- 1 On some of these authors, see Stanislav Tuksar, “Croatian Musicians in Venice, Rome and Naples duri (...)
- 2 Cf. Miho Demović, “Dubrovački ranobarokni skladatelj Vicenco Komnen (1590-1667) [The Early Baroque (...)
- 3 Cf. Norbert Dubowy, “Un dalmata al servizio della Serenissima. Cristoforo Ivanovich, primo storico (...)
- 4 Cf. Georgius Baglivus, Opera omnia, Roma, Bernabò, 1704; Mirko Dražen Grmek, La première révolution (...)
1The life, activities and intellectual output of Juraj Križanić (Georgius Crisanius; Giorgio Crisanio) were unique, particularly in the literary and humanist history of Croatia in the Early Modern Age. Nevertheless, his life and fate share certain migratory features with other outstanding scholars of the 17th century, who also originated from the eastern shores of the Adriatic and were engaged in various aspects of music as a science and an art.1 Vincenzo (Vinko) Comnen (1590-1667), a Dominican monk from Dubrovnik, for example, who wrote madrigals and probably a musical treatise, spent most of his life travelling through Italy, Spain and even Japan.2 Christoforo Ivanovich (1628-1689) left his home town of Budva in what was then southern Venetian Dalmatia as a young man of 25 to spend the rest of his life in Verona and Venice, where he enjoyed a successful career as a librettist and a theatre, music and political chronicler.3 Dubrovnik-born Giorgio Baglivi (Gjuro; Georgius Baglivus; 1668-1707) was a world-renowned physician of Armenian-Croatian descent, who pondered the therapeutic value of music and, after a Jesuit schooling in Dubrovnik, lived all over Italy but primarily in Rome where he practised medicine and was a professor at La Sapienza University.4 Križanić was unequalled, however, in the variety of his life experiences, the number of countries and cultures he encountered and engaged with and the range of his musical interests.
- 5 For elementary data on these personalities cf. either Josip Andreis, Music in Croatia, 2nd ed., Zag (...)
2In the strictest sense of travelling musicians who originated in the region along the eastern Adriatic shore and its hinterland, Križanić’s older contemporaries are deserving of mention: Ivan Lukačić (Ioannes Lucacich; Šibenik, 1587–Split, 1648), Vinko Jelić (Vincenz Jelich; Rijeka, 1596–Saverne, after 1636), Damian Nembri (Hvar, 1584–Venice?, c. 1648), Atanazije Jurjević (Athanasius Georgiceo; Split, c. 1590–Vienna, c. 1640) and the somewhat younger Giovanni Sebenico (Šibenik, c. 1640–Cividale del Friuli, 1705).5 Lukačić spent several years in Italy, probably Rome, where he was educated before returning to his native region of Dalmatia. Jelić, Nembri and Jurjević initially went to neighbouring Italy and Austria to be educated, Jelić in Graz, Nembri in Venice and Jurjević in both Graz and Vienna, before returning to Alsace, Dalmatia and northern Croatia respectively to continue their more or less monotonous duties as clergy. Only Giovanni Sebenico seems to be a vague match for Križanić although on a much smaller scale and with far less impact. Sebenico lived the life of an itinerant professional musician as singer, instrumentalist and/or composer, serving in turns at Saint Mark’s Venice, the court of Charles II in London, the court of Savoy in Turin and the cathedral in Cividale del Friuli. No traces of anything other than professional musicianship have been found in Sebenico’s life and work, which could match Križanić’s vocation in the musical and the more general, ideological sense.
3Križanić appears predestined to have grown up with a frontier-crossing mentality. He was born very probably at the end of 1617 or the very beginning of 1618 in the small village of Obrh, some 60 km south of Zagreb, near the town and fortress of Karlovac, built in 1575 as a major military stronghold on the Habsburg Empire’s new south-western border against the Ottomans. A couple of decades before he was born, his family fled Dalmatia for inner Croatia in one of the huge migratory waves that were to produce radical changes in the region’s population during the 16th and 17th centuries and in its linguistic, religious, economic and political habitus. The hundreds of thousands of newcomers from south-eastern Europe brought with them ethnic diversity, distinct dialects, eastern Christianity (both Greek Catholic and Orthodox) and a new military-agricultural model of socio-economic behaviour, which engendered administrative and political reforms that would set the course of Croatia’s social history for the next three centuries or so.
- 6 Elements for Križanić’s biography have been extracted mostly from texts by: Albe Vidaković, “Assert (...)
4Although from a modest family, Križanić received an education and went on to built a career far beyond the average expectations of his countrymen.6 He did so within one of the social areas most easily accessible to commoners—the Church (the other being the military). He studied at the Jesuit-run Gymnasium in Zagreb (1629-1635), then went on to Graz, the Styrian capital, where he became a Master of Philosophy in 1638. Subsequently, he studied law and theology in Bologna before leaving for Rome in late 1640. This abrupt move may well have been the result of reading Moscovia by Antonio Possevino (1533-1611), papal envoy to the court of Tsar Ivan the Terrible in 1581-1582. In it, Križanić encountered the basic concepts of the so-called Eastern Heresy and the Catholic-Orthodox schism within the Slavic world, which would later become what was nicknamed his “intentio moscovitica,” i.e. his obsession with overcoming the religious and political disunity among the Slavic nations and the need to liberate all Slavs from Turkish-Ottoman rule. In a bid to turn ideas and words into actions, Križanić enrolled at the Greek Institute of St Athanasius in Rome, where he became a passionate student of Greek language and literature, the Eastern liturgies and the controversies between the Greek and Latin Christian Churches and became acquainted with the works by Russian Church writers, some of which he translated. These activities soon resulted in a memorandum, which he submitted in 1641 to Francesco Ingoli, then secretary of the Congregatio de propaganda fide. Križanić set out his conviction that the “Moscovites” were not heretics but merely Christians led into error by lack of knowledge and deception. At the same time, the twenty-four-year-old cleric used the same document to offer his services to go to Moscow and “enlighten” the Tsar and Russia’s secular and ecclesiatical establishment by translating the Bible and various books on the sciences, history, art history and the liberal arts in general. It was not his intention either to impose the “right religion” (i.e. Catholicism) nor to make any direct political suggestions. After winning Moscow’s trust, he would then aim to persuade the Tsar to lead a coalition in a major new war against the Ottomans, which would be promoted and strengthened by the process of reconciling or uniting the Russian and Roman churches. To a degree, these ideas were acceptable to the Roman Curia, given their anti-Turkish and unionistic ambitions at the time. The following year, 1642, Križanić obtained his doctorate in theology and was ordained a priest.
5In the same year, he returned to his homeland to become a simple parish priest in the small village of Nedelišće in the north-western corner of Croatia, near the Hungarian border. It is not clear precisely why he declined a number of flattering offers. These included becoming a rector of the Bologna Illyrian-Hungarian Institute, going to the court of the Hungarian Palatine, Ivan Drašković, with the prospect of soon becoming a bishop, or joining the intellectual and political circles of such outstanding Croatian aristocrats as Petar Zrinski, the Croatian Ban (Viceroy), and Vuk Frankapan, the Karlovac general. He himself declared that the comfort and cosiness of courtly life might lead him to betray his “intentio moscovitica” but he may in fact have remained in the modest village of Nedelišće because it afforded an opportunity to consult the economic, political, linguistic and literary works held in the well-stocked library of another Croatian Ban, Nikola Zrinski, in his stronghold in nearby Čakovec, and to gain access to precious theological literature in the local Pauline monastery of Saint Helen. In other words, he was eager to pursue various fields of knowledge and to be able to extract himself more easily from a less prominent social and/or ecclesiastic position to leave immediately for his Russian mission should it become possible. Permission was indeed forthcoming and suddenly, although by then he had been promoted to the relatively senior position of parish priest in nearby Varaždin. On 3 June 1646, the Congregatio de propaganda fide granted Križanić permission to go to Russia. He left Croatia in great haste (without even saying goodbye to his mother!), going to Smolensk (via Vienna, Cracow and Warsaw), some 300 km from Moscow and known at the time as the “clavis Moscuae” (the keys of Moscow) or “fauces Moschovitarum” (the throat of Moscovites). He arrived there in February 1647 and remained as a guest of Piotr Parczewski (in Lithuanian: Petras Parčevskis), the city’s first catholic bishop (1636-1649). Križanić is known to have served the liturgy in Russian in Smolensk thanks to his early training in Rome and with a view to his future ambitions. He eventually reached Moscow in the company of two Polish envoys on 25 October 1647 although he stayed only until 19 December 1647.
6This first sojourn appears to have met a lot of Križanić’s expectations regarding his “intentio moscovitica.” In a very short time, he managed to contact people in the higher social strata, probably including even Patriarch Joseph (Josif) of Moscow and All Russia (?-1652). Either as he left Moscow in 1647 or immediately upon his return, he compiled a treatise entitled Narratio de hodierno statu schimatis in Moscovia, facta anno 1647 (A Narrative on Today’s Position of Schismatics in Moscow, done in the Year of 1647), in which he was full of praise for young Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich Romanov (1629-1676; Tsar from 1645) and his piety. His main concern, however, appeared to be the discovery of what was known as Kyrill’s Book, a work published by Patriarch Joseph and full of attacks on and calumnies against the Roman Church. Križanić offered his services to the Congregatio de propaganda fide to translate and refute these calumnies with the help of the rich theological literature in the libraries of Rome but he needed to be invited back to Rome to do so. No invitation was received and Križanić stayed in Warsaw from 1648 until 1650. While there he fell ill and was never to achieve this particular ambition in full. In October 1650 he decided to join the Imperial Viennese deputation to Istanbul, led by Johann Rudolf Schmid zum Schwarzenhorn (1590-1667), as the latter’s chaplain and secretary. Križanić’s two-month visit to Istanbul (15 January to 13 March 1651) left deep impressions on his understanding of the Ottoman-Islamic way of life. These could later be traced even in some of his ideas about music. Of special interest seemed to be his encounters with Panayotis Nikousios, the famous dragoman, politician, astronomer and theologian, whose rich library would later be an object of interest even to Louis XIV of France.
- 7 Cf. I. Golub, “L’autographe de l’ouvrage de Križanić ‘Bibliotheca Schismaticorum Universa’ des arch (...)
7After returning from Istanbul, Križanić stayed for a while in Vienna and at the end of 1651 or beginning of 1652 he re-appeared in Rome. His second stay lasted until 1658. He lived in turn at San Girolamo degli Schiavoni and in the German Institute at Campo Santo Teutonico. It was a period filled with intense activities in various fields, including music. Other important intellectual areas were theology and the nationality controversies linked to Rome’s Chiesa di San Girolamo della natione degli Schiavoni and its attendant congregation and hostel. His theological concerns were linked to plans to translate not just the aforementioned Kyrill’s Book into Latin but also texts by other outstanding Orthodox (early Greek, modern Greek, Russian) authors, from Photius to the modern day. His ambition was to offer a compilation of Orthodox texts that would complement Robert Bellarmine’s Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei (1581-1593) about Protestant controversies. The autograph of Križanić’s work, entitled Bibliotheca Schismaticorum Universa, was discovered in Rome in the 1960s.7 Križanić’s innovation was his methodological approach: he aimed to present translated texts by individual authors in their entirety (rather than in extracts) in the first volume (a task he completed in 1656) and his answers and commentaries in a second.
8Križanić was also involved in the nationality issues, concerning the rights to benefits in the chapter, congregation and hostel of San Girolamo degli Schiavoni, which had been established by Pope Sixtus V in 1566 for clerics coming to study in Rome from the “Illyrian” lands and who spoke the “Illyrian” language. Essentially, the dispute began in 1651 and ended on 24 April 1656 when the Tribunale della Sacra Rota ruled that the the term “Illyrian” meant people coming only from the lands of Dalmatia, Croatia (proper), Slavonia and Bosnia but not those from the historical provinces of Carniola, Styria and Carinthia (known in more recent times as Slovenia). The decision would have far-reaching and sometimes even decisive consequences in the 17th century and beyond as regards ecclesiastical, linguistic, cultural and socio-political matters to do with Croatia and other South-Slav ethnic groups and modern nations. Križanić held a different opinion on the issue, given his general tendencies towards the unification of Slavic peoples. Nor was the issue of merely marginal interest: it offered material he could use himself in due course:
- 8 I. Golub, Juraj Križanić. Glazbeni teoretik 17. stoljeća [Juraj Križanić. A Music Theoretician from (...)
As both sides in the dispute were obliged to prove their standpoints by geographical, historical and linguistic arguments, this was no mere distraction for Križanić, completely divergent from his interests, but rather a kind of research in Slavic geography, ethnography and history. Numerous authors whom both sides in the dispute quoted to strengthen their case and refute the other’s claims would be quoted by Križanić in the works he later wrote in Russia, some of which he would even offer to the Tsar for translation…8
- 9 Cf. I. Golub, “Juraj Križanić i njegovi suvremenici (A. Kircher, J. Caramuel Lobkowitz, L. Holsteni (...)
- 10 Athanasius Kircher, “Carmina illirica,” in Oedipus Aegyptiacus, vol. I, Rome, 1652, p. 41-44.
9Another significant aspect of the “Illyrian cause” might also have been Križanić’s acquaintance and contact with the learned Jesuit author, Athanasius Kircher (1601-1680), which most probably occurred on this occasion since Kircher was also among those invited to help in this nationality controversy.9 In his Oedipus Aegyptiacus, Kircher published four poems by Križanić in their original linguistic idioms (Croatian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Bosnian-Dalmatian, all of which were covered by “Illyrian”: Illyrice moderne, Sclavonice antique, Styli Sarbiaci, Modi Latini) and in their Latin translations.10 Križanić even dared to add a eulogy he himself had written in Turkish with Latin translation. It is commonly held that these eulogies, which are part of Kircher’s series of panegyrics in twenty-seven different languages for Emperor Ferdinand III (1608-1657), published in 1652, would not have been included had there not been direct contact between Kircher and Križanić. Some aspects of Križanić’s involvement with musical issues may also be explained by Kircher’s influence.
10The years from 1657 to 1659 turned out to be decisive for Križanić. Firstly, on 1 October 1657, the Roman Church authorities approved his Russian mission. However, after a hearing in the presence of Pope Alexander VII on 26 January 1658, permission was withdrawn and a yearly financial grant was approved to allow Križanić to pursue his work on translating Greek and Russian schismatic texts in Rome. Surprisingly, two months later, on 21 March 1658, Križanić issued an extraordinary document in which he publicly renounced his intention to go to Russia and pleaded to be allowed to go to Hungary instead, to visit his patron, Archbishop of Esztergom Juraj Lippay. There he would continue to work on the Bibliotheca Schismaticorum and see out his days in an honourable fashion. It remains a mystery why, at the age of 40, Križanić apparently lost his keen interest in a project that had absorbed his existential and intellectual energy for most of his adult life. Was it just a trick to be rid of the Vatican administration’s overly-restrictive patronage? Be that as it may, in the autumn of 1658, Križanić left Rome without permission and went to Vienna. From there he journeyed on until February 1659, going through the Polish towns of Lvov, Dubno, Korec and Lišanka to Nizhyn (Polish: Nieżyn) (all now in Ukraine) and finally to Moscow on 17 September 1659.
11This second journey to Moscow seems to have assumed a semi-private, even slightly conspiratorial character. On his arrival in Moscow, Križanić presented a letter of recommendation from Alexey Nikitich Trubetskoy but mispresented himself to the members of the Diplomatic Office (Posolski prikaz) as a Serb from so-called Turkish Croatia. The protocol of his hearing reads as follows
- 11 Translated from: A. Vidaković, “Asserta musicalia (1656) Jurja Križanića...“, art. cit., p. 81, foo (...)
The year 168 (i.e. in 1659), 17 September. The boyar, prince and duke Alexey Nikitich Trubetskoy and his assistants wrote for the great Lord, Tsar and Grand Duke Alexey Mikhailovich a written report and sent him the newcomer, the Serb Yuri Ivanov, son of Bilish, and this newcomer was interrogated in the Diplomatic Office. During this hearing he said that he came to the great Lord upon his name, for eternal service, and that he was by birth a Serb from the town of Bihać, which is now in the state of the Turkish Sultan. His father was a merchant, who died when he was a small boy, and he was taken by his uncle to the country of Venice where he sent him for education in the town of Padua. And he spent six years in studying, he speaks and writes fluently in Latin, Italian, Greek and Persian, and he also knows how to speak and write in his native Slavic language. And he made his living in various countries by writing, studying and translating. In schools he learned grammar, syntax, rhetoric, philosophy, arithmetic and music […]11
12Some ten days later Križanić wrote a letter to the Tsar, offering his multiple services as librarian, advisor, chronicler, historian, translator of the Holy Scriptures and writer of a grammar and dictionary of “the Slavic language.” He also presented manuscripts of two of his works. Ultimately, only his grammar and dictionary project were accepted, accompanied by a grant for food and accommodation. He spent most of 1660 writing a treatise on the orthography of the Slavic language. Križanić spent part of his time building up social contacts with eminent individuals in ecclesiastical and secular structures, such as Epifany Slavinecky, Simeon Polocki, Boris Ivanovich Morozov, Feodor Mikhailovich Rtishchev, Avvakum Petrov and others.
13It came as a complete surprise therefore when, after these initial activities, the Tsar suddenly issued a decree on 8 January 1661 sentencing Križanić to fifteen years in exile in the Siberian city of Tobolsk. Not a single biographer has yet discovered the reason for this drastic turn of events. Given the proverbial mystery surrounding Kremlin decision-making, Križanić may not have known the real reason himself. If he did, he never divulged it. His personal statement the year before he died (in 1682) read as follows:
- 12 Translated from A. Vidaković, “Asserta musicalia (1656) Jurja Križanića…,” art. cit., p. 82. Accord (...)
One gentleman asked me something, and while I was thinking how to give the best answer and say some useful words from the bottom of my heart, it happened – in my sinfulness – that I made a mistake and uttered some foolish word. Because of this word that gentleman started to become suspicious, not knowing, I suppose, anything about my previous zeal. And it was for this word that I have for fifteen years suffered such misery and trouble.12
14Križanić’s fifteen years in Siberia were as extraordinary as so many other features of his life. He served out his term in Tobolsk which was then the most important Siberian town on the overland trade route to Central Asia and China. His time there may be described as a mixture of custody and enforced scholarly work. Financially supported even in exile, albeit very modestly, Križanić compiled several texts, mostly religious in content and character, including: O Promysle (De Providentia Dei), Ob svetom kreshcheniyu (On Holy Baptism), Tolkovanie istoricheskih prorochestv (The Interpretation of Historical Prophecies), O preverstve beseda (On Superstition) and others. Works on secular topics encompassed his Gramatíchno iskazânje (Grammar), O kitajskom torgu (On Chinese Trade) and, most importantly, Razgowori ob wladatelystwu (Conversations on Governing). Quite understandably, his long exile left lasting physical damage: he was often on the edge of starvation, his eyesight and hearing deteriorated and, after several unsuccessful pleas for amnesty, he felt demoralized and close to despair although he never completely lost heart. Eventually, in January 1676, the new Tsar Fyodor Mikhailovich Romanov pardoned Križanić, who immediately returned to Moscow. His request to leave Moscow was denied and he was forced to work as a translator at the Diplomatic Office. After a year and a half of painful suspense, however, he finally left Moscow on 9 October 1677 thanks to the intervention of Danish envoy Fridrik Gabel. He went to Vilnius. Lacking even the basic means of subsistence, he entered the Dominican order and became Father Augustin. It was in Vilnius that he wrote his last work, the Historia de Siberia, dedicated to Polish King Jan Sobieski. Although the local papal nuncio, the general of the Dominican order and even the Congregatio de propaganda fide demanded that he return to Rome to report on his Russian experiences, his prior would not allow him to do so and so, once again, he took off without permission, leaving first Vilnius and then Warsaw to join Sobieski’s armies. In 1683 he disappeared during the campaign to lift the siege of Vienna.
- 13 Biographie universelle des musiciens, vol. 2, Paris, Firmin Didot Frères, 1866, p. 391.
- 14 Biographisch-Bibliographisches Quellen-Lexikon der Musiker und Musikgelehrten der christlichen Zeit (...)
- 15 Juraj Križanić Nebljuški, Arkiv za povjestnicu jugoslavensku, book X, Zagreb, 1869, p. 11-75.
- 16 “Gradja za slovinsku narodnu poeziju [Materials for Slavic Folk Poetry],” Rad JAZU, N° 37, 1876, p. (...)
- 17 “Odkrito glazbeno djelo Jurja Križanića [A Musical Work by Juraj Križanić Discovered],” Vienac, N° (...)
- 18 “Gjuro Križanić kao glazbenik [Gjuro Križanić as Musician],” Gusle, N° 4, 1982.
- 19 “Neke muzičke epizode u Jurja Križanića [Some Musical Episodes by Juraj Križanić],” Sv. Cecilija, N (...)
- 20 Pregled povijesti hrvatske muzike [A Review of the History of Croatian Music], Zagreb, Rirop, 1922, (...)
- 21 “Razvoj muzičke umjetnosti u Hrvatskoj [The Development of the Art of Music in Croatia],” in Histor (...)
- 22 First published in Rad JAZU, book 337, p. 41-159. Later published in English as a separate publicat (...)
15Knowledge and appreciation of Križanić as a music theorist and music writer date back to the 19th century. He was mentioned by international lexicographers and scholars such as François-Joseph Fétis in 186613 and Robert Eitner in 190014 and by their Croatian counterparts, Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski in 186915 and Vatroslav Jagić in 1876,16 as well as by Croatian historians Franjo Rački17 and Vjekoslav Klaić in 189218 and Mirko Breyer in 1930.19 Later, Križanić was included in historical surveys of Croatian music by Božidar Širola20 in 1922 and by Josip Andreis in his 1962 and subsequent publications.21 His recognition was assured by Albe Vidaković’s 1965 dissertation, Asserta musicalia (1656) Jurja Križanića i njegovi ostali radovi s područja glazbe.22 During the late 1960s and 1970s, church scholar, theologian and man of letters Ivan Golub published some twenty studies, mostly about Križanić and music, as well as a book entitled Juraj Križanić. Glazbeni teoretik 17. stoljeća (Juraj Križanić. Music Theoretician of the 17th Century).
16Križanić produced several texts about music. These may currently be listed as follows:
1) Asserta musicalia nova prorsus omnia (Rome, 1656)
2) Novum instrumentum Ad cantus mira facilitate componendos (Rome, 1658)
1) Nova inventa musica or Tabulae nouae, Exhibentes musicam, Late augmentatam:
Clare explicatam: Valde facilitatam (Rome, 1657-58; MS)
2) De Musica (Tobolsk, between 1663 and 1666; MS)
3) O cerkovnom penju [On Church Singing] (Tobolsk-Moscow, 1675; MS)
1) Sopra le Proportioni Musicali (Rome, 1658?; MS; uncertain authorship)
2) Novi uzorak glazbe [A New Musical Pattern] (Moscow, 1676; uncertain existence)
17Aside from the opera dubia, the above-mentioned texts, which consist of prints and manuscripts, exist in various numbers and formats as follows:
the printed booklet, Asserta musicalia (Rome, 1656), is known to exist in six (seven) copies: Rome (Biblioteca Musicale del Conservatorio di Musica S. Cecilia); Bologna (Civico Museo Bibliografico Musicale); Vienna (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Musiksammlung); Berlin (Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Musikabteilung); Vatican (Biblioteca apostolica); Vigevano (Archivio Capitolare)—fragment; Paris (Bibliothèque nationale de France).
there is just one copy of the printed leaflet, Novum instrumentum Ad cantus mira facilitate componendos (Rome, 1658), held in Vienna (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Musiksammlung) and bound together with the Viennese copy of Asserta musicalia.
- 23 I have identified this manuscript in December 2012. Cf. S. Tuksar, “U Bibliothèque nationale de Fra (...)
the manuscript, Nova inventa musica or Tabulae nouae, Exhibentes musicam, Late augmentatam: Clare explicatam: Valde facilitatam, is known to exist in two copies: in Rome (Biblioteca nazionale centrale Vittorio Emanuele II)—an incomplete autograph; in Paris (Bibliothèque nationale de France)—a complete autograph.23
- 24 Centralni gosudarstveni arhiv drevnih aktov, Moscow, fund 381, ed. hr. 1799, p. 593. Cf. I. Golub, (...)
the manuscript, De Musica, exists in just one autograph copy, held in the Central State Archives of Ancient Documents24 in Moscow; it is a chapter within the Razgowori ob wladatelystwu (Conversations on Governing) which was compiled in exile in Tobolsk between 1663 and 1666;
the shorter manuscript, O cerkovnom penju [On Church Singing], exists in a single autograph copy which is also held by the Central State Archives of Ancient Documents in Moscow; it is a chapter in the longer work entitled O preverstve beseda (On Superstition), which was written in Tobolsk in 1675.
18Evidently, Križanić’s musical output was produced in two distinct contexts. The two printed works (Asserta musicalia and Novum instrumentum) and the manuscript Tabulae nouae were produced in his Roman period in the second half of the 1650s while the two remaining manuscripts (De Musica and O cerkovnom penju) belong to his Russian-Siberian period and were written some ten to twenty years later.
19A key question for every researcher into Križanić’s life and work is how and why an individual whose intellectual and existential concerns for much of his life were history, linguistics, theology, economics and politics, came to take an interest in music.
20It may well be that in his first Roman texts Križanić simply sought to demonstrate his insight into the field of music in general to his intellectual and social milieu. In the 1656 Asserta musicalia, he makes twenty “assertions” or propositions about a series of musico-theoretical and musico-aesthetical problems, discussing, for example, scales, Pythagorean and Guidonian rules, notation, organ manuals, the breaking of rules in composing “enthusiastic songs,” intervals, chords, etc. In the main part of Nova inventa musica or Tabulae nouae, exhibentes musicam of 1657–1658, Križanić sets out thirty complicated drawings and tables, which examine the problem of the classification of consonances on the one hand and propose a sort of “equal temperament” on the other. It can be understood as a more detailed extension of the short “assertions” published the previous year. In Novum instrumentum, a leaflet published in 1658, Križanić offers five-point instructions for a device intended to be a “miraculously easy way of composing songs.”
21While theoretical by nature, this Roman group of writings may have had the additional aim of facilitating aspects of practical music-making: composing and writing down musical compositions. In only three years (1656-1658), Križanić produced three separate but related musical texts. In the first, he took older writers, such as Boethius, Zarlino and Doni as his sources while, in the second and third, researchers since the mid-1950s have identified the influence of seventeenth-century writers such as Mersenne, Kircher, Descartes, Valentini and Caramuel.
- 25 It was discovered in 1976 by Ivan Golub in the Archivio Capitolare di Vigevano, Fondo Caramuel, IV, (...)
- 26 Cf. I. Golub, Juraj Križanić – glazbeni teoretik 17. stoljeća..., op. cit., p. 113-118.
22It appears that, of the mid-seventeenth century’s growing musico-encyclopaedical output, it was Juan Caramuel y Lobkowitz (1606-1682) and, as already mentioned, Athanasius Kircher (1602-1680) who particularly influenced Križanić. This was reinforced through personal contacts of very different kinds. Križanić and Caramuel were in contact during the 1654–1657 period and are known to have met in person. Even before that, however, Križanić was aware of some of Caramuel’s innovative ideas as set out in his Nova Musica (published in Vienna in 1645). For his part, in his manuscript entitled Musica (from c. 1670),25 Caramuel abundantly cited a series of Križanić’s theses from the Asserta musicalia (Rome, 1656). His commentaries reveal general agreement with most of Križanić’s assertions about historical and music theory issues.26
- 27 In it, Križanić reveals his deep enthusiasm for Kircher’s book: “Je ne puis pas exprimer par des mo (...)
- 28 Cf. on this issue Patrizio Barbieri, Križanić, Caramuel, P. F. Valentini, “Sulla divisione dell’ott (...)
23The only known contact between Križanić and Kircher was a letter, dated 7 March 1653.27 Nevertheless, Križanić appears to have been more strongly and extensively influenced by Kircher’s printed encyclopaedic work Musurgia universalis (Rome, 1650). This is hardly surprising given how widely-read and well-known it became immediately after publication. For example, Kircher’s mechanical device, the “arca musarythmica,” may have been an inspiration for Križanić’s printed leaflet Novum instrumentum Ad cantus mira facilitate componendos (Vienna, 1658) and the musical instrument based upon it, which if it was ever constructed, has not survived. Both theorists clearly had the same intention: to enable everyone, including music amateurs, to produce simple compositions. Furthermore, Križanić’s 1657 manuscript Nova inventa musica or Tabulae nouae, Exhibentes musicam, Late augmentatam: Clare explicatam: Valde facilitatam, with its series of thirty complex mathematical diagrams and tables, brings Križanić close to Kircher and Caramuel and even to some of Marin Mersenne’s propositions and solutions from his Harmonie universelle (1636–1637).28
- 29 Cf. I. Golub, Juraj Križanić – glazbeni teoretik 17. stoljeća..., op. cit., p. 44.
24The Tabulae nouae manuscript was written in two copies, one of which was given as a gift to Pope Alexander VII. Križanić appears keen to present himself both as an expert in music theory and as a musician eager to improve and enable the techniques and practice of composing, reading and performing music. With no direct evidence to date, we can only speculate about his motives. Was Križanić himself a thwarted composer or perhaps contemplating helping someone else to compose contemporary music? Was he envisaging another Russian trip, a mission in which music-making might play a part? Or, were Križanić’s musical endeavours somehow connected to Pope Alexander VII’s 1657 bull on music and if so, how?29 Was he currying favour with a music-loving Pope in order to gain his permission and support for an official visit to Russia?
25The Russian group of writings consists of two manuscripts (De Musica and O cerkovnom penju), both written in exile in Tobolsk. The first, its full title “Heresis Politica 16.” De Musica consists of twenty “points” and four “questions.” On the whole, these “points” might perhaps be understood as a new series of propositions, following the twenty “points” of the Asserta musicalia. The second manuscript, a document entitled O cerkovnom penju, has not been studied in general or in detail.
26Everything currently known about Križanić’s music writings (although research into the Russian works is still ongoing) points to a shift in emphasis between the Roman and the Russian works, the former dealing primarily with music theory and aesthetics and the latter with the ethnographic and sociological aspects of music. This is most probably due to the specific and differing socio-cultural environments of Italy—and Rome in particular—and Russia and the different roles Križanić played as he established himself within these two highly dissimilar musico-cultural circles. At the same time, the two poles of his musical thought display unifying features which can be seen in his general attitude towards music as a useful and pleasurable activity and in his personal ambition to take an active part in the religious and socio-cultural politics of his time.
- 30 Cf. A. Vidaković, “Asserta musicalia (1656) Jurja Križanića...”, art. cit., p. 88-91.
- 31 Cf. A. L. Gol’dberg, Ju. P. Avvakumov, A. S. Belonenko, V. G. Karcovnik, “Traktat o muzyke Jurija K (...)
27As already mentioned, Križanić’s De Musica manuscript is a separate chapter, entitled “Heresis Politica 16,” within the larger work, Razgowori ob wladatelystwu (Conversation on Governing), which he wrote in exile in Tobolsk between 1663 and 1666. It was written in Latin, consists of thirty-four manuscript pages and is divided into two parts: the “Narratio” and “Questiones de Musica.” The first short account of their contents came from Albe Vidaković in 1965.30 The first modern edition was published in 1985 by A. L. Gol’dberg, Ju. P. Avvakumov, A. S. Belonenko and V. G. Karcovnik and consisted of a transliteration (p. 363-386) and a translation into Russian (p. 387-407).31
- 32 Cf. I. Golub, “Juraj Križanić and João IV or Križanić’s supervision of the printing of João’s music (...)
28The first part, the Narratio, consists of twenty separate textual units. The first three give Križanić’s definition of music (“Musica est sonus idoneus arte concinnatus, idoneus ad delectandum”), his concept of its limited abilities (“Ad nihil aliud est apta Musica, nisi ad causandam Delectationem, Laetitiam, et Curarum oblivionem“) and its psychological limitations (“delectatio autem non movet ad veram tristitiam“; “omnia tamen ista sunt ficta sive hipocritica“). These and all further assertions are accompanied by more or less developed explanations and elaborations. In the next two units, Križanić discusses what he views as the errors of Pythagoras and Plato regarding the powers of music (“Valde igitur deceptus fuit, et alios decipiebat Pitagoras, quando docebat: Magnam quandam arcanam ac divinam vim esse in Musica“; “verum etiam aiebant, Musicam quandam modestam habere vim ad refrenandas cupididates, ad inducendam modestiam, ad emenandos et ad bene componendos mores. […] Verum in hoc turpiter errabat Plato”). In Units 6 and 7, he opposes false beliefs held by Ancient Greek priests and contemporary ‘Mohammedans’ (“Ideoque in sacrificiis suorum idolorum concinebat carmina in laudem idolorum, tum vocibus, tum citaris, aliisque instrumentis. Sed et in hoc fuit error“; “Simili superstitione hodie tenentur mahometani“). In Units 8, 9 and 10, however, Križanić itemizes the numerous merits of the Ancient Greeks who valued music and used it (“Antiqui Graeci superomnes gentes erant Musicae dediti, ac nihil pene agebant sine Musica“) at social events such as sacrifices, popular games and the theatre, funerals, nuptials and wedding parties, on ships, in military affairs, etc. In doing so, he mentions the names of Epaminondas, Themistocles, Alcibiades, Philip and Alexander of Macedon, for example, and cites numerous sources (Athenaeus, Plutarchus). In further units, Križanić looks somewhat unsystematically at various aspects of producing and performing music and/or its appreciation by two contemporary European rulers—the Portuguese King João IV32 and Ferdinand III, the Holy Roman Emperor—the ancient Etruscans and Persians (Unit 11), the Romans, as elaborately as the Ancient Greeks, (Unit 12) and contemporary Croats and Serbs (Unit 13) who imitated old Roman musical habits (“Apud Croatos and Serbos adhuc nobis pueris viguit aliqua istius Romanae consuetudinis imitatio”). In Unit 14, Križanić sympathizes with the soberness of the Ancient Spartans and their uncorrupted, moderate music (“Verumtamen semper solicite providebant atque studebant, ut incorrupta, idonea, seu moderata conservaretur Musica”) but does not agree that soldiers’ dances in Hungary or elsewhere in his own day resemble it. In Unit 15, on the Byzantines, Križanić criticizes both ancient and modern Greeks (apart from the Spartans) for their attitudes towards music and their music practices, regarding them as eternal weaklings (“Bizantini… dies noctesque in popinis et ganeis ad tibiarum, citararum ac lirarum sonum. Similiter faciebant ceteri Graeciae populi omnes, exceptis Spartanis”). Surprisingly, he praises contemporary Turkish sobriety which had imposed on the Greeks a more moderate practice of music-making in public (“Hodie autem vivunt sub disciplina sobriae nationis Turcorum”). Adopting a moralizing tone in Unit 16, Križanić further asserts that the permissive Greek attitude towards the light music played in taverns (“musica tabernalis”) had transferred itself to the Germans and then to the Czechs, Poles, White Russians and Boristenits (the people living around the Dnipro River), making them the most corrupt and most vicious of people (“nempe corruptissimi ac perditissimi”). In the short Unit 17, Križanić again praises simple Turkish music (“Turci... valde simplicem habent Musicam”) and the Turkish Sultan’s firm attitude towards Western influences in music given its mellifluousness (“Si isti musici adeo suaves et effeminati, apud me assidue permanerent, omnes mei viri militares fierent feminae”). In Unit 18, Križanić compares the salaries and fees paid to Ancient Greek musicians with those paid to castrati singers by the European courts of his day. In Unit 19, he enumerates fifteen social occasions at which music could and should be employed: in the army and navy, in diplomacy, at weddings and feasts, as Tafelmusik, in taverns and inns, at funerals, in churches, prayers and processions, for victories, in comedies and in order to draw buyers’ attention at public sales. In his final Unit 20, Križanić simply classifies music instruments into winds, strings, instruments played with a plectrum and percussion.
- 33 Cf. the well-known late-Mediaeval collection of songs Carmina Burana, which includes—besides “Carmi (...)
29The second part, Quaestiones de Musica, consists of four much larger units which focus methodically on four questions. The first (“Utrum in Ecclesiis debeat adhibere Musica”) [“Do we have to allow music in churches?”] offers a short overview of music in the Old Testament then moves on to early Christian times (for example, the Epistles of St Paul), lamenting his lack of sources for proper studies (“Ego nunc in Sibiria existens non habeo prae namibus historiam evangelicam: ideoque nihil certi audeo affirmare”). Križanić then reports on post-Constantine events, including the introduction of, first, monophonic singing then, gradually, polyphonic vocal music to Christian churches, although he cannot be certain of the dates nor of who was responsible (“nescio quando, et a quo”). He claims that the Germans made the greatest improvement to church music by introducing musical instruments. As regards the contemporary situation, Križanić is full of praise for Western Europe’s achievements in the art of music although, at the same time, he criticizes unrestrained musicians (“licentia musicorum et cantorum”) for introducing light and unbecoming melodies to church (“levibus et indecoris melodiis”) which provoked Pope Alexander VI into issuing the papal bull of 1657, objecting to such practices. Although he criticizes bad practice in the church music of his time (“semper homines inveniunt occasionem, ut a spiritu ad carnem, et a pietate ad sensualitatem deflectant”), Križanić does not descend to universal condemnation of its use. Rather, he suggests a compromise whereby those who already practice music in church should continue to do so but those who do not should not start (“Qui non habet, non quirat: qui habet, non abiiciat musicam”). He also examines at length the historical reasons for introducing music in church and ultimately concludes that the introduction of instrumental or figural music is not recommended for Russian churches (“In Russiacam ecclesiam non est bonum inducere musicam instrumentalem, neque Figuralem”). This is for a number of reasons. One, somewhat surprisingly, is Križanić’s prediction that music would spread from the churches to the taverns (!) and so corrupt people who did not at present practice it (“si autem musica hic induceretur in ecclesias, protinus propagaretur et extra ecclesias, et repleret omnes tabernas”). From the late Middle Ages to Križanić’s time and beyond, the tavern or the inn was the social institution that served as one of the main public media for producing, consuming and distributing music which would nowadays be labelled a crossover of traditional, popular and art genres, more or less loosely connected on occasion to the ecclesiastical domain.33
30The second question (“Cur apud varias gentes valde diversa est musica?”) [“Why is music very different among various peoples?”] comprises an even longer set of individual observations, although Križanić’s answer can be reduced to a single compound formula: differences in music originate in the variety of voices, the ingenuity of its creators and, above all, the variety of languages (“Varietas melodiarum, instrumentorum, et totius musicae, procedit ex varietate vocum, et Ingeniorum: et maxime ex varietate Linguarum”). Križanić devotes almost the entire section to arguing the suitability of particular languages to various types of music and their characters, discussing in detail texts in Greek, Turkish, German, Hungarian, French, Italian, Spanish, “Slavic” (treated as one language!) and Latin linguistic idioms. We shall analyze and comment on this issue in the next section of this article.
31In answer to his third question (“Quodmodo utendum Musica, extra ecclesiam?”) [“How is music to be used outside churches?”], Križanić supports the use of music in military affairs (quoting examples from Germany, Scotland and Poland) and in state affairs, such as the reception of foreign deputations or the holding of assemblies. He comments briefly on the music of kings but the bulk of his critique targets the practice of Tafelmusik and an excess of popular music-making at festivities. Križanić also singles out the music acceptable for the people at large (“Populi musica qualis esse debeat”), once again displaying somewhat Spartan-inspired attitudes. He supports the use of music at weddings and feasts and ad libitum in private houses (“ad nuptias, ad convivia, et privatim in domibus pro libitu”) but strongly opposes music-making in taverns (“In popinis severissime prohiberi debet musica”). What’s more, in truly Platonian fashion he also demands severe punishment for singers or instrumentalists who practise it (“et musici, qui deprehenderentur in popinis canentes seu sonantes, severe puniantur”). As a matter of principle, the only types of music that are acceptable and permissible are those which serve some serious purpose (“admittimus et concedimus illa solummodo musicae et exercitiorum genera, quae possunt ad aliquod serium vitae officium esse utilia”). Even music teaching should be restricted to those who are themselves skilled in certain instruments (“Ut nemini liceat quocunque instrumento musicam profiteri, aut exercere in populo […] nisi ille idem fuerit peritus etiam canere Tibiis, vel Tubis”).
- 34 Cracow, 1621 (1st ed.), 1643 (2nd ed.)
- 35 Published in Florence in 1647.
32The fourth question (“De tibiis“) [“About the tibias”] offers Križanić’s personal view that wooden wind instruments are the most important component of instrumental music for various public occasions (“Ego existimo in rebus politicis […] nihil esse praestantius, nihil mirabilius, quam insignem Tibiarum concentum”). This section seems to consist of expanded versions of the writings of Polish Jesuit and lexicographer Gregorius Cnapius (Grzegorz Knapski/Knapiusz, 1561-1639) in his Thesaurus Polono-Latino-Graecus34 and of Florentine music historian and theorist Giovanni Battista Doni (1595-1647) in the third volume of his De praestantia musicae veteris libri tres.35 Križanić’s additions are made up of quotations from other authors such as Joannes Antonius Valtrinus, Polybius, Gaius Julius Solinus and others, both ancient and modern. His obvious inclination towards this type of instrument is further expressed by his regret that tibiae music-making had been neglected in Rome, Florence and France of late while he salutes its ascendence in modern Britain. The research and comments on this topic deserve a separate study.
33In addition to examining Križanić’s thinking and the range of information he presents, another approach to understanding the great variety of data to be found in this text is to pursue individual topics across the text as a whole. We will take music performance practices as a case study. Of the various possible options, we have selected the technical, socio-historical and aesthetic aspects as among the most characteristic features of the art of music as a performance activity above all.
34Among the most interesting of Križanić’s ideas on performing vocal music are those that deal with the impact on a sung text of the technical features of different languages. He regards Latin as Europe’s most appropriate language for serene community church singing given its small number of accents, lack of diphthongs and few, simple vocals. By contrast, the variety of accents, vocals and diphthongs in Greek make it best suited to the so-called enthusiastic melodies. When it came to enthusiastic performance, however, Turkish and Arabic outdid even Greek, as he had experienced for himself at Islamic holy sites in Istanbul. German, Križanić believed, was not appropriate for either calm or enthusiastic performance because it was so concise. It would, for example, be ridiculous to sing the Psalms of David in German (“Et si quis vellet psalmos Davidicos in lingua Germanica concinere… nihil magis esset ridiculum”). It is worth noting that these value judgements were determined not by devotional criteria but by an attempt to apply objective standards of a purely linguistic order. Similarly, he deems Hungarian appropriate for performing vehement melodies and French the equal of Greek, employing even sweeter words.
35Križanić goes on to offer some surprising qualifications concerning Italian, Spanish and what he calls the Slavic language. In his opinion, Italian and Spanish are not sufficiently appropriate for singing (“Italica autem Hispanica linguae ad nullam pene melodiam habent satis aptitudinis”) although he reserves his harshest judgement for the fictional “Slavic” (Križanić again fails to acknowledge Slavic linguistic plurality) spoken by Dalmatians, Croatians, Poles and Czechs. It is, he says, completely inappropriate for setting to music and all the verses he has heard were full of crude errors and, therefore, unworthy to be dubbed verses or songs (“Nostra vero Sclavinica lingua adhuc minus habet aptitudinis ... omnes [versi] sunt pleni crassis erroribus: et indigni nomine Versuum sive carminum“). In addition, Križanić notes that one of the main reasons for Slavic’s linguistic inappropriateness for singing is its abundance of ‘sigmatism’ (the faulty enunciation of the “s” sound) and its excessive “swishes.” It is difficult to fathom the real reasons why Križanić abandoned his usually objective approach to declare languages like Italian and Spanish inappropriate for (church) singing when their suitability was already widely acknowledged. Was it perhaps the result of his ideogical fear of the vernacular penetrating the Latin liturgy that drove him to disqualify the languages of the bastions of Catholicism?
- 36 Cf. for example published works by G. B. Doni, M. Mersenne and A. Kircher, and earlier by G. Zarlin (...)
36Like the majority of seventeenth-century writers about music, Križanić produced his texts using data that ranged freely from Antiquity to the modern day and back again, in keeping with the older Renaissance tradition.36 He abundantly quoted various aspects of music performing as found in authors from Antiquity (such as Suetonius), documenting its social aspects in Ancient Sparta, Ancient Rome and the Byzantine Empire, but offering no new sources or previously unknown information. By contrast, his observations on contemporary features do provide fresh insights and are obviously first-hand reports. For instance, Križanić recounts his eye-witness experience of Croatian noblemen and Croatian and Serbian officers and common folk at their respective feasts singing laudae to their ancient heroes, to an instrumental accompaniment (tibia, tympanum), albeit very slowly and with multiple offences against prosodic rules. There is an interesting comment about a specific Hungarian dance, the haidonica, where a soldier dances to the lyre, swirling his sword, his legs held tight as if sitting, which Križanić says is more like the mimetic movement of actors than soldierly conduct. He dismisses the Greeks, whether Ancient, Byzantine or modern, as always inclined towards drunkenness, superficiality and making too much noise in the tavern but admits that such behaviour has diminished under the discipline of the sober Turkish nation (“Hodie autem vivunt sub disciplina sobriae nationis Turcorum”). In Križanić’s experience, the Turks had very simple music (“Turci… valde simplicem habent Musicam”), admitting neither the excessively exquisite nor the excessively sweet (“nimis autem exquisitam et nimis suavem musicam reprobant”). On the subject of fees, Križanić attempts to compare the ancient Greek and Roman remuneration of performing musicians with the practices of his own day, concluding that castrati were paid the highest fees by European rulers, given the excellence of their voices and performing skills (“Hodie apud reges Europaeos Castrati Cantores Magnis praemiis auctorantur ... propter vocis et artis praestantiam”).
- 37 Vincenzo Galilei, Dialogo della musica antica e della moderna, Firenze, 1581, p. 80-90.
37Križanić also makes an interesting comment on the contemporary performances of the Papal Choir in Rome. Recalling that the choir sang only a cappella, Križanić adds some aesthetic observations, saying that, in his opinion, the composition of the works they sang was old-fashioned and unskillful (!) and, despite being congruent and grave, the voices were confusing and the sung text difficult to understand (Et ille ipse cantus compositus est antiquo, rudi, et nullam peme mollem suavitatem continente modo. Habet ille cantus congruentem ac debitam gravitatem: sed hoc in eo est incommodi, quod voces sint confusae, et non facile intelligatur quid canatur seu dicatur”). In doing so, Križanić echoed, one hundred years on, the main objections to Catholic church music made during the Tridentine Council in 1563 and those of the Humanists who gathered for the first Florentine Camerata (especially Vincenzo Galilei37) in the 1570s and 1580s, to contrapunctal polyphony in general.
38Križanić claimed, as regards the practice of performing sacred music, that there were serious deviations in certain Eastern Churches, where singers and priests would sometimes draw the attention with sweetish voices, disregarding piety and honesty, or even by inventing words that had no meaning simply in order to sing, while perhaps being drunk and unable to read the holy words (“forasse haec excogitarunt, ut haberent, quod ebrii canerent: quando non possunt sacra verba legere”).
39In commenting on the overall human inclination towards sinfulness, including practising inappropriate music in church, Križanić recalls that some Catholic orders, such as the Capuchins and Carmelites, had completely removed music from their churches so as to eliminate all vanity and the very opportunity to sin (“et ut peccandi occasionem, et vanitatem amoverent a suis ecclesiis; omnem musicam amoverunt”). All occasions for both singers and listeners to be overcome with sensual pleasure and vanity were therefore eliminated (“Et ita nulla est occasio, ut quis cantor aut auditor, possit aliqua sensuali delectatione et vanitate capi”).
40As a seventeenth-century writer about music, Križanić followed in the footsteps of his better-known predecessors, G. B. Doni, M. Mersenne and A. Kircher.
41His musical writings were not treatises in any strict sense of the word. Most of them, including De Musica, served as a sort of “aide-memoire” for historical personages of high rank from the Pope to the Tsar for non-musical purposes.
42His attitudes and the arguments that supported them were the outcome of his personal experience of such diverse socio-cultural circles as Poland, Russia, Turkey and his homeland, combined with the extensive knowledge he gleaned from reading. What stands out as unique is that he wrote his Siberian text from memory, without books or other prerequisites for doing so, suggesting an extraordinary capacity for recall and synthesis.
- 38 For more on this topic, see I. Golub, “Juraj Križanić als Prophet des russischen Messianismus,” Ost (...)
43The text of De Musica as a whole—its breadth, scope, quantity of information and boldly declared value judgements—should be understood as Križanić’s attempt to instruct his future readers—and the Russian Tsar in particular—on how to avoid shortcomings in their musical life and to provide a solid foundation for music in the great new Slavic, i.e. Russian, state and its society.38
- 39 Cf. for more on Križanić’s activities in general, there are several articles in T. Eekman, Ante Kad (...)
44Križanić’s output in this specific area and in general offers transnational, transcultural and transconfessional insights, together with an interdisciplinary approach. The methods and substance of his research place him nearer to eighteenth century cosmopolitism and the Enlightenment than to the “scientification” of the early modern age. Its modernity was neither properly understood nor accepted by his contemporaries in the West or the East. Only later would his ideas come to be studied by Peter the Great, Russia’s nineteenth-century Slavophiles and the South Slavic socio-political theorists of the 20th century.39