Search

Following the example of the first History of Serbian Literature (in 1867 the first issue and in 1871 the second one) from the pen of our historian of literature and literary critic Stojan Novaković, we are illustrating the process of maturation, forming, and functioning of literary critique in Serbian society and culture. Novaković's format of the history of literature is the one in which all other historians of literature will fit into as literary critics afterwards. As a semi-historian, the student of Daničić, and the supporter of Vuk ideas, the representative of culturo-historical critique school, historian of culture, historian of political life of the Serbian people, and scientist who requested from literature 'not to show the martyrdom of the poet but the essential life itself' in the History of Serbian Literature, which is viewed as culture, made solid fundaments to literary critique as the youngest branch of the science of literature. The idea that the literature itself is the holder of critic spirit will give birth firstly to the history of literature as critique, and afterwards the literary critique itself. Defining scientific method and the notion of the history of literature as the synthesis of positive and negative spiritual and social facts in the literature development, Novaković argues it deals with 'the development of some ideas and search of thinking directions and things understanding in different centuries' and themes of what is the occasion of such ideas appearance, development, and collapse. The role of literature focuses on the preservation of people's identity and language, while all other will be the deviation from natural development. The issue of the importance and meaning of critique is thus direct and always the one of the importance and status of culture in the society history, and tackles the way in which it is studied, and power which it conquers in the society and culture.

After liberation wars 1876-1878 and the Berlin Congress, numerous Serbian inhabitants were still under the Turkish occupation. With an aim to ensure them a better legal position, Serbia strengthened its diplomatic activities with obvious results. Between the two countries a temporary Consular Convention which enabled Serbia to open a consulate in Turkey was signed. A consulate in Priština, with great efforts, was opened in 1890, and Luka Marinković was appointed as the first consul. The opening of the consulate for the Serbs meant a real presence of Serbia in Kosovo, while the Arbanasi considered a Serbian flag on the building as a hint of the Ottoman Empire demise. Success of Serbia in this diplomatic aspect aroused fury and dissatisfaction of the Arbanasi and the local authorities, which culminated in the murder of the consul Luka Marinković. They, with the aim of depriving Serbs of any protection, planned an action successfully persuading a Gypsy to realize it for them. The government of Serbia and its representatives both in Turkey and other European capitals faced a difficult task to shed light on the murder and bring back dignity to Serbia as its reputation was thus tarnished. The greatest credit for this goes to Stojan Novaković, the envoy of Serbia in Constantinople. Novaković's efforts to make representatives of other countries in Constantinople to take interest in this task, which was of great importance to Serbia, were fruitful. Solving the case of consul Marinković's murder took time, Turkish authorities did not have will or real wish to solve it. On the contrary, sultan and Porta never meant to solve it by diplomatic way, so they left it to the court, which often worked at the Serbs' expense, anyway. Only after intervention of the representatives of the Great powers in Constantinople, the sultan agreed to pay the wife of the murdered consul a financial compensation, thus closing the case.

Today's modern research culture, especially the cultural heritage of tangible and intangible culture is increasingly turning to the private testing, personal in history, overlooking the 'little' man in the social, political and cultural opportunities and conditions in general, at a given time and space to reveal collective 'state of mind'. Serbian travel writers, as a source of research of Serbian cultural heritage in the Balkans, especially over a wide area of the Serbian lands, can be a very useful historical source, because of the good knowledge of the local languages, the culture of the area and the period that is the subject of this brief survey. In his fruitful and comprehensive scientific historiographical work, Stojan Novaković paid great attention to the issue of historical sources, which are considered to be essential to a better understanding of the history of the Serbian nation. The reason why Serbian travelogue texts seem to be important for our history is certainly a more immediate and realistic attitude towards the Christian and Slavic, primarily Serbian, population as well as the information about them which has a great historical value. Their very existence and the time in which they are obtained represent a history for themselves and we can indirectly indicate the socio-cultural situation of our people at that time. In medieval culture and heritage, under the auspices of the church, travel literature found its important place. Travelers appear to be indispensable and irreplaceable in the study of ethnological, sociological, cultural, religious, philosophical and psychological, economic and even social (cultural) issues of modern social sciences and humanities, both domestic and foreign, and in many ways are more important than the primary historical sources, because of their subjective-personal character and direct information that they can provide enabling us to 'freeze' a cultural-social picture of the time and space.