Serbian Studies Research

Vol. 2, No. 1 (2011): 81-109. 81

UDC 821.163.41.09"18"
Оригинални научни рад

Mr Jovan Pejčić1
University of Niš
Faculty of Philosophy
Department of Serbian and Comparative Literature
Serbia

THE INCEPTION OF THE SERBIAN

HISTORY OF LITERATURE
Abstract: This paper explores the beginnings of historiography studies of the national
literature of the Serbian people. The first studies of this type among the Serbs were conduc-
ted in the early 19th century (1800–1820). Dositej Obradović was the first to have expres-
sed the need for a historical overview of the developmental trends of Serbian literature in
the preface to his Етиka (Ethics, published in 1880). It was followed by two works by Pavle
Solarić: Поминак књижески (Literary Compendium) from 1810 (which is, actually, a history
of printing and an inventory of Serbian books), and Погледи на језик и књижество илири-
ческо (Views on the Illyrian language and literature) from 1820, an article with all the featu-
res of a historical approach to national literature. An important factor for the development
of the Serbs’ awareness of their history literature in that period were the endeavors of Luki-
jan Mušicki, although none of his works dealing with the history of literature were printed.
His manuscript legacy and his correspondence, primarily with Jernej Kopitar (as of 1809),
reveals that Mušicki’s ideas about the entirety and the courses of development of Serbian li-
terature (especially concerning its classification into literature written in the Church Slavic
language and that written in vernacular Serbian into old and new) had a decisive influence
on the views expressed in historiography surveys of Serbian literature not only by Kopitar
(1810, 1813), but also by the Czech expert on Slavic studies Jozef Dobrovský (1814). Simi-
larly, the work of Lazar Bojić from 1815 Памјатник мужем у славено-сербском књижеству
славним (Pantheon of renowned figures of the Slavic-Serb literature) is yet another oeuvre
which has been classified in Serbian literary studies in an ambivalent way: as the first history
of Serbian literature, as the first Serbian bio-bibliography, as the first book of essays among
the Serbs, etc. Bojić, who was a student of the Seminary in Sremski Karlovci, attended in his
final years of schooling (1812–1813), lecutres on Serbian literature by Lukijan Mušicki, which
he incorporated into his survey of writers of the Age of Enlightenment. It is on the example

1 jovan.pejcic@gmail.com
82 | Jovan Pejčić

of Bojić’s book that the views or contemporary Serbian historians of literature on the incep-
tion of literary history as a separate academic discipline are being reassessed and debated.
Keywords: Serbian literature, birth of historiography of Serbian literature, models of
historical studying of literature, periodization, Dositej Obradović, Lukijan Musicki, Jernej
Kopitar, Josef Dobrovský, Lazar Bojić, Pavle Solarić, the Serbs’ literal and historical compre-
hension2

1.

In principle, every issue concerning genesis is in itself complex and, according

to a rule that is regularly acknowledged, but generally applied in different ways, de-
pending on the familiarity with the subject, the perspective and the gift for inferen-
ce – bound to be controversial. In spiritual matters, this problem is more intricate
than in exact sciences. In literary studies – in studies of art, the problem is ever more
evident than in other disciplines. This is also the case with Serbian literature studies.
The emergence of the earliest forms of literary criticism, i.e. the original forms
of historical studies and synthetic representation of national literature, is characteri-
zed by a vagueness in defining the subject that, in its quest for the root of the matter,
has been changing angles and redefining spiritual and time limits.
The findings concerning the inception and the development of Serbian literary
criticism3 and esthetics4 have repeatedly been seen in their historical context and
reconsidered – while the history of Serbian literature is still to be written.5 How we-
re the issues concerning the corpus and identity of Serbian literature,6 its domain

2 Ovaj rad je nastao u okviru projekta “Književnost i istorija” (evidencioni broj: 148025) finansiranog
od strane Ministarstva prosvete i nauke Republike Srbije. Projekat se realizuje u saradnji Filozofskog
fakulteta u Nišu sa Centrom za naučna istraživanja SANU i Univerzitetom u Nišu (This paper has been
elaborated within the framework of the Literature and History Project [148025] funded by the Ministry
of Education and Science of the Republic of Serbia).
3 Dragiša Živković, Počeci srpske književne kritike (1817–1860), Belgrade 1957.
4
Dragan M. Jeremić, Estetika kod Srba. Od srednjeg veka do Svetozara Markovića, Belgrade 1989; Mi-
lan Ranković, Istorija srpske estetike, Belgrade 1998.
5 Nevertheless, a brief and quite systematic survey of Serbian literary historiography was developed

by Jovan Deretić in his book Put srpske književnosti (Belgrade 1996), the key issues of which are “identi-
ties, limits, tendencies” in Serbian literature. The chapter entitled “Serbian literature in the mirror of its
history” (pp. 55–80).
6 In the year of his most intensive activities concerning the history of Slavic languages and literatures
in all dialects (Geschichte der slawischen Sprache und Literatur nach allen Mundarten) was published in
Budim in 1826), Pavel J. Šafarik writes the following to František Palacki, on 28th Nov 1822: “[Georgije]
Magarašević, a professor here, is having a new history published and is also working on a Serbian-La-
 The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 83

and periodic classification been resolved in the formative period of Serbian literary
historiography? What writings and concepts do the foundations of the tradition of
Serbian history of literature rest on?

2.

It appears that the first steps in this direction were made by Dositej Obradović
(1739/40–1811). In the preface to Etika, the last of his works published in his lifetime
(1803), Dositej departs from his basic moralizing tone and ventures to pay homage
to the Serbian culture in the Age of Enlightenment. Here is how this passage reads:
The first people of glorious and immortal names in all spheres of advan-
ced sciences and humanities in Europe were the Greek people: it awoke to a
splendid spring, bloomed into a rich summer glow and reaped a bountiful au-
tumn. Their successors were the Romans, i.e. the Latin people, who gradually
enlightened other nations throughout Europe. When, eventually, the Slavic pe-
ople awakened to a promising dawn, ill-fated Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina and
Bulgaria fell into desolate Turkish slavery: since then, freedom, glory and scho-
larly enlightenment have disappeared from their horizon. Let our dignified and
brave people under the wings of the imperial eagle forever cherish the aspirati-
ons all sovereign people have in common, which they pursue and respect: sci-
ence and enlightenment of the mind.
In my childhood, I became entranced with several verses by Žefarović,
which begin like this:
The muse bestows sublime words upon us,
to gratify the hallowed with praise.
Ever since, I have longed to discover that sweet-worded goddess! The na-
me of Zaharija Orfelin will never fall into oblivion with us. Vujanovski, a man
of excellence, disseminated so much good among our people – let the honor
and gratitude be attributed Metropolitan Vidak, for his teaching and guidan-
ce. And our Rajić – such a dear and honorable name! And who is that virtuous
man from Arad who, with angelic diligence builds and opens schools for his
beloved people, but also establishes such institutions and rules that will, in due
time, surely serve as an example to Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Who
else could that be but our glorious Tekelija! Major Đurinac will not be wanting

tin dictionary. But what purpose can that serve before the question of what the term ’Serbian’ refers to.
We can see how unfortunate all the Slavic peoples around us are” (cit. from: Đorđe Živanović, Georgije
Magarašević /1793–1830/, Novi Sad 1976. Italic J. P.)
84 | Jovan Pejčić

in our gratitude. The perspicacious Terlajič, whose distinguished Slavic expres-

siveness is highly appraised, drank from an abundant well. Stojkovič enlightens
us in physics, endowing our dispositions with exquisite pieces of writing. The
gentle State Councillor Jurišić from the Kremlin informs me of having tran-
slated a beautiful book on the history of morals from Russian into Serbian and
of his intention to send it to me so that I could have it published and that Da-
mjan Riznić had promised to cover all the costs.
At this point, it is only right to take a rather long mental journey into the
past – about two hundred years back. Let our love produce a miracle and re-
surrect Božidar Podgoričanin, who, after the fall of the last Serbian glory –
Herzegovina – commissioned various religious books to be printed by the Ve-
netians and thus preserve both the heritage and the name of his people from
ruin with his uprightness and generosity. Rise, oh rise, incarnate and bloom,
you dear man by the name of Božidar! Your grateful descendants will not cede
your name to oblivionn! Rejoice, oh you serene ancestral gentle soul, for you
have not perished! The Božidarević lineage proudly follows your footsteps –
Božidar means Theodore.
What else are all those exploits and all the above mentioned names but
rays of our enlightenment and a celebration a forthcoming dawn, of a long an-
ticipated harbinger of an awakening spring?7
The historical and cultural dimension of Dositej’s praise is indisputable. Jovan
Deretić, who was the first to highlight the literary and historical importance of this
passage,8 concludes quite legitimately that this venture, “despite being a far cry form
a genuine history of literature”, still provides “a consummate overview” of an entire
period.9
The dynamics of Dositej’s account is obvious. Had it not been for the name of
Božidar Vuković, whom Dositej apparently perceived as the genuine forerunner of
a new understanding of literary culture, it could be inferred that the author casts a
light exclusively on contemporaneous figures: Hristofor Žefarović, Zaharija Orfelin,
Stefan Vujanovski, Jovan Rajić, Sava Tekelija, Pavle Julinac, Grigorije Trlajić, Atanasije
Stojković, Jurišić – all those were writers, translators and men of letters that lived in
the period that directly preceded Dositej’s lifetime or were indeed his contemporari-
es. The emphasis he places on their specific accomplishments, their quality and their

7 Dositej Obradović, Etika (1803), Sabrana dela, knj. II (ed. Đuro Gavela / Jelena Šaulić), Belgrade 1961,

pp. 414–416.
8 See J. Deretić, “Kada počinje nova srpska književnost”, Conference of experts in Slavonic studies during

the Days of Vuk Karadžić (Belgrade), 17/4 (1988), P. 157.

9 Put srpske književnosti, p. 58.
 The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 85

bearing on the development of spiritual creativity among the Serbs in the eighteenth
century is rather vague and conventional – but nevertheless, later developments and
studies will confirm the scale of values applied by Dositej Obradović.

3.

Pavle Solarić (1779–1821) is the second in a diachronic sequence of Serbian wri-

ters with pretensions to literary history. Moreover, his publication Поминакъ кни-
жескiй о Славено-Сербскомъ въ Млеткахъ Печатанiю /1810/ (Librarian survey
of Slavic Serbian publications in Venice) was perceived, and is still occasionally seen
a “the first written document that could be classified in the rubric of literary histori-
ography”,10 as its “inception”.11 On the other hand, Pominak has for long been consi-
dered to be the first Serbian printed bibliography, 12 and even as the first Serbian bo-
ok catalogue on the market.13 Finally, Solarić’s work is taken as a singular “program
for the preservation of the national identity of the Serbs (dispersed ‘among the Turks,
Vlahs, Hungarians, Slavonians, Croats and Dalmatians’)”.14
The publication itself consists of two parts. The first part is more voluminous
due to a lengthy preface, whereas the second contains a bibliographic description of
Serbian and “Illyrian” books in Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabets (72 titles), publis-
hed in Venice between 1638 and 1810 by Dimitrije Teodosije and his heir, publisher
Pane Teodosije.
Ever since his book came out, Solarić’s work has been the subject of great con-
troversy concerning the nature of its genre. The preface has given rise to disputes.
However, in the preface, Solarić recounts the history of printing books in Serbian,
and not on Serbian literature. Therefore, because of its contents, Pominak does not,
strictly speaking, fit into the concept of the term of literary studies and should not

10
J. Deretić, ibid.
11 Vaso Milinčević, “Pavle Solarić – lik u senci”, Osvetljavanja i suočavanja, Belgrade, 2007, p. 77.
12
Lazar Čurčić, “Поминак Књижески Павла Соларића”, Bibliotekar, XXXI/4 (1976), pp. 308–324; Dušan
Panković, Srpske bibliografije 1766–1850, Belgrade 1982, pp. 20–25.
13 Nikola Andrić, “Život i književni rad Pavla Solarića”, Rad JAZU, b. 150, Zagreb 1902, p. 157; Miroslav
Pantić, “Štampar starih srpskih knjiga Dimitrije Teodosije”, Prilozi za književnost, jezik, istoriju i folklor
(Belgrade), b. XXVI (1960), pp. 206–236; Dragiša Živković, Počeci srpske književne kritike, Belgrade 1957,
p. 62; Petar Milosavljević, Uvod u srbistiku, Belgrade 2003, pp. 138–139.
14 Dušan Ivanić, Književnost Srpske Krajine, Belgrade 1998, p. 50.
86 | Jovan Pejčić

be understood as such. It is simply a “treatise on printing”15 permeated by a Dosite-

iean spirit and nothing more than that.

3.1. However, another text by Solarić doubtlessly belongs to the corpus of Ser-
bian literary studies. It is an article entitled “Views on the Illyrian language and litera-
ture” published in 1820 in Italian which was immediately followed by a Serbian tran-
slation by Jefta Popović in the Serbian newspaper Novine srbske in Vienna.16 This
article is said to be “the first concise survey of our literature”,17 i.e. that “ideas about
the Illyrian standard language and contemporary literature in that language (actu-
ally, of the literature written in the štokavian dialect)” were expressed for the first ti-
me in a systematic form.18
Solarić dedicates half of the article to the nature, the genesis and the area whe-
re the Serbian language (as he says, “the Illyrian, i.e. Serbian language”19) is spoken.
The second part contains a description of the difficult situation the Serbian cultu-
re and educational institutions are in, which, in addition to historical misfortunes, is
aggravated by religious divides:
What the Illyrians of Greek denomination write, the Illyrians of Roman
denomination cannot read. Likewise, they do not read the works of western
writers. Clearly, this ignorance derives from religious differences and even mo-
re so, differences between their alphabets are the sole reason for that.20
Afterwards, Solarić shifts the subject to literature, emphasizing a twofold diffe-
rence from the start. The first difference lies in the religious key and in the alphabet:
he draws a difference between Orthodox and Catholic writers. Furthermore, he di-
vides Serbian writers of eastern religion into those who write in Church Slavic and
those who write in the vernacular. He sees Jovan Rajić (whose History... and among

15
D. Panković, cited above, p. 24.
16 Solarić’s work was printed in the magazine Srbistika (Priština), II/121 (1999), pp. 311–317. It was edited
by Vera Milosavljević, who also wrote an accompanying commentary (pp. 307–311). Miroslav Pantić be-
lieves that the co-authors of this article were Solarić and Ivan Kreljanović Albinoni (“Solarić, Kreljanović,
Apendini”, Prilozi za književnost, jezik, istoriju i folklor, b.XXIII/1–2/1957, pp. 22–42; Dragiša Živković is more
reserved on this subject; in his opinion, the article was written by Solarić, “probably in cooperation with
Ivan Kreljanović-Albinoni, a writer from Zadar” (Počeci srpske književne kritike, p. 112): Vaso Milinčević
merely remarks that “Solarić’s ideas are dominant in the above mentioned article” (“Pavle Solarić – lik u
senci”, p. 78).
17 D. Živković, Počeci književne kritike, p. 113.
18 D. Ivanić, Književnost Srpske Krajine, p. 50.
19 P. Solarić, “Pogledi na jezik i knjižestvo ilirčesko”, p. 312.
20 Ibid., p. 314.
 The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 87

“his poetic works, The Tragedy of King Uroš” is particularly praised) and Avram
Mrazović as a grammarian.21 The second group consists of writers who use in the-
ir books “the new plain Illyrian language”: Dositej Obradović, Grigorije Trlajić and
Vuk Karadžić. He refers to “the small oeuvres” of Trlajić as being “clear in style and
beautiful”; the works by Dositej are extolled as “most commendable”, emphasizing
the fact that they “laid the foundations of a new Illyrian literature”; he sets apart Vuk’s
Grammar and Dictionary (1818), ending his evaluation with a praise for Vuk’s “com-
pilation of poems by Illyrian poets”: “They would not be met with less admiration
than the Caledonian poems should a translator equal to Cesaroti be found.”22 He se-
es Andrija Kačić Miošić, whose “heroic poems” he praises and Ivan Gundulić and his
lauded masterpiece “Osmanida of the Gondola, heroic poetry”23, as the two major
representatives of the writers of Western Illyrian religion using the Latin alphabet.
The review ends with an etymological study of the word Slav.

4.

Pominak knjižeski (Literary Compendium) by Pavle Solarić, which was printed

in 1810 and his “Views on the Illyrian Language and Literature”, which came out in
1820, highlight the period seen as “the crucial decade of Serbian literature”24. That
decade was marked by the following accomplishments: the publication of the first
compilations of folk poetry; the creation of the new orthography, the first grammar
and the first colloquial Serbian dictionary; critique in its original sense; the first com-
pilation of romantic poetry; the start of The Serbian Gazette; the first secular theater
performance; publishing works with an unprecedented quality, genuinely pertaining
to the domain of literary studies…25
The latest in the above mentioned sequence of events is also the most impor-
tant: Lazar Bojić (1791–1859), “A first year student in Philosophy” at the University
of Pest, had the first volume of his Памятникъ мужемъ у славено-сербскомъ кни-

21 Ibid.
22 Ibid., p. 315.
23 Ibid.
24 Vaso Milinčević, “Prelomna decenija srpske književnosti /1810–1820/” (1974), Tvorci i tumači, Belgra-
de 1984, pp. 9–34.
25 Ibid., p. 33.
88 | Jovan Pejčić

жеству славнымъ (Pantheon of renowned figures of the Slavic-Serb literature) pu-

blished in 1815.26
This work was composed with meticulous care: it begins with a dedication to
his tutor with whose guidance he had spent seven years, which ends with the author’s
“warm wishes” for his long life and progress in his studies. It is followed by a preface,
which contains Bojić’s explanation of his intention to follow the example of ancient
Greeks and Romans as well as the contemporary English, French and Germans and
to erect a monument to the most meritorious Serbian writers of the Age of Enlig-
htenment: “The best way to express our gratitude to them is by knowing their names,
revering them, cherishing their memory and reading their works.27
More significant than the preface is the chapter “On Letters or Literature”, which
is primarily due to the fact that it contains Bojić’s appreciation of the cultural and li-
terary accomplishments of the Serbs in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuri-
es, in a manner that was in tune with the critics and historians of his time:
It is my intention here to talk about literature: Time has come to con-
template this subject thoroughly. It is humble and outstanding at the same ti-
me. Bearing in mind the time when our enlightenment began, our literature is
outstanding; however, in view of the fact that this is the nineteenth century (!)
then, comparing to the literatures of other, more educated nations, it is hum-
ble indeed. Its humbleness can be explained by its fledgling emergence. Yet it is
outstanding owing to the diligence of our writers, who have invested a tremen-
dous effort into literary ventures since the very beginning of that period of en-
lightenment, in order to establish and promote our Literature.28
Bojić proceeds with an analysis of the entire Serbian literature, which in his
opinion, encompasses the period between archbishop Danilo of Peć to metropoli-
tan Stefan Stratimirović. This statement is immediately followed by what he calls a
“classification” by Jozef Dobrovský into old and new Serbian literature, which will be
elaborated later. At the end of the chapter, the author provides a survey of Serbian

26
The place of the publication of this piece has not been definitely established. Pest, Budim and Vien-
na are cited (judging by the letter cliché, it is considered that it was printed at Johan Schnirer’s in Vien-
na, who also printed Davidović’s Serbian Gazette /D. Panković, Srpske bibliografije, 26/).
27 Памятникь мужемь у славено-сербскомь книжеству славнымь, вь Жертву признателности и
благодаренїя Лазаремь Боичемь I лэта фїлософїи слышателемь водружень. Перва часть. 1815, no
pagination. Further in the text, I will be referring to the photoprint edition of Bojić’s work, edited in No-
vi Sad in 1994 by Mirjana D. Stefanović. According to the pagination established by M. D. Stefanović in
this issue, the cited quotation is on p. [75]. (All further references will be: Pamjatnik, and quotations will
be from this edition.)
28 Pamjatnik, pp. [82]–[83].
 The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 89

writers of both periods; in two rubrics, he lists 103 names in alphabetical order (“A:
deceased” – 37; “B: living” – 66).29
The main body of the book consists of biographies of the writers from the Age
of Enlightenment with lists of their printed works and, partly, of their manuscripts.
Those are: Jovan Rajić, Dositej Obradović, Grigorije Trlajić and Atanasije Stojković30
– all of whom were writers from the territory of north of the Danube and the Sava,
Austrian citizens and of Orthodox faith. Their biographies are presented according
to a three part pattern: the chronology of their lives permeated with character ob-
servations – their work presented in a simple bibliographical form – memories and
adulation by the contemporaries. Selected thoughts or verses are introduced into the
texts by Virgil (twice), Propercius and Christopher Augustus Tidge. Bojić considers
Rajić to be a renowned historian, the first among the laudable Serbian minds; the
subtitle of the part about Dositej is: “The Serbian sage”; Trlajić is represented mainly
as a professor of history and statistics, and Stojković as a scientist (and writer of fic-
tion) adorned with numerous awards and titles by Russian and European academies
and universities. There are no critical analyses or literary studies.
The bottom line of Bojić’s concept is to present a survey of Serbian eighteenth
century literature, science and culture through the life histories of remarkable figu-
res.31 As for the form and procedure, it resembled Classicist biographies,32 although
his real models were, in fact, much older. He had become familiar with them during
his school days in the Grammar School and in the Seminary of Sremski Karlovci.
Thus, we have before us, as far as the typology is concerned, a form of biographical

29 Ibid., pp. [86]–[90].

30
Under the title of Pamjatnik, it is written “Part one”. Indicative of the fact that Bojić really continued
his work is his letter of 14th [16th] August 1833, in which he asks Vuk the following: “to let me know your
place of birth, your father’s and mother’s name, your date of birth, the changes in your life, the date of
your wedding and other appropriate information for your biography – because I am working on a Ca-
talogue of Serbian writers” (Vuk Karadžić, Prepiska V: 1833–1836 /ed. Golub Dobrašinović et al/, SD 24,
Belgrade 1989, p. 195). Six years later, in his article “Sitnice jezikoslovne” (Language observations) he in-
forms the readers of The Almanac of Matica srpska that he “intends to have printed” a Compilation, “that
will contain the biographies of Serbian writers in chronological order” (XIII /1839/, 102).
31 Bojić was neither the first nor the only Serb to write biographies of this type. Before him, Jeftimije
Ivanović published his Novi Plutarh (New Plutarch) (1809). It can be said that the atmosphere in the first
part of the nineteenth century was unchanged for the Serbs. Georgije Magarašević, for example, syste-
matically developed this form of literature; moreover, he introduced a rubric called “Biographical notes
on famous Serbs” as of the very first issue of the almanac Сербске лэтописи for 1825 that he launched.
Except for Ivanović, Bojić and Magarašević, similar biographies were being written by: Mihailo Vitković,
Mušicki, Konstantin Bogdanović, Platon Atanacković, Sterija, Vuk…
32 See Zoran Konstantinović, “Citati kao kulturološki metatekst”, Intertekstualna komparatistika, Belgra-

de 2002, p. 45.
90 | Jovan Pejčić

compilation that has been popular in European literature ever since the Hellenistic
period, specifically, the type of compilation that was developed by Salustius, Plutarch
and Cornelius Nepotus.33 The Serbian Classicism took over the interest in these wri-
ters, Plutarch and his simultaneous biographic accounts in particular, not only from
ancient Greeks and Romans, but also from old Serbian literature, especially from the
lives of Serbian rulers34 – which can be seen, for instance, in Novi Plutarh by Jeftimi-
je Ivanović, who happened to be Bojić’s professor.
However, the “genetic addiction”35 is not the only question mark hovering over
Bojićs life stories. The problem of their originality also arises. “I have written the bi-
ographies”, Bojić says in his preface, of Jovan Rajić and Dositej Obradović – “accor-
ding to German publications”, and those of Grigorije Trlajić and Atanasije Stojković
– “from oral communication”36. As for the text about Rajić, it is the translation of
an article from Schedius’ German magazine,37 complemented with a list of Rajić’s
works which he took over from the ode by Lukijan Mušicki dedicated to the Ser-
bian historian.38 On the other hand, he took over all data about Dositej from Ko-
pitar’s biographic and bibliographic article on the first Serbian educator, which was
published in 1811 in the Viennese paper Vaterländische Blätter.39 The origin of the
biographical and bibliographical facts that Bojić puts forward in the remaining two
biographies, which were written “based on oral communication” has not been esta-
blished to this day.

4.1. Can Памјатник мужем у славено-сербском књижеству славним (Pant-

heon of renowned figures of the Slavic-Serb literature) be seen as the first full-fled-
ged Serbian history of Serbian literature?

33
Miron Flašar, “Jovan Rajić u Pamjatniku Lazara Bojića”, in the compilation Jovan Rajić (ed. Marta Frajnd),
Belgrade 1997, pp. 280–281.
34 See more about the influence of Hellenistic heroic biographies on the literary form of life stories in:

Dimitrije Bogdanović, Istorija stare srpske književnosti, Belgrade 1980, pp. 71 and 218; Đorđe Trifunović,
Stara srpska književnost – osnove, Belgrade 1994, pp. 283 and 295–296.
35
M. Flašar, cited text, p. 281.
36 Pamjatnik, [p.79].
37
Nikola Radojčić established beyond any doubt that the writer of Rajić’s biography was metropolitan
Stefan Stratimirović (Serbian historian Jovan Rajić, SANU, Belgrade 1952, pp. 159–16).
38 Đorđe S. Kostić, Pavle J. Šafarik o novoj srpskoj kniževnosti, SANU, Belgrade 1988, pp. 42–43.
39 Z. Konstantinović, cited text, p.46 (At this point, Konstantinović invokes a research paper by Tomislav
Bekić); comp. Jernej Kopitar, “Dositej Obradović”, Serbica (translated by T. Bekić), Novi Sad 1984, pp.115–
122.
 The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 91

Scholars have defined the genre of Bojić’s work in different ways. The first “qua-
lifications” – notes made by Lukijan Mušicki on the margins of his manuscript con-
taining the bibliographies of Serbian books dating from 1494 until 1818, besides Па-
мјатник, “Истор[ија] књиж[ества],40 and Pavel Jozef Šafarik in his Geschichte der
slawischen Sprache und Literatur nach allen Mundarten (1926), which he places into
the rubric “History of Literature”41 – have no genealogical, but merely a bibliograp-
hical and catalogue value. Skerlić sees Bojić as “the first biographer of Serbian wri-
ters”;42 for Svetislav Marić – Pamjatnik is “a piece of work that recounts the history
of literature”;43according to Dragiša Živković, this book pertains to the group of “bi-
ographical and bibliographical endeavors” that are already the first step in establis-
hing the Serbian history of literature”.44 Slobodan Komadinić sees Bojić as “the author
who established a new genre among the Serbs – a bio-bibliography”;45 Ivo Tartalja
believes that this work “bears some characteristics of a historical survey of national
literature”;46 Magdalena Anđelić attaches primary importance to the bibliographi-
cal value of Bojić’s work;47 Miodrag Popović perceives Pamjatnik as “the first history
of Serbian literature” and Lazar Bojić as “The first historian of Serbian literature”;48
Dušan K. Petrović expresses the view that he has encountered the first Serbian book
of essays;49 Vasa Milinčević sees in it “the first rudimentary history of literature”;50
Pavić, like Skerlić, views it as “a compilation of literary biographies”;51 Jovan Deretić
adopts the judgment of D. Živković, (mistakenly) relaying the view in all his books
that, after Skerlić’s Pominak knjižeski, Bojić’s booklet represents “a step forward in the

40 The archives of SANU, iss. 252.

41 Comp. P. J. Šafarik, Istorija srpske književnosti (translated by M.D. Stefanović / Milan Mrazović), Belgra-
de / Novi Sad 2004, p.299.
42 Srpska književnost u XVIII veku (1909), Sabrana dela, knj. 11, Beograd 1966, p. 239.
43 “Da li je Stojkovićev Kandor roman?” (1950), Odabrani spisi, Novi Sad 1979, p. 107.
44 Počeci srpske književne kritike (1817–1860), Belgrade 1957, p. 63.
45
“Počeci srpske bibliografije”, in the compilation Deset godina Bibliografskog instituta FNRJ (1948–1958),
Belgrade 1958, p. 305.
46 Počeci rada na istoriji opšte književnosti kod Srba, SANU, Belgrade 1964, p. 26.
47 “Lazar Bojić – prvi srpski bibliograf”, Prilozi za književnost, jezik, istoriju i folklor, XXXIV/3–4 (1968), pp.
291–298.
48
Istorija srpske književnost – Romantizam, 1, Belgrade 1968, p. 332; II: Belgrade 1972, pp. 29 and 276.
49 “Lazar Bojić, pisac prve knjige eseja u srpskoj književnosti”, Zbornik Matice srpske za književnost i jezik
(Novi Sad), XIX/3 (1971), pp. 567–568.
50 “Prelomna decenija srpske književnosti /1810–1820/” (1974), Tvorci i tumači, p. 33.
51 Istorija srpske književnosti klasicizma i predromantizma. Klasicizam, Belgrade 1979, p. 505. Pavić goes
on to say that “Bojić’s texts pertain to the so-called “biographies of antiquarian type” (p. 506)
92 | Jovan Pejčić

history of literature”;52 finally, according to Nenad Ljubinković, Pamjatnik is a piece

that “can conditionally be perceived as part of the history of literature”.53
An interesting point of view in this respect is presented by Dušan Panković.
For him, Pamjatnik seems at first “closer to a history of literature than to a biblio-
graphy”54. Later on he refers to it as a “writers’ biography with properties of essayis-
tic prose encompassing several Serbian writers and bibliographies of their literary
works. Therefore, it contains all the characteristic features of a good history of lite-
rature”.55 In a third reference to Pamjatnik, he concludes that Bojić “is not recor-
ding history, but rather engaging in parallel in the writing of a history and a biblio-
graphy”,56 and defines it as “a history of literature that has not yet gained full auto-
nomy from a bibliography”,57 and finally, in the subtitle under the facsimile of the
cover of Bojić’s volume, he decides to designate it as: “The first history of Serbian li-
terature”.58

4.2. The former evaluation of Miodrag Popović and the ultimate estimation of
Dušan Panković were established by Mirjana D. Stefanović in a voluminous intro-
ductory study to the photo print edition of Pamjatnik as the best founded definiti-
ons and she proceeded to textually and theoretically validate them against repeatedly
verified historical material. Having concluded her research, she put forward a firm
judgment that:
Bojić’s book can now justifiably be defined as a history of literature due
to the fact that it possesses the fundamental qualities of this type of research,
presenting the writers in chronological order, describing their lives, enumera-
ting their works and, occasionally, expressing his personal views on them.59

52 Preface “Počeci srpske književne kritike” (1979), p. 15; Istorija srpske književnosti, Belgrade 1983, p. 262,
Beograd ²2002, p. 554; Put srpske književnosti, p. 58.
53
“Koncepcije istorija književnosti srpskohrvatskog jezičkog područja u devetnaestom veku (od Laza-
ra Bojiča do Đure Šurmina)”, Naučni sastanak slavista u Vukove dane (Belgrade), 9 (1980), p. 220.
54 Srpske bibliografije 1766–1850, p. 5.
55
Ibid., p. 10.
56 Ibid., p. 109.
57 Ibid., p. 112 (italic D. P.)
58 Ibid., p. 132.
59 [“Uvodna studija”], p. 59.
 The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 93

Admittedly, the path that led Mirjana D. Stefanović to such a conclusion is

strewn with manifold methodological and theoretical concessions.60 Her resorting
to the so-called “indirect” proofs reveals an incompleteness of argumentation. The
central proof is achieved by drawing similarities between Miodrag Popović and Lazar
Bojić in their respective approaches to history of literature, Istorija srpske književnosti
– Romantizam, I–III61 and Pamjatnik:
Through the lives and works of writers, both books depict an epoch – La-
zar Bojić is concerned with Enlightenment, and Miodrag Popović with Roman-
ticism. They apply the same method in the treatment of the subject, a literary
historical method combined with the autobiographical method and using a si-
milar style in the descriptions of writers, their lives and works.62
This comparison was labeled as “indisputable” because both books were, “obvi-
ously, made after the same model”.63 This can be taken for granted as seen on the
surface. However, any deeper observation reveals a multitude of irreconcilable dif-
ferences. It suffices to invoke the introductory synthetic historical chapters Popović
wrote to each of his books, and also the “chronicles” that envision Serbian Romanti-
cism within a European and global literary context and, ultimately, of the bibliograp-
hies that accompany each one of the volumes. Still, the most remarkable difference
is reflected in what every historian of Romanticism constantly bears in mind, unlike
Bojić, who never does so: the fact that in Popović’ book “the piece of literature and its
esthetic scope are placed in the center of his research and in the center of its struc-

60 On a primary plane, those are conditional and relativist terms she invokes all too often in formulat-
ing the problem, such as “it seems”, “probably”, “within the domain of guesswork”, “basically”, “surprising”,
“self-explanatory and clear-cut”, “feels no need to”, “occasionally”, “perhaps”. On a higher plane, that of
generalizations and assessment, it looks, for example, like this: “The author of Pamjatnik takes the idea
of Enlightenment as a self-explanatory and clear concept.” Therefore, in accordance with an attitude
thus expressed, she feels the need to provide a more detailed description of the characteristics of the
epoch she depicts thorough the works of four writers. That is probably the reason why she does not de-
fine each of the writers she describes in relation to time, but rather by relying on their biographies and
works” (57–58). However, this conclusion is preceded by the following assertion: “The literary works of
these authors [Rajić, Dositej, Trlajić and Stojković – J. P.] served him [Bojić] as part of a greater structure
that is not merely made up of the literature of one people, the Serbian people, but of an entire epoch. It
is exactly in such terms and in this light that the concept of the history of literature is, basically, defined.”
(p. 53).
61 Belgrade: I 1969, II–III 1972.
62 Ibid., pp. 58–59.
63 Petar Milosavljević, Sistem srpske književnosti (1996), Belgrade 2000, p. 81.
94 | Jovan Pejčić

ture”.64 Unlike Bojić, who was a biographer and a bibliographer, Miodrag Popović
was an analyst, a commentator and an axiology expert.
All in all, the views expressed by Mirjana D. Stefanović have been assessed in a
twofold manner. They were considered as accurate and definite by Nikola Grdinić,65
Lazar Čurčić,66 Milan Mrazović67 and Zoran Konstantinović.68 Some reserva-
tions, which I consider to be justifiable, were expressed by Miron Flašar,69 Petar
Milosavljević70 and Tatjana Pivnički-Drinić.71

5.

At this point, let us look into the “first” periodical classification of Serbian lite-
rature:
“[Serbian] literature is divided into... old and new” – as Lazar Bojić wrote in
1815.72 This classification of Serbian literature into two main periods is considered
to be one of the most praised accomplishments of Lazar Bojić in the eyes of Serbian
literary historiographers. Mirjana D. Stefanović highlights that: “Lazar Bojić deser-
ves special attention in any discussion about the researchers into Serbian literature
due to the very fact that he was the first to have published a classification of Serbian
literature in his mother tongue.”73 She primarily has in mind Jovan Deretić and his
stance expressed as early as 1983 in his History of Serbian Literature. Bojić’s classifi-

64 Nikolaj Timčenko, as part of a round table discussion on Popović’s first book of the history of Serbian
Romanticism – see “Problem proučavanja srpskog romantizma”, Književna istorija (Belgrade), 1/3 (1969),
pp. 682–683.
65 N. Grdinić, “Prva srpska istorija književnosti”, Dometi (Sombor), XXI/76–77 (1994), p. 74.
66 L. Čurčić, “Počeci istorije srpske književnosti”, Dometi, XXI/76–77 (1994), p. 79.
67
M. Mrazović, “Šafarikovo shvatanje književne istorije”, in the compilation Pavel Jozef Šafarik /1795–
1995/ (ed. M. D. Stefanović / Mihal Harpanj), Novi Sad 1996, p. 114.
68 Z. Konstantinović, “Citati kao kulturološki metatekst. Uz interstrukturalnu analizu prve istorije srpske

književnosti”, Prilozi za književnost, jezik, istoriju i folklor, b. LXV–LXVI/1–4 (2001), p. 39. (Z. Konstantinović
used the same text in his book Intertekstualna komparatistika, pp. 40–53).
69
M. Flašar, cited text, p. 277.
70 P. Milosavljević, Teorija književnosti (1997), Valjevo / Istok 2006, p. 330; Uvod u srbistiku (2002), Belgrade
22003, p. 138.

71 T. Pivnički-Drinić, “Bojić, Lazar”, in: Srpski biografski rečnik, 1, Novi Sad 2005, p. 678.
72 L. Bojić, “O knjižestvu ili literaturi” Pamjatnik, [85].
73 M. D. Stefanović, [“Uvodna studija”], p. 25.
 The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 95

cation into old and new literature, as Deretić points out here, “will remain the basic
classification in the history of Serbian literature.”74
However, Jovan Deretić referred to Lazar Bojić and his Pamjatnik, including the
classification of Serbian literature that is elaborated there, on several occasions and
– differently. For the first time in the preface to the chrestomathy The Origins of Ser-
bian Literary Criticism, published four years before The History of Serbian Literature;
among other things, he also refers to Bojić’s introduction entitled “On writings or lite-
rature” as containing “the first attempt of periodization” of Serbian literature.75 Two
years after the History, referring the “dramatic” events related to writing it, Deretić
published a tract dedicated to the problem of periodization of Serbian literature,76
in which he deliberates solely about the classifications made by Stojan Novaković
and Jovan Skerlić, as “the only two complete models of periodization”;77 Bojić’s “tho-
rough” classification, which he could have mentioned in the least when referring to
Novaković’s History of Serbian Literature, is entirely ignored. On the other hand, in
his treatise “Serbian Literature in the mirror of its History”, his fundamental work on
Serbian literary historiography printed thirteen years after the History, Deretić could
not possibly have overlooked Bojić, although he does not reiterate his opinion expres-
sed in the History, but returns to his original stance that, when it comes to classifica-
tions of Serbian literature, Pamjatnik “also contains the first attempt to define its pe-
riods”.78 But this is not yet the end. In 2002, Deretić published a considerably altered
and almost twice as voluminous History of Serbian Literature;79 although the author
revised most of the areas of Serbian literature, as well as his texts about the writers,
critics and historians of literature, the part about Lazar Bojić remained unchanged.80

74
J. Deretić, Istorija srpske književnosti, Belgrade 1983, p. 282. – In concise editions of his History, enti-
tled Kratka istorija srpske književnosti (Belgrade 1987, Novi Sad 2001, 22007; this second and more com-
prehensive edition should be considered to be more relevant), Deretić does not make any mention of
Bojić or of his classification.
75 See Počeci srpske književne kritike (ed. J. Deretić), Srpska književna kritika, b. 1, Novi Sad / Belgrade

1979, p. 16.
76
J. Deretić, “Periodizacija srpske književnosti”, Književna istorija, XVIII/69–70 (1985), 3–14.
77 Ibid., p. 4.
78
J. Deretić, Put srpske književnosti, Belgrade 1996, p. 59.
79 J. Deretić, Istorija srpske književnosti, Belgrade 2002, 1287 pages. – The editor’s note contains the fol-
lowing remark: “ In a state of deteriorating health, professor Jovan Deretić submitted to Prosveta a CD
containing the text of his considerably expanded and altered History of Serbian Literature. [...] Unfortuna-
tely, he did not live to see the layout of his text and possibly to conduct and approve final corrections”
(p. 1231). Jovan Deretić died in 2001.
80 Ibid., p. 554.
96 | Jovan Pejčić

Despite the fact that Mirjana D. Stefanović ignores Deretić’s hesitancies and the
imprecision of his formulations, she is cautious concerning the source of classifica-
tion that was “introduced” into the Serbian historiography by Lazar Bojić. Let us be
reminded of what she says about Bojić: “the first one to have published a classification
of Serbian literature in his mother tongue”.81 The reservation “in his mother tongue”
implies a reference to a foreign language and origin of this classification.
When Bojić is in question, there is no leeway for any mystification. He stra-
ightforwardly stated that he accepted the classification of Serbian literature into old
and new from Dobrovský.82

6.

The Czech Jozef Dobrovský (1753–1829) – “the father of Slavic philology”, “the
patriarch of Slavic studies”, as he was referred to among scholars – was the first in the
Slavic world to have addressed Serbian issues in his academic treatises. In the maga-
zine Slavín (The Slav), which was conceived in 1806 and printed in the German lan-
guage in Prague in 1908, Dobrovský appeared as the author of two separate articles
on Serbian literature: he wrote about the works of Jovan Rajić and about the Gram-
mar book by Avram Mrazović; as an appendix to the above mentioned texts, he pu-
blished an alphabet table and a letter which he had received from Atanasije Stojković,
containing answers to contemporary linguistic issues.83
In 1814, Dobrovský launched a second magazine that was conceived as a collec-
tion of works – Slovanka. Two issues of this publication came out (the second was
published in 1815).
The first issue is significant. The Czech expert in Slavic Studies placed all the
contributions about Serbian writers and oeuvres in the Slovanka under the common
heading of “Serbica”84 – which may have been its first use referring to the area of
philological study of Serbian issues, i.e. Serbian Studies.85 The opening text in the

81 At another point, she wrote: “according to his classification, or at least the classification that he adop-
ted” (M. D. Stefanović, [“Uvodna studija”], pp. 56–57).
82 Pamjatnik, [85].
83 In his note about the letter, Dobrovský says the following about Stojković: my friend from Harkov,
who is by birth a Serb from Hungary” (quote after: Nada Đorđević, “Jozef Dobrovský”, Srpskohrvatska na-
rodna književnost kod Čeha, Novi Sad 1985, p. 15)
84 Slovanka (Prague), I (1814), pp. 210–223.
85 See Petar Milosavljević, Uvod u srbistiku, p. 146.
 The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 97

rubric is of utmost importance for us. Dobrovský presented it in the form of a histo-
rical survey of Serbian literature in which he introduced its “classification” that Bojić
will rely upon later.86 Here is a typical passage:
Die ältere servische Literatur kann man mit Georg Brankowič, der eine
Geschichte von Servien in 5 Büchern schrieb, züglich schliessen. In der neuern
that sich seit 1764 vor andern Orfelin und bald darauf Obradowič hervor. Die
neueste hebt mit diesem Jahrhundert an.87
[It can be said that the older Serbian literature rounds off with Đorđe
Branković, who wrote a history of the Serbs in five volumes. The most promi-
nent figures of the newer period of Serbian literature are, as of 1764, Orfelin, fol-
lowed immediately by Obradović. The latest period begins with this century.]88
This is the only point in Dobrovský’s works that can be related to Bojić’s clas-
sification. Mirjana D. Stefanović whose attempt to establish precisely the origins of
Bojić’s periodical classification of Serbian literature was a pioneer venture, examined
the texts by the Czech scholar referring to Serbian literature in Slavin and Slovanka
I and II and emphasizes the fact that: “This article of Dobrovský’s does not contain a
classification of Serbian literature [...]”89

86 This text by Dobrovský has not been translated or published in its original form so far here. Serbian li-
terary historians and experts in comparative studies of literature have merely pointed to its content (see,
for example, Jovan Skerlić, Srpska književnost u XVIII veku /1909; ed. Miraš Kićović/, Sabrana dela 9, Bel-
grade 1966, p. 222; Pavle Popović, “Dobrovský i srpska književnost” /1929/, Književna kritika – Književna
istoriografija /ed. Miroslav Pantić/, Sabrana dela 10, Belgrade 2002, p. 43; Nada Đorđević, “Doprinos Jo-
zefa Dobrovskog upoznavanju Evrope s našom kulturnom tradicijom”, Zbornik Matice srpske za slavistiku
/Novi Sad/, 4/1973, p. 15; N. Đorđević, “Jozef Dobrovski”, Srpskohrvatska narodna književnost kod Čeha, p.
16).
87
The quotation from Dobrovský is taken from M.D. Stefanović (comp. “Uvodna studija” in: Pamjatnik,
p. 34, note 86 /italic J. P./). – M.D. Stefanović introduces Dobrovský in her treatise in the following way:
“Having remarked another possibility, that being that Lazar Bojić may have written the introduction to
his book after he had finished writing the book itself, therefore towards the end of 1814 or in the be-
ginning of 1815, I have inspected the magazine Slovanka, publisher Jozef Dobrovský, for the year 1814”
(Ibid.). The formulation allows space for the presumption that Bojić may not have read Slovanka I. Howe-
ver, this is beyond any doubt. For example, in his text on Atanasije Stojković, Dobrovský is mentioned at
least twice: in one place, at one point, Bojić himself invokes Dobrovský (Pamjatnik, [p. 188], and at anot-
her, with no reference to the source, he quotes from Slovanka I Dobrovský’s opinion on Stojković’s style
(Pamjatnik, [p. 179]; this parallel was discovered and the opinions were compared by Pavle Popović, Mi-
lovan Vidaković, Sabrana dela 7, Belgrade 2000, p. 162).
88 Transl. Đorđe S. Kostić (italic J. P.).
89 M. D. Stefanović, “Uvodna studija”, p. 34, quote 86. – Thus, the author questions whether Dobrovský
ever carried out a classification of Serbian literature in the sense in which Bojić did. However, further in
her treatise, she unequivocally refers to the source of Bojić’s classification as to an indisputable fait ac-
compli: “Having adopted the classification of Serbian literature from Jozef Dobrovský, probably inclu-
ding some names into his list of writers, he [Bojić] undertook his writing venture...” (p. 53).
98 | Jovan Pejčić

This is how Bojić puts it:

The old literature comprises the works of Archbishop Danilo [...] and De-
spot Georgije Brankovič, who wrote a five-volume History of Slavic Serbs.
However, the New period begins with Orfelin and continues uninterrup-
tedly to this day.90
In all likelihood, Bojić could have derived the above mentioned classification
from the quoted text, with minor terminological alterations (namely, Dobrovský uses
the terms older, newer and the most recent – ältere, neuern, neueste) emphasizing the
distinction between the periods much more firmly and distinctively.
Dobrovský had yet another advantage over all other foreign researchers of his
time, that being the fact that his knowledge of Serbian literature was “the best and
the most detailed”:91 He was familiar with the works of Jovan Rajić as of 1793; furt-
hermore, he had studied the life of Dositej Obradović early on; his corresponden-
ce with Atanasije Stojković had been going on since 1805; his exchanges with Jernej
Kopitar on Serbian issues began in 1808; as of 1809, he observed the work and was
being informed about the Lukijan Mušicki and his views on cultural history and li-
terature...” 92

7.

Lukijan Mušicki is, indeed, the figure who binds, in a peculiar manner, Bojić
and Dobrovský.
Mušicki met Jernej Kopitar in Vienna in late 1808 or early 1809. Their encounter
coincided with the period when Mušicki’ was absorbed in data collecting and wor-
king on “an expert survey of the entire Serbian cultural activity, in order to produ-
ce an all-encompassing study of all the Serbian cultural activities, which was to be a
Serbia docta”93 In his letter to Dobrovský of April 7th 1809, Kopitar gives his tutor

90
Pamjatnik, [p. 85].
91 N. Đorđević, cited text, p. 17.
92 P. Popović, “Dobrovski i srpska književnost”, pp. 41–42.
93 Vladimir Ćorović, Lukijan Mušicki. A study in Serbian literature (ed. Mirjana D. Stefanović), Novi Sad
1999, p. 46. – This is Ćorović’s doctoral dissertation, which he defended in Vienna in 1908 and which was
first published in Serbian in Letopis Matice srpske in 1911 (LXXXVII, book 276–283-284, n˚ IV–XI–XII).
 The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 99

in linguistic and literary issues a detailed description of Mušicki94 and mentions his
current work on Servia docta, which, he adds, could be printed in Pest.95
Kopitar reiterates what he wrote to Dobrovský in his article on Serbian literatu-
re in the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, which was published in two sequels in 1811
in the Viennese paper Vaterländische Blätter:
We are told (it has been two years already) that in Karlovci, Archdeacon
Lukijan Mušicki has been working on a Slavic or Serbian history of literature.
We are looking forward to its appearance.96
It seems that Dobrovský’s wish to meet Mušicki did not come true97 – at least,
his letter to Kopitar of January 1st 181098 suggests it. However, Mušicki was in no
haste to write to Kopitar.99 He eventually contacted him in late October 1811, sen-

94
P. Popović, cited text, p. 42.
95 Milorad Pavić, Rađanje nove srpske književnosti, Belgrade 1983, p. 370.
96 Jernej Kopitar, “Prilozi pregledu srpske literature u Austrijskom carstvu”, Serbica (transl. Tomislav
Bekić), Novi sad 1984, p. 127.
97
However, Mušicki highly appreciated Dobrovský. The degree of his esteem can be inferred from his
letter to Vuk Karadžić of April 17th 1817, where he talks of his “intention”, which has been “long-standing”
to put together a Serbian Pantheon which would contain not only the portraits of famous Serbs” but also
of those who have made particularly meritorious contributions to the Serbian literature, and Dobrovský
would be among them (Vuk Stefanović Karadžić, Prepiska I /1811–1821/, ed. Golub Dobrašinović et al,
Sabrana dela X, Belgrade 1988, p. 412.)
98
“Mušicki has not written to me”, says Dobrovský in his letter to Kopitar (according to Popović, cited
text, p. 42.)
99
The reason for certain reservations that Lukijan had about the Slovenian scholar may lie in Kopitar’s
article “Patriotische Phantasiern eines Slaven” (printed on June 5th 1810 in the paper Vaterländische Blä-
tter), where, Besides Dositej, he elaborates on Emanuil Janković, Pavle Solarić and Atanasije Stojković,
and, although it appeared in the section entitled “The Literature of Greek Slav Serbs”, he concludes it
by a proposal to the Austrian Empire administration to establish a department for the Old Slavic langu-
age at Vienna University, because – in his opinion – this language ought to be studied “right there, as
Austria should not let those studies fall into the Russians’ dirty hands”. In order to ultimately justify his
proposal, Kopitar puts forward the example of the Serbs: “The two or three million Serbs (Illyrians) who
have moved here from Turkey in the course of time, would only become fully aware of the benefices of
the Austrian supreme rule after a convincing proof of respect for what they cherish most, their precious
language. Psychological obstacle ought to be overcome by psychological antidotes, and a loving tre-
atment will engender love in return. Otherwise, it is well known that the other Turkish Serbs, who are
still fighting for their freedom, are looking yearningly, due to the similarity of their languages and faith,
at the remote North.” (J. Kopitar, “Patriotske fantazije jednog Slovena”, Serbica, pp. 65–77, see esp. p. 72
and pp. 76–77; see in the same book Kopitar’s article “Prilozi pregledu srpske literature u Austrijskom
carstvu” /1811/, esp. pp. 126–128. – Having reconsidered, in his monumental monograph Život i rad Vu-
ka Stefanovića Karadžića (1924), Kopitar’s participation in Vuk’s work” (where he also dwells upon the
correspondence Kopitar–Mušicki), Ljubomir Stojanović arrives at the following conclusion: “In view of
all the aforesaid, I believe that it is clear that Kopitar, apart from his pure research and activities on the
cultural progress of Serbs, also had a latent intention to politically estrange the Serbs from the Russians.”
100 | Jovan Pejčić

ding him “plenty of news on Serbian literature and his works”100 Kopitar forwarded
to Prague everything he received, for which Dobrovský expressed his gratitude in a
letter of February 22nd 1812, insisting that: “Correspondence with Mušicki was of
great interest for me.”101
A year later, in 1813, Kopitar asked Mušicki – surely not without prior consul-
tation with Dobrovský, and well aware of Lukijan’s interest for cultural history and
his expertise in this field – to prepare a brief survey of Serbian literature for the Vi-
ennese Wiener Literaturzeitung, where he was editor of the section dedicated to Sla-
vic peoples and their cultures. “That would be an adornment of our Literaturzeitung,
and all European papers would reprint it.”102
Mušicki did not accept the proposal. Kopitar continued insisting. With a persi-
stence that was not lacking in flattery, he continued his persuasion: “Criticism sho-
uld not be a cumbersome task for you, a master artist and man of letters; perhaps it
is the concern that you might be exposed to fame as a critic and commentator that
holds you back.” He even supposed that Mušicki’s reason for refusing to go public as
a secular author was his clerical rank and suggested that his work be published un-
der a pseudonym or without signature. It was of no avail.103
The correspondence with Kopitar was, therefore, intermittent, but course did
not in the least affect the activities of the priest monk and later archimandrite Luki-
jan, which he had begun a long time before – and which Mušicki did not renounce
to after 1814, when Dobrovský published his comprehensive article from a historical
perspective on Serbian literature, containing a “classification” that, as we have esta-
blished, was said to be nonexistent.

7.1. On the plane of the interests and aspirations from the angle of literary stu-
dies, the work of Lukijan Mušicki was double tracked – one segment was dedicated
to history and the other to the bibliography of Serbian literature.
At the beginning of the 19th century, these spheres of learning developed in a
symbiosis that the philologists and literary historians considered to be only natural:
all of them shared the view that the history of literature, for instance, was simply a
part of the entire studies of artifacts literacy and culture of a nation or race, which is

(Lj. Stojanović, “Kopitar” in the chrestomathy: Stojan Novaković i “filološka kritika” /ed. Božidar Pejović/,
Srpska književna kritika 4, Novi Sad / Belgrade 1975, p. 354).
100 V. Ćorović, cited book, p. 17; P. Popović, cited text, p. 42.
101 According to P. Popović, p. 42.
102 According to P. Popović, p. 47.
103 See more in: V. Ćorović, cited book, p. 47.
 The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 101

why their research was not limited to belletristic, but included all forms of activity
which in any way pictured or reflected the general state of culture, i.e. achievements
in geography, medicine, linguistics, theology, philosophy, physics, pedagogy, etc.104
His drafts, notes, rough copies and plans, as well as the bibliography of the Ser-
bian books – serve as supportive evidence that the views of Lukijan Mušicki never
diverged from the governing beliefs in science and culture, typical of the time he li-
ved in. Literary history and bibliografical activities, “knowledge about books” as he
referred to it, were for him, throughout his life, two branches of the same tree – the
general history of national culture.
Mušicki spent his whole life working on the Serbian book and literature and still
– none of his ventures attained the fullness of a completed piece of work. “You ke-
ep devising plans for progress”, reproached Vuk to him, and yet, you do not seem to
bring anything to completion.”105 He had planned to write a history of Serbian litera-
ture, but he did not manage to have his bibliography published – that is how Dušan
Panković summed up the bitter truth about Mušicki.106
Lukijan Mušicki began working in the field of bibliography and literary history
(philology in the broadest sense, Serbian studies) relatively early – in 1805 – and si-
multaneously. His list of “Serbian academic and literary accomplishments” and “fo-
reign texts concerning the Serbian people” were highly appreciated while he was still
working on his bibliography.107
The appraisal made at the end of the second decade of the 19th century is still
valid nowadays: this is how the most authoritative contemporary expert on Serbian
bibliographies and their history assesses the works of Mušicki:
The manuscript bibliography of Lukijan Mušicki remains amazing. [...]
Its virtue and genuine strength is in the layout of the bibliographic material:

104 The first histories of literature to be written on the continent of Europe are living proof of that. The

same can be seen in the essay by Lazar Bojić from Pamjatnik, on Atanasije Stojković, for example. All
the historical and cultural research into Serbian literature conducted bz Pavel J. Šafarik rest on the same
principles.
105
Prepiska I Vuka Karadžića, letter of October 27th 1821. – Similar views to Mušicki’s were expressed by
Pavel j. Šafarik in his letter to Jan Kolar of June 28th 1823, he refers to the archimandrite of Šišatovci in this
way: “Mušicki is only contriving gigantic plans” (quotation from: Đorđe Živanović, Georgije Magarašević
/1793–1830/, Novi Sad 1976, p. 131.
106 D. Panković, Srpske bibliogrqfije 1766–1850, Belgrade 1982, p. 33.
107Đorđe Rajković preserved one part of Lukijan’s journal Dnevnik in which the future archimandrite of
Šišatovac quotes the comments made by metropolitan Stefan Stratimirović about his bibliography: “On
March 3rd [1810]. Showed the Survey of Serbian Literature to his highness. ‘Wonderful, indeed, God bless
you! ’ March 4th. ‘You have erected a monument both to yourself and to learning.’” (Đ. Rajković, “Lukijan
Mušicki i njegov književni rad” /1879/, Sabrani spisi /ed. Milica Vojinović/, Novi Sad 1950, p. 107).
102 | Jovan Pejčić

the first and the second volume contain the entire material classified according
to professions and Mušicki entitled them Serbian Literacy classified according
to types; in the third volume, the author classified the material in alphabetical
order and entitled it A survey of Serbian literature in alphabetical order; in the
fourth volume, all the materials are listed in chronological order, and within
this chronology, the authors were listed in alphabetical order. The writer en-
titled this volume Survey of Serbian literature in chronological order. Cultures
with longer traditions or more affluent nations cannot boast of having bibli-
ographies classified so skillfully, both in alphabetical and chronological order.
Because of this, Mušicki’s meritorious work is a treasure of our bibliographic
studies, and it will be its glory once it is printed. Not only did Mušicki classify
the entire material in three different ways, but he also highlighted in each of
the classifications the chronological and professional characteristics of each
unit, which is in itself a unique attempt of cross-sectional classification of bi-
bliographic material.108
Experts believe that the bibliography Mušicki left behind was in a form that per-
mitted the printing of the manuscript, in spite of the fact that it was unfinished. Ho-
wever, this is not the case with his literary historical notes.

7.2. The manuscript notes made by Lukijan Mušicki cannot be put together as a
complete text. They are, more or less, just prefatory notes or reminders, which often
no more than list necessary steps to undertake properly in order to get down to se-
rious work. Here is what is contained in the manuscripts that have been preserved:
In a tiny 16-page notebook, entitled Serbian writers in alphabetical order, which
also bears a date (April 19th 1805), we find only a list of Serbian writers presented
in alphabetical order, with their occupations and dates of birth accompanying so-
me names.109
The next manuscript unit on this topic is entitled “Periods in Serbian Literature”,
although it is entirely dedicated to issues related to the Serbian language.110
There is also a document in which Mušicki elaborates his intention to write a
history of Serbian literature. In this document, he refers to the classification of “Ser-
bian literature” into three periods: the first period being [from 960] until 1700; the

108
D. Panković, cited book, p. 34. – Panković actually summarizes the article of Georgije Mijailović “Bibli-
ografija Lukijana Mušickog” (Bibiliotekar /Belgrade/, VIII/1–2 /1956/, pp. 32–39), i.e., he attributes a de-
scriptive approach to Mihajlović’s definition of the place and value of Lukijan’s bibliography, presented
in the preface to his major piece Srpska bibliografija XVIII veka (Beograd 1964, XIV–XVI).
109 Archives of SANU (Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts), 9240/1.
110 Archives of SANU, 9240/15.
 The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 103

second period – from 1701 until 1800; and the third period – after 1801. However, a
careful examination of this plan reveals that Mušicki reduced his classification into
two long period, by moving the initial year of the first period further into the past
by 160 years: the first period is taken to last from 801 until 1700, whereas the second
period begins in 1701.111
One large sheet contains a list of deceased and living writers – entered in alpha-
betical order, with a note about their professions.112
Another sheet contains a list of Serbian writers from 1741 until 1810, in the
chronological order in which they began to write.113
There are also four folio-size leaves, where under the title “Survey of Serbian li-
terature in chronological order”, he enumerates all the Serbian writers and writings
as of 15th century until 1808.114
The last two manuscripts that are of interest to us contain Lukijan’s drafts of the
way in which the history of Serbian literature was to be written. According to the first
notebook, the history was conceived as 12 signatures in volume, and was to inclu-
de – in addition to sides writers and their works – libraries, bookshops and printing
houses of Serbian books.115 The second manuscript is, actually, an extended version
of the previous plan. Here, problems related to Lukijan’s classification of Serbian lite-
rature into the old, “Slavic literature”, which was realized in the language used by the
Church and the new, “Serbian literature”, written in the vernacular, are specified116
Although the scattered manuscript notes by Mušicki, burdened with similari-
ties and frequent repetition, cannot be collected to form a coherent study, the deve-
lopment of Serbian literature can be deduced from its contents inasmuch as it re-
presents a basis of the philological and historical classification of Serbian history.117

111
Archives of SANU, 9240/16.
112 Archives of SANU, 9240/25.
113 Archives of SANU, 9240/26.
114
Archives of SANU, 9240/27.
115 Archives of SANU, 9240/29
116 Archives of SANU, 9240/30
117 Comp. in this respect the paper by Đorđe S. Kostić “Lukijanovo shvatanje istorije književnosti”, prin-
ted in the compilation Manastir Šišatovac (ed. Dinko Davidov), SANU, Belgrade 1989, pp. 151–153, esp.
p. 152.
104 | Jovan Pejčić

8.

Let us, at this point, turn back to Bojić and the classification of Serbian literatu-
re as it was outlined in his Pamjatnik mužem u slaveno-serbskom knjižestvu slavnim.
He says that the classification of Serbian literature into old and new was made accor-
ding to Dobrovský. However, as can be seen in the research by Mirjana D. Stefanović,
there are no such straightforward divisions with Dorborvský. Does this mean that
the above mentioned classification resulted from independent conclusions and ter-
minological pragmatism of “the young disciple Bojić” (as the author of Pamjatnik
is referred to by Pavle Popović in a single mention),118 or, perhaps, something else?
The key to a different solution of this problem could be Bojić’s education. He
initially attended the German school in Stara Pazova, then he was a student of the
Grammar School and the Seminary in Sremski Karlovci and eventually, in the pe-
riod 1814–1815, he studied philosophy at the University of Pest.119 He was a disciple
of the Seminary in Karlovci from 1810–1812, i.e. during the 1810/11 and 1812/13
school year.120
In the Seminar of Karlovci, Lazar Bojić was taught by Lukijan Mušicki,121 from
whom – as Lazar Čurčić rightfully believes – he must have heard about the old and
the new Serbian literature and about Serbian writers of the old and of the new gene-
ration.”122 Moreover, he learned about the established rules of classification of wri-
ters, one of which was the division into the deceased and the living authors, which
Mušicki applied in his bibliographical and literary historical ventures.123 Besides te-
aching, Lukijan was also in charge of the Metropolitan Library, so that Bojić was also
able to get more closely acquainted with his teacher’s course of work.

118 P. Popović, “Iz života Joakima Vujića” (1907), Nova književnost I (ed. Predrag Palavestra), SD 5, Belgra-

de 2000, p. 245.
119
D[ušan] K. Petrović, “Bojić Lazar”, in: Leksikon pisaca Jugoslavije, I (ed. Živojin Boškov), Novi Sad 1972, p.
279; Milorad Mišković, “Vukov osječki prijatelj Lazar Bojić”, Revija (Osijek), XXVII/8–9 (1987), pp. 674–675;
T[atjana] Pivnički-Drinić, “Bojić, Lazar”, in: Srpski biografski rečnik, 1, Novi Sad 2005, p. 677.
120 See Nikola Gavrilović, Karlovačka bogoslovija (1794–1920), Sremski Karlovci 1984, p. 194.
121Mušicki taught at the Seminary of Karlovci from 1803 until 1812 (see Đorđe Mušicki, Životopis Luki-
jana Mušickog, Novi Sad 1879; R[adonja] Vukoslavović / Ž[ivojin] Boškov, “Mušicki, Lukijan”, in Leksikon
pisaca Jugoslavije, IV, Novi Sad 1997, p. 600.
122 L. Čurčić, “Počeci istorije srpske književnosti”, Dometi (Sombor), XXI/76–77 (1994), p. 77.
123 Comp. Lukijan’s legacy of manuscripts in the archives of SANU 9240/25.
 The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 105

Given that he so generously shared his views on the development of the Serbian
literary culture with Jernej Kopitar (who conveyed them to Dobrovský), there is no
reason to believe that he would have withheld his findings from his students.124 It is
therefore my view that Lukijan Mušicki served as a multiple source – just as he did
to Kopitar and Dobrovský for their articles on Serbian studies125 – to Lazar Bojić and
his Pamjatnik,126 possibly even as the principal source.
Mirjana D. Stefanović wrote, as has been cited above, that the work of Dobrovský
that has been repeatedly mentioned afore does not contain any “classification of Ser-
bian literature with a list of writers”. As for the list of writers – this is beyond any do-
ubt. However, on the other hand, before Bojić’s book, there had been among Serbs
some publications containing certain bibliographical data about certain writers and
also list of the most renowned Serbian writers of that time. M. D. Stefanović mentions
the following: Slaveno-serbski magazin by Zaharija Orfelin, a compilation of peoms
Kratkoje opisanije o spokojnoj žizni by Aleksije Vezilić, Slaveno-serbske vjedomosti by

124
On the contrary, the opposite happened. Let me illustrate this by an example: Inspired by Herder’s
ideas, Mušicki became interested in the Serbian oral tradition, as we know, as early as in the fist years of
the 19th century. This is confirmed by a letter in which he asks Isidor Putnik to write down for him what
he knows about “the lyrics of our simple folks, [...] what the people sing and recite for their own amuse-
ment and prattle” (after: M. Pavić, Rađanje nove srpske književnosti, p. 370). More significantly, Mušicki put
the same requirement before his students, among whom was, for example, during the 1805/6 school
year, Vuk Karadžić, which was probably one of the first incentives that Vuk received for his future work,
before he got in touch with Kopitar (see more in: Mladen Leskovac, “Vuk i Mušicki”, Iz srpske književnosti,
I, Novi Sad 1968, pp. 143–172; Teodora Petrović, “Lukijan Mušicki i naša narodna pesma”, Iz istorije srpske
književnosti, Novi Sad 1974, pp. 155–174.)
125 At one moment, Mušicki probably changed this attitude to his own work. Namely, in his letter to Jan
Kolar of June 23rd 1823, Šafarik tells him that he is preoccupied collecting the material for his history of
the Serbian language and literature, and complains of the fact that “Mušicki has got everzthing, but one
can obtain nothing from him”; this “nothing”, as Šafarik puts it, is, mildly speaking, not true – because in
the same letter he continues to say: “Otherwise, he is a good man and my friend; but he is a monk. I ha-
ve glanced into his compilation of [bibliographic] material and found out that the Serbs...” (quotations
from Šafarik’s letter after: Kamenko Subotić, “Koje su prilike stvorile Šafarikovu Istoriju srpske književnosti”
(Letopis Matice srpske, book 186/2 for 1896/1898, p. 45). It seems that Mušicki’s decisions were selective:
he allowed insight into and the use of Građa za bibliografiju, na listićima, but kept to himself the manu-
script of the systematized and edited bibliography (Mirko Milićević, “Pesnik oda – prvi srpski bibliograf”,
Bibliotekarstvo /Sarajevo/, XXI/4 /1975/, p. 62) – Comparing Šafarik’s Istorija Srpske književnosti with Lu-
kijan’s bibliography in manuscript, D. Panković decided that: “The archimandrite of Šišatovci knew more
about about older [Serbian] books than Šafarik 1828” (Istorija srpskih bibliografija, p. 48).
126According to M. D. Stefanović (“Uvodna studija” p. 54), such assumptions remain in the domain of
speculation. Moreover, she does not take into consideration the influence of ideas of Lukijan Mušicki
concerning literary history; she goes as far as allowing that he might have heard of his bibliography, “alt-
hough he did not use it.”
106 | Jovan Pejčić

Stefan Novaković and Pominak knjižeski by Pavle Solarić.127 Whether Bojić was us-
ing those publications remains in the realm of conjecture, says M. D. Stefanović.128
Be it as it may, the fact of the matter is that all the above mentioned authors are
cited in Bojić’s list of writers.129
So is, after all, Lukijan Mušicki.

LITERATURE:

Bojić, Lazar. Pamjatnik˝ mužem˝ u slaveno-serbskom˝ knižestvu slavnym˝. Red. ed. by

Mirjana D. Stefanović. Novi Sad: Prometej, 1994.
Čurčić, Laza. Srpske knjige i srpski pisci 18. veka. Novi Sad: Književna zajednica Novog
Sada, 1988.
Deretić, Jovan. „Kada počinje nova srpska književnost.” Naučni sastanak slavista u Vukove
dane (Beograd) 17, no. 4 (1988): 155–159.
Deretić, Jovan. Put srpske književnosti. Beograd: Srpska književna zadruga, 1996.
Deretić, Jovan. Istorija srpske književnosti. Beograd: Prosveta, 2002.
Dobrovský, Josef. „Serbica.” In Slovanka. Vol. 1. Praha, 1814.
Gavrilović, Nikola. Karlovačka bogoslovija (1794–1920). Sremski Karlovci: Srpska pravo-
slavna bogoslovija Svetog Arsenija, 1984.
Ivanić, Dušan. Književnost Srpske Krajine. Beograd: BIGZ, 1998.
Nikolić, Nenad. „Orfelin: nedovršena modernost.” In Godišnjak III Katedre za srpsku
književnost sa južnoslovenskim književnostima. Beograd: Filološki fakultet, 2007.
155–211.
Karadžić, Vuk Stef. Prepiska I: 1811–1821. Edited by Golub Dobrašinović. Vol. 20 of Sa-
brana dela. Beograd: Prosveta, 1988.
Karadžić, Vuk Stef. Prepiska I: 1811–1821. Edited by Golub Dobrašinović. Vol. 24 of Sa-
brana dela. Beograd: Prosveta, 1989.
Komadinić, Slobodan. „Počeci srpske bibliografije“. In Deset godina Bibliografskog institu-
ta FNRJ (1948–1958). Beograd, 1958.

127 M. D. Stefanović, “Uvodna studija”, p. 34, note 86.

128 Ibid.
129 L. Bojić, Pamjatnik, pp. 86–90. – Historians of Serbian literature find Bojić’s list more interesting due
to the fact that the name of Vuk Karadžić was mentioned there for the first time and for having been the
first to include Eustahije Arsić among the Serbian writers, than it is interesting in itself.
 The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 107

Konstantinović, Zoran. „Stvaralačko susretanje: kratak nacrt za komparativnu istoriju

srpske književnosti.” In Komparativno viđenje srpske književnosti. Novi Sad: Svetovi,
1993. 180–201.
Kopitar, Jernej. Serbica. Edited by Tomislav Bekić. Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1984.
Kostić, Đorđe S. Pavle J. Šafarik o novoj srpskoj književnosti. Beograd: SANU, 1988.
Marinković, Borivoje. Tragom Dositeja. Beograd: Službeni glasnik, 2009
Milosavljević, Petar. Sistem srpske književnosti. Beograd: Trebnik, 2000.
Milosavljević, Petar. Uvod u srbistiku. Beograd: Trebnik, 2003.
Obradović, Dositej. Etika (1803). Edited by Đuro Gavela and Jelena Šaulić. Vol. 2 of Sa-
brana dela. Beograd: Prosveta, 1961.
Ostojić, Tihomir. Srpska književnost od Velike seobe do Dositeja Obradovića. Sremski Kar-
lovci: Srp. Manastirska štamparija, 1905.
Palavestra, Predrag. Istorija srpske književne kritike (1768–2007). Novi Sad: Matica srp-
ska, 2008.
Panković, Dušan. Srpske bibliografije 1766–1850. Beograd – Novi Sad: Narodna biblioteka
Srbije - Biblioteka Matice srpske, 1982.
Pavić, Milorad. Istorija srpske književnosti baroknog doba (XVII i XVIII vek). Beograd:
Nolit, 1970.
Pavić, Milorad. Istorija srpske književnosti klasicizma i predromantizma. Klasicizam, Beo-
grad: Nolit, 1979.
Pavić, Milorad. Rađanje nove srpske književnosti. Beograd: Srpska književna zadruga,
1983.
Pejčić, Jovan. „Mit o prekidu u razvitku srpske književnosti.” Književna istorija (Beograd)
27, no. 96 (1995): 185–212.
Pejčić, Jovan. Počeci i vrhovi. Srpska književnost i njena istoriografija. Beograd: Altera
2010.
Popović, Pavle. „Proučavanje srpske književnosti.”. Srpski književni glasnik (Beograd), vols.
IV: XII, nos. 1, 2 and 4 (1904): 671–686, 756–769 and 915–929.
Samardžić, Radovan. „Vek prosvećenosti i srpski preobražaj.” Letopis Matice srpske (Novi
Sad) 152 , no. 3 (1976): 265–279.
Skerlić, Jovan. „Podela nove srpske književnosti na periode.” Prosvetni glasnik (Beograd)
32, nos. 3– 4 (1911): 239–257.
Solarič˝, Pavel˝. Pominak˝ knižeskіj о Slaveno-Serbskom˝ v˝ Mletkaх˝ Pečataniju. Venecija,
1810.
Solarić, Pavle. „Pogledi na jezik i knjižestvo iliričesko (1820).” Srbistika (Priština) 2, nos.
1–2 (1999): 307-318.
Stefanović, Mirjana D. Biblioteka srpske književnosti. Beograd: Čigoja štampa, 2007.
108 | Jovan Pejčić

Stefanović, Mirjana D. Leksikon srpskog prosvetiteljstva. Beograd: Službeni glasnik, 2009.

Stojanović, Ljubomir. Život i rad Vuka Stef. Karadžića. Beograd: Štamparija «Makarije»,
1924.
Šafarik, Pavel J. Geschichte der slawischen Sprache und Literatur nach allen Mundarten.
Ofen: Kön. Ung. Universität, 1826.
Tartalja, Ivo. Počeci rada na istoriji opšte književnosti kod Srba. Beograd: SANU, 1964.
Vulović, Svetislav. „Nauka o književnosti i izučavanje slovenskih književnosti.” Otadžbi-
na (Beograd), vol. 10 (1882): 267–282.
Živković, Dragiša. Počeci srpske književne kritike (1817–1860). Beograd: Rad, 1957.

Јован Пејчић

РАЂАЊЕ СРПСКЕ ИСТОРИЈЕ КЊИЖЕВНОСТИ

Резиме: У раду се истражују почеци историографског проучавања националне

књижевности код Срба. Први српски радови оваквог усмерења настали су почетком
19. века (1800–1820). Потребу за историјским сагледавањем развојних токова српске
књижевности први је исказао Доситеј Обрадовић у предговору своје Етике (1800).
Следе два рада Павла Соларића: Поминак књижески (Књижевни подсетник), из 1810.
године (који је, међу тим, пре историја штампања и попис српских књига), и Погледи
на језик и књижество илирическо (илирско), из 1820, чланак са свим особинама исто-
ријског осветљавања националне литературе. Као фактор битан за развој књижевно-
историјске свести код Срба јављају се у овом раздобљу испитивања Лукијана Мушиц-
ког, иако он није штампао ниједан рад из области историје књижевности. Рукописна
заоставштина Мушицког и његова преписка, у првом реду с Јернејом Копитарем (по-
чев од 1809), показују да су идеје Мушицког о целини и развојним правцима српске
књижевности (поготово кад је реч о њеној подели на књижевност стварану на цркве-
нословенском језику и књижевност писану народним језиком – стара и нова) на од-
лучујући начин утицале на схватања испољена у историографским приказима српске
литературе не само Копитара (1810, 1813), већ и чешког слависте Јозефа Добровског
(1814). Ствари слично стоје и кад је у питању спис Лазара Бојића из 1815. године Па-
мјатник мужем у славено-сербском књижеству славним (Споменик мужевима /писци-
ма/ славним у словенско-српској књижевности), дело које се у српској науци о књи-
жевности амбивалентно класификује: као прва српска историја српске књижевности,
као прва српска био-библиографија, као прва књига есеја код Србa. Бојић је као уче-
ник сремско-карловачке богословије у завршним разредима (1812–1813) слушао пре-
 The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 109

давања о српској књижевности Лукијана Мушицког и уградио их у свој преглед срп-

ских писаца просветитељске епохе. На примеру управо Бојићеве књиге преиспитују
се и проблематизују ставови савремених српских књижевних историографа о рађању
историје књижевности као засебне научне дисциплине код Срба.
Кључне речи: Српска књижевност, рађање историографије српске књижевности,
модели историјског проучавања књижевности, периодизација, Доситеј Обрадовић,
Лукијан Мушицки, Јернеј Копитар, Јозеф Добровски, Лазар Бојић, Павле Соларић, ре-
цепција књижевноисторијских схватања код Срба

Received 21.03.2011 / Accepted 10.07.2011.