Nacionalizam I Arhitektura

Nationalism and Architecture: The Creation of a National Style in Serbian Architecture and
Its Political Implications

Author(s): Bratislav Panteli
Source: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 56, No. 1 (Mar., 1997), pp. 16-
41
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society of Architectural Historians
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/991214 .
Accessed: 09/05/2014 03:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
University of California Press and Society of Architectural Historians are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.198.209.205 on Fri, 9 May 2014 03:46:33 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Nationalism and Architecture
The Creation
of
a National
Style
inSerbian Architecture
and Its
Political
Implications
BRATISLAV
PANTELIC,
Belgrad e
Few
cultures havebeenso
preoccupied
with
history
as that
of Serbia. Foralmost a
century,
fromthe1850s tothelate
1930s,
Serbia's artisticand
literary
scenewas
overwhelmingly
focused onthemed ieval
past.
This
persistent
historicismcan
be attributed tothe d ifficult and slow
process
of cultural
renewal that followed the
emergence
of this Balkan
country
as
a
sovereign
nation-statein1830.
Emancipation
from
longtime
Turkishinfluence d emand ed theformulation of anational
culturethat would stimulatenational and ethnic
id entity among
the
population.
The
origins
of that culturewere
sought
inthe
remotest
layers
of collective
memory,
inthe
semimythical
glory
of
bygone
times inwhichhistorical facts are
interspersed
with
popularlegend s
and folklore.
This revivalist
tend ency
was most evid ent inarchitecturein
theso-called
Serbo-Byzantinestyle,
anid iomthat its
practitio-
ners believed tobe
regionally specific. Universally
and un-
equivocally accepted
as thenational
style,
it d ominated archi-
tectural
prod uction
fromthemid d leof thenineteenth
century.
Even
tod ay,
it remains thecanonical
style
forchurches.
Few scholars have
investigated problems surround ing
the
creation of anational
style
inSerbianarchitecture.' This
lack of interest was
certainly
d uetothe
proscription
of histori-
cism, withits nationalistic
connotations,
aftertheCommunist
Party
assumed
power
in
1945,
sothat eventheoccasional
stud ies that broached this
question
could not avoid
reflecting
official
antagonism
tothis kind of
investigation.
Fromthe
perspective
of
Marxism,
nationalismand its cultural mani-
festations were
prod ucts
of
bourgeois id eology.
Fortheorists
steeped
in
Mod ernism,
suchd enunciations served tod ismiss
thearchitectureof theSerbianrevival as backward and reac-
tionary.2
The
Serbo-Byzantine
movement has
prod uced
no
great
monuments,
but it merits examinationas a
parad igm
of this
unusually
trad ition-mind ed
people
whosefascinationwiththeir
owncultural
history
has been
remarkably
tenacious.
Although
part
of a
pan-European
trend inthenineteenth and
early
twentieth
centuries,
Serbianhistoricismwas almost
completely
d etached fromarchitectural
d evelopments
inothercountries
and
d isplayed
a
d istinctly
local character. Architectural
style
in
theSerbiancontext is
charged
with
meaning.
Unlike most
otherrevivalist movements it transcend s architectural
theory
and takes onbold
political
and
id eological
connotations.
Aestheticorfunctional consid erations wereof
second ary
inter-
est tonationalist
architects; rather, theiraimwas tod efinea
style
that would be
particular
totheSerbs and
convey
abstract
concepts
suchas national
spirit
ornational character
through
architectural form.
This
stud y
will examine the formation of the Serbo-
Byzantinestyle
withinthecontext of thebroad er
sociopolitical
and cultural milieu.
Specifically,
it will follow theevolutionof
this architecturefromits
beginnings
as a
progressive
Romantic
id eal of theliberal mid d le classes inthesecond half of the
nineteenth
century
toits laterreflections as an
expression
of
reactionary
id eas
propagating religious
and ethnicexclusive-
ness inthefirst d ecad es of thetwentieth
century.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Inord er toexamine thecultural milieuinwhichSerbian
historicism
originated
it is
necessary
to
present,
at least in
broad
outline,
thehistorical
background
of Serbia. Situated
inthecenterof theBalkan
peninsula,
onthehistoricbord er
of thewesternand easternRoman
empires,
Serbiawas a
converging point
of d ifferent cultures and
religions:
Ortho-
d ox
Byzantium
and theCatholicWest
d uring
theMid d le
Ages
and CatholicAustriaand the IslamicOttoman
Empire
in
the
postmed ieval period .
This
unique position
is
significant
for
und erstand ing
the Serbs' constant
wavering
between
Easternand Westernvalues in
seeking
their owncultural
id entity.
Of
special
interest forthis
stud y
arethe
d evelopments
that
followed the
collapse
of the
Byzantineempire
inthefifteenth
century.3
Thead vanceof theOttomanTurks into
Europe
led
tothe
political d isintegration
of theBalkanmed ieval
principali-
ties and their
incorporation
intotheOttoman
Empire. Serbia,
the
largest
and most
powerful
Slavic
kingd om
inthe
region,
attempted
toresist theTurkish
armies,
but afterseveral mili-
tary
d efeats followed
by
territorial losses was red uced toasmall
d ominioninthenorth. Serbiawas
finally subjugated
in1459.
16
JSAH / 56:1, MARCH 1997
FIGURE
I: Anonymous
build eror
workshop,
Konak
(palace)
of Princess
Ljubica, Belgrad e, 1829-1830, main
facad e
Inthecenturies that
followed ,
as a
province
of theOttoman
Empire,
it shared the
d estiny
of
neighboring
Orthod ox Chris-
tianland s.
Oneevent inthe
postmed ieval period
is of
primeimpor-
tanceforthemod ern
history
of the
country:
theso-called
Great
Migration
of the
Serbs.4 In
1690
forty
thousand families
fled west across theDanubeinfearof
reprisals
for
assisting
the
Austrian
army
inanabortiveTurkish
campaign.5
Led
by
their
patriarch,
theSerbs
settled
inthe
Banat,
arich
agricultural
region
insouthern
Hungary
and
part
of the
Hapsburg
em-
pire.
The
process
of
ad aptation
fromfeud al
society
tomod ern
absolutist statewas
complicated by
theAustrianSerbs' need
fora
d iplomaticstrategy
tod eal withthe
complex spheres
of
interest withinthemultiethnic
monarchy.
Not
long
afterthe
Great
Migration,
theSerbs succeed ed in
attaining significant
concessions fromtheAustrianauthorities.6
Among
themost
important
of thesewas an
unusually high
level of
autonomy
in
religious
affairs,
whichserved as a
guaranteeagainst
Catholic
proselytism;
thus as
early
as 1713 aSerbianOrthod ox archbish-
opric
was established intheAustriantownof Karlowitz
(now
Sremski
Karlovci).
Besid es
religious sovereignty,
theSerbian
community
obtained aformof
self-government:
vital
ques-
tions
concerning religious, political,
and cultural lifeinthe
d iaspora
wered iscussed
by populard elegates
at
congregations
knownas "national assemblies." Fromthis timeonward the
Serbs werealmost
completely
d rawnintothecultural orbit of
Central
Europe.7
The
raising
of the
archbishopric
inSremski
Karlovci totherank of
patriarchate
in
1848,
whichineffect
meant therelocationof the
supreme
national and
religious
institutionfromits med ieval seat insouthern
Serbia,
signaled
theacculturationof theAustrianSerbs intheirnew
country.
AnAustrian-bred
intelligentsia,
ed ucated inViennaand other
centers inthe
empire,
established the
ground work
of mod ern
Serbianculture. Evenaftertheliberationof Serbia
proper
and
its
emergence
as anautonomous statein
1830,
practically
all
intellectual, cultural,
and
political activity
was centered in
Vienna,
Bud apest,
and the
Serb-populated
towns inthe
Banat.8
By
themid d leof thenineteenth
century
theAustrianSerbs
became one of themost
powerful
national
groups
inthe
empire;
almost
eighty percent
of thesoutherntrad ewas inthe
hand s of theSerbianmercantileclasses.
Faced , however,
with
what
they perceived
as aconstant threat of cultural assimila-
tion,
the Serbs fromthe 1820s onward stroveto
preserve
national
id entity through
schools and
publishing
houses
orga-
nized around cultural and
literary
societies.
Ind epend ent
Cyrillicpresses
were established inVienna and
Bud apest,
opening
the
way
for
publication
of asecularliterature.
They
were
accompanied by Serbian-languagenewspapers
and the
first secularschool. An
equally important step
toward secular-
izationwas thereformof the
liturgical
Slavonic
languageby
Vuk
Karad zii
and thecreationof amod ern
literary language.
These marked thefirst
phase
of
curtailing
the trad itional
authority
of the
clergy
insecular
affairs,
a
process
stimulated in
thelate
eighteenth century by
thereforms d evised
by
Em-
perorJoseph
II
toneutralizeRussianinfluence ontheem-
pire's
Orthod ox
subjects. Growing
affluenceof thewestern-
ized mid d leclasses
inevitably
led toa
change
intheestablished
PANTELIC: NATIONALISM AND ARCHITECTURE 17
ord er,
sothat
by
the1860s acentral cultural rolewas assumed
by
the
lay intelligentsia,
whilethefocus of
patronage
inthearts
and ed ucation shifted fromthechurchtomid d le class
pa-
trons.9
Across the
Danube,
inSerbia
proper,
Ottomanrulemeant
the
preservation
of themed ieval structureof
society.'0
General
economic
stagnation
led toasituationinwhichall social and
cultural
activity
was centered on
monasteries,
the
only
institu-
tionthat had survived thed emiseof themed ieval state. This
backward and
profound ly patriarchal agrariansociety
d omi-
nated
by
med ieval cultural
patterns prod uced
afolk culture
based on
popular
customs and trad itions and imbued witha
strong religious bias."1
Themod ern
history
of Serbia
began
in1804 witha
peasant
rebellion
against
Turkish
rule.12
Afternine
years
of revolt the
Turks
regained
control of Serbia. Asecond
uprising,
led
by
Knez
(prince)
Milo'
Obrenovi'
in
1815,
was moresuccessful.
Largeparts
of Serbianterritories inthenorthwere
liberated ,
and Milo' was
recognized
as
hered itary prince.
In
1830,
after
receiving guarantees
of
autonomy
fromthe
Ottomans,
Serbia
was d eclared a
semi-ind epend ent princed om."3
Therebellion
turned into a
revolution,
forit resulted inafund amental
transformation of
peasant society.
The truevictors of the
revolutionary struggle
weretheAustrianSerb mid d le
classes,
which,
having
achieved economic
power
and a
relatively
well-
d eveloped
class
id entity,
had been
severely
constrained
by
the
absence of
political
institutions that would
promote
their
interests inthe
monarchy.
This
expatriatebourgeoisie,
which
returned totheliberated
country
to
settle
thereas thenew
elite,
encouraged
the
d evelopment
of
capitalism
and the
transformationof
patriarchal
rural communities intoamod -
ernsecular
society.14
Suchanambitious
enterpriserequired political
reforms. A
group
of
d istinguished
citizens knownas theDefend ers of the
Constitutionarticulated theinitial d emand s fortheformation
of a
legislativeassembly
and limitationof autocratic
power.
Between1838 and 1858
they
formed a
government
that fash-
ioned anambitious
program
to
uproot
theTurkishfeud al
system
and
reorganize
the
country
onmod ern
economic,
social, and
political principles.
Formationof stateinstitutions
and a
professional bureaucracy
inthemid -nineteenth
century
curtailed thetrad itional roleof monasteries; cities now be-
camethead ministrativecenters, and themid d leclasses, chiefly
composed
of merchants and civil servants, replaced
clerics as
themost influential
segment
of
society.
1
The
general
trend toward secularizationand mod erniza-
tionseemed irresistible: almost
immed iately following
the
recognition
of Serbian
autonomy
in1830 the
Gymnasium
was
formed as the first secularschool. It was followed
by
the
Lyceum
whichlaterevolved intoa
university,
and
by
such
institutions as theNational Museum, theNational Theater,
and the
Acad emy
of Arts and Sciences
(originally
theSerbian
Learned
Society).
But
against
id eas
promoted by
theViennese-
ed ucated liberal
intelligentsia
stood thoseof trad itionalists for
whomnational
emancipation
meant
simply
transferral of
power
fromTurkishfeud al lord s totheirSerbian
equivalents.
For
these local
authorities,
whostill wield ed consid erable influ-
enceinthe
countrysid e, d espotism
was the
only
und erstand -
ableformof
government. They
wereevenmore
estranged
fromtheliberalism
promoted by
thefirst
generation
of schol-
ars
returning
fromtheirstud ies inFranceand
Germany.16
Clerical and
patriarchal
in
orientation,
they
felt anaversion
toward therefined manners and tastes of the
enlightened
young
literati. Pervad ed
by religious-national
sentiments based
on
semimythical
and
folkloric
philoslavism
and
Orthod oxy,
these
groups
formed a
strong lobby
whichlooked toward
Russiaas thelead erof all theOrthod ox Slavs.
Notwithstand ing
this
polarization
of
society,
themecha-
nisms of social
change
could not bereversed .
Believing
that a
mod ern and
organized
statewas best
represented by
awell-
ord ered
city, political groups
inSerbiaat this time
promoted
the
regulation
of
cities,
whichweretobecomethebackboneof
political
and ind ustrial renewal.
Consequently,
urban
systemati-
zationwas
begunearly
inthe
century
withthe
replanning
of
Belgrad e,
thenational
capital:
theold mazes of narrow and
d ark
semiprivatealleys
and cul-d e-sacs wereremoved orre-
stricted toareas inhabited
by
the
remaining
Turkish
popula-
tion.
They
were
replaced
withnew
grid plans
withwid eboule-
vard s and avenues
intersecting
at
right angles
and
squares
and
public parks
at
key
locations.'7 The
city
now reflected the
und erlying
mechanismof social
d ynamics
and
newly acquired
ambitions of theed ucated mid d leclasses.
In
short,
the
political
situationintheBalkans around the
mid d le of thenineteenth
century
saw the
awakening
of na-
tional
id entity
and formationof small
ind epend ent
states such
as Serbiafromthe
crumbling
Ottoman
Empire.
Whether
ethnicornational awareness camefirst is of noaccount: the
und erlying
forceinthecreationof thenew states was national-
ism.
Long
before thead vent of Romanticliberal
nationalism,
trad itional sentimental
patriotism
based onSlavicmessianism
and thecult of themed ieval
past prevailed among
therural
population.This patriotism
had beensustained forcenturies
by
theOrthod ox church, but aftertheliberationand
espe-
cially
aftertheRevolutionof 1848 the
young
liberal
intelligen-
tsiaformulated similarsentiments intoanambitious
strategy
forthecultural and
political
renaissanceof thenation. Incited
by
theevents of 1848, a
group
of
young
intellectuals inNovi
Sad whocalled themselves theUnited SerbianYouthd efined a
cultural
programthematically
centered onthe
Battle
of Kosovo
(1389), thed ecisivemed ieval Ottoman
victory
overtheSerbi-
ans.18
Their
goal
was toarousenational awareness
among
the
18
JSAH / 56:1, MARCH 1997
populationthrough
the
glorification
of thenational
past
and
to
propagate
the
unity
of all
Serbs,
thoseinSerbia
proper
and
those
living
intheOttoman and Austrian
empires.19
Such
notions werestimulated
by European
Romantics whohad
only
recently
d iscovered theBalkans.20 In
particular
the
program-
maticid eas
emanating
fromtheGermancultural nationalism
of
Johann
Gottlieb Fichteand Fried rich
Schlegel supplanted
Russianinfluence based on
religious kinship.21
Id eas suchas
those
ofJohann
Gottfried von
Herd er,
"that the
vigorous
and
young
Slavs
should
replace
thetired Latins and
Germans,"
were
powerful
stimuli forthe
awakening
of national sentiment
among
the
peoples
of theBalkan
peninsula.
Suchtend encies were
perceptible
inall social
strata,
but
only
as
promoted by bourgeois
theorists d o
they emerge
as a
clearly
d efined
id eology
that was to
legitimize
the
newly
estab-
lished
position
of themid d le classes: Romanticnationalism
was the
spiritual
framework around whichthe
id eology
of the
new elitewas formulated ." Intimethesenseof the
past
was
carried into
semimythical
theories of cultural
uniqueness
and
ethnic-religious exclusivity,
and manifested
through
a
pro-
gram
of
exaggerated
and uncritical
glorification
of national
history.
Critics
belonging
tothemoresoberRealist school of
thought
warned that this
patriotism
was
becoming excessively
historical. But thetrend was irreversible. Thefact that more
thanhalf of theSerbianterritories inthesouthwerestill und er
foreign
rule stimulated
growing
nationalistic
aspirations--
ground ed
innaiveand
utterly
unrealisticid eals but truetothe
Romantic
spirit-
suchas the restorationof the historical
bound aries of med ieval Serbia.23
Therecreationof thenational
past
was
closely
connected
withtheestablishment of anew social and economic ord er
that d ivid ed
public
lifeintotwo
spheres:
the
spiritual
and the
material. A
representational typology
was created to
convey
the
symbolic
valueof each. Thenational
element,
d enoting
everything
Orthod ox and
Slavic,
was
equated
withthe
spiritual
d omain,
whilethe
foreignelement,
representing
thematerial
sphere,
includ ed moreroutine
aspects
of
everyd ay
life. Lan-
guage
reflected this
d ichotomy. Thus,
repeating
the
pattern
of
cultural influence, Germancametobethetechnical language
whileFrenchwas the
language
of thecourt and
d iplomacy;
Frenchwas also
accepted
as the
politelanguage
of themid d le
classes. Thechurch, ontheotherhand , as the
spiritual
d o-
main, retained avariant of Old ChurchSlavonic, a
language
in
use
among
the
Slavs
sincetheninth
century.
Similar
principles
were
applied
intheclassificationof archi-
tecture. Stateand
publicbuild ings
were
d esigned
ina
variety
of eclectic
period styles strongly
influenced
by contemporary
Central
Europeanarchitecture, especially Vienneseclassicism,
whilethe
Byzantinestyle
was reserved forchurches and schools,
since
they belonged
inthe
spiritual
realm.24 Theinclusionof
schools and churches inthesame
category
canbe
explained
by referring
once more to
language.
Inaccord ance with
Herd er's d octrine
language
was consid ered avital element of
national survival, oneof themaincharacteristics of anation
and its
greatest
cultural achievement.
Just
as the Serbian
language
had once been sustained inmonasteries inthe
Mid d le
Ages,
and later
d uring
theTurkish
occupation,
it was
now
taught
and
upheld
inschools, whichthus became the
chief
promoters
of national culture, and so
belonged
inthe
spiritual
d omain. Ind eed , oneof the
principal points
of d is-
pute
betweentheconservatives and theliberals was theissueof
language
reform.
Opponents
of mod ernizationand seculariza-
tion
supported by
theOrthod ox church
strongly objected
to
therevisionof the
liturgical
Slavonicand creationof amod ern
literary language.25
Although
it is ad ifficult task toisolateind ivid ual d etermin-
ing
factors amid st the
complex
currents of social
evolution,
onecanseetheimmed iate connection between
regionalism
inarchitectureand the
general political
and
id eological
incli-
nationinthesecond half of thenineteenth
century.
The1830s
mark the
beginning
of this
d evelopment.
Withtheestablish-
ment of
stronger
ties betweentheAustrianSerbs and their
Serbianhomeland , Central
European
architectural forms came
tobe
accepted
as an
emancipation
fromthetrad itional forms
of Balkanfolk architecture that had become orientalized
und er Ottomaninfluence. TheKonak
(palace)
in
Belgrad e
[Figure1],
built
by
atrad itional
workshop
in1829-1831 as the
resid enceof Knez
Milos's consort, is an
example
of thecurious
results that could beachieved inwhat was termed theTurkish
manner.26"
But this
slightly
westernized Balkanfolk architec-
turewas not consid ered
appropriate
formonumental architec-
tureinawell-ord ered
city
becauseof its Turkish-Islamiccharac-
ter.
More
fitting
werethevarious acad emicid ioms
practiced by
trained architects whocamefromacross theDanube at the
invitationof mid d le-class
patrons
anxious to
d isplay
their
newly acquired
wealth. Fromthe1830s Western
European-
style
resid ences
increasingly replaced
trad itional Balkanhouses
in
Belgrad e
and otherurbancenters.27 Most of these
private
houses and
apartment build ings d isplayed
abland and anemic
brand of neo-Renaissance classicism, carried out inbelated
Empire
orBied ermeierinteriors that
appealed
tothetasteof
theSerbiannouveauricheelite. Fromaround themid d leof
thenineteenth
century thearchitectural sceneof Serbiad is-
played
thefull
range
of classical and
postclassical revivalism.28
These
styles
wereused for
public
as well as
privatebuild ings.
This enthusiasmforWesternforms at first includ ed church
architecture. A
particularblend of late
baroque
and classical
forms termed Serbian
Baroque,
whichhad been
wid ely
ac-
cepted by
theSerbs inthe
d iaspora,
was
imported
inthe1830s
to
replace the
unassuming
churches built inthe Turkish
period .29
This
style
is
exemplified by
thecathed ral of
Belgrad e
FIGURE 2:
Anonymous (possibly
Franz
Jancke),
Cathed ral of St. Michael, Belgrad e,
1837-1840, view fromthesouthwest
[Figure
2],
built between1837 and 1840
by
Germanmasons
fromtheBanat tothe
d esigns
of anAustrian
military engi-
neer.30
DEFINING ANATIONAL STYLE: THEOPHIL VONHANSEN
AND VIENNESE
NEO-BYZANTINE,
1850-1900
TheSerbian
Baroque
was short-lived . As soonas thecultural
agend a
of theSerbianRevival was formulated around the
mid d leof the
century,
this
style
was aband oned . Henceforth,
und ertheinfluence of
growing regionalistic
tend encies that
pervad ed
the
political
and cultural climate,
the
principal
orientation
among patrons
and architectural theorists was
toward national and
regional
id entification. It was not archi-
tects who
initially
d emand ed architectural d ifferentiationbut
ratherintellectuals whoseid eas extend ed far
beyond
architec-
tural
theory. They approached
thenational Romanticismof
Johann
Gottlieb
Fichte,
forwhomarchitecturewas amed ium
through
which
lofty
id eals of nationand statecould becon-
veyed .
This id ealisticattitud ewas first
expressed by
the
origina-
torof theSerbianrevivalist movement,
theart historianand
archaeologist
MihailoValtrovi'. His
pioneering
researchon
Serbianmed ieval architectureinthe1870s was motivated
by
antiquarian
interest but also
by
"its revival and
implementa-
tion
tod ay
becausearchitecturemost
clearly
characterizes the
spirit
of the
nation.""'
Inthosesame
years
Felix
Kanitz,
the
Austrianresearcherof Serbian
antiquities, enthusiastically sup-
ported
therevival of med ieval forms while
d ismissing
Serbian
Baroque
churches as "South
Hungarian"
in
style.32
It is d ifficult at times to
d istinguish
between acad emic
historicismand trad itional forms,
since
d epend ence
onmed i-
eval mod els was aconstant featureof Balkanchurcharchitec-
ture
d uring
thecenturies of Ottomanrule. Acrud eid iom
only
vaguely
reminiscent of its med ieval
origins,
d ivested of all
ornament and red uced to elemental
forms,
lingered
on
throughout
the
postmed ieval period .
This survival was cer-
tainly
d uetolack of contact withWesternarchitectural d evel-
opments among
theisolated Christiancommunities inthe
Balkan
provinces
of theOttoman
Empire.
But aboveall it was
theresult of
firmly
established conservatismand trad itional-
ism. Gathered around thefew
functioning
monasteries,
the
Christian
populationd eveloped
asentimental reverencefor
thenational
past.
Themed ieval ruins scattered
throughout
the
countrysid e
were
powerful symbols
of ethnicand
religious
id entity,
sothat ad herencetotheforms of theancient monu-
ments was morethana
survival;
it was a
spontaneous
romantic
attitud eunrelated toacad emichistoricism.33
Trad itional
self-taught
masons whohad
monopolized
the
build ing
trad eund erTurkishruletried toaccommod ate the
revivalist
vogue
which
accompanied
urban
d evelopment. They
d esigned
churches forOrthod ox Christiancommunities all
overtheBalkans ina
stylisticmiscellany consisting
of
Byzan-
tine, Islamic,
and
Romanesque
forms blend ed withthevocabu-
lary
of the Serbian
Baroque.34
This
provincial
eclecticism
lacked therefinement and erud ition
und erlying
formal aca-
d emic
programs.
The
age
of themastermasonwas
coming
to
an
end :
urbaneand
sophisticated ,
thenew
patrons required
trained architects whowould formulateanational
style
onthe
basis of acad emicrevivalist d octrines.35
Thefirst monumental churchconstructed
by
anacad emi-
cally
trained architect and
manifesting
a
regional
orientation
in
conception
was thechurchofSt.
Spirid ion
inTrieste
[Figure
3].36 In1859 theSerbiancommunity
inthis
city, composed
chiefly
of
wealthy merchants, announced an
open
interna-
tional
competition
foranew churchwhichwas to
replace
an
old er
baroquestructure."7
The
stipulation
that thechurchbe
built "inthe
style
of theold national monuments" is not
surprising,
but it is
extraord inary
that theentries weresent for
evaluationtotheAccad emiad i BelleArti inVeniceinstead of
20
JSAH
/ 56:1,
MARCH 1997
following
the
customary proced ure
and
seeking approval
of the
patriarch."8 By d isclaiming
thetrad itional
authority
of
the
church,
thesmall Orthod ox
parish
of Triestemad e a
powerful
assertion of class and national
awareness;
self-
affirmationwas
placed
aboveconvention.
They
und erstood
that inthis environment suchad ecisioncould not beleft to
anyone
but
professionals
consid ered the
highest
authorities in
questions
of art.
The
acad emy jud ged
that the
d esign
most
appropriate
to
the
requirements
of theclient was onesubmitted
by
aMilanese
architect,
CarloMaciachini. Trained in
Vienna,
Maciachini
was familiarwithCentral
European
revivalist
styles.39 Although
St.
Spirid ion
reveals Maciachini's
und erstand ing
of someas-
pects
of
Byzantine
architecture-d ue
surely
tohis
familiarity
withSt. Mark's inVenice-it is still an
amalgam
of
byzantiniz-
ing, Romanesque,
Gothic,
and Oriental
(i.e.,
NearEastern
Islamic) quotations
intheacad emic
trad ition,
lacking
volumet-
ric
clarity
and structural
logic.40
Nevertheless,
theGreek-cross
plan,
witha
large
central d omeabutted
by
twosemid omes and
surround ed
by
foursmallerd omes
rising
fromthecorners
betweenthearms of the
cross,
was seenin
Belgrad e
as d is-
tinctly
national.41 Thereactions were
positive:
St.
Spirid ion
was
enthusiastically accepted
as the
stylistic
embod iment of anew
national
style: Serbo-Byzantine.42
While
asserting
thehistorical
and social roleof themid d le
classes,
a
regional
architectural
id iomas d efined
by
Maciachini's
d esignpromoted
theself-
id entificationof thesmall SerbianOrthod ox
community
in
theCatholicmilieuof Trieste. Howevernaiveand
superficial
it
may
havebeenfromthearchitectural-historical
viewpoint,
the
churchof St.
Spirid ion
answered its
specificpurpose;
it was
certainly
more
representative
of the
patrons
thantheearlier
Baroque
structure.
Inthe
early
1870s,
thefirst
generation
of Serbian-born
architects returned fromtheirstud ies inVienna.
They
wereall
stud ents of
Theophil
von
Hansen,
themost
prominent expo-
nent of the
Byzantinestyle
in
Austria,
and members of the
prestigious
Hansen-Klub,
which
upheld
and
spread
themas-
ter's architectural
program.43
Thefact that
they
choseto
stud y
withHansenis a
good
ind icatornot
only
of theiraesthetic
tastes and thoseof thecourt and theirmid d le-class
patrons,
but alsoof the
prevailing political
and national id eals. When
later
they
attained
highpositions
inthe
Ministry
of
Build ing
and inthe
Department
of Architectureat
Belgrad eUniversity,
thesearchitects d ictated official trend s in
patronage.
Und er
FIGURE 3: CarloMaciachini, St. Spirid ion,
Trieste,
186 1-1 869, view fromthesouthwest
their
influence,
the
Ministry
of
Build ing
authorized
only Byz-
antine-styled esigns
forchurches.44
This d ecisionshould beseenin
light
of
political d evelop-
ments that werefavorableforSerbia.
Although
it had been
ind epend ent
forsometimed e
facto,
at theBerlin
Congress
in
1878 Serbiawas
officially proclaimed
an
ind epend ent king-
d om. Its
acquisition
of consid erable
territory
inthesouth
bolstered national enthusiasm. This was the
highpoint
of
RomanticnationalisminSerbia.
Eager
toassert cultural and
political sovereignty
overits entire
d ominion,
the
newly recog-
nized state
sponsored
anambitious
program
toensurethat "as
many
churches as
possible
inthe
Kingd om
of Serbiabebuilt in
the
Byzantinestyle."
The
program
alsoinclud ed
byzantiniza-
tionof
postmed ieval
and
especially baroque
churches, i.e.,
the
constructionof new
Byzantine-style
facad es. Churches wereto
be
powerful symbols
of national
id entity
and themost
tangible
testimony
tothe
legitimacy
and
continuity
of thestate. The
initiatorand chief ad ministratorof this
project
was one of
the foremost architects of the Hansen-trained
generation,
Svetozar
Ivai~kovi&45
Stand ard ized
plans varying only
in
orna-
mental d etail and in
size,
d evised
by
Ivac'kovid
and his associ-
ates between1882 and
1894,
were
virtually imposed by
the
Ministry
of
Build ing
onover
forty village
communities.46
As
a
Viennese
stud ent, Ivac'koviP
could not shunthe
compound
id ioms termed
Byzantineby
the
acad emy, yet
unlikeMacia-
chini's,
his creative
interpretations
of
Byzantine
architecture
employ
a
relatively
consistent
repertory
of
quotations.
Above
all,
the
cross-in-squareplan
and the
compositemasonry
tech-
nique(alternating
band s of brick and
stone,
some
only
simu-
lated inred and white
paint)
wereintend ed torecall Late
Byzantine
and Serbianchurches.47 These colorful
d esigns
were
und oubted ly
attractiveto
village
communities inthe
southern
provinces
accustomed tothemod est
(inmany
cases
even
wood en)
structures built und er Turkish
rule;
infact
many
of these
communities,
having only recently
beenwrested
from
Turkey
and
incorporated
intothenew
kingd om,
lacked
parish
churches
entirely.
Much
larger
inscalebut still a
good example
of
Ivac'kovih's
architectureis theChurchof the
Transfiguration
in
Panievo,
[Figure4], d esigned
in1872, not
long
afterhereturned from
his stud ies inVienna.48 The
polychrome facad es, elegantly
mod ulated with
pilasterstrips,
blind arcad es, mold ed
profiles,
and restrained relief
carvings,
were
accepted by
the
general
public
and thecritics as national incharacter.
Although
the
build ings d esigned by
Ivakovi.'s
stud iotend ed toward amore
specificregional vocabulary
thantheacad emic
neo-Byzantine,
they
still includ ed
Romanesque
and
orientalizing
elements.
But
stylisticconsistency
was not at issuehere. Political
exigency
aftertheBerlin
Congress
d emand ed aswift
rebuild ing
of the
southern
provinces
and
d evelopment
of astand ard ized mod e
of
build ing
whichwould beattractivetorural communities.
FIGURE 4: Svetozar
Iva:kovid ,
Churchof the
Transfiguration,
Pan:evo,
1874- 1878,
d etail of main
facad e
and bell towerfromthewest
IvaEkovih's
maincontributionwas that he
provid ed
acoherent
structural
organization
for
centrally planned
d omed
churches,
one that could becarried out
by
eventheleast
proficient
provincial
build ers. Central
planning
and the
repertory
of
forms introd uced
by
IvaEkovi'
d ominated Serbianecclesiasti-
cal architecturethereafter. But
why
was
Byzantine
architecture
takenas the
parad igm
inthe
quest
fora
style
that would be
particular
totheSerbs?
Acritic
writing
ontheoccasionof theconsecrationof the
Churchof the
Transfiguration
in1879
praised young
Ivac'kovih
for
choosing
tobuild thechurch"inthe
Byzantinestyle
in
whichwerebuilt themost beautiful and themost celebrated
churches fromthetimes of the
pious Nemanyid s."49 By
refer-
ring
tothe
d ynasty
that ruled Serbia
d uring
thethirteenthand
fourteenth
centuries,
thecriticarticulated theuniversal d esire
tobuild churches that could recall thenational
past.
Med ieval
Serbianarchitecturewas
equated
herewith
Byzantine.
True,
architectural
d evelopments
in
neighboring Byzantium
ex-
erted a
strong
influence onthelocal
build ing
trad ition,
but
only
inthefourteenth
century; originally
Serbianmed ieval
architecturewas avariant of
Romanesque.50
Why
thenwas not the
Romanesque style,
whichcould be
rightly
termed
Serbian,
takenas themod el? Thesamecritic
commend ed
theuseof the
Byzantinestyle
becauseit best
suited the
liturgical requirements
of theOrthod ox
rite,
but in
fact
liturgy
was unrelated totheformal ord ecorativevocabu-
lary
ortothe
spatial organization
of theinterior. After
all,
the
Orthod ox
liturgy
had accommod ated the
longitud inal plans
22
JSAH
/ 56:1, MARCH 1997
of Serbian
Baroque
churches as
early
as the
eighteenth
cen-
tury.
Weshould therefore seek other reasons fortheover-
whelming
id entification of national culturewith
Byzantine
mod els. It was
surely notjust
amatterof
ignorance
of historical
styles, although
this, too,
might
betakenintoaccount.
Rather,
it is the
meaning und erlying
thenotions of
Byzan-
tiumand
Byzantine
that should be examined . The id ea
conveyed through
this
style
was based on
religious-historical
affiliation: it was
supposed
to
provid e
id entificationwiththe
great
Orthod ox
empire
of
Byzantium
and
consequently
withtheOrthod ox church
d uring
its
d ays
of
glory.
It was
through
this
spiritual
d imension-seen intheGothicRevival
inWestern
Europe-that
national and
political aspirations
were
imparted .
Moreover,
the
Byzantinestyle
was unmistak-
ably
d ifferent from
Western,
or
Catholic,
architecture. A
Serbian
neo-Romanesque,
however
closely
it would haveimi-
tated the
great
national monuments of the Mid d le
Ages,
would havebeenless
straightforward
in
conveying
latenine-
teenth-century
national
aspirations. Following
this
logic,
the
Serbianstud ents of
Theophil
vonHansen
ad opted
the
Byzan-
tine
(as interpreted by
theViennese
Acad emy,
howevereclec-
ticit
may actually
have
been)
as the closest
possible
non-
Westernid iom.
Stylistically
more consistent
regional d esigns
weremad e
possibleby
theextensiveand
systematicinvestigation
of med i-
eval monuments cond ucted inthe1870s and
1880s
by
Mihailo
Valtrovid
and
DragutinMilutinovid c
und erthe
auspices
of the
SerbianLearned
Society.5' Apart
fromscientific
objectives,
thesefirst
steps
in
scholarly
researchweremeant tocontribute
toa
general
"renaissanceof the
Balkans,"
important
tothe
"moral
uplifting
of ourfatherland ."52 More
specifically,
this
research,
wid ely publicized
and
presented
tothe
general pub-
lic
through
exhibitions and
publications,
was intend ed toassist
architects
working
inthe national
style:
"toestablishand
propagate
inSerbianecclesiastical architecture the use of
ancient Serbian
forms."53-
The
consid erable, albeit
fragmentary, knowled ge
thus
gained
assisted intheformulationof what was consid ered to
beanauthenticnational
style.
It was
exploited by
the
Ministry
of
Build ing
and its
loyal architects to
impose
a
styleostensibly
cleansed of all
orientalizing
forms and
inspired d irectly by
the
local
fourteenth-century build ing
trad ition. Inecclesiastical
architecture, thewid e
range
of motifs established
through
this
research
eventually
led tomoreaccurate
reprod uctionof the
med ieval
vocabulary.
Problems arose, however, whenit came
totheir
application
inseculararchitecture.
Thefirst publicbuild ing tobe
d esigned accord ing
tothe
principles
of
regional d ifferentiationwas
Belgrad eUniversity
[Figure5], constructed between1858 and 1863 tothe
d esigns
of theCzech
JanNevole, amilitant Panslavist whohad
just
been
promoted tochief
engineer
inthe
Ministry
of
Build ing.54
Captain
Mi'a's
Build ing,
as it came tobeknownfromits
d onor's name, is atrueItalian
palazzo
in
conception. Compari-
sonwiththe
Turkish-style
Konak, built
only
threed ecad es
earlier
(Figure1), most
vivid ly
illustrates thed ramatic
change
inthe
perception
of resid ential architecturethat occurred
by
themid d leof the
century.
The
profusion
of arcad es, friezes,
ornamental d etail, and
lively polychromy
reveals a
personal
style
whose remarkablelack of concern forclassicist d isci-
plinesignaled
thead vent of romanticisminseculararchitec-
ture. This uninhibited mixtureof
Romanesque,
Venetian
Byz-
antine, and Moorishelements was
immensely
successful
among
architects and
patrons
alikeand was the
prototype
foralocal
id iomthat became
very popularby
theturnof the
century.
Althoughpublicly
celebrated as "victories of therevived na-
tional
style,"
such
build ings
were eclectic
compound s
of
local and
imported
id ioms. It seems that abund anceof
portals,
d omes, arcad es, and the
composite masonry
werethemain
criteriafor
d esignating
a
build ing
"national" or
"Byzantine."
As
long
as theseelements were
prominent,
occasional inclu-
sions of
Romanesque
orevenIslamicmotifs could beallowed .
How d id this mixtureof id ioms come tobe
appreciated
as
nationally specific? While
a
relatively
consistent
stylistic
apparatus
was found forchurch
architecture, nonexistence
of authentic
Byzantine
or med ieval Serbian mod els for
nonecclesiastical
build ings
allowed architects to
express
their
id eas withconsid erable
latitud e; unburd ened
by
established
conventions,
they
werefreetocombine thevarious eclectic
pseud o-historical styles promoted by
Central
European
acad -
emies.
The
probable
formal sourceforthenotionof national in
late
nineteenth-century
Serbianarchitectureis theGerman
Rund bogenstil.
Ina
general sense,
theterm
d esignated
the
neo-Romanesque (as opposed
to
Spitzbogenstil,
or neo-
Gothic),
but was based on
vague principles
of asouthern
aesthetic
which,
incontrast tothe
northern,
is characterized
by
aninclinationtoward round ness of formand thehorizon-
tal,
by
round ed
arches,
and
by d omes.55
Theround -arch
style
thereforeinclud ed also
Renaissance,
Byzantine,
and an
array
of
orientalizing
id ioms. This architectural
principle
is illus-
trated
by Hansen's
Army
MuseumintheArsenal inVienna
(1856), which
d isplays
extensive
quotations
from
Romanesque
and Italian
Byzantinearchitecture, and the
Altlerchenfeld erkir-
che, alsoinVienna, begun
in1848
by
Paul
Sprenger
inthe
Renaissance
style
but
completed
in1850
by Johann Georg
Miller
inavariant of the
Rund bogenstil
infused with
byzantiniz-
ing
overtones.
Despitestrong oppositiononthetrad itionalist
periphery
of
the
empire, wherethe
Spitzbogenstil
was
preferred as national
and Germanic, the
Rund bogenstil persisted
inthe
Hapsburg
capital throughout
thesecond half of thenineteenth cen-
tury.56 The
Byzantinecomponent
of
Rund bogenstil
was other-
FIGURE 5:
JanNevole,
Belgrad e University (CaptainMina's Build ing), Belgrad e, 1858-1863, main
facad e
wised evoid of
any religious
or
political
connotations. Because
of its formal abund ance and
picturesque polychromy
this
id iomwas
occasionally
used to
impart
asenseof the
exotic,
especially
tonon-Catholicchurches and
publicbuild ings
whose
purpose
d id not
require
the
grave
forms of monumental
classicism.
The
Byzantinestyle
as
promoted by
the
Acad emy
inVienna
was farfrom
being archaeologically
correct. It was based on
Romanesque
architecture but embellished withacolorful
blend of the
Oriental,
by
whichnon-Westernid ioms were
und erstood ,
includ ing byzantinesque
forms besid es thosefrom
theIslamictrad ition.57 Thesamewas trueelsewhereinWest-
ern
Europe,
outsid etheGermanarchitectural
d omain,
where
even
vaguerbyzantinisms appeared
around themid d leof the
century
insuchd iversecontexts as Leon
Vaud oyer's
Marseilles
cathed ral,
Paul Abad ie's
d esign
fortheSacreCoeurin
Paris,
Matthew
Digby Wyatt's ByzantineCourtyard
of the
Crystal
Palaceat
Syd enham,
and
John
Francis
Bentley's
Westminster
cathed ral.58
Misconception
of the
Byzantine
and its
frequent
id entification withthe
Romanesque
in
nineteenth-century
Western
Europe
was d ue tothe
poorknowled ge
of actual
Byzantine
monuments,
d espite
thefact that after
1830,
when
Greecebecameanautonomous
kingd om
und erGerman
pa-
tronage,
Athens swarmed withGermanand Austrianarchi-
tects. Thesewere
mostly proponents
of theGreek Revival but
includ ed stud ents of the
Byzantine, notably Theophil
von
Hansen,
whose
brother,
Hans
Christian,
served as theGreek
court architect.59
Und oubted ly
becauseof his firsthand
knowled ge
of
Byzan-
tine
monuments,
Theophil
vonHansenwas moremethod ical
and consistent inhis useof the
Byzantine
architectural trad i-
tion
thanother
proponents
of the
Rund bogenstil,
forwhom
this was
just
anothersourceof exoticd ecorative
motifs.60
His
Chapel
of theInvalid s in
Lvov, begun
in
1855,
and his
Evange-
list
Cemetery Chapel
in
Vienna,
built two
years
later,
are
highly
eclecticin
elevation,
withornamental d etails d erived fromthe
Islamic
build ing
trad ition,
Romanesque
corbel
tables,
and
Gothicturrets and
spires.
Nevertheless,
they d isplay
anuncom-
mon
und erstand ing
of central
planning, using
boththecross-
in-square
and theGreek cross,
and of the
principles
of
pend en-
tival structural
systems.61
Inanalternative
d esign
for the
Evangelist chapel,
Hansen
d eveloped
afarmoreconsistent
24
JSAH
/ 56:1, MARCH
1997
Byzantine
formal
vocabulary.
But
archaeological
exactness was
irrelevant
here;
aneclectic
d esign
was closertotheaesthetic
stand ard s of the
age
and more
appealing
to
patrons regard less
of theirnational
background
or
religious
affiliation. Thus the
facad eof the
build ing
of theParishand School of thenon-
Uniate Greeks in
Vienna,
remod eled
by
Hansen in
1858,
d isplays
analmost id entical
stylisticmiscellany.62
Hansen's
concept
of
Rund bogenstil
as a
generalized
histori-
cizing
aesthetic was
ad opted by
his Serbianstud ents and
employed
as thefound ation forthe
first inecclesiastical architectureand soonthereafterinbuild -
ings
of all
types, public
and
private.
Theround -arch
style
in
Serbiawas a
d eparture
fromtherectitud e and
severity
of
classicismthat had d ominated
public
architecturesincethe
1830s. This vivid
styleimparted
anew senseof colorful
opu-
lence
through
exuberant ornamental d etail and
interpenetrat-
ing spaces.
The
Episcopal
PalaceinNovi Sad
[Figure
6],
d esigned
inthe1890s
by
Vlad imir
Nikolid ,
chief architect of
the
patriarchate
and
exponent
of therevivalist
neo-Byzantine
inits most acad emic
form, is a
contemporary example
of
Hansenesque
eclectic
morphology
that was
recognized
as a
d istinctivenational feature.63 Someof theseornamental d e-
vices were
vaguely
associated with
Byzantinearchitecture,
while
others
conformed
tothe
genericconcept
of the
Eastern,
or
Oriental,
whichinclud ed a
variety
of exotic
id ioms-Islamic,
Moorish,
and
occasionally
even
Assyrian.
Inthesameveinas
the
Episcopal
PalaceinNovi Sad are
Nikolic's
Theological
Seminary
inSremski Karlovci
[Figure
7]
and the
plans
forthe
Build ing
of the
Eparchy
inNi'
[Figure8], by
thecourt archi-
tectJovan
Ilki',
both
d ating
fromaround 1900.64
In
somecases
the
d esignation
"national" inseculararchitecturewas ex-
tend ed to
build ings clearly quoting
theRenaissanceorba-
roque,
suchas thehouseof the
patrioticSociety
of St. Savain
Belgrad e [Figure
9],
d esigned
in1889
by Ilkid
intheItalian
FIGURE 6: Vlad imir
Nikolii,
Episcopal Palace, Novi Sad , c. 1901
. . . . . . . . . . .
.....
...uo
riiii~i!!ii!ii~!iiii~iiii~~ii!!iii!ii~
!i~
i!i~~iiiiiii~~iii~i~iiiiii!!i~!!!~iiii~iiiii!i~iii~~i~ii~ii~ii!!~!~iiiioiii
FIGURE 7: Vlad imir
Nikolik, Theological Seminary,
Sremski Karlovci, c.
t901,
d etail of
main
facad e
and entrance
Renaissance
styleinterspersed
with
vagueByzantine
motifs
and stuccomed allions
containing
Serbianmed ieval coats of
arms. This
build ing
was d eemed tobeinthenational
style
d espite
thefact that at the
inauguration
in1890 it was charac-
terized
by
the
presid ent
of the
society
as a"combinationof
Byzantine
and Renaissance architectural motifs." Inanat-
tempt
tofind a
pretext
fortheuseof Renaissance
forms,
the
presid ent praised
the
style
of this
build ing
as an
expression
of
thecultural roleof theSerbs at the
juncture
betweenEast and
West.65
Although
it is d ifficult
tod ay
tound erstand what is
espe-
cially Byzantine
oreven
notably
Serbianabout theseorsimilar
build ings,
thearchitects as well as the
public
believed intheir
regional uniqueness,
as welearnfromconstant
panegyric
reviews inthe
press.
The
Second ary
School inSremski Karlovci
[Figure10]
of 1890-1891 was consid ered a
paragon
forall
schools and theembod iment of the"med ieval national
style."
At the
inaugurationceremony
thed ean
praised
thearchi-
tect-a
Hungarian, Gyula
Pairtos-for
giving
the
build ing
"an
Easternformwhichawakens inus Serbs beautiful memories of
ourwond erful old
build ings."''66 Although
farfrom
pure
in
style,
thearcuated
portals
and
wind ows,
corbel
tables,
engaged
colonnettes,
bas-relief
carvings surround ing
the
wind ows,
and
particularly
the
large
d ome,
which
conveys
tothe
build ing
a
d istinctly
ecclesiastical
character,
wered eemed evocativeof
Serbianmed ieval architecture.
Profiting
from
newly acquired
archaeological knowled ge,
this
build ing
marked a
d eparture
fromtheeclecticismof the
popular
Hansenaticaand was an
early
ind icatorof thetrend toward amoreconsistent
applica-
tionof
d istinctly
local motifs.
REGIONALISM AND THE RISE OF LOCAL IDIOMS: THE
MORAVA
STYLE,
1900-1930
In1905
specialized stud y
of
Byzantine
architecturewas in-
clud ed inthecurriculumof theTechnical School of
Belgrad e
University, partly
to
promote
researchinthis field but above
all toinstruct stud ents of
architecture.67
Alread y by
theturn
of the
century
churcharchitecturehad achieved a
high
level of
historical
veracity.
There was no
ambiguity concerning
the
style
of themausoleumof the
newly
installed Karacd ord evi3
d ynasty,
theChurchof St.
George
in
Topola[Figure11] ,
begun
in1910. The
architect,
KostaJovanovi%,
was careful to
comply
withthe
competition requirement
that thechurchbed e-
signed
inthe
Serbo-Byzantinestyle.68
Boththestructural assem-
bly
and theformal-d ecorative
scheme,
although
not
entirely
consistent in
application,
were
fully
d erived from
Byzantine
and Serbianmod els: aGreek cross surmounted
by
a
large
central d omeand foursmallerd omes
surmounting
thearms
of thecross. Intend ed to
surpass
in
magnificence
and
gran-
d eurevenits med ieval
prototypes,
theexteriorwas faced with
whitemarbleand
elegant
relief
carvings,
whiletheinteriorwas
covered withelaboratemosaicd ecoration.69
Consid ering
the
highly charged
and
politically
sensitive
atmosphere
inwhichits found ations were
laid ,
immed iately
afterthed ramaticevents whichled tothed ownfall of the
Obrenovid d ynasty
in
1903,
it is not
surprising
that this church
was imbued with
complex
and
multiple
levels of
meaning.
The
five-d ome
d esign,
becauseof its
strong imperial
connotations,
was
surely
intend ed to
imply
the
royal
character,
whilethe
Greek cross
planmay
haveallud ed to
Justinian's Apostoleion,
theburial churchof the
Byzantineemperors
inConstanti-
nople. But, although
the
ad option
of
Byzantineimperial sym-
bolism
correspond ed
tothe
general id eological climate, it was
too
vague
tooffer
legitimation
withinthelocal
political
con-
text. To
legitimize
his
problematic
accessiontothethrone,
aftera
coup
inwhichtherival Obrenovid
d ynasty
was over-
thrown, King
PeterI
Karad ord eviw
strovetoestablish
d ynastic
continuity through
ad irect connectionwiththefirst and most
honored
lineage,
the
Nemanyid s.70
Amore
specific
link with
thenational trad itionwas achieved
through
themarble
facing,
a
non-Byzantine
element but an
important
featureof the
mausoleaof the
Nemanyid kings.
This
d ynasticsymbolism
was
carried
beyond
a
generic
referencetoamed ieval
parad igm,
26
JSAH
/ 56:1,
MARCH 1997
FIGURE 8:
JovanIlki<, d esign
for
Eparchy Build ing
inNi?, 1899, elevationof mainfront. The
build ing
was neverconstructed .
FIGURE 9:
JovanIlki, Society
of St. Sava, Belgrad e, 1889-1890, main
facad e.
The
top
story
was ad d ed inthe1930s.
forthe
royal patron
and his ad visors had one
specificproto-
type
in
mind ,
themonumental five-d omed Churchof the
Holy
Archangels
inthesouthern
province
of
Kosovo,
whichat the
time remained und er Turkish
rule.71
This churchwas the
mausoleumof Tsar
StephenDugan,
the
greatest
of all Nema-
nyid
rulers,
und erwhose
reign
Serbiaachieved
unparalleled
d ominion,
extend ing
its territories as faras the Gulf of
Corinth.72 The
semimythical greatness
of
Dugan's empire
was
asourceof theloftiest nationalistic
aspirations.
The
message
FIGURE 10: GyulaPd rtos, Second ary School, Sremski Karlovci, 1890-1891, main
facad e
FIGURE I I:
Kosta
Jovanovic,
Churchof St.
George, Topola, 1910-1912, view from
thewest. Themosaicd ecorationand
furnishings
intheinteriorwereexecuted in
1922-1930.
FIGURE 12: Milan
Kapetanovid
and Milorad Ruvid id , Pavilionof the
Kingd om
of Serbia,
Expositionuniverselle, Paris, 1900. Colored
photograph
of
1900.
The
build ing
was
d emolished aftertheexhibition.
conveyed by
thenew
d ynastic
mausoleumwas thus
unequivo-
cally political;
it announced Serbia's ambitious
political
course
und erthenew
d ynasty
and the
extraord inary
economic and
cultural
prosperity
that marked thefirst d ecad eof thetwenti-
eth
century.
Tobe
sure,
its d ed icationtoa
military
saint also
herald ed the
expansionist policy
of the
Karad ord evii%
d ynasty
and thewars that wereto
plague
theBalkans inthe
following
years.
Thefocus of nationalist
aspirations
shifted totheinterna-
tional sceneas Serbiaassumed theroleof theSouthernSlav
"Pied mont"-the lead erof theBalkancountries and of the
revived PanslavicMovement
against
territorial claims fur-
thered
by
thecourt inVienna. Theseid eas were
apparent
in
architectureas
early
as 1900. ThePavilionof the
Kingd om
of
Serbiaat the
Exposition
universelleinParis
[Figure12]
was a
political
and
id eological
statement aimed at Austria: it was
conceived as a
typical royal
found ationof thelater
Nemanyid
period ,
a
cross-in-square
structurewitha
largeoctagonal
d ome
inthecentersurround ed
by
foursmallerd omes.73 This literal
ad aptation
of a
religious
architectural formtoanew content
was a
highly charged equation
of national and
religious
id en-
tity supported by
the
authority
of thechurch-an assertionof
historical and national
rights
amid contentions over
geopoliti-
cal issues betweenthe
Hapsburg Empire
and theBalkanstates.
This excursionintointernational
politics
marks the
highpoint
of nationalisminSerbia. The
it was now
clear,
was an
id eological
statement inarchitectureof
specific
political
interests.
Und er
Karad ord evih
ruleSerbiaaband oned its
Austrophile
policy
and d irected its
energy
to
liberating
theAustrianSerbs
intheBanat and Serbs in
Bosnia-Herzegovina,
whichhad
beenannexed
by
Austriain1908. Theforemost
goal,
however,
was restitutionof thesouthern
provinces
still
remaining
und er
Turkishrule. Tothis end Serbiaentered analliancein1912
withits Balkan
neighbors,
Greeceand
Bulgaria,
and inless
thana
year
morethand oubled its territories at the
expense
of
theOttoman
Empire.
Hostilities wererenewed inthefollow-
ing year,
but this time
among
theBalkanstates
themselves,
becauseof unsettled territorial
d isputes concerning
the
parti-
tionof Maced onia.74
Following
the
heightened
enthusiasmforthenational cause
d uring
thelast d ecad eof thenineteenth
century,
architectural
criticismand
frequent polemics
weremarked
by appeals
fora
purestyle
inbothsacred and seculararchitecture. Cond emna-
tions of
foreign, especially
Western,
influenceincreased inthe
wakeof theBalkanWars. The
prominent
architect and theo-
rist And ra
Stefanovih
criticized thecathed ral of
Belgrad e
as a
"Catholic-Jesuit Baroquemonstrosity
whichhas served as an
unfortunatemod el forall oursacred
build ings
of the
time."75
Curiously,
suchextremist
d isqualifications
wereextend ed even
totheViennese
neo-Byzantine,
the
wid espread
Hansenatica
whichwas now cond emned as a
d amaging foreign
influence.
This
position
was most
clearly expressed by
the architect
Dimitrije
Leko,
whod enounced what hetermed Hanseno-
28
JSAH
/ 56:1,
MARCH 1997
FIGURE
13:
Dusan
Zivanovik, Churchof St. Nicholas, Trstenik, 1901-1903, view
fromthewest; FIGURE 14: Churchof St. StephenLazarica, Krujevac, 1377/78-1380,
view fromthesoutheast
Byzantinism,
and othertend encies to
"accept uncritically
all
sorts of
things imported
fromabroad ."76
Now
the
tend ency
was totermthe
style
Serbianratherthan
Serbo-Byzantine,
and
the
quest
fora
truly
national
style,
cleansed of all
foreign
influence,
Easternand
Western,
becamethe
principal preoccu-
pation
of architectural theorists and the
supreme
aesthetic
criterion. Theaversionof
patriotic
intellectuals tothe
growing
influx of Westerncultureand fashionwas
expressed
inthe
writings
of the
d esigner
and architect
Dragutin
Inkiostri: "when
a
foreigner
visits our town
[Belgrad e]
he cannot but be
surprised
tofind aGerman
village
instead of aSerbian
capital,
Parisianvaud evilleand Viennese
operetta
inthetheaterin-
stead of thefamous and beautiful Serbian
songs,
folk trad i-
tions,
and
lore, [and ]
Frenchand Germanfashion-even in
thesmallest towns and
villages-instead
of the
d ecent,
beauti-
ful,
and
opulent
Serbianfolk costumes."
77
Liberal cultural
nationalism
stemming
fromthe
European
Romanticmove-
ment was now
yield ing
beforearesuscitated archaicbreed of
ethnoreligious patriotism. Just
as
supporters
of Catholicre-
newal in
Germany
and
England
had
exploited
theGothicin
themid -nineteenth
century,
theSerbianand
Byzantine
archi-
tectural trad itionwas now embraced
by
conservatives and
red uced toa
political
instrument of
aggressivereligionational
id eologies.78
It is not
surprising
tofind insuchaclimate
manifestations of
outright
chauvinismsuchas the
increasingly
frequent competitionstipulations
that
only
architects of
Slav
origin
would be
permitted
to
apply,
ortheevenmoreextreme
d emand
by
thearchitect
Dragutin
Maslad that
they
be
only
Serbs.79
Conforming
tothe
proclaimed agend a
for
stylisticpurity,
theChurchof St. Nicholas at Trstenik
[Figure
13],
built be-
tween1901 and 1903 tothe
d esigns
of
Dugan
Zivanovid ,
reprod uced
withunusual
consistency
one
specific
med ieval
id iom,
bothinstructureand ind ecoration.80 Thecharacteris-
tictriconch
plan,
curvilineareave
lines,
and
elaborately
d eco-
rated
polychrome
facad es
point
totheso-called MoravaSchool
of architectureas asourceof
inspiration.
This id iomcould
rightly
betermed national sinceits ornamental
vocabulary
was
farmore
specific
tothelocal milieuthanthe
Byzantine.
Its
regional uniqueness
could not be
brought
into
question
even
by
themost
rigorous
critics.
Aconsensus seems tohavebeen reached at this time
among
botharchitects and the
general public
that this
truly
Serbianid iomwas most suitableforanational
style
inarchitec-
ture. This collective
opinion
was best
expressed
inanunusu-
ally forthright programmatic
statement of thenational revival
entitled
Srpski
neimar
(The
Serbian
build er), published
in
1912.81
The
vogue
of theMorava
style
was
greatly
stimulated
by
the
well-publicized
restoration
of the
late
fourteenth-century
churchof Lazarica
[Figure14], which
d isplays
theentire
range
of Morava
stylisticqualities.82
Thevaluable
knowled gegained
fromstructural
investigations
of this
build ing promoted
this
id iomat the
expense
of theVienneseHansenatica.
The
highly
d ecorativeMorava
vocabulary
was used
wid ely
in
public
and resid ential architecture. The
Telephone
Ex-
changeBuild ing
in
Belgrad e[Figure15], d esigned by
Branko
Tanazevid in1906, shows theentire
repertory
of motifs (ex-
cept
forseveral Secessionist masks) d rawnfrom
Morava-style
churches.83
Several other
public
and
privatebuild ings
inBel-
grad ed esigned by
Tanazevid usethesame
d esignformula; an
example
is the
Ministry
of Ed ucationfacad e
[Figure16],
FIGURE 15: Branko
Tanazevi4, Telephone Exchange, Belgrad e,
1907-1908, main
facad e; top story
ad d ed afterWorld WarI. FIGURE 16: Branko
Tanazevid ,
facad e
of
the
Ministry
of Ed ucation,
Belgrad e,
remod eled 1912-1913
red esigned
inthe Morava
style
in
1912.84
Except
for the
Telephone Exchange,
whosevolumetric
clarity
d iscloses an
unusually high
level of structural
logic
and functional
ad apta-
tionof med ieval
planning concepts,
most
build ings
of this
stylistic
orientation
d isplay
a
highly
ornamental surface-level
treatment of the
facad es,
whichreveals theiraffiliationwith
the German
Jugend stil
and the
Hungarian
variant of the
Secession.
They
illustrateone
approach
tothecreationof a
national id iom
practiced by
asmall
group
of
young
architects
fromTanazevih's circle. Most of thesearchitects weretrained
inorwereattracted tothe
Secession.85
They
believed ina
liberal
reinterpretation
of d ecorativemotifs d rawnfromthe
monuments of thelateMid d le
Ages interspersed
with
patterns
inspired by
folk
art,
which
they hoped
to
ad apt creatively
tothe
mod ern taste
using
Secessionist formulas. Tanazevid even
wanted tocreatea"MoravaSecession" and forthat
purpose
traveled to
Bud apest
to
stud y
Secessionist architecture.86
Besid es
TanazeviP,
themost
prominent
ad vocateof this
approach
was
Dragutin
Inkiostri, anartist and theorist who
ventured intoarchitecture as a
d esigner
of
facad es.
As an
opponent
of acad emic
d iscipline
Inkiostri embraced theSeces-
sionbecauseit seemed toofferunrestricted artisticfreed om.
Sincetheofficial
Serbo-Byzantinestyle
was
becoming
too
rigid
forhis tasteheresorted tothe
"pure
and
uncorrupted "
folk
trad itionto
inspire
anauthentic
expression
of the"national
spirit"-a
new architecturefreefromtheburd enof
styles.
In
his
word s,
"weshould seek our
[national]
styleamong peas-
ants and
shepherd s."87
Although
these
d esignprinciples
enabled thefirst success-
ful
ad aptations
of med ieval architecturetomod ernsecular
ed ifices,
somearchitects and theorists
expressed
serious
misgiv-
ings.
Inthebitter
polemics
that
ensued ,
Serbianarchitects
d ivid ed intotwo
camps. Opposed
totheornamentalist
ap-
proach
of
Tanazevid
and Inkiostri stood thosewho
argued
that
thecreationof a
style
forsecular
build ings
onthebasis of a
trad ition
d eveloped exclusively
around churcharchitecture
could not belimited toa
simpletransposition
of ornamental
d esigns. They
called fora
structurally logical,
thus moreauthen-
ticand
archaeologically
correct
reinterpretation
of themed i-
eval
build ing
trad ition,
one whichwould reconcile thed e-
mand s of mod ernseculararchitecturewithmed ieval
planning
concepts.88
This d ebateintrod uced new
problems
inthetheo-
retical
d omain,
wherefunctionalisticconsid erations
prevailed
forthefirst timeovertheintenseemotions and id ealisticviews
that
accompanied
Serbianhistoricism.
Ind ivid ual convictions and
opinions invariably
revolved
around
questions
of
proced ure.
The
goal
remained clear: to
achievethe
highest possibled egree
of truthfulness tomed ieval
mod els and tothe "national
spirit."89 Conformity
toold
monuments was not limited to
style. Competition require-
ments even
specified
that trad itional
build ing techniques
and
materials suchas
composite
brick and stonewall construction
be
employed . They ignored
timid
attempts by
the
proponents
of Mod ernismtomakeanincursionintothed omainof the
conservativerevivalists
by d emand ing
theuseof new materi-
als.90
Parallel to
attempts
at
creating
a
historically
accuratevocabu-
lary
inchurch architecture to
replace
the eclectic Han-
senesque
formulawas a
tend ency
toimitateactual historic
build ings.9'
Criticisms of this trend were heard fromthe
Department
of Architectureat
but d e-
spite
unfavorablereactions in
professional circles, it met with
wid espread publicapproval
and continued well intothetwen-
tieth
century.
Oneinstancewas the
polemic inspired by
the
construction of the Churchof St. Mark inthe center of
Belgrad e (1932-1939) [Figure17], a
pretentious
and awk-
ward , grossly enlarged
versionof the
early fourteenth-century
churchof GraEanica
Monastery [Figure18]."92
Evenbeforethe
churchwas consecrated , anarticle
by
the
prominent
architec-
30
JSAH / 56:1, MARCH 1997
tural historian
Durce
Bo'koviP entitled "Crkvasv. Markau
Beograd u
kaokarikatura
GracEanice" (The
Churchof St. Mark
in
Belgrad e
as acaricatureof
GracEanica)
initiated a
campaign
against
the
build ing
and its
architects.93
The
practice
of
copying existing build ings
was
especially
wid espread
inthe
countrysid e; village
communities
frequently
commissioned architects orevenmasterbuild ers tobuild their
parish
churches as
replicas
of
nearby
med ieval monuments.
Otherwise,
provincial build ing practice
was characterized
by
naiveand
superficial pastiches
of what was
regard ed
as "Ortho-
d ox" and "national" and
by
d irect
quotations
fromhistoric
med ieval churches. Extant contracts ord ocuments concern-
ing
the
build ing
of
parish
churches
typically
contain
require-
ments set
by
the
community government
that thechurchbe
built inthe
style
"of ourold monuments." This
implies
that
thenew
build ing
not be
baroque,
sincethis
style
was id entified
withWesternRomanCatholicism. This
spontaneous popular
inclinationwas not
d irectly
influenced
by
Romantichistori-
cismorrevivalist
d octrines; rather,
it reflects a
genuine
con-
cernof all
segments
of
society
forthecreationof a
regional
id iom. Theconsecrationof
every
new churchwas
accompa-
nied
by lively popular
and
religious
observances d ed icated to
thenational
past
and national
lore.94
Suchenthusiasticasser-
tions of cultural and ethnic
id entity
were
organized
evenfor
secular
build ings,
so
long
as
they
wereconsid ered tobeinthe
properstyle.
ACADEMICISM: SERBO-BYZANTINE
AS THE OFFICIAL
STYLE,
1930s
AfterWorld WarI and theformationin1918 of thefirst
Yugoslavia,
thenknownas the
Kingd om
of the
Serbs, Croats,
and
Slovenes,
the
tend ency
was tobroad enthe
range
of the
Serbo-Byzantine
id iom.95 First it was extend ed to
private
houses
and
apartment build ings
and ,
d uring
the1920s and
1930s,
to
structures
ranging
from
brid ges, railway
stations and
hospitals,
to
public
fountains,
spas,
and even
cemetery complexes,
all of
which
d isplayed
an
array
of blind
arcad es, rosettes,
pilaster
strips,
and otherd evices d erived fromthe
Hansenesque
and
Morava
morphology.
The
Serbo-Byzantine
reached its
highest
point
inthed iversearchitectural sceneof
postwarBelgrad e
in
anassortment of
imported
eclectic id ioms-from the still
popular
Viennese and
Bud apest
Secessiontoa
panoply
of
classical and
postclassical styles.96 Contend ing against
a
highly
formal Beaux-Arts classical
style
and a
specific
brand of Rus-
sian
post-acad emicismpracticed by
Russian
emigre
architects
whofound
refuge
inSerbiaaftertheSoviet
Revolution,
the
national
style
of Serbia
emerged
as themost suitablefor
public
architectureinthe
Yugoslav capital.
Its success was
largely
d ue
tothe
support
of the
Karad ord evic
court and theecclesiastical
establishment,
whose
opinion
was
greatly
influenced
by
the
conservativearchitectural
lobby
fromthe
Department
of Archi-
tectureof
Belgrad eUniversity.
The
promotion
of theSerbo-
Byzantine
came
up against
the
proclaimed
official
agend a
favoring
thecreationof anart that would be
representative
of
all theSouth
Slavs.97
State-sponsored byzantinism
culminated in1927 withthe
Second International
Congress
of
Byzantine
Stud ies inBel-
grad e,
whichwas attend ed
by prominent scholars, Gabriel
Millet and Nikolai Okunev
among
others.98
From
theextraor-
d inary publicity
the
congress
received inthestate-controlled
press (theopening
ceremonies wereattend ed
by
the
king,
the
patriarch,
and the
archbishop),
it canbeinferred that scholar-
ship
was of
second ary
interest and that the
congress
was
FIGURE 17: Krsti6 brothers, Churchof St. Mark, Belgrad e, 1932-1939, view fromthe
west; FIGURE
18:
Churchof theDormitionof the
Virgin, GracianicaMonastery,
c.
131 I, view fromthesouth
FIGURE 19: VictorLukomskii, Patriarchal Palace, Belgrad e, 1933-1935, d etail of main
facad e
and entrance
exploited
for
political purposes.
Theintentionwas to
impose
theSerbian
(i.e., Byzantine) heritage
as
representative
of all
threenational
groups
inthe
Yugoslav kingd om.
A
parad ig-
maticcasewas the
competition
forthe
Yugoslav pavilion
at the
International
Exposition
in
Philad elphia
in1925. Theofficial
competitionrequirement
was formulated
cautiously:
that the
pavilion
containnational motifs
representative
of the
style
of
"ourold churcharchitecture." The intentional
vagueness
suggests
that evenits official
promoters
had noid eawhat a
Yugoslav
"national" art would be.
Despite
thebalanced ethnic
composition
of the
jury-consisting
of a
Serb,
a
Croat,
and a
Slovene-a
highly
acad emic
reinterpretation
of
HagiaSophia
infused with
Byzantine-inspired post-Secessionist
ornamenta-
tionwas award ed first
prize.
This controversial d ecisionaroused
intense
d isputes
in
professional
circles
(especially
d iscon-
tented weretheCroats and
Slovenes)
whichhad littletod o
witharchitectural
theory; they
weresoonextend ed into
ques-
tions of national
policy, severely und ermining
the
alread y
sensitiveethnic-national balanceonwhichthefound ations of
Yugoslavia
werelaid . A
compromise
solution
quelled
these
d ifferences;
fromthat
yearYugoslav pavilions
at all
subsequent
international exhibitions were
d esigned
inthe
nationally
neu-
tral Mod ernist
style.
Theofficial
was burd ened
by expec-
tations of amonumental and
d ignified
architecturewhich
would bean
ad equate
substitutefor
imported
id ioms. Fre-
quently,
it was fused withthe worst trad itions of Russian
postacad emicism, prod ucing
bland , uninventive,
and
pomp-
ous structures suchas thePatriarchal Palace
[Figure
19],
a
pond erous
structurebuilt
by
theRussianVictorLukomskii in
1933-1935,
oraless extreme
example,
thechurchof Alex-
and er Nevski
[Figure20], originally begun
in1912 tothe
d esigns ofJelisavetaNaEid
but altered in1926-1929
by
Petar
Popovih
and Vasilii And rosov intoan
overly polished
acad emic
variant of theMorava
style.99
At the
contemporary
Merchant
Acad emy, byJezd imir
DeniP,
the
excessively rigorous symme-
try d isplays
a
similarly insipid
acad emicism
[Figure
21].100 Still,
occasional outbreaks of
originality
were
possible,
as witness the
bizarrebut
highly expressionistic
work of Momir
Korunovic.
His immensePost Office
build ing [Figure
22]
and the
Ministry
of Posts and
Telegraphs [Figure
23],
ad joining
theold Tele-
phoneExchange,
bothd atefromthelate1920s.101
Practically speaking,
all
governmental
and
public
construc-
tionwas
by
thend irected
by
the
Ministry
of
Build ing.
Plans for
publicbuild ings,
if not
prod uced
inthe
ministry's
architec-
tural
bureaus,
had tobesubmitted therefor
approval.
Not
evenchurcharchitecturewas
exempted
fromad ministrative
control;
it was
monopolized by
Russianarchitects
employed
in
the
ministry
whoturned out
large
numbers of stand ard ized
and
frequently
even
unsigned plans
whichwere thend is-
patched throughout
the
country.102 Despitesupport by
conser-
vativenationalistic
lobbies,
this
pseud o-Byzantine
id iomin
public
architecturesuccumbed beforeRussian
acad emicism,
FIGURE 20:
Jelisaveta
Na'id ,
Churchof Alexand erNevski, Belgrad e, 1912-1929,
exteriorfromthewest. Construction
stopped d uring World WarI and resumed in
1926 tothe
d esigns
of Petar
Popovid
and
Vasilii
And rosov.
32
JSAH
/ 56:1,
MARCH 1997
FIGURE 21: Jezd imir Deni', Merchant
Acad emy, Belgrad e,
c. 1925, main
facad e
which,
becauseof its non-national
character,
was
upheld by
the
unitarianfactioninthe
Yugoslav
establishment. But in
any
case,
theeraof historicismin
public
architecturewas
d efinitely
over;
fromaround 1930 bothtend encies were
supersed ed by
nonornamental architecture.103
CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENTS
No
build ing
better
exemplifies
thearchitectural d ebates of
this
period
thanthechurchof St.
Sava,
whichwas intend ed to
bethe
largest
and most
sumptuous
churchinSerbia. In
1900,
five
years
aftertheinitial
proposal
forthis
build ing,
a
royal
d ecreestated that "a
magnificent temple
d ed icated toSt. Sava
is tobeerected in
Belgrad e
tothehonorand
glory
of this
great
Serb teacher."104 Theed ict
proclaimed
it anational
enterprise
of
primeimportance.
Entries inthe
opencompetition
were
sent totheRussian
Acad emy
inSt.
Petersburg
forevalua-
tion.105
Therecould benod oubt
concerning
thereasons for
thechoiceof theRussian
Imperial Acad emy.
Slavicand Ortho-
d ox,
Russiawas
gaining
a
political stronghold
inSerbiaat the
expense
ofViennese
influence,
especially
aftertheSanStefano
Treaty
of 1878. Russian
political supremacy
was channeled
through
Panslavism,
amovement based on
ethnic-religious
affiliation,
whichwas toensurethe
unity
of all theOrthod ox
Slavs
und erRussian
"protection" (purported ly
fromtheOtto-
manand
Hapsburg threat)
but infact a
political
scheme of
FIGURE 22: MomirKorunovi', Post Office,
Belgrad e,
1928-1929.
'Photograph
c.
1930. The
build ing
was
completely
remod eled inthe1950s; FIGURE 23: Momir
Korunovi', Ministry
of Posts and
Telegraphs,
1926-1930, d etail of lateral
facad e
Russian
hegemonisticpretensions
whichfueled themost retro-
grad e
formof
populist patriotism.'06
The
Imperial Acad emy
thus
usurped
the
position
of su-
preme
arbiterin
questions
of national
consequence.
Three
d esigns
wereselected as
ad equate
and "truetothe
spirit
of
Serbiaand Eastern
Orthod oxy."
The
premiated
entries aroused
FIGURE 24: Aleksand arDeroko,
perspectivestud y
forthe churchof St. Sava
submitted forthe 1926 competition;
FIGURE 25:
Bogd anNestorovid , Perspective
stud y
forthechurchof St. Savasubmitted forthe 1926 competition
controversies over
stylistic
issues that weretolast foralmost
thirty years, involving
not
only
architectural theorists and the
clergy,
but the
general public
as well. Nod ecisionwas reached
over the
following years,
and new
competitions
were an-
nounced . Whenthelast
competition
was held in1926 the
stipulations
werethat thechurchbea
grand
structure"inthe
fromthetimes of Prince
Lazarus," i.e.,
using
theMoravaformal
vocabulary.1'07
The
polemic
intensi-
fied whenthesubmitted
d esigns
were
placed
on
publicd isplay.
Thefocal
point
of thed iscussionwas once
again
theissueof
conformity
tomed ieval
mod els;
more
specifically,
whetherthe
foremost ed ificeof thenationand a
parad igm
of thenational
style
should bebased onastricterand moreconsistent
applica-
tionof med ieval forms orontheirmoreliberal
reinterpreta-
tion.108 As if
reflecting
suchtheoretical
d eliberations,
the
exhibited entries varied fromeclecticfantasies d erived from
the
Hansenesque vocabulary,
tovariations onthetheme of
HagiaSophia,
to
outright copies
of well-knownhistoricbuild -
ings [Figures
24-25].109
Howeverd ifferent theind ivid ual
stylisticapproaches may
have
been,
all the
d esigns
were of immense scale.
Every-
thing,
fromthevolumeof the
build ing
toind ivid ual elements
suchas wind ows and
portals,
was blownout of
proportion;
eventhenumberof d omes was increased fromthe
typical
one
orfivetotenorevenmore. This
tend ency
toward
magnifi-
cationand
multiplication
reflected the
feeling
of
omnipo-
tenceand d elusions of
grand eur
characteristicof nationalistic
euphoria.
Only
rareind ivid uals d ared resist thecollectiveenthusiasm
forthis church. Onewas
DurcTeBo'kovid ,
who
questioned
the
need forsuchaned ificeinthemod ern
age
and themoral
ground s
forthis
costly enterprise
intimes of
hard ship.110
But
immense
suffering
and the
general impoverishment
caused
by
three consecutive wars mad e the
population
even more
staunchly
nationalisticand inward
turning.
Thenotionnow
was that thechurchbeeven
larger
than
originally
intend ed ;
it
was tobethe
largest
churchnot
only
in
Serbia,
but inthe
"entireOrthod ox world ." Therewereeven
suggestions
that
an"Orthod ox Vatican" be
built,
a
complex comprising,
be-
sid ethe
church,
a
patriarchal palace, theological seminary,
museumof theOrthod ox
church,
and
library.ll'
This was the
embod iment of themost ostentatious id eals of Serbiannation-
alismat its
peak.
Sincenoneof thesubmissions satisfied the
jury,
thechurch
authorities d ecid ed
against
another
competition
and commis-
sioned a
d esign
fromtwo eminent
architects,
Bogd an
Nestorovi% and Aleksand ar
Deroko,
whohad
ind ivid ually
sub-
mitted
d esigns
in1926. The
contend ing parties finally agreed
that their
d esignappropriately expressed
thereverenceof the
Serbian
people
toward their
great
saint and embod ied the
national
spirit."2
Sincethe
originally specified
Morava
style
was aband oned as tooornamental forsucha
largebuild ing,
thetwoarchitects wereconfronted withthe
stipulation
that
the churchbe mod eled on
Hagia Sophia.
Inthe end a
compromise
was mad ebetweend emand s fora
spacious,
unclut-
tered
interior,
as in
HagiaSophia,
and insistenceona
"pyrami-
d al" formwhichwas ahallmark of Serbianmed ieval architec-
ture. Theissueof interiorversus exteriorwas a
frequent topic
inarchitectural d ebates of thetimesincethesewerebelieved
tobe
mutually
exclusiveconcerns.
Although
inoverall form
and
spatial conception
reminiscent of
Hagia Sophia,
this
highly
eclectic
d esign
is asummationof theSerbian
experi-
ence and afusionof the manifold
(equally unsuccessful)
approaches
tothecreationof anational
style."3
Thefact that a
reactionary
and uninventivearchitectural
concept
was
accepted
is und erstand ableinview of the
strong
political implications
of this
enterprise.
Theintellectual mo-
nopoly imposed by
nationalisticd octrines and aboveall the
d istorted set of criteria
they imposed
had a
negative
effect on
architectural
theory
inthe
following d ecad es; ironically,
the
accepted d esign
was
praised
as
being
inthe"mod ern
style"
as
lateas 1940.
34
JSAH
/ 56:1,
MARCH 1997
National conservatism
prevailed
tosuchanextent that
evenafterMod ernismentered theSerbiansceneinthe1930s
few architects and theorists had the
courage
tocriticizehistori-
cisminchurcharchitecture. Durd e
Bo'kovic
was
among
the
first tocall
uponprelates
to"aband ononce and forall the
repetition
and sterile
copying
of ad ead trad ition" and tobuild
churches "inamod ern
fashion,"
that would
"bring together
med ieval
mysticism
and mod ern
rationalism."'114
More
spe-
cificwas thecriticismof thearchitect Nikola
Dobrovid ,
who
proposed
a
d esignalong
constructivist
lines.115
Theart histo-
rianMilan
Kalanin
mad ean
equally unambiguous
statement
against
historicism,
arguing
that med ieval architects never
copied
earlier
styles."116
Theharshest criticismof
stylistic
imita-
tioncame fromanother art
historian,
Kosta
Strajni',
who
published
abrochureinwhichheaccused churchauthorities
of
suppressing
artisticfreed om. Hewent evenfurtherand
d ismissed members of the
jury
and architects involved inthe
project
as
incompetent
and
proposed award ing
thecommis-
siontoa
foreign
architect orat least a
Yugoslav
architect of
European
staturesuchas
Josip Ple&nik."117
Reactions
among
conservativecircles intheecclesiastical establishment tosuch
revolutionary
id eas canbesummarized
by quoting
achurch
official whostated that anOrthod ox churchwas "asacred and
spiritual build ing
and not a
place
wheremod ernart canbe
expressed ."
This
position
was
upheld by
Aleksand ar
Deroko,
the
principal
architect of the
patriarchate,
whoinsisted that
only d esigns inspired by
the national architecture of the
Mid d le
Ages
would be authorized "sincethat is ourheri-
tage."118
Constructionof theChurchof St. Sava
finally began
in
1935.
After
a
long interruption, initially
caused
by
World War
II
and then
by
the
negative
attitud eof theCommunist
regime
toward
religious
architecture,
build ing
resumed in
1985,
ex-
FIGURE 26:
Bogd anNestorovi6 and Aleksand arDeroko, churchof St. Sava,
Belgrad e,
1935-, view fromthenorthwest. Constructionwas
interrupted by
theoutbreak of
World WarII. It was resumed in1985.
actly ninety years
aftertheinitial
proposal
fortheconstruction
of this church
[Figure
26].
Therevivalist
d esign
of 1930 was not
significantly
altered ;
more current
concepts
werenot even
consid ered . On the
contrary,
the historicist
concept
of
St. Sava's conformed tothenationalist
agend a
which,
after
forty years
of
quiescence,
returned tolifeinthe
guise
of a
spontaneous
resurrectionof
popular
national
id entity.
State
id eology
was once
again
reflected inarchitecture. The
goals
and means haveremained the
same,
only
the
protagonists
have
changed .
Ananemicbrand of the
Serbo-Byzantine
remains the
only
proper
architectureforchurches. This
style
is still consid ered a
sublimationof the
"spiritual"
characteristics of the
nation,
since
only
forms d erived fromthenational
past
and contain-
ing
national attributes and
symbols
are
thought
to
preserve
national
id entity.
Inthe
surge
of church
build ing
that accom-
panied
theriseof nationalismoverthe
past
d ecad enot a
single
d esign
has
d eparted
froma
generic
formulabased onthe
Moravaor
Serbo-Byzantinestylisticapparatus
and
occasionally
onSerbian
romanesque
architecture. Evenmoreambitious
projects involving
eminent architects and theorists havecon-
formed . Thus inarecent
competition
foranew churchinthe
Cukaricad istrict of
Belgrad e
all theentries wererevivalist. The
first
prize
was award ed toa
d esign
whichis
only
a
slight
variationof the
twelfth-century
churchof St. Nicholas at
Kurwumlija.
The
presid ent
of the
jury,
a
bishop,
said that new
churches inSerbiashould not bemere
copies
of med ieval
mod els,
but neithershould architects "seek
originality
at
every
cost."119
A
similar
position
was
recently expressed by
anofficial
architect of theSerbianOrthod ox
Church,
whomaintains that
it is
imperative
toad heretothe
Byzantine
trad itionand that
the
principle
of l'art
pourl'art
cannot beallowed inchurch
architecture.120
Red uced to
banality,
this id iomhas cometod ominatethe
architecture of
funerary chapels
and monuments
(con-
structed onoccasionas miniature
replicas
of well-knownmed i-
eval
build ings)
and most
recently,
inabizarrealliancewith
postmod ernconcepts,
evenresid ential architecture.
Evenhistoricmonuments havebeenaffected
by
uncritical
glorification
of thenational
past.
Und erthe
pressure
of
politi-
cal
exigency
theInstituteforthePreservationof Monuments
of Culturehas
seriously
consid ered
requests
torebuild the
churchand monastic
complex
of the
Holy Archangels
near
Prizren
d espite
insufficient
archaeological
evid ence. Theinsti-
gation
forthis
enterprise
camefromaconservativenationalis-
tic
lobby
of
patriotic
intellectuals whofind this churchtobe
the "embod iment of the Serbian
Empire."
Its renovation
would
signal
forthemthe"revival of theSerbian
people
and
theSerbianstate."121 Inasimilartonereminiscent of nine-
teenth-century
rhetoric infused with
religious mysticism
a
bishop
of theSerbianOrthod ox Churchcommented onthe
rebuild ing
of the
Trinity
Churchin
Banja
Lukain
Bosnia,
whichwas
d estroyed
in1941. He
praised
it as a"faithful
reconstructionof theearlier
temple
whichwas a
symbol
of our
existence,
of ourd evotionto
God ,
of oursenseforthe
grand ,
holy,
and
beautiful,
but
unfortunately
that house of
worship
remains alsoa
symbol
of
unpreced ented suffering
and afflic-
tionthat befell our
people,
[a
symbol]
of d evastationand
d estruction."''122
CONCLUSION
The
question
now is how theSerbian
experience
d iffers from
that of othernations of
Europe
inthis
period .
Historicismwas
a
persistent
feature of
European
architecture
through
the
nineteenthand
early
twentieth
centuries,
though
not as
d eeply
rooted as inSerbia. Historical
reminiscences, evocations of
past glory,
and lamentations about loss of freed om
d uring
Turkishrulewerecrucial in
establishing
ahistorical frameas a
significant
cultural
pattern.
This historicist
mentality prevailed
afterliberationfromtheOttomanTurks in1830. Inrebuild -
ing
their
country
afteralmost fourcenturies of state
legal
and
cultural
d iscontinuity,
theSerbs strovetoestablishalink with
the Mid d le
Ages
rather thanseek
inspiration
inmod ern
cultural achievements.
Theid eaof
perpetuating
amed ieval
society
as if
nothing
had
changed
was
paralleled
inarchitecture: withnointer-
vening d evelopment,
the
tend ency
was to
pick up
where
architecture
stopped
inthelatefourteenth
century
and con-
tinue
build ing
inthe same
style. Despite
the fact that it
was stimulated
by
Romanticnotions of theMid d le
Ages
and
based on revivalist acad emic
formulas,
proponents
of the
Serbo-Byzantine
think of this
style
as anatural continuation
of theold Serbianand
Byzantinebuild ing
trad itionrather
thana
stylistic
revival
analogous
to historicist movements
inWestern
Europe. Significant
d ifferences d id ind eed exist.
Serbianarchitecturewas historicist not
by
choicebut
by
neces-
sity;
it was not afashionable
trend ,
but a
prod uct
of the
inherently
conservative cultural milieu. Inthis sense it is
perhaps
more accurate to
speak
of re-establishment than
of revival of the Serbianmed ieval
build ing
trad ition. This
trad itionsurvived thed eclineof themed ieval stateand contin-
ued almost
unchanged
overthecenturies of Ottomanrule.
Withthe
resumption
of
build ing practice
inthenineteenth
century
it was
simply
reanimated
using
acad emic revivalist
guid elines.
Perhaps
themost
significant
featureof Serbianhistoricist
architecturewas its
d epend ence
on
political agend as. Lofty
national id eals and
grand iose political
ambitions
prevailed
overarchitectural orartisticconcerns; therewerenosocial,
philosophical,
and
ecclesiological
consid erations
comparable
tothoseof theGothicRevival in
England .
Becauseof thefocus
onnationalist issues, attempts
at
d efining
a
purely
architec-
tural
program
resulted in
patriotic
rhetoricand red und ant
d iscussions of the
accuracy
of
stylistic
imitation.
Architecture inSerbiawas thus
primarily
ameans for
articulating
national
policy.
Unsettled national
questions
that
aroseintheBalkans aftertheformationof
ind epend ent
states
stirred
up
nationalist sentiment,
nurturing antagonism
toward
boththeIslamic
heritage
and Catholicinfluence
stemming
from
Austria-Hungary.
Militant nationalismand d istrust of
imported
culture
increasingly
becamehallmarks of nineteenth-
century
Balkan
politics.
Architecturereflected this inclination:
id eologists
of thenational
program
believed that d efinitionof
a
style
that would be
particular
totheSerbs was amatterof
national survival. Tothis end
they promoted
thecreationof an
architecturewhoseforms would bereminiscent of the
glory
of
themed ieval
past.
It was
imperative
that thenew architecture
be
clearly
d istinct fromOttomanIslamicand fromwhat was
perceived
as RomanCatholic
architecture;
only
thencould it
be
recognized by
the
people
as
authentically
national.
Formationof Serbiaas anation-state
provid ed
architecture
witha
specific
roleas abastion
against
theinflux of
foreign
styles
whichnationalists consid ered tobeathreat tonational
id entity. They
und erstood the
capacity
of architectureto
pro-
vid ea
d istinctively
local
iconographic setting
that
symbolized
therestorationof Serbianstatehood and the
resurgence
of a
sovereign
cultural
expression.
Architecture thus became a
monumental
representation
of
political power
and ,
as cor-
rectly perceived by id eologists
of
nationalism,
a
powerful
instru-
ment for
maintaining
national and
religious unity among
this
wid ely separated group
of
people.
Und erlying
this nationalist
id eology
was atrad itionalist cast
of mind that resisted
change.
Theriseof national exclusive-
ness
starting
inthe 1850s was reflected inthe
increasingly
exclusive
position
of the
Serbo-Byzantine
as the
only style
for
churches and themost d esirable
style
forsecular
build ings.
Its
supremacy
was so
strong
that Mod ernist id eas could makea
breakthroughonly
afteraslow and
painful process
of forma-
tion. Evenafterit was renounced in
public
and
private
architec-
ture
by
its most faithful
ad vocates,
the
survived withinthemost conservative
segment
of
society-the
Orthod ox church. The
petrified
forms of med ieval monu-
ments, immutable as icons, weretransformed into
powerful
symbols
of national
id entity.
Wecanconclud e the
story
of Serbianarchitecturewiththe
statement that
although
historicisminSerbiawas
part
of a
carefully
formulated
political strategy,
it could not havesuc-
ceed ed without a
d eeply ingrained popular
reverenceforthe
national
past.
Incontrast tosimilarhistoricist
styles
inWestern
Europe,
the
Serbo-Byzantine
was morethananaestheticcat-
egory;
forthe
average
Serb it was and still is anemotional
experience imbued with
strong religious
and ethnicconnota-
tions.
36
JSAH / 56:1, MARCH 1997
Notes
1
The
only comprehensive stud y
of the
inarchitecture
is
by
Z.
Skalamera, "Obnova
'srpskog
stila' uarhitekturi," Zbornik zalikovne
umetnosti Matice
srpske
5
(1969): 191-232. One
episod e
of this architectural
movement has beenad d ressed
by
M.
Jovanovid ,
in"Teofil Hanzen, 'hanzena-
tika' i Hanzenovi
srpski urenici,"
ibid . 21
(1985): 235-256. Seealsothe
survey
of mod ernSerbianarchitecture
by
Z.
Manevid ,
intheexhibition
catalog Srpska
arhitektura1900-1970
(Belgrad e, 1972),
and a
survey
of
postmed ieval
ecclesias-
tical art and architecture
by
M.
Jovanovic, Srpskocrkvenograd iteljstvoi
slikarstvo
novijeg
d oba
(Belgrad e
and
Kragujevac, 1987).
No
systematic
account of Serbian
historicismhas
yet
been
published .
Formore
general
consid erations of the
sociopolitical background
of SerbianRomanticismand historicisminthearts,
seeD.
Med akovic, "Istorizamu
srpskoj
umetnosti XIX veka,"
Prilozi
za
knjiievnost,
jezik, istorijuifolklor33 (1967): 197-211; and
M.Jovanovi?, Srpsko
slikarstvoud oba
Romantizma
(Novi Sad , 1976),
15-34.
2
Equally uncritical are the recent
attempts
to rehabilitate the Serbo-
Byzantinestyle. Invariably
id ealisticand
affected ly
emotional intone, they
area
typical prod uct
of theclimate of
resurgent
nationalisminthe
past
d ecad e.
Among
therareefforts tomakea
scholarly reappraisal
of Serbianhistoricist
architectureis A.
Kad ijevid , "Jed an
vek
nacionalnog
stilau
srpskoj arhitekturi,"
Ph.D.
d iss., Belgrad eUniversity,
1995, but this authoris concerned withformal
issues and d oes not d eal withtheintellectual and
political background .
3
Fora
survey
of the
political d evelopments
in
Byzantium
and themed ieval
Balkans, seeG.
Ostrogorsky, History of
the
ByzantineState, 3d ed .
(New
Bruns-
wick, N.J., 1969);
D.
Obolensky,
The
Byzantine
Commonwealth: Eastern
Europe,
500-1453
(Lond on, 1971);J.
V. A.
Fine,Jr.,
TheLateMed ieval Balkans: ACritical
Survey from
theLate
TwelfthCentury
totheOttoman
Conquest (AnnArbor, 1987).
Fora
history
of Serbiainthemed ieval
period ,
seeC.
Jiretek,
Geschichted er
Serben, 2 vols.
(Gotha, 1911-1918);
M.
Mlad enovitch, L'Etat
Serbeau
MoyenAge.
Soncaractere
(Paris, 1931).
4
Only
thosehistorical events that relate
d irectly
tothe
subject
of this
paper
and whichwill
help
cast it inawid er
political
and intellectual framework will be
consid ered . Inord er not to
d iscourage
the
English-speaking
read er with
literatureinSerbo-Croatian, works writtenin
English
will bereferred towhere
possible.
Thus instead of themonumental
history
of theSerbian
people, Istorija
srpskog narod a, 6 vols.
(Belgrad e, 1981-1986),
citations will betothe
English
ed itionof amore
compact
but still
quite
extensive
survey
of the
history
of the
Southern
Slavs by V. Ded ijer, I.
Boiid ,
S.
Cirkovid ,
and M.
Ekme6id , History of
Yugoslavia(New York, 1974),
and toseveral more
specialized
works in
English.
Forthe
postmed ieval history
of theBalkans, seeL. S. Stavrianos, TheBalkans
since1453
(New York, 1958);
B.
Jelavich, History of
theBalkans, 2 vols.
(Cam-
brid ge, 1983) ;J.
R.
Lampe
and
R.Jackson,
BalkanEconomic
History,
1550-1950:
From
Imperial
Bord erland s to
Developing
Nations
(Bloomington, Ind ., 1982).
5 Ded ijer
et al., History of Yugoslavia(see
n.
4), 210-214.
6
Forafullertreatment of theSerbs inthe
d iaspora,
seeR. A. Kannand D.
Zd enek, The
Peoples of
theEastern
HapsburgLand s
1526-1918
(Seattle, 1984).
For
theconcessions, see
Ded ijeret al., History of Yugoslavia(see
n.
4), 236-239, 255.
7 Except
for the brief enthusiasmfor France inthe
early years
of the
nineteenth
century
incited
partly by revolutionary
zeal and id eas of
Enlighten-
ment and
partly by Napoleon's Illyrianprovinces,
whichthead vocates of South
Slav unity
inSerbiaand Croatiasaw as thefulfillment of theirid eals. Onthe
Illyrianmovement, see
Ded ijer
et
al., History of Yugoslavia(see
n.
4), 300-306;
C. and B.
Jelavich,
TheEstablishment
of
theBalkanNational States 1804-1920
(Seattleand Lond on, 1977), 250-252.
8
Novi Sad
(formerly Neusatz) and Sremski Karlovci stood out as themost
influential. Theimportance of thelatteras areligious centerwas farexceed ed
by its
positionas thecultural capital of thenation.
9 Ded ijeret al., History of Yugoslavia(seen. 4), 252-254, 258. Therationalism
of
theJosephine
reforms
ruptured theclerical and
patriarchal Serb
community
whenurbanSerbs begantoaband onmed ieval customs and ad opt Western
manners and values. Despite fierce opposition inconservative circles the
monopoly of theOrthod ox churchoned ucationand cultureslowly but stead ily
d iminished . Onmid d le-class patronage, ibid ., 257-259; Jelavich, BalkanNa-
tional States (seen. 7), 270-271.
10 Fortheeconomic, social, and political history of theOttomanprovinces
inEurope, withaglimpseof cultural
history, see
P. F.
Sugar, Southeastern
Europe
und erOttomanRule, 1354-1804 (Seattleand Lond on, 1977), esp. 43-110 and
187-247 onOttomanSerbia.
"
See
Ded ijer
et al.,
History of Yugoslavia(see
n.
4), 185-188.
12 Ibid ., 266-269, 273-276;Jelavich,
BalkanNational States
(see
n.
7), 26-37.
Afulleraccount of the
uprising
is
givenby
S.
Novakovid ,
Die
Wied ergeburt
d er
serbischenStaates
(1804-1813) (Sarajevo, 1912).
13 Serbiaattained full
ind epend ence
in1878, whilethesouthern
provinces
remained und er Turkishcontrol until theBalkanWars of 1912-1913. Knez
Milog Obrenovid (1815-1839; 1858-1860) was
wid ely recognized
as the
legiti-
mate ruler, but as he assumed
power
after
murd ering Karad ord e ("Black
George"),
theinitiatorand
original
lead erof the
uprising,
the
political
sceneof
Serbiainthenineteenth
century
was d ominated
by
bitterconflicts betweenthe
rival
Obrenovid
and
Karacorcevid
families. On
Karad corcTe
and
Milog,
see
Jelavich,
(see
n.
7), 29-30, 53-61.
14
OnSerbiaund er
Milog,
ibid ., 53-60;
Ded ijer
et al.,
History of Yugoslavia
(see
n.
4), 278-284, and
especially
theexcellent
stud y
based on
contemporary
travelers'
reports by
G. Castellan,
Lavie
quotid ienne
enSerbieau
seuil d e
l'ind ipend ance,
1815-1839 (Paris, 1967).
15 Forthe
period
in
question,
see
Jelavich,
BalkanNational States (seen. 7),
61-67.
S.Jovanovic, Ustavobranitelji
i
njihovavlad a, 1838-1858
(Belgrad e, 1912)
gives
abrilliant account of the
political
and social climate
d uring
theconstitu-
tionalist ad ministration.
16
Inthed ecad es after
autonomy
was attained the
government sponsored
the ed ucation of several
generations
of native-bornSerbs inGermanand
Frenchuniversities.
Jelavich,
(see
n.
7),
63. Unlike the
relatively
conservativeAustrianSerb intellectuals ed ucated inViennaorBud a-
pest,
these
young
intellectuals
challenged
theestablishment withtheirmod ern
id eas oncivic
society
and social
justice.
But as
long
as the
greaterpart
of the
southern
provinces
remained und er Turkishcontrol, collective ratherthan
ind ivid ual
liberty
was theconsid eration. This occasioned
patriotic
lamentations
about the
long-lost
freed omand
glory
of theMid d le
Ages.
Foranexcellent
account of the intellectual
atmosphere,
see the
biography
of the
lead ing
philologist
and
language
reformer: D.
Wilson, The
Life
and
Times of
Vuk
Stefanovi? Karad Eii, 1787-1864:
Literacy, Literature,
and National
Ind epend ence
in
Serbia
(Oxford , 1970).
17 The
engineer EmilijanJosimovid
was
appointed
to
d esign
the
regulatory
plan
of
Belgrad e
and toformulateatheoretical basis forthe
general
reconstruc-
tionof towns inSerbia.
OnJosimovic,
seeB.
Maksimovid ,
EmilijanJosimoviw, prvi
srpski
urbanist
(Belgrad e, 1967);
D.
Med akovid , "O EmilijanuJosimovid u,"
Zbornik zalikovneumetnosti Matice
srpske
12
(1976): 273-283.
18 In
1389, a
large
Serb-d ominated Christian
army attempting
tocheck the
ad vanceof theOttomanTurks was d efeated
by
a
superior
Ottomanforceat
Kosovo
Polje,
the "Field of Blackbird s." Onthis battle, see T. A.
Emmert,
Serbian
Golgotha:
TheBattle
of
Kosovo
(New York, 1990).
The d ebacle, which
culminated inthed eathof theSerbianlead er, PrinceLazarus,
and his
knights,
is thecentral motif of themost famous Serbian
cycle
of
epic
folk
poetry.
The
themeof Kosovois still
d eeply
rooted inthecollective
memory
of theSerbian
people.
Arecent
English
translationof theKosovo
epic
is TheBattle
of Kosovo,
trans.J.
Matthias and V. Vuakovid (Leek, Stafford shire, 1987).
19 Forthe
awakening
of nationalism
d uring
these
revolutionary years
and its
political implications, especially
the
resulting
d emand s for
autonomy
inthe
Banat, see
Ded ijer
et al., History of Yugoslavia(see
n.
4), 313-316, 319-321. The
political
roleof theUnited SerbianYouthis outlined inibid ., 343. Forthe
program
of this movement and its broad ercultural
implications, seeJ. Skerlid ,
Omlad inai njenaknjizievnost (1848-1871). Izud avanja
onacionalnomi knjizevnom
romantizmu
kod Srba, 2d ed . (Belgrad e, 1925);Jovanovid , Srpsko
slikarstvo(seen.
1), 19-21, 25-26, et passim.
20
Examples includ e Lord Byron's preoccupation withthe Greek cause,
JohannHerd er's obsessionwiththe
Slavs,
Goethe's and Jakob Grimm's fascina-
tionwithepicfolk
poetry collected by Vuk
Karad iid ,
and Leopold vonRanke's
interest intheSerbianinsurrection. Forthelast, seeRanke, TheHistory ofServia
and of theServianRevolution, 3d ed ., trans. A. Kerr(Lond on, 1853; reprint New
York, 1974). Wilson, Vuk
Stefanovit Karad iif
(seen. 16), 112-113, 190-207, et
passim, d iscusses theshort-lived vogueamong WesternRomantics forSerbian
folk poetry, whichappealed totheirtastefor
"uncorrupted " language and
lore.
21 Russianinfluence, embod ied ina
self-proclaimed religious protectorate
overall Orthod ox Christians in
EuropeanTurkey, was curtailed aftertheParis
Conference, organized in1856 tosettle the "EasternQuestion" afterthe
CrimeanWar. However, d espite Serbian
wavering incultural and
political
inclination betweenEast and West, Russia, as the
largest
Slavic
country
and
successor to
Byzantium
as
champion
of
Orthod oxy,
wield ed
uninterrupted
authority
overSerbiainthe
spiritual
d omain.
22
As d efined in1844 by the
politician
and statesman
Ilija
Garalanininhis
influential d eclarationonnational
policy,
the
NaZertanije(Memoir).
See
Jelav-
ich, BalkanNational States
(see
n.
7),
63. Fora
survey
of
political thought
in
Serbiainthenineteenth
century,
seeV. Cubrilovid , Istorijapoliticke
misli u
Srbiji
XIX veka
(Belgrad e, 1958).
23 Forarecent
attempt
toelucid ate the
complex
cultural, ethnic, and
political
cond itions that nurtured Balkannationalism, seeNationand
Id eology:
Essays
inHonor
of Wayne
S. Vucinich, ed .
I. Banac,
J.
G. Ackerman, and R.
Szporluk (Bould er, Col., and NewYork, 1981).
24
InGermany inthe
early 1830s, Christian
Lud wig Stieglitz
d evised asimilar
concept
of
stylisticpluralismrelating
toa
build ing's
function. He
proposed
the
Renaissance
style
for
publicbuild ings
and
palaces; Byzantine
fortheaters, city
halls and
schools;
and
Early
German
(Gothic)
forchurches. C. L.
Stieglitz,
Beitriige
zurGeschichted er
Ausbild ung
d erBaukunst, 2 vols.
(Leipzig, 1834),
1: 179.
Inthesamevein, Karl Fried richSchinkel inhis
early
Romantic
phase
id entified
theGothicwiththe
spiritual
and classicismwiththematerial. K. F. Schinkel, Das
architektonische Lehrbuch, ed . G. Peschken(Munich
and Berlin, 1979),
36.
25 See Ded ijer et al., History of Yugoslavia(see
n.
4), 295-296. On the
literary-political d isputes, ibid ., 296-300, and
especially Wilson, Vuk
Stefanovi
Karad ii6
(see
n.
16),
64-65 et
passim.
26
Onthis build ing, B.
Kojic,
Stara
grad ska
i seoskaarhitekturau
Srbiji (Bel-
grad e, 1949),
66-77.
27
Manak's house (1830)
in
Belgrad e
is an
example
of atrad itional Turkish-
inspired
Balkanhouse.
Change
in
lifestyle
d ictated
change
inarchitecture.
Thus the
contemporary Vujovid family
house
(1828)
in
Belgrad ed isplays
both
Turkishand Westernforms. Afterthemid d leof the
century
Central
European
resid ential architecture
increasingly prevailed among
thewesternized mid d le
classes.
Examples
arethe houses of HrisantaKumanad i
(1870-1871),
the
Krsmanovid brothers
(1890),
and themerchant Nikolid
(1890s),
all inBel-
grad e.
SeeB.
Vujovic, Beograd uproslosti i sad ainjosti (Belgrad e, 1994), 198-199,
200, 130-131, 202-203, 201. B. Nestorovid ,
"EvolucijaBeograd skog stana,"
God isnjak grad aBeograd a
2 (1955): 247-266,
gives
anoverview of the
d evelop-
ment of resid ential architecturein
Belgrad e.
28 Forasurvey of
important publicbuild ings
in
Belgrad e
inthenineteenth
century, includ ing
short
biographies
of theirarchitects, see N. Nestorovi?,
Graf1evine
i arhitekti u
Beograd uproslog
stolea
(Belgrad e, 1937).
29 Fromthe1750s, SerbiancultureinAustriaand
Hungary
was
tempered by
baroque influences, not
only
fromWestern
Europe
but alsofromreformed
Russiaand theUkraine. In
religious art, somber and
rigid
icons were
sup-
planted by
brilliant and animated narrativescenes. The
baroque change
in
formwas
read ily accepted
inurbancenters eveninchurch
architecture; only
conservativemonasticcenters inthesouthern
regions
of the
empireattempted
toresist thesenew
d evelopments.
See
Jovanovi?, Srpsko
crkveno
grad iteljstvo(see
n.
1),
16 et
passim. Beginning
inthe
early
nineteenth
century, along
withthe
ad vent of Rationalismintotheconservative
Hapsburg d ominions, theseba-
roque
forms werefused withaclassical strain. See
Ded ijer
et
al., History of
Yugoslavia(see
n.
4), 246-247, forabrief overview of the
penetration
of the
baroque
intoSerbianculturein
Austria-Hungary, marking
the
beginning
of
mod ernization and
d evelopment
of seculararts and literature. Amoreexten-
sivesurvey of theSerbianBaroque is by D. Med akovid , Putevi srpskog baroka
(Belgrad e, 1971),57-71,179-193.
o30 Onthecathed ral, B. Vujovic, "SabornacrkvauBeograd u," God iSnjak
grad aBeograd a30 (1983): 87-111; id em, SabornacrkvauBeograd u(Belgrad e,
1996).
3' M. Valtrovid , "Dragila
S. Milutinovid , profesorVelikeSkole," Novaiskra,
no. 3 (1901): 26. Valtrovic's lasting influence onSerbianarchitectural and
artistictheory suppressed Mod ernist id eas well intothe1930s. Evenard ent
ad vocates of Functionalismand new materials had toyield before theover-
whelming forceof Valtrovih's call fora"renaissance" of Serbianmed ieval art.
SeeD. Med akovid , Srpskaumetnost uXIX veku(Belgrad e, 1981), 261-262. On
Valtrovic, S.
Bogd anovi&, "MihailoValtrovic(1839-1915)," SveskeDrustvaistor-
ilaraumetnosti 1 (1977): 3-6; Nestorovid , Graf1evine
i arhitekti (seen. 28), 65-66.
32
Kanitz recalled how hepersuad ed PrinceMichael Obrenovid in1862 to
issuead ecree
authorizing only theByzantinestyleforchurches since
suppos-
ed ly only it conformed totheEasternrite. Felix Kanitz, Das
KonigreichSerbien
und d as Serbenvolk vond er
R'6merzeit
bis zur
Gegenwart,
2 vols.
(Leipzig, 1904-1909),
2: 365. ForKanitz's views on
contemporary
Serbianarchitecture, seealsoid em,
Uberalt- und neuserbischeKirchenbaukunst
(Vienna, 1864).
33
This attitud ewas
clearly expressed
inthe
mid -eighteenth century by
the
monks of
Kovilj monastery
inthewestern
part
of theBanat.
They
d emand ed
that theirnew catholiconbebuilt inthe
"image"
of thelatemed ieval churchof
Manasijamonastery
tocounterthe
baroque,
whichwas
becoming increasingly
popularamong
Serbs inthe
d iaspora.
See
Jovanovid , Srpskocrkvenograd iteljstvo
(see
n.
1),
14-16.
34 Themost famous masterbuild erwas theMaced onian
And rejaDamjanov.
Damjanov's workshop
was likeamed ieval chantier,
consisting
of build ers,
stonecutters, artisans of various
specializations,
and
painters, constantly
travers-
ing
the Balkans insearchof work. Fromthe 1830s tohis d eathin 1878
Damjanov
built aconsid erable numberof churches inBosnia, Maced onia, and
Serbia. Churches in
Sarajevo, Mostar, Skopje,
and Smed erevo are
examples.
On
Damjanov, K. Tomovski, MajstorAnd rejaDamjanov.
1813-1878
(Skopje,
1966).
35
SeeM. Kolarid , "Dva
priloga
za
proutavanje
nastankai razvitkaroman-
tizmau
srpskoj
arhitekturi," Zbornik zalikovneumetnosti Matice
srpske
10
(1974):
366-370.
36 SeeSkalamera, "Obnova
srpskog
stila"
(see
n.
1),
197-198.
37
The social, cultural, and
political history
of theSerbian
community
in
Triestehas beentreated at
lengthby
D. Med akovid and -D.
Milogevid ,
inSerbs in
the
History of Trieste(Belgrad e, 1987).
SeealsoG. and F. Milossevichand M.
Bianco, ISerbi a
Trieste(Venice, 1978).
Foranarchitectural
d rawing
of theold er
church, seeMed akovid and Milogevid , History of Trieste, fig.
56.
38
Onthe
competition,
Med akovid and Milogevid , History of Trieste(see
n.
37),
89-92, and
figs.
61-65 for
d esigns
submitted
by Angelo Colla, CarloRuffini,
and others.
"3
Ibid ., 92. Maciachini worked und erFried richvonSchmid t, a
prominent
gothicist
whocarried out
"re-gothicizations"
inthemannerof Viollet-le-Duc.
Schmid t's restorationof S.
Ambrogio
inMilan
(1857-1859) may
have
given
Maciachini somesenseof
Early Byzantinebuild ing techniques
and structural
systems.
40 The murals inthe interior and mosaic scenes on the facad es were
executed
by GiuseppeBertini, anacad emic
painter
fromMilan. Ibid ., 92-100.
Faced withthed emand to
comply strictly
withthecanonof Orthod ox icono-
graphy,
Bertini
may
have
sought inspiration
inthemosaics of St.
Mark's, those
at Torcello, orinthe
early
churches of Ravenna.
41 Ibid ., 89-92 et
passim.
42 N.
Du6i?,
"O srpskoj opitini
uTrstu," Glasnik
Srpskog ujenog d rustva, no. 9
(1869):
14.
43
Hansen's
stylistic
affinities arerelated tohis travels between1838 and 1846
in
Greece, wherehestud ied
Byzantine
monuments. In
1868, whenhebecame
professor
at the
Acad emy
in
Vienna, Hansenestablished acoursein
Byzantine
architecture. OnHansen, seeG. Niemanand F.
V. Feld egg, Theophilos
Hansen
und seine
Werke(Vienna, 1893);
R.
Wagner-Rieger
and M.
Reissberger, Theophil
vonHansen
(Wiesbad en, 1980);
and
Jovanovi?,
"Theofil Hanzen"
(see
n.
1).
The most
prominent
Serbianarchitects whostud ied und er Hanseninclud e
Svetozar
Ivaikovid , DuganZivanovi?, JovanIlkiP, and Vlad imir
NikoliU. V.
Majstorovi?,
"DelaHanzenovih
uEenika,"
Trad icija
i
savrmen.osrpsko
crkveno
grad iteljstvo(Belgrad e, 1995), 180-189.
'44 Skalamera, "Obnovasrpskog stila" (seen. 1), 200.
45 OnIvaikovic, Nestorovic, Gra1evinei arhitekti (seen. 28), 78-79; L. Nikie,
"SvetozarIvad kovid i
Beograd ," God id njak grad aBeograd a25 (1978): 273-285.
46
Skalamera, "Obnovasrpskog stila" (seen. 1), 200.
47
Detailed plans, elevations, sections, and technical d ecriptions forsomeof
thesevillagechurches signed by Ivad kovicwerepublished intheillustrated
supplement of
Srpski
tehnicki
list, no. 5 (1893): 56-59 and no. 1 (1894): 61-64,
67-70, 72-75.
48
Forthechurchof the
Transfiguration, see
Jovanovii, "Teofil Hanzen"
(seen. 1), 248-249.
49 Quoted
inibid ., 248.Jire&ek, Geschichte d erSerben, vol. 1 (seen. 3), d iscusses
thehistory of theNemanyid d ynasty at length.
5o
See the three d istinct groups ("schools") of med ieval monuments in
Serbiaproposed by theFrenchbyzantinist Gabriel Millet, in
L'ancien
art serbe:
Les e'glises (Paris, 1919). TheEcoled eRascielasted fromthelatetwelfthtothe
latethirteenthcentury (withseveral fine
fourteenth-century examples). This
38
JSAH
/ 56:1, MARCH 1997
architecturewas characterized
by d istinctly
Westernfeatures
stemming
from
the Italian-influenced
build ing
trad itionof the Dalmatian littoral suchas
longitud inal plans, Romanesque facad earticulation, d ressed stone construc-
tion, and elaborate
sculptural
d ecoration. After1300 it was
suppressed by
the
Ecole d elaSerbie
byzantine-a Byzantine-inspired
mod e
featuring
central
planning
and brick and stone wall construction-which thrived
d uring
the
southward
expansion
of Serbia. Thethird mod ewas thed ecorativeEcoled ela
Moravawhichflourished inthenorthern
regions
of thed ismembered
country
after the extinction of the
Nemanyid d ynasty
in1371 and until the final
collapse
totheTurks in1459.
51 Their
reports
were
published
intheofficial
organ
of theSerbianLearned
Society (Glasnik Srpskog u&enog
d ruitva)
between1872 and 1885. SeeS. Petkovii,
"Istorija
umetnosti kod SrbauXIX
veku," Zbornik
Filozofskog fakulteta
12/
1(1974):
488-495. Exhibitions
presented
this researchtothe
public.
At the
opening
of thefirst
exhibition, Dragutin
Milutinovid stated that sinceother
European
nations were
earnestly examining
their med ieval
heritage,
the
SerbianLearned
Society
had
recently
und ertakenactivities toward the"investi-
gation,
measurement and
copying
of valuablemonuments of Serbianart." See
"Govor
Dragutina
S.
Milutinovid apri otvaranjuizloga
od snimaka
srpskih
umetniikih spomenika,"
Glasnik
Srpskog ujenog d ruitva, no. 44
(1877):
195. On
Milutinovil, see
Nestorovid ,
Grad evinei arhitekti
(see
n.
28), 62-65. Onthebasis
of this research
Valtrovik mad ea
prematureattempt
to
systematize
themed i-
eval architecture of Serbiainhis book
O. Prod romos, Mitteilungeniiber
neue
Forschungenauf
d emGebieteserbischer Kirchenbaukunst
(Vienna, 1878).
52
See"GovorDragutinaS. Milutinovid a" (see
n.
51), 196, and thefield work
report (1874) by Milutinovi?
and
Valtrovi?, published
inGlasnik
Srpskog u&enog
d rustva,
no. 44
(1877):
408.
53 As
Valtrovid explained
his intentions
years
laterinthe
obituary
forhis
colleague
and associate
DragutinMilutinovid .
SeeValtrovid ,
"Dragiga
S. Miluti-
novid " (see
n.
31),
26.
54On
this
build ing,
B.
Nestorovid ,
"Kapetan
Migino
zd anje," God isnjak grad a
Beograd a
9-10
(1962-1963):
81-95. This
build ing
was
originally
intend ed as
theresid enceof a
wealthy merchant,
CaptainMigaAnastasijevid .
Whileconstruc-
tionwas still
und erway,
this
patron
of
learning
d onated it tohis "fatherland "
fored ucational
purposes,
as witness the
prominent inscription
onthe
facad e.
On
Nevole, Nestorovic, Grad evinei arhitekti
(see
n.
28),
33-37.
55
Onthe
Rund bogenstil,
seeH.-R.
Hitchcock, Architecture: Nineteenthand
Twentieth
Centuries (Lond on, 1958),
55-56. Christian
Lud wig Stieglitz
was
among
the
early
writers tomakeacleard istinction between the
Byzantine,
whichhetermed theround -arch
style,
and the
Early
Germanor
"pointed -
arch,"
assigning
characteristics to
each; Byzantine
was
"picturesque"
and
Gothicwas "romantic."
Stieglitz, Beitrid ge
zur
Geschichte(see
n.
24),
1: 180.
56
SeeR.
Wagner-Rieger,
Wiens
Architektur
im19.
Jahrhund ert (Vienna, 1970),
108; V.
Vilad sen, "Stud ienuberd en
byzantinischen
Einfluss auf d ie euro-
paische
Architektur d es 19.
Jhd t.," Hafnia
5
(1978): 57;
Jovanovid ,
"Teofil
Hanzen"
(see
n.
1), 242; SeeS.
Kronblicher-Skacha, ArchitekturDas Zeitalter
KaiserFranzJosephs I
(Vienna, 1984),
491.
5'
See
Wagner-Rieger,
Wiens Architektur(see
n.
56), 110; Vilad sen, "Stud ien"
(see
n.
56),
43-76.
58
High
Victorianand Ed ward ian
England d eveloped
anunusual
affinity
for
Byzantine
architecture. The
English
versionwas ineffect a
panoply
of Italianate
motifs
featuring campanili,
basilican
plans,
"constructional
polychromy"
in
imitationof thevariegated marbleof NorthItalianchurches, and lavishmosaic
d ecoration enhanced with
Romanesque orOriental quotations similartothe
German
Rund bogenstil. This
stylecarried no obvious
religious, social, or
political connotations as it d id inSoutheastern
Europe, except forthefact that
it was
frequently id entified with"primitive" Christianarchitecture, inmarked
contrast withGothic. Architecture freeof formal constraints complemented
the id eas of stylisticfreed ompromoted by theAesthetic Movement, while
authentic vernacular revivals appealed toad herents of theArts and Crafts
movement, whoselead er, WilliamMorris, gaveaseries of lectures onByzantine
art. Equally important, theoncegreat empireof Byzantiumcame
increasingly
intofocus among Englishobservers d uring theEasternCrisis of 1875-1878.
ForEnglishparallels totheGermanRund bogentil, seeA. Service, Ed ward ian
Architecture(Lond on, 1977), 74-75, 81-83; R. Dixonand S. Muthesius, Victorian
Architecture(Lond on, 1978), 225-226.
59 TheGermanarchitectural
colony inAthens was instrumental in
forming
thevocabulary of theacad emic neo-Byzantine id iom. TheHansenbrothers
mad esketches of
Byzantine
monuments inGreece, as d id Lud wig F6rster, one
of thechief architects of theRing and anassociateof Theophil Hansen, whose
Viennese stud iowas replete withplans forchurches, chapels, schools, and
parishbuild ings
fornon-Catholic
congregations, all d esigned intheByzantine
style. F6rster
stud ied churches in
Aquitaine
as well as Greek and Serbian
med ieval monasteries. Forhis
d escriptions
of themed ieval monuments of
Serbia, see "Die Baukunst d erKirchenund
K6lster
imOrient," Allgemeine
Bauzeitung
22 (1857): 343-402. See
Wagner-Rieger,
Wiens Architektur(seen.
56), 111. On
F6rster's
research, seeM.
Jovanovic, "Austrijski
arhitekta
Lud vig
Fersterkao
pisac
o
vizantijskim
i
srpskimcrkvama," Saopstenja
17 (1985):
213-218. Beforethat, anotherAustrianarchitect, Franz Mertens, published a
booklet onthemed ieval monuments of Serbia: F. Mertens, Etwas iiberSerbien
(Berlin, 1847). On Mertens, see S.
Bogd anovid ,
"FrancMertens i
srpska
sred njovekovnaarhitektura," Zbornik zalikovneumetnosti Matice
srpske15 (1978):
207-228.
6 As anad vocate of truthfulness to materials Hansen was
particularly
interested inthe
Byzantine
useof brick construction
techniques
toteach"the
true
principles
of
Byzantineconstruction, as inthechurches of theOrient."
SeeVilad sen, "Stud ien" (seen. 56), 59.
61
Ibid ., 61; Wagner-Rieger,
Wiens Architektur
(see
n.
56), 112.
62
SeeNieman and
Feld egg, Theophilos
Hansen
(see
n.
43),
44. This was a
successful formulawhichcould be
applied equally
to
publicbuild ings
and
churches, and Hansenmad enoefforts to
d evelop
or
mod ify
it. SeeVilad sen,
"Stud ien" (seen. 56), 43.
63
Onthe
Episcopal Palace, Skalamera, "Obnova
srpskog
stila" (seen. 1),
204-206.
64 Onthe
Theological Seminary,
ibid . Elevations and technical
d rawings of
the
Eparchy
were
published inJ. Pegid , "Zd anjeeparhijenigke," Srpski tehnic'ki
list, 1899, nos. 10-11, 151,
pl.
2-6.
65 Forthis
build ing,
see
Skalamera, "Obnova
srpskog
stila"
(see
n.
1), 202.
Evenmorecurious was the
Assyrian-style
Pavilionof Serbiaat theInternational
ExhibitioninRomeof 1911, which,
althoughinclud ing sphinxes
and
winged
genii,
was d eemed to
express
the"national
spirit."
SeeK.
Ambrozid , "Paviljon
Srbije
na
med unarod noj
izlozbi uRimu1911.
god ine,"
Zbornik rad ova
Narod nog
muzeja
3 (1962): 237-266.
66
Ontheschool, Skalamera, "Obnova
srpskog
stila" (seen. 1), 203-204.
"7
Seeibid ., 216-217.
Byzantine
architecturewas
taught starting
in1879 as
part
of architectural
d esign
but in1905 it becamea
separate
course.
History
of
art and
history
of architecturewerealsointrod uced inthat
year
forstud ents of
architecture.
"8
The
competition
forthis churchwas announced in1903 but theentries
provoked
aheated d ebateinthearchitectural
community,
cut short in1909
when
king
Peter
Karad ord evid
announced anew
competition.
At the
king's
insistence, besid es suchunavoid able
figures
as Mihailo
Valtrovie
and And ra
Stefanovid ,
the
jury
includ ed three
foreign experts,
Cornelius
Gurlitt, Max
Forster, and
Josef Strzygowski.
The
d esign
submitted
by
alittle-knownstud ent
of architecture, Kosta
Jovanovid ,
was
unanimously accepted .
Forthis
church,
seethe
monograph by
M.
Jovanovic, Oplenac:
TheChurch
of
St.
George
and the
Mausoleum
of
the
KaraiorievicDynasty (Topola, 1990).
Forthed ebatesurround -
ing
thefirst
competition,
see
below, n. 89.
69
The mosaics, executed
by
theGermanfirmPuhl und
Wagner
of
Hein-
ersd orff, were based oncartoons
d esigned by
ateamof Russian
painters
working und er the d irection of the byzantinist Nikolai
Okunev.
P.
Pajkid ,
"Mauzolej na
Oplencu," Saopitenja16 (1984): 221-234.
70
Onthe
preced ing d ynasty, its overthrow, and the new
king's d ynastic
policies, seeJelavich, BalkanNational States (seen. 7), 189-192. Forafuller
treatment: S.
Jovanovie, Vlad a
Aleksand raObrenovid a, 3 vols.
(Belgrad e,
1934-1936); V. Georgevitch, Das End ed es Obrenovitch
(Leipzig, 1905).
71
Thechurchand
surround ing monastic
complex wered emolished by the
Turks intheseventeenth
century and thed ebris was used fortheconstruction
of theSinanPasha
mosque
inthe
nearby townof Prizren. Fora
hypothetical
reconstruction of thechurch, seeS. Nenad ovid , Dusanovazad uzbina, manastir
Svetih
Arhantla kod Prizrena(Belgrad e, 1967).
72
On this ruler, G. C. Soulis, TheSerbs and
Byzantiumd uring the
Reignof Tsar
StephenDusan(1331-1355) and His Successors
(Washington, D.C., 1984).
7 The
twoarchitects of the
pavilion, Milan
Kapetanovid
and Milorad Ru-
vid id ,
were
praised by the
press for
build ing inthestyleof
thirteenth-century
Serbian churches
d espite the fact that the
pavilionwas mod eled on the
fourteenth-century
churches of Millet's Ecoled elaSerbie
byzantine (see
n.
50).
Other Balkan
pavilions, notably
that of Greece, werealso
d esigned
as
Byzantine
churches. OntheSerbian
pavilion,
"Sa
pariskeizloibe," Nova
Iskra,
1900, no. 5, 141, 156; V.
Dulkovid , Srbija
na
Svetskoj
izloibi u
Parizu1900
(Belgrad e, 1995).
74 Onliberation
policy, seeJelavich,
(see
n.
7), 192; on
"theMaced onian
question,"
ibid ., 207-213, and 216-221 ontheBalkanWars.
75
Inhis
inaugural
lectureat the
University
of
Belgrad e
in1890
Stefanovid
named art,
language, folklore, and customs as themaincharacteristics of a
nation.
Castigating
thematerialismof Westernculture, he
equated
cultural
influence with
political
and economic d omination,
seeing
the
preservation
of
Serbian
spiritual
values as the
only
d efense.
Only
inuninhibited
expression
free fromacad emic
d ogma (i.e.,
Greek and Italian
mod els)
would atrue
national art bearticulated , since these ethnic orracial characteristics were
inherent in
every
artist. A.
Stefanovid ,
"Umetnost i
arhitektura," parts 1
and 2,
Srpski tehnicki list, 1890, no. 10, 159-163; 1890, nos. 11-12, 179-182. Helater
d emand ed that theSerbianLearned
Society's investigation
and
publication
of
architecture and frescoes of med ieval churches beextend ed toinclud e the
entire
bod y
of folk culture. Id em, "Stara
srpska
arhitekturai
njenznaEaj," parts
1 and 2,
Srpski knjiievni glasnik,
no. 8
(1903): 514-522; no. 9
(1903): 445-455.
76
D. T. Leko, "Skicezanovucrkvuu
Topoli," Delo30 (1904): 277.
77 Quoted
in
Srpska
arhitektura1900-1970
(see
n.
1),
43.
78 Theid eas
promoted
around themid d le of the
century by
suchard ent
Catholics as
Pugin
and his
Anglicancounterparts
fromthe
Cambrid ge
Cam-
d en
Society
find close
parallels
inSerbia. For
Pugin's
views onthe
religious
found ation of architecture, seeA. W. N.
Pugin,
Contrasts:
or
AParallel between
theNoble
Ed ifices of
theFourteenthand
Fifteenth
Centuries and Similar
Build ings of
thePresent
Day; Showing
thePresent
Decay of
Taste
(Salisbury, 1836),
and
id em, The
True
Principles of
Pointed orChristianArchitecture
(Lond on, 1841); and , onthe
Cambrid ge group, J.
F. White, The
Cambrid ge
Movement: The
Ecclesiologists
and
theGothicRevival
(Cambrid ge, 1962). Whiletheiroutlook remained
essentially
religious
and moralistic, closer
analogies
withtheSerbianscenecanbefound
among
German
gothicists
suchas
August Reichensperger
and Fried richHoff-
stad t, whose
glorification
of theMid d le
Ages
and revival of
early
German
architecturewas
thoroughly
intheserviceof
politics.
TheGerman
position
has
beend efined inA.
Reichensperger,
Die
christlich-germanische
Baukunst und ihr
Verhd ltif3 zur
Gegenwart (Trier, 1845),
and in
id em, Fingerzeigeauf
d emGebieted er
kirchlichenKunst
(Leipzig, 1855).
See alsoMichael
Lewis, ThePolitics
of
the
GermanGothicRevival:
August Reichensperger (NewYork, 1993).
79 Ostensibly
because
only
atrue
Slav (or Serb)
would be
capable
of
expressing
theinnermost
qualities
of thenational
spirit.
D.
Masla?,
"Skiceza
zgrad umonopolske uprave," Srpski tehnic'ki
list, 1909, no. 16, 123. Aninstructive
comparison
canbemad ewiththed emand s of the
Cambrid ge
Camd en
Society
that
only
Christianarchitects should be
engaged
intheconstructionof churches.
so0 Onthis
architect, see
Nestorovid , GraeSd vine
i arhitekti
(see
n.
28),
80.
Although
d erived in
planning
and
spatial arrangement
fromLate
Byzantine
architecture, churches of theMorava
group d isplay
unusual
originality.
Their
most d istinctivefeatureis thevivid
facad es
executed in
alternating
band s of
brick and stone and articulated withabund ant ornament:
projecting
colon-
nettes and
respond s,
d ecorativefriezes, carved rosettes, checkerboard field s,
round els, stylized sculptural
ornament
framing
the
wind ows, interlacework,
and
pointed tracery.
FortheMoravaschool, seeMillet, Ancienart serbe
(see
n.
50), 152-198.
s8 S. Stojanovic, Srpski neimar(Belgrad e, 1912).
82 Therestorationwas cond ucted between1904 and 1908 by thearchitect
and med ievalist PetarPopovic. Fortherestorationand
archaeological work at
this site, seeV. Ristic, "RestauracijaLazaricePereJ. Popovid a
iz 1904-1908,"
Saopitenja
15 (1983): 129-146. Morethanforits architectural qualities, this
church appealed toRomantic sentiment because Prince Lazarus and his
knights took communion hereonthe
morning of thefateful Battleof Kosovo.
Forthis church, seeMillet, Ancienart serbe(seen. 50), 163-172.
83 FortheTelephone Exchange, seeSkalamera, "Obnovasrpskog stila" (see
n. 1), 220-221.
84 FortheMinistry, seeibid ., 221-222.
85 Ontheimpact of Art Nouveauand especially theViennese and Hungar-
ianSecessiononthearchitectureof
Belgrad e, Skalamera, "Secesijauarhitek-
turi Beograd a 1900-1914," Zbornik zalikovneumetnosti Matice
srpske
3 (1967):
313-339.
86 L.
Trifunovid ,
"Starai novaumetnost,"
Zograf3 (1969): 44,
46;Jovanovic,
Srpsko
crkveno
grad iteljstvo(seen. 1), 219.
87
See
Srpska
arhitektura1900-1970 (see n. 1), 43.
Approaching
William
Morris in
general
attitud ebut less
systematic
and
lacking
his social concerns,
Inkiostri
represents
folklorism, ashort-lived trend that had few followers
among
architects but exerted consid erable influence onthed ecorativearts. In
Hungary,
too, folk motifs werethebasis forsomeSecessionist facad ed esigns.
OnInkiostri, seeH.
Lisi6id , "DragutinInkiostri-Med enjak,"
Zbornik zalikovne
umetnosti Matice
srpske
1 (1965): 337-349.
88 These twoviews were
expressed , respectively, by B.
Tanazevid ,
"Srpska
arhitektura, njenoobnavljanje
i
njenaprimena
nacrkvenei
profanegrad evine,"
parts 1 and 2,
Srpski tehnicki
list, 1909, no. 7, 49-51, and 1909, no. 8, 57-58; and
D. T. Leko, "Misli o
mogud nosti primenesrpskog stila,"
Srpski tehnicki
list, 1908,
no. 25, 233-234.
89 Ad ebate carried onin 1904 between the ad vocates of more liberal
reinterpretations
of med ieval forms, head ed
by Dimitrije
Leko, and thosewho
upheld
thenotionthat mod ernchurcharchitectureshould
strictly complywith
the "old
style,"
led
by
the conservative and influential And ra
Stefanovid ,
illustrates thestateof Serbianarchitectural
theory
inthe
early years
of this
century.
SeeLeko, "Skice" (seen. 76), 271-280; A. Stefanovih, "Skicezanovu
crkvuu
Topoli," Srpski knjiievni glasnik,
no. 12 (1904): 788-796, 865-873. On
this
d ispute,
see Z.
Manevid , "Jed napolemika
iz 1904.
god ine,"
Arhitektura
urbanizam, nos. 49-50
(1968): 114-115.
90
For
example, by
theart historianKosta
Strajnid
in
Vreme, 26January
1932.
91
As
early
as 1850, ina
competition
for achurchin
Smed erevo, the
ecclesiastical authorities
rejected Jan
Nevole's
d esign
sinceit d id not
comply
withthe
requirement
that thechurchbea"faithful
copy"
of
Manasija,
an
early
fifteenth-century
monastic churchand one of the finest
examples
of the
Morava
style.
For
Manasija,
seeMillet, Ancienart serbe
(see
n.
50), 191-196.
Instead , mastermason
And rejaDamjanov
built afive-d omed structurereminis-
cent of thed esired
prototypeonly
inoverall form. Theresult was anaivefusion
of several med ieval
build ings
witha
baroquefront, as noticed
by
the
English
travelerWilliam
Denton, who visited Smed erevo lateinthe
century,
but
curiously
not
by
Felix Kanitz, who
praised
the
build ing
as
d istinctly national,
nor
by
the
patrons,
who d eemed it
sufficiently
evocative of the med ieval
prototype. SeeJovanovid , Srpskocrkveno
grad iteljstvo(see
n.
1),
97-99.
92 TheChurchof theDormitionof the
Virgin
at Gratanica
Monastery,
built
probably
around 1311
by King Stephen Urog
II
Milutinof the
Nemanyid
d ynasty,
came tobe
regard ed
as one of theforemost national
symbols,
a
monumental
testimony
tothe
glory
of themed ieval
past.
Forthis church, seeS.
Curiid ,
Grajanica:
King
Milutin
's
Churchand Its PlaceinLate
Byzantine
Architecture
(University
Park and Lond on, 1979).
Patrons d emand ed that theirchurches be
constructed inthe
image
of Gratanica, ina
fund amentally
med ieval belief that
these
"copies"
would transmit the
prototype's
inherent
symbolicproperties.
One
copy
was evenerected
by
theSerbian
community
in
Libertyville, Illinois.
93 Bogkovid ,
"Crkvasv. Markau
Beograd u
kaokarikatura
Gratanice,"
Srpski
knjifevni glasnik, n.s., no. 36
(1932): 302-304.
Bogkovid
criticized thelack of
constructional
logic
and the
artificiality
of the
build ing's
formal
composition.
The two
architects, the
Krstid
brothers, had
similarity
of
appearance
as their
soleaim.
They strictly complied
withthe
competition requirement
that the
churchresembleGratanica. Forthis
church, see
Lj. Miletid -Abramovic,
"Hram
sv. Markau
Beograd u," Trad icija
i savremeno
srpsko
crkveno
grad iteljstvo,
ed . B.
Stojkov and Z.
Manevid (Belgrad e, 1995), 190-198 and
M.-Durd evid ,
Petari
BrankoKrstic(Belgrad e, 1996), 34-42.
9
Skalamera, "Obnovasrpskog stila" (seen. 1), 209-210.
95
For
political d evelopments inthis
period , seeJ. Rothschild , East Central
Europe
between
theTwoWorld Wars (Seattleand Lond on, 1974), 201-280.
96
Forasurvey of architectural
d evelopments in
Belgrad ebetweenthetwo
world wars, see
O. Minid , "Razvoj Beograd ai
njegovaarhitekturaizmed ud va
rata," God iinjak grad aBeograd a1 (1954): 177-187; and B. Nestorovid , "Postaka-
d emizamuarhitekturi
Beograd a: 1919-1941," God isinjak grad aBeograd a20
(1973): 339-379.
97 It is not d ifficult tod ay to
appreciatethe
d aunting complexity of
d efining a
Yugoslav "national" style. Only ind efatigablead vocates of South
Slav unity such
as theCroatian
sculptorIvanMeltrovid (whosefantastically elaborate
d esign
fora
temple d ed icated totheBattleof Kosovowas to
embod y thecollective
spirit of theYugoslavs) persisted in
trying tod efineacultural trait commonto
Orthod ox Serbiaononesid eand CatholicCroatiaand Sloveniaontheother.
40
JSAH / 56:1, MARCH 1997
OnMeltrovi?, seeMed akovih, Srpska
umetnost
(seen.
31), 210.
98Jovanovic, Srpsko
crkveno
grad iteljstvo(seen. 1), 199-200.
99
Onthe
patriarchate,
seeA.
Kad ijevic,
"Arhitektura
Patrijargijskezgrad e
u
Beograd u," Glasnik DruStvakonzervatora
Srbije
18 (1994):
170-173.
OnJelisaveta
Na~ic, thefirst womanarchitect in
Serbia, and one of thefirst stud ents to
grad uate
fromthe
Department
of Architectureat
seeM. S.
Minic, "Prva
beograd anka arhitekta-Jelisaveta Nai~c," God iinjak grad a
Beo-
grad a
3
(1956):
451-457.
100 OntheMerchant's
Acad emy,
seeSkalamera, "Obnova
srpskog
stila"
(see
n.
1), 229.
o10
On
Korunovic, seeA.
Kad ijevic,
"Momir
Korunovic,"
Moment 16
(1989):
104-110; id em, MomirKorunoviW (Belgrad e, 1996).
Inthe
1950s, thePost Office
facad es
were
stripped
of all ornamental d etail and left barewith
large
"mod -
ern" wind ows. Thereconstruction was
supposed ly
to
repaird amage
inflicted
onthe
build ing d uring
thewarbut in
reality
this was und ertaken toremove
what theCommunist authorities consid ered d ecad ent and
nationally
sensitive
forms. Thereconstructionwas und erstood
by
the
proponents
of nonornamen-
talismas a
vengeful
final
victory
overhistoricism.
'02Jovanovid , Srpsko
crkveno
grad iteljstvo(see
n.
1), 222. Themost
prod uctive
of these Russianarchitects was Vasilii
And rosov, who alone built over
fifty
Orthod ox churches in
Yugoslavia
between1925 and 1941.
103
Unabletoarticulatetheird emand s
ind epend ently
insuchan
oppressive
intellectual
atmosphere,
several
young
architects in1928 formed the
Group
of
Architects of theMod ernOrientation and announced their
goals through
a
manifesto
published
inlate 1928 inthe
d aily
Politika. This
programmatic
statement
opposed
Romantic nationalismand called foramod ernization of
architecture onthe
principles
of International Mod ernism. Intheinterest of
quelling
nationalistictensions associated with
historicism, official
antagonism
toward theMod ernMovement subsid ed and afunctionalismof Czech
origin
grad ually prevailed among
architects closetotheestablishment. Thenew
style
turned out tobeas d octrinaireas historicismhad
been;
ironically,
someof the
most militant
champions
of thenew antihistoricist trend wereformer
propo-
nents of the
Serbo-Byzantinestyle.
104
St. Sava
(1174-1235) of the
Nemanyid family
was found er of theauto-
cephalous
Serbianchurchand its first
archbishop.
As the
patron
saint of
schools and
ed ucation, Savacametobe
regard ed
as the
spiritual symbol
of the
nation. The churchis located onthesitewhere theTurks in1594
publicly
burned St. Sava's
bod y
inord erto
suppress
the
myth
created around him. On
St. Sava, seeD.
Obolensky,
Six
Byzantine
Portraits
(Oxford , 1988), 115-172.
105
Skalamera, "Obnova
srpskog
stila"
(see
n.
1), 211-212.
106
Thecomplicated relations betweenSerbiaand Russiahavebeenexam-
ined
by
D. MackenzieinTheSerbs and RussianPan-Slavism: 1875-1878
(Ithaca,
1967).
'l7Jovanovic, Srpsko
crkveno
grad iteljstvo(see
n.
1), 202.
108 Besid es thosewhostill ad vocated theuseof
Hansenesque
formulas and
thosewhobelieved that theChurchof St. Savashould bemod eled on
Hagia
Sophia,
some
people
still favored what was termed absolute freed omof
expression.
SeeDurateBogkovid , "Problem
Svetosavskog hrama,"
Srpski knjieuvni
glasnik, n.s., no. 35
(1932):
368. This
term, reminiscent of some
early
twentieth-
century id eals, d id not includ e mod ern architectural
concepts
or
any style
otherthanmed ieval SerbianorByzantine; ineffect it d enoted eclecticism. For
asurvey of thesetheoretical d eliberations, seeD. Marid , "Polemike oprob-
lemima
srpskog crkvenog grad iteljstvauprvoj polovini XX veka,"
Trad icija
i
savremeno
srpsko
crkveno
grad iteljstvo,
ed . B.
Stojkov and Z. Manevic(Belgrad e,
1995), 202-206.
109
Skalamera, "Obnova
srpskog
stila"
(see
n.
1), 212.
Perspective
stud ies
submitted at the
competition werepublished in"SkicezaSvetosavski hramu
Beograd u," Raska, 1929, no. 1, 56-63.
110 Bogkovic, "ProblemSvetosavskog hrama" (seen. 108), 368.
111
Pravd a, 16 December 1932.
112 But theconsensus was reached
only among
the
clergy
and conservative
proponents
of historicismfromthe
Department
of Architecture at
Belgrad e
University.
Almost
immed iately
afterthe
plan
was mad e
public,
theClub of
Architects initiated ad ebate
d uringJanuary
and
February 1932, inthe
newspa-
perVreme, inwhich
ind epend ent
architects and art critics
expressed
theirviews.
Another
professional organization,
theAssociationof
Yugoslav Engineers and
Architects, evenformulated aresolution
d emand ing
that the
competition
be
repeated ,
but at theinterventionof thePatriarch
King
Alexand erKarad ord evi?
end orsed the
d esign.
113 SeeJovanovi?, Srpskocrkvenograd iteljstvo(seen. 1), 211.
"4
Bogkovic, "Crkvasv. Marka" (see n. 93), 304; id em, "ProblemSveto-
savskog
hrama" (seen. 108), 370.
115 Vreme, 31January
1932.
"6 M. Kalanin, "Svetosavski hram,"
Srpski knjiievni glasnik, n.s., no. 20
(1927): 310-311.
117
K. Strajni?, Svetosavski hram
(Belgrad e, 1926).
118
See
Marie,
"Polemika"
(see
n.
108), 204, 206.
119
Naga
Borba, 8July 1995.
120
Lj. Bognjak, "Realizacijacrkvenog objektad anas,"
Trad icija
i
savremeno
srpsko
crkveno
grad iteljstvo,
ed . B.
Stojkov
and Z. Manevic (Belgrad e, 1995),
259-260.
Exceptions are several churches built over the
past
d ecad es
by
Serbiancommunities intheUnited States,
notably
thosein
Monroeville, Pa.;
Detroit, Mich.; and
Pittsburgh,
Pa. Forthese
build ings,
see
Jovanovic, Srpsko
crkveno
grad iteljstvo(seen. 1), figs.
223-225.
1"1
Obnovamanastira
SvetiArhan&eli
kod Prizrena
(Belgrad e, 1992), 80-81.
122
Politika, 18 October1993.
IllustrationCred its
Figures 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, 15-17, 19-21, 23, 26: Bratislav Pantelic
Figure
3. D. Med akovicand P. Milosevic, Serbs inthe
History of Trieste(Belgrad e,
1987)
Figures 4, 13-14, 18. National Institute for the Preservation of Cultural
Monuments,
Belgrad e
Figure
8:
Srpski
tehnicki
list, 10-11, (1899), pl.
4.
Figure
11.
M.Jovanovic, Oplenac:
TheChurch
ofSt. George
and theMausoleum
of
the
KaraporpevWiDynasty (Topola, 1990)
Figure
12: Museumof
History, Belgrad e
Figure
22: A.
Kad ijevid , MomirKorunoviW (Belgrad e, 1996)
Figures
24-25: Raska, 1
(1929)

Nacionalizam I Arhitektura

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Nacionalizam I Arhitektura

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Nationalism and Architecture: The Creation of a National Style in Serbian Architecture and

Its Political Implications

Вам также может понравиться