At a press conference held on March 17 this year, members of the Zagreb branch of the HSLS (Croatian Social Liberal Party) commented on the unveiling of a relief depicting and dedicated to King Peter I of Karađorđević in the Meštrović Pavilion in Zagreb. The speakers at the event were the branch president Gabriela Bošnjak, sociologist Aurelija Rosenzweig, and Member of Parliament Darko Klasić. On that occasion, they presented a series of inaccurate and unfounded claims (available here, archived here).
The relief was uncovered during the ongoing renovation of the Home of the Croatian Association of Artists building, and it is a work that had been plastered over for more than 85 years. Although no decision has yet been made regarding its permanent placement – since it must first undergo expert conservation assessments and interventions (see here) – HSLS members responded to its unveiling with a series of inaccurate and unfounded claims and interpretations related not only to the contested relief itself, but also to the figure of King Peter I.
The Pavilion Has Not Served Solely as an Art Space for the Past Eight Decades
“Considering the longstanding character of the pavilion as a neutral exhibition space, we believe that returning the relief to its interior would undermine that concept. Instead of being re-exhibited in a space that has served exclusively for art for eight decades, the relief should be placed in the Ivan Meštrović Museum, where it would be provided with an appropriate historical and artistic context,” stated Gabriela Bošnjak.
The claim that the pavilion has served “exclusively for art over the past eight decades” is incorrect. After its opening on December 1, 1938, when it hosted the exhibition Half a Century of Croatian Art, the space functioned as an art venue for less than three years.[1] During World War II, due to the political positioning of the Ustaša regime, it was converted into a mosque (1941–1944), and after the war, it became the politically charged Museum of the Revolution (1945–1990). It was only in 1990 that the building returned to the ownership of the Croatian Association of Visual Artists (HDLU) and became a center of the artistic, mainly visual, scene.
On the “Will” of Ivan Meštrović
“Although it is a valuable historical artifact, reinstallation it in the public space of the pavilion represents a step backward from the decision of Ivan Meštrović himself and the original direction in which this object was developed,” Bošnjak stated, claiming that Meštrović abandoned the idea of erecting an equestrian monument to King Peter I in the 1930s in favor of building a memorial pavilion.
The claim that Ivan Meštrović abandoned the idea of erecting a monument to King Peter I in favor of the memorial pavilion, and that today’s installation of the relief goes against his wishes, is not based on facts. Although the type of monument changed during the 1930s (from equestrian to pavilion form), the relief of King Peter I was created according to Meštrović’s own designs and with his explicit approval. The recently uncovered relief was sculpted by sculptor Ivo Lozica following Meštrović’s drawings and instructions. The location of the relief – above the main entrance to the pavilion – was also determined by Meštrović himself. The idea of building the pavilion was not solely Meštrović’s, but rather the result of an agreement between the Committee for the Erection of a Monument to King Peter I the Great Liberator and the Croatian Artists’ Society “Strossmayer,” of which Meštrović was a member. [2] According to this agreement, it was decided that the building would serve both as a representative exhibition space for visual art and as a monument to King Peter, located on a square named in his honor. This solution was considered innovative and was justified by the claim that such a pavilion would honor the king in a far more monumental way than the originally planned traditional equestrian statue.
The concept also reflected the public image of King Peter as a great admirer and patron of visual and musical arts, particularly in the context of protecting and developing national culture. His patronage was seen as pivotal for the success of numerous acclaimed Serbian artists such as Paja Jovanović, Uroš Predić, Mita Tomić, and Stevan Mokranjac, as well as Croats like Vlaho Bukovac and Meštrović himself. [3]
Furthermore, Meštrović was close to the Karađorđević dynasty and created many monumental works in their honor throughout his life: the Monument to Independence in Niš dedicated to King Peter, a relief of King Peter in Dubrovnik, the Monument to the Unknown Hero on Avala designed at the request of King Alexander, as well as unrealized projects such as the Karađorđević Mausoleum in Oplenac and the Vidovdan Temple on Kosovo Field, which was also meant to commemorate both Peter and Alexander Karađorđević.[4]
Rhetorical Manipulation of Historical Facts
At the same press conference, Aurelija Rosenzweig stated that “Zagreb does not need an artifact that dedicates the central place of Croatian art to the Karađorđević dynasty,” as it is a dedication to a dynasty “that abolished democracy and parliament, banned political parties and unions, imprisoned, tortured, and killed political opponents, and eventually signed a pact with the Nazis, which led their own army to exile them to London, while here, in their name, the Chetniks continued the fight” (available here, archived here).
Listing the sins of the Karađorđević dynasty is an example of a rhetorical strategy known as “strawman arguing” – that is, the intentional distortion and oversimplification of the opposing side’s position. By referring to the relief as “an artifact celebrating the Karađorđević dynasty,” despite it being dedicated solely to King Peter, Rosenzweig invokes negative aspects of later periods in monarchist Yugoslavia for which King Peter bores no responsibility, nor could he have participated in them, having passed away by that time. A proper consideration of the specific historical period, on the contrary, leads to the conclusion that Peter’s reign stood in direct contrast to the very things Rosenzweig attributes to the dynasty as a whole.
King Peter did not abolish democracy or parliament. In fact, upon ascending the throne after the May Coup, he reinstated the liberal 1888 Constitution, which enabled a parliamentary system, press freedom, and political pluralism, while curbing the king’s personal powers.[5] Though not fully democratic by today’s standards, it marked significant progress toward parliamentary democracy in Serbia at the time. During his reign over the Kingdom of Serbia until 1914, democratic elections and a National Assembly existed continuously. The constitution, reinstated at his initiative, again defined the state as a parliamentary monarchy, allowing political parties to operate and compete in free, multi-party elections.[6] His reign is therefore commonly described as a period of strengthening parliamentarism and growing respect for democratic institutions. Of course, from today’s perspective, the influence of court elites and military circles on elections was visible – since the king had the power to dissolve the government, and suffrage was neither fully realized nor equal – but within the context of the time, these were common circumstances, and Peter’s approach was among the more liberal ones. Similarly, King Peter never directly banned any political party, and during his reign, political parties enjoyed guaranteed freedom of operation. As a result, Serbia’s political life experienced its most significant development of public pluralism to date, with radicals, liberals, and socialists all active without obstruction. Trade union organizing was also permitted, and the development of the workers’ movement – though monitored, but not persecuted by the authorities – began in Serbian history precisely during Peter’s reign.
Likewise, King Peter did not personally order the imprisonment, torture, or killing of political opponents – precisely because of his liberal convictions and constitutional orientation. Wishing to present himself as the harbinger of a new political direction in Serbia, upon ascending to power he placed greater emphasis on parliamentary institutions and the freedom of political activity. Because of this, he is remembered as a “democratic monarch”[7], who respected constitutional norms and earned a reputation as a just ruler. Despite the dynastic change and the subsequent shift in the state framework, he brought his people a stabilization of internal affairs and a general modernization of the economy and civic life,[8] uincluding the development of infrastructure, education, and the judiciary modeled after the West. All of this led to a significant increase in Serbia’s international reputation and foreign alliances, with the establishment of modern diplomatic relations with France, Russia, and the United Kingdom. [9] These alliances were crucial during the Balkan Wars and World War I, in which Serbia was part of the victorious Entente. Because of his support for the equal unification of the South Slavic peoples and his acceptance of the Declaration on the unification of the State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs with the Kingdom of Serbia, that international prestige could be extended to Croats, Slovenes, and the Serbs from the Habsburg lands (known as “Prečani”), despite their participation in the defeated Austro-Hungarian army. This was enabled by Peter’s rejection of the idea of simply expanding the Serbian state and his preference for creating a joint Yugoslav state. [10] According to contemporary sources, such a stance earned admiration among many Croatian politicians and intellectuals of the time, who saw Peter as a monarch who had enabled national unification and represented resistance to Austro-Hungarian oppression of the South Slavs. [11] It is, of course, important to bear in mind that the tensions between Serbs and Croats significantly escalated only later, during the reign of his son, King Alexander[12] who in 1929 established a dictatorship and abolished political autonomy.
King Peter also cannot be blamed for the signing of the Tripartite Pact with the Nazis, as he had already passed away by that time. He died in 1921, while the signing of the pact with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy took place on March 25, 1941 – twenty years after his death. Moreover, Peter’s death occurred a year before Mussolini’s March on Rome and twelve years before Hitler came to power. It is therefore entirely clear that he had no connection to these events, neither politically nor chronologically. His political philosophy as a liberal constitutional monarch, as well as his French education during which he translated John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty into Serbian, could in fact be described as fundamentally opposed to authoritarian ideologies such as fascism and Nazism.[13]
Therefore, most of the claims in Aurelija Rosenzweig’s statement are either irrelevant to King Peter himself or represent a form of manipulation that employs negative associations from a later period in order to discredit a person who had nothing to do with them.
Based on the available data and scholarly literature, it has been determined that the claims made by representatives of the Zagreb branch of HSLS regarding the unveiling of the relief of King Peter I Karađorđević in the Meštrović Pavilion are unfounded, historically inaccurate, or based on a selective interpretation of facts. An analysis of relevant sources shows that the statements made are not supported by the facts and are contrary to established and publicly available information.
[1]https://www.hdlu.hr/mestrovicev-paviljon/povijest-zgrade/
[2]Documentary Arguments: Meštrović Pavilion of Fine Arts 1930–1990. Editor: Tomislav Hruškovec.
Zagreb: HDLU, 1990. p.32 32
[3]Stevan K. Pavlowitch. Serbia: The History of an Idea. New York: New York University Press, 2002. 89.
[4]Documentary Arguments: Meštrović Pavilion of Fine Arts 1930–1990. Editor: Tomislav Hruškovec.
Zagreb: HDLU, 1990. p. 113. 113.
[5]Tim Judah. The Serbs: History, Mith and the Destruction of Yugoslavia. Connecticut: Yale University Press. 78.
[6] Bataković, Dušan. „On Parliamentary Democracy in Serbia 1903–1914 Political Parties, Elections, Political Freedoms“. Balcanica XLVIII (2017): 123–142.
[7]Frederick Bernard Singleton. A short History of Yugoslav Peoples. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985. 96.
[8] Bataković, Dušan. „Belgrade in the Nineteenth Century: A Historical Survey“. u: Journal of the North American Society for Serbian Studies 2 (2016): 357.
[9] According to Shrader, Charles. “Peter I Karageorgevic, King of Serbia”. u: World War I: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection. Spencer Tucker ur. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO (2014)
[10]Stevan K. Pavlowitch. Serbia: The History of an Idea. New York: New York University Press, 2002. 112.
[11] According to Goldstein, Ivo. Controversies in Croatian History of the 20th Century. . Zagreb: Profil, 2019.
[12] Ibid.
[13]Frederick Bernard Singleton. A short History of Yugoslav Peoples. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985. 97.
Funded by the European Union – NextGenerationEU.
Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission, nor the positions of the Agency for Electronic Media. Neither the European Union nor the European Commission, nor the Agency for Electronic Media can be held responsible for them.
This post is also available in: Hrvatski
