"Baptismal Font of The Croats": A Case Study in The Formation of A National Symbol

“BAPTISMAL FONT OF THE CROATS”: A CASE STUDY
IN THE FORMATION OF A NATIONAL SYMBOL
Trpimir Vedriš
I n the spring of 1942, a large box sent from Venice was unpacked in the Croatian Academy of
Sciences and Arts in Zagreb. Once the cover was removed, those present marveled at an ancient
hexagonal stone vessel decorated with hooks, a cross, and a Latin inscription running along its upper
edge. This piscina, as everyone present “knew,” was the baptismal font of one of the first Croatian
princes, Višeslav. The font was considered the precious testimony to the spiritual and political ori-
gins of the Croat nation: the “baptism of the Croats” (fig. 1). The move, intended as a kind of holy
translatio, was meant to remind the nation, caught in a devastating civil war, of its Christian roots
and to frame the current struggle in the context of a millennium-long struggle for independence.
The arrival of the font had another significance; as it was supposedly stolen from its original location
in Nin in the mid-eighteenth century, its return to Croatia amended this historical injustice.
The transfer was the result of an official exchange between the Independent State of Croatia
and the Kingdom of Italy.1 By the time this arrangement was made, the font boasted a century-long
historiography, a process of identifying it as a symbol of Croatian national identity.2 According to
widespread belief, the font was executed around the year 800 for an otherwise unknown Croatian
prince. It originated in Nin, one of the centers of the early medieval Croatian principality, and re-
mained there until its removal by the Venetians.3 Like other details of this narrative, the “Venetian
theft” was not explicitly documented but came to be considered an historical fact by the end of
the twentieth century. Scholars, however, taking this alleged theft for granted, paid less attention
to other historical transfers of the font: the inventio in Venice in 1853, the translatio to Zagreb in
1942, and, finally, its elevatio in Split in 1978.
To describe these transfers in the tradition of medieval liturgical rituals requires an explana-
tion.4 While applying modern theories to medieval culture seems relatively common, reading mod-
ern-day actions through a medieval lens is less common. The analogy between medieval rituals and
I express my gratitude to all those who at various stages 1

For this “politically forced exchange of art objects” (includ-
read and commented on this paper: Prof. Mladen Ančić, ing two Carpaccio paintings), see Dulibić and Pasini-Tržec
Prof. Ivo Banac, Prof. Vesna Drapac, Dr. Danijel Dzino, forthcoming.
Dr. Mario Jareb, Prof. Marko Petrak, and Dr. Luka Špo-
ljarić, and last but not least to my anonymous reviewer. My 2
The font cannot be considered a “national symbol” in a
special thanks go to Dr. Ljerka Dulibić, who allowed me narrow sense (cf. Jareb 2010). Thus I refer to the font as a
to use her unpublished research material. Apart from the national symbol in the sense that it is an iconic object that
colleagues who helped improve the quality of this paper, gradually became widely recognized as denoting “Croatian
there is another group who should take full credit for the early medieval history” and connoting a whole spectrum of
fact that it has been written. Thus, my thanks go to all those values “intrinsic” to the Croatian national identity.
engaged in the Getty seminar—organizers, advisors, and
core participants—hoping they would recognize their share 3
For the critical view, see Jakšić 2002; 2015b; 2016. For a
in this result of the labor dulcis we undertook together in the defense of the traditional view, see Matijević Sokol 2007.
magical setting of the American Academy in Rome between
spring 2014 and fall 2016. 4
For the basic information on these liturgical rituals and
accompanying literary genres, see Heinzelmann 1979.
MAAR 62, 2017

66 Trpimir Vedriš
Fig. 1. The baptismal font of Prince

Višeslav (photo Muzej hrvatskih
arheoloških spomenika).
the transfer of art objects in late modernity can be epistemologically based on the modern ideology
of nation (the transformation of medieval objects into national symbols), which assumed some of the
functions of pre-modern religion.5 In this context, “the very notions of cultural property and public
patrimony evolved concurrent with nationalism in Europe.”6 Moreover, it is due to factors as diverse
as “the call of democracy, the novelty of nationalism, the undermining of hereditary sovereigns, and
the unprecedented role of ‘the people’ in wars and national politics, that cultural property, too, was
‘rediscovered’ as national . . . heritage.” National movements all over Europe “invented their own
glorious traditions,” relying in part “on the physicality of cultural property to substantiate their new
past.”7 As a result, a number of objects, buildings, and sites were invested with symbolic value, which
transformed them into “an essence of the nation.” Once “adopted by the nation,” they were “invested
with historical memory to become national symbols,” and, as such, came to “evoke national historical
imagination and provide a focus for communal emotions.”8 In other words, archaeological finds and
objects of medieval art have become a new type of relic invested with the status of vehicles of memory.
A collective memory “as a set of ideas, images, and feelings about the past—is best located not in
the minds of individuals, but in the resources they share,” and, methodologically speaking, “there is
no reason to privilege one form of resource over another.”9 The process in which medieval objects,
motifs, and symbols come about has received a fair share of scholarly attention recently, providing an
analytical framework for research into the history of such objects.10
The above-mentioned context was, however, rarely considered by Croatian scholars dealing with
the font of Prince Višeslav; they instead focused on its origins.11 Departing from the results of this
century-and-a-half historiography, the topic of this paper is neither the origin of the font nor its alleged
eighteenth-century furtum. The subject is rather a history of its reception, between its discovery in
the courtyard of a Capuchin convent in Venice in 1853 and its exhibition in the Museum of Croatian
Archaeological Monuments in Split in 1978. The critical issue here is the process of its inclusion in
the national grand narrative. In order to understand this process it is necessary to consider both indi-
viduals and institutions involved in the formation of analytical categories and the identification of the
5 9
For modern political ideologies as secular religions, see Irwin-Zarecka 1994, 4.
Gentile 2005; 2006.
10
E.g., Bak et al. 2009; Geary and Klaniczay 2013; Bak,
6
Barkan 2002, 18. Geary, and Klaniczay 2015.
7 11
Barkan 2002, 18. This does not imply that the scholars were not aware of it.
Cf. Petricioli 1985; Sokol 2007; Jakšić 2015a.
8
Barkan 2002, 22.
“Baptismal Font of the Croats” 67
object, as well as to sketch the background of the institutions’ contemporary political contexts. In the
network of relations between scholarly research and ideology, diverse aspects helped frame the image
of an early medieval object in modern scholarship and in the collective memory.
While I still take a critical stance, my objective here is not to question either the historicity of the
font or the legitimacy of its promotion as a symbol. Behind this analysis is the discrepancy between
the material reality of the objects, their place in history, and their status as symbols in the national
collective memory. The fact that “history turns into myth as soon as it is remembered, narrated,
and used, that is, woven into the fabric of the present,” as observed by Jan Assmann, makes the
distinction challenging .12 Scholars are often expected to act as myth smashers—and frequently are
not unwilling to do so. However, fervent iconoclasm in historiography often implies disempowering
myths at the cost of a cautious reconstruction of the past. In that sense, the “uses and abuses” ap-
proach in the critical analysis of past phenomena risks falling prey to the simplified dichotomy that
regards myth as only negative and history as the positive interpretation of the past.13 While in many
(not to say obvious) cases this is undoubtedly true, on a theoretical level myth and history are not
simply the good and the bad dog fighting for the same bone. As a parallel to this debate between
history and memory,14 they should be treated rather as different epistemological modes operating
on different planes, sometimes colliding and sometimes not.15 That history is not always real and
myth does not need to be completely unreal is no longer anathema to modern scholars,16 and the
fact that a particular object is elevated into a symbol does not per se imply falsification of its history.17
1. The Inventio of 1853 and Its Aftermath
Una Vasca Battesimale: The Discovery of a Font (1853–1860)

The history of the so-called baptismal font of Višeslav before the mid-nineteenth century is relatively
obscure. Notwithstanding sources allegedly describing its presence in Nin between the fifteenth
and eighteenth centuries, the earliest explicit reference to the font appeared in the study of Fed-
erigo Altan (1714–1767) in 1749. Discussing the baptismal rites of the Patriarchate of Aquileia,
he described the font and provided the transcript of its inscription.18 What one can deduce from
Altan’s study is that the font stood partially walled in the courtyard of the Capuchin Convent of Il
Redentore on the Giudecca in, at the latest, 1749.19 The destiny of the font in the following hundred
years is poorly explored. However, thanks to recent archival research by Ljerka Dulibić, the history
12 thization enlarge our historical knowledge.”

Assmann 1998, 14.
13 18
For insights on the nature and typology of the myths, see Altan 1749, 18–19. + hec fons ne(m)pe svm(p)it infirmos
Hosking and Schöpflin 1997. vt reddat // illvminatos hic expiant scelera sva qv(o)d
// (de primo) svmpservnt parente vt eficiantv // r xp(ist)
14 icole salvbriter confitendo trinv(m) p(er) // henne(m)
“Neither memories nor histories seem objective any longer.
In both cases we are learning to take account of conscious hoc ioh(annes) pr(es)b(iter) svb te(m)pore vvissas // clavo
or unconscious selection, interpretation and distortion. In dvci opvs bene co(m)psit devote // in honore videlicet
both cases this . . . is socially conditioned.” Burke 1989, 98. s(an)c(t)i // ioh(ann)is baptiste vt intercedat p(ro) eo //
clientvloque svo.
15
Cf. Heehs 1994; McNeill 1986.
19
Interestingly, Altan “regretted not being able to see its
16 entire inscription because the object had been built into
Poole 2008, 157–158.
the wall and some of its parts were not accessible” (Jakšić
17 2015b, 550).
In the words of Assmann 1998, 14, “mythological function
does not in the least invalidate historicity, nor would demy-
68 Trpimir Vedriš
Fig. 2. Albert Moses, Ivan Kukuljević

Sakcinski, oil on canvas, 1876 (photo
Croatian Historical Museum).
of the font after 1830 can be reconstructed fairly accurately.20 The first subsequent information on
the font (used as a “contenere l’acqua per abbevarare le piante”) comes from the documentation of
Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna (1789–1868), whose attempts to convince the Capuchins to donate
the font to the City of Venice eventually resulted in its translation from the Giudecca to the Museo
Correr in 1853.21 On this occasion Cicogna published a text in Gazzetta di Venezia noting that the
font “stava in una corticella del monastero de’cappuccini al Redentore da tempo immemorabile.”
When and where it came from remain a mystery or a matter of debate. Its inventio and subsequent
translatio to Museo Correr, however, provide a safe point of departure. Namely, that is where the
font was (re)discovered by the Croatian historian Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski (1816–1889) (fig. 2).
Kukuljević was informed about the font’s existence by Giuseppe Valentinelli (1805–1874),
at the time director of the Biblioteca Marciana, who invited him to Venice to see it for himself.22
Both gentlemen shared an interest in antiquities, yet for Sakcinski the discovery of early medieval
objects potentially connected to Croatian history was much more than an antiquarian interest. His
active engagement in the process (which would later be called nation building) made the search for
evidence of Croatia’s ancient past vital. As a key figure in the “Croatian Revival,” Kukuljević was no
mere adventurer traveling far and wide in search of antiquities. Besides holding important political
offices, he was among the founders of national associations such as the Society for South Slav His-
tory and Antiquities (Družtvo za jugoslavensku poviestnicu i starine) and was the first president of
the Croatian Archaeological Society (Hrvatsko arkeologičko družtvo).23
In his first address to the Society upon his return from Venice, Kukuljević reported the discovery
of a monument “more than important for the national history.” He proposed dating the font to the
ninth or tenth century and suggested the identification of the dux Vuissasclavus with the archontes
mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, either the first known Serbian archon Vojislav or the
20 23
For the discovery of the font and a detailed overview of Družtvo was established in 1850 and transformed into
the relevant archival documentation, see Dulibić and Pasi- Hrvatsko arkeologičko družtvo in 1887. Sakcinski was also
ni-Tržec 2017; forthcoming. the editor of the Archive for South Slav History (Arkiv za
povjestnicu jugoslavensku), the first Croatian scholarly peri-
21
Dulibić and Pasini-Tržec forthcoming. odical for history, archaeology, and arts that, besides Croatia,
covered broader “South Slavic.” For appreciating the role
22
Kukuljević Sakcinski 1854, 334–338. of Sakcinski, I am particularly indebted to: Mance 2012a;
2012b; 2013; 2015.
father of Prince Michael of Zahumlje (ca. 910–930).24 At the time of his report, discussion about the
origin of the font and the identity of the dux was already underway. The transfer of the font to the
Museo Correr generated public debate in the local Gazzetta di Venezia and Vaglio, which continued
in the Zadar-based Osservatore Dalmato and the Viennese Corriere italiano.25 Kukuljević visited
Venice again on his return from Rome, where he had been collecting material for his Lexicon of the
South Slav Artists.26 Having arrived in Venice in January of 1857, Kukuljević stayed for three days,
“working day and night” in the Biblioteca Marciana.27 The result of this visit was a more elaborate
reflection on the font.28
The initial phase of the public debate concerning the font was summarized by Vincenzo Lazzari
in 1859.29 The next year marked a critical moment when an (Italian) poet and journalist from Zadar,
Giovanni Ferrari Cupilli (1809–1865), suggested that the font, at that time referred to only as “the
one from Museo Correr,” might have originated in Nin in Dalmatia.30 This was the first attempt
to provide precise “spatial grounding” for an otherwise decontextualized object. His hypothesis
was supported by a reference to a local eighteenth-century chronicler. The so-called Anonymous
Filippi mentions the disappearance of a certain baptismal font from Nin in 1746, describing it as
a limestone piece “con iscrizioni e stemmi.”31 Once introduced, Anonymous became the first in
a series of early modern sources to be used as an argument in favor of the font’s origin in Nin.32
Ferrari Cupilli’s suggestion was soon picked up by Croatian historians, although at that time there
was no consensus on either the font’s origin or the identity of the dux. Kukuljević (recently named
“the author of Croatian identity”) never considered Nin as the font’s origin, and that the person
responsible for its initial “Croatization,” Ferrari Cupilli, was anything but a Croat nationalist. An
excursus on the historical context in which the debate on the relations between space, artifact, and
identities took place is in order.
The Context: How to Awaken a Nation?

The “historical slumber” of the nation was among the central concerns of the Croatian “National
Revival” in the first half of the nineteenth century. This view implied that the nation was, symboli-
cally speaking, “sleeping” for ages after Croatia lost its independence to the “foreigners” at the end
of the eleventh century.33 An important mechanism to “awaken” it was employed by the Illyrian
movement (fig. 3) and their heirs in the second half of the nineteenth century34 in order (like national
24 32
Constantine Porphyrogenitus 1967, 32.34, 33.17; Kukul- The rest of the corpus consists mostly of Church visitations
jević Sakcinski 1854, 336. dated between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries. Cf.
Petricioli 1985, 133; Matijević Sokol 2007, 25–26.
25
Cf. Lazari 1859, 263–265; Petricioli 1985; Jakšić 2016,
33
243–246. This perspective relies on the perception of the early me-
dieval kingdom as a national state and its “independence” as
26
On the compilation of Slovnik umjetnikah jugoslavenskih, equivalent to modern “sovereignty.” The period ended either
see Mance 2012b, 109–147 and passim. with the death of King Zvonimir in 1089 or when the last
Croatian pretender to the throne, Peter, fell to Hungarians
27
Kukuljević Sakcinski 1857, 389. in 1096. The kingdom of Croatia/Dalmatia was subsequently
adjoined to the “lands of the Holy Crown.” While different
28
Kukuljević Sakcinski 1857, 390–392. attributes of independence (at least significant autonomy)
were preserved in the institutions of separate regna of Slavo-
29
Lazari 1859, 263–265. For the reference to the font, see nia and Croatia/Dalmatia, traditional historiography saw the
Jakšić 2016, 243–245. fall of the Trpimirid dynasty as a national disaster.
30 34
Ferrari Cupilli 1860. The Illyrian movement emerged in the first half of the
nineteenth century, as a result of the activity of a group of
31
Jakšić 2016, 246. Croatian intellectuals. The Illyrian national idea was originally
70 Trpimir Vedriš
Fig. 3. Vlaho Bukovac, Croatian Revival, curtain in the Croatian National Theater in Zagreb, 1896 (photo public domain).
elites elsewhere) to reconstruct its glorious past.35 Kukuljević’s concern (implying a scandal) over the
ignorance of the national medieval past is clearly expressed in his account of a visit to Dalmatia in
1854. “Everybody,” he wrote, “is mad about the classical past, which blinded the eyes and minds of
those interested in antiquity, forgetting Christianity and the Middle Ages.”36 The observation (and the
consequences he drew from it) anticipated the paradigm shift that was to take place in the historical
discourse on Dalmatia. Seen by many contemporaries as the kaiserlich und königlich chunk of the
Roman Mediterranean, it was about to (re)appear as the so-called cradle of Croatian statehood.
Kukuljević’s research trips undertaken between 1851 and 1858 were an important part of this
reconceptualization. Four travels are particularly relevant: the trip to Venice (1853), to Rome (1856),
and two voyages to Dalmatia (in 1854 and 1856).37 These voyages were not only a part of the pro-
conceived among fifteenth-century Croat humanists and For the usage of the term “Ilyrian,” see Dzino 2014. For the
remained an elitist concept promoted by ecclesiastical and emergence of Illyrianism and its manifestations, see Blažević
political agents throughout the early modern period. Unlike 2008; 2010. Finally, a valuable, although somewhat outdated,
the nineteenth-century secular ideology, the Illyrian national account of the nineteenth-century homonymous movement
idea originated in ecclesiastical circles as a local manifestation is provided by Despalatović 1975 and (in an oversimplified
of the larger pan-European emergence of humanist national- overview) by Tanner 1997. Cf. Gross 1979; 1981.
ism. Narrower visions of Croatian identity were promoted by
35
local churchmen in the vernacular discourse, but Illyrianism Cf. Pohl 2013, esp. 29–30. The Croatian case is treated
served them internationally in their political and cultural here briefly and in a rather superficial way.
rivalries as well as their plans to convert the Balkan Slavs to
36
Catholicism. Although the Illyrian idea remained one of the Cited after Mance 2012b, 296.
ideological cornerstones of the Croatian Church throughout
37
the early modern period, it came to serve other political ends Reports in the form of travel diaries were published as
such as those of Croatian aristocrats and Slovene Protestants. Kukuljević Sakcinski 1855; 1857.
motion of the Society’s ideas but were also trips dictated by the impulse of collecting, Kukuljević’s
main “method and practice.”38 The travels, resembling in many ways the traditional Grand Tour,
enabled Kukuljević to seek lost treasures of the glorious past.39 For him, however, what mattered
was not the classical Roman past so dear to foreign travelers and local antiquarians but rather me-
dieval artifacts and ruins. In this context, Kukuljević’s visit to Nin is particularly telling.40 In 1856,
the symbolic capital of the first Croatian bishopric and the See of the Princes was no more than a
village among ruins.41 To Kukuljević it became a “metaphor of a tragic discontinuity between the
present historical moment and the mythical national history.”42 Mourning what was lost rather than
focusing on what was still standing,43 as Mance noted, Kukuljević is to be credited with creating a new
discursive framework for “including Dalmatia into the process of Croatian national integration.”44
While geographically and historically Dalmatia indeed was the “cradle of Croatian statehood,” its
administrative status made it recognizable rather as an imperial portion of the broader Mediterranean
world and its classical past. This perspective depended not only on the official politics embodied in
the activities of K.k. Central-Commission zur Erforschung und Erhaltung der Baudenkmale, focusing
on the Roman antiquities, but it had a long tradition among Dalmatian urban elites.45
To understand this shift in perspective, one must consider the political views and ideological
agendas of Kukuljević and his collaborators. While the diverse usages of the Illyrian name in the
Croatian context had a centuries-long tradition, the political views of nineteenth-century Illyrians
can be described as “stressing the Slavic identity and historical continuity of the inherited rights in
the defense of political sovereignty of the ‘Croatian lands.”46 These ideas were following those of
Ljudevit Gaj (1809–1872), a central figure of the previous generation of the Illyrian movement who
defined his political program as “Hungarian constitution, Croatian kingdom and Illyrian nation.”
This form of early nineteenth-century Croatian nationalism was rather inclusive. For Kukuljević
there were no problems in identifying the font as originating in Zahumlje (Zachulmia in present-day
Herzegovina) and Višeslav as a Serbian archon. The “inclusive nationalism” of Kukuljević, however,
knew outside limits. When approached by the patriarch Josif Rajačić (the representative of the Or-
thodox Serbs in the Habsburg Monarchy), who considered the population of the Croatian Military
Border as ethnically Serb, Kukuljević rebuked him, responding that “there can be no question of
any Serb political nation in Croatia.”47 For the traditional political culture (or the “feudal heritage”)
of the Habsburg Empire the historical regna implied “political nations.”48 This view, however, did
not prevent Kukuljević from positioning his own patriotism in the broad context of “pan-Slavic
unity,” an ideological construct he owed to the Slovak Ján Kollár (1793–1852), whom he admired
and on whose views on the Enlightenment he relied.
38 44
Mance 2012b, 94–98. Mance 2015, 256.
39 45
For the summary of these travels and the assessment of For the activities of the “Central Commission,” see Čorić
Kukuljević’s accompanying ideological program, see Mance 2010. For the interest in antiquities by the nineteenth-century
2012b, 291–318; 2015, 239–256. local elites, see Špikić 2007; 2010; 2012; Lučin 2018.
40 46
Mance 2015, 243–255. Mance 2012b, 72–73.
41 47
The medieval commune declined due to Ottoman raids Mance 2012b, 70. The misunderstanding in question
after the fifteenth century. Deserted and razed at the order of derives from the fact that the Serb elites in the Habsburg
Governor-General Lunardo Foscolo in 1646, Nin was soon Monarchy, from the very end of the seventeenth century,
resettled but never regained its urban character. would also use Illyrianism in promoting their own Serb vision
of South Slavic unity by blending their Orthodox tradition
42
Mance 2012b, 301. and Western nationalist discourse.
43 48
Mance 2012b, 302. Okey 1992.
72 Trpimir Vedriš
When applied to the study of the past, the interest in “common Slavic history” (notwithstanding
the specific features of the Croatian case) meant a shift from continuity to stressing discontinuity—
caused by the arrival of Slavs in Dalmatia. The end of the Völkerwanderung and their settlement in
Dalmatia (traditionally dated to the seventh century), and not the Roman past, connected Croats
with other Slavic peoples.49 In order to reshape the prevailing paradigm, Kukuljević created a “new
language of art” to influence what constitutes Croatian history.50 The view of Kukuljević and his
contemporaries concerning the relationship between the Roman and the medieval past signaled
the emergence of a paradigm shift. This shift led to the emergence of a “national discipline” of
archaeology.51 While Dalmatia’s “visible” classical monuments (such as Diocletian’s Palace) were
long recognized as a precious heritage, interest in the “less visible” early medieval heritage was
only just emerging. It would be the task of the next generation to rely on the “fortune pickaxe” to
unearth evidence of the glorious medieval—and national—past.52
The Emergence of the Font (1860–1911)

The collapse of Bach’s absolutism and the Austro-Hungarian Ausgleich of 1867 (followed by the Hun-
garo-Croat Nagodba [“Compromise”] in 1868) meant the revitalization of political and intellectual life
in Croatia. The decades following the Constitution of 1867—which petrified the division between the
Austrian and Hungarian parts of the monarchy—witnessed the formation of a full-fledged national
movement to integrate the “Croatian lands.”53 Croatia/Slavonia and Dalmatia (commonly referred
to as the Triune kingdom) were still separate political and administrative entities of the Hungarian
and Austrian parts of the monarchy. Their unification was at the center of the Croatian national
integration agenda.54 Croatia “existed not only as imagined community, but also as administrative
unit with distinctive legal traditions, providing Croatian politicians with an arena in which to fight
the national struggle.”55
Political activities were accompanied by the foundation of major national institutions, such as
the Academy of Arts and Sciences (1867) and a new university (1874). Parallel to these entities,
the construction of a national historical canon was underway through the work of scholars such as
Franjo Rački (1828–1894),56 who published in 1877 an influential source collection, which includ-
ed the font of Višeslav.57 Rački’s Documenta provided a canonical sourcebook for early Croatian
history and “had a dominant impact on future scholars,” offering “a framework for the narrative
49 51
Dzino 2010, 17. The discourse that “emphasizes migra- Novaković 2011; Petrinec 2009; Vrsalović 2013.
tions as the reason for the transformation of identities” still
52
“dominates popular imagination and scholarly views on Špikić 2014.
the appearances of Croat and other South Slav identities
53
in post-Roman Illyricum.” The discourse largely relies on Following the Renaissance humanist tradition that saw
the narrative preserved in De administrando imperio and these “historical lands” as a part of Illyria, these projects
has “achieved prominence helped by a strong political also included Bosnia and Herzegovina (occupied by the
impetus from panslavic and yugoslavist political ideology of Austro-Hungarian army in 1878).
the nineteenth century.” For the critiqué, see Dzino 2010,
54
14–21 and passim. See Gross 1993.
50 55
For example, when labeling objects as “Byzantine in style” Maxwell 2009, 22.
(bizantski slog), he usually meant the monuments from the
56
“era of Croatian kings.” For him, the “Byzantine style” is For a detailed account of the history of the discipline
close to “Slavism,” the element of culture that connects Cro- in the second half of the nineteenth century, see Antoljak
atian history with that of other neighboring “Slavic tribes.” 2004, 389–648.
In other words the adjective Byzantine is used “as ideological
57
rather than historical-stylistic identity” (Mance 2012b, 303). Rački 1877.
construct of the earliest Croatian history.”58 Whatever entered this collection—be it an inscription,
charter, or a narrative source—was granted historical significance. The historiographical work of
Rački was “an attempt to lay the blueprints for narrative social biography of the Croats as part of
the larger historical metanarrative, which constructed the joint history of the South Slavs.”59 In this
broader Slavic perspective, Croat identity was, however, never meant to be dissolved. Moreover, the
discourse described as “Croat Slavism” left a place for the Croats, as “a distinctive Slavic group that
migrated into the post-Roman Illyricum,” to develop its own national history.60 In this context, the
early Middle Ages came to be canonized as the golden age of the national past—the period when
Croatia achieved full independence and the Croats enjoyed freedom under the rulers of “national
blood.” While it was clear when this period had ended, the debate concerning its beginnings was just
emerging. Historiography of the day unanimously accepted the account of Porphyrogenitus, who
dated the arrival of the Croats to the early seventh century. Besides providing a seemingly coherent
historical narrative of the land in the time of Emperor Heraclius (610–641), Porphyrogenitus also
dated the Christianization of the Croats soon after their arrival. Placing these two crucial processes
in the early seventh century long remained mainstream historiographic interpretation and still plays
a prominent role in the popular imagination of national beginnings.
Along with the historiographic developments, a series of archaeological societies and museums
in Croatia/Slavonia61 and Dalmatia62 began to flourish. The first “national” archaeological excava-
tions were undertaken in the hinterland of Dalmatia under the auspices of the founding fathers of
Croatian archaeology, Lujo Marun (1857–1939)63 and Frane Bulić (1846–1934). The fruit of these
excavations was “amending injustice” that had troubled Kukuljević; early medieval material began
to pour in, allowing for the “incarnation of the national ideas in stone.” Archaeological finds held a
privileged position in the disputes about the affiliation of Dalmatia at a time when Croat nationalism
faced double opposition: local Dalmatian autonomism (which gradually grew into Italian national-
ism), which treated Dalmatia as an Italian province,64 and local Serb nationalism, which completely
neglected the Croat “historical character” of the region. The discovery of the monuments in that
particular area thus had immense political significance. The formation of the first collections fol-
lowed; the most important was the Museum of Croatian Monuments in Knin in 1893, which began
publishing its annual Old Croat Education (Starohrvatska prosvjeta) (fig. 4).65 With these activities
underway, the textual corpus of Rački was supplemented by a growing national “archive in stone.”
58 63
Dzino 2010, 19. Marun founded the “Special Committee for the Excavation
of Croatian Antiquities” (Naročit odbor za iskopine hrvatskih
59
Dzino 2010, 19; also Ančić 2009, vii–xxxviii. starina) and began excavating sites near Knin (Crkvina/
Biskupija and Kapitul), carrying out more than twenty
60
Dzino 2010, 19. campaigns from 1886 to 1908. On the life and work of Lujo
Marun, see Zekan 2008.
61
The National Museum in Zagreb was established in 1846
64
and divided into the Archaeological and the Natural History For a detailed analysis of this movement, see Vrandečić
Departments in 1866. After 1869, with the appointment of 2002; Reill 2012.
Šime Ljubić (1822–1896), it became the central archaeo-
65
logical institution in Croatia—hiring the first professional Knin, achieving its international ill-fame during the war
archaeologists, Josip Brunšmid and Viktor Hoffiller. The in Croatia (1991–1995), was one of the seats of the Croatian
Archaeological Department was declared a separate institu- kings in the eleventh century and the See of the Croatian
tion within the museum in 1878. bishop (episcopus chroatensis) between ca. 1030 and 1185.
During the Ottoman conquest in the sixteenth century a
62
The Archaeological Museum in Split was founded already majority of its medieval population left, and the area was
in 1820 by decree of the provincial Dalmatian government repopulated by the Orthodox Vlachs. The process of nation
and started to publish its bulletin, Bullettino di archeologia building among the Serbs (accelerated after the Berlin Con-
e storia dalmata, in 1887. gress of 1878) resulted in the surroundings of Knin becoming
74 Trpimir Vedriš
Fig. 4. Marun and the collection at the Museum

of Croatian Archaeological Monuments in Knin
(photo Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika).
While it seems unlikely that Višeslav’s font attracted much public interest during the decade
of Bach’s absolutism (1850–1860) and its aftermath, it definitely found its place in the focus of
scholarly interest by the 1890s. The font was at that time analyzed by international scholars of
reputation such as Raffaele Cattaneo and Ernst Stückelberg, who respectively interpreted it as
“stile greco del settecento,”66 and as a piece of “langobardische Plastik.”67 Their dating of the font
(late eighth through ninth century) allowed local scholars to frame its origin more precisely. On-
going archaeological excavations (particularly the discovery of a series of inscriptions of Croatian
rulers)68 made the period between ca. 830 and ca. 930 recognizable as the first “golden age” of
national history. By the end of the nineteenth century, different interpretations of the font’s origin
were offered, dating it between the late eighth and early tenth century. Due to a lack of scholarly
consensus, the identity of the font was, however, not fixed and still had not gained an explicitly
national aura. Yet, around the turn of the century, a new generation of scholars reached agreement
on its origins, and a new interpretative framework began to take shape.
An important watershed in the history of the reception of the font was the acceptance of Cattaneo
and Stückelberg’s dating by the most influential Croat scholars in the first decades of the twentieth
century. Archaeologist Luka Jelić (1864–1922) accepted Ferrari Cupilli’s suggestion and initiated ex-
cavations in Nin. He soon unearthed the remains of the baptistery attached to the medieval cathedral
where, presumably (according to Cupilli), the font originally stood.69 The inventio of the locus was
an extremely important step in the process of establishing the font in Croatian history. Its symbolic
strength was enhanced by connecting it with the iconic monument of the Church of the Holy Cross,
ethnically Serb by the twentieth century. According to the 68

The inscription of dux Trpimir (ca. 840–864) was discov-
census of 1910 the town itself was still predominantly Croat, ered in 1891, a series of inscriptions of dux/comes Branimir
with a majority of ca. 56 percent. (879–892) were unearthed between 1871 and the early
twentieth century, and that of princeps Muncimir (ca. 892–ca.
66
Cattaneo 1889, 101. 910?) in 1890. For the catalogue of inscriptions (before 1996),
see Delonga 1996.
67
Stückelberg 1896.
69
Jelić 1911.
Fig. 5. Church of the Holy Cross in Nin (photo public

domain).
considered the court chapel of the Croat prince (fig. 5).70 The discovery was adopted by the influential
medievalist Ferdo Šišić (1869–1940)71 and art historian Ljubo Karaman (1886–1971),72 adding scholarly
support to the emerging discourse. Soon after the end of World War I, the image of the font began to
appear in the public sphere. This more explicit (and more exclusive) interpretatio Croatica was a result
of a scholarly debate that, however, cannot be understood outside the particular political context.
The Golden Age of the Font

The dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy allowed the long-awaited “unification of the
South Slav lands.” The ex-provinces of the monarchy (briefly united in the State of the Slovenes,
Croats, and Serbs) merged with the Kingdom of Serbia in late 1918, creating the Kingdom of the
Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, to be renamed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929. The identifica-
tion with the ideology of “Slavic brotherhood” on the part of the Croat intelligentsia from the
previous generations barely outlived the collapse of the Habsburg monarchy. In the process of
seeking political legitimacy, the new state required a new ideology.73 As a result, diverse pan-Slavic
concepts of the previous generation (largely constructed and promoted by the Croat authors)
were transformed into a narrow Yugoslav idea. Unlike the dreams of the previous dissident
generations, the idea of a single Yugoslav nation (composed of different “tribes”) became the
official state ideology. As a result, many Croat intellectuals felt duped.74 This disillusionment led
to the formation of new political and ideological programs seeking, once again, Croat interests
outside the existing political framework.75 The dysfunction of the new state (a multinational and
multicultural composition without a single national base or overwhelming majority) was largely
the result of different national ideologies and political cultures. The ruling political elites of the
triumphant Serbia clearly saw the unification (Yugoslav ideology included) as a means of Serbian
expansion. Political pressure along these lines gradually grew after the centralistic Vidovdan (St.
70 74
Jelić 1911, 1 and passim. Disillusionment with ideas of Slavic unity did not begin
with the Yugoslav experience. Already Josip Juraj Stross-
71
Šišić 1914, 119–120; 1925, 308–309. mayer, “the inspiration and financier of the whole Yugoslav
movement became thoroughly disillusioned with the business
72
Karaman 1930, 79 and passim. of trying to build cultural and political ties with the Serbs”
(Tanner 1997, 56).
73
For the theoretical frame (and its analytical application to
75
the Yugoslav case) of the relation between political discon- A still unsurpassed introduction to the political history of
tinuities and the ideological quest for political legitimacy, the “first” Yugoslavia is Banac 1984. While focusing on the
see Malešević 2002. years 1918 to 1921, it is a necessary guide for understanding
later developments. For the history of the Yugoslav idea—es-
pecially as seen by foreigners—see Drapac 2010.
76 Trpimir Vedriš
Vitus Day) Constitution was approved in 1921 and peaked in 1928 with the assassination of the
leading Croatian politician, Stjepan Radić, by a Serb deputy on the floor of the Yugoslav National
Assembly. The assassination alienated the majority of Croats and prompted King Aleksandar to
inaugurate his personal dictatorship, with the intention of destroying historical identities in favor
of Yugoslav unitarism.76 As a result, history again became a field of symbolic struggle, leading to
occasional expressions of discontent articulated in public commemorations of historical events,
such as the millennial anniversary of the Croatian kingdom in 1925.77
As contemporary publications and commemorations stressed various markers of national
identity, the image of the font of Prince Višeslav acquired a new significance. The key concept that
emerged in late nineteenth-century scholarship was “Early Croatian art/culture.” The term spread
in the beginning of the twentieth century.78 By the 1920s, it had gained the status of terminus tech-
nicus in scholarship to define a broad spectrum of material culture ranging from architecture and
art history to archaeological finds.79 The attempts to define “Early Croatian” primarily stressed
chronological (seventh–eleventh century) and geographical factors (“Croatian lands”) but gradually
included an “ethnic” component.80 Among those notable for the distribution of the notion of “Early
Croatian” was art historian Karaman. It should, however, be observed that Karaman rejected any
idea of “autochthonous” culture, seeing “Early Croatian” rather as a useful umbrella term to describe
pre-Romanesque art and archaeological finds datable to the eighth through the eleventh century.81
Likewise the dating of the font, an important element in the public affirmation of the notion of
“Early Croatian art,” was attributable to a foreign scholar. In 1927, art historian Josef Strzygowski
(1862–1941) published a rarely referenced book, On the Development of Old Croatian Art,82 as a
prelude to his Die altslavische Kunst (fig. 6).83 Strzygowski’s scholarly views and ideological positions
with regard to the Croat material culture were that not only did early Croatian art not owe much to
classical and Italian influences, but it emerged as the result of an almost unbroken continuity from
prehistory.84 In his view, the Croats, like the Lombards, brought their ancient artistic traditions
with them when they migrated from the north. As to the reception of his work in Croatia, it met
sharp criticism by a leading Croat art historian. Karaman, the key figure in the “periodization and
systematization of early medieval material,” dismissed Strzygowski’s main theses on art-historical
grounds.85 Similarly, Dragutin Kniewald, a Catholic priest and liturgist, implied an anti-Roman agen-
da.86 Many (non-specialist) intellectuals, however, sympathized with what they saw as an homage to
76 80
Radić, who successfully challenged Serbian hegemony, That it did not necessarily take on an exclusive meaning
eventually accepted a compromise with the government. One is clear from the paper published by Marun in 1927, where
direct response to his assassination and the inauguration of he stated that the phrase Croat “ought to be understood as
dictatorship was the emigration of Ante Pavelić (1889–1959), being simultaneously Serb and Slovene, too, as they belonged
who sought protection from Mussolini and formed his na- to the shared heritage of the South Slavic peoples” (after
tional-revolutionary movement Ustaša in Italy in early 1929. Bilogrivić 2016, 60).
77 81
Celebratory events commemorating the coronation of the Cf. Bilogrivić 2014, 210–214.
first Croatian king Tomislav in 925 were particularly visible
82
occasions to reaffirm different myths of the early medieval Strzygowski 1927. The book was a translation of his earlier
Croatian golden age. Cf. Gračanin 2014. work, Forschungen zur Entwicklung der altkroatischen Kunst,
published in 1926.
78
The term itself appeared for the first time in the title of
83
Šime Ljubić’s paper published in 1888. In the 1890s the Strzygowski 1929.
term usually appeared only in titles and was applied to a
84
wide range of phenomena. One of the most common was For the context of Strzygowski’s “antihumanism,” cf.
the “Early Croatian interlace” (first appearance in a paper Marchand 1994.
by Antun Rossi published in 1898).
85
Karaman 1930, 32–58.
79
For discussion of “early Croatian culture,” see Bilogrivić
86
2016, esp. 51–81. Kniewald 1929.
Fig. 6. Josef Strzygowski, O razvitku starohrvatske umjetnosti

(On the Development of the Old Croatian Art), cover and frontispiece (Zagreb 1927) (photo author).
Croat historical individuality, and Strzygowski’s book, beautifully decorated by a popular publisher,
became an important nationwide reference.
From the present perspective it is significant that Strzygowski took it for granted that the
baptismal font of Prince Višeslav was an authentic expression of Early Croatian art—at the same
time legitimizing the concept and framing the object in the emerging canon of the national cultural
heritage.87 Strzygowski’s approach to early medieval art was described as disdainful of the Mediterra-
nean component of culture. This partially fitted the paradigm shift that started taking shape among
previous generations of Croatian scholars like Kukuljević, yet it appeared in more elaborate form
only in the 1920s. Like the ethno-racial theories of his contemporary Ludwig Gumplowicz,88 Strzy-
gowski’s exaltation of northern and eastern influences found fruitful soil in the form of non-Slavic
theories of Croat origin. These were, also, not new. The idea of the Sarmatian origin can be traced
at least to the eighteenth-century historian Josip Mikoczy (1734–1800), who presented his theory
at the Royal Academy in Zagreb in 1797.89 The theory of the Gothic origin of the Croats was even
older and can be traced to medieval texts such as the Codex of Korčula (ca. 1150), the Chronicle of
the Priest of Diocleia (ca. 1170), and the Chronicle of Archdeacon Thomas of Split (ca. 1260). The
theory, notwithstanding its ancient origins—and contrary to widespread opinion—never gained the
87 89
Strzygowski 1927, 49. Strzygowski was never able to inspect According to Mikoczy, “The Croats, Slavs by their nation-
the font himself, as it was not at his disposal during his visit ality, originated from the Sarmatians, the descendants of the
to Venice in 1924. Medes, and arrived in Dalmatia from Poland around the year
630” (quoted in Bartulin 2014, 48).
88
Cf. Gumplowicz 1903, 780–789. For his views on the Cro-
atian context, see Bartulin 2014, 46–48, 246–251, and passim.
78 Trpimir Vedriš
upper hand in either local historiography or public discourse.90 Finally, “new discoveries in the fields
of philology and archaeology allowed early twentieth-century historians to present new theories
on the obscure origins of the proto-Croats, among which the “Iranian theory . . . was to occupy an
important place in discourses on ethno linguistic/racial identity in Croatia.”91 While the relation
between Iranian theory and its international context has to remain outside the scope of this paper,
it should suffice to note that one of the protagonists of the history of the font, Jelić, for example,
hinted at relations between “Early Croatian sacral architecture”—the Church of the Holy Cross in
Nin—and ancient Persian building and ornamental decorative elements.92
A central characteristic of this tendency was downplaying “foreign” influences in favor of a unique
historical development—based on alleged indigenous artistic traditions. While mainstream history of
art saw most of the “Early Croatian” material as being modeled after Lombard or Byzantine sculpture
(e.g., the appearance of the “Croatian triple interlace” was usually interpreted as the result of a Car-
olingian influence), the argument that “early medieval Croats were not passive absorbers of foreign
influences but that they created a new style” was disseminated.93 While the views of Strzygowski never
became mainstream, some of their elements resonated with the sensibilities of many Croat intellectuals
in the 1920s and 1930s, eager to stress aspects of the national cultural heritage that differentiated
Croats from their Slavic neighbors, primarily the Serbs.94 In this context, the monograph of Strzy-
gowski marked an important step in framing the font as a representative piece of “Early Croatian” art.
The inclusion of the font as an historical source in the growing historiographic corpus also im-
plied an advance of a more scientific and artifactual interpretation of the “national beginnings.” First,
the shifting of the scholarly focus from the traditional land-taking of the early seventh century to the
turn of the eighth to ninth centuries as a period of efficient Christianization and the formation of the
principality seems justifiable today.95 Secondly, the dating of the font was the result of international
scholarship and not a desired interpretation of local scholars. In fact, the affirmation of the font as
a source for early medieval history went against current tradition. The concept that Christianization
took place only in the early ninth century—sub aegide Francorum—would not have been acceptable
to nineteenth-century Croat scholars, no less to many Church historians of the twentieth century.96
The localization of the font’s origin in Croatia allowed for a more Western identification. As a
representative of Croat mid-nineteenth-century “inclusive nationalism,” Kukuljević had no prob-
lems accepting the font’s origin in Zahumlje (often referred to as one of the early medieval “Serbian
lands”). Yet, with different forms of “Croatism” and “Yugoslavism” developing into distinct (even
contradictory) political programs, alternative identifications of the font became controversial by the
1920s. The short-lived triumph of radical Croat nationalism in the Independent State of Croatia
(1941–1945) (emulating Nazi racial policy and laws) not only discredited Croat aspirations to inde-
pendence but also compromised much of its prewar cultural politics. The period of 1918–1941 had
marked fruitful years in archaeology and historiography, and the combination of these developments
90
While open to the possibility of Gothic origins for Croats, brief overview of the theory, see Košćak 1995.
the government of the Independent State of Croatia never
denied the Slavic theory of Croat origin. The idea (cf. Pohl 92
Bartulin 2014, 48.
2013, 30) that “the regime of 1941–45 tried to suppress
the notion of ‘Slavic’ origins of Croats and the character of 93
Cf. Radić 1900.
medieval Croats in official textbooks has been shown to be
unsubstantiated” (Dzino 2010, 20). Cf. Jareb 2008. 94
Cf. Bartulin 2012.
91 95
While Pohl 2013, 30, attributes this idea to Howorth 1882, For a more recent overview of the issue, see Ančić 2016.
Bartulin 2014, 48, traces it back to Mikoczy. The first and
main promoter in Croatia was Jesuit historian Stjepan Krizin 96
Cf. Sakač 1941; Draganović and Buturac 1944; Mandić
Sakač (1890–1973), long-time Professor of Slavic Church 1963.
History at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome. For a
Fig. 7. Matija Matijević,

Blagoslovljena Hrvatska.
Povijesne crtice (Blessed
Croatia) and Josip Buturac,
Poviest Crkve u Hrvatskoj.
Pregled od najstarijih vremena
do danas (History of the Church
in Croatia) (photo author).
and ideological agendas contributed to an acceptance of the font as being of Croatian cultural
heritage. Once it had been invested with the aura of “national art,” images of the font circulated
in printed media (fig. 7). At the same time, steps were taken to “return” the font to its homeland.
2. Translatio in 1942
The Font in the Independent State of Croatia (1941–1945)

The translatio of the font in the shadow of the Great War took place as a “politically forced ex-
change of art objects,” but attempts to restore it to Croatia had predated the establishment of the
Independent State of Croatia (NDH) by two decades. The destiny of the font in the second half
of the twentieth century was determined by the two totalitarian regimes that marked this period.
While both the nationalist Ustaša and Communists enjoyed little popular support, largely through
a combination of utilizing popular fears, decisive brutality, and a favorable political context, they
managed to gain power in 1941 and 1945, respectively.97 The Ustaša (“Insurgent”) movement, advo-
cating violent insurgency against the regime in Belgrade, arose on the fringes of national opposition
in the late 1920s.98 Their role in the assassination of the dictator-king in 1934 determined their
reputation. In the course of the 1930s, the Ustaša, emerging as a national-revolutionary movement,
was increasingly fascistized (their training camps were in Italy under Mussolini’s protection) and
became an obstacle to any agreement with the royal government.99 The establishment of the NDH
97 pacifism of the mainstream politics pursued by Radić and his

The history of Yugoslavia in the mid-twentieth century
may be read as a counterfactual of the history of Spain. The successor Maček. Cf. Sadkovich 1987.
civil war (raging under the cloak of World War II) ended
99
with the defeat of the nationalist/Fascists and the triumph The attempts of the central government during the re-
of revolutionary/Communist forces. Such a development gency of Prince Paul Karađorđević (1934–1941) to strike a
largely affected cultural politics in both regimes. compromise with the Croat opposition coincided with the
overriding European crisis and led to a deal in August 1939,
98 when Vladko Maček accepted an agreement that created
The Ustaša operated under the protection of Mussolini’s
Italy and other revisionist powers and sought to discredit the an autonomous Banate of Croatia with significant self-rule.
80 Trpimir Vedriš
Fig. 8. Series of book covers from the 1920s (photo author).
after the collapse of Yugoslavia was, thus, a combination of Croatian enthusiasm for independence
and external occupation, establishing the new state as an Italo-German dominion.100
Once the Ustaša seized power, they initiated an extensive program legitimizing their authority
to identify Croatian patriotism with allegiance to the regime. Media,101 culture,102 and history were,
as expected, prominent fields to be affected. Diverse visual “early medieval references” proliferated.
Contrary to widespread opinion, however, such symbols had already had widespread circulation
in the 1920s (fig. 8).103 These ranged from the motif of the triple interlace commonly referred to as
“Early Croatian”104 to such objects as the Old Croatian Crown.105 The establishment of the national
state finally allowed their full-fledged institutional promotion.106 In this environment, the font of
Prince Višeslav once again came to public attention.
The first steps to return the font were taken in the wake of reparations after World War I when
a Yugoslav commission sought to obtain art objects seized by Italy.107 The font surfaced in these ne-
gotiations during the meeting of the Yugoslav-Italian Commission in Trieste in 1926, where Mihovil
Abramić of the State Archaeological Museum in Split discussed the restitution claims with Ettore
103
The prospect of survival—against the attempts of various Jareb 2010, 179–191, connects “the birth of Croatian
extremists, both Croat and Serb—came to an end in 1941, interlace” with the 1925 Jubilee.
when Prince Paul reluctantly agreed to bring Yugoslavia into
104
the Tripartite Pact, triggering a pro-British military coup This particular type of three-strand ribbon existed in the
d’état, which in turn prompted an Axis attack in April 1941. classical arts and was widespread in early medieval stone
sculpture, particularly in Anglo-Saxon England, Carolingian
100 Francia, Italy, and Byzantium. The variant typical of Italy (and
Considering prewar Croat society at large as ideologically
deeply fascistized would be mistaken. Statistically, the radical Croatia) is commonly recognized as “Early Croatian interlace”
nationalist Ustaša and the Communists—both prosecuted by Croatian public opinion. Its first usage (outside the scholarly
by the authorities of the Banate of Croatia—were marginal context) was the application of the interlace to the “Academic
groups with irrelevant followings. The elections of 1940 flag” of Zagreb University in 1907 (Jareb 2010, 127–131).
demonstrated the strength of the mainstream Peasant Party,
105
which won between 70 and 90 percent of the then largely Jareb 2014.
agriculture-based vote.
106
For the usage of (and creation of new) symbols in this
101 period, see Jareb 2010, 268–298.
For media and propaganda, see Jareb 2016.
102 107
For the cultural politics of NDH, see Banović 2012; Dulibić and Pasini-Tržec forthcoming.
Rafaelić 2013.
Modigliani, director of the Pinacoteca di Brera in Milan.108 Abramić supported the “additional
compensation” (the font was technically not a part of the reparations) with the argument that the
font was “a monument of great value to our national history, while to the Italians it represented
nothing.”109 In the fall of 1927, Modigliani informed Abramić that Mussolini himself “got involved
in the question of the restitution” and “offered to serve as intermediary with the Venetian local
government, so that the Baptismal font be returned.”110 Relations between Italy and Yugoslavia,
however, deteriorated, and the planned meetings were never held.111
As documents in the archives of the Museo Correr purport, the Italian government tried to
convince the board of the museum in 1932 to exchange the font for Tiepolo’s drawings from the
Sartorio Collection.112 The board attempted to avoid the request and only in February 1940 “re-
luctantly accepted the request to lend the font for an exhibition planned in honor of the 1300th
anniversary of Christianity in Croatia.”113 In all likelihood, this success was the result of the personal
intervention of the archbishop of Zagreb, Alojzije Stepinac (1898–1960). The young archbishop
(elevated by Pius XII in 1936) visited the pope in October 1939 to report on the organization of
the celebration of the 1300th anniversary of the “ties between St. Peter and the Croats.”114 The
result of this visit was the papal breve Cum ex venerabilis issued by Pius XII on 12 May, which
proclaimed the “Holy year of the Croatian people” to be celebrated in 1940–1941.115 On his return
to Zagreb from another visit to Rome in February 1941, Stepinac stopped in Venice and addressed
the Venetian patriarch, Cardinal Piazza, pleading with him to intercede for the “only monument of
Croatian history from the eighth century” to be returned to Croatia.116
Before the intervention of Archbishop Stepinac, the Catholic Church in Croatia officially had
nothing to do with the restitution. Perhaps one reason was that the font’s proposed dating con-
tradicted the traditional chronology of Christianization.117 While new discoveries in the fields of
archaeology and art history allowed scholars to formulate new hypotheses about the Christianiza-
tion of the Croats, Church historians were largely unwilling to abandon the traditional narrative.
After all, the celebration of the 1,300 years of Christianity planned for 1940–1941 was grounded
in the accounts of the Liber pontificalis and De Administrando Imperio. From that perspective, the
first contacts between the popes (more precisely, John IV, 640–642) and the Croats—followed by
108 June ) in the Church of St. Peter in Zagreb and lasted until
Dulibić and Pasini-Tržec forthcoming.
29 June 1941. After that Stepinac embarked on three major
109 projects: fulfilling the vow made by the Croatian diet in 1739
to build a sanctuary of the Most Precious Blood of Christ;
110 pleading to the pope to send his cardinal legate to participate
in the Euharistic Congress, and returning the font of Duke
111 Višeslav to Croatia.
For the broader context of these relations, see Monzali
2010.
116
Benigar 1993, 234. Cardinal Piazza wrote to Stepinac
112 about previous unsuccessful attempts and suggested he try
Correr Museum Archives, Cl. XXV. n. 35, nota 81/1932
(after Dulibić and Pasini-Tržec forthcoming). through the Ministry in Belgrade. Soon afterward, Yugoslavia
disappeared, and informal negotiations continued between
113 Croatia’s new Minister for Worship and Education, Mile
Correr Museum Archives, Cl. XXV. n. 35, nota 37/1940
(after Dulibić and Pasini-Tržec forthcoming). Budak, and Giovanni Ponti, Professor and Lecturer of Italian
at Zagreb University.
114
Benigar 1993, 231. According to recent interpretation, the
117
one who drafted the program of this celebration was Jesuit Interestingly, in a letter sent by the Croat (and Slovene)
Stjepan Krizin Sakač in the monthly magazine Glasnik Srca Catholics to Rome in 1915, an introduction broadly refers
Isusova in 1936. Cf. Hudelist 2017, 108–133. to Porphyrogenitus and the fact that the Croats were the
first among the Slavs to accept Christianity, yet it makes no
115 reference to the font (Banac 2013, 172–173).
Benigar 1993, 232. The Jubilee was proclaimed open by
Archbishop Stepinac on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul (29
82 Trpimir Vedriš
their baptism in agreement with Pope Agatho (678–681)118—played a crucial role. These arrange-
ments were treated as historical events and referred to as international treaties.119 According to this
narrative, the Croats were the first among the Slavs to “accept the Cross directly from the clear
font of St. Peter.” The notion of a special relationship between the Croats and the Holy See took
different forms over history but became a “stone of contestation” once predominantly Catholic
ex-Habsburg provinces joined the largely Orthodox Kingdom of Serbia in 1918.120 The notion of
a special Fidelity of the Croats to St. Peter—promoted by Catholic clergy (Archbishop Stepinac
in particular)—relied on early medieval sources; a series of ninth-century papal letters testified to
successors of St. Peter’s “affection for the Croats” and the beginnings of these ties projected into
the seventh century by Porphyrogenitus:
For after their baptism the Croats made a covenant, confirmed with their hands and by oaths sure
and binding in the name of St. Peter the apostle . . . and they received from the same pope
of Rome a benediction, that if any other foreigners should come against the country of these
same Croats and bring war upon it, then might God fight for the Croats and protect them, and
Peter the disciple of Christ give them victories.121
Reference to these events made the year 641 rather than the year 800 a crucial moment in
relations between the Croats and Rome. However, promoting the font as a symbol of this process
implied a paradox. This chronology could not be backed up by any material objects as such evidence
appeared only in the early ninth century. The aura of “the oldest monument with the engraved name
of a Croatian prince,” however, supported by the scholarly seal of authenticity, eventually led to
“acceptance” of the font by the Church. The intervention of Stepinac played a significant role in
reconciling contradictions; his personal appeal to the pope and the Venetian patriarch helped to
reactivate the dormant project to transfer the font to Croatia.
At the meeting of the Committee of the Venetian Sopraintendenza dei Civici Musei, held in July
1941, Giovanni Ponti summarized the history of negotiations since 1932 and confirmed that in that
period it was primarily the Croatian clergy that expressed interest in the font.122 As the result of informal
negotiations in September 1941, through the mediation of the Istituto di cultura italiana in Zagreb and
Giovanni Ponti, the board of the city museums of Venice agreed to exchange the baptismal font for
two paintings by Carpaccio owned by the Strossmayer Gallery in Zagreb.123 The Croatian Academy
accepted the offer, although some of its members questioned its justification, as they considered the
paintings to be of “a higher value compared to the primarily symbolic character of the font.”124
118
Draganović and Buturac 1944, 9–10. the concordat in 1937.
119 121
Draganović and Buturac 1944, 11–12. De Administrando Imperio 31, 31–42. The translation is
from the Moravcsik-Jenkins edition (1967), 149. Perhaps
120
The conflict largely derived from the absence of regu- “treaty” would indeed be a better translation of the phrase
lated relations between the Holy See and Yugoslavia. For συνθήκας καὶ ἰδιόχειρα ἐποιήσαντο.
the Catholic Church the establishment of Yugoslavia meant
losing the privileged position it enjoyed in the Habsburg 122
Comitato di Sopraintendenza dei Civici Musei, Riunione
monarchy. At the same time the Yugoslav government (Venice, 11 July 1941) (Archive of the Museum Correr, Cl.
(if informally) promoted Orthodoxy under the aegis of XXV. n. 35, nota 59/1941) (cited after Dulibić and Pasini
the Serbian Orthodox Church as the state religion. The Tržec 2017).
Serbian Orthodox Church was created by state act in 1920
by fusing five distinct historical jurisdictions, transforming 123
premodern territorial jurisdictional entities into a national
organization. The tensions reached a climax when the Ser- 124
Minutes of the fourth joint session on 1 July 1941 and 19
bian Orthodox Church managed to obstruct the signing of July 1941 (Dulibić and Pasini-Tržec forthcoming).
Fig. 9. The font displayed in front of the

palace of the Croatian Academy of Sciences
and Arts in Zagreb in August 1942 (photo
Hrvatski državni arhiv, HR HDA 1561
SDS Collection, no. 6062, Croatian State
Archive).
The delivery ceremony was organized in Venice in May 1942 and attended by Ljubo Karaman
and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of NDH, Ivo Omrčanin.125 On 29 May the font was transferred to
Zagreb, where it was expected to be presented in a public ceremony, with the intention of stressing
its historical importance (fig. 9).126 Yet discussion in the Academy revealed a disagreement among its
members concerning the dating of Christianization, as the respected historians Šišić and Karaman
were among those who did not accept the opinion that “the baptism of the Croats took place in
the seventh century, but only about 800.”127 As a result, the Academy decided that the font should
be publicly displayed free of charge and without pomp, “so that it might be inspected by anyone
interested in this venerable Croatian antiquity.”128 The Ministry, however, insisted on organizing a
public event, and, as a result, a ceremony took place in the atrium of the Croatian Academy on 13
August. The minister of education delivered the font to the president of the Academy and gave a
speech on the occasion.129 On 30 August, the font was exhibited at the entrance of the Academy,
and the Ministry organized a procession of Zagreb’s students, “who marched by the font, instructed
to express their due respect with their right hands raised to salute.”130 The translatio thus—with
resistance from the Academy—eventually turned into a public event “whose aim was to legitimize
the new political regime and its alliance with Fascist Italy.”131
A broader political background of the translation is significant. For their part the Fascists
claimed former provinces of the Roman Illyricum. Dalmatia and Slovenia were to be directly
annexed to Italy, while Croatia (along with Montenegro and Albania) was to be transformed into
a client state. Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta of the House of Savoy, was designated king of the
Independent State of Croatia on 18 May 1941—taking the name Tomislav II after the first Croatian
king (fl. ca. 925). From a medievalist point of view, the transfer of the font is reminiscent of the
125 129
Karaman 1942a; 1942b; 1942c. “Svečana predaje krstionice kneza Višeslava HAZU,”
Nova Hrvatska 2/189 (14 August 1942).
126
Report of Karaman’s trip to Venice, MK-UZKB/SA-ZSG,
130
Dokumentacijska građa Konzervatorskog ureda, 1942, “Mimohod školske mladeži pred Višeslavovom krstion-
201–400, 276–1942. icom, 27. kolovoza 1942,” HAZU Archives, box 82, 1942. Cf.
also “Svečano izlaganje krstionice kneza Višeslava. Mimohod
127
HAZU Archives, box 85, 1941–1945 (after Dulibić and srednjoškolske mladeži u počast ovom kulturnom spomeni-
Pasini-Tržec forthcoming). ku,” Hrvatski narod 4/516 (30 August 1942) 4.
128 131
HAZU Archives, box 85, 1941–1945 (after Dulibić and Dulibić and Pasini-Tržec forthcoming.
Pasini-Tržec forthcoming).
84 Trpimir Vedriš
Fig. 10. Rudolf Schlick and Kamilo Tompa, font of Prince Višeslav and the chancel screen gable representing the Blessed
Virgin Mary from Biskupija (photo Ljubo Karaman, Baština djedova [Heritage of the Forefathers], Zagreb 1944).
ancient tradition of emperors treating their clients to gifts, often in the form of relics. Therefore,
the translatio of 1942 should be seen with the renewed Fascist Imperium Romanum confirming its
benevolent protection over the regnum Croatorum. At the same time, Italy annexed the area of Nin
where the precious gift had originally come from. The Ustaša regime, having boasted of bringing
freedom and independence, could do nothing but accept it. The press praised the “confirmation of
the friendly culture and political cooperation between the Croat and the Italian people.”132 To the
Croats in Dalmatia, left under Italian rule, this sounded cynical if not perverse. The “Triumph of
the Font” thus contained a kernel of its future fall from grace. Connected through public display
and ideological abuse, the font was once again “marked,” and its connection with the regime was
to play an important role in its destiny after the Communists seized power in 1945 (fig. 10).
3. The Translatio of 1958 and the Elevatio of 1978
Deconstructing the Myth: The Font in Postwar Historiography

The collapse of the pro-Axis Independent State of Croatia in 1945, and the exchange of one to-
talitarian regime for another, marked the beginning of a new period for the font. Notwithstanding
132
“Svečana predaja krstionice kneza Višeslava. Krstionica nja hrvatskog i talijanskog naroda,” Hrvatski list 190/7637
ostaje simbolički svjedok prijateljske kulture i političke surad- (14 August 1942).
the ideological appropriation, the transfer of the font opened possibilities for research.133 Three
war years did not, however, bring about new results. Reinterpretation of the font’s origin during
the postwar years took the shape of a deconstruction of the prewar historical narrative, leading to
attempts to disempower the myth. The font itself disappeared from public view.134 A new generation
of scholars took a different direction from their predecessors. This “new course” became apparent
in postwar historiography.135 A central project in this context was History of the Peoples of Yugo-
slavia, a state-sponsored project meant to produce a common history of all the Yugoslav nations.
The first volume, conceived in a series of meetings officially organized by a national (republican)
Historians’ Association and monitored by Communist officials, appeared in 1953.136 The chapter on
the history of Croatia, written by a secondary school teacher with a solid ideological certification,
did not include a section on Christianization. The process, tersely condensed into the conclusion,
is purported to take place in the early ninth century and to be connected to feudalism.137 The font
is never mentioned. The first sourcebook for Croatian medieval history, published in 1952, had
also eliminated the font,138 but it did appear in a supplementary sourcebook published in 1955.139
Scholarly debate resurfaced when Miroslav Šeper redated the font to the eleventh century in a
paper published in 1958.140 A revisionist excavation in Nin followed, resulting in a complete negation of
Jelić’s results.141 Mate Suić and Melkior Perinić discarded Jelić’s interpretation as flawed and, accusing
Jelić of falsifying results, concluded that the baptismal font of Prince Višeslav “should be erased from
the catalogue of our old Croatian (and any other) archaeology.”142 This opinion was accepted by the
most influential postwar Croatian medievalist, Nada Klaić (1920–1988), who responded in her widely
read monograph on early medieval Croatia (fig. 11).143 Klaić concluded that “this stone monument loses
its value as a source for baptism in Croatia at the beginning of the ninth century.”144 The disempowering
of the myth seemingly ran out of steam by the mid-1970s yet continued into the 1980s.145 Not only
was there still a smoldering opposition to the reinterpretation (e.g., Karaman remained a defender of
the traditional dating),146 but new winds were beginning to blow in society at large.
The year 1971 holds a privileged place in the collective memory as the moment when the
so-called Croatian Spring was crushed, destroying hopes for increased Croat autonomy and a
liberalization of the Communist regime.147 Perceived as a national disaster, “Seventy-One” marks
133 143
Matijević Sokol 2007, 3. Klaić 1971, 197–198.
134 144
At the same time, as the archival material of HAZU con- Klaić, 1971, 198.
firms, the members of the Academy energetically opposed
145
the possibility that the font could be returned to Italy. Cf. Cf. Rapanić 1987, 182 and passim.
Dulibić and Pasini Tržec forthcoming.
146
Karaman 1960.
135
Cf. Najbar-Agičić 2013a; 2013b, 301–349; Koren 2011.
147
The movement that erupted in the late 1960s and the
136
Grafeanueret, Perović, and Šidak 1953. beginning of the 1970s can be defined as leaning on the hu-
manist socialism of the Prague Spring and the internal process
137
Grafeanueret, Perović, and Šidak 1953, 182, 237. of democratization that in the Croatian context gained a
strong tone of national emancipation. Its suppression in 1971
138
Šidak 1952. removed the Croatian reformist Communist Party leadership
that headed the process. More radical participants from the
139
Klaić 1955. main Croatian cultural organization and the student union
ended up with prison sentences for allegedly stirring up a
140
Šeper 1958. nationalist counter-revolution. As a result, one may speak
of the “freezing [of] the political scene and depriving it of
141
Suić and Perinić 1962. optimism and liberalization that took roots throughout the
1960s.” Paradoxically, the crushing of the movement was
142
Suić and Perinić 1962. followed by an important 1974 (con)federal constitution,
86 Trpimir Vedriš
Fig. 11. Nada Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku (History of the Croats), Zagreb 1975 (photo author).
an important watershed when the fall of liberal Croat Communist leaders led to the “dispersion of
politics” into diverse, nonpolitical fields. Two extraordinary events marked this process: the build-
ing of the new Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments (1968–1978) and the ecclesiastical
movement later called Homeland Novena (1975–1984). To understand these two phenomena that
would eventually ensure the public “return of the font,” one needs to reconsider the Croatian ex-
perience of the antifascist movement in Dalmatia and the relations between the Catholic Church
and the Yugoslav state after the Second Vatican Council.
Acceptable Symbol: The Font and the Foundation of the Museum of Croatian
Archaeological Monuments/Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika (MHAS)
The core of the early medieval Croatian principality lay in the hinterland of modern-day Dalmatia and,
as a result, more than 90 percent of the archaeological material labeled as “Early Croatian” originated
from that area. Once the importance of the early Middle Ages was “rediscovered” in the mid-nine-
teenth century, a process of “rebranding” Dalmatia as the cradle of Croatian statehood began. The
foundation of the new Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments in Split can be understood in
this context (fig. 12). The museum traced its origins to “the First Museum of Croatian Monuments”
founded in Knin in 1893 with the intention of collecting “all medieval monuments of the Croatian
archaeological heritage.” The core of the collection came from the research of Fr. Lujo Marun and was
originally stored in the Franciscan Monastery of St. Anthony in Knin. The museum changed its location
on occasion until its director Stjepan Gunjača (1909–1981), fearing damage, secretly transferred the
Fig. 12. Museum of Croatian

Archaeological Monuments
(photo Zoran Alajbeg,
Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških
spomenika).
holdings to his hometown, Sinj, where it remained until the end of the war.148 The plan to rebuild the
museum in Knin was soon dropped, and the holdings were moved to Split.149 After several different
locations were considered, it was decided to erect the museum on its present location in 1968.150 The
building was solemnly dedicated in 1976, and the permanent exhibition opened in 1978. The font of
Price Višeslav once again emerged as one of the most precious (if not central) objects of the collection.
How to explain this “return of the font”? The traditional interpretation of the font was never
completely discarded, as scholars like Karaman defended it. As the head of the Croatian Conser-
vation Institute in Zagreb, Karaman held a public office in NDH, yet his personal integrity and
cooperation with antifascist partisans helped him survive the purges of 1945.151 Similar to Gun-
jača, he was native to Dalmatia. This is relevant, as the proportion of Croats joining the antifascist
movement in Dalmatia was substantially higher than in other regions. The reason lay in the fact that
following the collapse of Yugoslavia, Istria, the Gulf of Kvarner, and large portions of Dalmatia were
ceded to Italy by a treaty signed between Pavelić and Mussolini in 1941.152 The issue of “giving up”
territories populated by almost 500,000 ethnic Croats had been ideologically concealed by NDH
but was considered a betrayal of national interests by many. As a result, joining the partisan move-
ment was perceived as fighting for the national cause. After the capitulation of Italy, Dalmatia was
subjoined to the newly established Federal Croatia, and the Communists claimed their merit. The
which included many of the original claims of the movement, where a new museum building was envisaged. The museum
namely those pertinent to Croatia’s autonomy, which proved was reopened to the public in 1958, and on this occasion the
crucial on the path to independence in the 1990s. For an font appeared as one of its exhibits.
assessment of the movement, see Zubak 2005.
151
For the context, see Radeljić 2016.
148
The decision proved justified as the building in Knin was
152
destroyed in an air strike in 1943. The tradition of conflict between the “Slavs and Romans”
in Dalmatia had a long history dating back to the Middle
149
In 1949 Stipe Gunjača reestablished the journal Starohr- Ages. The Habsburgs never managed to solve the animosity
vatska prosvjeta (banned by the Yugoslav authorities in 1929). between Dalmatia’s Italian-speaking and Slavic (Croatian)
His reports, published in the new series, can be read as the populations and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croatians, and Slo-
annual of the museum. venians made a compromise in 1920 (the Treaty of Rapallo)
allowing Italy to annex territories in the Adriatic. For this
150
The collection was moved to warehouses of the former relationship in a long durée perspective, see Ivetic 2014.
cement plant on the west bank of the Split harbor in 1955,
88 Trpimir Vedriš
absence of non-Communist resistance made them major beneficiaries who turned the national war
of resistance into a platform for a seizure of power. Participation in the partisan movement allowed
many Croats to maintain their “patriotic stance” without being accused of nationalism. One of these
was the museum’s first postwar director, Stjepan Gunjača.
Croatian nationalism in Dalmatia cannot be understood outside resistance to its old foe, local
Italian irredentism. Yugoslav authorities in Istria and Dalmatia could count on it as fuel for “anti-
fascist” (often understood as anti-Italian) agendas. The ideological configuration after 1945 blended
older Slavic and Croat ideologemes with practical political postwar concerns. This led, again, to
the promotion of “early medieval Croatian statehood” as opposed to Italian claims. Early medieval
“Slavic” elements were interpreted as predecessors of Croat/Yugoslav and Socialist and as such
pitched against classical Roman, seen as Italian, “imperialist and Fascist.” Dalmatia’s capital Split,
perceived as one of the long-term arenas in the struggle between the Slavs and the Romans, provided
an ideal setting for the monument to the Croat past. All these aspects were clearly summarized in
the words of the museum’s first director. Gunjača suggested the foundation of a “central museum
for Early Croat monuments” that would testify to the “rich heritage of the Early Croats,” which
had been downplayed by the propaganda of the “imperialist occupator,” who “tried to neglect it
by convincing the international public of its specific political and cultural influence in the history of
Dalmatia.”153 Split was also an ideal location due to its size and importance. Therefore, being able to
address “masses and foreigners” attracted to Split would “make the museum fulfill its function.”154
The museum could boast an unbroken institutional tradition since 1893, but it was only in the late
1960s that its holdings were offered the home they deserved. Built as the only museum of national
antiquities in former Yugoslavia, the new building was described as “one of the most sumptuous
buildings ever constructed as an archaeological museum in southeastern Europe,”155 comparable
to the Polish Muzeum Początków Państwa Polskiego in Gniezno, opened in 1983.
With the new impresario Gunjača, there should have been more hope for the font. His views
of the font surfaced in the catalogue published on the occasion of the opening of the museum. This
volume presented the font as an important monument “executed in the time of Croatian Prince
Višeslav,” bearing “testimony to the baptism of the Croats.”156 Furnished with high-quality black
and white photos, the catalogue, with the revealing title Early Croatian Heritage, was reminiscent of
the font’s prewar status. This time the font appeared in public as a central exhibit, “framed” by the
grandiose building, itself a monument to Early Croatian history. This obvious statement was a sign
that the font definitely would not “be erased from the catalogue of Croatian archaeology” as some
scholars had hoped. There was also a clear political message behind this state-sponsored project.
One of the high-profile speakers at the laying of the foundation stone ceremony in 1972 remarked
that “the opening of the museum (as a part of a ‘five-year program’) was successful, in contrast to
nationalists and other enemies of self-management socialism,” adding that “achievements would
be even greater were it not for nationalists’ attempts to redirect culture into anti-self-government,
that is, anti-cultural action.”157
The target of the speech was obviously those “reactionary elements” being purged from insti-
tutions following the collapse of “Seventy-One.” The extent to which the balance of forces would
change in the next few years was attested by the attendance of representatives of the Church at
153 156
Gunjača 1952, 221. Gunjača and Jelovina 1976, 92.
154 157
Gunjača 1952, 222. Jelovina 1981, 230.
155
Novaković 2011, 380.
the opening of the museum in 1976. The figure of Frane Franić, elevated to archbishop of Split in
1969 by Pope Paul VI, present at the secular elevatio of the font, signaled a new period in relations
between Church and state. The presence of the elderly archbishop, a staunch defender of eccle-
siastical freedoms in the postwar period, reflected the more active role the Catholic Church had
initiated in the 1970s.158 The Church had partially recovered from the blows it had received from
the Communist regime between 1945 and late 1960s, and its renewed vitality was soon to become
visible in the form of a project turned into a mass movement later to be called Homeland Novena.
New Life of the Font: Thirteen Centuries of Christianity among the Croats (1975–1984)159
By the mid-1970s it became obvious that the baptismal font of Prince Višeslavin would preserve its
privileged place in the collective memory—despite the dissenting voices of scholars and journalists
who tried to downplay its symbolic significance. A most important vehicle for its survival in the
postwar period was the Church, which preserved its history in various media, including oral his-
tory. Relations between the Catholic Church and the Yugoslav state (organized in the Episcopate
of Yugoslavia, where the majority of bishops were Croats) had been strained long after the end of
World War II. A smoldering issue was the destiny of the archbishop of Zagreb, Stepinac, who was
held under lifelong house arrest after he had spent five years in prison, the outcome of a show trial
in 1946.160 Stepinac’s inflexible zeal and staunch opposition to attempts to detach the Church in
Croatia from Rome had frustrated the Communists. His elevation by Pope Pius XII to the rank of
cardinal in 1952 came at the peak of the crisis and caused Yugoslav authorities to break off diplo-
matic relations with the Vatican.161 The Catholic Church in Croatia had received severe blows from
the Communists after they had taken power in 1945. Persecuted, with its property confiscated and
deprived of traditional public functions, the Church still enjoyed strong popular support, similar
to that of the Church in Poland. In this context, Archbishop Stepinac (d. 1960) was already con-
sidered a saint in his lifetime and became a symbol of the persecuted Church and oppressed Croat
nation. As soon as circumstances allowed, the Church did its best to resurrect his spiritual heritage.
Encouraged by the Second Vatican Council and subsequent warming of relations with the
state,162 the Church stepped out in public. The most visible expression of this renewed self-confi-
dence was a religious movement named the Thirteen Centuries of Christianity among the Croats,
conceived of as a nine-year-long period commemorating the conversion of the Croats to Christi-
anity.163 A series of commemorative events were organized between 1976 and 1984, among them
the Year of Queen Jelena in 1976 (commemorating the millennium since her death) and the Year
of Prince Branimir in 1979 (commemorating 1,100 years of Croatian statehood by invoking the
158 160
This new phase, labeled “cooperative,” was described as For his life, see Alexander 1987; Harris 2016.
replacing (after the mid-1960s) “the conflictual one, partic-
161
ularly severely implemented after World War II” (Zrinščak Banac 2013, 112.
2014, 133).
162
A protocol between the Holy See and Yugoslavia signed
159
An exhaustive treatment of the history of the Catholic in 1966 had the character of a quasi-concordat. The Socialist
Church in Yugoslavia after the 1960s is still lacking. Cf. Federative Republic of Yugoslavia was the first Communist
Banac 2013, with relevant bibliography, esp. 113–146. The state to come to terms with the Vatican in this way.
movement itself also lacks a balanced account, as many of
163
the issues at stake are still sensitive. Perica 2002 and 2000 Thus, the umbrella term “Great Homeland Novena”
represent intriguing accounts by an insider. The author, as used by Perica 2002 or Spremić 2011 was never used by
an official for religious community relations, had privileged the actors. Moreover, even the notion of an organized and
access to relevant archival material. The most recent assess- synchronized movement is also somewhat misleading; cf.
ment of the phenomenon is that of Hudelist 2017. Hudelist 2017.
90 Trpimir Vedriš
“international recognition” of Croatia by Pope John VIII in 879).164 The movement was organized
by the Yugoslav Conference of Bishops and was inspired by a similar Polish Novena commemorat-
ing the 1,000 years of Christianity in Poland (1957–1966).165 The analogy between the “historical
experience” of the Poles and the Croats proved crucial as the 1978 ascendance of John Paul II, the
first Slavic pope, to the throne of St. Peter encouraged the project of the Croatian bishops. On the
occasion of the Jubilee in 1979, a pilgrimage to Rome was organized to celebrate the election of
John Paul II and the millennium of Croatian loyalty to the Holy See. Meeting the Croat pilgrims,
the pope blessed a gold and silver replica of an early medieval gable with the Virgin and in a special
address encouraged the Croatian bishops, promising inter alia that “if the Croats remained faithful
to Christ, He will grant that they may preserve their (national) identity forever.”166
The visual imagery of the movement drew heavily on early medieval motifs, monuments, and
symbols. Three of the most prominent were the chancel screen gable representing the Blessed
Virgin Mary from Biskupija,167 the so-called Cross of the Covenant (fig. 13), and the font of Prince
Višeslav. The promotion of the font as a symbol, however, required a change in its “underlying
historiography.” The reference to the font as the “baptismal font of the Croats” collided with
the narrative of the “1,300 years of Christianity among the Croats.” This changed, however, for
ecclesiastical historians—many of whom were engaged in the organization of the Thirteen Centu-
ries—when they began to accept the “modernist” paradigm of the “Frankish” (i.e., Carolingian)
role in the Christianization of the Croats, which extended the period of Christianization into the
ninth century. This new paradigm was “made official” through the episcopal letter “Thirteen
Centuries of Christianity among the Croats,”168 allowing the font to resume its position among
(newly empowered) symbols.
The distribution of these symbols, in the form of calendars, medals, and small-scale replicas,
was encouraged by the organizers, and they filled the homes of thousands of the faithful. A series
of booklets providing an interpretation was published in an astonishing number of editions. Among
these were the Small Key to the History169 and Cross of the Croatian Covenant.170 Mass public
participation marked the success of the movement, causing no small concern by the Commission
for Relations with Religious Communities and Yugoslav authorities in general. The official media
bitterly attacked the Church, accusing those responsible for “stirring up nationalistic tendencies.”
The numbers of those attending were impressive, ranging between 15,000 and almost half a
164 168
These two historical figures (along with the font) played a Bajsić 1976, 9–10: “there is no secure historical evidence
prominent role in the speeches of Grgo Novak and Stjepan that would allow us to date the exact time when the Croats
Gunjača at the ceremonies in MHAS in 1972 and 1976 were baptized . . . yet it is certain that they were Christianized
respectively. This notion suggests a rivalry between the state- between the mid-7th and early 9th century.” This allowed
sponsored museum and Church-run Thirteen Centuries. the authors of the letter to “state with certainty that it has
been more than 1,100 years since the Croats, as a community,
165
Analogies might turn out to be of substantial interest as the entered the circle of European Christian nations.” All in all,
Polish Church-run Novena (1957–1966) faced the state-sup- it was thus “justified to celebrate these thirteen centuries
ported seven-year project of the millennial celebration for since the beginning of the Christianization of our people.”
the Polish state (1960–1966).
169
Kustić 1976.
166
John Paul II’s letter to Croatian bishops (cited after
170
Spremić 2011, 59). Krnjak 2014; note that the volume had reached twelve
editions by 2014. It was compiled and used to prepare for the
167
The image, officially titled Our Lady of the Great Covenant sacrament of confirmation, which connected the “study of
in 1975, was a stone icon discovered by Lujo Marun in the the conversion of the Croats to Christianity and the renewal
area of Knin. It was chosen as embodying several links with of the baptismal covenant.”
principal historical figures (King Zvonimir) and sites (Bisk-
upija near Knin) connected to the celebration of Novena.
Fig. 13. The Cross of the Covenant (photos author).
million.171 When diverse devotional objects (calendars, medals, replicas, and booklets) containing
early medieval symbols and motifs (including the font) multiplied, it became clear how successful
this massive mobilization was. In comparison, reports of the director of the Museum of Croatian
Archaeological Monuments complained of the small number of visitors attending the museum.172
The organizers of the Thirteen Centuries, by providing the faithful with images of the font, the
Cross of the Covenant, and Our Lady of the Covenant, made a strong impression on the collective
identity. Many parish churches in the 1970s and 1980s were decorated with this imagery, with
replicas of the font replacing older baptismal fonts. Images of the font made it to the very “edges
of the world,” appearing in such diverse contexts as the stained glass windows of the Church of Bl.
Alozije Stepinac in Sydney and a life-size replica in the Croatian Catholic Mission of St. Jerome in
Johannesburg. Without exaggeration it can be said that by the end of the 1980s the font of Prince
Višeslav came to represent the “archetype” of the baptismal font for Croatian Catholics.
A broad spectrum of activities connected to the Thirteen Centuries Jubilee provided more
explicit religious authorization to a national narrative. The movement marked an important phase
in the process during which historiography, national grand narratives, and mythologies referring
to the early medieval past played a significant role. The Church played a major role in this process,
replacing the academic institutions, educational system, and museums after the political collapse
of 1971. It would be an overstatement to claim that the Church “invented the new nation,” but it
provided an infrastructure for the perpetuation of old national narratives.173 Through what became
171 percent declared Croats) in 1971.

In September 1978 as many as 30,000 faithful gathered at
Biskupija in Knin to celebrate the consecration of the church.
172
The highpoint of the Year of Prince Branimir in 1979 saw In 1983, 15,300 visitors were considered a success com-
more than 150,000 gathered in Nin. The Jubilee culminated pared to the 12,500 in 1982; Jelovina 1984, 361.
with the National Eucharistic Congress in Marija Bistrica in
173
1984, attracting more than 400,000 believers. The Socialist Perica 2000; 2002.
Republic of Croatia had a population of ca. 4.4 million (72
92 Trpimir Vedriš
the Homeland Novena, the Church reinvigorated the older project commemorating the beginnings
of Christianity among the Croats. As a result, through the use of accessible media, it successfully
shaped an “easily readable tale that was then embedded by the individual Croatian subjects in
social practice.”174 The Novena turned into a mass movement that imposed religious history and
religious sensibilities onto the political terrain. The image of the font was distributed in a manner
that more strongly impressed it into the mnemohistory of the Croats and helped to reaffirm the
historical discourse of the baptism of the Croats and their privileged ties with the Holy See (fig. 14).
It undoubtedly provided a symbolic foundation for the new social and political realities to emerge
after the collapse of Communism and the dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1990–1991.
4. Conclusions
Tracing the century-and-a-half history of the reception of the so-called font of Prince Višeslav is
not intended to cut the Gordian knot of the font’s origins but rather to outline how and under
what circumstances it was inserted into the corpus of Croatian early medieval monuments, and
consequently became a symbol of national identity. It is obvious that its present status as a widely
recognized symbol emerged primarily as the result of scholarly research and debate. Historiographic
developments were at the core of the present analysis, namely the appearance and vicissitudes of the
category of a “national” early Middle Ages and its uses in national discourses. The modern history
of the baptismal font bearing the name of Prince Višeslav can be read as a sojourn in an historical
period that saw the collapse of empires, the emergence and passing of states, and the rise and fall
of accompanying ideologies, periods in the national historical imagination that corresponded with
radical political changes. The inventio in 1853 corresponded with the emergence of the ideology of
the modern Croatian nation and was followed by the decades during which the font slowly found
its way into the national historiography. The translatio in 1942 marked the highpoint in the process,
during which the font was canonized as a representative of autochthonous early medieval national
art. Some of the font’s qualities that made it attractive to the Ustaša regime also helped it survive
the postwar period, in which the Communist regime oppressed or erased many traditional mythical
symbols, albeit only to produce new ones. The font experienced its comeback with the elevatio in
the Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments in 1978 in the context of the Communist Party
competing with the Catholic Church over the national memory.
The issue of the relationship between the mythical qualities attached to the font, its status as a
symbol, and its value as a source for early medieval history has not yet been explored to the extent
it deserves. Myth should not be equated with “falsehood or deception,” nor should it be “confused
with history.” The importance of a myth, “one of the instruments in cultural reproduction,” does
not derive from its “accuracy as an historical account but its content.”175 It should be stressed again
that most interpretations and identifications of the font, except for its explicit ideological abuses
(the procession of Zagreb students in August 1942 being the most obvious case) derived from and
corresponded with contemporary academic discourses. Moreover, shifts in its identification went
against current ideological trends. Thus, instead of approaching the “emergence of the font” in a
manner treating national “myth-making” as a dark woods “waiting to be deforested and marked
174 176
Spremić 2011, 92. Boia 2017, vii.
175
Schöpflin 1997, 19–20.
Fig. 14. John Paul II during his pastoral visit to Croatia in

Zadar in 1998 (photo Nikola Predović/Glas Koncila).
out”176 or as a field full of “dragons to be killed,”177 the concept of framing connotes inter alia dif-
ferent ways of giving meaning to objects. Any approach to objects turned into symbols requires,
as with myths, an “adequate conceptual framework.” Iconoclastic attempts at sweeping away old
myths usually “give rise to new myths because myth (as memory) is essentially narrative (re)con-
struction informed by the concerns of the present.”178 That any framing is a result of a complex set
of circumstances and forces is obvious—but so is the direct way in which a modern-day observer
approaches these issues. Moralizing against the promotion of the font as a symbol would require
leaving the position of a bystander and taking up one of actor. Instead I have attempted to reveal
the complexity of a process that marked the transformative framing of a piece of early medieval art
into a national symbol. The intricacy of the story in which an ancient stone vessel, used to water
plants at the moment of its modern inventio, became a recognizable national and religious symbol
provides a fascinating example of how the past and present in the Mediterranean are still entangled.
177 178
Budak 2017, 47. Dobre 2017, 3.
94 Trpimir Vedriš
Bibliography
Alexander, S., The Triple Myth: The Life of Arcbishop Aloysius Stepinac (Boulder 1987).
Altan, F., Lettera del sig. abate conte Federigo Altan de’ conti di Salvarolo al molto rev. padre Filippo da Verona
cappuccino [etc.] (Padua 1749).
Ančić, M., “Kako danas čitati studije F. Račkog,” in F. Rački, Nutarnje stanje Hrvatske prije XII. stoljeća, ed.
M. Ančić (Zagreb 2009) vii–xxxviii.
———, “Franački i langobardski utjecaji pri stvaranju i oblikovanju Hrvatske Kneževine,” Starohrvatska
prosvjeta, ser. 3, 43 (2016) 217–238.
Antoljak, S., Hrvatska historiografija [Croatian Historiography] (Zagreb 2004).
Assmann, J., Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism (Cambridge, MA 1998).
Bajsić, V., ed., Trinaest stoljeća kršćanstva u Hrvata (Zagreb 1976).
Bak, J., J. Jarnut, P. Monnet, B. Schneidmüller, N. Karthaus, and K. Lichtenberger, eds., Gebrauch und Miss-
brauch des Mittelalters, 19.–21. Jahrhundert (Munich 2009).
Bak, J., P. Geary, and G. Klaniczay, eds., Manufacturing a Past for the Present (Leiden 2015).
Banac, I., The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics (Ithaca/London 1984).
———, Hrvati i Crkva (Zagreb 2013).
Banović, S., Država i njezino kazalište. Hrvatsko državno kazalište 1941–1945 (Zagreb 2012).
Barkan, E., “Amending Historical Injustices: The Restitution of Cultural Property—An Overview,” in Claiming
the Stones/Naming the Bones, ed. E. Barkan and R. Bush (Los Angeles 2002) 16–46.
Bartulin, N., “The Anti-Yugoslavist Narrative on Croatian Ethnolinguistic and Racial Identity, 1900–1941,” East
Central Europe 39.2–3 (2012) 331–356.
———, The Racial Idea in the Independent State of Croatia: Origins and Theory (Leiden 2014).
Benigar, A., Alojzije Stepinac: hrvatski kardinal, 2nd ed., ed. M. Gabrić, B. Duda, et al. (Zagreb 1993).
Bilogrivić, G., “Hrvatska nacionalna srednjovjekovna arheologija do sredine 20. stoljeća—ideje budućnosti
sputane vremenom,” in Zbornik radova s Prve medievističke znanstvene radionice u Rijeci, ed. K. Jovanović
and S. Miljan (Rijeka 2014) 207–215.
———, “Etnički identiteti u ranosrednjovjekovnoj Hrvatskoj” (PhD diss., University of Zagreb 2016).
Blažević, Z., Ilirizam prije ilirizma (Zagreb 2008).
———, “Indeterminate Nation: Narrative Identity and Symbolic Politics in Early Modern Illyrism,” in Whose
Love of Which Country?, ed. B. Trencsényi and M. Zászkaliczky (Leiden 2010) 203–223.
Boia, L., “Foreword,” in Quest for a Suitable Past: Myth and Memory in Eastern and Central Europe, ed. C.-F.
Dobre and C. E. Ghiţă (Budapest/New York 2017) vii–viii.
Budak, N., “Croatia between the Myths of the Nation State and of the Common European Past,” in Quest
for a Suitable Past: Myth and Memory in Eastern and Central Europe, ed. C.-F. Dobre and C. E. Ghiţă
(Budapest/New York 2017) 29–50.
Burke, P., “History as Social Memory,” in Memory: History, Culture, and the Mind, ed. T. Butler (Oxford
1989) 97–113.
Cattaneo, R., L’architettura in Italia dal secolo VI al mille circa (Venice 1889).
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, 2nd ed., ed. G. Moravcsik, trans. R. Jenkins (Wash
ington, DC 1967).
Čorić, F., C. kr. Središnje povjerenstvo za proučavanje i održavanje starinskih građevina u hrvatskim zemljama—
ustroj, zakonodavstvo i djelovanje 1850.–1918. (Zagreb 2010).
Delonga, V., Latin Epigraphic Monuments of Early Medieval Croatia (Split 1996).
Despalatović, E. M., Ljudevit Gaj and the Illyrian Movement (New York 1975).
Dobre, C. F., “Introduction,” in Quest for a Suitable Past: Myth and Memory in Eastern and Central Europe,
ed. C.-F. Dobre and C. E. Ghiţă (Budapest/New York 2017) 1–10.
Draganović, K., and J. Buturac, Poviest Crkve u Hrvatskoj: Pregled od najstarijih vremena do danas (Zagreb 1944).
Drapac, V., Constructing Yugoslavia: A Transnational History (Basingstoke, UK 2010).

Dulibić, L., and I. Pasini Tržec, “Dokumenti o zamjeni dviju slika Vittorea Carpaccia iz Strossmayerove galerije
za Višeslavovu, odnosno Krstionicu svećenika Ivana iz Muzeja Correr,” Ars Adriatica 17 (2017) 269–280.
———, “The Long Lives of Transferred Museum Objects: The Exchange of Paintings from the Strossmayer
Gallery for the Baptismal Font from the Museo Correr in 1942,” in Art and Politics in Europe in the Modern
Period, ed. D. Damjanović, L. Magaš Bilandžić, and Ž. Miklošević (Zagreb forthcoming).
Dzino, D., Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity Transformations in Post-Roman and Early Medieval Dal-
matia (Leiden 2010).
———, “Constructing Illyrians: Prehistoric Inhabitants of the Balkan Peninsula in Early Modern and Modern
Perceptions,” Balkanistica 27 (2014) 1–39.
Ferrari -Cupilli, G., “Su d’un’antica vasca battesimale nel Museo Correr,” La Voce Dalmatica 22 (1860) 175–178.
Geary P., and G. Klaniczay, eds., Manufacturing Middle Ages: Entangled History of Medievalism in Nineteenth-
Century Europe (Leiden 2013).
Gentile, E, “Political Religion: A Concept and Its Critics: A Critical Survey,” Totalitarian Movements and
Political Religions 6.1 (2005) 19–32.
———, Politics as Religion (Princeton 2006).
Gračanin, H., “Povijesni identiteti i politički realiteti: proslava tisućugodišnjice Hrvatskog Kraljevstva 1925.
Godine,” in Hrvati i manjine u Hrvatskoj, ed. M. Marinović (Zagreb 2014) 119–138.
Grafeanuer, B., D. Perović, and J. Šidak, eds., Historija naroda Jugoslavije, vol. 1 (Zagreb 1953).
Gross, M., “Croatian National-Integrational Ideologies from the End of Illyrism to the Creation of Yugoslavia,”
Austrian History Yearbook 15 (1979) 2–33.
———, “On the Integration of the Croatian Nation: A Case Study in Nation Building,” East European Quar-
terly 15.2 (1981) 209–225.
———, “The Union of Dalmatia with Northern Croatia: A Crucial Question of the Croatian National Integra-
tion in the Nineteenth Century,” in The National Question in Europe in Historical Context, ed. M. Teich
and R. Porter (Cambridge 1993) 270–292.
Gumplowicz, L., “Die politische Geschichte der Serben und Kroaten,” Politisch-Anthropologische Revue 1
(1903) 779–789.
Gunjača, S., “Muzej hrvatskih starina od oslobođenja do danas,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 2 (1952) 221–232.
Gunjača, S., and D. Jelovina, eds., Starohrvatska baština (Split 1976).
Harris, R., Stepinac: His Life and Times (Leominster 2016).
Heehs, P., “Myth, History, and Theory,” History and Theory 33.1 (1994) 1–19.
Heinzelmann, M., Translationsberichte und andere quellen des Reliquienkultes (Turnhout 1979).
Hosking, G., and G. Schöpflin, eds., Myths and Nationhood (New York/London 1997).
Howorth, H., “The Spread of the Slavs. Part. IV, The Bulgarians,” in The Journal of the Anthropological Institute
of Great Britain and Ireland 11 (1882) 219–267.
Hudelist, D., Rim, a ne Beograd. Promjena doba i mirna ofenziva Katoličke Crkve u Hrvatskoj u Titovoj SFR
Jugoslaviji (1975–1984) (Zagreb 2017).
Irwin-Zarecka, I., Frames of Remembrance: The Dynamics of Collective Memory (New Brunswick, NJ 1994).
Ivetic, E., Un confine nel Mediterraneo. L’Adriatico orientale tra Italia e Slavia (1300–1900) (Rome 2014).
Jakšić, N., “On the Origin of the Baptismal Font with the Name of Prince Višeslav,” Hortus Artium Medie-
valium 8 (2002) 241–245.
———, “O porijeklu krstionice s imenom kneza Višeslava,” in N. Jakšić, Klesarstvo u službi evangelizacije:
studije iz predromaničke skulpture na Jadranu (Split 2015a) 377–386.
———, “Ponovno o krstionici svećenika Ivana nazvanoj i Višeslavovom,” in N. Jakšić, Klesarstvo u službi evan-
gelizacije: studije iz predromaničke skulpture na Jadranu (Split 2015b) 387–416. English summary 549–550.
Jareb, M., “Da li su Hrvati postali Goti? Odnos Ustaša i vlasti Nezavisne Države Hrvatske prema neslavenskim
teorijama o podrijetlu Hrvata,” Časopis za suvremenu povijest 40.3 (2008) 869–882.
96 Trpimir Vedriš
———, Hrvatski nacionalni simboli (Zagreb 2010).

———, “‘Old-Croatian Crown’ or the Construction and Use of a National and Political Symbol: From the
Late 19th Century to the WWII,” Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana 2 (2014) 16–33.
———, Mediji i promidžba u Nezavisnoj Državi Hrvatskoj (Zagreb 2016).
Jelić, L., “Spomenici grada Nina III,” Vjesnik Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 6 (1902) 103–116.
———, Dvorska kapela sv. Križa u Ninu (Zagreb 1911).
Jelovina, D., “Djelatnost Muzeja hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika od 1968. do 1980. god,” Starohrvatska
prosvjeta 11 (1981) 229–250.
———, “Djelatnost Muzeja hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika u 1983,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 14 (1984)
361–371.
Karaman, K., Iz kolijevke hrvatske prošlosti (Zagreb 1930).
———, “Živi kamen povjesti. Krstionica hrvatskih knezova u glavnom gradu Hrvatske države,” Spremnost
1.16 (14 June 1942a).
———, “Krstionica kneza Višeslava predana predstavniku Hrvatske Akademije u zamjenu za dvije slike Vittora
Carpaccia,” Nova Hrvatska 2.121 (27 May 1942b).
———, “Značajna svečanost u Mletcima u duhu hrvatsko-talijanskog prijateljstva,” Hrvatski narod 4/434 (27
May 1942c).
———, “O vremenu krstionice kneza Višeslava,” Peristil 3 (1960) 107–109.
Klaić, N., ed., Izvori za hrvatsku povijest I (do g. 1107) (Zagreb 1955).
———, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku (Zagreb 1971).
Kniewald, D., “O razvitku starohrvatske umjetnosti,” Bogoslovska smotra 17.2 (1929) 204–206.
Koren, S., Politika povijesti u Jugoslaviji (1945–1960). Komunistička partija Jugoslavije, nastava povijesti, his-
toriografija (Zagreb 2011).
Košćak, V., “Iranska teorija o podrijetlu Hrvata,” in Etnogeneza Hrvata, ed. N. Budak (Zagreb 1995) 110–116.
Krnjak, S., Hrvatski zavjetni križ, 12th ed. (Zagreb 2014).
Kukuljević Sakcinski, I., “Izvjestje načelnika družtva g. I. K. S. o svom putovanju u Mletke i Beč god. 1853,”
Arkiv za povjestnicu jugoslavensku 3 (1854) 334–338.
———, “Izvestje o putovanju po Dalmaciji u jeseni godine 1854,” Neven 17 (1855) 261–270, 277–282.
———, “Izvestje o putovanju kroz Dalmaciju u Napulj i Rim s osobitim obzirom na slavensku književnost,
umjetnost i starine,” Arkiv za povjesnicu jugoslavensku 4 (1857) 305–392.
Kustić, Ž., Mali ključ povijesti Crkve u Hrvata (Zagreb 1976).
Lazari, V., Notizia delle opere d’arte e d’antichità raccolta Correr (Venice 1859).
Lučin, B., “Antiquarianism in Croatia: An Overview,” in Neo-Latin Contexts in Croatia and Tyrol: Challenges,
Prospects, Case Studies, ed. N. Jovanović, J. Luggin, L. Šubarić, and L. Špoljarić (Vienna 2018) 163–186.
Malešević, S., Ideology, Legitimacy and the New State: Yugoslavia, Serbia and Croatia (London 2002).
Mance, I., “Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski: Art History and Politics in Croatia,” in History of Art History in Central,
Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, vol. 1, ed. J. Malinowski (Toruń 2012a) 81–84.
———, Zèrcalo naroda. Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski: povijest umjetnosti i politika (Zagreb 2012b).
———, “Nacionalni identitet i pitanja stila u djelu Ivana Kukuljevića Sakcinskog,” in Zbornik trećeg kongresa
hrvatskih povjesničara umjetnosti, ed. A. Žmegač (Zagreb 2013) 291–294.
———, “Ivan Kukuljević u Dalmaciji 1854. i 1856. Godine,” Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u
Zadru 5 (2015) 239–256.
Mandić, D., “Osnutak splitske metropolije” and “Pokrštenje Hrvata,” in Rasprave i prilozi iz stare hrvatske
povijesti (Rome 1963), 77–108, 109–144.
Marchand, S., “The Rhetoric of Artifacts and the Decline of Classical Humanism: The Case of Josef Strzy-
gowski,” History and Theory 33.4 (1994) 106–130.
Matijević Sokol, M., “Krsni zdenac Hrvata. Paleografsko-epigrafska raščlamba natpisa s krstionice kneza
Višeslava,” Croatica Christiana Periodica 59 (2007) 1–31.
Maxwell, A., Choosing Slovakia (London 2009).

McNeill, W., “Mythistory, or Truth, Myth, History, and Historians,” The American Historical Review 91.1
(1986) 1–10.
Monzali, L., Il sogno dell’egemonia: l’Italia, la questione jugoslava e l’Europa centrale (1918–1941) (Florence
2010).
Najbar-Agičić, M., Kultura, znanost, ideologija. Prilozi istraživanju politike komunističkih vlasti u Hrvatskoj
1945–1960 (Zagreb 2013a).
———, U skladu s marksizmom ili činjenicama? Hrvatska histriografija 1945–1960 (Zagreb 2013b).
Novaković, P., “Archaeology in the New Countries of Southeastern Europe: A Historical Perspective,” in
Comparative Archaeologies, ed. L. Lozny (New York 2011) 369–384.
Okey, R., Eastern Europe, 1740–1985: Feudalism to Communism, 2nd ed. (London 1992).
Perica, V., “The Catholic Church and the Making of the Croatian Nation, 1970–84,” East European Politics
and Societies 14.3 (2000) 532–564.
———, Balkan Idols: Religion and Nationalism in Yugoslav States (New York 2002).
Petricioli, I., “Krstionica s imenom ‘Vuissasclavo duci’ i problem ninskog baptisterija,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta
3.14 (1985) 125–134.
Petrinec, M., “Srednjovjekovna arheologija u 20. stoljeću u Hrvatskoj,” in Hrvatska arheologija u XX. stoljeću,
ed. J. Balen and B. Čečuk (Zagreb 2009) 555–590.
Pohl, W., “National Origin Narratives in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy,” in Manufacturing Middle Ages.
Entangled History of Medievalism in Nineteenth-Century Europe, ed. P. Geary and G. Klaniczay (Leiden
2013) 13–50.
Poole, R., “Memory, History and the Claims of the Past,” Memory Studies 1 (2008) 149–166.
Rački, F., Documenta historiae chroaticae periodum antiquam illustrantia (Zagreb 1877).
Radeljić, Z., “1945 in Croatia,” Review of Croatian History 12.1 (2016) 9–66.
Radić, F., “Hrvatsko-bizantinski slog,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta, ser. 1, 5.1 (1900) 3–36.
Rafaelić, D., Kinematografija u NDH (Zagreb 2013).
Rapanić, Z., Predromaničko doba u Dalmaciji (Split 1987).
Reill, D. K., Nationalists Who Feared the Nation: Adriatic Multi-Nationalism in Habsburg Dalmatia, Trieste
and Venice (Stanford 2012).
Sadkovich, J., Italian Support for Croatian Separatism, 1927–1937 (New York 1987).
Sakač, S. K., Najznačajniji jubilej Hrvatske: 641–1941 (Zagreb 1941).
Schöpflin, G., “The Functions of Myth and a Taxonomy of Myths,” in Myths and Nationhood, ed. G. Hosking
and G. Schöpflin (London 1997) 19–35.
Šeper, M,,“Der taufstein des kroatischen Fürsten Višeslav aus dem frühen Mittelalter,” Nachrichten des Deutschen
Instituts für merowingisch-karolingische Kunstforschung 15/16 (1958) 1–21.
Šidak, J., ed., Zbirka izvora za hrvatsku povijest (Zagreb 1952).
Šišić, F., Priručnik izvora hrvatske historije (Zagreb 1914).
———, Povijest Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara (Zagreb 1925).
Spremić, N., “Clerical Politics in Yugoslavia: The Roman Catholic Church and Ethno-National Mobilization
of Croats in the Socialist Republic of Croatia and Abroad (1966–1990)” (MPhil diss., University of
Oxford 2011).
Strzygowski, J., O razvitku starohrvatske umjetnosti (Zagreb 1927).
———, Die altslavische Kunst, ein Versuch ihres Nachweises (Augsburg 1929).
Stückelberg, E. A., Langobardische Plastik (Zürich 1896).
Suić, M., and M. Perinić, “Revizija iskapanja ’ninskog baptisterija,” Diadora 2 (1962) 317–320.
Špikić, M., Francesco Carrara, Polihistor, antikvar i konzervator (1812.–1854) (Split 2010).
———, “Od arheologije do kulturne politike: Pietro Nobile i dalmatinski spomenici,” Peristil 50 (2007)
195–208.
98 Trpimir Vedriš
———, “Strange Parents, Unrecognized Child: The Genesis of Croatian Art History in the Vormaerz Period,”
in History of Art History in Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, vol. 1, ed. J. Malinowski (Toruń
2012) 65–72.
———, “Transformacije i kontinuiteti u Dioklecijanovoj palači u Splitu od Roberta Adama do Aloisa Riegla,”
Arhitekturna zgodovina 2, ed. R. Novak Klemenčič (Ljubljana 2014) 74–84.
Tanner, M., “Illyrianism and the Croatian Quest for Statehood,” Daedalus 126.3 (1997) 47–62.
Vrandečić, J., Dalmatinski autonomistički pokret u XIX. Stoljeću (Zagreb 2002).
Vrsalović, D., Srednjovjekovna arheologija u Hrvatskoj: Prvih sto godina 1878–1978 (Zagreb 2013).
Zekan, M., The Visionary’s Mission: Fra Alojzije (Lujo) Marun the Founder of Early Croatian Archaeology
(Split 2008).
Zrinščak, S. et al., “Church and State in Croatia: Legal Framework, Religious Instruction, and Social Expec-
tations,” in Religion and Politics in Post-Socialist Central and Southeastern Europe. Challenges since 1989,
ed. S. P. Ramet (New York/Basinstoke, UK 2014) 131–154.
Zubak, M., “The Croatian Spring 1967–1971: Testing the Pitfalls of the Croatian Historiography and
Beyond,” East Central Europe 32.1–2 (2005) 191–226.

"Baptismal Font of The Croats": A Case Study in The Formation of A National Symbol

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

"Baptismal Font of The Croats": A Case Study in The Formation of A National Symbol

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

"Baptismal Font of The Croats": A Case Study in The Formation of A National Symbol

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“BAPTISMAL FONT OF THE CROATS”: A CASE STUDY

IN THE FORMATION OF A NATIONAL SYMBOL

I express my gratitude to all those who at various stages 1

MAAR 62, 2017

Fig. 1. The baptismal font of Prince

1. The Inventio of 1853 and Its Aftermath

Una Vasca Battesimale: The Discovery of a Font (1853–1860)

12 thization enlarge our historical knowledge.”

Fig. 2. Albert Moses, Ivan Kukuljević

The Context: How to Awaken a Nation?

The Emergence of the Font (1860–1911)

Fig. 4. Marun and the collection at the Museum

ethnically Serb by the twentieth century. According to the 68

Fig. 5. Church of the Holy Cross in Nin (photo public

The Golden Age of the Font

Fig. 6. Josef Strzygowski, O razvitku starohrvatske umjetnosti

Fig. 7. Matija Matijević,

The Font in the Independent State of Croatia (1941–1945)

97 pacifism of the mainstream politics pursued by Radić and his

Fig. 8. Series of book covers from the 1920s (photo author).

Fig. 9. The font displayed in front of the

3. The Translatio of 1958 and the Elevatio of 1978

Deconstructing the Myth: The Font in Postwar Historiography

Fig. 12. Museum of Croatian

Fig. 13. The Cross of the Covenant (photos author).

171 percent declared Croats) in 1971.

Fig. 14. John Paul II during his pastoral visit to Croatia in

Drapac, V., Constructing Yugoslavia: A Transnational History (Basingstoke, UK 2010).

———, Hrvatski nacionalni simboli (Zagreb 2010).

Maxwell, A., Choosing Slovakia (London 2009).

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.