serf Siman

The Story of Serf Siman is a story about social upheaval caused by the arrival of Austria-Hungary to Bosnia in 1878. It follows the life of a Bosnian
serf Siman, who mistakes the arrival of Austro-Hungarian troops in BosniaHerzegovina for the arrival of the Messiah who will liberate him from the
oppressive feudal relations he has endured his entire life. As he is gradually
convinced of his mistake, the now former-serf Siman lives out the
remainder of his life in a small inn at the outskirts of Sarajevo, hidden from
the new order as well as from all those who have followed it into Bosnia.
Before we delve into the story itself, it is important to point out the
three different viewpoints that stand out in this narrative. The story is told,
most of the time, from Simans perspective. Our sympathies are with him
and his struggle for liberation. The narrator, however, is a separate, distant,
historical voice whose interjections directed at the reader in the present are
set off by parentheses. The third point of view, that of the author of the
story, can only be guessed at indirectly, but he does appear in the story,
12
Marina Anti
much like the director Alfred Hitchcock would appear in his movies, barely
noticed, apparent only to the trained eye. As often occurs in literary works,
the one character who engages in writing can often be understood as the
reflection of the author, and Andri hints at himself in one of the most repulsive characters in the story, the Serbian teacher turned scribe and police
informant (also a Serb turned Muslim and then again Serb), Aleksa.27 We
should keep all three in mind as we analyze the story.
The opening lines insinuate that the story is set in times of monumental
change: With gunfire, unlike any that the Bosnian ear has ever heard, the
Austrian troops entered Sarajevo on August 19th, 1878.28 Within a few
paragraphs we find out that the announced change will have something to
do with the power relations between the feudal classes that have defined
Bosnian society up to this point. These relations are defined by silence (the
silence which the Austrian troops interrupt) and by organic relations to the
land: And so the serf and the aga lived without any major convulsions
reticent, but irreconcilable, enemies, tied with a chain, as it were, to the land
which fed and attracted each of them in his own way.29
As the description of the quiet life of Siman and his aga shows, the
power relations definitive of Bosnian society at the opening of the story are
those of a serf and his master. Shortly after the arrival of the Austrian
troops, however, Siman tries to change these power relations, as the narrator
tells us much was overturned in life with the arrival of the Austrians:
things shook and were overturned and many a thing started to change between people.30 The first sign of this overturning is a crucial description
of Simans encounter with his aga. As Simans rebellion begins by a direct
refusal to pay his feudal obligations, we see Siman from his masters point
of view:
Ibraga is watching this impudent man who against all order and custom is still
lying down and isnt getting up before him, he cannot believe his own eyes and
cannot wrap his head around how large the serf is when he is neither contorted nor
servile, but is relaxed and spread out in all his strength and size.31
As the previous description implies, and now this passage confirms, the
power relation between the serf and the aga is here imagined and expressed
through their physicality. Not just Siman, but even his aga notices Simans
newly found power as expressed thorough the serfs body.
As Siman rebels, the relations between them change. First, the eternal
silence between them is broken by Simans symbolic No! spoken in refusal:
13
Siman motions with his hand, across the autumn landscape and the sky above it; he
is choking from all the harsh words, and to all of agas forcibly gentle and
seemingly reasonable objections, answers with a sharp and short No! in which that
o breaks and burns like a fiery whip. 32
The serf, at this point, has overturned his relationship to the master as he
flogs him, albeit with words.
At this point Siman prevails and the aga goes home empty-handed.
Some days later, Siman tries to assert his newly found freedom by trying to
establish a new economic relationship with his lord, one between a buyer
and a seller, in an open marketplace, and most importantly, as if between
equals. Siman tries to buy a bridle from his master who, in part, works as a
small merchant in town, but Ibraga refuses him. In a last showing of an
already noticeably shallow victory Siman still proudly prances in front of
his masters shop a few more times on his little horse: A few more times
Siman trotted past Ibragas store, with a happy smile on his face and as if
dancing just a little on his tiny horse.33
The first hint of trouble in Simans newly found world of freedom occurs when he comes up against the new government. As he finds out, the
Austrians seemed to have implemented a certain equality between serfs and
landlords, but not the one he had hoped for. He is sued by his master and
taken in front of a local court that, by Austrian order, consists of an Austrian
clerk, a Muslim man (representative of the landlords), and a Christian man
(representative of the serfs). The equality before the law symbolically
represented here in the two locals, to Siman seems like an inequality precisely because it does not account for the obvious privilege the landlords
have over the serfs outside the court. That is why Siman loses the case and
is ordered to pay his fine.
The rest of the story follows Simans repeated quest for justice which,
at every turn deepens his tragedy to the point that he finally loses everything
and is left a beggar. Siman gets one last chance to make his case, or so he
believes, when the archduke is about to visit Sarajevo.34 This is when he is
arrested and taken in front of the Sarajevo Municipal Office Trustee, Kosta
Hrmann.
Before we can discuss this encounter which seemed so meaningful to
Kecmanovi, we have to address a far more important aspect of the narrative, namely the opposition established throughout the story between power
relationships based on the body and power relationships based on law. In a
manner reminiscent of Franz Kafkas Der Prozess, Andri describes here
14
Marina Anti
the creation of a new order, based not on the power of the master over the
body of the serf, but rather, the power of the law that erases the master-serf
feudal identities (without necessarily erasing the relationships of dominance) and creates instead a new modern order and subjectivity.
As I argue above, Siman and his master experience their relationship in
terms of their physical bodies. Simans body grows in rebellion and then
shrinks when he loses the court case. When the final sentence is pronounced and he is deprived of his land, Siman physically deteriorates: His
face became darker and bloated, he lost weight, he is coughing and spitting
like an ill man, but as soon as he drinks a few, he starts speaking about the
land and his right in a fiery and lively manner, like he spoke that autumn
morning to Ibraga in the plum orchard.35
The articulation of the system that comes to displace the corporeal one
begins with Simans reaction to the sentence depriving him of the land.
Besides being an equalizer of sorts, as evidenced by the equal representation of landowners and serfs in the lower courts, the new order is inevitable and inescapable. Reminiscent of Joseph K.s predicament, but expressed through a much simpler, peasant worldview, Simans tragedy is
explained: Those are the laws and orders! You laugh, but they get you
sooner or later, certainly and without mercy.36 Siman also utters in drunken
delirium about his troubles: The Turkish law is from so many years ago
let it be damned! but its like it was made just for me this morning.37 The
narrator continues to explain Simans befuddlement before the Law: And
so with fear he thought about the web of terrible and powerful laws that is
spun around all of us and that binds all and everyone; you cant escape it,
you dont know how to untie it, the only thing you can do is to drown it in
liquor for just a moment. 38 The message becomes clear to Siman: one cannot escape the Law; it is ever present and unmovable.
The Law is also opposed to the organic notion of the Christian czar
Siman still holds onto. As Siman plots his plan to intercept the archduke and
tell him of his troubles, we are aware of the fundamental error he makes
that, as we already know, will prevent him from getting justice. He mistakes
the archduke for the (Slavic) benevolent czar who, if only people can reach
him, will right all wrongs as a representative of Christ on Earth:
But Simans imagination, with the help of the brandy, already saw Gods doing
in the arrival of the czars uncle [...] Theres nothing simpler than to present before
this man who sits at the czars feet and who is capable of everything, his rightful
thing and arrive at his right and there is nothing more natural than the czars
15
uncle immediately interceding in Simans thing and ordering that it should be resolved with justice. That is why these czars men walk the Earth... And the main
thing is that the czars uncle will find out what these here must be hiding from him
and what the uncle knows, the czar cant help but know. Let the czars know of
Siman and his right! 39
The Law, however, replaces both the czar and the land. The scene describing Simans arrest is central to this change in power structures of Bosnian society. Here we are introduced to another character Vaso Gengo
Policaja who is charged with arresting and bringing Siman in to the
Trustee, Kosta Hrmann. Confronted by Vaso and reminiscent of the feudal
silence from the beginning, Simans words fail him:
Siman was also the kind of man who could defend himself and argue, but while he
was trying to explain himself and get an explanation he noticed, with wonder,
that he was already walking with the police officer, in step, and that words in this
case are of no help at all. And as they went, so their relationship changed rapidly
and became all the more determined. Between them something third and new was
being created, something that is neither Siman nor Vaso Gengo, but rule and law,
like some guilt and punishment, and in the form in which it did not exist in
Ottoman times.40
As this description of the interaction between Siman and Vaso shows, the
Law is literally being born in the moment of Simans arrest, as something
separate from both of them, but something that ties them and works through
them both.
The Law that arises between them is compared to the previous system
of power relationships first by the silence (which seems to mark oppression
and domination in Andris work in general) and then by the fact that it ties
Siman to Vaso in the same way Siman was tied to his aga and the land earlier in the story: And so these two men went, welded together by the chain
of law, each with his own thoughts and feelings, looking at each other, on
the side, with a new look..41 The process by which this new system comes
about is described with such precision that I must cite it in full:
The man transformed right there and then, and from that new character he spoke loudly
and sharply only a few words, but as if they were a religious formula in a foreign
language:
In the name of the law, advance!
And Siman started walking without objection.
Now they walk differently, tied by the law.
16
Marina Anti
Between them an unanticipated dependency is forming. As if each of them has suddenly thrown off the innocent and careless mask of the everyday and shown a new
face, so new that in the first moments neither the one nor the other could really
neither regain consciousness nor gather themselves in their new roles. Vaso is not
that Vaso The Cop that passes in the streets for a part of the citys landscape, but
some different unknown man who became strict and dangerous, a stiff and merciless mechanism whose every move has the force and inevitability of natural
phenomena before which man instinctually and uselessly tries to get out of the
way. And Siman is not that well known, talkative and restless peasant from the
periphery... No, he all of a sudden became the so-named Simo Vaskovi who has
to, in the shortest amount of time, by the shortest route to be brought in to the
chief of Sarajevos Law and Order Trusteeship.42
Here we have the culmination of several themes. First we have the ritualistic, almost religious nature of the interpellation by the new order as Vaso
commands Siman, in the name of the law, uttered as if it were some religious formula, for its effects are just as strong on both men.
This interaction matches the outlines of modernity as characterized by
Luis Althussers theory of the interpellation of the (modern) subject by a
State Ideological Apparatus (the supreme example being religion). Siman is
not taken to the Trustee simply on account of Vasos physical force, but
rather, in addition to responding to the force, Siman feels bound by and
surrenders to the Law that interpellates him quite literally: In the name of
the law, advance! In this, he is recognizing himself as a (modern) subject, which the narrator calls his new role. It is not accidental that Althusser describes this process of the State interpellating the subject precisely
as arising from the law as well.43
Secondly, Vaso is also transformed. He is no longer the village idiot
people mock calling him Policaja; now he has become the voice and the
mechanism, the apparatus of the State. Just like the Law, Vaso is now a
severe, brute force that, in its inevitability, resembles nature and yet seems
so fundamentally opposed to nature on account of him being a mechanism. And lastly, Simans recognition of himself as a subject and his
submission to the Law concludes this scene as he becomes not the peasant,
but the so-named Simo Vaskovi.
In this state, Siman is brought into Kosta Hrmanns office. There he
enters a new world. It is significant that his previous encounter with Hrmann was in a different office, much humbler than is the case now. The
walls and the desk are adorned with apparatuses whose purpose Siman cannot even guess and the cleanliness of the office is described as not of this
world. The narrator says: According to his unfortunate habit to mix impor-
17
tant with the unimportant and not to be able to tell the difference between
crucial and marginal things, Siman thought only about this, for him unbelievable and otherworldly cleanliness and wondrous arrangement.44 However, as we will soon learn, Siman is quite correct in identifying this otherworldliness of the office as important, for Kosta Hrmann himself is described as non-human and otherworldly.
As Vaso and Siman enter the office, Siman compares Vaso to the otherworldliness of their new surroundings and contemptuously notes the difference: Heaven on Earth, a gentlemans life, thought Siman. This is Austria! and with disgust quickly glanced at Vaso Gengo, who, clumsy and
stiff, was standing at attention.45 We will return to this point, especially
Simans exclamation This is Austria!, but the comparison here between
the three of them is important also on another level. Not unlike in Andris
other works, the names of these three characters tell a story on their own.
The transformations we saw in Vaso and Siman in the moment when one
arrests the other in the name of the law are also symbolically represented
through their names. Simans full name is Simo Vaskovi. Vaskovi shares
Vas with Vaso as well as a common origin in Vasko. As Vaso and
Siman interact as the officer of the state and the arrestee, we are told something third between them is born, a new law, and a different order of things.
Kosta Hrmanns name also symbolically represents this third thing
borne out of their interaction.46 Siman and Hrmann share the second part
of their name (man), while the last three letters of Vasos name are inverted
in Hrmanns first name, Kosta: Vaso in Kosta. Furthermore, Hrmanns
name also captures one of his crucial characteristics, namely being the
man who hears (hren + Mann) in a land that is epitomized by
silence47:
Doubt easily enters the head of an imperial Austrian police officer. Actually, it
doesnt really enter it because it is always already awake in his head, and when it
does dose off, it sleeps with one eye and one ear open, and the slightest sound,
quieter than the beating of a butterflys wings can arouse it; and even if it isnt
aroused by anything, it will, from time to time, arouse itself from the silence that
seems suspicious to it. 48
Even the silence seems to have acquired a new meaning in the new, AustroHungarian order, as Hrmann not only hears the noises, but also hears and
interprets the silence itself as suspicious.
The actual confrontation between Hrmann and Siman is brutal. Hrmanns appearance is striking:
18
Marina Anti
Kosta Hrmann was sitting behind his desk in a dark uniform. He wasnt yelling,
wasnt moving, not even his little finger. His face is calm, white, with only slight
color in it, his hair is black, thick, as is his short mustache. Behind his rimless
glasses dark deep blue eyes glow, but they change color, because in the moment
when the Trustee asks questions they mix with the upper edge of his lenses and
create a sharp and inhumanly calm and penetrating gaze. 49
The calm and control exhibited here is not only personal, it is a matter of the
Trustees essence. The sharp and inhumanly calm and penetrating gaze
attributed to the Trustee is reminiscent of Foucaults Panopticon that can
penetrate all, but is itself impenetrable and invisible: Full lighting, and the
eye of the supervisor captured better than darkness, which ultimately protected. Visibility is a trap.50 The contrast between the darkness of Bosnia
and the penetrating gaze of the Trustee is glaring and will be repeated once
again in the story.
The questioning itself is compared to an experiment: The Trustee put
one hand onto the other, looked with even greater interest at the large, excited peasant, who didnt even notice that the clerk was provoking and probing him with his objections like an animal on whom we are performing an
experiment.51 It is clear that Siman has no hope of making his case, but the
questioning persists until the Trustee decides Siman will have to spend the
next few days in jail. The justification for the detention is crucial: It just
cant be, Siman, because you, for example now, have this habit of running
out in front of important people, so, God forbid, the czar horses could get
frightened from such a large man like yourself, and only then wed see the
trouble. This way, its better for you as well.52
The Trustee is here citing not only the corporeal economy of the feudal
order the only one Siman understands but he is also identifying correctly
Simans fundamental discomfort with the new order. Earlier, Siman was
demonstrating his corporeal understanding of the world, when upon entering Hrmanns office, he recognized the awkwardness of his peasant body:
And everything so clean and tidy that it frightens and confuses a man, so that the
peasant does not even know what to do with his hands and feet, but with wonder
looks at his huge, crusted peasant shoes, his cheek ablaze and wishing only that
someone would yell out that he was taken in here by mistake and then take him to
some simpler office. 53
We can speak here again about Simans body, namely the fact of its arrest,
and forced removal from public, but the power exercised on his body at this
moment is fundamentally different from the earlier one exercised by the
19
feudal system of power relations. In this new situation, the power exercised
is not the punishment itself, but rather a means to a punishment which is
intended as both non-corporeal and preventative. It is designed to discipline
and prevent crime, rather than punish it. This is why Siman thinks as he is
being taken away: [A]nd even if they tore off a piece off his flesh now, it
seems like it wouldnt even hurt.54 What he fails to perceive is that the
punishment he is about to receive is, in many ways, harder than if they were
to torture his body in this brutal way. For, as Foucault describes the major
change in the economies of punishment between the feudal order and the
modern one, the effectiveness of the new non-corporeal punishment is seen
as resulting from its inevitability, not from its visible intensity; it is the certainty of being punished and not the horrifying spectacle of public punishment that must discourage crime.55 The finality of the punishment received
lies precisely in Simans final understanding of the inevitability of the new
order. As the narrator comments: Everything is like half joke half reality,
but Siman still had to sit out three days and only upon the archdukes departure was released.56
In essence, then, Siman had come up against the new order based on the
law and the accompanying non-corporeal punishment, which, in turn, are
the identifying features of modernity itself. Foucault says:
From this point of view, Rusche and Kirchheimer related the different systems of
punishment with the systems of production within which they operate: thus, in a
slave economy, punitive mechanisms serve to provide an additional labour force
[...]; with feudalism, at a time when money and production were still at an early
stage of development, we find a sudden increase in corporeal punishments [...] But
the industrial system requires a free market in labour and, in the nineteenth century, the role of forced labour in the mechanisms of punishment diminishes
accordingly and corrective detention takes its place.57
Important to keep in mind is that the change from the feudal order to the
modern one does not, in any sense, diminish the relationship of dominance,
especially in a situation in which an Old World empire, trying to remake
itself into a colonial power, as Austria-Hungary was doing in Bosnia,
merges with the old, feudal, and mercantile social relations of the Ottoman
Empire. Rather, as in British India, the transformation is simply from a
status-based privilege to a contractual-based privilege, where the
change is supposed to bring about the modernization of the society in question, but not an actual change in who exercises the power over whom.58
20
Marina Anti
Edward Said describes one such example in India and the similarities with
the policies of Austria-Hungary in Bosnia in late 19th century are striking:
[Sir Henry] Maines great study Ancient Law (1861) explores the structure of law
in a primitive patriarchal society that accorded privilege to fixed status and could
not become modern until the transformation to a contractual basis took place.
Maine uncannily prefigures Foucaults history, in Discipline and Punish, of the
shift in Europe from sovereign to administrative surveillance. The difference is
that for Maine the empire became a sort of laboratory for proving his theory
(Foucault treats the Benthamite Panopticon in use at European correctional
facilities as the proof of his) [...] [Maine] interpreted his task as the identification
and preservation of Indians who could be rescued from status and, as carefully
nurtured elites, brought over to the contractual basis of British policy.59
The tactics of Sir Henry Maine in India were perhaps more explicit than
those of Austro-Hungarian administrators (although this topic requires further research and elaboration), but the effect was the same the creation of
a socio-economically privileged class under Austria-Hungary, with the help
of a contractually based social order, from the ashes of the old, feudal,
landowning class of the Ottoman era. The former serfs are consequently
transformed into modern subjects participating in the new system as the
underprivileged class.
Furthermore, within this new, modern order there is also an objectification of the crime and the criminal at work in the non-corporeal punishment,
where the criminal is designated as the enemy of all, [...] falls outside the
pact, disqualifies himself as a citizen [...] appears as a villain, a monster, a
madman, perhaps a sick, and before long, abnormal individual.60 This is
why Siman, in this new, modern order, becomes an outcast upon his release.
Simans ultimate tragedy and defeat is that he has failed to integrate
himself into the new society. He has been defeated not by his aga or Hrmann or even Austria, but rather by the new, modern order itself. We are
told he spends his last days in the vestiges of the old order epitomized by an
inn on the outskirts of town:
There the Sarajevo esnafs often have their parties, where, from April to October,
Sarajevo drunks go out at night to sit in a green and cool place by the river, with
brandy and music or singing, and even then only the worst drunks who, God knows
why, are attracted to exactly a place like this, without a view, in the fold of steep
hills, where the sun sets early and rises late.61
But we know that the outcasts, including Siman, are attracted to a place like
that, a place without a view because it is the last remnant of that impene-
21
trable, silent Ottoman Bosnia that was disrupted by all the new people
as Siman calls them who have entered it since the arrival of the Austrian
troops. In fact, it can be said that the inn, with Siman and Salihbeg clenched
in some eternal, but at this point completely irrelevant battle (Salihbegs
body is immovable, dead-drunk), represents symbolically the remnants of
the Ottoman order after the Austro-Hungarian modernization of Bosnia.
We can see from all of the above that Andris story is not so much a
meditation on the conflict between a serf and his aga or even between the
peasant and Hrmann as Kecmanovi imagined. It is certainly not an endorsement of Serbian nationalism over and against Austria-Hungary on the
one hand or Bosnian Muslims on the other. Even the references to Princips
assassination of the archduke are far from a glowing endorsement of the
event. Rather, the story is, as I have shown, a meditation on the encounter
between a Balkan peasant and modernity itself, with dire, even deadly consequences for the former. In light of this fact, the end of the story is especially poignant as we are first led to believe, with the narrator, that Simans
story perhaps does not end in this dark hole on the outskirts of civilization:
And Siman says all sorts of things, things that never were, and as people say, never
could be, and yet that still must be all sorts of big and rebellious things no one
says, things a man cant even think during the day as if its not the brandy speaking, but the truth itself, wordy, prophetic and fearless truth of late evening hours,
in the mute area by the thinning river that barely murmurs.62
The implication is that Simans struggle will not only continue in the future,
but it will be successful. The reference, of course, is to the socialist revolution that was nearing its successful end as Andri was writing this story.
And yet, the story does not quite end there. We are given two more images to ponder in closing. One is the intimation of Simans death as a man
bez reda i ugleda (an outcast) who will find his end in precisely such a
disgraceful place as the inn. The other image is one of the night as it falls on
the city, Siman, and Salihbeg: And so the night passes. Everything is mute,
the lights go out, only the smallest shard of some glassy and as if wet moon
still glows for some time over the dark valley. 63 The familiar themes of
silence and darkness as symbols for Bosnia are recalled once again, but here
they are, if only for a moment, penetrated by the glassy moon. The moon
is a reference to Hrmanns gaze, for it is penetrating, deep, glassy, and
enlightening. The earlier assertion of Simans victory is undercut here by
this final, symbolic image of the interaction between darkness and enlightenment, silence and speech.
22
Marina Anti
Returning to our considerations of legacies of Kosta Hrmann, we can

summarize Andris treatment of this figure in the following way. Hrmann
is a representative of Western Enlightenment. He is stark, penetrating, disciplined, and rational. He probes Siman like a scientist looking for proofs to
his theories. The apparatuses on the walls of his office and on his desk are
further signs of his scientific and modern outlook. Hrmann is also the harbinger of modernity in Bosnia. He is the supreme police officer (only on the
surface like Vaso the Cop), and he is the representative of the new order
based on contractual rights, not feudal notions of land and prava (right).
Hrmanns effectiveness as the enforcer of the new regime rests in large
part on his bilingualism. On the one hand, unlike Siman or even Vaso, Hrmann knows the function of apparatuses on the walls: he knows the law and
most importantly he knows Siman.64 On the other hand, he also speaks the
language of the peasant as he continually proves throughout the interrogation. Everything that we know about him otherwise his stark looking clothes, perfect appearance, and the sharp and inhumanly calm and penetrating gaze comes into contrast with his speech. When we hear him speak,
he speaks Simans language, that is to say, the language of the peasant corporeal order. He is bilingual in the most crucial sense in that he understands
and interprets the Law, but he can also translate its modern meaning to a
man like Siman.
In Kecmanovis interpretation, Hrmanns character is expressed perfectly by Simans words in the story. Kecmanovi underlines the phrase
aginski prijatelj (agas friend) without noticing that the sentence in
which it appears is written in Simans voice, not that of the narrator, and as
such should be understood with deference to the storys ambiguous, if not
critical, treatment of Simans judgment. The sentence in question reads:
And the higher power had its say, but since then Siman has known that this
gentleman Kosta is the agas friend [emphasis MA].65 Gospodin Kosta
as well as aginski prijatelj betray Simans, not the narrators, phraseology
and view of the world. The ambiguous conclusion to the story that leaves
the fleeting image of Hrmanns gaze over Bosnia as the last image the
last word in the debate should be a warning not to take Simans worldview as the correct or the most enduring one.
But if Andri is critical of Siman and seems to be siding with Kosta
Hrmann here, what are we to make of the image of Hrmann in the story?
What is his legacy according to Andri? The simplest way to answer this
question is to say that it is as complex or as simple as Andris relationship
23
to modernity and the West. It is clear that this is a topic well beyond the
scope of this essay. However, I will point at a moment in the story where
the discourse of East and West comes up in a manner very typical of Andris other works. By briefly illustrating Andris relationship to modernity
and the West, it will be also possible to point at the ways in which Hrmann
and Andri are intimately related precisely in terms of modernity and interaction with the West, and as previously mentioned, in terms of the bilingualism constitutive of the intelligentsia involved in the nation building processes in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Hrmann and Andri: Legacies of the Bilingual

Intelligentsia in Yugoslavia
In The Story of Serf Siman Vaso Gengo Policaja endures within him the
turmoil of fighting his Bosnian instinct with his new Austrian identity.
Before Vaso utters the crucial In the name of the law..., he first asks
Siman to come with him. Siman, naturally, resists and tries to come up with
excuses as to why he should stay behind. In order to convince him to
follow, Vaso says: Dont try to squiggle your way out, but come with me
when I tell you... You forgot that this is not Turkey [Ottoman Empire] this
is Austria, now going on for a fourth year. Austria, just think!66 To this,
Siman reacts quite violently: Oh, come on, I know... Austria! Austria! As
if you were Austria!67 The accusation implied in Simans words that Vaso
is, perhaps, not so convincing in his new role as an Austrian police
officer, sets Vaso off and in a matter of seconds he loses what little
Austrian habits he had and starts fighting with Siman. But then the narrator tells us: And there, as if he remembered something, Vaso suddenly
abandoned this tone of an everyday Bosnian squabble and took on some
new and foreign, really Austrian attitude, the kind Siman did not see in a
man of our kind.68
From this point on, Simans anger and disappointment with the Law and
the judgment against him grow exponentially because, as he says: How
could a man survive and where could he run and where could he hide, when
just any passerby can become Austria?69 In other words, Siman can perhaps accept the authority of Austria-Hungary over Bosnia-Herzegovina (an
amazing recognition from a simple peasant!), but he cannot live with the
idea that a simple Bosnian fool like Vaso or even himself can take on airs
24
Marina Anti
and think he could ever be Austrian. The successfulness of the scene as

comic relief and as an introduction to the crucial scene of Simans arrest
(discussed in full above), rests also on our recognition of Vasos inability to
ever really be Austrian and the correctness of Simans disgust at the very
thought of it. (Upon entering Hrmanns office, Siman thinks: Heaven on
Earth, a gentlemans life, []. This is Austria! and with disgust quickly
glanced at Vaso Gengo, who, clumsy and stiff, was standing at attention.70)
From this humorous, yet crucial moment in the story we can glean some
sense of Andris positing of difference between Bosnia and the West. For
Andri these are separate worlds coming together only in the colonial administrations introduction of the modern order into Bosnian society. And
unlike Kecmanovi, Buturovi, and ori who present a national/nationalistic view of Hrmann, Andri primarily sees him as a harbinger of modernity. In the story, Hrmann is a personification of the scientific and ordering
tendencies of western administration.
Andri is, in some sense, historically speaking, correct in associating
Hrmann with modernity. Austro-Hungarian rule did, in the broadest sense,
represent the assimilation, or at least the introduction of Bosnian society
into a modern, European socio-economic system of relationships. At the
same time, Andri himself belonged to the generation that continued these
modernizing processes in all of former Yugoslavia, not least through the
projects of the socialist period.
The crucial role of both men in the debates on Bosnian identity (then as
well as now) lies in the modernity and modernizing influence of both men,
and especially in Andris crucial reading of Hrmann as such. That is to
say, it is not that these men are somehow constructing or promoting Bosniak
(in Hrmanns case) or Serbian (in Andris case) national identity, but
rather, they signal a crucial moment in the formation of all national identities in the region modernity itself. As Ivo Banac argues:
As far as [Serb, Croat, and Bosniak] separate national identities are concerned,
they can only recall a common beginning in the 19th century. Instead of a common
origin, we should direct ourselves towards the common beginning in modernity.
That simply means that the national integrations of 19th and 20th centuries have a
common starting point. At no point should we confuse premodern national formations with modern nations. The difference between them is enormous.71
That is to say, we cannot speak of origins (or conversely inauthentic inventions) of national identities in reference to Serbian, Croatian, and Bosniak
identities as Kecmanovi, Buturovi and ori do in their assessments of
25
Kosta Hrmann. Rather, if we are to examine these national identities, we

can and must speak of their common origin in modernity.
In addition, both Hrmann and Andri belonged to an intellectual elite,
educated abroad, but returning to serve administrations at home. They both
worked on cultural projects that came to define both the language and culture of their respective time periods, even though it is undeniable that Andri is a far more significant cultural figure than Hrmann. But most importantly, Hrmann and Andri also share a history of engagement with the
West that produced a pattern of identity formation, national or not, but always informed and speaking to both Bosnia and Austria within. (In
Hrmanns case, this internal division and dialogue between East and West
is evident in the unsettled debate over his divided loyalties to the AustroHungarian Empire on the one hand and Bosnian culture on the other. Andris preoccupation with East and West, their chasms as well as their
bridges is well known.) Sharing this crucial in-betweenness, Hrmann
and Andri belong to a continuum of what, following Anderson, we can call
the bilingual intelligentsia. And as Anderson convincingly argues, it was
precisely the bilingual intelligentsia who played a central role in national
identity formation in the peripheries.72
Their bilingualism and their modernizing influence, or in Andersons
words, their membership in the bilingual intelligentsia of the 19th and 20th
centuries, are the reasons why Hrmann and Andri find themselves at the
heart of the debates on Bosnian identity. This thread that connects Kosta
Hrmanns history to Ivo Andris work in a continuum of Bosnian thought
on modernity and the West is also what, I believe, represents the most fruitful way of considering Kosta Hrmanns lasting influence and legacy in the
South Slavic region.
Notes
1
I will be using the adjective Bosnian to designate an inhabitant of Bosnia and

Herzegovina and the adjective Bosniak to designate a person who identifies
him/herself as what used to be called Bosnian Muslim by ethnicity.
Kecmanovi, Ilija: O jednoj neobinoj knjievnoj karijeri u Sarajevu od 1878. do 1919.
godine. Prilozi za prouavanje istorije Sarajeva. God. 1 knj. 1 (1963); Buturovi,
enana: Studija o Hrmannovoj zbirci muslimanskih narodnih pjesama. Sarajevo:
Svjetlost 1976; ori, Boris: Nada. Knjievnoistorijska monografija 1895-1903.
Sarajevo: Svjetlost 1978.
26
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
Marina Anti
Daja, Sreko M: Tri kulturno-politike sastavnice Bosne i Hercegovine i moderna

historiografija. In: Forum Bosnae 18 (2002), pp. 4859, cit. p. 50
(Nacionalni/nacionalistiki pristup povijesti gleda naciju kao primordijalnu i kvazi
vjenu kategoriju. Nacija kao primordijalna kategorija izvire iz mitskih daljina prolosti
i kree se kroz povijesni kontinuum kao vrst i zatvoren sustav. [All translations of
Serbocroatian sources provided by the author of this article, MA.])- This idea is clearly
not articulated here for the first time. Any student of nationalism will have encountered
it in Benedict Anderson, Eric Hobsbawm and many others.
Anderson, Benedict: Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. London: Verso 1983, p. 116.
I am refering hereto the well-known upheaval in both Bosnian and Yugoslav League of
Communists over the increasing pressure to acknowledge and affirm the national particularity and identity of Bosnian Muslims that culminated in their official recognition
in 1970.
Kecmanovi 1963, p. 191.
Ibid, p. 185 (Lik Koste Hermana kao carskog oveka i slubenika, sa nadarenou svoje vrste, osvetljen je u poznatoj Andrievoj pripovesti o kmetu Simanu. [...] Karakteristian je za toga oveka, Kostu Hermana, koji je sluio Austriji u Bosni od dana
njenog ulaska u Bosnu pa do njenog odlaska iz nje nikad ne zaboravljajui ta hoe,
jedan njegov nesporazum sa pesnikom Tugomirom Alaupoviem... Sve ove postupke,
kako one s kmetom Simanom tako i one sa Tugomirom Alaupoviem, pa i mnoge druge
ovima sline, Herman je nosio u sebi oevidno kao plod uslova u kojima se nalazio i
razvijao i sredine iz koje je potekao.) [emphasis MA]. All translations of Serbo-Croatian sources and emphases by MA.
Nada, as Kecmanovi himself acknowledges, was the first Bosnian literary magazine
comparable to contemporary European literary journals. It began publication in 1895
and ended in 1903.
Cf. Kecmanovi 1963, p. 191.
Ibid., p. 188 (Po liniji Kalajeve politike u oblasti kulture u Bosni i Hercegovini, Herman je dobio zadatak da u Nadi, kao njen odgovorni urednik, ini sve to bi doprinelo
denacionalizaciji Bosne i Hercegovine, odnosno stvaranju jedne nove, ma i vetake,
bosanske nacije na slavenskom jugu.).
Ibid., p. 191 (Sve ove funkcije koje je Herman obavljao u oblasti kulture bile su oevidno potinjene i sluile su prvenstveno njegovim politikim dunostima i zadacima. I
kao direktor Zemaljskog muzeja i kao urednik njegovog Glasnika, i kao urednik Nade i,
napose, kao organizator izlobi po inostranstvu propagandnog karaktera, on je imao
pred oima iskljuivo kulturno-politike interese Austro-Ugarske Monarhije u okupiranim zemljama.).
Ibid. (austroslavizma u jugoslovenskim okvirima koja je imala pristalica meu nekim
Slovencima i Hrvatima, pa i meu nekim Srbima, a kojoj je, navodno, sluio i trosmajer, nastojei da kako to tvrdi istoriar iro Truhelka privede pravoslavlje u krilo
katolike crkve, u jednu veliku slavensku crkvenu zajednicu.)
Buturovi, enana: Studija o Hrmannovoj zbirci muslimanskih narodnih pjesama.
Sarajevo: Svjetlost 1976, p. 14 [Hrmann [je] tek u Bosni meu muslimanskim svi-
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
27
jetom doao na ideju o izdavanju ove zbirke, tj. [...]osnova ove ideje [je] bila u Hrmannovoj vezi sa onim muslimanskim krugovima koji su mu omoguili da upozna ovu
vanrednu kulturno-istorijsku i literarnu pojavu, da predoi svijetu u punoj irini njen
znaaj i novinu.].
Ibid., p. 16 (Zato Kllay insistira da se u predgovoru istakne da je veina pjesama
bosanskohercegovakih hriana bila ve objavljena u drugim poznatim zbirkama i
preporuuje onaj drugi naslov - Narodne pjesme Muhamedovaca u Bosni i Hercegovini
ime upravo pokazuje da Muslimane, kao i Hrmann, tretira kao zasebnu grupu stanovnitva Bosne i Hercegovine. Time ovi dokumenti pokazuju i to da je pogreno nastanak ove zbirke svoditi na smiljenu akciju austrougarske kulturne politike i dovoditi je u
vezu sa idejom bonjatva, kao jednom od njenih manifestacija.).
See citation of Sreko Daja above and note 3 for elaboration on this problem.
Daja 2002, p. 52 (Glavna slinost [nacionalnih historiografija] jest u anakronistinom
traenju potvrda u prolosti za ono to se smatra relevantnim za politiku sadanjost, te
ignorirajuem i ignorantskom pristupu drukijim interpretacijama, koje se ne baziraju
na nacionalnim mitovima, nega na kritikom pristupu svim poznatim, odnosno pristupanim povijesnim izvorima.).
ori, Boris: Nada. Knjievnoistorijska monografija 1895-1903. Sarajevo: Svjetlost
1978, p. 8 (Veina suvremenih istraivaa perioda austrijske uprave u Bosni, ocjenjujui njene akcije na politikom, gospodarskom, prosvjetnom i kulturnom polju, ima na
umu uvijek austrijsku politiku u cjelini u odnosu na Bosnu. Ta politika imala je svoje
zakonitosti nametnute interesima dvojne monarhije i sva ispitivanja i prouavanja,
odnosila se na bilo koji od vidova drutvenog ivota, pokazat e da se preko tih uzusa
nije ilo, a i kad se ilo, ilo se iz viih, dakle dalekosenijih i dugoronijih interesa
Austro-Ugarske monarhije. Jedno od tih pravila je da ni jedan projekat ostvarivan u
Bosni nije smio ii na tetu Austro-Ugarske, niti na bilo kakav nain krnjiti njene
interese, bilo austrijske, bilo madarske. [emphasis MA])
Williams, Raymond: Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Univ. Pr. 1977, p. 113.
Buturovi 1976, p. 11.
As Raymond Williams says: cultural tradition and practice are [...] much more than
superstructural expressions reflections, mediations, or typifications of a formed
social and economic structure. On the contrary, they are among the basic processes of
the formation itself and, further, related to a much wider area of reality than the
abstraction of social and economic experience (Williams 1977, p. 111).
Kecmanovi 1963, p. 185 (Sve ove postupke, kako one s kmetom Simanom tako i one
sa Tugomirom Alaupoviem, pa i mnoge druge ovima sline, Herman je nosio u sebi
oevidno kao plod uslova u kojima se nalazio i razvijao i sredine iz koje je potekao
[emphasis MA]).
Serf Siman is a reference to the title character of Ivo Andri story The Story of Serf
Siman (as Kecmanovi readily acknowledges), while Tugomir Alaupovi is an actual
historical figure whose encounter with Hrmann is cited in Kecmanovis essay from
archive sources.
Cf. also ani, Ivan: Pisac na osami: upotreba Andrieve knjievnosti u ratu u BiH. In:
Erasmus 18 (1996), pp. 48-57.
28
Marina Anti
24 Kazaz 2001, p. 122 (Poseban paradoks je u tome da se nacionalni identitet, izvoen iz

jedne od mnotva moguih interpretacija povijesti, pozivao na povijesne argumente, to
znai da Andriev opus i nije itan kao knjievni, ve historiografijski tekst koji se, na
jednoj strani, prima u formi bezuslovne istine/znastvene tanosti, a na drugoj, u formi
bezuslovne lai/mrnje za koju nema argumenta u povijesnom toku. [emphasis in
original]).
25 Ibid., p. 134 (Interpretativne zajednice (srpska, hrvatska, bonjaka) uspostavljene na
toj osnovi, zapravo, i ne itaju Andria, nego utemeljuju identitet vlastite povijesne memorije kao neku vrstu metapripovijesti, koja hoe biti nadreena svemu drugom, hoe
usisati sve kontekste, biti verifikatorom svim drugim pripovijestima, i u konanici se
nametnuti kao apovijsni, holistiki nacionalni identitet. [emphasis MA])
26 Cf. Bavi, Uzeir ed.: Andri i Bonjaci: zbornik radova, bibliografija. Tuzla: Preporod,
2000; Kazaz, Enver: Egzistencijalnost/povijesnost Bosne Interpretacija u zamci ideologije. In: Novi izraz (Winter/Spring 2001); and Maglajli, Munib: rtva dirljive odanosti. In: Novi izraz (Summer 2001).
27 It would be very interesting to analyze further Aleksa as Andris image of himself,
especially in comparison to other such authorial self-representations in Andris uvre.
Some interesting parallels and inversions of the national/linguistic link would emerge,
i.e., how are his national (re)identifications results of his writing/language/translation,
etc.
28 Andri, Ivo: Pria o kmetu Simanu. Znakovi. Sarajevo: Svjetlost 1976 (Sabrana djela
Ive Andria), p. 127 (Sa pucnjavom kakvu dotad nije ulo bosansko uho, ule su austrijske trupe 19. avgusta 1878. godine u Sarajevo.).
29 Ibid., p. 128-29 (Tako su kmet i aga iveli bez veih trzavica utljivi, ali nepomirljivi, neprijatelji, vezani, kao lancem, zemljom koja ih je, svakog na svoj nain, hranila i
privlaila.) Andri has used this trope of silence as representative of Bosnias Ottoman
era in other places as well, most notably in The Bosnian Chronicle..
30 Ibid., p. 127 (Od toga se u mnogom oveku mnogo ta potreslo i prevrnulo, i mnogo
toga poelo da se menja meu ljudima.).
31 Ibid., p. 130 (Gleda Ibraga toga drskog oveka koji mimo svakog reda i obiaja lei i
ne die se pred njim, ne veruje roenim oima i ne moe da se naudi koliki je kmet kad
nije zgren ni ponizan, nego kad se opusti i rairi u svojoj punoj snazi i veliini.
[emphasis MA]).
32 Ibid., p. 131 (Odmahuje Siman rukom iroko, preko jesenskog predela i neba nad njim,
gui se od jakih rei, i na sve agine na silu blage i naoko razlone primedbe i opomene
odgovora otrim i kratkim: ne! u kom ono e puca i ee kao plameni bi. [emphasis
MA])
33 Ibid., p. 134 (Jo je nekoliko puta projahao Siman ispred Ibragina duana, sa srenim
osmehom na licu i poigravajui sitno na vraniu.).
34 The obvious reference to that other archduke whose visit did not end as amicably for
Austria-Hungary is here underlined several times, including one of the narrators interjections where he describes Simans failed attempt to destroy evidence against him by
throwing it into Miljacka, much like Gavrilo Princip was supposed to have tried to kill
himself by doing the same: U tom trenutku su upravo prelazili preko Latinske uprije.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
29
Stade da popravlja toboe pojas na sebi, i kada je bio ve pri kraju mosta, prisloni se
sasvim uz ogradu kao da hoe da prepae, i brzo ali neveto izbaci hartiju preko ograde
u vodu. (Ta seljaka nespretnost je jedna od velikih slabosti u njihovoj stalnoj, as
otvorenoj, as prikrivenoj borbi sa gradom i graanima) (148). [In that moment they
were walking right across the Latin bridge. He stopped to allegedly fix his belt and
when he was already at the end of the bridge, he came up all the way to the fence, as if
he was to cross over it, and quickly but clumsily threw the paper across the fence into
the water. (That peasant clumsiness is one of the great weaknesses in their constant, at
times open, at times hidden, struggle against the city and the city dwellers.)].
Ibid., p. 141 (Potamneo je i podbuo u licu, a smrao u telu, kalje i pljuje kao bolesnik,
ali im popije, govori o zemlji i o svom pravu ivo i vatreno, kao to je govorio onog
jesenjeg dana Ibragi u ljiviku.).
Ibid., p. 140 (To su ti zakoni i naredbe! Ti se smeje, a oni te pogaaju pre ili posle,
sigurno i neumoljivo.).
Ibid., p. 141 (Turski je zakon otprije toliko godina, a postove mu aine! kao da je
jutros pravljen za mene.).
Ibid. (I on je sa strahom mislio o mrei stranih i svemonih zakona koja je isprepletena svuda i sputava sve i svakog; pobei iz nje ne moe, razmrsiti je ne ume, jedino
to moe: da je u rakiji za trenutak zaboravi.).
Ibid., p. 142-44 (A Simanova mata je, kroz rakiju, ve videla boji prst u dolasku
carevog amide. [...] Nita nije prostije nego izneti pred tog oveka, koji sedi caru uz
koleno i koji sve moe, svoju pravednu stvar i doi do svoje prave; i nita nije prirodnije nego da se carev amida odmah zauzme za Simanovu stvar i naredi da se ona
pravedno rei. Zato ovakvi carski ljudi i hodaju zemljom. [...] Glavno je da e carev
amida saznati sve to ovi sigurno od njega kriju, a to on zna to ne moe car da ne
zna. Neka znaju carevi za Simana i njegovu pravdu! [emphasis MA]).
Ibid., p. 145 (Ni Siman nije bio ovek koje ne ume da se brani i prepire, ali dok je on
pokuavao da se objasni i da dobije objanjenje i sam je sa uenjem video da ve ide
sa policajcem ukorak, i da rei u ovom sluaju nikako ne pomau. A kako idu, tako se i
njihov meusobni odnos brzo menja i biva sve odreeniji. Stvara se izmeu njih neto
tree i novo, neto to nije ni Siman ni Vaso Gengo, nego propis i zakon, kao neka
krivica i kazna, i to u obliku u kom za turskog vremena nije ni postojalo. [emphasis
MA])
Ibid., p. 147 (I ta dva oveka idu uporedo prikovani lancem zakona, svaki sa svojim
mislima i oseanjima, i motre jedan na drugog, ispod oka, novim pogledom. [emphasis
MA]).
Ibid. (Preobrazi se ovek tu na mestu, i iz tog novog lika izgovori glasno i odsenosvega etiri rei, ali kao svetenu formulu na tuem jeziku:
U ime zakona, naprijed!
I Siman krenu bez pogovora.
Sad drugaije koraaju, vezani zakonom.
Stvara se izmeu njih dotle nesluena zavisnost. Kao da je svaki od njih naglo odbacio
nevinu i bezbrinu masku svakidanjice i pokazao neko novo lice, tako novo da se u
prvim trenucima ni jedan ni drugi ne mogu pravo da osveste ni dobro da snau u novim
30
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Marina Anti
ulogama. Vaso nije onaj Vaso Policaja to prolazi ulicama kao deo gradskog inventara,
nego drugi nepoznati ovek koji je postao strog i opasan, krut i neumoljiv mehanizam
iji svaki pokret ima snagu i neizbenost prirodnih pojava pred kojima ovek nagonski i
uzaludno nastoji da se ukloni. A Siman nije onaj svakom dobro poznati, suvie
govorljivi i nemirni seljak sa periferije grada [...] Ne, on je odjednom postao
imenovani Simo Vaskovi, koji treba u najkraem vremenu i najkraim putem da
bude priveden efu sarajevskog Redarstvenog povjerenitva.)
Althusser, Luis: Lenin and Philosophy and other essays. London: New Left Books
1977, p. 160: Meaning, there is no ideology except for concrete subjects, and this destination for ideology is only made possible by the subject: meaning by the category of
the subject and its functioning. By this I mean that, even if it only appears under this
name (the subject) with the rise of bourgeois ideology, above all with the rise of legal
ideology, the category of the subject (which may function under other names: e.g., as
the soul in Plato, as God, etc.) is the constitutive category of all ideology, whatever its
determination... [emphasis MA].
Andri 1976, 149 (Po svojoj nesrenoj navici da mea vano sa nevanim i da ne
razlikuje bitno od sporednog, Siman je mislio samo o toj za njega neverovatnoj i
nezemaljskoj istoi i udesnom ureenju.).
Ibid., p. 149-50 (Raj na zemlji, gospodski ivot, mislio je Siman. Ovo je Austrija!
I prezrivo i kratko pogledao Vasu Gengu, koji je nespretan i krut, stajao u stavu
mirno.)
It could be said that these three characters also represent the three movements of the
Hegelian dialectic, culminating in Kosta Hrmann. It would be interesting to pursue this
further in terms of Andris commitment to a Hegelian worldview. Id like to thank
Tomislav Longinovi for suggesting this trajectory of potential research.
I would like to thank Drago Momcilovic for suggesting I should look into Kostas
German name as a source of symbolic meaning as well.
Andri 1976, p. 151 (Sumnja se, naime lako useli u glavu carskog austrijskog policajca. Zapravo, ona se i ne useljava, jer je uvek u njoj i gotovo uvek budna, a kad malo
pridrema, ona spava samo na jedno oko i jedno uvo, i najmanji um, manji od lepeta
leptirovih krila, moe da je probudi; a ako je niko nikako ne probudi, ona se s vremena
na vreme sama budi od tiine koja joj se ini sumnjivom.).
Ibid., p. 150 (Za stolom je sedeo Kosta Herman u mrkoj uniformi. Nije vikao, nije kretao ni malim prstom. Lice mu mirno, belo, sa malo lakog rumenila, kosa crna, gusta, isti
takvi kratki brkovi. Iza naoara bez okvira svetle tamnomodre oi, ali one menjaju boju,
jer se u trenutku kad povjerenik postavlja pitanja meaju sa gornjom ivicom naoara i
stvaraju otar i neljudski miran i prodoran pogled.).
Foucault, Michel: Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison. Transl. Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books 1979, p. 200.
Andri, 1976, 150 (Povjerenik stavi jednu ruku na drugu, zagleda se jo ivlje u
krupnog uzbuenog seljaka, koji nije ni primeivao da ga inovnik izaziva i bocka
svojim primedbama kao ivotinju na kojoj vrimo ogled.].
31
52 Ibid., p. 152 (Ne moe, Simane, jer ti ima, eto, obiaj da istrava pred visoke linosti, pa mogu se, ne daj boe, carski konji poplaiti od tako krupna ovjeka, a tek onda
ne bi valjalo. Ovako je bolje i po tebe.).
53 Ibid., p. 149 (A sve tako isto i uredno, da plai i zbunjuje oveka, i da seljak ne zna
kuda bi sa rukama i nogama, nego sa uenjem gleda svoje ogromne okorele opanke,
obraz mu gori, i najvie bi voleo da sada neko vikne da je zabunom uveden ovde i da ga
odvedu u neku jednostavniju kancelariju.).
54 Ibid., p. 148 [i da komad mesa sad otkinu s njega, ne bi ga, ini mu se, zabolelo.]
55 Foucault 1979, p. 9.
56 Andri 1976, p. 152 (Sve jekao pola ala pola zbilja, ali ipak Siman je odleao tri
dana i tek po nadvojvodinom odlasku puten.).
57 Foucault 1979, p. 24-25.
58 It is interesting to note that here the Foucauldian analysis necessarily has to be merged
with an analysis of colonial situations, on which Foucault himself was conspicuously
silent.
59 Said, Edward W: Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books 1993, p. 164
[emphasis MA].
60 Foucault 1979, p. 101.
61 Andri 1976, p. 153 (Tu sarajevski esnafi esto odravaju svoje teferie, tu, od aprila
pa do oktobra meseca, izlaze pred vee mnoge sarajevske bekrije da posede na zelenu i
hladovitu mestu pored reke, uz rakiju i svirku ili pesmu, i to one najtee bekrije koje, ko
zna zato, privlai upravo ovakvo mesto bez vidika u sklopu strmih bregova, na kom
sunce rano zalazi i dockan izlazi.[emphasis MA]).
62 Ibid., p. 157 (I svata tako Siman govori, to nikad nije bilo, to, kau ljudi, biti ne moe, a to ipak mora biti svata krupno i buntovno to se ne govori, to ovek danju ni
pomisliti ne sme kao da iz njega ne govori rakija, nego sama istina, reita, vidovita i
neustraljiva istina kasnih nonih sati, u gluvom predelu nad otanalom rekom koja
jedva mrmori.).
63 Ibid. (Tako prolazi no. Sve umukne, svetlosti se pogase, samo krnjatak nekog staklenastog i kao vlanog meseca svetli jo neko vreme nad mranom kotlinom.[emphasis
MA]).
64 Cf. Foucault 1979, p. 27: We should admit rather that power produces knowledge (and
not simply by encouraging it because it serves power or by applying it because it is useful); that power and knowledge directly imply one another; that there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge
that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations.
65 Andri 1976, p. 149 (I via vlast je kazala svoje, a Siman otada zna da je ovaj
gospodin Kosta aginski prijatelj. [emphasis MA]).
66 Ibid., p. 146 (Ne zavrzuj, nego hajde kad ti kaem...Ti si zaboravio da ovo nije Turska
i da je Austrija zastupila evo etvrta godina. Austrija, ej!).
67 Ibid., p. 146 (Ama de, znam ja. [...] Austrija! Austrija! Ko da si ti Austrija!).
32
Marina Anti
68 Ibid. (I tu kao da se prisetio neeg, Vaso brzo napusti taj ton obine bosanske svae i
uze neki nov i stran, zaista austrijski stav, kakav Siman nije kod naeg oveka nikad
video [...] [emphasis MA]).
69 Ibid., p. 148 (kako da ovek opstane i kuda da bei i gde da se skloni, ako svaki od
ovih to prolaze moe postati Austrija?).
70 Ibid., p. 150 [Raj na zemlji, gospodski ivot, mislio je Siman. Ovo je Austrija! i
prezrivo i kratko pogledao Vasu Gengu, koji je, nespretan i krut, stajao u stavu
mirno.]
71 Banac, Ivo: Teret lane povijesti. In: Forum Bosnae 18 (2002), pp. 42-47, qtd. p. 47
[to se tie [srpskih, hrvatskih i bonjakih] posebnih nacionalnih identiteta mogu se
samo pozivati na zajedniki poetak u devetnaestom stoljeu. Umjesto zajednikog
porijekla trebali bismo se upuivati na zajedniki poetak u modernosti. To naprosto
znai da nacionalne integracije devetnaestog i dvadesetog stoljea imaju zajedniku
polaznu toku. Nikada se ne smije brkati domoderne nacionalne formacije i moderne
nacije. Razlika izmeu njih je ogromna. ]
72 See the quote from Anderson and footnote 4 above for further clarification.

Historicizing Bosnia PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Historicizing Bosnia PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Historicizing Bosnia

Kosta Hrmann and Bosnias Encounter with Modernity

n literature on the cultural legacy of Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia

In former Yugoslavia, as elsewhere, a national/istic approach to history has

Kosta Hrmanns Legacy in National/istic Perspective

Continuing the biographical portrayal of Hrmann, Kecmanovi proceeds to

The cultural-political interests in question were ones of:

The conclusion of Kecmanovis argument about Kosta Hrmanns legacy

As for the anti-Serbian policies of the Austro-Hungarian Throne, which

tion of Bosniak poetry (and thus his implicit endorsement of Bosniakness)

So, while Buturovis objections are in some sense understandable, they

this one particular (Bosniak) national identity is constructed and therefore

The question of political and cultural hegemony, however, is hardly this

This vulnerability of hegemony holds just as true for the Austro-Hungarian

This practice of reading a piece of literature as history is the reason why

In other words, reading Andri national(istical)ly is to preclude discussion

Hrmanns Legacy in Andris Story of Serf Siman

Returning to our considerations of legacies of Kosta Hrmann, we can

Hrmann and Andri: Legacies of the Bilingual

and think he could ever be Austrian. The successfulness of the scene as

Kosta Hrmann. Rather, if we are to examine these national identities, we

I will be using the adjective Bosnian to designate an inhabitant of Bosnia and

Daja, Sreko M: Tri kulturno-politike sastavnice Bosne i Hercegovine i moderna

24 Kazaz 2001, p. 122 (Poseban paradoks je u tome da se nacionalni identitet, izvoen iz

Potrebbero piacerti anche