Serbian Studies 23-2 4-27-13

SERBIAN STUDIES
JOURNAL OF THE NORTH AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR SERBIAN STUDIES
Vol. 23
2009
No. 2
Editors
Ljubica D. Popovich, Vanderbilt University, Co-Editor
Lilien F. Robinson, George Washington University, Co-Editor
Jelena Bogdanovi, Iowa State University, Associate Editor
Vasa D. Mihailovich, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Book
Review Editor
Editorial Board
Radmila Jovanovi-Gorup, Columbia University
Jelena Bogdanovi, Iowa State University
Svetlana Tomi, Alfa University, Belgrade
Gojko Vukovi, Los Angeles School District
Gordana Peakovi, Argosy University
ore Jovanovi, World Bank
Marina Belovi-Hodge, Library of Congress
North American Society for Serbian Studies
N
SAS
S
Executive Committee
President: Duan Danilovi, Iowa State University
Vice President: Tatjana Aleksi, University of Michigan
Secretary: Danilo Tomaevi
Treasurer: Sonja Kotlica
Standing Committee
Nada Petkovi-orevi, University of Chicago
Milica Baki-Hayden, University of Pittsburgh
Slobodanka Vladiv-Glover, Monash University, Australia
Ljubica D. Popovich, Vanderbilt University
Lilien Filipovitch-Robinson, George Washington University
Past Presidents
Alex N. Dragnich, Vanderbilt University
197880
Vasa D. Mihailovich, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 198082
George Vid Tomashevich, New York State University, Buffalo
198284
Biljana ljivi-imi, University of Illinois at Chicago
198486
Dimitrije Djordjevic, University of California, Santa Barbara
198688
Sofija kori, Toronto University
198890
Jelisaveta Stanojevich Allen, Dumbarton Oaks
199092
Ljubica D. Popovich, Vanderbilt University
199294
Thomas A. Emmert, Gustavus Adolphus College
199496
Radmila Jovanovi-Gorup, Columbia University
199698
Julian Schuster, Hamline University
19982000
Duan Kora, Catholic University
200002
Lilien Filipovitch-Robinson, George Washington University
200204
Ruica Popovitch-Kreki, Mount St. Marys College
200406
Ida Sinkevi, Lafayette College
200608
Milica Baki-Hayden, University of Pittsburgh
200810
Nada Petkovi-orevi, University of Chicago
201012
Membership in the NASSS and Subscriptions to Serbian Studies
The North American Society for Serbian Studies was founded in 1978 and has
published the Societys journal, Serbian Studies, since 1980. An interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal, it invites scholarly articles on subjects
pertaining to Serbian culture and society, past and present, and across fields
and disciplines. The journal also welcomes archival documents, source
materials, and book reviews.
Manuscripts should be submitted by e-mail to co-editors, Ljubica D.
Popovich and Lilien F. Robinson at lfr@email.gwu.edu. Articles must be in
English and, in general, should not exceed 8,000 words, excluding footnotes.
Formatting should be consistent with the Chicago Manual of Style. Graphic
and photographic images should be in jpeg format.
Serbian Studies is published twice yearly and is sent to all members of the
Society. Members also receive the NASSS Newsletter. Membership including
subscription to Serbian Studies, is $40.00 per year for individuals, $50.00 for
institutions, $15.00 for students and retirees, and $10.00 for individuals in
Serbia and former Yugoslav lands. Subscription without membership is
$30.00 per year.
Articles submitted and all correspondence concerning editorial matters
should be sent to Lilien F. Robinson, Co-Editor, Department of Fine Arts and
Art History, George Washington University, 801 22nd. St. NW, Washington,
DC 20052 (lfr@email.gwu.edu) or Ljubica Popovich, Co-Editor, 5805 Osceola
Rd., Bethesda, MD 20816. All articles considered to have potential for
publication will be subject to anonymous peer review by scholars in the field.
Book reviews should be sent to the Book Review Editor, Vasa D.
Mihailovich, 1864 Summer St., Stamford, CT 06905 (vamih@aol.com).
All communications regarding membership, subscriptions, back issues,
and advertising should be addressed to the Treasurer, Sonja Kotlica, 1301
Delaware Ave. SW. #12, Washington, DC 20024 (sonjakot@yahoo.com).
The opinions expressed in the articles and book reviews, published in
Serbian Studies are those of the authors and not necessarily of the editors or
publishers of the journal.
Serbian Studies accepts advertising that is of interest to the membership
of the NASSS. Advertising information and rates are available from the
Treasurer of NASSS, Sonja Kotlica (sonjakot@yahoo.com).
Copyright 2013 by Serbian Studies: ISSN 0742-3330

Permission is granted to reprint any article in this issue, provided appropriate credit is
given and two copies of the reprinted material are sent to Serbian Studies.
Technical Editor: Rosemarie Connolly
Serbian Studies is produced and distributed by Slavica Publishers. Individuals should

join the NASSS rather than subscribing directly to the journal. Libraries and
institutions should order Serbian Studies from Slavica; the institutional subscription
rate is $50/year (two issues) beginning with vol. 14 (2000).
Slavica Publishers
Indiana University
1430 N. Willis Drive
Bloomington, IN 474042146
USA
[Toll-free] 1-877-SLAVICA (752-8422)

[Tel.] 1-812-856-4186
[Fax] 1-812-856-4187
[Email] slavica@indiana.edu
[WWW] http://www.slavica.com/
Special Issue
Laza K. Lazarevi (185191)
Contents

Preface to the Special Issue on Laza K. Lazarevi ................................. vii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................ xv
I.
Original Works
Laza K. Lazarevi
Prvi put s ocem na jutrenje ................................................................ 129
Majka ................................................................................................ 143
II. Translations
The First Matins with My Father ...................................................... 147

To Matins with Father for the First Time .......................................... 163
Mother ............................................................................................... 179
III. Interpretation: A New Understanding of Laza K. Lazarevis Story
To Matins with Father for the First Time and One Hundred
Years of the Interpretive Norm

Studies of Laza K. Lazarevis Works during the Twentieth
Century and Possibilities for Different Interpretations ........................ 183
A Reexamination of Analytical Methodology of To Matins with
Father for the First Time as Presented in High School and
University Textbooks ........................................................................... 217
Relations of Power and the Rhetoric of Gender Politics ...................... 239
A Question of the Father as Key Paterfamilias Figure ........................

On the English Translation by Dr. Pavle Popovi ................................
The Epiphany of the Mother and the Son .............................................
Could Marica Be a Type of Mannish Woman? ................................
Lazarevis Confession to His Mother:
Do you see your tombstone? I am it, I! .............................................
253
287
293
303
315
Preface to the Special Issue on

Laza K. Lazarevi
Svetlana Tomi
Alfa University, Belgrade
This issue of the Serbian Studies is dedicated to Laza K. Lazarevi (185191),

a prominent Serbian medical doctor and writer. Lazarevi was born in abac,
to a merchant father, Kuzman, and a homemaker mother, Jelka. In 1860,
Lazas father died and his mother took care of her son and three daughters.
After finishing high school in 1865, Lazarevi went to Belgrade where he
became a student in the Faculty of Law at Velika kola (Serbian School of
Higher Education). There he was an admirer of Svetozar Markovi, and
translated Gogols Diary of a Madman, and a part of Nikolay Chernyshevskys novel, What Is To Be Done? In 1872, Laza K. Lazarevi became a
medical student in Berlin, where he earned a medical degree in 1879. In between he participated as a field doctor in the Serbo-Turkish War of 1876 and
1878, and later became the personal physician to Serbian king Milan Obrenovi. Together with the first Serbian female doctor, Draga Ljoi (18551926),
Lazarevi voluntarily took care of female students.
Laza K. Lazarevi was an internationally reputable medical doctor and
scholar. He published many scholarly papers in local and foreign journals. In
1880, he described a medical phenomenon that is named after him and Dr.
Lasgue in neurology, The Lazarevi/Lasgue sign (Straight leg raise).
During his life Lazarevi published only eight stories, leaving several in
manuscript form, some of them unfinished. His first published work, Prvi put
s ocem na jutrenje (To Matins with Father for the First Time, 1879), was
immediately recognized as a great story. In 1881, Lazarevi married Poleksija
Hristi (18611933), daughter of Nikola Hristi (18181911), a powerful
politician. They had three sons and a daughter.
Lazarevis stories first appeared in magazines, and in 1886, after being
encouraged by friends, his stories were published as est pripovedaka (Six
stories). The stories included Prvi put s ocem na jutrenje (To Matins with
Father for the First Time), kolska ikona (A Schools Icon), U dobri
as hajduci! (Well Done, Robbers!), Na bunaru (At the Well),
Serbian Studies: Journal of the North American Society for Serbian Studies 23(2): viixiii, 2009.
viii
Svetlana Tomi
Verter (Werther), and Sve e to narod pozlatiti (The People Will Reward All of This). After the book, Lazarevi published only two more stories: Vetar (The Wind) and On zna sve (He Knows Everything). In
1898, seven years after Lazarevis death, editors assembled the fragments
from his story vabica (The German Girl) and published it.
Historians of Serbian literature valued Laza K. Lazarevi as the founder
of Serbian psychological stories, but his contribution to Serbian literature and
culture may be found in the subversion of patriarchal ideas, which was a bold
action at the time. For more than a century Lazarevis stories have been a
part of elementary and high school curriculum and in studies of Serbian literature as well. One of his most beautiful stories, To Matins with Father for the
First Time, has been part of the syllabus of Serbian high schools and is studied at the university level as well. Nonetheless, the fictional aspect of it has
not been valued to its full potential, but rather interpreted in a subjective mannerby a long-present interpretative norm. This study seeks to offer an alternative interpretation of Lazarevis best-loved workmore insightful and
appreciative of one of Serbias best realist writers.
This research is a part of my effort to include the concept of feminism and
designate the sphere of the female writer into Serbian culture. The exclusion
and misinterpretation of female fictional characters is comparable to the exclusion of women authors from a canon. Both acts are linked to the reductionist construction of Serbian realism and manipulative strategies of the relevant authorities. This exclusion over time gave rise to the impression that
there were either no women fiction authors or that their work was of no consequence. This view inevitably obstructs a deeper understanding of Serbian
realist fiction. To prove this point on a well known case, I compare Lazarevis fiction with that of his contemporary female writers, and arrive at the
conclusion that the academic literary canon has not adhered to aesthetics but
rather to political criteria, or more precisely, that it suffers from misogyny.
The problem of truly understanding Lazarevis work, however, lies neither in a reductionist interpretation nor in the misogyny of critics. It stems
from an intercultural transmission of inadequately taught Serbian literature
around the world and of inadequate English translations of Serbian literature.
This study is an attempt to uncover the true face of Serbian fiction, for audiences both at home and abroad. I have found feminist theories a particularly
effective tool to do so, despite a literary establishment so averse to gender
equality. In addition, the fact critics have stated the opposite of the interpretive norm while lacking institutional power brings into the focus the relation
of power and its control on the one side and the power of criticism on the
other side. I hope that this paper will raise awareness of the impact of gender
Preface to the Special Issue on Laza K. Lazarevi
ix
on knowledge construction. I also hope that it will contribute to a deeper understanding of Lazarevis story and encourage further study of Serbian literature, politics, and culture.
The main theme connecting these articles is that unscientific and subjective reasons have been used in support of a century-long, institutionalized,
public understanding of Lazarevi as a defender and idealizer of patriarchy.
We start with questions regarding the presentation of Lazarevi as an author
who defends and idealizes patriarchy by the leading scholars of Serbian literature past and present when, in truth, Lazarevis works offer evidence to the
contrary. While researching the primary sources for analyzing Serbian literature, such as histories of Serbian literature, academic handbooks, and key
critical works, it becomes clear that they reflect a reductionist and intolerant
approach to women. The same misogynous concept has been used in an analysis of a story by Lazarevi, in a textbook used for teaching Serbian literature,
while inadequate approaches are found in the translation of Lazarevis story
into English, as well as in the works of scholars.
At the beginning of the twentieth century any scholar could understand
the contexts of literary writing if he were willing to comprehend them. Obviously, the problem is to perceive women as a part of the culture and to admit
that some substantial matters undermined a patriarchal family.
These examples demonstrate the relationship between institutionalized
positions of power, possessed by men as a privilege, and mens rejection of
the worth of women. In essence, that relationship illuminates the problems of
the long-lasting and complex indoctrination of women and their masculinization, which has shown itself to be detrimental in a number of researchers
works. The relationship between the institutionalized position of power and
the rejection of womens worth did not have consequences only upon the advancement of scientific knowledge. It also diminished the chances of acquiring a relevant education, just as it interfered with adequately transmitting the
meaning of specific literature from one culture to another. The culmination of
ideological knowledge was revealed as only gathering information, which
proves useless and profitless. The absence of critical testing of knowledge by
those who possess the authority in scientific circles strengthened the trust in
such knowledge, even though it was part of subjective constructions and ideological manipulations.
These articles offer a new understanding of Laza K. Lazarevis story,
To Matins with Father for the First Time, but also of the importance of his
whole literary opus. I do not see Lazarevis defense and idealization of patriarchy, as has been stated for over a century by the predominant institutionalized opinion. In this collection of articles, the significance of Lazarevis opus
Svetlana Tomi
is understood through his presentation of the problems under the patriarchal

system that causes the suffering of women and children. In Lazarevis stories, such truths are confessed by sons, as mature men, reflecting their subconscious struggle with the patriarchal system, the privileges of which they
inherited due to their gender identity.
As an example for this analysis, the story To Matins with Father for the
First Time was chosen not only because it is a representation of a non-altered
(traditional) patriarchal family in Lazarevis work, but also because in this
story a son confesses his negative relationship with his father for the first time
in Serbian prose. Mia does not present the key patriarchal figure, his father,
as a moral and humane head of their family, but as a tyrant. While he
confesses, Mia constantly contrasts his mother, Marica, with his father. Because of her patriarchal status she is reduced to slavery, sentenced to suffering
and wretchedness, despite being more intelligent and morally superior to her
husband. By revealing the life of his family even before his father developed a
passion for gambling, the son recognizes his mothers moral strength
something he does not see in his father. In addition, Mia reveals a conflict
between the patriarchal power of his father and his misuse of authority. This
work emphasizes Maricas importancebeing a caring and responsible
woman and a mother, she is an incarnation of fundamental morality, while
Mitar is the embodiment of his position of power, behind which are violence
and tyrannical selfishness.
I interpret the scene of the dual epiphany in To Matins with Father for
the First Timethe total epiphany of the mother and a partial one of the
sonthrough the problem of the motive for the sons confession, i.e., his
guilt, and the very end of the story. The picture of the convict Pera Zelemba
in the epilogue of the story is not a representation of the victory of good over
evil. Mias recognition of the erstwhile gambler Zelemba represents the testimony of the sons silence about his fathers guilt, which is immersed into the
picture of a convict who represents the whole male gender. Such are his ideological constructs. When he confesses that he never again managed to feel
the bliss he felt when he saw the illumination of his mothers image, he only
unconsciously touches upon the reasons of his confession. Mia remembers
his fathers guilt for a long time, but he does not acknowledge it directly,
causing his failure to condemn the fathers irresponsibility. Although he became aware of what morality is thanks to his mother, the son does not, just as
his father did not, dare to express gratitude directly to Marica for saving the
family, or to recognize her worth through that act. Since such attitudes differ
in another Lazarevi story, Mothera story that is rarely publishedI discuss the importance of that narrative, and its similarities to To Matins with
xi
Father for the First Time. In Mother, the testimony regarding his mothers
influence is described more intimately. Both stories possess great cultural significance since, in that era, very few Serbian authors, and Serbian feminists as
well, focused on the importance of a mothers influence on the character of
her male children, the legitimate representatives of patriarchal society. When
the author pictures the son as a living tombstone to his mother, in Mother,
Lazarevi identifies the problem of interconnectedness between mothers and
sons, and the positive or negative relationships that derive from it. Whether
some society will or will not have a greater number of selfish and irresponsible sons, i.e., male tyrants, brutes, and anti-intellectuals, to the highest extent
depends on their mothers. Because of his inversion of the focus, from the one
between fathers and sons to the one between mothers and sons, and because
of his radical comprehension of women as collections of morals, I conclude
that Lazarevis narrative was well ahead of its time.
When literary works by female authors are included in the investigation
of Serbian realist prose, the level of Lazarevis progressiveness changes. He
was the first to present problems, such as those relating to a sons confession
about his negative father, female sexuality within marriage, the carelessness
of the state toward war veterans, or the platonic incest between a son and his
widowed mother. But, in contrast to Draga Gavrilovi, Laza K. Lazarevi did
not succeed in connecting the explanation of the patriarchal societys organizing principles with its critique. In contrast to Lazarevi, Draga Gavrilovi,
Mileva Simi, Jelena Dimitrijevi, Danica Bandi, Milka Grgurova, and
Kosara Cvetkovi molded female characters as unmarried, intellectual, and
moral, employed as actresses, teachers, and authors, who lived their own independent lives. According to their views, the morality of not getting married
is seen in their refusal to accept women as goods, and marriage as an exchange of economic interests between the brides father and her future husband. For these female authors, a marriage should join two persons in love
and respect, and not in a relationship in which the husband is a tyrant and the
wife a slave. Their narratives are close to Lazarevis because they change the
traditional Serbian story and the patriarchal norms it perpetuated. But on some
level the works by these female authors went beyond Lazarevis representations of women. In that respect, all of the female characters of teachers and
female authors in Draga Gavrilovis prose, who embody the power of critical
thinking, are incomparable with the character of the female teacher from Lazarevis story, The School Icona stereotypically limited and helpless
character similar to the characters of married women. In Lazarevis stories,
they do not have much contact with the outside world, while in the works of
xii
Svetlana Tomi
Serbian female authors of that time, the characters of married women attain
artistic careers and cultivate strong friendships with other women.
I am aware that the articles in this collection could be improved in many
ways, one of which could be a more active inclusion of the analysis of other
criticsthose who thought differently from the interpretative norm about
Lazarevis stories. It was not done because the very subject of the work was
differently definedas an investigation of the validity of institutionalized
public knowledge about Lazarevi. On the other hand, a more profound literature review would, at the minimum, double the length of this issue, and most
likely illuminate the problem from many other angles. Such an opportunity
has been left for future research. I believe that Lazarevis relationships with
God and religion still have not been adequately illuminated and understood.
The function of the epilogue in Lazarevis stories is greatly ironic, creating a
need to interpret it with more care, which has not yet been done. The same is
valid regarding Lazarevis so-called sentimentality, which is obviously more
complex than the way it has been understood by researchers so far, and who
have mostly incorrectly typified it.
A comparative analysis of the narratives by Ignjatovi, Lazarevi,
Rankovi, as well as those of female writers of that era, such as Draga
Gavrilovi, Mileva Simi, Danica Bandi, Milka Grgurova, Kosara
Cvetkovi, and Jelena Dimitrijevi, would reveal their great similarity in departing from the patriarchal codification of literary characters. Analyzing
many of his characters, one could interpret Lazarevis understanding of the
role and importance of critical reading, which is touched upon only by Draga
Gavrilovi. Great importance could be given to how wives address their husbands, and men in general, in a variety of literary genres, not only from the
perspective of Serbian literature but from that of the South Slavic literarycultural matrix. Even today, there appear narratives by female authors who
talk about the repression of women by men and how female suffering and
anguish is repressed. I believe that it is not by chance that such works are
extremely unprofessionally received by male critics. I have recently written
about such practice, following the publication of the works of both prose and
poetry by Serbian and Croatian female authorsthe novel Mango by Branka
Arsi (Belgrade: Laguna, 2008), or of the novel by Sanja Lovreni, Martins
Strings (Zagreb: Leykam International, 2008), as well as the book of poetry
by Evelina Rudan, Proper Birds (Zagreb: V.B.Z., 2008).1 It is certain that a
1
ena i Grad kao neprekidna telesna kontekstualizacija (Ljubica Arsi, Mango, Beograd:
Laguna, 2008), Knjievna Republika 79 (2009): 33740; Usreditenje bia u sebi (Sanja
Lovreni, Martinove strune, Zagreb: Leykam International, 2008) presented on the public
radio program Trei program Radio Televizije Hrvatske on May 5, 2009; I svijet je sjeo na
xiii
systematic analysis of the critics approach in dealing with the works by female authors would reveal a new understanding of the relationship between
gender and knowledge. In any form of investigation, it is necessary to recall
the interdependent relationship between the possible passage of time and plagiarism, which does not explain either the question or the problem that some
work might pose. History, criticism, methodology, and translation cannot advance thought and practice if they are not protected from, as Hlne Cixous
said, the old apartheid of routine, one that determines the future by
eternalizing the past.
tomic.svetlana@gmail.com
svoje mjesto (Evelina Rudan, Pristojne ptice, Zagreb: V.B.Z, 2008), presented on Trei
program Radio Televizije Hrvatske on April 25, 2009, published in Nova Istra, Pula (Spring
Summer 2009): 22630.
Acknowledgements
A few people have helped me during my work on this study. Above all, it was
Dr. Ljubica D. Popovich, professor emeritus at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. Without her generous dedication of time to the careful reading of
this work, I would have not been able to improve the initial form of this analysis. Her comments, critiques, and suggestions have proven to be precious
and constructive. I owe great gratitude, again, to Dr. Popovich, and to her
sister, the late Ruzica Popovitch Krekic (MA in Slavic Literature, MA in Library Studies), for their gift of a critical edition of Laza K. Lazarevis stories.
This gift not only made my work have no obstructions, but it also provided
me with the enticement to further investigate the unpublished works by
Lazarevi.
I express my deep gratitude to Mima Simi from Croatia (MA in Gender
Studies from the Central European University), a renowned feminist, writer,
and film critic, not only because she was one of the first readers of this work,
but also for extending her support at a time when I most needed it.
I owe exceptional gratitute to the translator of the introductory chapter of
this work into English, Kosara Gavrilovi. All her questions contributed to the
correction, improvement, and additional clarification of all the problematic
passages. To the other translator, Vieslav Simi (professor at Technologico
de Monterrey, Mexico) and editor Jelena Buevac I owe my thanks for careful
and detailed reading, for their comments and sugestions. My special thanks
also go to Rosemarie Connolly from Slavica Publishers for her great help and
assistance during the final editing process. Yet, any possible errors in this
work were not intended and they remain my sole responsibility.
I am especially grateful to Dr. Lilien Filipovitch Robinson, professor at
George Washington University, Washington D.C., and co-editor of Serbian
Studies for her constant support and help. I appreciate Dr. Popovichs and Dr.
Filipovis hard work so much.
I express my exceptional gratitude to Dr. Sneana Milosavljevi Mili
(professor at the School of Philosophy, University of Ni, Serbia) for providing me with the digital version of an analytical text Narrative functions in
Laza Lazarevis story, To Matins with Father for the First Time. The same
goes to Dr. Svetlana Tomin (School of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad,
Serbian Studies: Journal of the North American Society for Serbian Studies 23(2): xvxvi, 2009.
xvi
Svetlana Tomi
Serbia) for her aid in researching the official Orthodox Churchs canonization
of female saints.
I owe gratitude to Mrs. Bisenija Todorovi Kisovec, now resident in the
state of Virginia, for lending me the books by Serbian realist authors. Her extensive library of Serbian literature, in addition to being part of her family
tradition, is yet another example of how much the Serbs who live outside of
their motherland follow and read our national literature. Thanks to her, I was
able to read the first-edition examples of Serbian novels, published over a
century ago, and also to exchange thoughts about the latest books from
Serbia.
I thank my Belgrade colleagues and friends, Jelena Kovaevi and Vera
Stanii Ronevi, as much as my Banja Luka colleague and friend, Svjetlana
Markovi, for sending me a variety of copied material. Their generous help
always meant a lot to me.
And most importantlymy family: My mother and father-in-law,
Dragica and Dimitrije Tomi, originally from Livno, my husband Miroslav,
and our children, Matej, Tadej, and Andreaall of them assisted me in my
labor. For all your love, support, and help, my gratitude goes beyond any
power of expression.
In Bethesda, MD, 200911

tomic.svetlana@gmail.com
ORIGINAL WORKS
Prvi put s ocem na jutrenje1
Bilo mi je veli onda tek devet godina. Ni sam se ne seam svega ba

natanko. Priau vam koliko sam zapamtio. I moja od mene starija sestra zna
za to, a moj mlai brat ba nita. Nisam pao na teme da mu kazujem!
Meni je i mati priala mnogo tota kad sam odrastao, pa je zapitkivao.
Otac, naravno, nikad ni slovca!
On, tj. moj otac, nosio se, razume se, turski. isto ga gledam kako se
oblai: demadan od crvene kadife s nekoliko katova zlatna gajtana; povrh
njega ure od zelene ohe. Silaj iaran zlatom, za njega zadenuta jedna
harbija s drkom od slonove kosti, i jedan noi sa srebrnim cagrijama i s
drkom od somove kosti. Povrh silaja tranbolos, pa rese od njega biju po
levom boku. akire sa svilenim gajtanom i bumetom, pa iroki paaluci
prekrilili dopola nogu u beloj arapi i plitkim cipelama. Na glavu turi tunos,
pa ga malo nakrivi na levu stranu, u rukama mu abonos-ibuk s takumom od
ilibara, a s desne strane pod pojas podvuena zlatom i inuvama izvezena
duvankesa. Pravi kico!
Naravi je bio otac mi je, istina, ali kad sam ve poeo priati, ne vredi
eprtljiti naravi je bio udnovate. Ozbiljan preko jego, pa samo zapoveda, i
to on jedanput to rekne, pa ako ne uradi bei kud zna! Osorljiv i uvek
hoe da bude na njegovu, tj. niko se nije ni usuivao dokazivati to protivno
njemu. Kada se zdravo naljuti, a on psuje aliluj. Tukao je samo amarom, i to
samo jedanput, ali, brate, kad odalai, od asa se prui! Lako se naljuti;
natuti se, griska donju usnu, desni brk sue i izdie ga navie, vee mu se
sastale na elu, a one crne oi sevaju. Jao, da onda neko doe da mu kae da
nisam znao alekcije! Ne znam ega sam se tako bojao, naposletku ba i da
me ui jedanput, pa ta? Ali ja strepim od onih oiju: kad ih prevali, pa kao
iz prake, a ti, ne zna zato ni kroto, cepti kao prut!
Nikad se nije smejao, bar ne kao drugi svet. Znam, jedan, put dri on na
krilu mog malog bratia. Dao mu sahat da se igra, a moj okica okupio pa
gura ocu sahat u usta i dernja se iz petnih ila to on nee da otvori usta. Ja i
sestra da umremo od smeha, a to se i ocu dade neto na smeh pa nekoliko puta
1
Laza K. Lazarevi, Celokupna dela, Sveska 1, ed. Vladan Nedi and Branimir ivojinovi
(Belgrade: SANU, 1986), 2740.
Serbian Studies: Journal of the North American Society for Serbian Studies 23(2): 12941, 2009.
130
Laza K. Lazarevi
razvue malo levu stranu od usta i oko levoga oka nabra mu se koa. To je
bila velika retkost, i eto tako se on smejao kad se desilo togod gde bi neki
drugi razvalio vilice da bi se ulo u Tetrebovu mehanu.
A znam, opet, kad je umro moj ia s kojim je babo ortaki radio i koga je
jako voleo. Moja strina, mati, svojte, mi deca udri kukaj, plai, zapevaj,
stoji nas vriska, a moj babo nita, ama ba ni suze da pusti, ni uh! da ree.
Samo kad ga ponee iz kue, a babi zaigra donja usna, drke, drke; prislonio
se na vrata, bled kao krpa, pa uti.
to rekne, nee popustiti ni za glavu. Pa makar da se on kaje u sebi. Znam
kad je otpustio Proku momka iz slube. Vidim da se kaje i da mu je ao, ali
popustiti nee. Toga Proku je najvoleo od sviju momaka. Znam samo
jedanput da ga je udario to, toei rakiju, nije dobro zavrnuo slavinu na
petaci, pa skoro akov rakije istekao. Inae nikad ni da ga je kljucnuo! Sve
mu je poveravao, slao ga u sela po veresiju i kojeta. A znate to ga je
otpustio? Na pravdi boga! Video ga da igra krajcara! Tek ete se vi
posle uditi!
To o urevudne. Doao Proka u duan da mu se nanovo potpie bukvar.
Babo izvadi devedeset groa, pa kae: Na, evo ti ajluka! Meni vie ne treba;
idi pa trai gde se moe igrati krajcara! Turio Proka ves na oi, plae kao
kia i moli. Darnu to mog oca, ba videh, ali mislite da je popustio? Boe
sahrani! Izvadi samo jo jedan dukat pa mu dade: Na, pa put za ui! Ode
Proka, a on se kaje u sebi to istera na pravdi boga najvaljanijeg momka.
Nikad se nije alio; ni s nama decom, ni s majkom, ni s kim drugim.
udno je iveo s mojom majkom. Nije to da rekne da je on, ne daj, boe, kao
to ima ljudi, pa hoe da udari i tako to, nego onako nekako: uvek hladan,
osorljiv, gori od tuina, pa to ti je! A ona, sirota, dobra, brate, kao svetac, pa
pilji u njega kao noje u jaje. Kad se on to obrecne, ona da svisne od plaa, pa
jo mora da krije suze i od nas i od njega. Nikad i nikuda nije s njome iao,
niti je ona smela pomenuti da je kuda povede. Nije trpeo ni da se ona to mea
u trgovinu i u njegova posla. Kae ona jedanput:
Mitre, to ne da Stanoju rakiju? Skoro e i nova, pa gde e je?
A tek se on izdrai na nju:
Jesi li ti gladna, ili ti je ega malo? Novci su u tvojim rukama, pa kad
ti nestane, a ti kai! A u moj se posao ne plei!
Pokunji se mati pa uti.
Sa svetom je takoe malo govorio. U kavani imao je svoje drutvo, i samo
me' njima to rekne pokoju. Kuma Iliju je potovao to moe biti; i to je
jedini ovek koji mu je smeo rei ta je hteo, i koga se moj otac isto
popribojavao.
Prvi put s ocem na jutrenje
131
Nas je decu, kao i majku, voleo, nije vajde, to se vidi, ali nas je drao
prestrogo. Ja se ne seam nikad i nikaka znaka nenosti od njega. Pokrivao
nas je istina, nou kad se otkrijemo, i nije nam dao da se nadnosimo nad bunar
i penjemo na dud ali ta mi je to? To rade i drugi oevi, ali kupuju deci i
eerlemeta, zlatne hartije i loptu od gumalastike to skae svrh jablana!
U crkvu je iao samo na urevdan, u kavanu svako vee. Veeramo, on
turi ibuk pod levu miku, zadene duvankesu pod pojas, pa hajd! Dolazio je
leti u devet, a zimi i ranije, ali neki put prevali i po noi, a njega nema. To je
moju sirotu majku i sestru peklo ja vam se onda jo nisam razumevao u
lumpovanju. Nikad one nisu zaspale pre nego on doe, pa ma to bilo u
zoru. Sede u krevetima ne smeju ni svee da upale. Ljuti se on, bolan, kad
vidi da svea gori. uo sam jedanput, kad doe docne kui, gde proguna:
ta e ta svea u ovo doba?
Pa da se vidi svui, Mitre, kae moja mati.
A zar ja ne znam upaliti svee, ili sam, valjda, pijan, pa ne umem nai?
Pa nije, Mitre uvija se moja mati nego kao velim
A ta veli? Valjda da mi komiluk misli da mi lei mrtvac u kui!
Kakav mrtvac! Vi mislite on to ozbilja misli? Mari on i za susedstvo!
Nego ne da on da moja mati vodi rauna o njegovu dolasku i odlasku, pa ne
zna od zla kako e da pone. Hteo bi da mati spava i kad joj se ne spava, samo
da on moe bez brige baniti. Peklo je to i njega, vidi se to.
Pio je vrlo malo, i to samo vino. Rakiju, i kad ogleda za kupovinu,
ispljuje, pa nakiseli lice. Ni za kavu nije bogzna kako mario Pa ta je radio
svu no po mehaninama? pitate vi.
Nesrea, pa to ti je! Da je pio, ini mi se, ni po jada. Nego videete!
To je mojoj majci pola veka ukinulo. Plae nekih puta da svisne. A
nikome da se pojada.
Jedanput doe on, tako, docne kui Nita! Sutradan nita Kad,
moj brate, opazi majka da on nema sahata! Prekide se ena, pita ga:
A gde ti je, Mitre, sahat?
On se namrgodio. Gleda na stranu, kae:
Poslao sam ga u Beograd da se opravi.
Pa dobro je iao, Mitre.
Valjda ja nisam orav ni lud; valjda ja znam kad sahat ide i kad ne ide!
Moja mati ta e, uuta.
Kuka posle s mojom sestrom: Ej teko meni! Dae sve to imamo, pa
pod starost da perem tue koulje!
Jedanput opet jali je bilo deset, jali nije a njega eto iz kafane.
Nakrivio jednu astrahansku ubaru, preko prsiju zlatan lanac s prsta debeo, za
132
Laza K. Lazarevi
pojasom jedan srebrnjak iskien zlatom i dragim kamenjem. Ue on, a kao da

mu se nabrala koa oko levog oka. Neto je dobre volje.
Kako ue, izvadi sahat iza pojasa, kao sanim da vidi koliko je.
Zar si povratio? tre se. Zar ti je ve opravljen sahat?
Opravljen! kae on.
A kakav ti je to lanac?
Lanac kao svaki lanac kae on, ali nekako mekano, nije da se
izdire.
Znam, kae moja mati a otkud ti?
Kupio sam!
A ta ubara? To ima samo u Mie kaznaeja.
Kupio sam i nju!
Prodao ti?
Prodao!
A kakav?
Ali tu moj otac pogleda nekako preko oka moju majku. Ona umue.
On se uze skidati. Gledam ispod jorgana. Izvadi iza pojasa jedan
zamotuljak, kolik pesnica pa baci na sto, a ono zveknu: sam samcit dukat,
brate!
Na! ree ostavi ovo! Pa onda izie u kuhinju.
Moja mati uze onu hartiju nekako samo s dva prsta, kao kad die prljavu
deiju pelenu.
A ta u kae sestri s ovim novcima? Ovo je prokleto! Ovo je
avolsko! Ovo e avo odneti kako je i doneo!
Kao to vidite, nema tu sree ni ivota!
I tako je moja mati bila nesrena, i mi smo svi uz nju bili nesreni
Nekad, priala mi je mati, bio je on sasvim drugi ovek; a i ja se seam,
kao kroz maglu, kako me je esto drao na krilu dok sam bio sasvim mali,
pravio mi od zove svirajku i vodio me sa sobom na kolima u livadu. Ali, kae
majka, otkako se poeo druiti s Miom kaznaejem, Krstom iz Makevine
ulice, Olbrektom apotekarom i jo tamo nekima, sve se okrenu i poe kako ne
treba.
Obrecuje se. Ne trpi nikakva zapitkivanja, odmah isprei: Gledaj svoja
posla! Ili: Ima li ti druge kake brige?
Nije vajde, kazao sam ja: video je on sam da ne valja ta radi; ali ga uzeo
budiboksnama na svoju ruku, pa ga ne puta.
Pa ipak, smeno je kazati, ali opet, opet je on bio dobar ovek. Jest, boga
mi! Ali tako
133
Jedanput vrati se on u neko doba kui. Nije sam! udi se moja mati.
Proe on jo s nekim pored vrata, neto polako gunaju. Odoe u avliju.
ujemo mi malo posle konjski topot i hrzanje. Ne znam ja ta je to.
Kad on posle ue, ja poeh hrkati i moja se sestra uini da spava. Nazva
dobro vee, pa uuta. uti on, uti majka, ekam ja.
Onda moja mati otpoe, a glas joj promukao:
Odvedoe vranca!
Odvedoe kae on.
Opet ute, samo mati as po useknjuje se, a ja isto oseam kako plae.
Mitre, tako ti boga, tako ti ove nae dece, ostavi se, brate, drugovanja s
avolom. Ko se njega dri, gubi i ovaj i onaj svet. Eno ti Jove kartaa, pa
gledaj! Onakav gazda, pa sad spao na to da pregre tuu iarku i da kupuje
po selima koe za ifute. Zar ti, zaboga, nije ao da ja pod starost ekam od
drugoga koru hleba i da ova naa deica slue tuinu? Pa onda poe
jecati.
Moj se otac isprei :
A ta si ti uzela mene zaklinjati decom i plakati nada mnom ivim? ta
slini za jednom drkelom? Nije on mene stekao, nego ja njega! Sutra, ako
hoe, da kupim deset!
Moja mati plae jo jae:
Znam, Mitre brate, kae ona milostivno ali hoe dumani sve da
odnesu. Ostavi se, brate, tako ti ove nae nejai, proklete karte! Zna da smo
mi na naoj grbini i krvavim znojem stekli ovo krova nad glavom, pa zar da
me kojekakve izelice iz mog dobra isteraju?
A ko te tera?
Ne tera me niko, brate, ali e me isterati ako tako i dalje radi. To je zanat
od Boga proklet!
Ama ja sam tebi sto puta kazao da mi ne popuje i da mi ne slini bez
nevolje! Nije meni, valjda, vrana popila pamet, da mi treba ena tutor!
uti plemenita dua. Gui se. Ni suza nema vie. One teku kroz prsi,
padaju na srce i kamene se.
Dan za danom, a ono sve po starom. Donosio je esto pune vieke novaca.
Gubio je takoe. Dolazio je esto bez prstenja, bez sahata, bez zlatna silaja.
Donosio je drugi put i po dva-tri sahata i po nekoliko prstenova. Jedanput:
jedne izme, jednu urdiju; drugi put: konjsko sedlo; posle, opet: tuce srebrnih
kaika; a jednom: puno bure lakerde i svakojakih drugih komendija.
Jedanput dovede uvee vranca, onog istog, naeg.
Sutra mu kupio nove hamove: vise remeni do nie kolena i biju ga rojte
po vilicama. Upregao ga u kola, a stolicu turio na duanska vrata, pa kroz
varo rrrrrr! da sve izlee kaldrma ispod nogu.
134
Laza K. Lazarevi
Mi smo ve bili oguglali, samo je mati plakala i brinula se. Kako da nije,
bolan? Trgovina zabataljena. Momak se jedan po jedan odputa. Sve ide kao u
nesrenoj kui, a novci se troe kao kia.
Poee, bogme, oni njegovi pajtai dolaziti i naoj kui. Zatvore se u
veliku sobu, upale po nekoliko svea, zvei dukat, pui se duvan, klizi karta, a
na momak Stojan ne prestaje pei im kave (a sutradan pokazuje po nekoliko
dukata to je nadobijao napojnice). A naa mati sedi s nama u drugoj sobi; oi
joj crvene, lice bledo, ruke suve, i as po ponavlja: Boe, ti nama budi
prijatelj!
I tako se on sasvim otpadi od kue. Samo uti. Materi nikad ne gleda u
oi. Nas decu ne miluje, ni osorne rei da rekne, a kamoli blage. Sve bei od
kue. Samo nam para daje koliko koje hoemo. Ako item da kupim legrter,
a on izvadi po itavu pletu. Za jelo je kupovao sve to je bilo najlepe u
varoi. Moje haljine najlepe u celoj koli. Ali opet neto mi je tako teko bilo
gledajui moju majku i sestru: isto postarele, blede tune, ozbiljne. Nikud
podbogom ne idu, pa i na slavu slabo kom da odu. A i nama su ene slabo
dolazile ve samo ljudi i to gotovo sve samo one lole i pustaije, kao to ih
je moja mati zvala. Duan gotovo i ne radi: Zar ja kae moj otac da
merim geaku za dvaest para ivita? Eno mu ifuta! Mati ne sme nita vie
ni da proslovi. Kae, jedanput joj kazao:
Jesi ula, ti, razumi srpski to u ti rei: ako ti meni ciglo jedanput jo
to o tome proslovi, ja u sebi nai kuu; pa se iseliti; a ti ovde popuj kome
hoe! U-pam-ti do-bro!
uti ona, sirota, kao zalivena. Stegla srce, kopni iz dana dan, a sve se
moli bogu: Boe, ti mene nemoj ostaviti!
E, pa valjda vidite ta e iz svega da bude!
Dooe oni svi jedno vee. Doe s njima jo nekakav Pero Zelemba,
nekakav svinjarski trgovac koji, vele, radi s Petom. Brkove uiljio, kosu
ostrag razdelio, a zolufe pustio ak do jagodica. Debeo u licu, ikav u telu;
nakrivio nekakav eiri, a preko prsluka zlatan lanac, isti onakav kakav je pre
babo imao. Na ruci mu nekakav prsten, cakli se, brate, ne da u se pogledati.
Gega se kad ide; govori krupno i promuklo, a sve se smei onim malim, kao
jed zelenim oima, da te nekakav strah uhvati kao od sovuljage.
Dooe oni, velim. Stojan odmah uz ognjite, pa peci kavu!
Zapalie etiri svee. Udari dim od duvana, kao iz dimnjaka. Piju kavu,
ute kao Turci, samo karta klizi, i uje kako zvei dukat.
To je bila strana no!
Mi se s majkom zatvorili u drugu sobu. Ona vie ne plae. Ni sestra.
Ispijene u licu, oi upale pa gledaju strahovito uplaeno. Prema ovome je nita
ono kad mi je stric umro.
135
Nekoliko puta ulazio je moj otac u nau sobu. Bio je sav znojav. Razdrljio
demadan, raspuio koulj, pa mu se vide guste, crne dlake na grudima.
Namrio se kao Turin.
Daj jo! veli mojoj majci.
Ona stegla srce. uti kao kamen, otvara koveg, pa akom sipa u njegovu,
a on vezuje u mahramu.
Gleda uzvereno i na stranu, odlae nogama kao ja kad me drutvo eka
napolju, a ja stojim dok mi sea ne odsee hleba. Uzima novce, glavu okrenuo
na drugu stranu, pa kad poe, proguna kao za se: Jo ovo samo! I onda
isto bei iz sobe.
Ali jo ovo, jo ovo, ue ti on, ini mi se, peti put u nau sobu, a tako
oko tri sahata po ponoi.
Daj! veli majci, a doao u licu kao zemlja.
Mati poe kovegu, a noge joj klecaju, sve se navija.
Onda ja videh, ispod jorgana, kako se onaj moj veliki otac strese i kako se
prihvati za pe.
Bre! kae majci, a odlae nogama i rukavom brie znoj.
Mati mu prui.
Daj sve! ree on.
Poslednjih deset dukata! ree ona. Ali to ne bee vie glas, ni aput,
ve neto nalik na ropac.
On skopa one novce i upravo istra iz sobe.
Moja mati klonu kraj kovega i obnesvesti se. Sestra vrisnu. Ja skoih iz
postelje. I okica skoi. Sedosmo dole na patos kraj nje; ljubismo je u ruku:
Nano, nano!
Ona metnu ruku na moju glavu i aputae neto. Onda skoi, upali svitac
pa priee kandilo pred svetim orem.
Odite, deco, molite se bogu da nas izbavi od napasti! ree ona. Glas
joj zvoni kao zvono, a oi svetle, kao veernjaa na nebu.
Mi potrasmo njoj pod ikonu i svi klekosmo, a okica klekao pred majku,
okrenuo se licem njoj, krsti se i, siroe, ita naglas onu polovinu Oenaa to
je ve bio nauio. Onda se opet krsti i ljubi mater u ruku, pa opet gleda u nju.
Iz njenih oiju teku dva mlaza suza. One behu upravljene na sveca i na nebo.
Tamo gore bee neto to je ona videla; tamo njen bog, kog je ona gledala i
koji je u nju gledao. I onda joj se po licu razli nekakvo blaenstvo i nekakva
svetlost, i meni se uini da je bog pomilova rukom, i da se svetac nasmei, i
da adaja pod njegovim kopljem zenu. Posle mi zablesnue oi, pa padoh
niice na kraj njene haljine i na njenu levu ruku, kojom me pridra, i molih se
po stoti put: Boe, ti vidi moju majku! Boe, molim ti se za babu! I onda, a
ne znam zato Boe, ubij onoga Zelembaa!
136
Laza K. Lazarevi
Dugo smo se tako molili.

Posle moja mati usta, pope se na stolicu, pa celiva svetog ora. I moja
sestra to isto uini, a posle die i mene i okicu, te i mi celivasmo. Onda mati
uze suvu kitu bosioka, to je stajala za ikonom, i staklence s bogojavljenskom
vodicom, to je visilo pod ikonom, pokvasi onom vodom bosiljak, pa, neto
apuui, prekrsti njime sobu. Onda, polako otvori vrata, na prstima doe do
velike sobe, pa prekrsti kitom vrata od nje.
Ej, kako mi je onda lako bilo! Kako sam se oseao blaen, kao okupan!
Ama to mi sad ne moe vie da bude onako?
Istom to mati prekrsti vrata od velike sobe, a unutra die agor. Ne moe
nita da se razume, samo to Zelemba jedanput viknu koliko igda moe:
A ko mene moe naterati da igram vie? Kamo toga?
Posle opet nasta nejasan agor i svaa. Onda usmo kako se vrata
otvorie, gunanje i korake.
Ali babo ne ue u sobu. Zalud mi ekasmo. I dan zabeli, ja i okica
zaspasmo, a on jo ne doe.
Kad se probudih, sunce bee daleko odskoilo. Oseao sam se strano umoran
i prazan, ali ne mogoh vie zatvoriti oiju. Ustanem.
Sve izgleda nekako sveano, pa tuno. Napolju mirno, sve zrak pada
kroz otvoren prozor, a pred ikonom jo drke plamiak u kandilu. Moja mati i
sestra blede kao krpe, oi im vlane, lice kao od voska, kre prste, idu na
prstima i nita ne govore, samo to apuu neke pobone rei. Ne donee nam
doruak, ne pitaju jesmo li gladni, ne alje me mati u kolu!
ta je ovo? pitao sam se ja. Je li ovde mrtvac u kui, ili se moj
pokojni stric vratio, pa ga valja nanovo sahranjivati?
Onda pretrnuh kad se setih ta je noas bilo, i mehaniki proaptah:
Boe, zna ono za babu! I opet: Boe, ama ubij onog Zelembaa!
Ne mislei nita, obuem se i iziem iz sobe. I nehotino poem vratima
od velike sobe, ali se oas trgoh, jer osetih kako me majka dohvati za ruku.
Ja se okretoh, ali ona ne ree nita, samo turi prst na usta; onda me
odvede do vrata od kue, pa me pusti. Ona se vrati natrag u sobu, a ja stajah
na vratima. Gledam za njom ne znam ta da mislim.
Onda se nanovo priunjam na prstima do velike sobe, pa provirim kroz
kljuaonicu.
Gledam.
Sto nasred sobe. Oko njega razbacane stolice; dve ili tri preturene. Po
podu lei tisuu karata, razgaene i nerazgaene cigare, jedna razbijena
137
kavena olja, i ispod jedne karte viri dukat. Zastor na stolu svuen s jedne
strane skoro do polovine. Po njemu razbacane karte, isprevaljivane olje, puno
trina i pepela od duvana. Stoji jo nekoliko praznih tanjira, samo na jednom
duvan istresen iz lule. etiri prazna svenjaka; samo u jednom to bukti
debela hartija, kojom je svea bila omotana, i crn dim mirno se uzdie i
dohvata za tavan.
Na jednoj stolici za stolom, leima okrenut vratima, sedi moj otac. Obe
ruke do lakata naslonio na sto, a na ruke legao elom, pa se ne mie.
Gledao sam tako dugo, ali on ama da je mrdnuo. Samo videh kako mu se
slabine kupe i nadimaju. udno sam i mrano neto mislio. inilo mi se, na
primer, a ne znam upravo zato da je on mrtav, pa sam se udio kako
mrtvac die. Posle mi se inilo da mu je ona snana ruka od kabaste hartije, da
ne moe vie njom udariti i sve tako kojeta.
Bogzna dokle bih ja tako virio, da me se opet ne dotaknu majina ruka.
Nita mi ne ree, samo onim blagim oima pokaza put vrata.
Ja ne znam zato odjedanput skidoh kapu, poljubih je u ruku, pa
izaoh napolje.
Taj dan bio je subota.
Kad izaoh na ulicu, ide svet kao i obino, svaki gleda svoja posla. Silni
seljaci doterali kojeta na pijacu. Trgovci zaviruju u vree i pipaju jagnjad.
Novak pandur dere se i odreuje gde e ko da pritera kola. Deca kradu trenje.
Sreten ata ide s doboarem po varoi i ita da se zabranjuje putati svinje po
ulicama. Trivko izvadio jagnje, pa vie: Odi, vrue!, a pijani Joza igra u
jednoj barici.
A to je, more, va duan zatvoren? zapita me Ignjat urija koji u
taj par proe.
Tako! kaem ja.
Da nije bolestan Mitar?
Nije kaem ja.
Otiao, valjda, nekud?
U selo rekoh ja, pa pobegoh u avliju.
Eto ti zatim dva takozvana devera, tj. mojih drugova koje je poslao
gospodin da vide to nisam doao u kolu.
Sad se tek setih da je trebalo ii u kolu. Uzmem knjige i komad hleba, a
gledam u majku i devere.
Kaite, deco, gospodinu da Mia nije mogao pre doi imao je posla.
O, ova ruka! Da mi je da je se sit naljubim, kad ona spava, kad me ne
vidi!
ta je bilo u naoj kui za vreme dok sam bio u koli ne znam To
jest, znam: jer kad se vratih iz kole, naoh sve onako kako sam ostavio. Moja
138
Laza K. Lazarevi
mati i sestra sede s rukama u krilu; ne kuha se ni ruak; prolaze na prstima

pokraj velike sobe i samo othukuju isto onako kao kad mi je stric umro.
okica u avliji, vezao maki ezvu za rep, pa se uveseljava njenom trkom.
Momci iju gunjeve u svojoj odaji, a Stojan se izvalio u seno, pa hre kao da
je po noi.
Moj otac jo isto onako sedi, ne mie se. Zateglo mu se ure preko
irokih lea, a oko pojasa se razmie od duboka daha.
Odavno je ve bilo zvonilo na veernje. Dan se kloni svojemu kraju, a u
naoj dui ista ona puina nigde kraja da vidi, samo to se oblaci sve
gue gomilaju! Sve postaje nesnosnije, stranije i oajnije. Boe, ti na
dobro okreni!
Ja sam sedeo na pragu pred kuom. Drao sam u ruci nekakvu kolsku
knjiicu, ali je nisam itao. Video sam na prozoru bledo lice moje matere,
naslonjeno na suhu joj ruicu. U uima mi je zujalo. Nisam umeo nita da
mislim.
Ujedanput kljocnu brava. Moje majke nesta s prozora. Ja pretrnuh.
Vrata se od velike sobe otvorie. Na pragu stajae on, moj otac!
Ves malo zaturio, pa mu viri ispod njega kosa, i pada mu na visoko elo.
Brkovi se opustili, lice potamnelo, pa ostarilo. Ali oi, oi! Ni nalik na one
preanje! isto posuknule, utekle u glavu. Upola pokrivene trepavicama,
polako se kreu, nestalno i besmisleno gledaju, ne trae nita, ne misle nita.
U njima neto prazno, nalik na durbin kome su polupana stakla. Na licu mu
nekakav tuan i milostivan osmejak nije to nikad pre bilo! Takav je
izgledao moj stric kad je pred smrt iskao da ga prieste.
Polako pree hodnik, otvori vrata od nae sobe, promoli samo glavu
unutra, pa se, ne rekavi nita, brzo povue. Zatvori vrata, pa izae na ulicu i
lagano se uputi kum-Ilijinoj kui.
Priao mi je posle Toma, kum-Ilijin sin, da je se moj otac s njegovim
zatvorio u jednu sobu, da su neto dugo polako razgovarali, da im je posle
doneto hartije i mastila, da su neto pisali, udarali peate i tako dalje. Ali ta
je to bilo, to se ne zna, niti e ikad iko znati.
Oko devet i po sahata mi smo svi leali u postelji, samo mati to je sedela
s rukama u krilu i beznaajnim pogledom gledala u sveu. U to doba
kripnue avlijska vrata. Mati brzo pirnu u sveu, pa i sama lee u krevet.
Meni je ispod jorgana kucalo srce kao da neko bije ekiem u grudima.
Vrata se otvorie i moj otac ue. Obrte se jednom-dva po sobi, pa onda,
ne palei svee, skide se i lee. Dugo sam jo sluao kako se prevre po
krevetu, pa posle sam zaspao.
Ne znam koliko sam tako spavao, kad osetih neto mokro na elu.
Otvorim oi i pogledam: pun mesec gleda upravo u sobu, a njegov pauinast
139
zrak pao na lice moje majke. Oi joj zatvorene, lice kao u nekog tekog
bolesnika, a grudi joj se nemirno diu.
Vie nje stoji moj otac. Upro pogled u nju i ne mie se.
Malo posle prie naem krevetu. Gleda nas sve, gleda moju sestru. Doe
opet nasred sobe, opet pogleda uokrug, pa proaputa:
Spavaju! Ali se tre od svog apata i kao da se okameni nasred
sobe. Dugo je tako stajao ne miui se, samo to opazim pokatkad kako mu
senu oi, gledajui as na nas, as na mater.
Ali mi nijedno ni uhom da maknusmo!
Onda on poe porebarke na prstima iviluku, a ne skida oka s nas; skide
paljivo onaj srebrnjak, turi ga pod dube natue ves na oi, pa brzo i celom
nogom stupajui, izae napolje.
Ali tek to se vrata pritvorie, a moja se mati ispravi u krevetu. Za njom
se die i sestra. Kao kakvi dusi!
Mati brzo ali paljivo usta i poe vratima; za njom prista i sea.
Ostani kod dece! proaputa majka, pa izae napolje. Ja skoih, pa i
sam pooh na vrata. Sea me uhvati za ruku, ali ja se otrgoh i rekoh joj:
Ostani kod dece!
Kad izaoh napolje, pritrim plotu, pa sve pored plota a ispod vianja
dovuem se do bunara i unem iza njega.
No je bila u boga divota! Nebo se sija, mesec se cakli, vazduh sve
nigde se nita ne mie. Onda videh babu kako se nadviri nad prozor od
momake sobe, pa opet ode dalje. Stade najzad pod krov od ambara, pa izvadi
pitolj.
Ali u istih par, ne znam otkud, stvori se moja majka uz njega.
Prenerazi se ovek. Upro pogled u nju, pa bleji.
Mitre, brate, gospodaru moj, ta si to naumio?
Moj otac uzdrkta. Stoji kao svea, upljim pogledom gleda moju majku, a
glas mu kao razbijeno zvono:
Idi, Marice, ostavi me Ja sam propao!
Kako si propao, gospodaru, bog s tobom! to govori tako!
Sve sam dao! ree on, pa rairi ruke.
Pa ako si, brate, ti si i stekao!
Moj otac ustuknu jedan korak, pa blene u moju mater.
Ama sve, ree on sve, sve!
Ako e! ree moja mati.
I konja! ree on.
Kljusinu! kae moja mati.
I livadu!
Pustolinu!
140
Laza K. Lazarevi
On se primae mojoj majci. Gleda je u oi, isto proie. Ali ona kao
jedan boji svetac.
I kuu! ree on, pa razrogai oi.
Ako e! ree moja mati. Da si ti iv i zdrav!
Marice!
Mitre!
ta ti to veli, Marice?
Velim: da bog poivi tebe i onu nau deicu! Nije nas hranila ni kua
ni livada, nego ti, hranitelju na! Neemo mi biti nijedno gladni dok si ti me
nama!
Moj otac kao da se malo zanese, pa se nasloni laktom na rame materino.
Marice, poe on zar ti? Zagrcnu se, pa pokri oi rukavom i
uuta.
Majka ga uhvati za ruku:
Kad smo se mi uzeli, nismo imali nita osim one ponjave, jedne tepsije
i dva-tri korita, a danas, hvala bogu, puna kua!
Ja vidim kako ispod babinog rukava kanu kap i blesnu spram meseine.
Pa zar si zaboravio na ardak pun iarke?
Pun je! kae otac glasom mekanim kao svila, a rukav prevue preko
oiju i spusti ruku.
Pa ta radi ona moja niska dukata? to e onaj leei novac? Uzmi ga
u trgovinu!
Uloiemo u ito!
Pa zar smo mi neki prestari ljudi? Zdravi smo, hvala bogu, a zdrava su
nam deica. Moliemo se bogu, pa raditi.
Kao poteni ljudi!
Nisi ti neki tunjez, kao to ima ljudi. Ne dam ja samih tvojih ruku za
sav kapital Paranosov, pa da je jo onoliki!
Pa emo opet stei kuu!
Izveemo nau deicu na put kae mati.
Pa me nee mrtvog kleti Otkad ih nisam video!
Odi da ih vidi! ree mati, pa ga kao neko dete povede za ruku.
Ali ja u tri koraka ve u sobi. Samo to priaptah mojoj sestri: Lezi!, pa
navukoh jorgan na glavu.
Upravo njih dvoje stupaju preko praga, a na crkvi grunue zvona na
jutrenje. Gromko se razlee kroz tihu no, i potrese se dua hrianska. I kao
talas suho granje, tako njihov zvuk odnosi bolju i peal, kida uze tatine, a
skruena dua razgovara se s nebom
Sine, ustani da idemo u crkvu!
141
Kad sam iao lane u Beograd po jespap, video sam u Topideru Peru
Zelembaa u robijakim haljinama. Tuca kamen!
Majka1
Seam te se!
Od onog trenutka kad su moje ive a hladne usne poljubile tvoje mrtvo a
jo vrue elo, mnogo je tota duboko zaparalo tablu moga seanja, ali tvoja
slika, tvoje ime nije nigde okrnjeno. Drugim je slovima ono upisano! I kad
ludi as razlupa moju tablu, jo e, ini mi se, vatrenim slovima sjati tvoje
ime. ta mari to ni mene nee biti? Ta crv, koji se bude sladio mojim mesom,
seae se tebe.
Neznana, ostavljena, zabaena, trajala si tiho i mirno svoje burne i teke
dane. Je li to moja ljubav samo, koja te die iznad sviju ena? Ili si ti zbilja
bila junak i filosof? mati Srpkinja, mati? Je li istina ono to sam ja video i
uo? Je li moguno da je to sve istina, i da sam ja to sve video, i da si ti mrtva
i ja iv?
Oh, eno, muenice, svetiteljko! Da mi je, pusto, ciglo da me moe
videti s koliko pobonosti kleim pred tvojom slikom! Da mi je bar naterati
mozak da mi te stvori preda mnom u halucinaciji! ta marim to bi me svet
zvao ludom srea je samo moja stvar!
Evo oseam kako me po vratu zanoljivo galie tvoja suha ruicajaoh!
Kako si mi je rado svijala oko vrata! to drke, duo moja, ivote moj, ivote
smrti moje! Ta ti ne drke kad je glad na te kljocala svojim zubima, pa ne
drke kad je tuin na te i tvoju sitne porugljivo pruao prst, jer si se sama
hranila, ti nisi zadrktala ni prve noi, kad si daleko od mene i od svojih s
uzdignutom glavom po svrenom optem polu, sama u tuini u pustinji
pokrila svoju deicu, utulila sveu, i gledala u pustu, nepoznatu, neizvesnu
no!
Da! Ti si tada mislila na me. Je li? A sad, kad sam uza te, sad si bar
sigurna da smo samo jedno, pa se vie ne uzda u se!
Kuda me vodi?
Gle! Kako se zanoljivo sputa suton. Daleko se iri tiha Sava i miluje
ostrvo u sredi nje. Sa ade se uju milijuni glasova. Oni tako udnovato zanose
i drku kao tvoja suha ruica oko moga vrata. to me tako zaueno gleda?
1
Laza K. Lazarevi, Celokupna dela, Sveska 1, ed. Vladan Nedi and Branimir ivojinovi
(Belgrade: SANU, 1986), 30304.
144
Laza K. Lazarevi
Zar ne zna ko prosipa one milijune glasova, po kojima, vidim, pliva sad tvoje
srce? Ta to su slavuji!
Dabogme, duo, da te se sea! Oh, boe, uje li? Kae ti da se ti i nje
sea!
Oh, boe, boe! Poslao si joj moje dete neka ti je hvala! Ona e ga
bolje gledati nego ja. Ali mi se ne ljuti to u te jo neto moliti: polji im
koga od onih slavuja! Ta ima li u tvome carstvu jo ljudi koji su ti tako
zahvalni, a s tolino zadovoljni?
Je li da ti je lake, duo, kad vidi da te se seam?
Vidi li nadgrobni spomenik tvoj? Ja sam to, ja! Gle koliki sam! Ko
proso mi se ine piramide! Ko ima jo ovoliki spomenik? Koji spomenik
ovoliki grob? Avaj! Evo jednog crva! Zar je, oh, uasa! Zar je drznuo? I on da
mi bude svetinja! On pobratim moj!
TRANSLATIONS
The First Matins with My Father1
I was only nine years old at the time. I dont remember the exact details of
what happened, so I can only tell you what I recall. My sister who is older
than I am remembers too, but my younger brother, on the contrary, knows
nothing about it. I was never fool enough to tell him. When I grew up, I
questioned my mother, who told me many things about the affair. My father,
naturally, never breathed a word.
He, my father, was, of course, always dressed as a Turk. I can still see
him putting on his clothes. He wore a short undervest of red velvet edged with
several rows of gold braid, and over that a green cloth jacket. Behind his belt,
which was stamped in gold, he stuck a thin walking stick with an ivory top
and a dagger with silver scabbard and ivory handle. A fringed sash, tied on
the left side, covered the belt. His trousers were ornamented with silk braid
and embroidery, huge flaps hung half way down his legs, and he wore white
stockings and flat shoes. A Tunisian fez, worn a little over the left car, served
as headgear. He carried in his hand an ebony pipe with an amber mouthpiece,
and stuck in his sash on the right side was a tobacco pouch embroidered in
gold and false pearls. He was a real dandy.
His disposition was peculiar, and though it is true that he was my father,
since I have started to tell the story, there is no use in lying about it. He was
extremely severe, he always commanded, and if his orders, given once for all,
were not immediately executed, there was nothing left for you to do but to
escape as fast as possible. Passionate and forcible, he required that everything
should be done in his way; in short, no one dared to have the audacity to
contradict him. When he was really angry, he would blaspheme the Alleluia.
He never gave but one blow, but my dear fellow, you were on the ground as
soon as you were hit! He was easily offended; when he scowled, bit his lower
lip, and twisted his moustache, turning up the ends, his eyebrows joined
across his forehead, and his black eyes gleamed. Woe, if at that moment
1
Laza R. Lazarevi, The First Matins with My Father, in An Anthology of South Slavic
Literature, Fascicle 2: Serbian Literature, ed. Vasa D. Mihailovich, Henry R. Cooper, Jr., and
Branko Mikasinovich, Serbian Studies 18, no. 1 (2004): 7487. [Reprinted in An Anthology of
Serbian Literature, ed. Vasa D. Mihilovich and Branko Mikasinovich (Bloomington, IN:
Slavica, 2007), 74-87.]
148
Laza K. Lazarevi
someone came to tell him that I did not know my lesson. I dont know why I
was so afraid. Hc might have boxed my ears once. But his eyes made me
shiver, and when he turned them on you like a bullet from a sling, you would
begin to tremble like an apple twig, without rhyme or reason.
He never laughed, at least never like other people. I remember one day,
when he was holding my little brother on his knee. He had given the child his
watch to play with, and okica insisted on jamming the watch into his mouth
and yelling like one possessed because he couldnt open it. My sister and I
almost died laughing, and the thing seemed amusing even to my father, for he
several times partly opened his mouth on the left side and his face wrinkled at
the corner of his left eye. This was an extraordinary event, and was his way
laughing at a thing which would have made anyone else roar so that they
could be heard at the Inn of Tetreb.
I remember the day that my uncle died, Papas brother and partner, whom
he cared for deeply. My aunt, my mother, my cousins, all of us children
sobbed and groaned, with tears and lamentations, all, all, crying aloud. But
Papa never faltered, he did not shed a tear, or even say an Oh of pain. Only
as he went out of the house his lower lip trembled nervously and he shivered.
He was white as linen and supported himself against the doorway, but he did
not open his lips.
Even at the risk of his head, he would never go back on what he had said,
though the thing might be required by his conscience. I remember the day that
he dismissed his clerk, Proka. I saw clearly that he hated doing it, and that he
was sorry for the man, but he did not give in. He liked Proka better than any
of the other clerks. I remember that he had never struck him but once when,
after drawing some brandy, Proka had closed the spigot so badly that almost
the value of a keg had flowed away. Except that one time he had never laid a
finger on him. He trusted him in everything, even sending him to the village
to collect the money for things that had been sold on credit, and things like
that. And why do you suppose he sent Proka away? For no reason at all! Just
because he had seen him gambling for pennies!
But wait, you will soon be still more astonished!
It was shortly before the feast of St. George. Proka came into the shop to
have his agreement renewed. Papa took ninety groschen out of his pocket and
said, Here is your money. I have no more need of you. Go and find a place
where you can gamble for pennies. Proka, holding his fez before his eyes,
and shedding a veritable rain of tears, began to plead for pardon. I could see
that my father was touched, but do you think he yielded?
God forbid that it should be said that he was like some men who beat their
wives, and do other things of that kind, but he was cold and churlish with my
The First Matins with My Father
149
motherworse than a stranger, he really was. Whereas my mother,good as

any saint, brooded over him with her eyes as an ostrich does over her eggs.
When he spoke harshly, and her tears choked her, she always hid them, not
only from us but from him. He never went out with her, and she did not dare
open her mouth to ask him to take her anywhere.
He would not tolerate any suggestions from her about the shop or about
his business.
One day she said to him:
Mitar, why dont you give any brandy to Stanoje? There will soon be
plenty of the new, and where will you put it?
He only answered this by shouting:
Are you hungry, or do you need anything? The money is in your hands,
if it runs out you have only to say so. But dont meddle in my affairs. My
mother bowed her head and was silent.
He talked very little with anyone. His group of friends met at the cafe, and
it was only with them that he said a few words. He had a great respect for his
partner, Ilija, the only man who ever spoke frankly to him, and of whom my
father was in a certain way, a little afraid.
It could be seen that he loved us, his children, and my mother, but he held
us under very severe control. I do not remember ever having received any
mark of affection from him. It is true that at night he tucked us in again when
we were uncovered, and he would not let us lean over the well or climb the
mulberry trees, but what did that mean to me? Other fathers did as much, and
also brought their children candy and gold paper and balls that bounced as
high as the poplar trees.
He went to church only on the feast of St. George, but he went to the cafe
every night. We had supper, and immediately after it he put his chibouk under
his left arm, his tobacco pouch in his belt, and behold he was gone! In
summer he came back at nine oclock and in winter even earlier, though
sometimes midnight had struck before he was at home.
This troubled my poor mother and sister, but I at that time knew nothing
of what such revelry meant. They never went to sleep before my fathers
return even if he did not get back until dawn. Sitting up in their beds they
dared not even light a candle. He went into a rage at once, you see, if he found
one burning. One day when he had come in I heard him growl.
What is the meaning of that candle burning at such an hour?
It is so that you can see to undress, Mitar, said my mother.
Do you think that I dont know how to light a candle, or that I am too
drunk to find one?
But no, Mitar, said my mother, soothingly, I only thought
150
Laza K. Lazarevi
You thought what? You wanted the neighbors to think that there was a
corpse in the house!
A corpse! Do you imagine for a moment that he meant that? He who
cared so little about the neighbors? He merely did not want my mother to pay
any attention to his goings and comings, and in his anger he did not know
what to accuse her of. He would have preferred finding my mother asleep, or
if she must lie awake, that he should at least be able to go on a spree without
having any fuss made about it. That evidently irritated him.
He drank very little, and then only wine. When he had to taste the brandy
that he bought, he always spit it out at once, making a grimace.
He cared no more, and God knows how little that was, for coffee. You ask
me What did he do all night in the cafe?
It was a bad thing, that was what it was. It seems to me that if he had
drunk hard it would have done only half as much harm. But you will see.
It shortened my mothers life by half. Sometimes she cried and choked,
but she never complained to anyone.
One day he came home very late. Nothing happened. Again the next day,
nothing. Do you suppose, my dear fellow, that my mother did not know that
he no longer had a watch! At last the poor woman asked him, Where is your
watch, Mitar?
He frowned, and turning away his eyes, answered.
I have sent it to Belgrade to be repaired.
But it worked quite well, Mitar.
I dont think that I am one-eyed or an idiot, and I can probably tell
whether a watch works well or not.
What could my mother do? She was silent, but later she said to my sister
with tears, This is very hard on me, he will throw away everything that we
possess, and in my old age I shall have to live by washing other peoples
shirts.
Another time it was barely ten oclock, when he suddenly returned from
the cafe.
An astrakhan cap was cocked over one ear, a chain as thick as your
fingerm hung across his breast, and a pistol encrusted with gold and precious
stones was stuck in his belt. He came in, and from the look of the few
wrinkles around his left eye, he seemed to be in a good enough mood.
As soon as he was in the house, he pulled out his watch, as if to see what
time it was.
You have come back? said my mother, walking with a start. And is
your watch repaired?
It is repaired.
151
And what is that chain?

It is a chain, like any other chain, he answered in a quiet voice without
shouting.
I know that, said my mother, but where did you get it ?
I bought it.
And that cap? Only Mia the treasurer has one like it.
I bought that also.
He sold it to you?
He sold it.
And what?
But here my father looked at my mother in a certain manner, and she was
silent.
He began to undress. I risked an eye outside of my quilt.
He took out of his pocket a package as big as my fist, and tossed it onto
the table, where it rang; nothing less than ducats, my dear fellow.
Here, keep this, he said, and went into the kitchen. My mother took up
the paper between two fingersas you might saythe way that she would
have lifted dirty linen.
What shall I do with this money? she asked my sister. It is accursed. It
is from the devil, and the devil will take it back in the same way that he has
given it.
As you see there was neither life nor happiness in this thing. My mother
was unhappy, and we were unhappy with her.
My mother has told us that he was formerly quite a different sort of man,
and I remember myself, as if in a dream, that when I was tiny he held me on
his knee, and that he made me a whistle out of a reed, and took me with him
in the cart out into the fields. But, said my mother, after he began to go
with the treasurer Mia, Krsta who lives in Makevina Street, Albert the
druggist, and a few others, everything was turned upside down, and went
awry.
He grew cross, and would allow no questions, always saying, Mind your
own affairs, or Have you nothing else to worry about?
He was good at nothing, and as I have told you he realized that what he
was doing was wrong, but that which had taken possession of him, and from
which God preserve us, would not let him go.
And yet, though it seems absurd to say it, he was really a fine man. Yes,
by the Lord he was! But
One day when he came home he was not alone. My mother was surprised.
He passed by the door with someone and they were whispering together. They
152
Laza K. Lazarevi
went into the courtyard. Then we heard the neighing and stamping of a horse.
I did not know what it meant.
When he came in later I began to snore and my sister pretended to be
asleep. He said good evening, and nothing more. Both he and my mother were
silent, and as for me, I waited. At last my mother said in a choked voice.
He has taken the black horse!
He has taken him.
Again they were silent, but my mother blew her nose several times, and I
thought she was crying.
Mitar, for the love of God, and in the name of our children here, stop this
traffic with the devil. The man who leagues himself with him is damned in
this world and the next. Look what happened to Jovan who gambled with
cards, think of him! A man of his position, who has sunk until today he must
pick up nutgalls for other people, and buy skins in the villages for the Jews.
For the love of God, have you no pity for me, who when I grow old will have
to seek my crust of bread in the houses of others, or these children of ours
who will have to serve strangers? And she began to sob.
Whats the matter with you that you should call on me in the name of the
children and you mourn me before I am dead? What makes you howl about a
wretched nag? It was not she that owned me, but I that bought her!
Tomorrow, if you want them, I will buy ten.
My mother only cried harder.
I know, dear Mitar, she said patiently, but your enemies will take
everything from you. O my beloved, leave those wretched cards alone.
Remember that it was by the strength of our backs and the seat of our blood
that we were able to raise this roof above our heads. Is it possible that some
miserable moneylender will turn me out of my own house?
But who is turning you out?
No one is turning me out, my dear, but I shall be turned out if you go on
as you are doing. It is a trade accursed of God.
Havent I told you a hundred times not to preach to me, or to whimper
without cause. There is no reason to think that some crow has picked out my
brain so that I need my wife for a guardian.
She said no more, that brave soul. Her throat contracted and she shed no
more tears. They ran down her breast and fell on her heart, and turned to stone
there.
The days followed each other, and he kept on in just the same way.
Sometimes he brought home rolls of money, which he lost again as he had
won it. He often came back without his rings or watch or gold embroidered
belt.
153
Again he would have two or three watches and several rings. One day it
would be a pair of high boots, a cloak, a saddle, or a dozen silver spoons; once
it was even a barrel full of liquorice, and all sorts of other trifles. One evening
he brought a black horse, the same one that had belonged to us before.
The next day he bought a new harness; the false martingale hung below
the knees of the beast, and the fringes beat against his jaws. My father
harnessed him to the carriage, shut the door of the shop with a chair, and
drove through the town! The pebbles flew from under the horses hoofs.
We were prepared for anything. My mother cried and was anxious. How
could she be anything but unhappy? The shop was deserted. He sent away the
clerks one after another. Everything went wrong in that unlucky house, and
the money ran away like rain.
His companions, heaven help us, began to come to us. They shut
themselves up in the big room and lighted several candles; ducats rang and
cards slid on the table, pipes smoked, and our servant Stojan never stopped
making them coffee (the next morning he showed us some ducats that had
been given to him for fees). My mother stayed with us in the other room. Her
eyes were red, her face pale, her hands dry, and she repeated over and over
again, O God, be with us!
He became, at last, completely detached from household life. He never
spoke. He never looked my mother in the face. He never caressed us, his
children, and while not using really abusive words to us, he was very far from
ever saying a kind one. Everybody kept away from the house. He did give us
whatever we needed. If I asked for money to buy a slate pencil, he gave me
enough to pay for a whole package. My clothes were the finest in the whole
school, and for food he bought the very best to be found in the city. But all the
same, something that I did not understand made me suffer whenever I looked
at my mother and sister. They had become older, and grown pale and grave,
and sad. They went nowhere, hardly even to see a few neighbors at the Slava,
and very few women came to us. Only the men came, and most of these were
dissipated good-for-nothings as my mother called them. There was hardly any
work done in the shop. Do you expect me, said my father, to amuse myself
by selling twenty cents worth of indigo to a boor? That is good enough for the
Jews.
My mother was no longer able to protest. She told me that he had said to
her one day, If you will listen, listen, and understand what I am telling you;
if ever again you say one word of that kind to me, I will find another house
and move into it, and then you can preach here to whoever you choose. Keep
that clearly in you mind!
154
Laza K. Lazarevi
She was as silent, poor soul, as if she had been ducked. Her heart was
rent, she grew whiter day by day, and never stopped imploring God for help.
My God, she prayed, do not abandon me.
And then you can probably imagine what the end of all this was!
One night they all came. A certain Pero Zelemba was with them, a pig
merchant who, as he expressed it, worked with Pest. His moustache was
waxed and his hair, which was separated by a part in the back, was allowed to
fall in curls over his cheeks. He was fat faced and corpulent and wore a
curious little hat over one ear. He wore a gold chain on his waistcoat like the
one papa had formerly owned, and on his hand was a ring that sparkled,
really, my dear fellow, it sparkled so that you couldnt look at it. He waddled
in his walk, and spoke in a hoarse bass voice, and you were confused before
his little yellow-green eyes, which inspired a sort of dread, such as one feels
when looking at an owl.
They arrived, as I said. Stojan was in his place at the stove making their
coffee.
Four candles were lighted. The tobacco smoke rose as if from a chimney.
They drank coffee in silence like Turks, but the cards fell, and you could hear
the ducats ring.
It was a terrible night!
We were shut up in the other room with my mother. She no longer cried.
Neither did my sister. With faces set and sunken eyes, they gazed straight
front of them in deadly fear. What happened at my uncles death was nothing
compared to this.
My father came into our room several times. He was covered with sweat.
He had unbuttoned his vest and unhooked his shirt, so that one could see the
coarse hair on his chest. He was scowling like a Turk.
Give me more, he said to my mother.
Her heart shrank. Silent, as if made of stone, she opened the chest and
gave him handfuls of money which he tied in a handkerchief. He glanced
nervously from side to side, and stamped his feet where he stood, as I do
when the boys are waiting for me outside and I want my sister to cut me a
piece of bread. He took the money, turned away his head, and muttered as he
went out, More than that.
After that you might have said that he ran away from the place.
But still saying, More than that, more than that. He came, I think, five
more times into our room, and this went on until it was almost three oclock
in the morning.
Give, he said to my mother, and his face was livid.
My mother went to the chest, her legs trembled and she staggered.
155
Hidden under my quilt, I could still see how my fathers tall figure was
shaking and how he supported himself against the stove.
Be quicker! he said to my mother, losing all patience and with
impatient gestures of his arms.
My mother handed him the money.
Give me all of it, he said.
These are the last ten ducats, she answered. It was no longer a voice or
a whisper that we heard, but something like a death rattle.
He gathered up the money and rushed out of the room.
My mother sank beside the chest, and fainted. My sister screamed. I
sprang out of bed. okica did the same. We sat down on the floor around her,
and began to kiss her hand, crying, Mamma, Mamma.
She put her hand on my head and murmured something. Then she rose
and lit a small taper and the votive lamp before St. George.
Come children, pray to God, that he may deliver us from misfortune,
she said. Her voice rang like a bell, and her eyes shone like the star of the
shepherds, radiant in the sky.
We ran after her to the icon, and all knelt down; while okica, kneeling in
front of mother, turned his face toward her, crossed himself, and repeated,
poor little chap, the half of the pater which he had already learned. Then he
crossed himself again, kissed mothers hand, and gave himself up to gazing at
her. Two rivers of tears poured from her eyes. Her look was upturned to the
saint and to God. There, on high, was something that she could see, her God,
whom she adored and who looked down again upon her. At that moment there
came over her face an expression of rapture, a sort of radiance, and it seemed
to me that God caressed her with his hand, and that the Saint smiled, and that
the dragon died beneath his spear. Then my eyes were dazzled, and I fell
forward on the edge of my mothers dress and against her left arm which
supported me, and I prayed for the hundredth time, Oh God, you see my
mother! My God, I beseech you for my father! Then I added, I dont know
why, O God, kill that Zelenba!
We prayed like this for a long time. At last my mother rose and climbing
on a chair, kissed the image of St. George, my sister did the same, and lifted
up okica and me so that we could kiss it also. Then my mother took the
spray of dried basil which was kept behind the icon and the vial of water that
had been blessed at the Epiphany fromwhere it hung below the image. She
dipped the basil in the water and murmuring something, with the spray she
made a sign of the cross in the room. After that, opening the door very softly,
she tiptoed down to the big room, on the door of which she made another
cross with her spray of basil.
156
Laza K. Lazarevi
Ah, how light I felt then, and how happy, as if I had just come from
taking a bath. Why is it that I never have that sort of feeling now?
My mother had hardly made her sign of the cross on the door of the big
room, when a tumult began inside. It was impossible to distinguish anything,
except that once we heard Zelenba shout with all his might.
Who can force me to go on with the game? Who is the man who will try
that?
Then there was more confused noise and violent disputing. We heard the
door open, then a murmur, and steps
But papa did not come back to our room. We waited in vain. The dawn
began to break, we fell asleep, okica and I, but still he did not come.
When I awoke the sun was already high. I felt horribly tired, but couldnt
close my eyes again, so I got up.
Everything seemed in some strange way solemn, but sad. Out of doors,
the air was calm, a clear shaft of sunshine fell through the open window, and
in front of the icon, a little flame still trembled in the lamp.
My mother and sister were as white as linen, their eyes were soft with
tears and their faces seemed made of wax. Without letting even their fingers
crack, they moved about on tiptoe, and in silence, except for a few whispered
words of prayer. They did not give us any breakfast or ask if we were hungry,
and my mother did not send me to school.
What does it mean, I asked myself, is there a death in the house, or has
my uncle come back, and shall we have to bury him over again!
Then I felt frozen with fear, remembering what had happened during the
night, and I murmured mechanically, Oh God, you know I prayed to you for
papa, and again, My God, kill that Zelenba.
Without thinking I dressed, went out of my room, and turned naturally
toward the big room, but recoiled at once as I felt my mother seize my arm. I
turned to her, but she told me nothing, only putting her fingers to her lips; and
then led me to the house door and left me there. She went back to her room,
and I, following her with my eyes, did not know what to think. I slipped back
on my toes to the big room, and put my eye to the keyhole. I noticed carefully
what I saw. The table was in the middle of the room, the chairs were scattered
about and two or three were overturned. Strewn over the floor were thousands
of cards, cigars, some whole and some trodden on, a broken coffee cup, and
lying on a card gleamed one gold ducat. The tablecloth was pulled half off.
On the table were scattered playing cards, overturned cups full of stubs and
cigar ashes and some empty saucers into one of which someone had cleaned
out his pipe. Besides this there were four empty candlesticks, in one of which
157
the coarse paper which had been around the candle still burned with a line of
black smoke that rose and broke against the ceiling.
On a chair by the table, with his back to the door, my father was sitting.
His elbows were on the table, his head in his hands, he did not move. I
watched a long time but he remained motionless. I was frightened, and
imagined some mysterious trouble. It seemed to me, I dont know why, that
my father was dead, and I was surprised that a corpse could breathe. Then I
thought that his strong arms were made of cardboard, and he could never use
them to strike again, and other fancies of the same kind came into my mind.
God knows how long I would have stayed there watching if my mothers
hand had not touched me again. She said nothing, but with her eyes she
showed me the way to the house door.
And I, I dont know why, took off my hat, kissed her hand, and left the
house.
That day was a Saturday.
When I went out into the street, all the world were following their
ordinary lives and attending to their business. Sturdy peasants were bringing
all sorts of things to the market place, merchants were examining the bags of
vegetables and feeling of the lambs. Novak, the guard, shouted and directed
where each man should put his cart. The children stole cherries. Sreten, the
town crier, went through the streets, calling out that it was forbidden to let
pigs run free in the streets. Trivko showed quarters of lamb, crying, Come
and buy roasts, and Jova the drunkard dabbled his feet in a puddle.
What is the matter, is your shop closed? Ignace the furrier who was
passing at the moment asked me.
Yes, I said.
Mitar isnt ill?
No, I answered.
He has gone away somewhere?
To the village, I replied, and escaped from the courtyard.
And now there arrived two witnesses or boys of honor as they were
called, that is to say two of my schoolmates who had been sent by the teacher
to see why I had not come to school.
I never remembered until that moment that I should have gone. I caught
up my books and a piece of bread, and looked at my mother and the
witnesses.
Say to the master, children, that Mia could not come earlier, that he was
detained.
That dear hand! Could I ever kiss it enoughwhen she was asleep
when she could not see me.
158
Laza K. Lazarevi
I do not know what happened at home while I was at school, but I know
that when I returned everything was just as I had left it. My mother and sister
were sitting with their hands on their knees, the dinner was not cooked, and
they tiptoed by the big room and sighed as they had done when my uncle
died. okica, out in the court, had tied a coffeepot to the cats tail and was
watching it run. The clerks were sewing on blouses in their room, while
Stojan had buried himself in the hay and was snoring as if it was midnight.
My father was sitting in the same place. He had not stirred. His fur-lined
coat, fastened around his broad shoulders, gaped open at the waist from his
heavy breathing.
Vespers had rung long ago.
The day was drawing to its close, and in our hearts reigned the same
despair, to which no one could see any end, but only clouds that gathered
thicker and thicker. Everything grew more intolerable, more terrible and more
desperate.
Return again, O my God, and have mercy.
I sat on the doorstep, in front of the house. I held some schoolbook in my
hand, but I did not read it. I saw in the window my mothers white face,
resting on her little feverish hand. My ears rang, and I could not think at all.
Suddenly a key grated in the lock. My mother disappeared from the
window. I simply could not think.
The door of the big room was open. He stood on the thresholdhemy
father!
His fez, pushed back a little, showed the hair which fell over his wide
brow. His moustache drooped, and his face had grown sombre and much
older. But his eyes, those eyes! They had not the least resemblance to what his
eyes had been. They had simply vanished, sunk into his head; half covered by
the lids, they moved slowly and looked out with no interest or expression.
They looked for nothing and they noticed nothing. There was about them a
sort of emptiness, like spectacles with the glass broken out. On his lips was a
sad gentle smile, such as had never been seen there before. It was the same
expression that my uncle had had, when, just before his death, he asked for
the sacrament.
He went slowly down the hall, opened the door of our room, looked in,
and then passed through without a word. Having closed the door behind him,
he went out into the street and walked slowly toward the house of his partner
Ilija.
Toma, the latters son, told me later that his father and mine were shut up
together in a room, that they talked a long time about something in a low
voice, that they had had paper brought in, and ink, and that they had written
159
something and put seals on it. What this was he did not know, and no one ever
found out.
At about half-past nine, we were all in bed except my mother, who sat
with folded hands, gazing at the candle. At that moment the gate of the
courtyard creaked. My mother blew out the candle and slipped into bed.
My heart beat under my blanket as if someone was hitting my chest with a
hammer.
The door opened and my father came in. He moved once or twice across
the room, and undressed without lighting the candle and went to bed. For a
long time I heard him turning in his bed, and then I fell asleep.
I dont know how long I had slept. when I felt something damp on my
forehead. I opened my eyes and watched. The full moon looked directly into
our room and its rays fell on any mothers face, like spiderwebs.
Her eyes were closed, she had the look of a person who is very ill, and her
breath came quick and short.
Above her stood my father, motionless, with his eyes riveted on her face.
After a little while he came to our bed, but merely looked at us and at my
sister. Then he placed himself once more in the middle of the room, encircled
it again with his eyes and muttered, They are asleep.
But he shuddered at the sound of his own voice, and seemed to turn to
stone. There, in the center of the room, he stood a long time without any
change except that I saw his eyes soften from time to time as he looked, first
at us and then at my mother.
We never made a move!
Then, moving quietly and without ever taking his eyes off us he carefully
unhooked his silver pistol from the cloak stand where it hung, thrust it into his
coat, pulled his fez over his eyes, and walking with quick long strides, went
out of the house.
The door had hardly closed after him when my mother rose up in her bed.
My sister did the same. You might have thought them spirits!
My mother got up quickly, but with caution, and went to the door. My
sister followed her.
Stay with the children, whispered my mother, and went out.
I sprang up and started for the door. My sister caught me by the arm, but I
slipped out of her grasp, and said:
Stay with the children.
As soon as I was out of the house I ran to the hedgerow and, slipping
along it, hiding under the cherry trees, I got to the well, behind which I hid
myself.
160
Laza K. Lazarevi
The night was divinely beautiful. The sky was clear, the moon brilliant,
the air full of freshness, and nothing was moving anywhere. I saw my father
look into the window of the clerks room, and then go on. At last he stopped
under the shed roof, and drew out his pistol. But, just at this moment, my
mother, coming from I dont know where, appeared beside him.
The poor man was frozen with terror. He gazed at her with open mouth.
Mitar, my dear, my Lord and Master, what do you mean to do?
My father trembled. Stuck there like a candle, he looked at my mother
with empty eyes, and said in a voice like a cracked bell:
Go away, Marica, leave me, I am lost.
What! Lost, my Lord? May God help you, why do you say that?
I have thrown away everything!
But, my dear, it was you who first earned it!
My father started back, and stood abashed before my mother.
Yes, but all, he said, all, all.
And even if that is so? said my mother.
The horse too, he replied.
An old nag, she answered.
And the field!
Just dirt.
He came close to my mother, and looked into the whites of her eyes, as if
he would scorch her, but she stood like a saint of the good God.
The house too, he said, opening his eyes very wide.
And what of it, said my mother, so long as you, yourself, are here
strong and well?
Marica!
Mitar!
What do you mean, Marica?
I mean, may God grant you long life, and to our children. It is not the
house nor the field that takes care of us, but you, our provider. We will never
suffer from hunger while you are with us.
My father seemed moved. Putting his hand on my mothers shoulder he
began:
Marica! Do you His voice choked. He covered his eyes with his
sleeve and was silent.
My mother took his hand.
When we were married, she said, we had nothing but one blanket, just
one, and only two or three tubs and barrels. While now, thank God, the house
is full.
161
I saw a drop fall, which shone in the moonlight, as it traced its path down
my fathers sleeve.
And have you forgotten that the garret is full of gall nuts?
Yes, it is full of them, said my father, in a voice as soft as silk. He took
his sleeve away from his eyes, and let his arms fall.
What is that wretched ducat doing there? What is that money lying on
the ground? Take it for your business!
We will put it into wheat!
Are we too old to begin again? By the grace of God we are well and our
children are in good health. Let us pray to the good God and go to work.
Like the honest people we are!
You are not stupid like some men. I would not give your arms for all the
money of Paranos and others like him.
And then we will buy another house.
We will bring up our children in the right path, said my mother.
So that they may not curse me when I am dead. How long it is since I
have seen them!
Come and see them, said my mother, and she led him like a child, by
the hand.
In three bounds I was back in my room. I whispered to my sister, get into
bed, and then pulled the blanket over my own head.
Those two crossed the threshold, just as the church bells rang for the early
mass. They reverberate through the night and the Christian soul trembles.
Like a bed of dry branches, their sound softens grief and pain, and breaks the
chains of vanity, so that the contrite soul can speak with heaven.
Rise, my son, and let us go to church!
When I was in Belgrade last year, buying some merchandise, I saw Pero
Zelenba, at Topider, in the dress of a convict. He was breaking stones.
Translated by Pavle Popovi
To Matins with Father for the First Time
I was only nine, he says, at the time. Personally, I dont remember

everything in exact detail. I will tell you only what I can recall. My older
sister, also, knows about it, while my brother, who is younger than me, knows
absolutely nothing. If I told him anything, Id be completely insane!
While I was growing up, my mother was answer to most of my questions.
My father naturally never uttered a word. So, I asked her.
He, that is, my father, dressed, of course, like a Turk. I can still see him
putting his clothes on: short under vest made of red velvet rimmed by several
golden braids; green cloth jacket over it. Behind his belt decorated in gold, he
stuck a thin walking stick with an ivory top and a small dagger with silver
scabbard with a handle in the shape of the catfish bone. Over the belt, a
fringed sash, beat against his left side. His breeches were ornamented with
silk braid and embroidery, wide legs of the breeches were half way down, and
he wore white leggings and flat shoes. He put a Tunisian fez on his head,
slightly skewed to the left. An ebony pipe with an amber mouthpiece was in
his hand. On the right side, under his sash was stuck a tobacco pouch,
embroidered in gold and trinkets. He was a real dandy!
His nature washe is my father, true, but its no use in fooling you since
Ive already started telling you the storyhis nature was peculiar. He was
strict to the extreme, always bossy. He gave an order only once, and if you
didnt do what you had been told immediatelythe only thing you could do
wasrun for your life! He was short-tempered and biting, wanted everything
to be done in his way; that is, no one had the guts to oppose him. When he got
really mad, he blasphemed the Halleluiah. When he beat, he used only one
slap. But, oh boy, when he hit you in the face, it was enough to put you on the
ground! He easily got angry; he bristled, bit his lower lip, stroked a right
moustache-turning its end up, his eyebrows met across the forehead, and those
black eyes piercing. Woe! And at that moment if anyone told him I did not
know my lessons!
I dont know what I was so afraid of, and if he eventually smacked me on
the face, so what? But I feared those eyes: those two pointing guns at me, and
you didnt even know why, you were shaking like a leafand why, I dont
have the slightest idea!
164
Laza K. Lazarevi
He never laughed, at least, not like the other people. Oh, I remember one
time. My father was holding my baby brother on his knee. He gave him a
watch to play, and my little brother okica was trying to put the watch in our
fathers mouth, shouting at the top of his lungs because our father refused to
open his mouth. My sister and I almost died laughing, our father found the
case somewhat amusing as well, so he stretched his mouth to the left several
times and skin around the corner of his left eye wrinkled. That was extremely
rare, but that was how he laughed at something that the others would burst
of laughter and could be heard all the way to Tetrebs Inn.
And, then again, I remember the day when my uncle died, my Dads
brother and partner, the person whom he loved deeply. My aunt, my mother,
our relatives, us childrenwe all sobbed, moaned, cried our hearts out, while
my father did not make a move, he did not even shed a single tear, not a sigh
oh out of pain, could be heard of him. Only when the corpse was being
taken from the house, his lower lip trembled, his body shivered so he had to
lean against the door, white as a ghost, silent.
He wouldnt give way an inch, even if he profoundly regretted his acts
afterwards. I remember when he fired a guy called Proka. Everyone could see
that he felt sorry for the young man, that he repented, but he did not want to
take his word back, not for the life of me. He loved Proka more than any other
young men who worked for him. I know that my father did not beat him, but
once, when he didnt turn off spigot properly while drawing the brandy from
the barrel and wasted almost fifty liters of it. That was, really, an isolated
incident. That was the only time he slapped him. He trusted him with
everything. He sent him to villages to collect the money from the goods sold
on credit, and lots of other stuff. And do you know why the man was
discharged? For no reason whatsoever! He saw the young man playing head
or tails for money. But, please, wait, theres no need to jump the gun!
This happened on St Georges Day. Proka came to the store to have his
labor card signed, as usual. Papa took out ninety groats, and said: Take this!
Heres your pay. I dont need you anymore; go and find yourself a place
where you can play head or tails! Proka put his fez on his face, started crying
his eyes out, begging for mercy. I could see that my father was moved, but do
you think he would show mercy? God forbid! He just took out another ducat
and said: Here! Hit the road and dont you ever come back! Proka left and
my father regretted silently, because he had fired his best worker and for no
reason at all.
He was never jesting; not with us children, not with my mother, not with
anybody. He lived with my mother in a strange way. He was not, God forbid,
like some men who beat their wives, or something like that, but: he was
To Matins with My Father for the First Time
165
always somehow strict, harsh with herworse than a stranger! And my

mother, oh man, poor her, she was like a saint, a good-hearted woman,
watching him like an ostrich when brooding over its egg. When he snapped at
her, she would burst out crying. Moreover, she had to hide her tears not only
from our father but from us, too. He would never take her out, neither would
she dare to ask him to. He couldnt stand her interfering with his trading or his
own business in any way. Once she dared to say:
Mitar, why dont you give the brandy to Stanoje? Therell soon be plenty
of new, and where will you place it?
And all of a sudden, he started yelling at her:
Are you hungry maybe, or are you in need of something? Money is in
your hand, if you run out of it, youll only have to say so! Just try to stay out
of my business!
Mama said nothing and had the hangdog look.
He spoke to other people poorly as well. He had his group of friends who
gathered at the tavern. And with them only, he would say a word or two. The
only person whom my father highly respected was his godfather Ilija; he was
also the only one who could tell my father whatever came to his mind and
whom my father strictly looked in awe.
My father loved uschildren, our mother, that was obvious, but he was
way too strict with us. I cant ever remember any sign of affection and
tenderness from him. Whenever we were uncovered at night, true, he would
tuck us in again, he did not let us bend over the well and climb the mulberry
treeso what? That was what the other fathers did, but the other fathers also
bought their children candy, gold paper and a rubber ball that bounced so high
as if it were thrown from the poplar tree!
He went to church only on St Georges Day, but he went to tavern every
night. We were having dinner, and he would put a chibouk under his left arm,
stuck his tobacco pouch into his belt, and he took to his heels. He came back
at 9 p.m. in summer and even earlier in winter, but sometimes the clock struck
midnight and he was still out. That troubled my sister and my motherI did
not know anything about a night on the town at the timethey never went to
sleep before his return, even if he came back at dawn. They were sitting in
their beds, wouldnt dare to light a candle. You see, my father got mad if he
only saw one burning.
One time, when he came back home, I heard him grumble:
Why is this candle burning at this hour, what is that?
Well, that you can see while you are taking your clothes off, my mother
said.
166
Laza K. Lazarevi
Is that so? I cant light a candle myself, or maybe Im drunk, so I cannot

find one?
Well, no Mitar, she was trying to please him, Im just saying
Saying what? Because of you the neighbors will think that I have the
dead body in my house.
Cmon, a dead body! Did you think he actually meant what he had said?
Like he cared about the neighbors! He didnt want my mother to pay any
attention to his comings and goings so that he could be left alone and enjoyed
himself as much as possible while he was out. It was clear that this troubled
him, too.
He drank a little, only wine. As for the brandy, when he wanted to buy
some, he tried it, spit it out and made a sour face. He also didnt like coffee
much So what in the world did he do in taverns and cafes all night long,
you ask?
Misery, thats what it was! If only he drank, that would be half of the
trouble. But, wait Youll see!
It shortened half of my mothers life. She cried, sometimes I thought she
would die crying. But she wouldnt tell a soul what was troubling her.
One day, he came home late nothing! He came the day after
nothing! When, suddenly, oh man, my mother noticed he didnt have his
watch. The woman was in shock, asked him:
Where is your watch, Mitar?
He frowned, looked the other way:
Ive sent it to Belgrade to have it repaired.
But, it worked quite well, Mitar.
I guess Im neither blind nor crazy; I would be the first to know if the
watch is working or not.
What could my mother say, she had no comment. Later she wept together
with my sister. Poor me! Hell give away everything we have, and when I
grow old I will have to wash other peoples shirts to support the family!
One day, againIm not sure if it was 10 p.m. or not, he unexpectedly
came from the tavern. He cocked an astrakhan fur hat, a gold chain thick as a
rope hung over his chest, a silver pistol ornamented with gold and precious
stones was stuck in his belt. He came in, skin around his left eye seemed to
wrinkle. He was in a good mood for some reason.
As soon as he entered the house, he pulled out his watch. As if to see what
time it was.
So youve won it back she jerked So, your watch has already been
repaired?
Its been repaired! he said.
167
And what kind of chain is that?

Chain, like any other chain, but he said this softly, not yelling.
I know that, my mother said, but, where did you get it?
I bought it!
And that fur hat? Only Mia the treasurer has those.
I bought it, too.
He sold it to you?
He sold it to me.
And what
But at that very moment, my father gave her askance look, so she shut up.
He began taking his clothes off. I peeked under my duvet. He took a
bundle as big as a fist out of his belt, threw it on the table. It jingled, oh man,
it was full of nothing but ducats.
Here! he said, put this away! Then he went into the kitchen. My
mother, using only two fingers as if she was picking up a childrens dirty
diaper, took that paper bundle.
And what in the world shall I do, she turned to my sister with this
money? It is accursed. It came straight from the devil. The devil will take it
back the same way as he has given it!
As you can see, that wasnt life, there was no happiness around.
And therefore my mother was miserable and all of us around her were
miserable, too
Once upon a time, my mother used to tell me, my father had been a
completely different man. Even I remember him that way, vaguely though,
the way he used to hold me on his knee when I was very little, how he made a
whistle out of reed for me, how he put me in the cart and took me out in the
fields. But my mother said everything was turned upside down and went
wrong when he started hanging out with Mia the treasurer, Krsta from
Makevina street, Olbrekt the pharmacist, and the people alike. He became
snappish. He couldnt stand questioning whatsoever, he would turn sidewise
and said: Mind your own business. Or he would say: Dont you have other
things to worry about?
No use, I told you: he realized himself that what he was doing was wrong;
but it possessed him, God be with us, and would not let him go.
Yet still, its funny to say, but still, still he was a good man. He was, I
swear to God! But so
One day he returned home. But he wasnt alone. My mother was puzzled.
He passed by the door with someone else quietly mumbling, and they stepped
into the yard. After some time we heard the neighing and stamping of the
horse. I didnt know what was going on.
168
Laza K. Lazarevi
Later, when he came into the house, I began to snore, my sister pretended
to be asleep, too.
He said good evening and nothing else. He was silent, my mother was
silent, and I was waiting. Then my mother started with a hoarse voice:
They took the black horse!
They took it, he said.
They went silent again, only my mother blew her nose several times, and
I felt she was crying.
Mitar, for the love of God, for the sake of these children of ours, get rid,
my brother, off trafficking with the devil. Those who stick to the devil lose
this world and the next. Look at Jova the card player, look at him now! Such a
wealthy householder, and now he fell so low that he must sift through
someone elses cones and buy skins for the Jews. For the sake of God, cant I
get some sympathy from you? When I grow old Ill have to seek breads crust
in other peoples homes, and our children will have to become servants
Then she started sobbing.
My father rudely interrupted her:
Whats wrong with you, why are you swearing me in the name of our
children, and why are you mourning over my living body? Stop whining for
that wretched nag. It was me who bought it, not the other way around!
Tomorrow, Ill buy ten, if you want!
My mother cried even harder:
I know Mitar, my brother, she said it kindly, but the fiends want to
take everything from us. Leave, my brother, for the sake our little children,
leave the damn gamble! You know that what we own weve made with our
own bare hands and weve spat blood to gain this shelter, roof above our
heads. And now to let these greedy bustards throw me out from my own
property?
But who is throwing you out?
No one, my brother, but if you keep doing what youre doing, they
certainly are. That trade is doomed, accursed by God!
Didnt I tell you, at least a hundred times, not to preach to me and whine
for nothing! Do you think, think some crow has picked out my brain so that
Ill let my wife become my tutor?!
The noble soul was silent. It was choking. No tears left to be shed. They
were running through her chest, falling on her heart turning into stone.
The days went by, nothing could change the old habit. He would often
bring rolls of money. He would also lose it. There were days when he would
return home without his rings, his watch, his golden embroidered belt. Then
again, he would come back with two-three watches, several rings. One day it
169
would be a pair of boots, a cloak, a horse saddle, or a dozen silver spoons;

once it was even a barrel full of liquorices, and all sorts of other trifles. One
evening he brought a black horse, our horse, the same one we used to have.
He bought a new harness the next day. Belts hung below knees of the
horses legs, and the fringes beat against its jaws. My father harnessed the
horse to the cart, stuck a chair on the stores door to shut it, and vroom he
rumbled through the town so fast that cobblestones came out flying under the
horses hoofs. We already became numb, except for my Mom. She would
keep on crying and worrying. And how wouldnt she, tell me?
The trade was neglected. The boys who worked for him were being fired,
one by one. Everything went like in any unfortunate house, and the money
melted like snow on fire. Those friends of his, even, started coming to our
house. They would close themselves into a big room, lit several candles,
smoked tobacco, the cards slipped, and our boy Stojan was making coffee for
them non-stop during the night (and in the morning, he would show us several
ducats that he got as a tip). And our mama sat with us in another room; her
eyes were red, her face pale, her hands dry, and every now and then she
would repeat: Please God, be our friend!
And that was how he completely became detached from home. He never
spoke. He never looked my mother in the eye. He never caressed uschildren,
he wouldnt say a harsh, let alone, some nice word. He would give as much
money as we wanted. If I wanted to buy a slate pencil, he would take out the
money that would be enough for the whole package. He would only buy the
best food in town. My clothes were the latest fashion. But then again, when I
looked at my mother and my sister, something heavy weighed on my heart,
they were completely aged, pale, sad and grave. They never left the house,
they even rarely went to peoples Slavas. Women seldom paid us visits, only
men came, especially rakes and brigands, as my mother used to call them.
The store was almost closed. Do you expect memy father said-to measure
twenty cents worthy indigo to some boor. Jews are for thatlet them go to
their shops! Mother didnt dare to say a single word. She said he once told
her:
Listen now, listen and remember carefully what I have to say to you: if
you ever try, once again in your life, to tell me anything to do with this matter,
I will find myself a house and I will move out; and you can preach here to
whomever you want. RE-MEM-BER THIS AS LONG AS YOU LIVE!
Poor woman, her lips were sealed. Her heart was heavy. She was
withering day after day and praying: Dear God, please do not leave me.
So, I guess, you can see what will come out of this!
170
Laza K. Lazarevi
All of them came together one night. Certain Pera Zelemba was with
them, too. He was a pig merchant, as they said with connections in
Budapest. His moustaches were waxed. His hair was split in half at the back,
and had whiskers down to chin. His face was fat, his body flabby. He cocked
some small hat on the side, and over his vest he wore a gold chain-the exact
one my Papa used to have. He had a ring, which sparkled, really, oh man, it
sparkled that it couldnt be looked at. He waggled while walking; when he
spoke his voice was loud and raucous, still he was smiling with those eyes as
green as wrath so that fear could capture you as if some eagle-owl was staring
at you. So they came, as I said, and Stojan immediately found himself near the
stove and started making coffee!
They lit four candles. The tobacco smoke poured into the air and rose as if
coming from some chimney. They were drinking coffee in silence like the
Turks, only the cards slipped and the clinking of the ducats could be heard.
That was a dreadful night!
We were shut in another room with our mother. She no longer cried.
Neither did my sister. They had haggard faces and hollow eyes. They were
just staring and looked terribly scared. The day my uncle had died was
nothing compared to this. Our father entered the room we were in, several
times. He was all sweaty. He had unbuttoned his vest and unhooked his shirt
so his thick, black hair on his chest could be seen. He was frowning like some
Turk.
I want more! he said to my mother.
Her heart shrank. Silent as if made of stone, she opened a chest and from
her hand poured money into his and he tied it in a handkerchief. He glanced
nervously from side to the side, stamping his feet in the same way I stamped
mine while my friends were waiting for me outside and I had to wait my sis to
cut me a slice of bread. He took the money, turned his head the other way, and
mumbled as if for himself: This is the last time! And then, he just ran out of
the room. I thought I heard this is the last time at least five times till three
oclock in the morning. More! he said to my mother, and his face was livid.
My Mom started moving towards the chest, her knees tottering, her whole
body bending forward. Then, I saw, under the quilts, how that huge father of
mine quivered and leaned against the stove.
Faster! he said to my mother, stamping with his feet and wiping the
sweat from his forehead with the sleeve. Mama handed him the money.
I want all of it! said he.
The last ten ducats, she said. But that was not the voice or a whisper
any more, but something like a death rattle.
He grabbed the money and rushed out of the room.
171
My Mom drooped beside the chest and fainted. My sister screamed. I

jumped out of my bed. My brother okica, too. We all sat around her on the
floor; we were kissing her hand: Mommy, mommy. She laid her hand on
my head, and started whispering something. All of a sudden, she jumped, lit a
hanging light before the icon of St. George.
Come, my children, pray to God, to get us out of this disaster! she said.
Her voice rang like a bell, her eyes were shining bright like Polaris in the sky.
We all ran to her to gather under the icon, we kneeled, and okica
kneeled in front of our mother, his face turned towards her, crossing himself
and, poor little thing, reading aloud one half of Our Father that he had already
learned. He was crossing himself and kissing our mothers hand, and then he
was looking at her again. Two rivers of tears ran from her eyes. Her eyes were
directed to the saint and to Heaven. There was something up there that she
saw; there was her God, whom she was looking at and who was looking at
her. At that moment, some bliss and light poured out on her face, and it
seemed to me that God caressed her with his hand, and that the saint was
smiling and that the dragon died under his spear. My eyes dazzled after that
and I prostrated myself beside her dress, kissed her left hand with which she
kept me back and I said a prayer for the hundredth time: God, you see my
mother! God I ask thee for my Papa! And then, I dont know why, God, kill
that Zelemba!
We prayed for a long time.
My mother got up later, climbed a chair and kissed St. George. My sister
did the same.
She lifted me and okica so we kissed it, too. Then my mother took dry
branches of basil which stood behind the icon and a bottle with Epiphany
water under it, then she soaked the basil, and while she was whispering
something she made a sign of cross in the room. She opened the door slowly,
with her fingers, and came to a big room, and made a sign of cross with the
basil spray on its door.
Oh, I was relieved! How blessed I felt as if I were being bathed! How
come I couldnt feel that way any longer?
My mother had hardly made the sign of the cross on the door of the big
room, when a tumult began inside. Not a word could have been distinguished
only when Zelemba shouted as loud as he could Who can make me play
further? Show me that man?
Noise in the room started again. Arguing and mumbling. We heard the
door was opened, some complaining and footsteps.
But my dad didnt enter the room. We waited in vain. The sun rose and
okica and I fell asleep, he didnt come yet.
172
Laza K. Lazarevi
When I woke up the sun was high. I felt terribly tired and empty, but I
couldnt close my eyes any more. I was on my feet, everything seemed
somehow solemn, but sad. It was quiet outside, fresh air fell through an open
window, and little flame was still flickering in the icon lamp. My mother and
sister, white as linen, their eyes were wet, faces like made of wax, were
cracking their fingers, walked around on tiptoes without speaking, except for
whispering some godly words. They didnt bring us breakfast, they didnt ask
if we were hungry, my mother didnt send me to school.
What is going on here? I wondered. Do we have a corpse in the house,
or my late uncle returned so it would be appropriate to bury him again.
Then, I shuddered when I remembered what had happened the night
before and murmured mechanically: God, you know that about Papa! And
again: God, kill that Zelemba already!
Without thinking, I got dressed and left the room and unintentionally I
moved towards the big rooms door, but I quickly jerked, because I felt how
my mother gripped my hand. I turned, but she didnt say anything, just put a
finger over her mouth to show me to remain silent; she took to the front door
and let me go. She returned to the room, and I was standing at the door.
My eyes were following her-I didnt know what to think.
Once again, I sneaked on my toes to the big room, so I peeked through the
keyhole.
I was watching.
A big table was in the middle of the room, chairs scattered around it; two
or three were overturned. Thousands of cards laid on the floor, cigars some
trodden on, some were whole, one broken coffee cup and below some card a
ducat gleamed. A tablecloth was pulled half off. Scattered cards were on it,
overturned cups full of stubs and tobacco ashes. Several empty plates on it,
only one filled with the tobacco ashes cleaned from someones pipe. Four
empty candlesticks; just one with the coarse paper, a candle was wrapped
around, was burning, and the black smoke was calmly rising, reaching the
ceiling.
On a chair at the table, with his back turned to the door, there was my
father sitting. With both elbows he leaned against the table, his forehead in his
hands, and he didnt move.
I was watching that scene for a long time, but he remained motionless. I
only saw his loins were gathering and bloating. I was thinking something
strange and dark. It seemed to me, for example, and as a matter a fact I didnt
173
know why, that he was dead, so I wondered how it was possible that a dead
man was breathing. Then I thought that strong hand of his was made of
cardboard and that he wouldnt be able to hit with it anymore. And other
thoughts alike crossed my mind. Only God knew how long I would I have
stayed peeking If my mothers hand had not touch me again. With her eyes
she showed me the way to the front door. Iwith no reason explainable
took off my cap, kissed her hand, and went out.
It was Saturday. I found myself on the street, people lived their everyday
life, regularly walking, everyone minding ones own business. Lots of
peasants brought all kinds of goods to the market. The merchants peeked into
bags, touching the lambs. Novak the policeman was shouting and determined
who and where should put the cart. The children stole cherries. Sreten the
town scribe, went through the crowd with the drummer, reading aloud that the
pigs were not allowed to walk freely in the streets. Trivko took out a lamb and
shouted: Over here. Just roasted! Hot! and Joza, the drunkard, danced in a
puddle.
And why, is your store closed? Ignjat the furrier who was just passing
by, asked me.
Because! I said
Mitar isnt ill, is he?
No, he isnt, I replied.
He had gone somewhere, I suppose?
To the village, I said and escaped to the courtyard.
Suddenly, two so-called boys of honor came, that is, my schoolmates
who had been sent by the teacher to see why I had not come to school. Only
then I realized that I had to go. I picked up my books and took a piece of
bread, but I looked at my mother and the boys.
Say to the master, kids, that Mia couldnt go to school because he had
some things to do.
Oh, that hand! I wish I could have kissed it enough, when she was asleep,
when she couldnt see me! What happened in our house while I was at
schoolI didnt know As a matter of fact, I knew: because when I got back
from school, I found the things were the same as from the moment I had left.
My mother and my sister were sitting with their hands in their laps, not even
the dinner was prepared, they were passing by the big room on their toes and
sighedthe same way when my uncle had died. okica, in the courtyard, tied
a coffee pot on a cats tail having fun when the cat was running. The boys
were sewing on rugs in their chambers, while Stojan sprawled out in hay and
snored as if it was the middle of the night. My father was still sitting in the
174
Laza K. Lazarevi
same was, not moving. His fur-lined coat was fastened around his broad back
and opened wide at his waist from the heavy breathing.
Vesper bells had rung long ago. The day was approaching its end, and in
our soul remained the same open sea-end was nowhere at sight, but only the
cloud gathered thicker and thicker. Everything became more unbearable, more
terrible and more desperate. God, please, take a turn for the better!
I was sitting at the doorstep, in front of the house. I held some schoolbook
in my hands, but I didnt read it. In I saw in the window my mothers pale
face, resting on her little feverish hand. My ears rang. I simply couldnt think.
Suddenly, the lock clicked. The door of the big room was open. My mother
disappeared from the window. He was standing at the thresholdhemy
father!
He pushed his fez back a bit, so his hair fell over his wide forehead. His
moustache drooped and his face had grown somber and old. But, his eyes,
those eyes! They had nothing to do with the eyes he once had had. They had
simply vanished, they sunk into his head; half covered by the lids, they were
moving slowly, looking out unsteadily and having a blank expression, they
didnt seek anything, they didnt think anything. They were somewhat empty
and they looked like binoculars with broken glasses. He had a sad but
gracious smile on his face- that had never been seen before. My uncle had the
same expression when he had asked for Communion before he died. He went
slowly down the hall, opened the door of our room, looked in, and without
saying anything, he quickly withdrew. He closed the door and went out into
the street, and slowly headed to his Godfather Ilijas house.
Later, Toma, Ilijas son, told me that my father and his father closed
themselves in one room, that they talked there quietly for a long time, that
they were brought some paper and ink in there, that they wrote something,
that they stamped it and so on. But, what that was, no one knew and no one
had ever found out. Around half past ten, we were all in our beds, only my
mother was sitting with hands on her lap, and she was looking insignificantly
at the candle. At that moment the door of the courtyard creaked. My mother
blew out the candle and went to bed.
Under my quilts, my heart was beating so hard that it seemed to me
someone was hitting my chest with a hammer.
The door opened and my father entered. Once or twice he turned around
himself, took his clothes off without lighting a candle and went to bed. I heard
him turning in the bed for a long time and then I fell asleep. I wasnt aware of
how long had I been sleeping until I felt something wet on my forehead. I
opened my eyes and looked: Fool moon was watching directly into my room,
and its spider web ray fell on my mothers face. Her eyes were closed, her
175
face was like the face of a gravely sick person, and her breasts were moving
up and down restlessly. Above her, my father was standing. He was staring at
her, motionless. After a while he approached our beds. He was looking at all
of us, he was looking at my sister. Then again, he returned to the centre of the
room, turned around himself and whispered:
They are sleeping. But he shuddered at the sound of his own whisper
and it seemed he turned into stone, right there in the middle of the room. He
was standing like that for a long time, without making a move, except, I
noticed from time to time his eyes flashed when he looked first at us then and
at our mother. But we didnt even move our ears!
Then he tiptoed, lowered his upper part of the body, moving quietly to the
hanger, and without taking his eyes off us carefully unhooked his silver gun,
put it under his coat, pulled his fez over his eyes and walking with quick, long
strides, went out of the house. The door had not even been closed yet, when
my mother rose up in her bed. My sister did the same. They looked like some
ghosts.
My mother got up quickly and with caution and went to the door. My sis
followed her.
Stay with the children! My mother whispered and went out.
I jumped, and started to the door. My sis caught me by my arm, but I
broke loose and told her:
Stay with the children!
When I got out of the house, I ran to the fence, slipping along the fence,
hiding under the cherry trees. I dragged myself to the well and I crouched
behind it.
The night was divinely beautiful! The sky was radiant. The moon
sparkled, the air was fresh-nothing was moving anywhere. Suddenly, I saw
my Dad, he peeped over the boys room window, then went on. He finally
stopped under the shed of the barn and drew out a gun. But at the very same
moment, my mother, out of nowhere, appeared next to him. The man was
dumbstruck. He fixed his eyes upon her and gaped.
Mitar, brother, my master, what do you have in mind?
My father was stuck there like a candle. He was staring at my mother. His
eyes were empty, his voice sounded like a broken bell:
Go away, Marica, leave me, Im ruined!
Ruined? God be with you, why are you saying that?
I gave everything away! He said and opened his arms wide open.
So what! It was you who earned it!
My father with one step back yielded and gaped at my mother.
But, everything! he said, everything, everything!
176
Laza K. Lazarevi
So what! said my Mom.

The horse, too! he said.
An old nag! she answered.
And the field!
A desert!
He came close to my mother, looking straight into her eyes as if he would
scorch her. But she stood there like a God saint.
And the house! he said, opening his eyes very wide.
So what! And what of it? my mother said. May you stay hale and
hearty!
Marica!
Mitar!
What are you saying, Marica?
Im saying: May God grant you and our little children long life! Neither
house nor field fed us, but you, our breadwinner! None of us shall be hungry
as long as you are with us!
It seemed my father swerved a bit so he leaned on my mothers shoulder
with his elbow.
Marica, he started. Are you? He choked. He covered his eyes and
became silent.
My mother took his hand.
When we got married, we started from a scratch. We had nothing, except
that bedsheet, one baking pan, and two or three barrels, while today, thank
God, our house is full.
I saw a drop, which shone in the moonlight, falling from under my
fathers sleeve.
Have you forgotten that the garret is full of cones?
It is full! My father said in a voice soft as silk. He pulled his sleeve over
his eyes, and took his hand down.
What is my thread of ducats doing there? What is that money doing on
the ground? Take it for the trade!
Well invest it in wheat.
Are we too old? We are healthy, thank God, and our children are healthy
as well. We shall pray to God and start all over again
Like the honest people!
You are not stupid like some men. I would not give your hands for all
the money of Paranos, even if it were as twice as big.
And then we shall have another house!
We will bring up our children in the right path, my mother said.
177
So they will not curse me when Im dead It has been a while since I
have seen them!
Go, and see them! my mother said and took him by his hand as he were
a little child.
But I had already been in my room. I only whispered to my sister: Get
into bed and I pulled the bed covers over my head.
The moment those two crossed the threshold, the church bells struck for
the matins. They thunderously re-echoed through the still night and the
Christian soul shook. Like a wave of dry branches their sound chased away
pain and grief, tore the chains of vanity, and the humble soul spoke with
heaven
Rise, my son! Were going to church!
When I went to Belgrade last year to buy some merchandise, I saw Pera
Zelemba, at Topider. He was in a dress of a convict.
He was crushing a boulder!
Translated by Sneana Bogdanovi
Mother
I remember you!
From that moment when my alive, but cold lips kissed your dead, though,
still warm forehead, a lot was cut into my memory board, but your picture,
your name were nowhere truncated. It was inscribed with different letters.
And when a crazy hour comes and smashes my board, it seems to me, your
name will still glow by virtue of its fiery letters. Who cares that Ill be gone as
well? This worm, who will savor my meat, will remember you.
Unknown, left, remote, you continued peacefully and quietly your
turbulent and hard days. Is it my love solely that lifts you above all other
women? Or were you really a heroine and a philosopher? Serbian mother,
mother? Is the history of your life real? Is it true what Ive seen and heard? Is
it possible that everything is truth, that Ive seen it all, and that you are dead
and Im alive?
Oh, woman, you martyr, you saint! If you could only see with what piety
I kneel before your image! If I could only make my brain create you right in
front of me in hallucination! I dont care, the world would call me crazy
happiness is strictly my business!
Here, I can still feel how your little dry hand enthrallingly tickles my
neckah! How you gladly bend it around my neck! Why are you shivering,
my soul, my life, life of my death! You were not shivering when hunger
gnashed at you. You were not shivering when a mocking stranger pointed
finger at you and your offspring, because you supported your family
independently. You didnt even shiver the first night, when, far away from me
and your loved ones, after the finished work, you kept your chin up, alone in
the desert, you tucked your children in, extinguished the candle and looked
into a vain, unknown, uncertain night!
Yes! In those moments you thought about me. Right? And now, when Im
with you, now youre certain that we form the One, so now you dont entirely
rely on yourself.
Where are you taking me?
Look! How the dusk descends in enchanting way. The Sava spreads
quietly and caresses the island inside its skirt. Millions of voices can be heard
from the island. They shiver and enchant so miraculously just like your little
180
Laza K. Lazarevi
dry hand around my neck. Dont you know who pours those millions of
voices that your heart, I see, swims on? Hey, those are nightingales!
Of course, oh soul, that she remembers you! Oh, God, cant you hear?
She tells you that you remember her as well!
Oh my God! You sent my child to herGlory to thee! She will take
better care of him than I did. But, dont get angry with me for asking you one
more thing: send them some of these nightingales! Do you have in that
kingdom of yours more people who are so grateful and satisfied with almost
nothing?
Am I right when I tell that you are relieved, soul, when you see that I
remember you?
Can you see your tombstone? That is me, me! Look how big I am!
Pyramids are like millet to me! Who else has such a huge tombstone? Which
tombstone has such a huge grave? Alas! Heres a worm! Is he, oh, the horror!
He dares? Is he the sanctity?! He-my brother!
Translated by Sneana Bogdanovi
INTERPRETATION:
A New Understanding of Laza K. Lazarevics Story

To Matins with Father for the First Time and
One Hundred Years of the Interpretive Norm
To my daughter and to my sons
a woman's reading pleasure in any patriarchal society must be a product of

false consciousnessthat is, of one's having been successfully indoctrinated
in ideas hostile to one's true interests.
(Nina Baym, The Feminist Teacher of Literature,
in Gender in the Classroom, ed. Susan L. Gabriel and
Isaiah Smithson (Chicago: University of Illinois
Press, 1990), 64.)
Nobody who was not open to dialogue with others, willing to listen, argue
honestly and admit when he or she was wrong could make real headway in
investigating the world.
(Terry Eagleton, After Theory (New York: Basic
Books, 2003), 133.)
Studies of Laza K. Lazarevis Works during the

Twentieth Century and Possibilities for
Different Interpretations
In this chapter the author examines the epistemological validity of statements offered by historians and professors of Serbian literature which interpret stories by Laza K. Lazarevi as defense of patriarchy. The author will
shed light on some inadequate interpretations of Lazarevis female literary
characters, and especially of a mother from his famous story To Matins
with Father for the First Time. The fictional character of Mother is described in a special way, quite unusual for the time. Connections are explained between the gender of the interpreters, their power, and constructed
knowledge, which the text of Lazarevis story does not support as plausible.
I remember my class on Serbo-Croatian literature in 10th grade at Belgrade

High School V in 198586 in which we discussed Laza Lazarevis story, To
Matins with Father for the First Time. I simply could not understand why our
teacher, Katarina Radovanovi, kept repeating Maricas words, Mitar, my
brother and my lord, enthusiastically interpreting them as proof of the wifes
unconditional acceptance of her subservience to her husband. These very
words resonated within me as profound irony concealing within itself a
strange mixture of bitterness and pride, the cause of which was not a wifes
unconditional acceptance of her subservience to her husband.
This other and different awareness that Marica had of womens values,
which I could have only guessed at then, I was to discover two decades later
while revisiting Maricas rhetorical bravura, was of womens self-awareness.
I finally understood that generations of university professors had resolutely
ignored and erased something from our cultural memory. That something is
the fact that Marica is a very rare example in Serbian prose of that period of a
woman who addresses her husband by his given name; that in her attempts to
talk to her husband on an equal footing, she uses rational and direct speech;
that her opposition to his bad choices and feeble excuses is always well argued, although quickly arrested by threats and interdiction of her speech; that
184
Svetlana Tomi
the entire story, To Matins with Father for the First Time, is informed by
ironically, and therefore falsely, focusing on the father, and while consistently
presenting the character of the mother as a woman who plays the key role in
the family and in its survival. The very fact that this drastically changed perspective is given us in the confession of the son makes it possible for something more significant to come to light.
However, viewed from the vantage point of my personal experience described above, instruction at that time consisted mainly of orally dictated official literary interpretations with the pupils obediently taking down the professors words and repeating them at examination time. Not much more was required of students even later when in the early nineties I read the works of
Serbian literature professors who all spoke with one voice and interpreted
Lazarevis stories as patriarchal idealizationan interpretation which is
still dominant and was the only one available to my high school teacher who
handed it down to her students without altering it in any significant way.
In the course of writing my Ph.D. (Typology of Heroes and Heroines in
the Prose of Serbian Realism from the Gender Point of View) and after detailed research and comparison of Lazaravis nine stories with primary literature on Lazarevi, I concluded that Lazarevis stories signify the very opposite meanings offered and defended by literary histories, criticism, and methodologies for over one hundred years. The history of interpretation of Lazarevis stories as a defense of patriarchal society begins with Professor
Ljubomir Nedis study, published in 1901, in which he maintains that Lazarevi saw patriarchal society [and] family as the foundations of morality,1
while one may argue that Lazarevis stories themselves postulate a different
vision and offer epistemological grounds for the validity of opposite statements. They criticize authoritarian and aggressive fathers (To Matins with
Father for the First Time, 1879), and even the state which fails to take care of
its young disabled veterans, thus invalidating their sacrifice and reducing it to
an act of self-destruction. (Sve e to narod pozlatiti (The People Will Reward All of This), 1882). Nowhere in his canonized stories does Lazarevi
write about a united family. He writes rather about indecisive sons and weakwilled males (Vetar (The Wind) 1889, Verter (Werther) 1881, vabica (The German Girl)),2 whose tragic destinies are, to a large extent,
1
Ljubomir Nedi presented his views on Lazarevi in his book, Noviji srpski pisci (Belgrade:
tamparija Kraljevine Srbije, 1901). I used the text of the article Laza K. Lazarevi in
Celokupna dela II (Belgrade, Narodna prosveta, n.d.), 294.
2
According to the editor of the annotated edition of Lazarevis stories (Laza Lazarevi, Celokupna dela (Belgrade: SANU, 1986), vabica was the first story Lazarevi tried to write and
which he continued to write throughout his life, even on his deathbed, searching for the right
form and not finding it. Nor did he leave any suggestions for its possible final construction.
Studies of Lazarevis Work during the Twentieth Century
185
caused by authoritarian mothers, who in fact personify patriarchal heads of

familiesor, more exactly, represent the type of mother the law giver who
frequently as widows assume the power they did not have as wives. The most
radical example of this type of mother is given in Lazarevis story, The
Wind (1886). To this day, no analyses of this story specifically indicate that
the story is about platonic incest, a topic which in any case was very rare in
Serbian realist prose.3 The above mentioned variants of mother types do not
significantly vary from the types of cruel, selfish, and unjust mothers found in
the works of Jakov Ignjatovi (in his novels Vasa Repekt 1875 and Veiti
mladoenja (The Eternal Bridegroom), 1878), Draga Gavrilovi (Devojaki
roman (A Young Girls Novel), 1889), or in the stories of Milka Grgurova
(Vera, 1897 and The Gypsy Woman (Ciganka), 1900). Nedis assertion is particularly inapplicable to Lazarevis story To Matins with Father
for the First Time, where, through the narrative of the son Mia, the immoral
foundation of a patriarchal family is revealed. Because the son sees that Mitar,
the father, is not grounding his family by his virtues but by his might, by
force, by aggression, and by violence, which his father is empowered to use
According to the assumptions of literary historian ore ivanovi, the first version of vabica probably dates to 1876. Although it is known that the author himself did not wish to publish it, it was published only after his death in 1898. The versions of vabica which exist in
published forms are not exactly Lazarevis product, but rather the reconstruction of a series
of fragments representing the ideas of the editor of Lazarevis stories.
3
According to French female theoreticians, platonic incest is incest without the act. It is a form
of narcissistic abuse on the part of one parent, whose power devastates the child; it is a relation
which implies the exclusion of the third. See Caroline Eliacheff and Natalie Heinich,
Majkakeri: Odnos utroje, trans. Bosiljka Brlei (Zagreb: Prometej, 2004), 4857. In
Lazarevis The Wind, the father, who is dead, is excluded. In this story, the widowed
mother Soka has her son, a thirty-year-old male, not only under psychological but also physical
complete control: they sleep in such close proximity to each other that she can hear him
breathemaybe they even share her double bed, which the author does not explicitly say but
vividly suggests by his insistence on their uncommon and unexpected physical closeness as
well as on various intense physical contacts which occur only within the walls of their house.
Mother Soka still holds her sons head in her lap; she coos to him as she washes his hair and
inspects it for lice; she caresses him. The most symbolic focus in this relationship is precisely
this placing of the sons head over the mothers sexual organ which denotes the sons
concurrence in subordinating himself to the authoritarian mother and all her repressed desires
of which the dominant one is her sexuality. The key problem in the story is Mother Sokas
constant meddling with her sons marriage plans and her attaching him more and more securely
to herself, her space, her psyche, and her body. For this reason, from the very beginning, the
reader must closely observe to what extent the sons public praises of Mother Soka, as the ideal
Serbian woman, diverge from his private suffering under his mothers orders which she
presents as most benevolently neutral.
186
Svetlana Tomi
by patriarchal law, even though his mother Marica is superior to his father
both intellectually and morally.
Jovan Skerli, also a respected literary critic, university professor, and the
author of Istorija nove srpske knjievnosti (A History of the New Serbian Literature) maintains that Lazarevi was a constant defender of patriarchal mores and morals.4 A converse opinion could be defended because, again, in the
story To Matins with Father for the First Time, Lazarevi shows us a
mother who abandons the patriarchal-centric role of the defender of the father-son connection and manages to win the moral support of the son by developing her sons awareness of the fathers humiliating treatment of his wife
as a woman and a mother. However, Skerli considers that, in his stories,
Lazarevi thematizes the unconditional, blind cult of the family and that he
was a constant defender of patriarchal mores and morals,5 adding that these
were not simply his moral tenets and social ideas but his pedagogical pretensions.6 He disregards the fact that Lazarevis writings do not glorify the
family as a place of harmonious bonding between human beings. Rather, they
persistently probe each individual drama which in the end is resolved in a
message about the collective tragedy.
Very frequently Lazarevi depicts families as damaged in the psychological dramatization in which only two characters participate, representing two
opposing gender classes, playing atypical roles, and, aided by the inevitable
ironic subtext, offering very singular, uncustomary visions of a more modern
society. In his History, Skerli writes that in the conflict between the patriarchal family and the new individualistic culture Lazarevi was wholly on the
side of the old order, of tradition.7 As we shall prove in this study, neither the
above mentioned story nor his entire corpus of stories demonstrates what
Skerli saw in Lazarevis writingsmoralistic dogmatism a narrowminded and old-fashioned view of life traditionalism, conservatism.8 Nor
can we accept as correct Skerlis assertion that Lazarevi lagged behind his
Skerlis evaluations of Lazarevi were made public first in the article Laza K. Lazarevi,
dated 1906 and reprinted as Skerli Laza K. Lazarevi, Studije i kritike, izbor (Belgrade:
Zavod za udbenike i nastavna sredstva, 1999). Skerli repeated these evaluations in his
Istorija nove srpske knjievnosti, published in 1914. In my research I used the 1953 edition
(Belgrade: Rad), 36167, here 364.
5
Skerli, Laza K.Lazarevi, 77.
6
Skerli, Istorija, 364.
7
Skerli, Istorija, 364. This work is available to readers on the Internet as part of a project of
the Belgrade Teachers College entitled Antologija srpske knjievnosti (An Anthology of Serbian
Literature), www.ask.rs, p. 297.
8
187
time and was closer in spirit to the old than to the new writers.9 Detailed
analyses have led us to evaluate Lazarevi in terms diametrically opposed to
those of Skerli: Lazarevi was far ahead of his time and therefore closer to
the new writers.
It seems to me that Skerlis heir in literary criticism, Jovan Dereti, university professor of Serbian literature, literary critic, and author of Istorija
srpske knjievnosti (A History of Serbian Literature), has adopted Skerlis
views somewhat too readily and without sufficient critical questioning. In his
Istorija, Dereti writes that Lazarevis stories contain explicitly expressed idealization of the old patriarchal world and its values.10 Dereti
defines Lazarevis stories as patriarchal idylls11 although they contain
nothing idyllic, i.e., peace, harmony, happiness, and contentment, nor can
such a life of idyllic simplicity and naturalness be found in the country.
Dereti maintains that Lazarevis stories contain a sui generis Utopia, a
picture of the ideal society in which an individual not only finds security and
protection but also a possibility of achieving personal happiness.12 Deretis
perception must appear particularly questionable in the case of To Matins
with Father for the First Time, which Dereti describes as a nostalgic story
of the woes of adults told by a child,13 disregarding the fact that this story
addresses very serious and politically significant problems. It tells of the conflict between a wife and her husband caused by a patriarchal, gender-unequal
distribution of power and family roles, while at the same time depicting the
destabilization of paternal authority by a different, positive coding given to
the mothers role in the family and not only by the gambling passion of the
father. The possibility, for instance, that Marica could achieve personal happiness in such ideal society is non-existent simply because she, as a
woman in a patriarchal society, has neither justice nor freedom.14 The question arises: for what reason does Dereti ascribe patriarchal Utopia to Lazarevi when Lazarevi himself neither presents nor defends it in his stories.
Lazarevis stories rather give the impression that their author perceives patri9

Jovan Dereti, Istorija srpske knjievnosti, 3rd expanded ed. (Belgrade: Prosveta, 2002), 853.
The greater part of this work by Dereti on Lazarevi is available on the Internet in his book
Kratka istorija srpske knjievnosti (A Short History of Serbian Literature), published as part of
Projekat Rastko, www.rastko.rs.
11
Dereti, Istorija, 855.
12
13
14
For the position of women in Serbia at that time, see Marija Draki and Olga PopoviObradovi, Pravni poloaj ene prema Srpskom graanskom zakoniku (18441946) in Srbija
u modernizacijskim procesima 19. i 20. veka, knjiga 2, Poloaj ene kao merilo modernizacije,
ed. Latinka Perovi (Belgrade: Institut za noviju istoriju Srbije, 1998), 1126.
10
188
Svetlana Tomi
archal morality as a utopia, as he can see no compatibility between what patriarchy advocates as morality and reality. Thus, it may be that the collision
between the imaginary and the real worlds points out Lazarevis yearnings
for a resolution of the conflict between patriarchal ideology and morality, a
conflict which exists, which is tolerated but never made public. Or more precisely, it is made public in narratives, almost always in their most dramatic
form, which is as confession, and invariably by younger males. In To Matins
with Father for the First Time, this young male is Mia; in The Wind,
Janko; and in The German Girl, the hero who is also called Mia and whose
confessions Lazarevi for the first time presents in the form of letters. His
other six stories are also told by males; only in Werther and in The People
Will Reward All of This does the role of narrators/eyewitnesses remain
masked, unidentified, obscured, and unnoticed, in the background, although
always present in the center of the action in the crowd both in open and enclosed spaces.
In this context, the change introduced by the author in To Matins with
Father for the First Time, which concerns the structure of the receiver of the
confessions message, is very important.15 In the first version of the story,
published in the spring of 1879 in the Viennese journal, Srpska zora (Dawn of
Serbia), Lazarevis character Mia relates his confession in a foreign country
to a small group of male friends, intellectuals belonging to the same age group
and nationality as the narrator:16 One winter evening we were sitting at the
table remembering our families in the far South when my friend began to talk
to me and our friends in this way17 In the second and universally accepted
version of To Matins with Father for the First Time, contained in the first
book published by Lazarevi, est pripovedaka (Six Stories) (Belgrade, 1886),
Lazarevi rejects possible connotations of Mias nostalgia for Serbia, the
memories of his family caused by the alien location of his brief stay abroad
(as a student?). The author decides to tie the entire story to the dramatic and
15
Regarding these changes see Posebne napomene (Special Notes) in Celokupna dela,
311.
16
This detail opens up problems connected with the genesis of the story, as well as with Lazarevis attitude towards Serbian cultural and national identity which can be important because
of the recently established Serbian statehood in the wake of the Congress of Berlin (1878). If
the structuring of the actual confession places it on foreign soil (Viennathe center of the
Austro-Hungarian Empire) and before the audience of a small number of male intellectuals,
then the story is concerned with the Serbian socio-cultural problem as well as the possibility of
expressing views differing from those in Serbia, the mother country. In this context, the decision of the author not to offer the story to literary and cultural journals in Serbia but to one published in Austria-Hungary is also very significant. At the time of Serbo-Turkish wars (1876
79), Lazarevi was in Serbian territory as a physicians aide in the Serbian Army.
17
Posebne napomene, 311.
189
moving confession of a man who addresses himself to all those who are listening, i.e., reading it. It is very important to note that no one interrupts
Mias confession. Moreover, Lazarevi in this second version omits the geographic space within which the confession occurs and replaces the narrow,
private, and gender-privileged audience of Mias confession by the broadest
possible audiencethe genderless and classless reading public or, in the ultimate analysis, by Serbian culture in general. The notes on various versions of
To Matins with Father for the First Time make it clear that from the start
Mias confession was conceived as a message to the broadest possible audience, that it was intended to be published one day as a story and that the narrator had carried this message within him since his childhood, since he was
nine years old. Similarly, a comparison of various versions of the story reveals that the compilers of Lazarevis Complete Works were incorrect when
they concluded that Lazarevis corrections were concerned virtually exclusively with the language.18 A careful comparison of various versions of Lazarevis stories shows that Lazarevi was very meticulous with his language
and style; he frequently revisited his stories, carefully modifying them. However, certain changes he made to them were not concerned only with the language but also with narrative strategies which are inseparable from the politically charged filtration of the text.
As Lazarevi in his story To Matins with Father for the First Time does
not emphasize the role of the mother in the raising of her daughterwhich
was the only focus of Serbian feminists of that timebut the role of the
mother in the education of her son and the development of his awareness of
gender discrimination, the reader can see to which degree Lazarevis views
and his system of values were atypical rather than characteristic of the patriarchal vs. modern civil society divide as is maintained by one of Deretis
followers, another university professor, critic, and historian, Duan Ivani.19
Ivani makes a point of Lazarevis depicting the family harmony in his
stories,20 while in his nine completed, canonized, and most frequently published stories Lazarevi actually tells the story of a young male rendered
tragically incapable of sustaining family life (Werther, The Wind, The
German Girl, The People Will Reward All of This). Neither can such
claims of family harmony be accepted as valid in the case of To Matins with
Father for the First Time, which depicts overt family disharmony embodied
in the authoritarian figure of the father who is a gambler, a spendthrift, a
18
See Branimir ivojinovis preface, Lazarevieve ispravke i varijante, in Nedi and

ivojinovi, eds., Laza K. Lazarevi, Celokupna dela, 15.
19
Duan Ivani, Srpski realizam (Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1996), 83.
20
Ivani, Srpski realizam, 83.
190
Svetlana Tomi
threat to the very existence of the family, and who rejects all of his wifes
wise counsel, thus thwarting all her efforts by forbidding her to speak.
Ivanis most problematic and unsubstantiated claim is the one in which
he states that in his stories Lazarevi postulates a desirable and dominant
role of the father.21 One could rightly ask on what basis Ivani could claim
that Lazarevi postulates in his stories a desirable and dominant role of the
father if in six out of nine storiesthe greater part of his opus (U dobri as
hajduci! (Well Done, Robbers!), Na bunaru (At the Well), Verter
(Werther), Vetar (The Wind), On zna sve! (He Knows It All),
vabica (Then German Woman))such a character doesnt even exist?
And Ivani does it, moreover, in a book entitled, Serbian Realism, in which he
should have condensed all historical, theoretical and critical knowledge on his
given subject.22 While in the story, A Schools Icon, the character of the
priest/father is presented as rather stupid and sly. In The People Will Reward
All of This, can Blagoje even be a real representative of a father with a desirably dominant role if throughout the story he appears as a desperate man
who would hasten his own demise since his crippled son is deprived of any
dignified future? Is Mitar, in To Matins with Father for the First Time, a
father with a desirably dominant role given that he is presented as a selfish
bully? What Lazarevis evaluation was of this father as a father with a desirably dominant role can be judged by his creation of the character Mia, Mitars son, who does not value his father but respects his mother only. The author of the story goes even further than his narrator as he ironically reveals his
distance from the norms of the Serbian society of his time in the title of the
story. Because the title does not speak only of the first time the family goes to
matins with their father; it focuses on the first revelation of a different attitude
towards the father which simultaneously conceals and reveals the fact that
greater value is ascribed to the motherthe character who is significantly absent from the title.
In this sort of ideologized approach to the literary interpretation of an author, the patriarchal attitude of a particular era is not really the issue, as times
21

The book came into being as part of the project of Matica srpska and is one of a series of materials conceived as a kind of encyclopedia dealing with widely differing areas. The inside
cover contains the following statement: the form of presentation must be free of bias and of
polemic passion but must clearly show positions taken by authors (emphasis mine). Those
who read the book will see that it contains only one sentence about one female writer. Before
the appearance of this book Dr. Ivani also published a study, Zabavno-pouna periodika
srpskog realizma: Javor i Strailovo (Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1988). It is extremely indicative
that in this study Ivani mentions only two of numerous women writers whose work appeared
on the pages of Javor in spite of the fact that in Srpski realizam he mentions the names of male
contributors who, according to him, left behind nothing of aesthetic value.
22
191
change and usher in new and very different political regimes. Yet that one
patriarchal-centric attitude, even in the presence of modern tendencies that
some call democratic, did not bring about a significantly changed approach to
culture and science. Rather, it could be said that we have one and the same
normative patriarchal attitude which has been with us through a long succession of eras. This attitude is uniformly presented as the only acceptable attitude and it is inalienably linked to the male gender which dominates, rules,
and controls political and economic, social and cultural, as well as academic
and educational institutions. For this reason this attitude has the power to interpret while, at the same time, enjoying the privilege of ascribing mostly
male values to a culture. The starting point of patriarchy is biological essentiality, and by the sexual segregation of values, it endeavors to reduce and degrade women in all spheres of material and intellectual activities. That is why,
even today, only a small number of female characters and an only slightly
higher number of female writers exist in the Serbian cultural consciousness.
Similarly, there exist a number of female researchers who are insufficiently
aware of the reasons why they are relegated to permanent marginalization.
Perhaps, they are also insufficiently aware of the ideologized connections
which impact the assimilation of their personalities as researchers with control
over and distancing from the contribution women make to culture and science.23 This is why, even today, in spite of multiple republications of histories
of Serbian literature, of methodologies for the teaching of Serbian literature
and poetics of Serbian realism, there have been no adjustments in opinions
which reflect new trends in the study of world literature, discoveries of new
knowledge and enhancement of critical reexamination. This is also why the
hundred-year-old university-prescribed interpretation of Lazarevi as a defender of patriarchal values is held in such high esteem and so widely accepted, even though his stories simply do not lend themselves to this type of
interpretation.
Why is it important to write about this construction of knowledge? It is
important because it is part of what the feminist philosopher, Lorraine Code,
calls institutionalized public knowledge which comes from men who play
important roles as intermediaries between literature and culture but who, it
turns out, filtered knowledge exclusively according to their interests, reinforcing stereotypes of ideologized opinions regarding gender and continually
masking interconnections of knowledge, expertise, and authority.24 On the one
23
On the institutional control over women, see Judith Long Laws, The Psychology of Tokenism: An Analysis, Sex Roles 1, no. 1 (1975): 5168.
24
Lorraine Code, What Can She Know? Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991), 175.
192
Svetlana Tomi
hand, it is impossible to believe that not a single normative interpreter could

carefully read and correctly interpret Lazarevis story without violating the
text and forcing it, as Umberto Eco warns, to say what it does not say.25
When in 2009, the feminist Elaine Showalter published the first history of
American literature written by women, she drew our attention to the moral
aspect of the divide between the ability of male interpreters to understand the
works of female writers and the ability of male interpreters to judge responsibly the works of female writers. Who is a literary colleague? asks Showalter, and then answers, the reader who is ready to understand the codes and
contexts of a literary work but also to posit responsibility of judging that
work. Such judgment she mentions in the introduction to the study, saying
that it must be done for the benefit of society at large.26
On the other hand, it is logical that one and the same attitude must have
perpetuated a uniformity of opinion through an entire century and longer,
which could not have been conducive to the essential progress in the interpretation and understanding of not just one but all of Laza Lazarevis stories.
But when the focus of research is expanded, something else is also revealed.
We do not have in mind only the fact that for decades the dominant interpretation had either completely disregarded or trivialized female writers in the
canon of Serbian literature, in particular the first representatives of a new
cultural authorityeducated women writers/teachers (e.g., Draga Gavrilovi,
Danica Bandi, Mileva Simi), or women writers/unusual world travelers
(e.g., Jelena Dimitrijevi), highly esteemed actresses (e.g., Milka Grgurova),
and translators (e.g., Kosara Cvetkovi)who appeared in the last decades of
the 19th century. Nor do we have in mind only the fact that normative interpretation inadequately and strongly interpreted female literary characters,
sometimes leaving them out altogether, even in the case of heroines. We have
in mind also the fact that the dominant interpretive authority also inadequately
interpreted male writers, who otherwise might have had a rather different impact on Serbian culture. In addition to Lazarevi, we could mention, for instance, Jakov Ignjatovi and Janko Veselinovi, all in the overall design of
consistently trying to defend attitudes of a patriarchal culture, attitudes controlled and defended by the privileged representatives of the masculine gender. In this manner knowledgewhich should have been accepted as scientific and objective, epistemically credible and validis actually revealed, as
Code emphasizes, as self-proclaimed objectivity behind which are reaf-
25
Umberto Eco, Granice tumaenja, trans. Milana Pileti (Belgrade: Paideia, 2001), 107.
Elaine Showalter, A Jury of Her Peers: Celebrating American Women Writers from Anne
Breadsreet to Annie Proulx (New York: Vintage Books, 2009), 512.
26
193
firmed only the interests and self-interests of specific creators of this knowledge, not the interests of society at large.27
The dominant and homogenized interpretation of Lazarevis stories, as
imported from the mother country, was in due time adopted by the interpreters
of Serbian literature in the United States; Vasa D. Mihailovich and Branko
Mikasinovich, in the introductory notes of a Serbian literature anthology in
translation, maintain that, as he turned towards conservatism, Lazarevi
believed that the political system could be built only on the foundations of the patriarchal way of family life. He saw the greatest threat
to Serbian society in the attacks on the patriarchal way of life as is
made manifest in To Matins with Father for the First Time.28
The text of the story itself could be interpreted with greater credibility as Lazarevis conscious attack on the patriarchal way of life which he obviously
considered desirable rather than a dangerous part of a critical examination of
his postulates. This can be concluded from the authors insistence on Mitars
policy of belittlement and violence against his entire family, exemplifying the
kind of patriarchy which presents a threat to the ethical values of society. This
is also attested to by the authors insistence on Mitars authoritarian selfishness and lack of any consideration for others, making Marica fall on her
knees, broken by sorrow and horror as she realizes that her husband does not
care a whit for his young childrens future and that he will spend whatever
money he still has for the sole purpose of making a show of his power and
satisfying his whims and gambling passion. Lazarevis story reaches its culmination when Mia realizes that he does not know the reason for his confession; in other words, he does not know why he could never again feel such
bliss as he felt at the moment of witnessing his mothers epiphany. At that
moment, the drama of Mias confession becomes the drama of his insufficient awareness, thus leading to new angles of interpretation29 together with
interconnections and relations between the individual epiphanies of the
27
Code, What Can She Know?, 48.

The full text of the quotation in the original reads as follows: In his student years he was attracted to progressive liberal ideas and movements, but later became a conservative, believing
that only the patriarchal way of family life could form the basis for a political system. He saw
the greatest danger for Serbian society in the attacks on this patriarchal way of life, as manifested in Prvi put s ocem na jutrenje (To Matins with Father for the First Time). See
Laza Lazarevi (18511890) in An Anthology of Serbian Literature, ed. Vasa D. Mihailovich
and Branko Mikasinovich (Bloomington, IN: Slavica, 2007), 73.
29
See The Epiphany of the Mother and the Son in the present volume.
28
194
Svetlana Tomi
mother and the son which are inseparable from the possible epiphany of the
reader.
If Lazarevi believed in a society built on patriarchal foundations, why
did he reveal in his storiesand particularly in To Matins with Father for the
First Timethe false foundations of that morality or the horrible tragedy of
those who follow the principles of patriarchal society as can be concluded by
reading such stories as The People Will Reward All of This, The Wind,
or The German Girl? Or, if Lazarevi believed that only the patriarchal
way of family life could form the basis for a political system, why did he not
in other stories, such as U dobri as hajduci! (Well Done, Robbers!), At
the Well (Na bunaru), Werther, On zna sve! (He Knows it All!),
represent the morality of the patriarchal tradition as a positive and desirable
model? On the contrary, he offered a more humane model of human relations
in the transcendence of principles of chauvinism (Well Done, Robbers!,
The German Girl); creating a positive head of an extended family who is
full of understanding towards his disobedient daughter-in-law (At the
Well), a husband who forgives his young wife her sexual yearnings for a
man she knew in her early youth (Werther). Why did he transform the figure of a tyrannical elder brother into someone who adopts a nobler stance and
thereby fundamentally changes his younger brother, creating family harmony
dependent on love and respect (He Knows it All!)? Why does Lazarevi in
all his stories treat the positive model of a patriarchal family ironically by
juxtaposing it with the suffering and pain his characters must bear? If it is true
that Lazarevis stories offer a positive image of the patriarchal way of life,
then his stories appear more like a reflection of sadism. His characters bear
their suffering because they concur in perpetuating the patriarchal principles
and yet the author does not fill his readers with feelings of satisfaction as they
see the characters lead unhappy and dissatisfied lives after they agree to accept violence and consciously opt for ruination. That is why his characters,
such as the father and the son in The People Will Reward All of This, Janko
in The Wind, and Mia in The German Girl, on the last pages of these
stories subsist like ghosts, and why patriarchal foundations of society can be
seen as a horrible and senseless constriction of life and much less as harmonious foundations of true prosperity of a community and all its members. Would
Lazarevi have so sharply criticized in the story, A Schools Icon, the two
key institutions of Serbian patriarchal societythe clergy and the educational
systemhad he believed that only the patriarchal way of family life could
form the basis for a political system? In this story, shocked and embittered
by the state of things he finds on his arrival, the new village teacher writes
this report to his friend: People are stupid and narrow-minded! There is a fat,
195
ignorant priest who with two or three other capitalists has half the village in
his clutches, all thanks to anointed graft. He and these capitalists exploit the
peasants and keep them enslaved in stupidity while he does nothing! I could
just die looking at this injustice! (63).30
In their note on Lazarevi, Mihailovich and Mikasinovich quite correctly
point out Laza K. Lazarevis own problem of awareness with the shortcomings of the patriarchal way of life.31 But even in that case, the judgment of
these researchers supports the position that Lazarevi defended the patriarchal way of life and that within the framework of his defense he points out
patriarchys shortcomings. For that reason, I consider it necessary to examine
what I consider the key problem of Lazarevis stories, namely the problem of
the authors attitude toward patriarchy and the awareness of the author of patriarchy.32 If we analyze the attitude of the author towards the narrative factors
contributing to his choice before the creative process, we will find that the
narratives theme, plot, heroes, socio-economic environment, locality, the narratives primary colors and nuances, as well as the prevailing atmosphere, are
those which point out the authors conflict with patriarchy and his disapproval
of the foundations of such social order. These facets of the narratives emphasize the monstrous traits of totalitarian power of authoritarian figures: Mias
father Mitar in To Matins with Father for the First Time, the despotism of
the sly and uneducated village priest in A Schools Icon, Jankos widowed
mother Soka in The Wind, the male establishment of merciless exploitation
of the female labor force in At the Well, the harshness of the elder brother
towards the younger brother in He Knows It All!, the intolerant attitude of
the Serbs towards the Germans in The German Girl, as well as their intolerance towards other Serbs in Well Done, Robbers!
30
While writing this essay I used the annotated edition of Lazarevis stories produced by
Vladan Nedi and Branimir ivojinovi, eds., Laza K. Lazarevi, Celokupna dela, Sveska Vol.
1. (Belgrade: SANU, 1986). For the sake of clarity, all quotations from Lazarevis stories will
be given in the body of the text (not in footnotes) with only the number of the page from which
they are taken.
31
The note in the original text reads, While defending the patriarchal way of life, however, he
was not oblivious to its shortcomings. See Mihailovich and Mikasinovich, Laza Lazarevi
(18511890), 73.
32
An analysis of these problems reveals the relevance of Catherine Belseys and Frederic Jamesons research. Belsy points out the relation between ideology and the text of the story,
while Jameson sees literary works as allegories or as hidden, symbolic messages regarding the
fate of a nation and its attitudes towards repressions. Catherine Belsey, Critical Practice (London: Routledge, 1980); Frederic Jameson, The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially
Symbolic Act (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981).
196
Svetlana Tomi
Where does Lazarevis awareness manifest itself as the part which

eludes the control of the writer and which reveals that the writer himself does
not realize his awareness of important problems of patriarchal societythe
problems he has nevertheless introduced in his stories? It manifests itself in
those layers of the text which always leave female figures voiceless, mute,
and intellectually empty. Mias sister does not utter a single word in To
Matins with the Father for the First Time. Marija, as the principal heroine in
Werther, says extraordinarily little and Lazarevi insists only on her physical attractiveness. In The German Girl, it is not Ana but Anas death which
convinces Mia to reject chauvinism, while rejection itself at the end of the
story is shown as an indirect confession. The sister-in-law in He Knows It
All! is both common and ignorant, as well as ruled by conventions. And is it
by accident that in The Wind, the girl with whom Janko falls in love is reduced to a taciturn secret? When the author minimalizes her portrait and emphasizes only the power of her eyes that sends a message of some destructive
force, interpreters note the symbolic role of the wind but fail to notice one of
possible key interpretations of the girls gaze, which is so very impressive
throughout the story, from the moment it is first mentioned in the story to its
very end as it is linked with the fate of her aged and blind father. Her black
eyes, so big that it seemed that a wind blew out of them (147) have the
power of the mythical Medusa, not only at the moment of their first meeting,
or later in Jankos dream, but every time Janko remembers them, they paralyze him. He tries to describe them but his tongue is also paralyzed and becomes lifeless (147). And until the end of the story, the author, just like
Janko, does not complete the young girls portrait; he remains forever like the
mute warning from that womans frightening and powerful gaze, or more precisely, like the self-warning consciousness of Lazarevics text. I think that
precisely this part of the awareness of the text in The Wind most graphically and directly reflects the ideological part of Lazarevis realism. This
part of the text shows the awareness of the patriarchal attitude towards female
figures which Lazarevi himself as the author perhaps did not show to the degree expected from one of the leading Serbian intellectuals and scholars of
that time. And this also offers an explanation of the problem of two types of
awareness which reflect the collective opinion and fantasies of Serbian society regarding patriarchy. At the same time these types of awareness are a part
of the yearning which struggles against repression. Lazarevis stories are
perhaps irresistible because they contain a dimension of the autonomous and
authentic force of the yearning which collides with patriarchy and suffers because of its inability to find a way of conquering it. It may be said that readers, through their constant interest in Lazarevis stories and their strong
197
bonding with his narratives, reflect their obsession with patriarchy, as well as
their burning desire to understand the conflicts created by this system.
In this context, the judgment of the compilers of the Anthology of which
To Matins with Father for the First Time is undoubtedly Lazarevis best
story is not negligible.33 In my view, this high evaluation is justified by the
unexpected and clever shift in the authors awareness as he dramatizes the
configuration of societys, the narrators, and the writers attitude toward
women in patriarchal society. Since the awareness of the writer and the
awareness of the text conduct a specifically conflicted dialogue we shall see
which side is victorious. Lazarevis story postulates, in perhaps the most
exacerbated form, the political revolt of the writer against patriarchy which
Lazarevi himself cannot or dares not openly describe. Because only in To
Matins with Father for the First Time, using a significantly more complex
and very well-argued rhetoric, does Lazarevi present the woman/wife/mother
in a favorable light as the embodiment of the more humane authority in the
Serbian family rather than the man/husband/father. It is not Mitar but Marica
who represents the ethics of caring and responsibility. Neither Lazarevi himself nor his text appear to see the ethical family life reflected in the figure of
Mitar as the principle of power and might by which man, in a given family as
well as in society, rules.
Let us return now to other interpretations offered by normative interpretation. Virtually none of the cited dominant normative interpretations considered it either worthwhile or necessary to write a somewhat more detailed
analysis of the female character in Lazarevis story, despite the fact that
Marica was not just a functional character in the story, but a totally new figure
of a womanmother and wifein Serbian prose of that time and that this
character was given a very uncommon form. Nedi quotes only Maricas
feelings of a housewife, wife, and mother,34 while Dereti mentions only
that in the house there is the mother, as guardian and protector, and the awesome Pera Zelenba rules in the tavern.35 In this context the 1964 study Laza
Lazarevi, written by Serbian literature scholar Slobodan . Markovi, offers
some interesting revelations. Markovi was the first, even before Milan
Kaanin,36 to present in a different light the great role played by Lazarevis
mother in his personal life. While Skerli describes this influence in negative
33
undoubtedly his best. Mihailovich and Mikasinovich: Laza Lazarevi (18511890),

73.
34
Nedi, Laza K. Lazarevi, 291.
35
36
Milan Kaanin, Izabrani eseji (Belgrade: Rad, 1977), 121.
198
Svetlana Tomi
terms as the authors incredible dependency on his mother,37 and tries to use
it as an explanation of his almost fetishistic cult of the family,38 Markovi
sees it somewhat differently and defines that influence as the authors incredible dependency on his mother, an emotional bond, [and] respect, after
which he nevertheless accepts Skerlis influence instead of critical thinking
because he sees in Lazarevi a certain personal subordination to the cult of
the mother.39 If Lazarevi did nurture the cult of the mother, he would not
present mothers in such a negative light as he did in some stories (The
Wind and The German Girl), describing them as responsible for the unhappy lot of their sons. Although Markovi is the only scholar to succeed in
noting that the difference between her [Maricas] apparent and real status in
the family makes her character three dimensional and impressive,40 he nevertheless affirms the existence of Maricas gentle and subservient subordination to her husbands demands41which, as a matter of fact, the text itself
does not confirm as it presents Marica as clearly resisting subordination to her
husband.
One could go further and postulate that Lazarevis To Matins with Father for the First Time shows that a woman stands for the more humane authority embodied in Marica, who represents the ethics of caring and responsibility as opposed to the principle of power and might by which the male head
of the household rules. Lazarevis story indicates the problem of the authors
political revolt (albeit unconsciously), in its most exacerbated form, against
the patriarchy which he cannot or dares not overtly describe. This is particularly evident in the passages where the reader could expect Marica or her
daughter to reveal the course of their internal struggles, but they do not as the
author leaves them both utterly speechless. According to Frederic Jameson,
literary works can be read as allegories or as hidden, symbolic messages about
the fate of a nation and its attitudes toward repression.42 A year before Jameson wrote this, Catherine Belsey specifies that the truth which stories tell is
for that very reason the truth about ideology.43 In other words, the text does
not mean only what it says; it tells also what it tries to suppress and hide.
Particularly paradoxical are two assertions by Markovi. On the one hand,
he maintains that
37
Skerli, Studije i kritike, 79.

39
Slobodan . Markovi, Laza Lazarevi, 2nd ed. (Belgrade: Rad, 1964), 9.
40
Markovi, Laza Lazarevi, 23.
41
42
Jameson, The Political Unconscious.
43
Belsey, Critical Practice, 108.
38
199
The strongest color of Lazarevis palette is the color of patriarchal

virtues. It fills the pores of the organism of his stories and influences
the regulation of the entire social flow in them, because it makes itself
manifest as the foundation of the authors ideational and artistic
position.44
On the other hand, Markovi maintains that Lazarevi has managed to avoid
falling into propagandizing his advocacy of the patriarchal way of life.45 Unfortunately, he fails to give a more detailed explanation and only mentions
Lazarevis descriptions of the private worlds of his heroes. To begin by affirming the patriarchal way of life as the normative foundation of the authors
ideational and artistic stance and then go on to question the validity of defending this position would indicate a weak argument precisely when it is
necessary to explain Lazarevis attitude to the patriarchal way of life.46
When we compare Lazarevis stories, and within them his attitude towards the patriarchal way of life, with other narratives of Serbian realism we
notice with greater clarity the closeness of his visions to similar attitudes in
novels by Jakov Ignjatovi and Svetolik Rankovi (186399). Compared to
the visions in the narratives of Milovan Glii (18471908), Sima Matavulj
(18521908), and Stevan Sremac (18551906), Lazarevis stories show a
significant step forward. Lazarevis stories speak to things which would have
been unthinkable, unmentionable, or unacceptable. Although he gave Serbian
literature a small number of stories, he populated those stories with a multiplicity of characters, presenting them as a sensitive author who could see the
repressive acts of literary characters of both genders.
It would seem that Lazarevi remains the only writer of his time who
ironically ridiculed both the female and male inability to recognize signs of
pregnancy, and frequently introduced children and infants into his stories. He
44
Markovi, Laza Lazarevi, 5. Markovi goes on to say that the problem of patriarchal human relations led the writer to look into the human psyche which is torn between a still-unclear
personal freedom and an existing limitation created by the centuries-old family life which restricts but also protects. It is interesting that Markovi avoids defining patriarchal relations
specifically as relations between men and women but does not fail to rise in defense of that
very same patriarchal family, reminding us that it restricts but also protects. By doing so
Markovi inherently defends the gender of the protected family member while members of the
other gender are restricted.
45
46
It would seem that in Lazarevis time there were very few Serbian writers, indeed, who created a character liberated enough to call patriarchal customs crazy, as did one of Lazarevis
characters in Well Done, Robbers!
200
Svetlana Tomi
was the first author to write about a woman giving birth, the delivery and
blood. He was, apparently, the only writer to pen a story about the birth of a
village girl and her education (the latter was not a typical occurrence in villages at that time) and the only one to raise the question of womens sexuality
in marriage. It seems to me that no other Serbian writer of that time has so frequently shown male characters crying, or those with physical handicaps or
blindness. Lazarevi even dared to create a male character who was pathologically attached to his mother. He was also the only writer who in writing about
the relational triadfather-son-motherwrote from the point of view of the
former child/son, only to transfer the ethical authority in the family to the
mother, thus destabilizing the hitherto supreme patriarchal figure, the father.
A comparison of Lazarevis stories with those of other contemporary
Serbian realists shows that his types of heroes and heroines deviate greatly
from the ideal type and moreover are complexly developed characters. As
such one may conclude that these heroes and heroines have remained in the
cultural memory as unique. In contrast to the majority of male and female heroes in Serbian literature of that time, Lazarevis heroes are also enigmatic, a
characteristic which results from their complex and symbolic portraiture or
their multidimensionality and the reason why they resist one-sided examination and interpretation.
Importantly Lazarevi treated each of his nine stories with supreme irony
which, it appears, remains insufficiently understood. However, its fundamental polarization of reality reveals the authors shrewd intellectuality, which in
turn reveals his yearning for a different society and relations within it. As few
of his contemporaries did, in the story Werther Lazarevi raises the question of responsibility in writing and reading and represents such resposibility
as an inalienable part of necessary critical distance. Compared to Lazarevi,
only the criticism of Draga Gavrilovi (particularly in her Devojaki roman (A
Young Girls Novel, 1899) could be considered superior because it succeeds
not only in revealing but also explaining in greater detail the origin of patriarchal repressive attitudes towards women, which Lazarevi failed to do. While
Lazarevi only touched upon certain problems of the female position in Serbian society, Draga Gavrilovi observed them minutely and reversed the existing system of defining women in the narrative literature of the patriarchal
era, moving female characters from the marginal and negative to a focal and
positive position. In contrast to Lazarevi, her narratives do not contain contradictions which reveal disharmony between relations of female characters
and the motivation for their actions (a disharmony which is particularly noticeable in At the Well). In contrast to Lazarevis numerous female characters who are taciturn, passive, and uneducated, almost insignificant shadows
201
of their dominant husbands and brothers, female figures in the writing of

Draga Gavrilovi are always intellectual/writer/teacher/single women who
constantly defend their right to the independent identity of women conscious
of their worth, an identity which was not only denied them but also actually
sabotaged by the culture of that time. It is precisely this dimension of Draga
Gavrilovis prose, as well the prose of her contemporaries (particularly
Mileva Simi and Jelena Dimitrijevi) which could contribute to the discussion of ideological problems in classical Serbian realism and raise these
problems to a much higher cultural level. However, their work is still regarded by the writers of Serbian literary histories as unimportant and worthless. The feminists have already proved that it is emblematic for patriarchal
might to have the power to belittle and erase and permanently remove from
the canon of a given culture precisely those works of female writers which
represent the greatest threat for the male value system.47
And yet, somewhat earlier than Draga Gavrilovi, Lazarevi succeeded in
aestheticizing the conflict between the norms of patriarchal society and the
ethics of the woman/mother/wife. Because of this, his Marica (To Matins
with Father for the First Time, 1879), and not Gliis Miona (Prva brazda
(First Furrow), 1885), is seen as a complex figure. Glii presents Miona,
who is struggling for independence, through reduced rhetoric and simplified
characterization while showing her conflicts with pressures applied by her
fianc and the village at large in order to make her, a single widowed mother,
marry again and lose her independence. Although written after The People
Will Reward All of This (1882), Otac (The Father, 1902) by Janko
Veselinovi (18621905) does not succeed in overshadowing Lazarevis
dramatic portrayal of a man expecting the return of his son from war. The figure of Veselinovis father remains superficially drawn, represented by simplified melodramatic effects which do not come close to Lazarevis psycho47
In this context, a comparison of psychological description of characters in a few stories by
Mileva Simi and Lazarevi can be found in research materials not considered to be primary
sources for the study of Serbian literature (ensko pismo (Ecriture Feminine), in Zabavnopouna periodika srpskog realizma: Javor i Strailovo, ed. Duan Ivani (Novi Sad: Matica
srpska, 1988), 22728). However, it is not found in university textbooks in which the names of
Mileva Simi and Jelena Dimtirijevi do not exist, and Draga Gavrilovi is simply mentioned
as the first woman to write a novel. See and compare Duan Ivani, Srpski realizam (Novi Sad:
Matica srpska, 1996) and Duan Ivani and Dragana Vukievi, Ka poetici srpskog realizma
(Belgrade: Zavod za udbenike, 2007). Regarding the history of inadequate interpretations and
trivial evaluations of Draga Gavrilovis prose in studies on Serbian literature and poetics, as
well as an attempt to establish the poetics of her feminist narrative, see Svetlana Tomi, Draga
Gavrilovi (18541917), the First Serbian Female Novelist: Old and New Interpretations,
Serbian Studies 22(2): 16787, 2008.
202
Svetlana Tomi
logically and politically detailed description of conflict involving several

characters, not to mention his use of skillfully interwoven powerful lyrical
resources. Even when Veselinovi presents a mother-daughter conflict in the
conversation between Jelica and Krunija in his novel, Haiduk Stanko (1896),
he moves it from the individual female level to the male-collective level of
heroic glorification of the haiduk past, abandoning Lazarevis stirring up of
sexual norms activated in Werther (1881) without forced moralizing commentaries. While Lazarevi succeeded in approaching the problem of a
daughter resisting her father from different angles, Matavuljs choice of the
novella format resulted in a significant reduction of possibilities to present the
writers visions in the narrative form. In this sense, the figures of run-away
daughters in Lazarevis story, The School Icon (1880), and Matavuljs novella, Kiovite noci (Rainy Nights, 1893), cannot be compared. Even when
Matavulj presents two opposing female figures (Goba Mara, 1893), he does
not allow them to speakto inform their female identities through self-expressionin the way Lazarevis Marica and even more radically Anoka in
At the Well (1881) succeeded in doing convincingly, albeit atypically for
Lazarevis female figures. Since stories by female writers from that period
exist and are significant but are not regarded as relevant in the canon, today it
might be considered that between the publication of Lazarevis stories
(1879) and the appearance of Svetolik Rankovis novels (Gorski car (The
Mountain King), 1897; Seoska uiteljica (The Village Teacher), 1899; and
Porueni ideali (Shattered Ideals) 1900), not a single writer succeeded in
continuing Lazarevis sharp confrontations with patriarchal norms.48
Narratives by female writers from that time prove the opposite is true.
These narratives have always existed but have hitherto been insufficiently
known and inadequately studied, causing the picture of Serbian literature from
that time to remain incomplete to this day. In the context of this problem and
of my study, among many other cited works, an illustrative example can be
found in the study of scholar and literary critic, Dejan urikovi. His work,
Svjedoanstva vremena: Knjievnost u srpskim listovima i asopisima u Bosni
i Hercegovini za vrijeme Austrougarske vladavine 18781918 (Testimony of
Time: Literature in Serbian daily and periodical publications under the rule
of Austria-Hungary 18781918), mentions several Serbian female writers
who did not succeed in publishing their works in Serbia but managed to place
them in the leading Serbian publications in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
48
While Sremac presents the female figures in his romantic narratives as patriarchal stereotypes (Pop ira i pop Spira, 1898; Zona Zamfirova, 1907), Rankovi has already abandoned
them in favor of tragic denouementsmurders, suicides, psychological breakdowns of principal heroes, failing to see a happy reconciliation between the individual and society.
203
urikovi gives credit to female writers for their modernistic tendencies, but
presents them in a most cursory manner (Danica Bandi, Milka Grgurova) or
interprets them inadequately (Jelena Dimitrijevi). Although the topic of his
study is Serbian literature in Bosnian and Herzegovinian daily and periodical
publications, urikovi does not mention Srpkinja (Serbian Woman), published in Sarajevo in 1913the first ever publication to be edited, as indicated
on the title page, by Serbian female writers. urikovi preferred to mention the supplement Srpska ena (Serbian Woman) (Sarajevo, 191213) which
dealt more with womens contributions to folk art. In contrast to urikovi,
Celia Hawkesworth, in her study of womens literature in Serbia and Bosnia
and Herzegovina, which is in fact the first work on the history of womens
literature in Serbian and Bosnia, devotes an entire chapter to Srpkinja because
it was the first publication to fight against the absence a womens intellectual
magazine. Srpkinja intentionally accepted for publication works of female
writers, mostly in order to combat discrimination but also in order to be more
representative of womens problems, their living conditions and their place in
society. In addition, they stressed inappropriate behavior of their male
colleagues.49
However, probably because of the absence of adequate interpretations and
information on womens writings in the second half of the nineteenth century,
Hawkesworths study does not contain a chapter on Draga Gavrilovi, but
only discusses the women whose writings appeared in the so-called womens
issue of Zora, which appeared in Mostar in 1899. This demonstrates that even
in the twenty-first century and after recent studies on Zora, little is known
about the real significance of the literary works of Mileva Simi, Danica
Bandi, Milka Grgurova, and Kosara Cvetkovi.50 The creative prose of the
above-mentioned writers shows the many ways they opposed the transfer of
Serbian patriarchal norms from society to literature. Among them, quite possibly, is Lazarevis underlying criticism in To Matins with Father for the
49
See and compare Dejan urikovi, Svjedoanstva vremena: Knjievnost u srpskim listovima i asopisima u Bosni i Hercegovini za vrijeme Austrougarske vladavine 18781918 (Sarajevo: SPKD Prosvjeta, 2006), 16970, and Celia Hawkesworth, Voices in the Shadows: Women
and Verbal Art in Serbia and Bosnia (New York: CEU Press, 2000), 13640. Also compare the
evaluation of Jelena Dimitrijevis poetry in urikovi (30) and Hawkesworth (14142).
Again on p. 30, urikovi presents Jelena Dimitrijevi as a man: overlooking the difference
between the feminine and masculine gender surnames, when used in oblique cases, he lumps
them all together as men.
50
Stania Tutnjevi, asopis Zora in Mostarski knjievni krug (Belgrade: Institut za
knjievnost i umetnost, 2001), 57109, agrees with the view of Ljubica Tomi-Kova
Tematski brojevi Zore, in Zora: Knjievnoistorijska monografija (Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1971),
18385, on valueless literature of female writers published in Zora.
204
Svetlana Tomi
First Time of Mitar who does not acknowledge his wifes merits nor does he
show her any signs of gratitude for saving his life and preserving the entire
family. In several stories by these female writers,51 the characters of
women/wives/mothers are developed as strong personalities in plots which
resemble the above-cited Lazarevi story. In contrast to Lazarevi, these female writers created figures of men/husbands/fathers as characters are overtly
appreciative of their wives. These husbands explicit appreciation of their
wives great worth also signified opposition to the outsiders definition of
women rooted in the perception of male writers. While Draga Gavrilovi,
particularly in her novels Iz uiteljikog ivota (Glimpses of a Teachers Life,
1884) and Devojaki roman (A Young Girls Novel, 1889), presents the type
of married couple in which the partners love and respect each other as an ideal
to strive for, and also as the fundamental reason why the majority of her other
heroines-intellectuals remain single, Mileva Simi and Milka Grgurova in
these stories introduce husbands and wives who love and respect each other
a first in the prose of Serbian realism. Without these examples, we might continue to believe that happy and contented married couples did not exist in the
prose of Serbian realism. The innovations of female Serbian writers are part
of their striving to strengthen and validate a different, nobler culture of marital
relations and attitudes as more desirablea culture in which the woman is
recognized as a valuable member of the human community in general.
However, if this was the position taken in history books and important
interpretative studies, was a different view offered by university textbooks for
teaching Serbian literature? Despite expecting university textbooks to be more
objective to meet the requirements of academically sound methodology, and
despite expecting scholars to take an ethical approach to the subjects and
problems they study, we shall see that Milija Nikolis textbook, Laza Lazarevis To Matins with Father for the First Time: A Research Approach
to the Story with a Look at Narrative Forms contains some inadequate methodologies and offers uncomfortable dimensions of research ethics.52 Nikoli
overlooks the context of Lazarevis story and violates the literal text by ascribing to it meanings which are quite opposed to the meanings formed by the
text itself. Regarding Nikolis ethics of research, he fails to interpret the text
of Lazarevis story properly, as he ignores and omits the principal female
figure, and thus erases all her significance which is dominant in Lazarevis
51
Mileva Simi, Nada, Javor 1120 (1884) and Adiari (Jewels), Zora 4 (1899); Milka
Ggurova, Ciganka (The Gypsy Woman), Bosanska vila 13 (1900).
52
The text is an integral part of the university textbook written by Milija Nikoli, Metodika
nastave srpskohrvatskog jezika i knjievnosti (Belgrade: Zavod za udbenike i nastavna sredstva, 1988), unrevised editions of which have appeared for many years now. See and compare
the texts of the 1988 and the 2006 editions.
205
story. Exhibiting three types of intellectual misogyny, Nikolis literary interpretations in fact reveal the roots of his intolerant and exclusive attitude towards women, their cultural and literal coding. Since he takes the patriarchalcentric stand, the women in his interpretations does not, indeed cannot, have
any cultural, sociological, or political importance. Therefore, one can see that
Nikolis methodological text does not offer either a methodology of teaching Serbian literature or principles of research. He offers rather something
which could be understood as a misogynous ideology because, as we have
seen in the studies of his university colleagues mentioned above, he uses his
institutional influence to educate some into masters, others into slaves.53
A careful study of Nikolis methodology will show that the picture presented by the university-approved normative patriarchal interpretation of Lazarevis story has acquired a certain complexity. If Nikoli instructs his students to teach school children in this manner, and if university-based literary
critics, professors, and historians improperly interpret Lazarevis opus and its
place in Serbian culture, science, and art, things are much more serious than
previously thought. The methodological transgressions against the interpretation of Lazarevis story go beyond the limits of transgressions against the
text and the author of the story, To Matins with Father for the First Time,
and are transposed from the strictly professional to the broader social level of
public action. The university methodology is itself demonstrated to be an
intellectual instrument of patriarchy, a tyrannical [method-idolatry] which sets
implicit limits on what can be questioned and discussed.54 For decades now
this kind of teaching has fostered the abuse of pedagogical power against students of varying ageschool children and university studentscontinually
transgressing against the female gender. Another feminist, Mary Daly, considers that this type of methodology causes a negative and intolerant attitude
towards women that women themselves failed to understand. Since the patriarchal method has erased questions regarding women, women are incapable
of formulating their problems and confronting their experiences.55
53
Because, as John Dewy maintains in the full quotation, a democratic education should include equal opportunity for accepting and assuming knowledge from others, to reveal the sharing of undertakings and experiences. Otherwise, the influences which educate some into masters, educate others into slaves. This quote comes from Orit Ichilov, Education and Democratic Citizenship in a Changing World, in Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, ed.
David O. Sears, Leonie Huddy, and Robert Jervis (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003),
659.
54
Elaine Showalter, Toward a Feminist Poetic, in The New Feminist Criticism: Essays on
Women, Literature, and Theory, ed. Elaine Showalter (New York: Pantheon Books, 1985), 127.
55
Cited in Showalter, Toward a Feminist Poetic, 127.
206
Svetlana Tomi
No wonder then that Annete Kolodny warns that women in particular

were taught how to read and that is why we have nothing to do with literary
texts but only with paradigms and fixations, with the normative experience of
reading and interpreting. For this reason, she speaks of past literary histories
as fictions and considers that simultaneously with the reexamination of critical methods new histories of literature need to be written and new value systems constructed therein.56
That was how, more than twenty years after my first disagreements with
the classroom interpretations of Lazarevis story, I actually realized that only
from the feminist perspective could I discern and understand why institutionalized interpretations forced the patriarchal coding of Lazarevis story; why
the figure of Marica was so rarely mentioned or frequently wrongly interpreted; why the key problems, including gender-related problems, could be
interpreted in an epistemically more valid way; why words exist in the English translation which magnify Mitar like God whereas no such words exist in
the original text of the story; why respected interpreters who thought otherwise, such as Milan Bogdanovi,57 never succeeded in overturning the prescribed interpretation; and, finally, why even female university professors
were unable to see Marica as Lazarevis text permitted.
One thing in common, shared by institutionalized interpretations, is that
all, without any evidence, labeled Lazarevi as patriarchal-centrica stance
56
Annete Kolodny, Dancing Through the Minefield, in Feminisms: An Anthology of Literary

Theory and Criticism, ed. Robyn R. Warhol and Diane Price Herndl (New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press, 1997), 17190.
57
Milan Bogdanovi, O Lazi Lazareviu, Stari i novi IV (Belgrade: Prosveta, 1952), 5165.
Bogdanovis text illustrates the extent to which Skerlis authoritarian judgments dominated
Serbian literary criticism long after his death (1914). Throughout his book, Bogdanovi covertly takes issue with Skerlis and other mainstream interpretations of Lazarevi, judgments
which were not sufficiently well argued. In his introductory remarks, Bogdanovi points out
that it is more necessary to note what was insufficiently said about Lazarevi, what was said
wrongly and, even worse, what was said incorrectly, but he does not develop his key dilemmas, leaving them virtually intact. For instance, Bogdanovi does not accept Skerlis interpretation of the end of To Matins with Father for the First Time as Lazarevis in pedagogical
pretension, but does not offer his own different interpretation. In the same way Bogdanovi
observes that in some of his stories Lazarevi does not sufficiently develop character motivation, but does so without citing either stories or the characters in question which could support
his judgments. Bogdanovi decides to contradict the dominant, patriarchal interpretation, generated by Skerlis authority, proclaiming that Lazarevi was neither conservative nor a traditionalist, that he was not writing about deep piety, nor was he an advocate of the old and enemy
of the new. And yet in some of these critical and original obervations, one can conclude that
Bogdanovi was wrong because his interpretations go against the text of Lazarevis stories. As
the elaboration of this problem would require much more space and a restructuring of the
readers attention, I leave the resolution of this problem to future research.
207
which was then adopted by other male interpreters of Lazarevis entire opus.
For example, Dimitrije Vuenov maintains that the figure of Marica was constructed as a typical patriarchal woman left to the mercies of her emotions.58
And so, as proven by feminists beginning with Anglo-American researchers
in the 1970s and 80s, Judith Fetterly in the United States and Elaine
Showalter in Great Britain, we see that universities have always defended the
position of the male gender as seats of might and authority. Therefore, one
may conclude that instead of discharging a responsible function of education
and enlightenment, universities practiced the exaltation of the male gender
only and, by disseminating restrictive information, distorted knowledge systematically invalidating, neglecting and excluding the coding of culture, art,
and science contributed by women in their spheres of activity. Thus universities did not contribute to the liberation of women; on the contrary, they only
enhanced the fettering and discrimination of women.59
For this reason we can accept as valid and correct the criticism leveled
against schools and universities by Pierre Bourdieu, which analyzes the position and possession of power from a sociological perspective. According to
Bourdieu, schools and universities function as owners of
the monopoly over the legitimate definition of art and artists, law,
principles of vision, and legitimate division which makes possible differentiation between art and non-art, between real artists worthy of
being publicly and officially exhibited and others rejected as worthless by the non-acceptance on the part of the commission.60
For this reason Bourdieu defines schools and universities as filters and barriers, always threatening to stop or blur the understanding of scholarly analysis
of books and reading.61
In the context of Bourdieus interpretation of the literary field62 and the
relations among positions, dispositions, and taking of positions, the connec-
58
Dimitrije Vuenov, Pripovetke Laze Lazarevia (Belgrade: Zavod za udbenike i nastavna

sredstva, 1986).
59
For criticism on undemocratic and immoral education, see Orit Ichilov, Education and
Democratic Citizenship in a Changing World, in Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology,
ed. David O. Sears, Leonie Huddy, and Robert Jervis (New York: Oxford University Press,
2003), 63770.
60
Pierre Bourdieu (Pjer Burdije), Pravila umetnosti, trans. Vladimir Kapor, Zorka Gluica,
Jovana Navalui, Sonja Gobec, and Mihajlo Letajev (Novi Sad: Svetovi, 2003), 32425.
61
Bourdieu, Pravila umetnosti, 8.
208
Svetlana Tomi
tion of above-mentioned Serbian university professors and critics with their

writing of histories of literature as standardized, controlled, and positioned
pictures of literature, which do not coincide with documented reality, is very
indicative of power positions. This is why, on the one hand, in Skerli and
Deretis histories of Serbian literature, as well as in Ivanis historical literary survey of Serbian realism, there are very few women, if any, while
Hawksworth dedicates an entire book to the history of Serbian and BosniaHerzegovinian female writers. A feminist perspective, demonstrably, does not
subtract and restrict, rather it adds and widens artistic (literary) representation
of a reality and the critical understanding and interpretation of it. On the other
hand, this proves once again that the long and relentless feminist struggle for
the legitimate inclusion and definition of the female dimension of culture and
art (or, as is the case of this paper, of textual nature, gender representation as
well as reading and interpretation of genders), is one of the important ways of
controlling and undermining, but also of changing the dominant patriarchalcentric discourse.
Because of all this, one can consider that interpretations quoted above did
not enhance but rather restricted the development of social thought. As their
authors successfully concealed all possible messages that Lazarevi could
have brought us for one hundred and thirty-one years, their interpretations
restricted free thinking. They neither demonstrated that they valued different
approaches to research, nor were they ready to verify their conclusions. Instead, students learned to adopt the ideological positions of their professors
who omitted from bibliographies of primary literature on Lazarevi those
critics whose opinion differed from theirs (Milan Bogdanovi, ore Jovanovi, Vladimir Jovii) and thus prevented these new scholars from influencing the dominant thinking of the academic establishment.63
If a succession of university professors have inadequately interpreted the
very text of Lazarevis story (and the entire body of his literary work), then
we have a biased approach to literature which in itself cannot be scholarly.
After the 1980s, at the time when feminist studies became accessible to newer
generations of Serbian university professors, these same professors continued
62
Bourdieu links the literary or artistic field with writers, artists, and their artistic creations.
He sees the literary field as subordinate to the political and economic field, which he calls
the field of power and includes relations between institutions and capital.
63
In the early 1990s, a bibliography on Lazarevis opus, prepared by professors of nineteenthcentury Serbian literature in Belgrade Universitys Department of Philology, included writings
of Nedi, Skerli, Nikoli, and Vuenov (who was a literary critic and literary historian). It also
included a study by Milan Kaanin which opposed the views of the academic establsihment.
The separation of Kaanins study from the other interpretations camouflages its dissident
stance and weakens the power of the opposition to change the dominant opinion.
209
to impoverish the theoretical approach to literature through their subjective

and ideological selections, thus preserving the archaic character and retarding
the progress of scholarship.
To be aware of new studies in ones field and not read them is tantamount
to saying no to progress. All of these numerous editions of textbooks and
studies of the aforementioned authorities have failed to bring new and diverse
interpretive strategies. Furthermore, these textbooks, by implementing a specific patriarchal methodology, narrowed the literary opus, thereby demonstrating their actual resistance to the freedom of interpretation.
Paul Lauter, in his study, Caste, Class, and Canon, suggests that
while the forms of criticism have changedfrom New Criticism to
structuralism to post-structuralismthe functions of academic criticism seem to me to have remained constant, related primarily to the
status, power, and careers of critics.64
These interpretations of university professors, instead of confirming the competency and expertise of their authority, have simply affirmed their position of
authority and the cultural power accompanied by the myth of scholarly objectivity and neutrality. This is why Laurraine Code analyses this type of epistemic oppression, and particularly the way of connecting institutional
knowledge and social recognition with the control of the dependent position
of women. In order to prevent further weakening of the power of female
awareness, Code suggests a series of strategies for strengthening the authority
of womens knowledge.65
In contrast to the West, where since 1988 many valuable studies, new critiques, and revisionist readings of canonized classics have appeared, Serbian
scholars have only recently started taking baby steps in that direction. To have
waited thirty years to begin implementing new discoveries may mean waiting
another thirty before visible results appear in thinking and writing. The acceptance of archaic ways of working and thinking on the part of the university
establishment and its resistance to change mean several more generations of
students will receive inadequate and ineffective education.
In the West, with the advent of feminism, strong criticism of the academic
interpretative authority began and initiated a revisionist reading of canonized
writers. At the same time, feminism served as a stimulus in the search for
works by women writers, whom the patriarchal culture had sought to erase
from cultural memory, all the while preventing the development of a new way
64
65
Paul Lauter, Caste, Class, and Canon, Warhol and Herndl, eds., Feminisms, 138.
Code, What Can She Know?, 218.
210
Svetlana Tomi
of interpreting the world, different both intellectually and in terms of gender.

The act of revision, according to Adrienne Rich,66 demands a revision of old
texts by taking a new and critical look at them. Revision, therefore, presupposes understanding the assumptions of the patriarchal postulating of the
world and people in it, in which understanding women is postulated as a fundamental act. And as far as feminists are concerned, this new vision of the
world represents not only a new chapter but their survival in cultural history.
This new and critical view of old texts also means a revision of the androcentric and aggressive cultural model which annihilated female identities and
a revision of points of view. The act of revision stimulates womens selfawareness; it enables women not only to understand better the past and the
ways in which they have been denied and helpless, but also to discover how to
orient themselves towards the future, to find better ways to live and actively
to build a new cultural model in literary criticism. In that context, feminist
literary criticism and theory unfolded as a conscious political act, the goal of
which, as Fetterley explained, is not only to interpret the world but to change
it through transforming the consciousness of readers in relation to books.67 It
is precisely this interpretation of the world and the transformation of the
readers relationship with the text that is the starting point of my work.
My work, therefore, does not challenge the generalized meaning of the
culture of received values; it challenges the culture of uncritical claims, which
is simultaneously the culture of the interpretative aggression against literary
works and also towards women. This aggression is evident in the translation
of Lazarevis story translated into English by Pavle Popovi, and is accompanied by insufficient gender-consciousness, which as a form of self-identity
does not recognize the role of gender in determining social differentiation and
stratification. Otherwise, how would we be able to explain these two problems: (i) The fact that Serbian critics, from Skerlis time to present day,
maintain that Lazarevi had abandoned the progressive ideas of Svetozar
Markovi but failed to present convincing arguments in support of their major
discovery;68 (ii) The fact that even female scholars of the university establish66
Adrienne Rich, When We Dead Awaken: Writing Re-Vision, College English 34 (1972):
18.
67
The origin of Fetterleys conception of the feminist reader who resists the policy of (American) patriarchal literature was inspired by Richs work mentioned above. See Judith Fetterley,
The Resisting Reader: A Feminist Approach to American Fiction (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977).
68
Gorana Raievi wonders whether this change of heart actually happened (Laza Lazarevijunak naih dana (Novi Sad: Akademska knjiga, 2007), 16). She identifies and analyses
two different attitudes of Skerli to Lazarevis works (as shown in Skerlis criticism of Lazarevis uncritical rose-colored idealization of the patriarchal way of life and in his criticism
211
ment have failed to notice or explain the female characters as the principal
meanings of Lazarevis story.69 Even more paradoxically, in one of his stories Lazarevi pointed out the problem of the reliability of the knowledge of
male authority and the verification of that reliability, as well as the problem of
the origin of motivation for transmitting this knowledge.70
There is a publishing coincidence which readers might find amusing, although it may point out the relationship between problems of ideological and
objective knowledge, as well as the relationship between ignoring new discoveries and the possibilities for progress in scholarly research. In 1988, when
I started my studies in the Department of Philology at Belgrade University,
the first edition of Nikolis Methodology was published. The same year in
the United States saw the publication of a book by Wayne C. Booth, worldrenowned literary theoretician, critic, and methodologist. The book, The
of the great strength of Lazarvis soul, which he extolls in Svetozar Markovi). But she does
not turn to the actual text of Lazarevis stories for the most-clear evidence for his disapproval
of societys patriarchal structure. Raievis analysis stops when she states that behind the
pastoral realistic rural tale social satire is hidden. But she goes on to conclude that the village
and various forms of the patriarchal way of life, however, are in no way nostalgic reminiscences of bygone times, but an escapist, utopian vision of the future. She undermines her first
conclusion that the story is a satire against patriarchal society by her claim that Lazarevis
patriarchal way of life is a model of utopian projection into future (18). The same claim is made
by American scholars who say that Lazarevi became a conservative because he believed in a
political system grounded in the patriarchal way of life. See the note on Laza Lazarevi in
Mihailovich and Mikasinovich, eds., An Anthology of Serbian Literature, 73.
69
For example, Biljana ljivi-imi (for more information, see Could Marica Be a Type of
Mannish Woman in the present volume), Gorana Raievi (for more information, see The
Epiphany of the Mother and the Son in the present volume), and Sneana Milosavljevi-Mili
(for more information, see A Reexamination of Analytical Methodology in the present
volume). The second problem raises the question of womens relation to power, which Julija
Kristeva discusses her article (1981) Womens Time. In her opinion, when women gain
power and identify with it, they become the pillars of the existing governments, the guardians
of the status quo, the most zealous protectors of the established order. They are, in fact, the
implementers, Kristeva maintains, of the sacrifical agreementI am not sure whether as
willing or, as Kristeva maintains, unwilling implementers. (Julia Kristeva, Womens Time,
Warhol and Herndl, eds., Feminisms, 869.) Compare this work with Judith Long Laws, The
Psychology of Tokenism: An Analysis, Sex Roles 1, no. 1 (1975): 5168. She analyses in
greater detail the assimilation of women in university institutions and the patriarchocentric
manipulations of their feminine identity.
70
This refers to He Knows it All!, and the moment at which the husbands erroneous knowledge is transferred to the wife. The narrator learns about it from his cousin Ilinka and asks her,
Well, all right, but how come he knows how the earth turns? And how do you know, which I
dont believe, that he knows it? And how come hes telling you all this? (Laza K. Lazarevi,
Celokupna dela, 165.)
212
Svetlana Tomi
Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction,71 deals with the ethics of literature

and literary criticism, which none of my professors ever mentioned in the
course of the four years of my undergraduate studies or later, in the mid1990s during my graduate studies. In this book, which still awaits a Serbian
translation, Booth openly admitted several mistakes, at least two of which are
of key importance here. First, Booth recognizes that for the most part, by
stressing the analysis of formal and esthetic aspects of a literary work, professors have separated students from life by failing to recognize the connection
between the esthetic and the practical. From where has this collision in the
critical approach sprung, asks Booth, when we all know that art comes from
life. And, indeed, there is a hugely disproportionate concentration of such
formalist studies of realism in Serbian literature as well as the absence of
questions which are connected with life.
Perhaps, for this reason, it is not an accident that this devotion to the form
has led yet another university professor, literary historian, and theoretician,
Dragia ivkovi,72 to present all synopses of Lazarevis stories incorrectly
and to interpret them, it would seem, erroneously. That is why his claim of
similarities between Lazarevis stories and those by Paul Johann Ludwig von
Heyse73 and his finding of comparative connections between Serbian and German literatures can be seriously questioned. In an extremely selective manner,
ivkovi cites specific motifs74 from certain Lazarevi stories, seeing them
exclusively from the male point of view with no regard to the totality of the
literal text.75 According to ivkovis interpretation, the specific motifs of the
story constitute that core around which all elements of the plot are gathered
and under which, as under a sign of the Zodiac, the entire novella can be condensed in a brief synopsis.76 In To Matins with Father for the First Time,
71
Wayne C. Booth, The Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction (Berkley: University of

California Press, 1988).
72
Dragia ivkovi (19142002), professor of theory of literature and nineteenth-century Serbian literature at the University of Novi Sad, literary historian and theoretician; worked for several years at Matica Srpska as a board member of the Department of Literature and Language;
an editor of Letopis Matice srpske; editor in chief of Zbornik za knjievnost i jezik.
73
Paul Johann Ludwig von Heyse (18301914), German writer; in 1910 awarded the Nobel
Prize for literature. According to notes in Renik knjievnih termina (Belgrade: Nolit, 1986),
807, in the introduction to the anthology of German novellas (Deutscher Novellenschatz, 1871)
Heyse presented his theory of the novella (The Falcon Theory), according to which each good
novella must have its falcon, i.e., its specific construction element.
74
Dragia ivkovi Laza Lazarevi i Hajzeova teorija o sokolu in Srpska knjievnost u
evropskom okviru (Belgrade: SKZ, 2004), 287.
75
ivkovi, Laza Lazarevi i Hajzeova teorija o sokolu, 27889.
76
213
ivkovi takes the gambling, the pistol, and the suicide as such motifs,
whereas it might be more relevant to take female speech, male interdiction of
it, and male power as the three specific motifs of the story. The pistol and the
suicide might be more correctly bracketed together as one and the same motif.
This is the motif of self-destruction which appears at the very end of the story
and as such it does not gather together the elements of the plot, but rather separates them. Mitars decision to kill himself is part of the turning point of the
story, which means it is part of the beginning of the dnouement when the
reader is given the sum total of the storys events.
ivkovis approach may be suspect also in regard to The Wind for
which he gives this synopsis: peaceful life of a mother and her sonyoung
girls eyes from which a wind blowsrestlessness and storminess of life.77
However, the peaceful life of a mother and her son is nothing but irony or
hallucination behind which is hiding the horrible suffering of the son, his
pathological dependency on his mother, their mental blindness and unhappiness. The wind motif has a number of complex variations all in the form of
devastation. ivkovi cannot correctly interpret Lazarevis A Schools
Icon when he overlooks the fact that Lazarevi closely follows the life of the
little girl and that he does so within the complex context of his criticism of the
then Serbian school system and clergy? Would it not be far more credible to
substitute ivkovis synopsis, in which the patriarchal idyll is first mentioned to be followed by the icon of St. Sava and finally the fire in the school
and the saving of the icon from the flames with an alternative synopsis: a
girls growing up and her conflict with her father, i.e., conflict between education and clergy, the mental vacuum of both education and clergy, and failure to attain the ideal of St. Sava? As far as the patriarchal idyll is concerned, or rather the favorite formula of the Serbian university establishment,
it is hardly worth mentioning except possibly in terms of deep irony, because
the uneducated priest behaves like a sly tyrant, exploiting the peasants arbitrarily, motivated only by his private interests.78
77

There are very different interpretations of the figure of the village priest. ivkovis describes how the beloved village priest keeps vigil over the church, the school, and the entire
village like a saint (ivkovi, Laza Lazarevi i Hajzeova teorija o sokolu, 287) and Nedi
paints a dear picture of a village (Nedi, Celokupna dela, 290), while Dereti calls the story
an old-fashioned pastoral idyll (Dereti, Istorija, 861). Raievi follows along the same lines
in interpreting the village priest, whom she sees as the personification of kindness and nobility
(and true altruism), overlooking the scene where the priest, in a sly instance of play-acting,
fakes mortal sickness for the benefit of naive peasants, full of awe and respect for him, in order
to have them sign over a part of the church property to his daughter. See Raievi, Laza Lazarevi, Junak naih dana, 30.
78
214
Svetlana Tomi
As one of the many arguments in favor of this criticism of formal idolatry,

we could cite Duan Ivani. It is impossible to understand, for instance, why
he regards as important the chronotype of confession presented by Lazarevi
and later taken over by Veselinovi, Matavulj, Rankovi, and others. Nor can
one understand why of all the political and social questions and problems, he
considers it more important to write about the fact that subject- and contentrelated factors have primacy over the act of narration, which is basically
reduced to a role of initial motivation.79 As already proved in the study by
Peter Brooks, confessions are markedly complex and repressive psychological
and political dramas of individuals, whether they take place in literary works,
courtrooms, prison cells, or TV.80 Confessions in Lazarevis stories reveal
the most intimate family secrets or problems which stand in sharp contrast to
patriarchal norms imposed on society and literature.81
Second, Booth is the first among respected and world-renowned literary
critics and theoreticians to admit that he is sorry for ignoring feminist works
in literary criticism and theory because he discovered that the feminists constitute the most original and important movement on the current scene, even
more transformative than the deconstructionists.82 Booth later wrote his feminist critique of Rabelaiss Gargantua and Pantagruel in which he applies the
fundamental concept of criticism as an ethical act vis--vis society at large
which can affect the ethical awareness of society itself. It shows caring which
is the same as multiple responsibilityresponsibility towards the author, the
work, and the readers.83 As far as I know, no university professor in Serbia
has shown that he or she is acquainted with major feminist works or that he or
she realizes the significance of feminist critical theories and practice. Neither
79
Duan Ivani, Hronotop prianja u srpskoj realistikoj prozi (Chronotope of Narration in

the Prose of Serbian Realism), Oblik i vrijemeStudije iz istorije i poetike srpske knjievnosti
(Belgrade: Prosveta, 1995), 285.
80
Peter Brooks, Troubling ConfessionsSpeaking Guilt in Law and Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).
81
I elaborate on this complexity of confession in A Reexamination of Analytical
Methodology and The Question of the Father as a Key Peterfamilias Figure in the present
volume.
82
Booth, The Company We Keep, 388.
83
In the course of at least three decades, there have been feminist discussions on the topic of
whether and to what extent male feminist interpretations can correctly understand and present
the relation between cultural norms and the experience of female gender identity. There have
also been various dialogues on this problem in epistemology. My thinking is closer to the
thinking of those feminist theoreticians and critics who consider that the studies of male feminists are welcome as long as one remains aware of the limitations imposed by experiential and
cognitive differences in gender identities.
215
has any one of them given feminism public support. By doing so, these professors would have to admit their responsibility for the male model of culture
which in turn is responsible for the creation of their own male identity.84
In contrast to the current university-sanctioned interpretations of literary
history and criticism, my work does not glorify destruction but Lazarevis
defense of women. However, it also glorifies Lazarevi himself who, contrary
to the majority of his Serbian and European colleagues, did not accept the role
of literary regulators and collective patriarchal consensus controllers.85 In contrast to them, Lazarevi did not degrade or kill his heroines but endowed them
with a suggestion of the personification of female authority as a more humane
instrument of social order.
My conclusions point out that in To Matins with Father for the First
Time, Lazarevi did not present himself as an advocate but an opponent of
patriarchal society. He pointed out that in patriarchal society the man has unjust authority as the possessor of power, might, and control in society, while
women, although responsibly and ethically caring, are left without any rights
and therefore without any socio-political and cultural signs and significance.
By the same token, women are left without socially recognized value despite
84
Let us look at two more recent texts published in the Belgrade daily, Politika, after the death
of one of the most significant Serbian writers of the twentieth century, Milorad Pavi. The article entitled Preminuo akademik Milorad Pavi (Academic Milorad Pavi, Dead), which
appeared on the Internet on November 30, 2009, lists ten quotes on the significance of Pavi.
All ten were given by men from the cultural or political sphere. There were no statements from
female members of the Serbian Academy of Science and Arts, university professors, or literary
critics. The inevitable impression is that in cultural and political spheres women neither have
opinions nor significance. The second article appeared on the internet on December 3, entitled
Na kraju samoe poinje smrt (At the End of Solitude Begins Death) by Serbian literature
professor, Aleksandar Jerkov. In the context of the topic at hand, it is very emblematic that a
university professor equates the entire human race with its male component only. Women do
not exist. Jerkov writes, I feel a certain bitterness, more precisely a bitter taste of realization
which keeps coming back that all sons of men, as the Bible calls us, have the same fate. Although everyone knows he will die, the taste of that triumphal defeat of life is bitter. On the
pages of culture it is clearly important to equate the universal with the male identity. On the
other hand, it might seem illogical to readers to connect death only with sons, that is to say with
men, because death is a phenomenon which does not distinguish between genders. But, in the
context of androcentric attitudes and interpretations, it is logical that whatever is linked with
the other, the female gender class should not be included in consideration of any phenomenon
whatsoever.
85
On the ideological concept of literature and reading, or more precisely on realistic poetics as
a specifically political act, the fundamentals of which is consensus (for the writer as an individual speaks for a group which he/she represents), see Elizabeth Ermarth, Fictional Consensus
and Female Causalities, in The Representation of Women in Fiction, ed. Carolyn Heilbrun and
Margaret R. Higonnet (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1983).
216
Svetlana Tomi
the fact that her figure sheds the light of a more humane kind of power. In his
story Lazarevi does not see the conflict between man and woman as necessary in and of itself, but as a product of society with its gender-biased norms.
Considering another Lazarevi story about a mother, an exceptional woman, who is not a patriarchal, subdued, and empty-headed drudge, the readers
attention is to be pointed to a lesser known and rarely published Lazarevi
storyMother. Because of their related narrative strategies, as well as their
similar messages about a positive influence of a mother on her son, that story
may be understood as a confessional variation of the story, To Matins with
Father for the First Time. In that story, which is, based on all evidence, an
autobiographical note, Lazarevi, in an intimate manner and with no emotional reservations (What do I care if the world would call me crazyhappiness is only my own matter! (303)), gives recognition to his mother as a
woman of a strong ethical personality. In an oxymoronic way he is saying that
he, himself, is a living being, yet a tomb stone, a memorial to his mother: Do
you see what will remain as a memorial to you after your passing? I will be it,
I! (304). Thus, his two memories of his mother in To Matins with Father for
the First Time and Mother preserved a culturological memory of a different vision of a woman, the one resisting traditional interpretations.
Since I believe that this investigation, in addition to discovering the critical and methodological errors in academic interpretations, as well as irregularities and faults in the English translation of Lazarevis story, also reveals a
new revisionist reading, understanding, and interpretation of it, this work of
mine might bear yet another title, To Matins with Lazarevi for the First
Time.86
86
Lazarevi did not narrow the meaning of the word matins to describe a mere instance of
attending a morning church service as a family. In this case, it also contains a new presentation
of a patriarchal father, thus introducing the following meanings: bringing to the light of day,
seeing, uncovering, and understanding. Professor Ljubica D. Popovich (p.c.) stressed an
additional important meaning of the word matins. In Serbian, matins contains the word morning withing itself, thus suggesting a new beginning, a new day. This meaning may point out
that Lazarevi wanted the readers to think how much this morning directed him to a new and
different life, not only for the one who told the story but for other main actors as well.
A Reexamination of Analytical Methodology of

To Matins with Father for the First Time as
Presented in High School and University Textbooks
In this chapter the author explains what she believes are the methodological
and ethical errors in the analysis of To Matins with Father for the First
Time, published in the textbook, Methodology of the Serbian Language and
Teaching of Literature. This analysis is meant as an investigation into the
formal characteristics of a literary work, and not as an analysis that ties itself neutrally and scientifically objectively to inter-textual elements of Lazarevis story. While it primarily bases itself on the interpretation of the male
characters of the story, this analysis also explains the female character,
though inadequately and to a much lesser extent. In this part of the work, the
importance of the narrators comments is also examined. In addition, the
consequences of excluding the historical context of the position of women in
nineteenth-century Serbian society while analyzing the story are discussed.
Milija Nikolis university textbook, Methodology of Teaching Serbo-Croatian Language and Literature, contains an analysis of Lazarevis To Matins
with Father for the First Time, which, in its subtitle, was defined as an
investigative approach to story telling through story telling forms analysis.1
When this text is compared with another Nikoli study, published eleven
years earlier (Story Telling Forms in the Artistic Prose of Laza Lazarevi),2
one may notice that the methodological textbook analysis contains a lot of
repetition and direct incorporation from previously published interpretations
of this story.
Nikolis text offers adequate and useful methods to entice students to
note various first and third person story telling techniques, or to recognize the
1
Milija Nikoli, Metodika nastave srpskohrvatskog jezika i knjievnosti (Belgrade: Zavod za

udbenike i nastavna sredstva, 1988), 34260.
2
Milija Nikoli, Forme pripovedanja u umetnikoj prozi Laze Lazarevia (Belgrade: Nauna
knjiga, 1973).
218
Svetlana Tomi
complex functions of a storyteller. Yet, as a whole, Nikolis approach does

not demonstrate an emphasis on the qualitative dimensions of an investigative
approach but an ideological one. Furthermore, his investigative approach to
storytelling forms lacks a politically neutral relationship to literature and to
the interpretation of literary techniques, that is, the formation of themes, characters, and problems in Lazarevis story. While in the West in the 1980s the
consequences of limiting oneself to a formalistic analysis were investigated
critically because it can reduce a literary work to its extra-textual relationships, in Serbia, both then and much later, such a formalistic approach to interpretation was given a privileged value in academic circles.3
It turns out that Nikolis formal approach to literature contains all
three types of intellectual misogyny (sexist, patriarchal, and phallocentric),4
and that it actually represents an example of gender technology,5 that is, a
discursive strategy for the construction of gender, which in this case reveals
itself as explicitly centered on patriarchy, absolutely blind to the female gen3
See, for example, the sharp criticism of the formal approach in Jameson, The Political
Unconscious, 43.
4
These three types of intellectual misogyny were defined and explained by Elizabeth A. Grosz,
The In(ter)vention of Feminist Knowledge, in Crossing Boundaries: Feminisms and the
Critique of Knowledges, ed. Barbara Caine, E. A. Grosz, and Marie de Lepervanche (Sidney:
Allen and Unwin, 1988), 92107. She defined sexism, or sexist misogyny, as unjustified discrimination through visible references (statements, arguments, methodologies), which give
privilege to men and exclude women. This misogyny varies from open expressions of threat
and suspicion of women as unworthy and irrelevant subjects of research, to ignoring and
excluding women from debates. Patriarchal misogyny may be noted in unspoken statements,
wrapped in so-called neutral terms: reason, knowledge, truth. As a discursive mode of female
submission, phallocentric misogyny is the hardest to locate because it abstracts male characteristics in order to neglect specific female characteristics, negating their autonomy and self-representation. For all three types of intellectual misogyny, it is characteristic that these types present women as silent, mute, and quiet support to male constructions. In these male intellectual
misogynous myth-creations, women are presented differently: in sexist misogyny they are reduced to objects (maternity, reproduction and nature), in patriarchal misogyny, to the unspoken
and undemonstrated, but unacceptable to patriarchal, female meanings, while in phallocentric
misogyny, women are constructed through a male model, regardless of their mutual similarity,
difference, or complementarity. In order to increase the awareness about the three types of intellectual misogyny, this text should be included as a basic part of university curricula.
5
The technology of gender is a term used by Teresa de Lauretis, who adapted Michel Foucoults sintagm technologies of sexuality, found in his History of Sexuality, with the aim of
transferring the focus of the discourse from natural and private to social and public. An additionpoal reason for such a change is to point out the ways in which gender is, according to political goals of the ruling class, constructed in culture (theory, film, and literature). See Teresa
de Lauretis, Technologies of Gender: Essays on Theory, Film, and Fiction (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1987), 12.
A Reexamination of Analytical Methodology
219
der and its values. Nikoli, thus, in his textbook that instructs both female and
male students how to teach literature to children, commits a triple investigative violence or inappropriate interpretation: upon the female gender, the
actual text of Lazarevis story, and upon its meanings. The actual text of
Lazarevis To Matins with Father for the First Time does not offer an ideological bias assigned to it by Nikoliit actually does just the opposite. In
my opinion this story ironizes such politics of interpretation. The story criticizes and attacks the ideological bias because the story elevates the intelligent,
logical, caring, and responsible woman/mother to the highest level of moral
value. Therefore, the goal of this article is to expose the ideological constructions of Nikolis methodological interpretation of Lazarevis To Matins
with Father for the First Time that arise from male subjectivization and an
androcentric understanding of society. This revelation is important because
Nikolis interpretation perpetuates the ideology of gender reductionism for
Lazarevis story for both todays students as well as future teachers and their
students. There is a small chance that Nikolis interpretation may change or
increase the awareness and sensitivity about the influence of gender constructions on book reading, their interpretation, and teaching them in school.6
First, I only address Nikolis invitation to students to identify themselves
with the male character of the story. In his chapter, Laza LazareviTo
Matins with Father for the First Time: An Investigative Approach To StoryTelling Through Story-Telling Forms Analysis, Nikoli does not convincingly prove why, or on what basis he concludes that all readers have adopted
the point of view of the boy Mia, who, in the crucial scene of the story, secretly watches and listens to his parents conversation. In this scene Mias
father, Mitar, after gambling away all of his money, valuables, and the house,
and maybe even his retail business, leaves the house in the middle of the night
determined to commit suicide. Marica has warned Mitar, has advised, begged
and pleaded with him not to gamble, until he forces her to keep quiet, and to
live in fear and anxiety that the worst could happen. Mitar does not realize
until that night that his wife carefully watched everything that was happening
to him. During that fateful night, Marica lies next to her husband in the same
room with their children; she pretends to be asleep while actually watching
over her husband. When Mitar leaves the room for the granary with a pistol in
his hand, Milica, unnoticed by him, follows in order to prevent him from selfdestruction. She then carefully initiates a conversation with her husband,
6
Such depth was observed by Rahel R. Wassefall in Reflexivity, Feminism, and Difference,
in Reflexivity and Voice, ed. Rosanna Hertz (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.,
1997), 15065. She emphasizes the importance of caution on the part of scholars in terms of
their own subjective reductionism and selective presentation of reality.
220
Svetlana Tomi
breaking his prohibition to talk to him, and threatening her that he will move
out of the house or leave the family.
Mia, even as an adult, never knew the details of what his father lost that
night. His mother never told him anything. From a friend, he learned that their
fathers sat alone for a long time after that game, wrote some documents and
signed them:
Later, Toma, the son of my fathers best man Ilija, told me that my
father locked himself together with his father in a room, and that they
discussed something slowly and for a long time. Ink and paper were
brought to them, they wrote something, stamped these papers and so
on. But, what that was, is unknown, and will never be known.7
Of course, Mias father could have told him about these events, or his fathers best man Ilija could have done so, but that would have revealed the
depth of the relationship between his mother and his fatherthat is, the fathers rejection of his wifes wise counsel and his possible attempt to control
his passion. More exactly, these details would have demonstrated the level
and strength of Mitars gambling addiction and his irresponsibility toward his
family. His wife, their underage children, all of them subservient to him, depended on him and his decisions. Through this narrative, Mia emphasizes his
fathers choice never to break his silence about the family tragedy he caused.
It is exactly that tragedy about which Mia decided to talkabout the disater
that grow into the drama of understanding the different moral choices of his
parents. Therefore, it may be said that a separate drama of Mias confession
is created by his fathers stubborn persistence in trying to preserve his authority as moral ruler and manager of his family even after the crisis was over,
after he (maybe forever) had lost his moral authority.
Just as Mitar is unaware that his wife followed him, so is Marica unaware
that her son followed her. This action of double following does not signify
mere physical movement. It is connected to care and contemplation, and ties
one person to another through a specific hierarchy of moral and emotional
relations. In To Matins with Father for the First Time, it is not Maricas
feelings of love but her moral attitude toward her husband that are shown, and
because of them she follows him in order to save him. On the other hand,
Mias love for his mother is presented, and it grows because of both her
moral and intellectual values. Toward his father, Mia does not show any
emotion, but neither does he pass moral judgment. This is proof of the emo7
Vladan Nedi and Branimir ivojinovi, eds., Laza K. Lazarevi, Celokupna dela, Vol. 1.
(Belgrade: SANU, 1986). 37.
221
tional and moral interconnectedness between Marica and Mia in this story.
Their connection opposes that which would result from the patriarchal hierarchy of power in their society, in which Mias father, as a man, would have all
the power, and the mother, because she is a woman, would have none.
In his interpretation, Nikoli changes the actual text of Lazarevis story,
and, thus, its meaning as well, by stating, without objective, textual factual
proof, that the boy suddenly disappears from the story.8 Nikoli writes:
While Mia listens to the conversation between his father and mother,
what is the position of us, readers? What happens with us? Where are
we and what occupies us? We are in Mias place! The author
brought us to this position skillfully employing a first grade artistic
trick. We followed the boy to the well (actually, he led us), but the
boy disappears suddenly and we took his place, his senses, position,
and point of view; we became quiet behind the well, observing the
granary. We watch and listen to Mitar and Marica. Their dialogue
erases from our mind the presence of the narrator, since the narrator
has already fulfilled his role by bringing us to the emotional scene
and leaving us to observe and listen by ourselves.9
First of all it must be noted that Nikolis interpretation, devoid of critical
distance, favors a universal reading of a story. It forgets that each reading offers its own interpretation. And that, instead of one never-changing interpretation, for a good understanding of a literary work, different perspectives of
the story are more desirable, interesting, and useful. Such interpretations may
be accepted as reliable if their explanations are based on the text and context
of the story. Additionally, Nikolis interpretation establishes only one possible gender identification for a reader. According to Nikolis statement, while
we listen to the conversation between Mitar and Marica (which happens by
the granary and near the well), we are in Mias place! Since he does not
allow alternatives for reading the story or for the readers identification with
other characters, Nikolis vision of the story exclusively advocates the ideology of his own gender reductionism. Since his textbook is being used as primary literature in the teaching and training of future literature professors,
even twenty years after its first edition, the political implications of such a
situation are best noted in the exclusion of female characters and the elimination of the female sphere of interpretation.
8
9
Nikoli, Metodika, 345.

Nikoli, Metodika, 345. Emphasis preserved from the original.
222
Svetlana Tomi
Who knows with which characters the readers could have identified at
different points in time? I identified with Marica, who is burdened with anxiety because of the responsibility she feels toward her children and Mitar.
Marica knows that her husbands life, and thus her own life and the lives of
her underage children, depend on each and every one of her words, expressions, and actions. After that, I would ask how Mitar felt at this horrific moment. Did he shake, thinking that he has to take up the gun and aim it, and
exactly into which part of his body? Did Mitar imagine his crying children at
that moment? Does he see his anguished wife? Where does he see them? In
the street, by their foreclosed home? Does he hear the words of his neighbors,
of passersby? Maybe of his business acquaintances? Will his children judge
him? Or will they silently think about him? Finally, my thoughts would turn
to Mia, the boy who, in the middle of the night, stands near his father and
mother, as a secret judge, unnoticed by either one of his parents; the boy who
might have yearned for his fathers company, for different kinds of family
gatherings and events, ones unrelated to fear and anxiety because of his father; the boy who forecasts the horrible moment, who sees before himself a
broken father and then a brave and determined mother. Does Mia wish to be
the same type of father to his own son one day? Can Mia imagine his life
without his father at that moment, a life of misery and poverty, with a desolate
widowed mother who has to do other peoples laundry in order to provide
food for her three children? Where could they live? Will Mia still be able to
attend school? What were the feelings of Mias elder sister, to whom he issues orders, and of whose feelings he, as a narrator, does not say much? What
could she have felt and understood, the sister who, together with their mother,
endures the fathers mean treatment? She probably has anxiety about her own
future marriage. Will marriage for her be the only acceptable decision as it
was for the majority of women in Serbia of that time? What other questions
could students ask if only allowed that option? What would happen if they
were asked questions about other possible identifications with the characters,
or about the points of view of other characters, which is something upon
which Nikoli does not even touch?
Judith Fetterley10 warned through her analysis about the dangers of ideological reductionism, pointing out the ways through which centering on patri10
Judith Fetterley, The Resisting Reader: A Feminist Approach to American Fiction (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978); see Preface, xi. Feminist theories and critiques of
reading are numerous, innovative, and differentiated. Since the topic of this work is not to elaborate on such practice in theory and critique, the attention is directed only to the most mainstream feminist ideas. As such, I do not utilize a number of feminist theories and critiques of
reading, for to do so would result in a separate scholarly, and much more exhaustive work.
223
archy disables the development of the awareness of female reading and interpretation. Such ways, on the one hand, add to the non-understanding of the
female readership, who are assigned the apolitical state of being apolitical is
assigned. On the other hand, the female readership imbed the messages of
universal truths into literature and art themselves. Fetterley warned about aggressive consequences of such reductionism, the vision of which is limited, as
it insists on its universality, and which, at the same time, fogs our awareness,
adding to our inability to comprehend and understand.11
Denying the possibility of identifying oneself with the feminine gender
(for example, if readers identify themselves with Marica or with her daughter,
Mias elder sister), or with some other character instead of solely the storyteller (for example, with Mitar), simultaneously indicates an ideological totalitarian way of thinking. By promoting only one possibility of gender identification, it denies and negates the possibility of a different reading, a fact that
only emphasizes the ideological and not the investigative quality of an
interpretation.
Eliminating the possibility of a different reading based on gender is
equivalent to taking away its political power. On the other hand, according to
Fetterley, by reducing women/female readers to this male prospective, men
used to strengthen (and maybe still do) the male ideology in the minds of
women, emasculating them through ideas (emasculation of women by
men). It is the training of women to think like men, to identify themselves
with male points of view, and also to internalize the masculine value system,
of which misogyny is one of the central principles.12
Because of these reasons, Fetterley insists on the concept and practice of
the feminist reader who resists both the masculine conceptualization of female characters as well as ideologically ignoring these characters and their
incorrect interpretation. By presenting a specific awareness policy in the analytical approach of turning both women and men into myths, Fetterley opens a
discussion of the system of power, a new understanding of which can change
any societys culture. Under the influence of Fetterleys study, the development of the hermeneutics of skepticism/doubt/suspicion, as named by Paul
Ricoeur,13 will start to unfold: the feminists approach literary works with
skepticism and search them for that which was unspoken. Thus, Fetterley
states, a bit later than Kate Millet but using Fetterleys evidence, that patriar-
11
Fetterley, The Resisting Reader, xi.

Fetterley, The Resisting Reader, xx.
13
Paul Ricoeur, Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1970), 27.
12
224
Svetlana Tomi
chal values generate gender inequality in Western art and literature,14 leaving
a strong impression upon feminists who, in their turn, continue to investigate
the sexist ideology in the texts by male authors.
Prone to self-reflection, feminism approached the theory of the resisting
female reader in a critical and corrective manner, discovering certain limitations and misleading paths. Thus, for example, Sara Mills criticizes Fetterleys lack of empirical evidence regarding her definitions of the reader. Yet
Mills emphasizes the importance of Fetterleys recognition of the patriarchal
pattern of reading as the dominant cultural model, in which the ideologically
formed narratives are summarized (shortened), and out of which is excluded a
vast amount of information. Since the concepts of reading and readership are
sometimes imprecise, yet always complex, Mills, in her approach to the interpretation of dominant reading, centers herself on the linguistic elements of
the text, which allows for the discovery of the various meanings of those
elements.15
Another critique of Fetterleys interpretation is provided by Rita Felski.16
She found solipsistic tendencies in Fetterleys exclusive concentration on a
female reader, which could prejudice a negative and hostile stand towards a
text. Felski, therefore, accepts and widens Minrose Gwins concepts,17 emphasizing that readings esthetic pleasure does not lessen sociological perspectives. She especially points out the mutual active traffic between readers
(as they travel through the text) and the text itself (as it, simultaneously travels through the reader).
Both Mills and Felski, and later Patrocinio Schweickart,18 agree with Fetterleys opinion: that literature written by men is responsible for a certain psychological degradation of female readers, because male writers imagine and
form their female characters in most cases in negative ways, as repulsive stereotypes, demanding their female readers identify against themselves.
Schweickart compares such manner of reading to imposed flirting and rape
because male authors manipulate, control, and hurt women, and so readers
14
Kate Millet, Sexual Politics (New York: Simon and Schuster Inc., 1969).
Sara Mills, Reading like a Feminist, Gendering the Reader, ed. Sara Mills, (New York:
Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1994), 2546.
16
Rita Felski, Literature after Feminism (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003),
3356.
17
Minrose Gwin, The Woman in the Red Dress: Gender, Space, and Reading (Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 2002).
18
Patrocinio P. Schweickart, Reading Ourselves: Toward a Feminist Theory of Reading, in
Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader, ed. David Lodge and Nigel Wood, 3rd ed. (New
York: Longman, 2008), 485505.
15
225
must control their reactions and sentiments by themselves. Since Draga Gavrilovi expressed these same opinions in her book, A Young Girls Novel,
which was published about a hundred years before these feminist critics were
published, we may even better evaluate to what degree the elimination of her
work from the canon of Serbian literature affected the level of control of the
subservient position of women and the retardation of possible self-awareness
of Serbian female authors and artists, Serbian female readers, and the general
readership as well.
The case of Lazarevis story, To Matins with Father for the First Time,
presents us with the reverse of such matters. Here we have a male author who
did not present the female character in a negative light but in a very positive
one. The normative interpretations manipulated and twisted the meaning of
that first well-developed character of a woman/wife/mother with a strong personality, as well as the general meaning of Lazarevis story, and of Lazarevis other published stories. By their control, and by establishing their own
version of the storys reading as the only legitimate one, such interpretations
prevent any possibility of noting, understanding, and possibly accepting totally different meanings.
After his statement about the only possible identifying being with Mia,
Nikoli incorporates another statement into his analysisthat the boy suddenly disappeared from the story, or, that the dialog between Marica and
Mitar erases from our awareness the presence of the narrator.19 That, as a
matter of fact, is incorrect because it is negated by the very text of the story.
Lazarevi still left to his narrator a number of different words of narrative
self-awareness by which he clearly indicates to the reader that Mia the Narrator is still present. First, even at this point Mia systematically uses the first
person singular, for example, I see the drops dripping from dads sleeve,
sparkling in the moonlight (38) and But I, in three steps, was already back
in the room (39). Second, in his descriptions, Mia uses the possessive
pronoun in order to emphasize the connection with the characters he is observing. For example, My father shivered. Standing like a candle, watching
my mother with empty eyes, his voice like a broken bell20 (38); my
mother.21
19

On page 38, Lazarevi used the word dad twice, my father three times, and the pronoun
he six times.
21
On page 38, Lazarevi changes his preferences for the word mother: three times it is my
mother, three times my mom, and only once my matriarch. To understand the extent to
which he cared about such designations we can look into the fact that he used the possessive
pronoun my with the word mother in his first edition (which he paid for by himself, fol20
226
Svetlana Tomi
Third, Mia defines the nuances in the physical relationship between the
characters, for example, between things in the open space of the garden, but
also between the characters themselves: He finally stopped below the roof of
the granary to take out the pistol. Yet, at the same moment, I do not know
from where, my mother materialized right next to him. My father took a
step back from her, and then stared like a fool into my mother. He stepped
closer to my mother (38). In addition to this, Mia describes the reactions,
gestures, and movements of his father and mother: My father shivered.
Standing like a candle said he, and then spread his arms; My father
took a step back; he stepped closer to my mother; mother took his
hand (38).22
In contrast to Nikolis interpretation, a much more detailed analysis of
the complex functions of the narrator was written by Sneana MilosavljeviMili,23 who emphasizes and interprets many of the crucial details in the
story. One is the correlation between the narrators role as witness/observer
and the childs psychology, for which the world of adults is a secret. Then, the
confirmation of a thesis that the narrator shows more knowledge that he, as
the narrator, could have possessed. And, finally, the discovery that the most
numerous are the narrators commentaries given to the readers/listeners.
Yet, similarly to the above-mentioned interpretations, the analysis by
Sneana Milosavljevi-Mili does not touch upon the context of the patriarchal society, nor does it recognize that the story turns a woman into its other
main character. With no explanation, she states that only the father is the main
character. On the formal side, Milosavljevi-Mili provides a number of excellently argued and analytical observations, discovering Mias complexity
as a narrator and his multiple functions. However, she still does not explain to
a satisfactory degree the source of Mias knowledge that he, exactly because
lowing his friends encouragement) of his Six Stories (Belgrade, 1886)a word that was not
used in the first appearance of the story in Srpska zora, in the spring of 1879 (no. 7, 12830 and
no. 8, 14345). See general and particular remarks in Lazarevi, Celokupna dela, 31112. On
page 39, therefore, until the end of the story, Lazarevi does not use possessive adjectives but
contrasts the words father and mother. In that way, in the final dialogue between his father
and mother, the distinctive gain is won by the word mother, which marks the ethical sympathy of the son for his mother.
22
Only a few of the numerous examples of this narrative strategy are listed here. In the story
itself, they may be found after each quote in the dialogues.
23
Sneana Milosavljavi-Mili is an adjunct professor of Serbian literature in the School of
Philosophy at the University of Ni. See her article Pripovedake funkcije u pripoveci, Prvi
put s ocem na jutrenje, Laze Lazarevia, Knijevna istorija 11213 (2000): 21118, later
republished in Pria i tumaenje (Belgrade; Filip Visnji, 2008). Since I have used a digital
version of the work, there are no page designations after the quotes. Yet, they are easy to locate
and verify in both of the listed printed sources.
227
of being a witness/observer, could not have had. When this very knowledge is
analyzed, it is possible to conclude that it arose from the influence of the
mothers knowledge that was impressed into Mias memory through his
mothers confession to her son.
Secondly, Milosavljevi-Mili might not make a good connection between the facts she notices when she states:
Through the process of creating the character of the boy Mia, the
existential motivation of narration is pointed out and another option
for the presentation of mother and father is introducedthe one in
relation to the boy.
It seems that the text of To Matins with Father for the First Time actually
puts the facts in a different manner. Mias narration takes place at the time
when he, as a mature adult, has ethical, not existential motivation. That motivation sprang out of a sons re-examination of the relationship of his father
towards his mother, the one that Milosavljevi-Mili did not describe but had
defined as unjust and violent.
Third, Milosavljevi-Mili notices that the most numerous commentaries
by the narrator are the ones in which Mia addresses the listeners while simultaneously appearing to have foresight into their thoughts and reaction. She
points out that these commentaries are closely connected with the functions
of the narrator, but she does not make any conclusions that as such they
would have political implications. In addition to his micro-textual role,24 Milosavljevi-Mili states that the narrators role is strengthened in terms of his
commentaries, through which he establishes cooperation and closeness.
However, I believe this role is strengthened through his encouraging of the
reader to assume a critical and analytical approach towards the problem presented in the story. Mias comments directly and explicitly question the
readers about their opinions and points of view; these questions serve to provoke the readers; they demand the readers take a stand and make a political
endorsement for or against Mias father, which simultaneously means doing
the same in relation to Mias mother. Perhaps because of that it is more likely
to search for special meaning in Mias comments starting with verbs related
to thinking and seeing when Mia addresses the readers. Lazarevi emphasizes the thought processes as they relate to the problems revealed in the
story. For example: You think that he seriously thinks that? (29). Here Mia
entices readers to consider his father more critically. He asks readers to think
about his fathers words. Putting into his comment the words you ask (29),
24
At least in terms of the storys dynamism and even its temporal regression.
228
Svetlana Tomi
Lazarevi simultaneously assumes, suggests, and imposes on his listeners/

readers, the question about what it is that they are listening to/reading. Immediately afterwards the narrator states, Well, you probably see what will come
out of all that! (29), by which Lazarevi again provokes the possibilities of
the readers powers of lucid opining. Such opining, following the rules of
logic, should demonstrate the validity and truthfulness of the readers
thinking.
Therefore, it may be concluded that Lazarevi, through such comments,
also entices readers to have a critical approach towards the text, emphasizing
the readers opinion and comprehension, and not only their expectation horizon, as Milosavljevi-Mili suggests. Although Milosavljevi-Mili reveals
many of the subtly differentiated formal details of the story, by the end of her
work, she discusses the narrators moral comments related to Zelemba, and
assumes Skerlis conclusions:
the authors intention to adjoin punishment to guilt so as to completely re-establish harmony. This moral dimension of the story,
which has its source in Christianity, is also the compositional basis of
the motivation to attach an epilogue to the story.
I believe that Lazarevi, in To Matins with Father for the First Time, presented various types of guilt, but he also established a much more complex
relationship between guilt and punishment than concluded in normative interpretations. Regardless of the fact that Zelembas guilt and punishment are
placed in the epilogue of the story, they do not have to be, most decisively,
connected to Zelemba. Maybe there is another character from the story that
is hidden behind the connection between Zelembas guilt and punishment
and Mia?
Further, neither Milosavljevi-Mili nor Raievi provide sufficient arguments for their statements about the relationship between the moral dimension of the story and Christianity. The story on its own does not provide
enough grounds for such a grandiose conclusion. Rather the text of the story
shows that the moral dimension arises from the conflict with patriarchal ideology that devalues and humiliates women, taking away the worth and the
significance they both have. I will return to this idea during the explanation of
why the harmony, mentioned by Milosavljevi, is neither re-established nor
complete at the end of the story. More precisely, why this ethical harmony
is only an illusion. All of these remarks should confirm the thesis that new
discoveries emerge out of a critical dialogue with previous important discoveries, some of which come from Milosavljevi-Milis work. It also confirms
229
that the goal of scholars is the enticement to further contribute in terms of creativity to human thinking and science, and not only to perpetuate previously
established, yet unsubstantiated statements, or to simply expand that which is
known as cumulative knowledge. As Bourdieu said, science favors initial
discoveries and not powerless and sterile metadiscourse. It values inventiveness and originality, not mechanical and already existing knowledge.25
What, therefore, does it mean to neglect and eliminate a woman as a central character from this story? Or, what could it mean that a woman is not recognized as a possible different gender axis of the story? When Lazarevis
narratives appeared, the presentation of a woman as a central and positive
character was a rarity. Even rarer were the types of women who had strong
personalities, to whom writers permitted a chance to express the uniqueness
of their character through their own speech. In accordance with the already
mentioned definition by Gross, it may be concluded that the female characters
in Serbian literature of the time mostly reflected intellectual misogyny.
Women were presented as mute and passive supporters of male constructs.
The first one to stand up to such a cultural construct of gender was Draga
Gavrilovi. Before the appearance of her narratives in 1884 when her novella,
From the Life of a Teacher, was published in Javor, there had been no
presentations in Serbian literature of conversations between women who were
young, educated, and employed, and mostly unmarried. These conversations
are characterized by their length, the mutual respect between the women, and
their critical and self-critical thinking. Nikoli nowhere discusses the great
role Lazarevi gives to Marica as a person, who, due to her ethical virtues and
intellectual abilities, rises above her husband. Socio-political and cultural implications of such ideological neglect and devaluation of a female character by
Nikoli are numerous as his textbook served to educate children, students, and
teachers for many years to disregard women as a qualitatively important and
powerful literary, and also political, topic. When various academic investigations of this story are compared, a unique paradox is noted. The first person
who noted Maricas extraordinary strength and position was a woman, Biljana
ljivi-imi, but it seems that she did not manage to explain Maricas character without contradictions.26
To understand the extent of the rejection of a female character and her
lack of rights in a patriarchal society under Nikolis interpretation, it is important to realize how much Maricas role is eliminatedher role as a rational
woman who keeps on initiating conversations with her husband, appropriating
25
Bourdieu, Pravila umetnosti, 258.

See Biljana ljivi-imi, The Modest Violets, Their Varieties and Antipodes in Nineteenth Century Serbian Literature, Serbian Studies 1, no. 4 (Spring 1982): 93116.
26
230
Svetlana Tomi
the rights otherwise denied her under patriarchy. And these rights are: to address her husband by his first name; to say freely and independently what she
thinks and feels; and to use the force of argument to confront directly her husbands decisions and behavior. The culmination of Nikolis misogynous interpretation may be recognized when he, analyzing the storys final scene,
paradoxically qualifies that dialogue as saving, that is, as a strong psychological element that saves Mitar from suicide,27 and does not recognize his
wife as a woman who had carefully, attentively, and rationally observed each
change in her husband; therefore a woman who moves, controls, and wisely
directs that dialogue; who has the courage to defy her husbands prohibition
to talk.
Nikoli could have borrowed such strategies of non-defining and nonnaming a key female character from his colleagues Skerli and Nedi, and
later on Dereti. In his description of Maricas character, Skerli uses only
masculine gender nouns: Mitar, after losing almost everything he owned,
wants to kill himself. He already lifted the pistol, but here comes his guardian
angel, and of his children, a benevolent spirit, a protector of his home.28 By
describing Marica using masculine nouns in Serbian Skerli assigns to her the
positive characteristics related to male gender identity. It is possible to recognize in this the definition of the phallocentric abstraction described by Gross,
since Skerlis method eliminates the female gender while recognizing the
masculine, which is the only one observed and interpreted. Therefore, its no
wonder that Skerli, much earlier than Nikoli, recognizes the importance of
the last dialogue only and not of the woman who initiates and conducts all
the dialogues, including the saving one, in order to preserve her family. Immediately following this statement, Skerli says, It is a scene of a theatrical
effect, the one dialogue that arrests and saves the sinner, and she takes him
away, healed and reborn, to see his children29
In Nedis interpretation, patriarchal favoritism of male characters can be
noted. Men are the sole focus of Nedis analysis. He sees importance only in
Mitar, defining him as the main character of Lazarevis story, while he removes all importance from Marica, assigning to her only the feelings of a
housewife, wife, and mother.30
27

Mitar, poto je upropastio gotovo sve to je imao, hoe da se ubije. Ve je podigao pitolj,
ali evo gde dolazi aneo hranitelj njegov i njegove dece, dobri duh, zatitnik njegova doma.
Skerli, Studije i kritike, izbor, 84. Emphasis added.
29
Skerli, Studije i kritike, izbor, 84. Emphasis added.
30
Nedi, Celokupna dela, Vol. 2, 291.
28
231
Contrary to the text of the story, Nedi does not recognize Marica as the
savior of her husband and family at all, but leads readers to the conclusion
that Mitar was solely responsible for saving himself from a personal and family tragedy: In his first, and best, story, To Matins with Father for the First
Time, it is the gambler, who, after he gambled away all his possessions and
set his mind to suicide, shakes himself up at the last moment and starts a new
life.31
The focus of Deretis interpretation is the minor contrast between the
gambler, Zelemba,32 and Marica, as a protector of the familys existence:
In the story, To Matins with Father for the First Time, corruption
spreads from the tavern. The tavern is juxtaposed to the home, the diverse folk that gather there in contrast to the family. At home, the
mother is the guardian and protector; in the tavern, the lord is the appalling Pera Zelemba, a gambler, who, until the end of the story, until he is in prison garb, serves as the manifestation of the devil.33
In the text of the story, the conflict is not between Marica and Zelemba; the
conflict between Marica and her husband, which began long before the conflict caused by gambling, already exists. Deretis neglect to name Mitar as
the cause of moral degradation is more than just an interesting fact. In the
story, Zelemba is introduced as a trader in pigs, unknown to others, a person
who works with Budapest (32). The description of Zelemba and his style
of dress suggests an explicit disharmony between his monetary power and
class status, which is obvious in his over-accessorizing himself with valuable
objects that he attained through gambling. Zelemba appears only once in
Lazarevis storyduring the fateful night of gambling. By then, Mitar has
already made it his practice to gather the gamblers in his house, transforming
the privacy of his home into a tavernthe typical location of male homoerotic pleasures, removed from the eyes of the wider society, where alcohol
and gambling rule. Deretis interpretation thus, to a great extent, narrows the
focus of the story and eliminates the crucial conflict between wife and husband within the patriarchal family. That conflict is defined by Dereti as an
idealization of the old patriarchal world and its values,34 and Lazarevis
story as a description of Maricas husbands tyranny, or Mias fathers cruelty and repulsiveness. Thus, Deretis focus removes that which Lazarevis
31
Nedi, Celokupna dela, Vol. 2, 293.

Zelemba may be a sound reference with Zelenaan usurer.
33
34
32
232
Svetlana Tomi
story activatesMaricas total suffering as a woman, wife, and mother. And,

since the children are attached to their mother, they suffer along with her.
Contrary to Deretis interpretation, which eliminates the suffering of the
children, Lazarevis story gradually increases the connection of the childrens suffering to their mother, as in the case of Mia, or binds and joins
them into one portrait as in the case of Maricas daughter.
While explaining the climax of the story, Dereti does not mention
Marica, though he insists on love and fraternal solidarity between husband
and wife, something not presented by Lazarevis story. Dereti says:
Yet, disintegration does not happen. The family is not destroyed, as
Mitar is not destroyed eitherhe who brought the family to the brink
of destruction. The spirit of old communal living, founded on love
and fraternal solidarity, lives on.35
Deretis, and later Nikolis, insertion of fraternal solidarity into the
meaning of the relationship between Marica and Mitar may be seen in the new
light cast upon institutionalized knowledge constructions. Nikoli states:
When Marica addresses Mitar: Mitar, my brother, my lord, what are you
willing to do?it is a true case of a profession of brotherly fellowship between them, and even beyond that.36
First of all, their interpretations ignore the fact that Marica is a woman
and thus may have only sisterly solidarity towards Mitar. But, how is it possible to see sisterly solidarity when the connection between them is the one of
marriage? More precisely, why does Dereti relate marriage with brotherly
solidarity? Why is it important in Nikolis interpretation to emphasize such a
brotherly connection in the marriage between Marica and Mitar? Such statements may reveal a much more subtle projection: the interposition of the nonexistent fraternal solidarity between wife and husband upon the existing, socalled modern patriarchal social contract.
Deretis and Nikolis projections have as a starting point the traditional
family patriarchy, personified in Mitar, and they transport these projections
into the modern patriarchy of mid-twentieth century Serbian society. According to Carole Pateman,37 the social contract of this modern patriarchal society is made outside and in opposition to the family sphere, as a union or a
civic compact between men as carriers of natural law. In this manner, civil
35

Nikoli, Istorija, 354. More details about this statement by Nikoli will follow later.
37
Carole Pateman, enski nered: Demokracija, feminizam, i politika teorija, trans. Mirjana
Pai Jurini (Zagreb: enska infoteka, 1998). See, especially: Bratski ugovor, 3859.
36
233
society, as a universal sphere of liberty that promotes interests and values of

the whole society, is presented as that which gives priority and speaks for the
interests and values of that societys males. That contract, therefore, reveals
male relationships as those of a fraternity, and, as Pateman so convincingly
demonstrated, fraternity does not mean the same as brotherhood but a
league of men connected together by the same social law of the father, which
is the same as submission of women to men. Thus, when seen within their
institutionalized interpretation of Lazarevis story, Dereti and Nikolis inscription of love and fraternal solidarity into the foundations of patriarchal
society points to their subjective tie to the authoritarian and violent Mitara
materialization of the law of such a society.
The text itself does not demonstrate either love or solidarity between Mitar and Marica. In the story, Marica is the only responsible person who takes
care of all the members of her family, including her husband who humiliates
and devalues her. Dereti, in his History of Serbian Literature, writes the following about Lazarevis story: in the patriarchal family, the supreme law is
the care for an individual: even the one who transgresses must not be rejected.38 Yet this statement does not coincide with the actual text of the story,
wherein the patriarchal family does not care about individuals, such as wives
and children, since it is founded on the power and control possessed only by
the eldest man, the husband, the fatherin this case, Mitar. Deretis insistence that even the one who transgresses must not be rejected again subjectively interprets the patriarchal law and the manner in which that law was
coded into Lazarevis story. Deretis interpretation of the story does not
explain Mitars transgression, nor his guilt, nor the responsibility or solidarity
upon which he founds his interpretation of patriarchy. That interpretation rather insists on the power Mitar possesses within society, which is not even
touched upon in Deretis interpretation. Because that very patriarchal power
is the reason why Mitar must not be rejected. What could Marica have expected of her life and the lives of her three underage children as a single
mother during the last decades of nineteenth century Serbia? Had Mitar killed
himself, she would be left without the house or any of the family property,
since Mitar lost it gambling, and she would also lose her parental rights over
her children. At that time, a Serbian widow did not have the right to take care
of her children by herself but was obliged to have a tutor, a man who would
become the legal guardian of the children, regardless of the fact that such a
woman had preformed her parental duties impeccably.39 It was a time when
38

Marija Draki and Olga Popovi-Obradovi, Pravni poloaj ene prema Srpskom
graanskom zakoniku (18441946), in Srbija u modernizacijskim procesima 19. i 20. veka.
39
234
Svetlana Tomi
Serbian women did not have the right to be valued in public or to be paid adequately for her labor.40
Marica is aware that both her life and the lives of her children depend on
Mitar and she knows that she has to save him because any other choice would
only worsen her familys condition. Dereti and Nikolis interpretation of
fraternal solidarity is not in agreement with the text, which points out the
problem of the nonexistence of mutual responsibility between a husband and
wife. Specifically, in Lazarevis story, there is neither a description of a husbands responsibility toward his wife nor of a father toward his children. The
two interpretations discussed here reveal their authors ideological relationship toward the story and toward Lazarevi in their attempts to re-code patriarchal law as morally positive.
To make the matter even more complicated, the writer of the History of
Serbian Literature softens the whole complex conflict between husband and
wife by deeming it light in spite of the fact that the story describes it as
Maricas long-lasting fights, sufferings, and efforts to take her husband away
from gambling and convince him that lifes true values are something else.
But, Dereti interprets the resolution of the conflict in this manner:
the spirit of the old society, based on love and fraternal solidarity,
lives on. In these societies, all difficulties are resolved easily, whether
they arise from the transgressive weaknesses of human nature or from
individualistic beliefs that are in conflict with the unwritten norms of
collective morality.41
And, since according to Dereti the only important character is Mitar, we
learn later in this interpretation that Mitar is not lost.42
Let us return to Nikolis interpretation, which explains this dialogue as a
strong psychological support which Mitar finds in Marica, and both of them
in their children, their family, and the primordial power of love.43 Again, it
should be pointed out to students that, first, Marica is the one responsible for
knjiga 2, Poloaj ene kao merilo modernizacije, ed. Latinka Perovi (Belgrade: Institut za
noviju istoriju Srbije, 1998), 1126.
40
The first public job for which a Serbian woman could have earned a state-paid salary was
that of a teacher. For more about the position of female teachers from the sociological point of
view, see Ljubinka Trgovcevi, ene kao deo elite u Srbiji u 19. veku: Otvaranje pitanja, in
Perovi, ed., Srbija u modernizacijskim procesima, 25168. The same work may be found at
http://www.cpi.hr/download/links/hr/7077.pdf.
41
42
43
235
this dialogue, out of which the whole situation is transformed and the familys
destiny changed. The primordial power of love is an unnecessary phrase,
unconfirmed by the actual text, since Lazarevi did not describe either a husbands love for his wife or that of the wife for her husband, but the care and
responsibility that the mother feels for her family.
Nikolis interpretation ignores and fails to recognize one of the main
problems on which the story focuses, and that is the position of women in a
patriarchal society. Nikoli does not define husband and wife as participants
of a dialogue in Lazarevis story, which shows the essence of the political
conflict important for understanding the story. The conflict between husband
and wife arises out of their unequal rights within the patriarchal society, that
is, because of different gender values and powers possessed by Marica and
Mitar within the patriarchal family. Although in the theory of literary interpretation, historical and political contexts are considered key elements for the
validity of interpretation,44 Nikoli prefers to employ the strategy of underemphasizing the patriarchal law and the position of women in the society of that
era. This is especially noticeable because he uses smaller font in a small paragraph in which he only touches upon the subservient position of women in
patriarchal society, which is, of course, noted in her unequal role as a participant in the conversation with her husband45 Lets remember that, according to the Civil Code of Serbia, which was in effect for one hundred years
until 1945, a woman did not have the freedom of movement, and was absolutely subservient to her husband. The husband even had the right to beat his
wife, and, in the case of adultery, to stone her.46 During meals, women for a
long time did not have the right to sit next to their husbands. While the husband issued orders, the wife was supposed to fulfill his orders, serve him,
keep order in the house, and take care of the children (Articles 109 and
110).47
Nikoli asks the following question, and with the following emphasis:
In what situations do these dialogues get started and are held? Which
character initiates the dialogue narrative? Why is it Marica who does
it? What meaning have her, and what are the meanings of her and
44
See Eric D. Hirsch, Naela tumaenja, trans. Tihomir Vukovi (Belgrade: Nolit, 1983),
especially the chapter, Objektivno tumaenje, 23376.
45
46
The stoning of women is still practiced today in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, and
Saudi Arabia.
47
Neda Boinovi, ensko pitanje u Srbiji u XIX i XX veku (Belgrade: Devedesetetvrta i
ene u crnom, 1996), 29.
236
Svetlana Tomi
Mitars replicas? Compare them by their tones of narration. What do

you conclude about Mitar based on his exclamatory sentences? What
is the source of such inequality? Can a dialogue continue naturally in
such a situation? Does it allow the characters to unburden themselves
psychologically? Why does the dialogue abruptly end? (Whose fault
is it?) Explain the expressive power of silence into which the dialogue
dissolves.48
It is indicative that Nikoli seeks similarities and differences in the meaning
and tone of Maricas and Mitars sentences, but after that, he gives privilege
to the questions about Mitars character and eliminates directing the student to
the character of Marica. If both participants are important for a dialogue to
take place, why is it that Marica, the one who always initiated it, is always
excluded from the questions about what may be concluded about her character? When comparing the husbands portion of the dialogue with the wifes,
why does Nikoli insist on Mitars grumpiness and Milicas obedience? Yet
the story presents Marica as a woman who, contrary to Mitar, has better solutions for both his business and family problems. Why is it that Nikoli defines
Maricas silence as expressive and verbose, while he completely overlooks the intellectual characteristics of her speech? Why is it important for
Nikoli to point out that students should explain the stylistic function of
Maricas silence and not, for example, the psychological variety of feelings
that cause such silence?49
To better understand the way Nikoli understood the characters of husband and wife and presented their roles in the story, we may look at the answers to his own questions:
The dialogues are initiated in critical situations when the characters
feel the need to unburden themselves psychologically. They are always initiated by Marica. She more strongly feels the material and
psychological dissolution of the family and persistently attempts to
get Mitar to talk so as to point out to him that the existence of the
family has come into question and to get him back on the right path.
Mitar, on the other hand, is not willing to talk [to Marica]. He, in an
abrupt tone, interrupts the exchange so the dialogue disappears and
turns into silence. The dialogue is usually interrupted at the moment
when it speedily moves to its main point; when it borders on an open
48
49
Nikoli, Metodika, 352. All emphasis maintained from the original text.
conflict and when it is about to discuss the passion for gambling and
all of its deadly consequences.50
50
Nikoli, Metodika, 352. Emphasis original.
237
Relations of Power and the

Rhetoric of Gender Politics
Since Lazarevis story presents another kind of womens speech, different

from the one Nikoli interprets as psychological unburdening, in this section, Lazarevis revelation of womens political impotence will be discussed. Lazarevi even presents Maricas silences differently than how Nikoli understands them. Therefore, this article examines, on the one hand,
the character of Marica as a woman who fights for her own direct, rational,
and argumented speech and, on the other, the character of Mitar, a man who
expresses his patriarchal power through the rhetoric of violence. Within
these analyses, this article concludes that Maricas superior self-awareness,
by intellectual and moral reasoning, rejects her husbands value system.
Lazarevis presentation of Maricas efforts to have her speech included and

valued within the patriarchal family structure was an ingenious venture, i.e.,
to introduce an extraordinary female character into nineteenth-century Serbian
literature. While he reveals the political powerlessness of a woman, Laza K.
Lazarevi simultaneously shows us Maricas struggle to have her opinions,
thoughts, feelings, and needs accepted according to the principles of truth,
justice, and goodness. In that manner Lazarevi identifies possible future political gains for women. In this story, victory is achieved through an indirect
recognition of a womans value by the narrator, generated by the sons subconscious feeling of guilt toward his mother. The writer presents that victory
in an ironic manner through the storys title. The title, To Matins with Father
for the First Time, one-sidedly emphasizes the role of the father in the family, and while simultaneously negating the role of the mother, establishes the
societal norms about gender presentation. Yet, the story itself creates a conflict based on that very gender presentation and its related social norms. The
character of the son who, as narrator, always puts his mother in the limelight
as the savior and essential figure of a Serbian family, although she is not the
official proprietor or decision maker. Such a wife/mother is fundamentally the
one who preserves the family while the father is merely the formal proprietor.
240
Svetlana Tomi
By omitting Mias particular relationship with his father in the title of the
story, Lazarevi stresses the symbolic significance of the father in a patriarchal society. It is no longer just the character of Mitarhis own fatherbut a
type of an authoritarian father, recognizable in Serbian literature of that time
by his tyrannical conduct within his familythat is, the father constructed by
patriarchal law. But, now, something is happening with the father, as the
title indicates, for the first time.
One may notice that the title is strategically opposed to the story as a
whole since it eliminates the mothers character, and the daughters as well. In
doing so, Lazarevi indicates his own distance from the social code prevalent
in the culture. Serbian society at the end of the nineteenth century still did not
recognize wives/mothers and daughters/sisters, and excluded them from stories titles, but that formal stance is in opposition to the value Lazarevi assigned to them in his story. The emphasis on the trip to matins with the father
for the first time in the title, therefore, simultaneously casts light upon the secret significance of the mother. More precisely, that significance is carried by
Maricas whole character as a woman who also has the roles of a wife and
mother. She contributed to the actualization of that family trip to matins with
father for the first time. She is the only one responsible for the salvation of her
husband and her family. Yet, in spite of all that, she is not mentioned in the
title; no significance is assigned to her.
We shall further discuss Lazarevis description of patriarchal communication problems. While patriarchy itself justifies violence through the terminology of gender differences and gender roles, Lazarevis story, as this analysis will show, presents violence as an undesirable mode of communication,
equated with humiliation and shame. The focus of the story, therefore, may be
seen in Lazarevis politicization of the patriarchal stereotype of women and
prejudices related to the female gender, which devalue women as different.
That kind of stereotype is presented by Lazarevi through the communication
of the wife with her husband, which is the foundation of the story. It is the
problem of interaction between two genders, socially separated by patriarchal
laws and the distribution of power. That power itself underlies the political
and cultural norms of patriarchy, a system criticized by Lazarevi.
When parts of the texts that focus on the father are compared with those
focused on the mother, we can note that the dramatic, political, and ethical
values come from the mothers and not the fathers point of view. The origin
of such values may be found in the relationship between the mother and the
son, which was built up through the sons compassion for his mother.
Relations of Power and the Rhetoric of Gender Politics
241
Through that compassion, the readers compassion with Mias mother may
arise, a matter that will be discussed subsequently and more fully.1
Ljubomir Nedi2 and Dimitrije Vuenovs3 interpretations differ greatly
from my own. They find the focus of the story in the fathers passion for gambling. Why then would Lazarevi, using the character of the son describe in so
much detail the relationship between the father and the mother, as well as
their relationships with the children, and do that long before introducing the
fathers passion for gambling? Mitars ardor for gambling may be understood
more authentically only as a trigger that allows the writer to present the problem of political insecurity of a woman deciding the fate of her family although
she is smarter and has a stronger character than her husband. In another interpretation, Vasa D. Mihailovi suggests that Mitar is a beloved husband and
father who surrenders to his gambling obsession, although there are no convincing words in the story about the love of Marica and her children for Mitar.4 Duan Ivani believes that Lazarevis story is a typical tale about the
return/transformation of a father taken over by his passion for gambling.5
In the realist prose of nineteenth-century Serbia, which is Ivanis specific
field of research, the theme of transformation of a (husband and) father consumed by the love of gambling is not typical at all and is rarely found in canonical prose. In the prose of female writers, the theme of transformation is
always realized by the intellectual and moral characters of the wives. Also, it
must be mentioned that Ivani neglects an important theme related to recognizing the importance of the positive cultural construction of the female gender as intellectual and moral. All of these interpretations are a part of the patriarchal, ideological pressure on Lazarevis story to make it tell that which
it does not tell.6 That pressure repeatedly returns through the interpretations
by the aforementioned critics, and specifically as part of the patriarchal rhetoric of violence by which the position of male power is protected and defended. Umberto Eco, therefore, compares the inseparability of the usage of a
1
Of course, readers may or may not have compassion for these and the storys other characters,
but the importance of the son turning towards his mother; his attachment to her, her feelings,
and her moral values and not for his father is emphasized here.
2
Nedi, Celokupna dela, Vol 2.
3
Dimitrije Vuenov, Pripovetke Laze Lazarevia (Belgrade: Zavod za udbenike i nastavna
sredstva, 1986).
4
For Vasa Mihailovis text, see the internet: Dictionary of Literary Biography on Laza K.
Lazarevi, (p. 4), or in print: Dictionary of Literary Biography, Vol. 147: South Slavic Writers
Before World War II, editor Vasa D. Mihailovi, (Detroit: Gale Research, 1995).
5
6
Umberto Eco, Granice tumaenja, trans. Milana Pileti (Belgrade: Paideia, 2001), 107.
242
Svetlana Tomi
storys content and its interpretation to the transformation of the act of reading
into a marsh. Yet, even in between the unknowable intentions of the author
and the readers, the intention of the text is transparent and renounces unsupportable interpretations.7
Perhaps a more plausible interpretation of the story is the one that juxtaposes the fathers obsession for gambling to the mothers efforts to prevent
the destruction of her husband and her family, in spite of the fact that she is a
member of the non-respected, unrecognized, and devalued gender? The story
shows that she esteemed a different life style, one that respects other values. If
Lazarevis story only described the fathers addiction to gambling as dominant, it would not juxtapose the wife and her extraordinary character to her
husband to such an extent and from the beginning of the story. Neither would
a great part of the story be built upon her opposition to her husbands impertinence, which turns out to be detrimental both for him and his family. Why,
then, does Lazarevi provide all of the details about the fathers rigidity and
distance toward his children and wife much earlier than the point at which the
passion for gambling overtook him? Why then emphasize the power that Mitar has as a ruler and the one who issues orders equally to his son, wife, and
shop assistant? For what reasons does Lazarevi describe the anxiety of
Marica or her children when they enter his line of vision, which scares them
and causes them to end all conversations as soon as they notice him? Why did
not Lazarevi describe the gambling underworld in more detail, with Mitars
other impassioned gambling comrades, or Mitars gambling obsession more
directly?
Instead, from the beginning to the end of the story, Lazarevi compares
the wife to the husband, and does so through absolutely opposite attributes.
While the son describes the father through the rhetoric of extreme negativity
(never, does not, in no way), he sculpts his mothers character using the
most positive characteristics, enthroning her at the very beginning of the story
as a saint. While the father is always cold, grouchy, worse than a stranger
(28), the mother is meek, as good as a saint (28). In contrast to her husband,
Marica is presented as a person with stable values. Due to such a division of
family roles, it may be concluded that Lazarevi does not juxtapose the husband (as an individual) with his gambling, but an individual husband with his
wife and children who suffer because of his passion. Just like her children,
Marica is also denied any choice because she does not have any political
power. Together with her children, she is helpless and dependent on Mitar.
Therefore, the point of the story is directly aimed at the relationship between the power and responsibility that a man/father/husband has in society
7
Eco, Granice tumaenja, 17.
243
and within his family. Mitar is granted authority by the patriarchal society but
he does not deserve it due to his irresponsible management of his family and
his commercial business. It seems that Lazarevi created Mitars character so
as to cause the tension through which Maricas virtues could be even more
emphasized. It is as if he wondered what Marica would do when the gambling
problem appeared, when there arose an existential danger with the highest
level of possibility to overthrow the privileged position of control for male
rule and power. Would Marica show only positive characteristics or would
she act differently, perhaps guided by some other principles, which would
have more devastating consequences on the family? In that context, the end of
the story is important, contrasting Mitar, who joins the concepts of ownership
and power (I gave everything away! 38), with Marica, who emphasizes the
value of a person, not of possession (The important thing is that you are alive
and healthy! 38). Therefore I think that it is very important to follow how,
from the beginning of the story, the son creates a contrast in the way he portrays his parents. On the one side is his indirect definition of the father as
strange, cruel, irrational, and weirdthat is, as negative and unacceptable
and on the other there is the mother, described as a character with positive and
desirable values. The story develops largely through the deterioration of patriarchal values materialized in the father, which makes Deretis interpretation
irrelevant. This story does not present a patriarchal pastoral or small town
idyll since it does not contain anything idyllic.
In the storys long existence, critics neglected to note three seemingly important questions related to Lazarevis story. First, right at the beginning,
there is irony in the relationship between the powers of remembrance of the
mother and of the nine-year-old boy. In this part of the story, the then-mature
man who is narrating says that he, as a nine-year-old could not have remembered everything so precisely (27), but that his mother told him many a
thing (27). Seeing this, one may question Mias awareness about the whole
problem of the story, which develops exactly through his mothers
confessions.
Second, in the text, the mother is the figure introduced first, not the father,
due to the sons remembrance of her conversations with her husband and her
son as well: Mother told me many a thing while I was growing up, and I
asked her much, too. Father, of course, never even a word! (27). These conversations ran deep within the sons awareness, creating, through retrospective, an active mechanism of the present.8 The conclusion about his parents,
8
For more information about the importance of the role of memory, see the final chapter of J.
M. Lotman, Semiosfera: U svetu miljenja. ovek-tekst-semiosfera-istorija, trans. Veselka
Santini and Bogdan Terzi (Novi Sad: Svetovi, 2004), 331429.
244
Svetlana Tomi
and especially the unrecognized value of his mother, were formed in the sons
mind through remembering his parents relationship, between themselves and
between them and their children. These conclusions are part of the combination of knowledge, emotions, and motivations.
Finally, the authority of the father crumbles away exactly by the triad
consisting of father-son-mother. While the father refuses to talk (Father, of
course, never even a word!), the son, aided by the mothers speech, destabilizes the fathers authority.
The whole story therefore appears as an expansion of its central metaphor.
The story becomes an enlarged keyhole through which the son observes everything. It transmits the secret that he observes and which is being confessed.
The secret concerns the problematic father, who is the reason the family lives
in suffering. The awareness of the underage son is limited, but later is expanded and improved first by his mothers perceptual powers and then by his
own adult ones. The moment of recognition of the fathers destruction of the
family, and his own as well, is transferred from the secrecy of a private,
closed room to a public, wide-open space, of the storys readership. The authority that the father builds up by tyranny is repulsive to the son. Mia accepts his mothers authority more willingly because she personifies humanistic integrity and is capable of autonomous action when necessary, performing good deeds for the benefit of all members of the family. Maricas disregarding of her husbands prohibition to speakand the social norm symbolized by her husbandturns out to be the act of saving her husband and protecting the family from harm. Marica managed to prevent her husbands selfdestruction and the destruction of the whole family. And yet, the patriarchal
society and her own husband denied her such power, ability, and merit.
In his interpretation of Lazarevis story, Nikoli does not find it important that Marica, contrary to patriarchal laws, initiates the conversation, suggesting positive solutions for some important problems. Lazarevi, as a very
rare example of a male writer of his age, and even of later periods of Serbian
literature, makes the speech of a woman direct, rational, and reasonable. The
way Maricas first speech is presented, for example, is her indirect rebellion
against Mitars poor business decision. Maricas question to her husband,
Mitar, why do you not give the brandy to Stanoje? (28), is not really about
the brandy. Marica is shown here as a woman who thinks independently, and
who would direct business in a much wiser and more economical way than
her husband. Her husband rudely reminds her who the boss is and where her
place as a woman is within the public sphere of social interaction. Mitar does
not offer arguments to oppose Maricas suggestion but to her intrusion into
his territory; he replies by castigating her: Are you hungry, or do you lack
245
anything? and he ends it with a strict order: Do not interfere in my business! (28).
Maricas speech is in direct opposition to the subservient position of
women who, in a patriarchal society, were denied the right to contradict their
husbands, voice comments or criticism, or suggest better solutions to
problems.
By the way they address each other one may see that the husband is
the master of his wife and that there is a great distance between husband and wife, such as between a sovereign and his subject. In villages, a wife does not address her husband by his name but, depending on the occasion, she describes him in such a manner so that it is
known about whom and/or to whom she speaks. To her children she
would say: your daddy told you so and so Most often she uses the
pronoun He in order to describe him.9
Through its liberating significance contrary to the patriarchal norms regarding communication within the family, Maricas speech thus paves the
way for a new type of a character of mothers and wives in nineteenth-century
Serbian prose. Until her appearance, the fictional characters of Serbian wives
and mothers speak very little in general, and almost not at all, to their husbands. Marica is a thinking woman who attempts to speak as an equal to her
husband. But her husband interrupts her all the time, negates her, and threatens her. Yet, Nikoli never mentions any of these details and he never even
touches upon the innovations in Lazarevis approach to a female character.
It should be noted that Marica always addresses her husband by his name,
which is unusual for that time. Marica, it seems, does not want to consider her
husband as a master to whom she is subservient, but as a man, which is another particularity of her speech, her diferentia specifica, also neglected by
Nikoli. The extent to which such a manner of addressing a husband is different from others is obvious when compared with the way the foolish and nave
character Ilinka addresses her husband in another Lazarevis story, He
Knows Everything! In this story, Lazarevi presents his own awareness of
the subservient manner of address used by women through the mind of the
narrator: HEthroughout her whole chat she called her husband only HE,
(166).
arko Trebjeanin, Distribucija moi u zadruzi, Predstava o detetu u srpskoj kulturi, 226 of
the digital version of Antologije srpske knjievnosti, Uiteljskog fakulteta u Beogradu,
www.aks.rs.
246
Svetlana Tomi
In her outbursts, Marica is shown as a direct speaker: Mitar, why do not

you give the brandy to Stanoje? (28). Then, right away explains and proposes a solution to a problem: Soon there will be new brandy, and where will
you put it? (28). It is important to note that Marica, both on that occasion and
at other times, has a solution though her husband does not. Her reactions to
her husbands negation of her are always the same: Mother withdraws and
grows silent (28) or My mom, what can she do but shut up (30). They do
not only point out to the feelings of a humiliated and hurt person, but they
signify that it is very difficult to reach better solutions with such a husband.
He will not accept such solutions because of at least two reasons. First, because they come from a woman, therefore from a representative of the gender
whose intellectual abilities are denied in the patriarchal society. Mitar even
explains this when he interrupts her: I have not lost my mind yet so that I
need a woman to be my tutor! (31). Second, such solutions are what destroy
Mitars authority as head of the family. As heads of families, men are the
symbols of male social privilege as the only ones capable of directing and
ruling since they are, supposedly, the only gender possessing intellectual abilities. Also, it should not be forgotten that it was the patriarchal society that,
for a long time, forbade education of women and thus made political change
impossible, especially change that would lead to the betterment of the position
of women. It is, therefore, important to note that Marica has great difficulties
coming to a solution with her husband since he never gives her reasons but
only reminds her that he is the master, owner, and the one with power. Male,
patriarchal authority is based on the rules of control, order, and discipline. In
that context, it is logical that Mitars speech does not contain emotional connectedness and compassion, which, according to the rules of the rhetoric of
authority, signify weakness and subservience.
In his molding of gender-differentiated speech, Lazarevi reverses the stereotype of female speech because, in Maricas case, he first excludes emotional connections and compassion towards Mitar. In addressing her husband,
Marica follows the principle of rationality. By doing this Lazarevi shows
himself to be a very competent thinker who foresees societys reactions to the
unspoken emotions of the speaker. Lazarevi is aware that this is the only way
he can achieve competence, authority, and attractiveness of Maricas speech
and create respect with the social norm of communication.10 Later, when Mitar rejects Maricas female elements of moral value, her worries and re-
10
See Virginia Sapiro, Theorizing Gender in Political Psychology Research, in Oxford

Handbook of Political Psychology, ed. David O. Sears, Leonie Huddy, and Robert Jervis (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 617.
247
sponsibilities toward others, he limits the acceptance of her authority as a

more humane instrument of the social system.11
This is the central irony in Lazarevis story, with which he intertwined
all of the storys complex meanings.. The authority in a patriarchal society
lies with the man, the one who possesses control and power in the community,
and not with the woman who cares about that community in a responsible and
ethical manner. By not mentioning Marica as a member of the family who
publicly attends matins with her husband and their children, Lazarevi emphasizes the essence of patriarchal authority as an instrument of political
power dependent on the construction of gender.
In his speech, Mitar uses the rhetoric of violence, and specifically of
male violence within the family which marks both social and male primacy.
According to feminist sociological and historical investigations, violence is a
mark of struggle for the power of preservation of a certain social organization.12 It is, therefore, important to note the way in which Mitar preserves his
power by verbal violence, against which stands Maricas absence of social
power and violence and her intellectual and ethical superiority. With each of
his aggressive moves and words of irresponsibility, his threats and prohibition
to speak, Mitar defends his attacked and endangered position by a rhetorical
question: Dont I know that? (29), I suppose I am neither blind nor
crazy (30). He feels that it is not his own but his wifes words that turn out to
be rational and justified, which offer a better and smarter opinion, and that are
expressed through clear and direct speech.
But by such rhetorical manipulation Mitar also wants to mark Maricas
speech as irrational and strange, to return it to the old, stereotypical, ideologically negative, and worthless womens place.13 Because such concepts as
ideological speech remain in the political frame of the nineteenth century,
Lazarevi rejects such a concept, marking the persistence of Maricas free and
clear speech as the worth of women. It is important to note that Marica leads
11
For feminist research on the problem of authority and power, see Kathleen B. Jones, On
Authority: Or, Why Women Are Not Entitled to Speak in Feminism and Foucault: Reflections
on Resistance, ed. Irene Diamond and Lee Quinby (Boston: Northeastern University Press,
1988). Compare with the explanations of natural constructs of authority by Hannah Arendt, On
Revolution (New York: Penguin Books, 2006).
12
To learn about this research, the difference compared to Foucoult, and more details about the
rhetoric of violence, see Teresa de Lauretis, The Violence of Rhetoric, in Technologies of
Gender: Essays on Theory, Film, and Fiction (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987),
3150.
13
For more details about the patriarchal perception of the place of women, see Sandra M.
Gilbert and Susan Gubar, The Madwoman in the Attic (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
2000), 84.
248
Svetlana Tomi
the dialogue about what is brought to the house after her husbands gambling,
insisting on her own direct rhetoric about the truth of gambling. Lazarevi
transports the atmosphere of the gambling den into the family home by the
rhetorical drama between the married couple. The words they exchange, short
and fast, jingle like coins, exchanged as fear, anxiety, bitterness and anger.
Words such as regained, restored, bought, sold, reflect the different
kinds of struggles against gambling. They show the clash of the rational anxiety with fake self-control. But the differences between the two sides are unbridgeable. Marica and the children are helpless, reduced to objects of possession, almost equated to the goods Mitar sells, to the very gold coins Mitar
takes away, causing Maricas collapse from pain. Mitar is the paradoxical mix
of power and gambling, hard to resist his wifes calls to reason, and unbendable to her warnings and the reminders of their children.
The search for truth starts with Maricas question, And where is your
watch, Mitar? (29), when she rejects her husbands rhetoric of lies about the
consequences of gambling, that is, about material loss. Mitar lies, saying that
he sent the watch to Belgrade to be repaired (29). Marica does not position
herself only as a wife who questions her husband about the disappearance of
things and the appearance of others, but also as a woman who confronts her
husbands lies with her critical doubts: But it worked well, Mitar (30). But
Mitar sourly replies to such questioning: I suppose I am neither blind nor
crazy; I suppose I know when it works and when it does not! (30). The irony
of Mitars attempts to be convincing reveals just the opposite. He is blind and
crazy exactly because he does not see and because he refuses to see where his
gambling leads. Not long after, Marica notices Mitar posing with the very
watch he lost gambling but which he later regained.
It is not likely that the boy Mia knew the details of his fathers behavior
and it is more likely that they became part of his mothers perception, which
he memorized when she told him about it. So, as soon as Marica saw the
watch, she asked her husband: So, you got it back? (30). But her husband
refuses to accept the truth about his gambling nights and the related risks, nor
the truth about the origin of the valuables that appeared in the housemostly
items men use as accessories or status symbols: a fur hat, a gold chain, a silver
coin with a precious stone in it. Marica corrects herself and asks again, Was
your watch so quickly repaired? (30), and Mitar sharply replies: Repaired!
(30). Marica then continues her questioning, And that chain, what kind is it?
(30), but Mitar refuses to tell the truth and even changes the tone of his voice:
A chain like any other, says he, but somehow softly, not at all as if he
snapped at her (30). Marica does not give up. When she asks, I know, but
how did you get it? she shows that she does not believe her husband. Mitar
249
wants to convince her that he bought both the fur hat and the chain but
Marica, by asking, He sold them to you? seeks a confirmation of her suspicions through his silence. She then receives an even stronger confirmation by
her husbands repetition of her words: Sold! Because of this it may be said
that her awareness is superior to that of her husband. When she wanted to
continue her questioning, her husband gave her a look, stern and harsh and
she shut up. That look confirms the strength of male authority in patriarchal
culture because all that is needed is a facial expression to transmit a powerful
message of warning and threat. The same look is remembered by Mia, who,
at the beginning of the narration/confession, says that it was not so much the
beating that scared him as it was the look in his fathers eyes.
Lazarevi ironically doubles the roles of his characters. Maricas speech
as a wife differs from that of the mother. While Marica wants to present herself as an independent woman before her husband, she is forced to show herself as helpless and dependent in front of her children. In front of her children,
she does not hide her feelings, anxieties, and fears as she used to. Marica
weeps. Desperate, she cries: Oh, poor me! He will gamble away all that we
have so that I will, in my old age, have to wash other peoples shirts! (30).
She does not present her husband or her children as the ones who carry the
greatest burden, but herself. Oh, poor me! cries Marica, because she is
aware that it is not rationality, responsibility, and clear thinking that drive her
husbandall things she possesses. Everything that they earned together her
husband will gamble away with no regard for anyone else.
Marica is aware of the dangers of gambling and fears that she will, despite
her honest work, dedication to her family, and her rational opposition to her
husband, end up old and weak, serving in other peoples homes. Lazarevis
narrator describes these words as wailing but they also show Maricas self
awareness of her value as a human being, a being destined to negation, loss of
value, and destruction, to absolute dependence on and subjugation to her husbands will and rule just because she is female, because she does not have the
right to make decisions in the patriarchal family. Later, when she touches the
money gained by gambling with disgust,14 Marica, in front of her children,
14
Lazarevi merged the awareness of the narrator (which is already a merging of the awareness
of being and timeof a child and of an adult) with the awareness of the narrators mother,
which is confirmed by a number of details interwoven in the story. Such details include: his
mother told him about a father who behaved differently, which he, having been a small child at
the time, has no memory; that he and the other children suffered together with their mother, that
is, that they were unhappy and that she was unhappy; that his mother was worried about her
childrens need for psychological stability, so she did not send her son to school right after the
tense event; and the following comparison by the son: My mother took that paper with two
fingers only, as if she were handling a soiled diaper.
250
Svetlana Tomi
very clearly rejects her husbands value system. For her, the money gained by
gambling is accursed and diabolical; it is a symbol of a economy driven
by passions, not based on honest work and effort. By this, Lazarevi additionally elevates Maricas morality, recognizing her ethics as respecting work, as
opposed to easy gains, and valuing rational management of wealth and not the
frivolous nature of gambling.
But Nikoli neglects all of these very complex relationships. In his interpretation of the dialogue between Marica and Mitar he instead emphasizes
psychological unburdening instead of a direct conflict between a wife and a
husbandmore precisely, the wifes struggle and resistance to her husband
and his gambling passion. Nikoli does not explain why Marica feels more
that there is a material and psychological dissolution of her family,15 nor why
it is so important to her to make Mitar talk to her so that she could attract his
attention to the endangered existence of the family and return him to the right
path.16
Contrary to Mitar, who is led by the right of the powerful individual to
satisfy his needs first, Marica is led by the ethics that make her care for and be
responsible for her family, to the basic unit of the society, upon which the patriarchate so insists and which it, in essence, does not value.17 Because of
these reasons, she feels strongly about that which Nikoli designates as the
material and psychological dissolution of her family.
Maybe it is not so much about the fact that, as Nikolis interpretation
suggests, Mitar is not willing to exchange thoughts. Maybe the story shows
that a more relevant interpretation is the one that emphasizes a womans abilities to think and act. Maybe it is important to note that their conversations are
clashes that reveal the husband as a selfish tyrant and not as a wise and honorable head of the family? Mitar twists his wifes words around. When
Marica tells him that she left a candle burning for him so he could see when
he undressed upon returning home, Mitar, in a sarcastic manner, replies and
gives a twisted interpretation of Maricas intention: Is that so? So that the
neighbors would think that there is a dead man in the house! (29). While
15

udbenike i nastavna sredstva, 1988) 352.
16
17
Carol Gilligan tried to prove that in moral decisions men use individual rights, thinking
about social hierarchy, while women are concerned about individual responsibility and the
relationships between these individuals, respecting situational context more. For more details
on moral decisions by men and women, see Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Univeristy Press, 1993). For a convincing critique of Gilligans approach, see
Susan Faludi, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women (New York: Three
Rivers Press, 2006), 33642.
251
light to Marica represents an honest and rational approach to the situation, for
Mitar it symbolizes his weakness and serves to announce it to everyone,
equating it to his death. His son will see such a Mitar, a weak and quasi-alive
father, when he peeks through a keyhole.
Although Nikoli notes the function of Mitars interruption of the dialogue (when it reaches the limit beyond it would turn into an open conflict), he does not connect the origin of such an interruption with the unquestionable position of a husbands power in a patriarchal family and society. Even though Nikoli denies neutrality to Maricas silence, and emphasizes its expressive function, he will not explain Maricas emotions regardless
of the fact that he describes her expressive [verbose] silence, giving it
strong valueas the same one that in the prose of L. Lazarevi, B. Stankovi, and I. Andri provoke first class esthetic suggestions.18 Instead of that,
Nikoli insists on the secondary and less important expressive function of
these curt and violently interrupted dialogues in the first part of Lazarevis
story, more preciselyon the need for the character to unburden themselves psychologically.
18
Nikoli, Metodika, 352. Emphasis mine.
The Question of the Father as a

Key Paterfamilias Figure
In this chapter the author discusses the weakened position of the father as
the key figure in a patriarchal society. The fragmentary presentation of
different gendered characters is analyzed. The function of double confession
is explained, the confessions of mother and son. They help reveal the importance of the mother-son relationship. The mother is shown as the explosive center of an ideological discourse, her simultaneous insertion into and
exclusion from the story. The female ethics of care and responsibility are
discussed at the end of this article.
In To Matins with Father for the First Time, contrary to Nikolis statement
about the authors insistence on the characters psychological unburdening,
it is more likely that Lazarevi felt the need to contrast the characters of husband and wife. The whole story is developed as a conflict between these two
characters who have double family roles (wife-mother and husband-father),
which are also symbols of their hierarchical gender values. At the same time,
Lazarevi presents the storys problem in a political way because he destabilizes and degrades the character of the father, patriarchal societys strongest
figure. At the same time, Lazarevi qualifies the mother as a woman, using
the highest value markthe figure marginalized and denied any rights by patriarchal society. In his interpretation, Nikoli does not discuss these facts,
which are present in the text of Lazarevis story.
What does the destabilization of the authority of the father mean in a
political and cultural sense? It means that the myth of the father as the patriarchal societys ideal is overthrown; it means that the unquestionable ruling role
in the family is presented as a destructive power; it means that a negative
portrait is enlightened, and the destructive influence of the fathers (gambling)
passion, which takes him away from his family threatens to destroy the family
itself. Therefore, it shows that Lazarevi was capable of seeing, understanding, and presenting the patriarchal ideology, since in his worldview a woman/
wife/mother possesses values denied her by a man/husband/father. Within the
254
Svetlana Tomi
politics of gender representation, Lazarevi multiplies fragmentary semantic,

summing up the characters of his story from various angles.1
Lazarevis variations of Maricas speech and emotions have already
been analyzed: her initial concealment of emotions in her communication
with her husband and showing of emotions when talking to her children. It is
particularly important that Lazarevi did not present a typical father according
to patriarchal law, and whom the psychiatrist arko Trebjeanin describes in
the following manner:
Father is the symbol of patriarchal culture, the representative of morality and the main protector of the existing value system. Father, as a
dignified representative of traditional culture always keeping his distance from his children, rarely jokes with them, and avoids showing
his emotions, so he gives an impression that he is emotionally cold
he never takes an infant into his hands, never dresses, feeds, or lulls
him/her, nor holds his infant in his arms or kisses him/her because,
according to the rules of this culture, the care for small children is
within the realm of female duties, and thus it is something that is
impure.2
Lazarevi, on the other hand, includes a scene that does not follow the
patriarchal norm of a fathers relationship with his children. Mia describes a
memory of his father who, while holding his infant child on his lap, resisting
laughter, by which Mia emphasizes the fathers uptightness and suppression
of feelings. This memory describes in detail the narrators experience with the
rare appearance of his fathers smile, which testifies to his fathers reserved
1
At the end of 1960s, feminists investigated the ideology of patriarchal literary representation.
They noticed that the personalities of fathers and mothers exist only as fragments, not as whole
characters, with conflicting differences. After a careful and critical investigation of these
characters, it was concluded that both male and female characters are without individual
identity, that they are not stable planes of awareness that are sometimes presented in selfcontradictory ways, and in constant fluid tension. These new perceptions were presented in
Refiguring the Father: New Feminist Reading of Patriarchy, ed. Patricia Yaeger and Beth
Kowaleski-Wallace, (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1989). This represented a
turning point in relationship to the generation of the feminists from 1980s when, through a
negative approach, only one type of a patriarchal male was noted, and almost all attention was
dedicated to female characters, setting new codes for interpreting female heroines. See Carolyn
Heilbrun and Margaret R. Higonnet, eds., The Representation of Women in Fiction (Baltimore,
MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1983).
2
arko Trebjeanin, Distribucija moi u zadruzi, Predstava o detetu u srpskoj kulturi, 238
39 of the digital version of Antologije srpske knjievnosti, Uiteljskog fakulteta u Beogradu,
www.aks.rs.
The Question of the Father as a Key Peterfamilias Figure
255
attachment. Gordana Raievi interprets the same scene as proof of Mitars

characterization as a patriarchal despot, neglecting the subtle differentiation
between the permitted and the forbidden, the controlled and the uncontrolled,
the repressed and the liberated fathers behavior in front of his children: This
is the type of excessively strict father, the pillar of the home, who is taught by
the traditional code of behavior never to express his feelings, not even to the
ones closest to him.3
Yet, the details in Mias description show the fathers attachment to his
children, as, for example, when he gives a pocket watch to a child to play
with, the watch representing his class status. Later, that childs game makes
the other two elder children laugh: My sister and I almost died from laughter,
so father was also moved to laughter and the left side of his mouth moved, as
if into a smile, and around his left eye the skin wrinkled (28; emphasized
added). On the one hand, this relaxation causes the change on Mitars face,
which shows emotion only on one side when he is relating to his children. On
the other hand, the fathers uptightness shows his weakness in controlling the
public role of a man over the private role of a father/husband,4 because of
which Mitar remains a tempered man, cold, cruel, and withdrawn. The
changes the son reveals in his father suggest a dominance of ideological forms
over fatherhood, marriage, and family.
In that context, Lazarevi indirectly departs from patriarchal norms again
when he shows Mitars extremely strict behavior after his brothers death.
Mia notices a number of details that testify to the forbidden expression of
emotions by a man, even with the loss of a close family member. The boy felt
the paradox with the awareness that his father loved his brother very much
(28) though he did not allow himself to show that love through any emotion.
Such vignettes suggest questions about the humaneness of patriarchal norms.
Men withdraw the expression of their pain and suffering because of the power
and might they are supposed to possess and demonstrate according to patriarchal norms, and which injures their physical and mental health. Before his
brothers burial, Mitar buries his emotions so as not to cry or voice his pain,
betrayed only through the visible trembling of his lower lip when the casket is
carried out of the house. This moment shows that soul and body are complementary in their resistance to the patriarchal blueprint of behavior. It is not
Gorana Raievi, Laza Lazarevijunak naih dana, (Novi Sad: Akademska knjiga, 2007),
26.
4
Later in the scene, Mitar does not control his behavior so the son notices a tear. Contrary to
Marica, it was easier for Mitar simultaneously to take control of his emotional reaction and
show it in front of his children.
256
Svetlana Tomi
osmosis with positive emotions but with negative responses, such as pain and
suffering.
At another point, the story diverts from patriarchal norms when Mia says
that even he was often held in the lap by father He made me flutes and
took me to the country in his chariot (30). Yet, these memories were inserted
into his mind by his mothers stories since he was very young and such descriptions are not clear; they appear as if through fog (30). Such descriptions offer a picture of Marica as an ethical source of information since she
does not hide but transmits positive memories about Mitar to her son, showing
him as a gentle and careful father, dedicated to his child, making toys and
taking the child out of the house with him. Therefore, it is another rare picture
of the father who makes a connection with his child. Since there are no other
scenes like this, and since the existing ones concern only his male children,
the question may be raised about the absence and elimination of the female
child in Lazarevis narrative.
Other scenes explain the separation of the writer from the narrator and
from the male patriarchal group identity. The first is during that fateful night
when the mother moves toward the door and forbids her daughter to follow,
telling her: Stay with the children! (37). When Mia jumps to follow his
mother, his sister tries to hold him with her hand but he repeats his mother
words: Stay with the children! At that moment Mia is taking advantage of
his gender identity. Although his younger, he rejects both his mother and sisters orders because they are part of a gender identity that has no power in
society. Mia tells us the story using words reminiscent of the duties and
rights of the male gender: My dear sister grabbed my arm but I freed myself
and told her, Stay with the children! (38). Although the first words name
his sister as dear, the rest establishes the norm in which he has control over a
member of his family who is subservient because of her gender. The strength
of the words used in the sentence is shown by using but (a conjunction that
separates in this case), freed (a drastic physical move after being grabbed),
and her (a pronoun, instead of her name or titlesister).
We could imagine what narrative we would get if we heard the sisters
version of the story, if she, and not her brother, had overheard the conversation between mother and father, or if the whole story were told by her alone.
What kind of conversations between her and her mother would we learn
aboutshe being the only unnamed child in Mitars family? How much
would her thoughts and opinions differ from those of her brother? Did
Maricas daughter get married and was her husband essentially different from
her father? Instead, Lazarevi decided that Mias sister, Maricas and Mitars
daughter, although a functional character in the story, remain nameless, an
257
element of the patriarchal codification of female children in a family, and in

general.
According to institutionalized public knowledge, the first daughter
character to address her father in Serbian prose was Sofka from Stankovis
novel Impure Blood (Neista krv, 1910). However, it was Darinka in her feminist critique of her father and patriarchal society and culture in Draga Gavrilovis A Young Girls Novel (1889).5 Sofka does not transgress beyong the typical male conception of how a woman would speak to her father or husband.
Sofka remains a daughter who wants but who cannot and does not know how
to oppose her father. In contrast, Darinkas self-awareness develops when she
is a little girl; she does not express emotions towards the father-tyrant who did
not know that his prohibition to read books could not prevent his daughter to
think. While Stankovi reveals the father-daughter relationship as an indirect
prostitution of the daughter, Gavrilovi directly criticizes the whole relationship of fathers and society towards daughters and young girls and marks it as
an amoral basis of marriage, which concerns itself only with the economic
interest of men, fathers, and husbands.6
Gavrilovi creates numerous unmarried intellectual female characters
through a critique of the immorality of patriarchal marriage that reduces
women to a body sold as goods. Contrary to many Serbian male writers,
Gavrilovi defends the morality of not marrying, because she sees a happy
and harmonious marriage only as a combination of mutual love and respect
between a woman and a man. Since her heroines do not meet such new types
of emancipated men, they rather choose to remain unmarried and challenge
the disrespect of society through their new cultural identity as intellectuals
and artists.
It is necessary to pay attention to Maricas different ways of showing her
feelings. When she freely expresses her suffering, Mias mother is next to
her daughter. She cries and sighs in front of her: Oh, poor me! He will give
away all we possess and I will end up, in my old age, washing other peoples
shirts! (30). Marica is anxious and is disgusted by dirty money. She tells
her daughter, while Mia hears, listening from nearby: And what will I do
with this money? This is accursed money! It is diabolical! The devil
According to Susan M. Griffin, when a daughter starts telling her father of her own desires,
the patriarchal norm experiences a collapse. For more details, see Screening the Father: The
Strategy of Obedience in Early James, in Yaeger and Kowaleski-Wallace, eds., Refiguring the
Father: New Feminsit Reading of Patriarchy, 3957.
6
Luce Irigaray wrote about this transaction of a daughter as a tradable good. See Luce Irigaray,
This Sex Which Is Not One (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press: 1985), 171.
258
Svetlana Tomi
will take it away just as he brought it! (30). These are not his mothers direct
words to her daughter only but they are typical of one woman to another.7
Marica is overtaken by worries about herself and her helplessness within
a patriarchal family. Lazarevi here emphasizes the contrast between the superior intellect of the mother and her lack of social power with that possessed
by her increasingly selfish and irresponsible husband.
Lazarevi connects this subjectivization of the position of women to the
fate of the daughter by absorbing her into the portrait of the mother. By creating one character out of two separate female ones, he establishes a gender
identified space of suffering and despair. As money starts to disappear from
the house, the narrators mind joins the mother and the daughter in their suffering: But it was so hard for me to watch my mother and my sister: so aged
before time, pale, sad, serious. (32). This conflation of the two characters
stems from their gender position with no rights in a patriarchal society. Lazarevi does not illustrate this through direct statements by the son or his mother
but through indirect rhetorical means: the sons contrasting assignment of
values to his father and mother, and later, through the sons description of the
suffering of his mother and sister. The symbiosis of mother and daughter
originates from their emotional connection, which produces the daughters
compassion for her mother. She suffers because of her mothers suffering. At
the same time, she might be anxious about her own future, because she probably possesses an awareness that a womans position would not change soon.
Since she does not have the right to choose her husband, its likely that she
would have to suffer her husbands tyrannical whims, the same way her
mother did. During the horrible night when the mother and children withdraw
themselves to their bedroom, the narrator joins the mother and the daughter in
their suffering: She does not cry any longer. Neither does my sister. Their
faces ghostly, their eyes fallen in, so that they look horribly frightened. Compared to this, the death of my uncle is nothing (33).
On the other hand, almost at the same place in the text Lazarevi connects
the fathers gender power to his son. When he describes the fathers entry into
the room in order to get more money, the narrator connects himself to the father through a similar approach to women in their family. In the way his father carries himself, and in his expectation to be waited upon, the son recognizes the same characteristics in himself: He looks about nervously and shuffles his feet, just as I do when my friends are waiting for me outside, but I
remain standing there, waiting for my sister to cut bread for me (33; emphasis added). The sisters serving the brother substituted the mothers serving
7
To read more about a different kind of rhetoric used among women, see Irigaray, This Sex,
13436.
259
the father. It is worth noticing that here Lazarevi does not create narrative
distance from the norm, not does he develop the possibility of the narrators
self-criticism.
Until the end of the story, Lazarevi insist on conflating the mother and
the sister. Until the conversation between Mitar and Marica, the women are
presented as one being: My mother and my sister sit with their hands in their
laps: lunch is not prepared; they pass on their tiptoes by the big room and only
sighthe same as when uncle died! (36). When they follow the fathers reactions, Mia says, But as soon as the door was nearly closed, mother springs
up in the bed. Right after her, my sister did the same. Like some ghosts! (37).
We can see how much Lazarevi intertwined the mother and the sister
when the father takes the last of the money away, the mother faints and the
sister screams. At that moment, only the sister is next to the mother, while
both of the brothers are in their beds: My sister screamed. I jumped out of
bed. okica jumped too. We sat down next to her. We kissed her hand.
Mommy, mommy! (33). The childrens awareness of their mothers suffering and their care for her gathered them around her. This scene reminds us
of the Piet but in an inverted version in this case. It is not the mother weeping for her child but children weeping for their mother. In nineteenth-century
Serbian literature, this scene is a rare example of the connection between the
pain children feel and the suffering their mother is experiencing.
Lazarevi introduces a new description of suffering in contrast to the traditional and stereotypical elimination of such connection in Serbian prose before his time. In accordance with the patriarchal code of behavior, Lazarevi
allows women to weep, faint, and scream, while he denies and limits the expression of deeper emotions to the father and the boys. The contrast between
the genders in relation to emotions is evident in the introductory part of the
story, when the fathers curt reply by an emotional nothing, before his
brothers funeral, is juxtaposed with the female expression of various emotions described as: they weep, wail, cry scream (28). Now, the sons jump
out of their beds but still no sound of pain issues from their throats. The whole
scene of the children surrounding the suffering mother embodies the already
mentioned psychological symbiosis of the mother with her children. This
symbiosis is established through emotions that distance sons from their fathers tyrannical power. It culminates in the recognition of the source of the
childrens suffering: And so my mother was unhappy and all of us were unhappy along with her (30). These words, pronounced by Maricas son Mia,
do not only admit that the children were unhappy because of their mothers
suffering but the son indirectly marks his farther as the cause of their cumulative pain, suffering, and misfortune. Simultaneously, the power of the terror
260
Svetlana Tomi
that Mitar, the Tyrant, possesses is greater because he stands alone on one
side of the family, and on the other there are a number of helpless human beings who suffer because of him. In this way, Lazarevi marked Mitar, not so
much the mighty master of his family, a merchant, husband, and father, but as
an irresponsible, careless, and selfish man. As the story develops, Mitar is
revealed as a cruel tyrant, a person who has a family but lives a life separate
from it. Within the framework of the whole picture of Mitar, yet another irony
surrounds the sons relationship between the seen and the experienced. If, at
the beginning of the story, the son sees his father as an unreachable, exalted
man, a rich merchant, and a powerful master of his family, by the end of the
story, the father is economically destroyed, psychologically broken, and morally defeated.
Let us return to Nikolis analysis of Lazarevis story. His interpretations
differ regarding the causes of Mitar and Maricas sufferings. According to
Nikoli, their pain, because of artistic considerations, had to remain with no
outside relief at the beginning of the story.8 However, the reasons are not
artistic but political, because it was not art that defined the patriarchal negation of women but the politics of such a society. There are a few analyses of
the implications of such matters, though Elizabeth Ermart first brought attention to the connection between societys consensus in the prose of realism and
the male authors of that period.9 When they introduced female characters that
oppose patriarchal norms, those male authors decided to punish them by deat,
thus qualifying rebellion as undesirable. By introducing new and positive solutions for conflicts involving female characters, Lazarevi shows how much
the works of realism had become outdated, including, e.g., Tolstoys Anna
Karenina or Flauberts Madame Bovary. The most radical examples of Lazarevis distance from that consensus may be seen in Werther and At the
Well.
As has already been mentioned, Nikoli attributes to Lazarevis text
content it does not contain. In the first part of the story, when Nikoli claims
that Lazarevi shows the suffering of both Mitar and Marica suffering, Lazarevi does not show Mitar suffering at all. Early in the story Mitar is presented
as a person who neglects his wife and children, concerned only with his own
8
udbenike i nastavna sredstva, 1988) 353.
9
Elizabeth Ermarth, Fictional Consensus and Female Causalities, in The Representation of
Women in Fiction, ed. Carolin Heilbrun and Margaret R. Higonnet (Baltimore: John Hopkins
University Press, 1983), 119. To learn more about female characters subservience to male
characters, see Jean E. Kennard, The Victims of Convention (North Haven, CT: Archon Book,
1978).
261
needs and passions and involved in undisturbed nightlife and gambling at taverns. This is why Nikolis interpretation is of very little relevance when he
claims that Mitar and Maricas suffering remains unshared between them
and each remains solitary.10 Lazarevis story shows that Mitar rejected and
prevented all of Maricas calls to conversation and rationalization. In the second half of the story, Marica shows her care and suffering again. She calls
upon her husband to make an oath on his childrens lives that he will stop
gambling, but the reader still cannot see what Nikoli states is happening
that suffering dissolves Mitars mind, leading him to tragic consequences.11
It is only after the horrific night in which Mitar lost everything that the
reader can see not so much Mitars personal suffering as much as the psychological and physical paralysis of the male figure of the husband/father.
This is one of the most sublime and innovative scenes in Serbian literature
because Lazarevi assigns to the male child the role of a secret and hidden
observer of his own father. Through a keyhole, the most limiting and smallest
means of perception and vision, Mia shows us a picture that widens dramatically. That picture is important because it shows an economically destroyed
and psychologically broken patriarchal father. Such a father, with no authority, his son compares to a corpse. At that moment, the eye of the son becomes
a key. By perceptual and cognitive penetration, it enters through the keyhole
and unlocks a secret, the themetheir familys collective tragedy of having a
problematic father. The reader must not miss the fact that the vision through a
keyhole permits only one eye to see, while the other remains shut. This double
narrowingof the field of vision, but also of the viewers ability to see
helps Lazarevi suggest that his readers watch and judge the problems presented there, since a full view of the situation is unavailable. The story contains no words that describe what Mias father feels and thinks at that moment, and there are no words describing the perception of the event by Mias
mother and sister.
Lazarevi introduced a significant change compared to the original version of the story. When the boy watches the father leaving the room, in the
original there was a sentence: God! Is this truly my father? Lazarevi
changed this radical questioning and non-recognition of the father in his collection of stories with a different sentence: At the threshold there was he, my
father!12 (36). In this version, by repeating a number of words used when
introducing the father (He, that is, my father, 27), Lazarevi created
10

12
See the commentary in the critical edition of Lazarevis stories, p. 312, correction number
90.
11
262
Svetlana Tomi
stronger associative connections with the introductory portrait of the father,

who, at this point, does not have a high status code.
Nikolis interpretation of a dangerous and destructive enclosure
into an private world is significant if it were connected to the patriarchal enclosure of the intellects abilities of a man (e.g., Mitar) who does not recognize the intellect of an individual of a different gender. The patriarchal establishment forgets that another intellect is necessary for the functioning of an
intellect13 Lazarevi connects the oppression and dismissal of a smart woman
to the lessened and degraded possibilities of a familys and societys progress.
We should recall that Maricas violation of the prohibition of speech was of
decisive importance for the salvation of her husband and the whole family.
Had Marica not violated that prohibition, and had she not successfully and
wisely led the final conversation with her husband, Mitar would have committed suicide, since he did not see a constructive solution. Maricas intellect,
her morality, and her decision revive Mitar, just as they bring back to life a
brighter future for their children.
In his stories, Lazarevi uses irony in a very complex manner, and thus
presented himself as a sensitive writer14 who is aware of the illusion of truth,
who requests from his readers an active and demanding construction of a
picture of double reality: one presented as ideal, and one contrary to that
ideal.15 Irony is juxtaposed with that illusion by rejecting and creating the illusion of its acceptance, which is developed through the revelation of the truth
as a caricature. In that process, Lazarevi transforms himself from a sharpminded skeptic, into a friendly doubter, and arrives at the stage of a wonderful dreamer, by which he reveals the heights of his ethics.16 Lazarevi
seems to question if the father is truly the mighty master of everything,
whether one could understand him more clearly if he were seen next to his
wife, if it were true that a woman is a creature of lesser value, as proposed by
patriarchy, and he chooses to show a woman who is superior to a man. This
suggests his dreams of a society in which a man and a woman jointly discuss
and make decisions, through mutual respect of each others personalities.
13
J. M. Lotman, Semiosfera: U svetu miljenja. ovek-tekst-semiosfera-istorija, trans. Veselka

Santini and Bogdan Terzi (Novi Sad: Svetovi, 2004), 7.
14
According to Slagels understanding, the authors irony emphasizes supreme spiritual
clarity and clarity of development of dramaturgical thinking, through dialogue. Quoted (in
Serbian) by Dragan Stojanovi, Ironija i znaenje (Belgrade: Zavod za udbenike i nastavna
sredstva, 1984), 35.
15
Wayne C. Booth, A Rhetoric of Irony (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 12334.
16
This transformation was described and explained in Booth, A Rhetoric of Irony, 178.
263
If the irony is not understood, especially irony presented in such a complex way, the story as a whole cannot be understood, and one would miss
Lazarevis complex conflicts of, and positioning of, gender values and
power. Lazarevi molded the ironic focus of the story by thematizing the destabilization of a fathers authority, selecting a narrator who is a son that
makes a connection between his childhood and his mature age, and choosing
confession as the most dramatic mode of narration,17 thus treating the problem
of gender discrimination and devaluation of women/mothers/wives in a patriarchal family. In addition to irony, within the framework of his judgment on
moral questions, Lazarevi includes the complementary relationship between
emotions and reason.18 He also poses the question, How do children form
their approach to and relationship with their parents? to emphasize the construction of the principles of morality, justice, honesty, law, and reciprocity,
through child-parent interaction.19
Faced with the choice between duty and the fact that he will be his fathers heir, the son still chooses to side with his mother, merging his cognitive
answers with his emotional judgment. In that context, the key matter is Mias
awareness that he, together with his brother and sister, had suffered because
their mother had suffered, and all of that happened because they endured their
fathers violent behavior. Through his compassion for his mother, Mia managed to see into the ethical differences between his father and his mother.
Mias gender and political awareness are complex. He recognizes the difference between his fathers and his mothers speech, and their points of view,
although he was neither completely aware of their conflict, nor of his own
role in it. His memory, shown as a cross between the cognitive and the emotional, is presented as a multi-layered activation of associative and declarative
memory. All of the dialogues are part of Mias declarative memory, while
his associative strings of memories are emotionally crucial in his decision to
give primacy to his mother when he had to choose between his parents. These
details confirm that Lazarevis story is fruitful soil for further investigation
into the political psychology of gender representations.
17
For more on the extreme complexity of confession, the problematic nature of motives for
confessing, and the hard approach to truth, see Peter Brooks, Troubling Confessions: Speaking
Guilt in Law and Literature (Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press, 2000).
18
Neurological studies demonstrate that emotions play the central role in finding solutions to
moral dilemmas. See George E. Marcus, The Psychology of Emotion and Politics, Oxford
Handbook of Political Psychology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 187. Compare
this article with the introduction in Elizabeth Grosz, Volatile Bodies, Toward a Corporeal
Feminsim (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), 325.
19
David O. Sears and Shery Levy, Childhood and Adult Political Development, Oxford
Handbook of Political Psychology, 1959.
264
Svetlana Tomi
The story continuously reveals itself as a very complex narrative. In his

narration about patriarchal family problemsnot about a patriarchal family as
an idyll, as Dereti claimedLazarevi chooses the point of view of a son, a
male child, who narrates the story in present tense in order to judge the past.
Mia tells the story as an adult male, remembering a chain of important events
from his childhood. The combination of these events show that Mias awareness of his mothers worth was established in early childhood, but that it did
not develop with age due to his non-acceptance of his fathers guilt, and partially due to Mias own guilt. According to Brookss research, the key factor
for the phenomenon of confession is the question of guilt, or the reason for
confessing is a secret anguish.20 Therefore, the story directs the readers attention to that process of maturation of the awareness about the mother, connecting the dualities of gender roles of mother/wife and father/husband with
the basis in the opposition of men to women. In all of this, Lazarevi does not
connect the son to his father, which would be expected due to the traditionalist norms, but he emotionally and ethically allies himself with his mother, although, as a son, he inherits his fathers powerful socio-economic roles. There
are two key components in this construction of a new cultural understanding
presented by Lazarevi. First, the author divides the past, in which events
happened, from the present, in which the story is told, with the son not telling
anything about the events from the present, in which he is confessing. In that
way Lazarevi motivates readers to ask questions and consider answers, and
directs them toward the present. Second, Mia respects his mothers worth
and supports her. Mia, as an adult, remembers his fathers multiple transformations, just as he remembers that it was his mother who normalized the
destabilizing position of his father. But, at the end of the story, Mia avoids
passing judgment on his father, avoiding it as much in the past as in the
present.
The reader should note that Lazarevi decided to create such an opinion
through the connection between the mother and the son. The sons confession
happens because of his mothers confession. The mother often talked to her
son about the father and the family, which is what the narrator himself (the
son) emphasizes at the beginning of the story: My mother told me many a
thing while I was growing up, and I kept asking her too. The father, never
even a word! (27). That fact that a father never speaks to his children is
strengthened by Mia even further during his narration.21 This means that
Marica had to describe herself in these stories, too, simultaneously developing
her sons awareness of certain issues and problems within their family. The
20
21
Brooks, Troubling Confessions.

In the old times, my mother told me, he was a totally different man (30).
265
reader should also be aware of the changing, transforming the venue. While
the mothers story remains within the private, family sphere, Lazarevi decides to make the son tell his mothers story to a wider public sphere through
his confessioninto literature, culture, and politics.
But, about what guilt are the mother and the son talking? Whose guilt are
they admitting through their confessions? Do their confessionsalthough the
theme of both is the relationship between a husband and a wifecome about
from the same reasons? It should be noted that Lazarevi established the
domination of the sons confession in a craftier manner. The story is inseparable from quoting the mothers conversations with her husbandthese are
memorized as declarations, and they also reveal a great deal. This narrative
strategy creates an impression that the son is providing more information, but
the mothers transmission of facts is much stronger. The sons confession directly transmits his mothers words and her conversations with his father, the
ones he, as her husband, forbids and restricts, and this direct transmission is
presented as authentic, which is significant when it comes to the acceptance of
such confessions as a relevant form of testimony.
Mia emphasizes that he does not clearly remember some of the stories
from his early childhood: I do remember, as if through a fog, (30). His
mother told him about these events and, thus, developed his awareness of
them:
But, my mother says, ever since he started to keep company with
Mia, the kettle maker, Krsta from Makevina Street, Olbrekt, the
pharmacist, and a few others, everything turned around and started
going as it should not. (30)
In this way, a reader may gain additional awareness that Marica may be accepted as a reliable source of information because, for example, she gives the
full names of the people with whom her husband initiated his passion for
gambling. That passion is an indirect recognition of his fathers weakness,
leading to his degradation of authority and his destabilization. But Maricas
justification of her husband is an illusion, and the sons is marginalized so
much as to become irrelevant. He does not support his statements with any
evidence, so they remain in the sphere of the normative and acceptable, positive judgment of his father. Then, Mias statements become weak and unconvincing: And yet, it is funny to say it, but again, he was a good man. Yes,
God be my witness! But, still (31). After such statements there are no convincing explanations of his fathers goodness, but, on the contrary, there fol-
266
Svetlana Tomi
lows the sons description of his mothers last attempts to convince her husband to stop gambling.
While they shed light upon the problem of Mitars weak character, the
mother and son take different approaches to the question of Mitars guilt.
Maricas accusations may be directed at her husbands authoritative and selfish behavior, his absence of care and responsibility toward his family, but also
at his degradation of women, his wife, and his refusal to consider her opinions, as well as his forbidding her from speaking. Marica may accuse her husband of disrespecting her as a whole person even after she demonstrated her
worth. Mias accusations, which come out through his mothers memories,
are joined with his attempts to clear his fathers guilt by saying that he was a
good man, and in this way they start to clash with his mothers points of view.
Thus, Mias confession conflicts with itself as a whole. It moves from the
private sphere into the public one, to a socio-political sphere, and at the end of
the story it reveals itself to be a self-accusing ethic, unaware of itself and unnoticed by the narrator, of patriarchal society. In his relationship with his wife
and son, Mitar decided to remain silent and never said even a word about
his relationship with his wife and about his serious personal crisis that put his
whole family in danger. Mitar does not accept his guilt before his wife and his
children, nor to any other member of the society, thus both privately and publicly silencing his errors. At the same time, it is important to note that neither
Marica nor Mia talk directly about Mitars guilt. Yet, as much as his guilt is
pushed into the background of the story, it bursts forth from every line. In this
way, the story focuses on a new problem: the possibility of transforming the
father from a taboo figure, who is seen as a sacred and unquestionable member of the patriarchal society, into a figure who may be investigated in a controlled manner. This possibility, on the other hand, questions the moral and
legal authority of a society as well as its maturity and readiness to investigate,
qualify, and change the morality of such legal authority.
Due to Lazarevis expressing and communicating such a message
through the character of the son, the reader should note a gap in the representation of the male gender:22 Mitar is shown as an authoritative man incapable
of verbalizing and expressing the ethical value of his wife. In contrast, Mia is
shown as a man who, at the beginning of his confession, can directly describe
the value of his mother, but by the end of the story, does not do so. Just like
his father, Mia refused to recognize the high intellectual and ethical value of
his mother. In that spirit, the title of the story connects the fathers and the
22
To learn more about the conflict between classes and gender agreement, see: Whitney Davis
Rod, in Kritiki termini istorije umetnosti, ed. Robert S. Nelson and Richard Shif, trans.
Ljiljana Petrovi and Predrag aponja (Novi Sad: Svetovi, 2004), pp. 40117.
267
sons moral norms, connecting the confessions past and present. The title
suggests that Mia, just like Mitar, refuses to include Marica in the norm of
patriarchal society, and, by doing so, Mia refuses to confront her with that
society. Mia, thus, through his own fault, misses an opportunity to change.
Since Mia became aware of his mothers position through her stories, Lazarevi points out the importance of a mothers influence on the upbringing of
her male children. Almost one hundred years later, feminist social scientist
Nancy Chodorow discussed the same importance, starting with the fact that,
in many societies in the world, mothers are the ones charged with the responsibility of raising the children.23 The way the organization United Serbian
Youth related to such relationships will be used to see how much Lazarevis
emphasis of a mothers influence upon her male children was new in his time,
especially considering the question of allowing women to participate in the
activities of that organization,24 which was when the feminist movement appeared in Serbia. After that, the results of a 1987 study of the relationship of
Serbian parents toward their childrens gender will be examined.25
About the time that Lazarevi entered Belgrades Great School, the Second Congress of the United Serbian Youth took place in August 1867. At
that time, not even the most advanced Serbian youth bothered themselves
with the question of womens equality. Bochkarev and Andreyev from the
Russian delegation presented the question of womens equality to the Congress. Biljana ljivi-imi,26 in 1984/1985, first discussed this matter when
she read the reports from this Congress, in which she noted a number of im-
23
See Nancy Chodorow, Family Structure and Feminine Personality, in Woman, Culture and
Society, ed. Michelle Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,
1974) and Nancy Chodorow, The Reproduction of Mothering (Berkley: University of
California Press, 1978).
24
United Serbian Youth was a political organization of Serbian intelligentsia, dedicated to the
promotion of cultural, educational, and scientific advancement of the Serbian people, but also
to the liberation and unification of the Serbs divided by the empires of Austro-Hungary and
Ottoman Turkey. It was founded in Novi Sad in 1866, and it operated until 1871 when the
government of Hungary demanded that it restrict its work to the area of literature and
education.
25
Trebjeanin, Predstava o detetu, 28699.
26
Biljana ljivi-imi, an American university professor of Serbian origin, majored in
Serbo-Croatian Language and Literature at the University of Belgrade in 1955. She received
her Masters and Ph.D. at the Harvard University (196366), after which she taught at the
University of Illinois, Chicago. With Morton Benson, she co-authored a Serbo-CroatianEnglish Dictionary and two Serbo-Croatian language textbooks for foreigners. She has
authored works about the beginnings of feminism in Serbia, women in nineteenth-century
Serbian literature and women in Serbian folk proverbs.
268
Svetlana Tomi
portant conflicts.27 She describes how, at some point, the discussions became
heated and that the Serbian attendees did not stand united. The Serbs believed
that proof from the natural sciences would be necessary to confirm the intellectual equality of men and women. Laza Kosti (18411910), a lawyer, philosopher, publicist, and one of the most important Serbian poets,28 opposed
the Russian proposal. In 1996, Neda Boinovi wrote about this in her extensive study, The Female Question in Serbia in Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Boinovi tell us that Laza Kosti believed that
nature itself set the realm in which women operate. He is not
against female youth gathering in the same places with the males, in
order to be part of the Union, but he was against the Congress declaring them [female youth] equal with men.29
Only after a few presentations and discussions, Stojan Bokovi proposed an
amendment by which women could be included in the activities of the organization. Had they decided to wait for the natural sciences to confirm the equality of men and women, the Serbs would have waited at least a hundred years
more. In a study published in 1982, Carol Gilligan exhaustively documented
the way the worlds famous and renown male psychiatrists, up until the 1960s
and 1970s, wrote about the human psyche, using only male children and
adults, neglecting the female gender. Yet, it did not prevent them from declaring their results applicable to both genders. Cordelia Fine has described
how various manipulations during the research of male and female brains
have remained unchanged in a study on neurosexism.30
27
When she wrote about these events, ljivi-imi used and cited the minutes, published by
the organization Youth Community (Omladinska zajednica), in 1868 and 1869. See Biljana
ljivi-imi The Beginings of the Feminist Movement in Nineteenth-Century Serbia,
Serbian Studies 3, no. 12 (Fall/Spring 1984/85): 4042 and the footnotes on 4950.
28
He was a professor at the Novi Sad Gymnasium, High Notary Public of the municipality of
Novi Sad, president of the municipal court, secretary of the powerful minister Jovan Risti,
who was head of the Serbian delegation to the Congress of Berlin, secretary of the Serbian
embassy in St. Petersburg, journalist and editor in Belgrade, close to Prince Nikolas and editor
of a number of Montenegrin publications. Jovan Dereti, Istorija srpske knjievnosti, 3rd
expanded ed. (Belgrade: Prosveta, 2002), 746.
29
Neda Boinovi, ensko pitanje u Srbiji u XIX i XX veku (Belgrade: Devedesetetvrta, ene
u crnom, 1996), 32.
30
See the introduction and first chapter of Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Univeristy Press, 1993); Cordelia Fine, Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds,
Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference (New York: Norton, 2010).
269
Since the United Serbian Youth did not concern itself with solving cultural and educational problems, ljivi-imi concludes that it was not capable of assisting in the struggle for womens emancipation. ljivi-imi emphasizes that the United Serbian Youth still deserves to be remembered as the
first organization that opened the question of womens rights. Later, at its
Third Congress, August 1868, in Great Becskerek (todays Zrenjanin),
women were not only observers but active participants. In connection with its
Fourth Congress, held in Kikinda in 1869, ljivi-imi presents a number of
problems that show resistance by Serbian intellectuals to the actual inclusion
of women in their organizations activities because its male members were
still much divided over that issue. While some members degraded and humiliated women in their speeches, some rare individuals, such as Ilija Vueti, Isa
Pavlovi, and Milan Kujundi, supported the complete inclusion of women.
Although such members used sound arguments, ljivi-imi emphasizes
that, based on the Congresss minutes, the general atmosphere was such that
very few people listened to them carefully. She also notes that no speeches by
women were included in the minutes of the Congress, although it was noted
that they were present, so she concludes that the women, feeling threatened by
the men, chose to remain silent.
From the age of the enlightenment, and Dositejs ideas (in his Advice
from a Healthy Mind, 1784), to the public feminist lectures by Draga Dejanovi (1870 and 1871), the most emphasized type of education for women
was one that would help mothers better raise their daughters.31 Almost no one
from the cultural life in Serbia has perceived the importance and value of
mothers in the upbringing of their sons. At that time, men did not place importance on increasing awareness in male children about the change in the
humiliating and degrading position of women and mothers. That, exactly, is
the point Lazarevis story makes. Lazarevi shows that the male point of
view will not be changed by the father, since he is a hostage to his ideology,
but by the mother, because she, from the point of view of her gender and from
her own different perspective, may raise her son and change the ideological
basis of the male gender.
The results of a study on parental attitudes toward their childrens gender,
conducted in Serbia about twenty years ago, show how important Lazarevis
view regarding this issue still is. Based on the results of this study Trebjeanin
concludes that such attitudes in Serbia depend on the parents education, place
of residence, gender, and age. Parents with lower levels of education, parents
from rural areas, and older parents assign more importance to their male chil31
ljivi-imi, The Beginings of the Feminist Movement, 3553. Compared with Celia
Hawkesworth, The 19th century, in Voices in the Shadows, 89123.
270
Svetlana Tomi
dren. In his conclusions, Trebjeanin points out as surprising32 that the parents gender did not make a difference, and that both genders almost equally
valued male children over female children. Yet, I believe that this indicates
Serbian mothers lack of awareness about ideological gender constructions
and their consequences. They do not teach their daughters to value themselves, nor do they influence their sons to respect women more. Here we may
recognize womens self-hatred as one of misogynys deep roots.33 This supports the theory that the writings of historians and critics, assigning glorification to Mitar and idealizing patriarchal culture, were inconsistent with the new
vision of women and the new modern messages in Lazarevis story. The
story is full of the sons inclusion of his mothers voice, the voice of a
mother/wife prohibited by the father/husband. In this way, Mias confession,
which he makes as an adult, is a direct self-admission of a need to establish a
new fundamental morality in a future society. But what kind of a society
would that be? How much similar is it to the one Nikoli paints without
sensing that Lazarevis changes? Although Lazarevi used Marica to stabilize the fathers authority, he weakened her role based within patriarchy.34 She
did not so much strengthen the connection between the father and his son as
much as she did between the mother and her son. Marica, therefore, represents
a new type of women, especially, because she opposes the patriarchal discourse regarding men and women. As a multi-dimensionally constructed
character, this mother, as an archetype, is simultaneously inside and outside
the discourse; she appears in an unexpected way and is not understood completely. She becomes as eruption of a new woman who seems to be an explosion of the unrepresented, discussed by Hlne Cixous.35 Luce Irigaray
32
In the end, although unexpectedly, the results showed that the attitude of parents toward
their children, regarding their gender, is even less correlated to the parents gender variable,
that is, the correlation between these variables (p=0.19, negl. 0.01) is very low. Meaning,
fathers believe only slightly more that a male child is more valuable than a female one.
Trebjeanin, Predstava o detetu, 294.
33
In that context, the investigations about different kinds of misogyny in Serbia, conducted in
the 1990s by Marina Blagojevi agrees with the study by arko Trbejeanin form 1986. See M.
Blagojevi, Mizoginija: nevidljivi uzroci, bolne posledice, in Mapiranja mizoginije u Srbiji:
Diskursi i prakse, 2nd ed., ed. Marina Blagojevi (Belgrade: Asocijacija za ensku inicijativu,
2002), 2036, and Trebjeanin, Predstava o detetu, 1991.
34
To learn more about the role of women, as well as the relationship between genders in the
Balkans, see Bette S. Denich, Sex and Power in the Balkans, in Woman, Culture, and
Society, ed. Michelle Zimbalist Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere (Stanford, CA: Stanford
35
Robert Con Davis, Woman as Oppositional Reader: Cixous on Discourse, in Gender in the
Classroom, trans. Catherine Porter with Carolyn Burke (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1985), 96111.
271
based her discussions of a disruptive excess on the female side on

Cixouss work.36
Lazarevis Marica is a female character who cannot be compared to any
other in the prose of Serbian realism. For more than one hundred years, in
literary analyses and critiques as well as in the society in general, she has remained unrecognized and marginalized, discarded as unimportant, and thus
outside of both the public and the specialized, investigative discussion. Lazarevis story portrays the opposite essence because the mother is both hidden
and discovered in powerful ways, while her important meanings are both appearing in and disappearing from the text, revealing an ideological discourse.
Only now may we be aware of how Lazarevi challenged the ideology of patriarchy and destabilized its foundations. Nikolis study, by its misogynous
interpretation, caused students and their future pupils not to understand either
the writers point of view or the meaning of the story, thus denying that understanding to the possible creators of a different culture. The academic interpretation, written within the existing norms, establishes anew the very same
norms within the culture in general, and in the wider reading public of various
ages and socio-economic characteristics.
As Irigaray emphasized, women have long been distanced from themselves beyond measure. They were forced into a permanent exile from themselves that alienated them from the continuity and nearness to their desires
and pleasures. Therefore, Irigaray concludes that women have no syntax of
self-affection: they do not talk about their desires, nor do they know what
they desire. Since any female desires are subservient to those of men, women
are incapable of finding themselves, or they find themselves in a masquerade.
Therefore, it follows that the female speech is strongly divided, at first unnoticeable, that includes approximations and imprecisely defined designations,
and disables any distinction of identities, any establishment of ownership,
thus any form of appropriation.37 Irigaray points out a certain female resistance to male discourse, because even when a woman is hidden, or absent
from the discourse as a subject, she still manages to leave some meaning, impression, or feeling, creating a certain content. This kind of syntax is the result
of the patriarchal policy of social organization, which devalues, ignores, prohibits, and forbids womens speech by making it subservient to the patriarchal
one. Therefore, any discussion of women means an outsiders position of a
woman, as only men are the masters of discourse. Irigaray concludes that
speaking (as) woman would, among other things, permit women to speak to
36
37
Irigaray, This Sex Which is Not One, 78.

272
Svetlana Tomi
men,38 to establish herself as a different being, to articulate the difference of

her language and desires, to have her own subjectivism, to her own legitimate
identity. And almost all of Lazarevis conflicts between the wife and her
husband in the story are always in terms of seeking those rights.
As a pedagogue, Nikoli does not mobilize the main elements of the text,
but he sees the meaning of Maricas character through the patriarchal custom
of identifying with the universal. He interprets Maricas words Let it be!
through the function of a modal verbal form, as a generalization of Maricas
forgiveness for all time so there is a feeling that everything was forgiven
to Mitar in advance, that everything will be forgiven to him in the future,
too.39 Marica says Let it be! twice (38): after she hears that Mitar lost
everything, and after Mitars tells her that he lost the house, along with the
horse and the property in the country. It is more likely that Marica denies the
value to material things than that she forgave everything in advance, and that
everything shall be forgiven in the future, as Nikoli suggests. This radical
interpretation is a result of Nikolis position based on patriarchy, which expects acceptance and forgiveness of mistakes because of how power is established. But, after Marica says, for the second time, Let it be, and adds,
May you be alive and healthy, she clearly juxtaposes a human being with
material things, living with possessing, her husband with his property, and
through such juxtapositions she emphasizes the importance of life itself, and
that of a human being. Nikoli does not examine this context in his
explanation.
Nikoli assigns value to a human being only based on gender status, after
which he concludes that a husband and wife should join forces, while he,
through euphemism, designates as misfortune the very personal and family
tragedy they have experienced:
At that moment Mitar realizes that he is the supreme value, that he
has to survive so that his family can survive too. In the middle of this
dialogue there is an intertwining of two callings, that of a husband
and the other of a wife, of a father and of a mother, joined together
and turned into brothers through this misfortune, which they may get
through only together40
Lazarevis story, it seems, demands a much deeper explanation. One of the
possible interpretations starts with the fact that Marica devalues the lost mate38

40
39
273
rial goods (So what if you did! Let it be! (38)), and then she immediately emphasizes the value of Mitars life (may you be alive and healthy!
38). After that she pointed out the importance of Mitar as a father and husband, that is, as a legitimate breadwinner in a patriarchal family. His life is put
in contrast to the possessions, and he is designated as supreme. These are the
tactics through which Marica attempts to change Mitars feeling of his own
worthlessness, so that he may realize that only as a living man may he regain
his role as a respected merchant. It was not the house, nor the property in the
countryside that put bread on our table, but it was you, our breadwinner! (38)
When Marica turns around Mitars self-perception from that of a dead man
into that of a man reborn, she starts to list everything they could invest in new
business ventures. She sees all valuable things or possible investments as a
solution. As she had done it before, Marica reminds Mitar a wife and husbands joint effort in managing their wealth causes the increase in a familys
wellbeing, just as it was in their case: when we took each other (38). That
joint effort is not recognized under patriarchy, or the patriarchal establishment
refuses to recognize it, see it, or include it in its evaluations of the two genders, which can be confirmed by checking the marriage, family, and property
laws of that era. Furthermore, Marica reminds Mitar that they still possess
their health and strength, which will allow them to earn new possessions and
material security. When Marica tells Mitar, I would not give your hands for
all the capital possessed by Paranosov (39), she is not only praising Mitars labor. She transforms those suicidal hands, which were going to end his
life and harden the lives of four other people, into something positive, into
hands that could build a new life.
Since such a woman is able to turn a man away from death, it cannot be
that only Mitar is of supreme value. It seems that it is more Nikolis selfidentification with patriarchal power that makes him say so. Because, when
Marica starts the dialogue with the words, Mitar, my brother, my master,
what are you about to do? (38), Lazarevi uses perhaps the greatest irony in
the story. Mitar is not the lord and master here, but it is Marica who is the
mistress of his life. She is the one who will transform the living dead into a
man reborn, aware of his strength, and the role he has to play in the life of his
family and in society. By naming him her master, Marica exposes the
hypocracy of patriarchal society in which the public master of the family is
the husband, though he does not care about it. While the husband is revealed
as an irresponsible owner of the family, the wife is reconfirmed as a responsible keeper and protector of the family, and in a wider sense of society itself.
Nikoli, on the other hand, interprets Maricas words and position in the
following way:
274
Svetlana Tomi
When Marica tells Mitar, Mitar, my brother, my master, what are

you about to do? that represents true brotherhood, and even more
than that. In the word brother is contained friendship, compassion,
their joint destiny, and total understanding. The words, my master,
used by Milica, are the ones she employs to emphasize her subservience to her husband, and it is not the patriarchal, obligatory one, but
her voluntary subservience. In this manner Marica appears, in her first
words to him, as a priceless value, which Mitar had not lost, and for
which he should live. (all emphases by the author, MN)41
Not understanding the irony means missing the point of the whole work.
Nikolis interpretation greatly ignores the context of all of Maricas conversations with Mitar. Nikoli forgets that Marica addresses her husband as a
living being, before anything elseMitar, in spite of the fact that by doing
so she violates the patriarchal rules of behavior.42 It is important to note that
she employed the same manner of address in her previous conversations with
her husband. Mitar, on the other hand, does not address Marica by her proper
name. He forbids her from talking. Suppressing the expression of a woman
means taking away her personality. Sandra M. Gilbert and Suzan Gubar
named this patriarchal tendency as the one in which women become dispossessed of their own selvesselfless as a way of turning a person into one
with a lessened sense of her own personality or without ones self, putting
an accent on the metaphysical emptiness of female characters, and on the
mental and psychological implications of such constructs.43
If the actual text of the story is respected, we see that Marica was molded,
from beginning to end, as a non-typical female character of a mother/wife in
41
Nikoli, Metodika, 354. Emphasis from original text.

In our patriarchal culture, women accept their inferior position, and demonstrate their
subservience to their husbands in a ritualistic and public manner in innumerable ways. In
everyday life, in various situations, the wife, through both verbal and non-verbal acts,
demonstrates her low social position, respect, and subservience to her husband The wife is
obedient to her husband, so that she becomes anxious even from one dark look by him, she
keeps silent when her husband yells at her; even if she were right, she may not defend herself
when he beats her, and she may not run away; she makes sure that everything is just right for
him and in the home; she follows his orders; and, aside from giving birth to his children,
nursing them, and taking care of them as they grow, she performs all of the other female
works, and she is not spared hard labor in the field either. Trebjeanin, Predstava o detetu,
228.
43
Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar, The Madwoman in the Attic (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2000/1979), 2122.
42
275
the male prose of Serbia, and even other literary traditions of that time, such
as Anglo-Saxon female prose. Marica does not use the strategies described, by
Gilbert and Gubar as silence, as a means of manipulation, passivity, as a tactics for achieving power, subservience, as a means to gain control.44 Marica
attempts to talk as an equal to Mitar but he constantly puts her down and interrupts her. She attempts to bring her husbands attention to the dangers of
his gambling, begging him to resist and be stronger than his whims. He always interrupts her, reminding her of his domination and the power he possesses. In her attempts, Marica is revealed as a woman who thinks independently and acts responsibly. She rebels and fights, she tries to investigate
the origin of the things brought into her home, and she challenges her husband. She is led by her thinking but also by her observation of her husbands
loss of money, as well as by finding out about the experiences of other gamblers. Marica shows all of the characteristics of a mature personality marked
as undesirable in women by patriarchy: the ability to think independently, to
make clear decisions, and to act responsibly.45 Therefore, Mitar interrupts this
long conversation with words that emphasize the unquestionable dominance
of the male mind: Do you think that I have lost my mind so as to need a
woman to be my tutor? (31). Soon after, he will forbids his wife from talking, threatening her with separation, and that he would move into another
house.
Marica addresses her husband with the word brother after his proper
name only when she attempts to make him give up gambling. She also asks
him to swear an oath upon his children: give up, oh my brother, this companionship with the devil, I know, Mitar, my brother, Give it up, oh
brother, for the sake of our children, (31). Yet, Nikoli does not take this into
consideration, but observes it independently, neglecting the wholeness of the
text. He further interprets Maricas form of address as friendship, compassion, their mutual destiny, and total understanding. Because, even at that
fateful moment, Marica addresses her husband by his proper name, and, after
that, as her brother. She continues which this form of address in order to
transfer her own reason and her own awareness onto Mitars irrational behavior and his underdeveloped way of thinking. Just as she tried to install
some reason into his mind, when she talked to him about her worries, when
she begged him and besought him, Marica knows that now she must act
quickly to reason with a man who had decided to commit suicide. She knows
44
According to Gilbert and Gubar, these are the main strategies of the leading female
characters in nineteenth-century Anglo-Saxon literature, written by female authors. The
Madwoman, 163.
45
Gilligan, In a Different Voice, 17.
276
Svetlana Tomi
that there is not much time left and that there is no room for unnecessary
emotion on her part. When she asks, Mitar, brother, master, what are you
doing? (38), she already knows what he had planned to do, but she has to
convince him that his plan is not a reasonable act of a man and a master. In
this case, the word brother serves to reason with a man set on self-destruction. Marica builds a bridge of reason in order to reach Mitar, to connect him
to his own life and to his role as a master. It is unlikely that this was an act of
true brotherhood, as Nikoli states, or one of friendship, compassion, joint
destiny, and total understanding. It is more likely Lazarevis emphasis on
the contrast between Maricas reasonable approach to Mitar, and Mitars psychological and physical collapse, caused by his irrational behavior.
Equally baseless and problematic are the words, friendship, compassion,
joint destiny, and total understanding, which Nikoli emphasizes in his interpretation of the story. In the relationship between the husband and his wife,
there is very little empathy in Mitars behavior that could designate him as a
person of total understanding. The text makes it clear that Marica has more
understanding of Mitar, and of his refusal to understand Marica and their
children.
Another example of Nikolis inadequate interpretation may be found in
his statement that Maricas subservience to Mitar is voluntary. He states:
By the words my lord, Marica emphasizes her subservience to her
husband, but it is not the patriarchal one, the obligatory subservience,
but her own, voluntary one. In that way, Marica, with her first words
to Mitar, appears to him as of priceless value that he had not lost and
because of which it is worth it for him to live.46
Maybe Lazarevi uses irony to contrast the minds of husband and wife.
Marica knows that she is the master in this situation, and that only her abilities
might convince her husband, upon which the future of the entire family depends. Marica must convince Mitar of the opposite of what he believes. Because she succeeds, Marica is revealed as an excellent polemicist who, once
more, proves to be intellectually superior to her husband. Yet, Lazarevi presents the situation differently because he knows that, in a patriarchal society,
it is the husband, not the wife, who is recognized as a master.
Maricas addressing Mitar as my master after his proper name may hide
an irony of double reality because it inverts the hierarchical values of society.
In that society, the first place belongs neither to a humane relationship (addressing Mitar by his first name), nor to the possibility of making him reason46
277
able (by addressing him as brother), but by the third relationship, which
Marica uses in the third and final place in her address of Mitar. This relationship characterizes patriarchal rule and merges his power and ownership (my
master). Everything that Marica positions in the first two places, Mitar, and
society, and all the interpretations of the story so far, are positioned last. And
vice versa: what Marica positions lastthe husbands power, as master and
owner of the family, the society, and all the other interpretationsare positioned as supreme.
We should remember the situations in which Marica, desperate and horrified, cries in front of her children, having before her eyes the vision of herself
as a servant in other peoples houses. By that scene, her husbands position as
a husband/master/rich merchant is transformed into the position of a ruined,
gambling husband who destroys the socio-economic positions of his wife and
children. When Marica addresses Mitar as my master, she simultaneously
reminds him of his possession of power, and of hersnot possessing anyof
being able to make decisions, and manage his family and his property. She is
aware that ambivalence comes out of that breach, out of the convergence of
the public and private, out of collective and individual judgments on the values of power and ownership.
Marica has to remind Mitar that he can regain his wealth and his lost position in society if he realizes that he still possesses the power in the family as
a father and husbandthe one who rules his wife and children. In that manner, Marica stresses to Mitar that he has a responsibility to his family because
only he possesses all the important means to regulate the socially acceptable
relationships and deal with legal issues. Even if he lost his economic status in
the society, he has not lost his status within the family. He, therefore, still
possesses the power of a husband and father, regardless of the fact that gambling has degraded his position as a merchant.
Since Marica knew her husband before his gambling phase, when he had
gained his position and wealth through honest work, she reminds him of his
power from that time, which also marks the power of Mitars morally proper
labor. Supporting arguments are lacking for Nikolis statement that the wife
submitted to her husband voluntarily. Had Marica possessed any legal power
to manage her property or make decisions about her family by herself, it is
unlikely that she would have voluntarily submitted herself to the heartless and
unscrupulous husband-gambler. Thus I believe that a conclusion contrary to
the one made by Nikoli is more relevant. The words of Marica (my master) do not describe Maricas voluntary submission to her husband, as Nikoli suggests. These words, more likely, denote the degraded gender status
of a humiliated woman, who has to suffer because of the social gender hierar-
278
Svetlana Tomi
chy. What Nikoli describes as her voluntary submission, patriarchal society

deems as unquestionable subservience.47 Would Marica, herself, state that she
submitted to Mitar voluntarily, or that she had to suffer in subservience because she possesses no power in her society? Is it true that Mias sister does
not go to school because she accepted it on her own, or is it because patriarchal societys law declared that only male children could be educated? That is
why Mitar may forbid Marica from talking, but Marica cannot prohibit Mitars gambling and, thus, risk everything they possess. Is it possible that
Marica loves to suffer so much and that she accepts being humiliated? This is
why Nikolis explanation looks like a voluntaristic theory, which states
that the free will of individuals forms the basis of the relationships of power
and duty, and not the basis of domination and force. The essence of such theories is the hypothetical acceptance of submission by an individual who is not
free or equal to others. As Carol Pateman said:
That means that women are excluded from the status of individuals,
which is basic for the theory of acceptance; if a womans subservience is naturally based, then there may be no talk about a woman
being naturally free and equal as an individual. Their acceptance of
such a status may be relevant only if it is true that women are free
and equal.48
Nikoli does not give any explanation of his next statement: In this manner, Marica, on her own, appears as a priceless value that has not been lost,
and because of which it is worth it to live.49 Does it mean that Marica presents her subservience, that is, her slavery, as a priceless value that has not
been lost and because of which it is worth it to live? Or, it might be that it is
her humaneness, never mentioned by Nikoli, that is the actual priceless
value that has not been lost and because of which it is worth it to live, because it represents the struggle to establish more humane principles of social
order?
47
The most drastic way for the husband to show that he is the absolute master of his wife is
his customary right to judge and punish his wife with no restriction when she is disobedient.
If the wife opposed her husband, even if she were right, he may curse her, beat her, and he will
not answer for it to anyone. Trebjeanin, Predstava o detetu, 227.
48
For more details about the development of theories of acceptance from seventeenth century
to today, see Carole Pateman, ene i pristanak, in enski nered: Demokracija, feminizam, i
politika teorija, trans. Mirjana Pai Jurini (Zagreb: enska infoteka, 1998), 75.
49
279
The moment of mutual address, recognition, and seeking each other between husband and wife is very important. It comes after Marica makes Mitar
aware that the lives of his whole family are bound to his own. Never before
has Mitar addressed his wife by her proper name, but at this moment he does
it three times, never being able to complete his thoughts. He says, What is it
that you are saying, Marica? (38), by which Lazarevi implies yet another
irony. Mitar, who forbade his wife from talking earlier and suppressed her
communication with him, now does not understand completely what she is
telling him, thus confirming the superiority of her way of thinking. After that,
Mitar chokes, covers his eyes with his hands, then he grows silent, and his
wife takes his hand and leads him back to their home and to children. This is
the only physical contact between the husband and wife in the story. The wife
initiates the contact and leads her husband as if he were a little child, taking
him back to his house, by which, yet again, the asymmetry in the distribution
of private power is emphasized.50
Nikoli does not discuss this moment in which the weakness of the male
character is presented. Mitar forbade her from talking, but now, Lazarevi,
through irony, reverses both their roles and the power of gender speech. Now
it is Mitar who cannot talk and declare his confession. Marica, he started,
is it you? He covered his eyes with his hands and became silent. My
mother took a hold of his hand (38). When Mitar manages to say only, is
it you? by this, Lazarevi stops his male character from expressing his admiration, which remains unspoken, just as his recognition of a woman as an extraordinary person also remains unexpressed. His inability to talk blocks his
speech, but not his recognition. Mitar manages to question only, Is it you?
but he does not manage to cover up his surprise. That surprise was initiated,
probably, by the fact that it was his woman, to whom he was a tyrant and unjust, who is now saving both him and his family. That recognition is left unspoken even in Lazarevis story title. Yet, even such an incomplete title is a
novelty, and it points to an appearance of a woman/mother as a majestic character. The text of the story, which follows the title, through its palimpsestic
irony sheds light onto the fact that, actually, it is, With Mother to Matins for
the First Time. The visible father, appearing with his family in church, in
public, is the victory won by the invisible mother, or even more precisely, the
invisible wife, unrecognized and unseen by patriarchal society.
By the end of the story, Lazarevi describes a wife who takes her husband
by her hand back to their home as if he were a child, by which Lazarevi
50
Elaine Scarry interprets touch as the most intimate act by the hand, which is the most politic
one, since it is the most exclusive. See Elaine Scarry, Resisting Representation (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1994), 75.
280
Svetlana Tomi
marks again the triumph of the mother. In that scene, there is no more emotional contact between the wife and her husband, nor is there any hint of improvement in Mitars future treatment of his wife. In this way, the writer finishes the characterization of Marica as a mother and wife, keeping himself
close to the limited view of married life. Within this reality, the limited description of the external appearance of Mias mother is obviousshe, in
contrast to Mias father, never had her clothes described in detail. At that,
Lazarevi only once touched upon her thoughts. But, even before that crucial
scene, the author does not delve deeper into her psyche. When Marica experienced an epiphany, which led her to an important decision, the author leaves
her wordless.
In connection to this scene, Gorana Raievi interpretation of this epiphany will be discussed.51 Although the title of her work puts the focus on the
epiphany in Lazarevis work, To Matins with Father for the First Time, her
attention is aimed at the explanation of the very term epiphany.52 Raievi
frames the scene of the specific illumination of the mother and her son in a
religious fashion, which raises a few questions. This scene contains two revelations apparent from Lazarevis concentration on the boys point of view,
which reveals his mother raising her eyes to the icon of their family saint, and
to the heavens above. As soon as the mothers eyes move there, high above,
where Marica sees her God, a change occurs in both the semantic and spacial fields, as they relate to the Christian-patriarchal field and its social norms.
At that moment, Marica could see some special, personal ideal of male humaneness, but it is not a religious exaltation by God. Her God is the one
whom she saw and who looked upon her. When that is said, and, maybe,
from that point of view, both mother and son experienced a transformation.
And because of that, if readers are sensitive enough, they may experience
such a transformation themselves. The son notices that on his mothers face
there is some sort of bliss and some illumination, and then he also starts to
pray, and he asks God to kill Zalemba. Raievi interprets Mitars tear as
part of this same epiphanic emotional register.53 But, can it be said for certain that such a list is built from equal love and faithfulness54 by Mitar and
Marica, when Lazarevis text presents no narrative means confirming their
51
Raievi, Epifanija u pripoveci Prvi put s ocem na jutrenje Laze Lazarevia, in Laza
Lazarevi junak naih dana, (Novi Sad: Akademska knjiga, 2007), 99112.
52
Raievi called her interpretation of the epiphany in Lazarevis story a short excursion into
the history of religion, although it is about ten pages long, while the rest of the analysis of the
story is limited to three pages, including long quotes from the story. Raievi, Epifanija, 111.
53
Raievi, Epifanija, 110.
54
Raievi, Laza Lazarevi, 110.
281
love and faithfulness?55 Because, when Mia narrates a few of the scenes that
he remembers by himself (e.g., when his father holds the youngest child in his
lap) or the ones from his mothers stories (e.g., when his father spent time
with Mia), he is not afraid of them in an emotional way, nor does he attempt
to further document his fathers love for the family. Another telling factor is
that Marica does not document, either in her stories to her son or in her own
confessions, the love between herself and her husband. At one point in the
story, recognition comes out honestly though indirectly, through Mias confession. It does not concern the fathers love, as Mia narrates it through an
imposed norm, but rather his fathers harshness, strictness, and carelessness
about satisfying the desires of his children. Mia confesses it detail:
He loved us, his children, just as he did our mother, no way to deny it,
it is obvious, but he was way too strict with us. I do not remember any
sign of kindness from him. It is true that he covered us in the night,
when we uncovered ourselves, and he did not allow us to lean over
the well, or climb the mulberry treebut what was it to us? It is done
by all other fathers, but they buy candy for their kids, golden paper
and rubber balls that bounce all the way to the tops of trees! (29)
The gap between Mias care to convince the reader of Mitars love, the love
that is not obvious, since he himself says that he does not remember if his
father shows any kindness. The story is full of negative words describing his
father, such as never, he did not, and none: never even a word! (28),
he never laughed (28), That what he says, he would not take back, even at
the price of his head (28), He never joked (28), he will add always cold,
harsh, worst than a stranger, thats how it was! (28), He never went anywhere with [his wife], nor did she dare even ask him to take her anywhere
(28), He could not stand her to interfere in his business (28), He communi55
For example, in the final scene, Marica tells her husband, When we got married we had
nothing, just a rug, one cooking dish, and a few bowls, and today, thanks be to God, our home
is full! (38). Even then Marica does not mention love or provide any emotional reasons for her
marriage to Mitar, or even indicate that Mitar liked her, but she emphasizes their poverty and
the weak economic position of the family, which was improved by Mitars labor. While she
convinces her husband of the importance of his life, Marica says nothing about her importance,
although she uses we every time she talks about improvements in their position: When we
got married, (38), Are we some ancient people? We are healthy We will pray to God, and
we will labor (39). After that, Mitar starts to talk in plural for the first time: As honest
people (39), And we will again earn enough to have a house (39; all emphases added). That
is when Mitar starts thinking as living man, a responsible member of the family, and not as its
owner.
282
Svetlana Tomi
cated with the world very little (29). This finally culminates into a confession: I dont remember any sign of kindness from him at all. (29). Therefore, we may ask, on what basis did the previous analysts conclude that Mitar
was a beloved husband and father, or that he loved his wife and children.
There are no direct descriptions of Mitars expressions in the story that would
reveal anything he felt.
Mitars one tear is shed after hethe same husband who forbade Marica
from talkinggrows silent, perhaps understanding a number of Maricas wise
remarks and visions as well, which are clear in his mind for the first time.
Thus, it is less possible that Mitar understands his wifes love,56 because
neither of them, nor the text of the story, mentions it, or makes it palpable.
Can a reader conclude with certainty that Marica saved Mitar because of her
love for him? And, to what extent could a woman, or anyone else for that
matter, love someone who does not respect her?
At the end of the story, Mitar becomes, for the first time, aware of his
wifes moral and intellectual power. He truly sees the personality of his wife.
Mitar has had the opportunity to become aware of this complex value of
Maricas personality, although he had negated it in an authoritarian way, and
had eliminated it because he, as a man, possessed the social status and power
that remain in his possession even at the most crucial moment. To be precise,
he will become aware of his wifes moral and intellectual power because of
Maricas help. In that scene, Mitars fragility and weakness are not presented
only as physical, but as psychological, intellectual, as well as ethical, particularly because he expresses no gratitude toward Marica or assigns any worth to
her. Mitars silence at that moment is his only answer to Maricas help, which
saved him. This silence is similar to his paralyzed personality observed by his
son through the keyhole. Mitar is locked inside a room, silently sitting at the
table, and he is unable to find an exit from his ruin. When the son sees his
father again by the granary, Mitar is outside with a pistol in his hand. At that
moment, Mitar, unexpectedly, sees the whole of Marica in front of him, just
as Mia sees the whole figures of his father and mother. But, even then, when
Mitar receives positive solutions from Marica, he does not thank her or express his respect for her. Neither will Mia. When the father recovers his
whole psycho-physical powers, the son does not directly express his gratitude
to his mother for saving the whole family.
In the story, Mitar rarely went to church. No other textual evidence exists
of Mitars faith in God. It is also problematic to conclude that there was a
happy ending to the story.57 For the family itself, Mitars conversion does
56
57

283
have a happy ending, but for Marica such an ending does not mean an improvement in her situation. Mia, as an adult, remarks to his readers that his
father never talked to him about this matter, and he nowhere mentions that his
father significantly changed afterwards. It might mean that his fathers authoritativeness remained unchanged, but that his mothers position remained
unaltered as well. Can it be said that Mitar began living and behaving in the
spirit of Christian virtues of humbleness, selflessness, goodness, and love for
the other?58 Was his conversion the result of an epiphany, or of something
else? All in all, what did Lazarevi want to emphasize through his ironic positioning of power? Why did he set Mitar as the master of the family, while he
exalts Mitars wife as the savior and protectress of the family throughout the
story? Whose ethics are stronger? Is it the public possession of patriarchal
power and material goods, or the one of private protection, care, and the cultivation of virtue? Such irony reveals that the unethical relationship of society
toward cultural, social, and political values of the female gender is based on
the problem of inadequate, masqueraded, designation and recognition of the
public and private categories of power. But, at the same time, the matter concerns the public codification of such a distribution of gender values because,
as studies in Serbia have shown, both genders accept and are fully aware of
the social constructs of patriarchy.
Thus, when Lazarevi emphasizes the unusualness of the event through
the storys title, he also suggests the invisible power and strength of a
mother/wife in the society and family, as a social micro-unit, which he represented as the triumph of Maricas personality. By emphasizing that the children are going to matins for the first time with their father, it demonstrates
that they had been doing so with their mother all along. Yet, there is something else that is hidden in the title: the father appears in public for the first
time with his children and his wife, by which he, for the first time, confirms
himself and his familys existence, and recognizes it as alive, visible and present in society. That could be Maricas goal: to reconnect her husband as a
father to his family, return him publicly to the power he lost as a merchant,
because only in that way she could preserve her own position of a woman accepted by society. And that position would be the one of a wife, a married
woman, and a mother, who survives only next to her husband, and only
through his socio-economic status.
But, through this family outing, Marica is out in public, and it means the
following: she leaves the home, a private place, which to her, because of its
limited space and her limited movement within it, functions as a prison, or as
Foucault emphasized, a guarded area of monotonous disciplining, where psy58
284
Svetlana Tomi
cho-physical control of submission and utility is implemented upon every individual to the highest extent.59 In his descriptions of the connections between
body, discipline, and space, Foucault concentrates on the relevant areas of the
state and economic controlthe military, schools, factoriesbut he does not
mention the space of home and hearth60 as a key micro-topos of patriarchal
domination, in which a woman is bound.61 This analysis was offered by Sandra Gilbert and Suzane Gubar,62 who noted that there always were the same
symbols and pictures of an entrapped female character in female Anglo-Saxon
literaturesomething that served as a literary projection of existing social
repression. This is especially important to recognize since Foucault emphasizes that the mark of discipline is neither territorial nor residential, but hierarchicalthe one that establishes an enforced connection with the world, and
not a voluntary one, as Nikolis interpretation emphasizes. It is the
location that is taken in a certain order, a point of crossing of the vertical and the horizontal lines, a distance, in a succession of other distances that may be transversed. Discipline is an art of ranking and a
technique of order transformation.63
It is exactly that power of control that Mitar uses to impose prohibitions and
punishments upon Marica when she steps away from the path of feminine behavior in family life. By such a construction of Maricas character, Lazarevi
inverted the patriarchal narrative of submission on its head, into a narrative of
possible female resistance, which, in the end, manages to break out of its imprisonment and crack the power of male discipline. Yet, the function of
Maricas public appearance remains hidden. By the title, it is suggested as a
repression that lasts.
By contrasting the morality of the patriarchal rights possessed by Mitar
with the morality of Maricas care and responsibility, Lazarevi decided to
destabilize the patriarchal system with his story, To Matins With Father for
59
Michel Foucault, Nadzirati i kanjavati: Nastanak zatvora, trans. Ana A. Jovanovi (Novi
Sad: Izdavaka knjinarnica Zorana Stojanovia, 1997).
60
Feminists noted and criticized Bachtins neglect to include the chronotopos of household in
his dialogue theory. See Lynne Pearce, Reading Dialogic (London: Edward Arnold, 1994),
110.
61
Even when he departs from the state-economic mechanism of instrumentation, Foucault
notices some fundamental facts about the patriarchal social order, yet he does not make any
connection between them. See Foucault, Nadzirati i kanjavati, 188 and 189.
62
Gilbert and Gubar, The Madwoman, 85.
63
Foucault, Nadzirati i kanjavati, 141.
285
the First Time, and by the high value assigned to female ethics within it.
While the first kind of morality indicates the male tendency towards autonomy, isolation, control, and separation of an individual from the society
through its status, the other morality is more characteristic for women and
their ethics of care and responsibility, by which individual distinctions are
deconstructed. By the tendency of women to establish mutual connections,
networks, and inter-dependability, it is not totalitarianism that is reflected, but
an interpersonal building of personalities. Gilligens study acknowledged the
importance of female experiences of inequality and mutual connectedness,
emphasizing a more qualitative importance of creating a non-hierarchical
network of social connections, and warning that the experiences based on
relationships are acquired by establishing respect for connections of
differences.64
64
Gilligan, In a Different Voice. 63, especially chapter three, Concepts of Self and Morality.
On the English Translation by

Dr. Pavle Popovi
Before turning our attention to the epiphanic revelation, in this chapter the
author discusses English translations of certain portions of Lazarevis To
Matins with Father for the First Time. Special attention is paid to the parts
that do not closely follow the original text of Lazarevis story.
Pavle Popovi has produced the only existing English translation of Lazarevis story, To Matins with Father for the First Time.1 As far as I know,
that translation was published in the United States five times: in 1921 in the
translators edition of Yugoslavian Stories (republished in 2009 and 2010), in
1973 in the Anthology of Yugoslav Literature, and in 2007 in the Anthology of
Serbian Literature.2 When Popovis translation is compared with the original
text of the story, a number of discrepancies appear, which could cause misinterpretation of its meaning.
It is probable that someone with a better knowledge of the English could
find some other inadequately translated words or portions of the text. For example, in a conversation with a renowned translator, Kosara Gavrilovi, she
brought to my attention the fact that Pavlovi did not adequately translate the
title of the story, because Mitars family is not yet at matins but is only getting
ready to go to church, to matins. Therefore, instead of Popovis translation of
the title as The First Matins with My Father, her translation of the title is
1
Pavle Popovi (18681939) taught Old Serbian Literature at the University of Belgrade. He
wrote An Overview of the History of Serbian Literature in 1912. According to Dereti, Pavle
Popovi and his brother, Bogdan Popovi, gave the main direction to our university and
academic criticism in the first four decades of twentieth century. See Jovan Dereti, Istorija
srpske knjievnosti (Belgrade: Prosveta, 2004), 929.
2
Pavle Popovi, Jugo-Slav Stories (New York: Duffield and Company, 1921; Charleston, SC:
BiblioBazaar, 2009; Charleston, SC: Nabu Press: 2010); Introduction to Yugoslav Literature:
An Anthology of Fiction and Poetry, ed. Vasa D. Mihailovi, Dragan Milivojevi, and Branko
Mikainovi (New York: Twayne Publishers Inc., 1973); An Anthology of Serbian Literature,
ed. Vasa D. Mihailovi and Branko Mikainovi (Bloomington, IN: Slavica, 2007).
288
Svetlana Tomi
To Matins with Father for the First Time. In comparison with Popovis
translation of the title, Gavrilovis translation seems more appropriate because it eliminates the pronoun my that Lazarevi did not use in Serbian
thus following the writers intention to generalize the character of the father
and transfer it from a personal onto a collective sphere. The newly proposed
translation of the title by Kosara Gavrilovi establishes a more precise connection with the original title, and preserves the dramatic tension between the
father and the son before their first joint trip to matins. The translation of the
title offered by Gavrilovi, although changing the word order from Serbian,
successfully preserves the tension between them.
Lets examine some parts of Popovis translation and the extent to which
the meanings changed compared with the original story. In Lazarevis text it
says: Its no use, I said: he himself saw that what he is doing is not good; but
God-knows-what grabbed him into its hands, and is not letting him go (31).
To this original text, Popovi adds the following words: and from which God
protected us, by which he suggests that God had a greater role than Marica in
the saving of Mitar and her whole family: He was good at nothing, and, as I
have told you, he realized that, what he was doing was wrong, but that which
has taken possession of him, and from which God preserved us, would not let
him go (78).3
In Maricas addresses to Mitar, Popovi does not follow Lazarevis usage of the expression brother, but changes the meaning of this expression,
translating it as dear and beloved, by which he twists the meaning of Lazarevis original text, and of the story itself. Translators could use the word
brother, or even man, or a third word that suggests the deep and close
connection between Marica and Mitar when Marica attempts to bring her husband to reason through her humane care of him.
Lazarevi continuously uses the word brother when Marica addresses
Mitar, but Popovi changes it to portray Maricas sentimental emotions of
love, which do not exist in Lazarevis story. The noun dear is used in English when one is addressing a person with love and respect, with synonyms
such as darling and sweetheart. Popovis words in English, I know,
dear Mitar, translated back into Serbian, would therefore have a different
meaning than they have in the original text. Later in the translation, Popovi
uses the word beloved when translating Lazarevis words, Drop it,
brother, in the name of those children of ours (31), making it read, Oh my
beloved, leave those (79), thus changing the meaning. Again, later, he
References to the English translation refer to the version published in An Anthology of Serbian Literature, ed. Mihailovich and Mikashinovich.
About the English Translation by Dr. Pavle Popovi
289
transforms brother into my dear, thus rendering, No one is forcing me,

brother (31) as No one is turning me out, my dear.
It seems that Popovi did not make appropriate choices of English words.
Other stylistic observations can also be made regarding his translation. For
example:
They took the raven-black!
Took, says he. (31).
Popovi translates it thus:
He has taken the black horse!
He has taken him! (78).
The object from the original story is not adequately transmitted into the
translation so it is not clear to the reader what happened to Mitars horse. It
would have been better had he kept the meaning of the horse as an object, and
the plural for those who took it. It was not only one person who took the raven-black horse.
In the scene in which Mitar returns for more money, Popovi did not provide adequate translations. The original says: Only this much! and Faster!
(33). Popovi dilutes the works and inserts inaccuracy, translating them as,
More than that! and Be quicker! (81). He might have translated the first
phrase as, Ill take only this or Ill take just this. The choice of words
should replicate the gamblers passion, which is connected with his loss of
psycho-physical power and the control over his last remaining wealth. By using Faster! or Quicker! Mitars order would preserve its dramatic power
and the sharpness of its intonation.
By the end of the story, in her ironic manipulation of hierarchical values,
Marica says, Mitar, brother, my master (38), but Popovi adds a divine
characteristic to Mitar by translating it as: Mitar, my dear, my lord and master (86). This significantly weakens the irony of Maricas and Mitars roles
in the story.
It may be said that Popovi did not understand the epiphanic revelation,
since he did not manage to transmit the sense of it, especially in the two passages about Maricas eyesight and the relationship between her eyesight and
that of her God. During the fateful night, she faints and her children kiss her
and call her name, thus reviving her. Then Marica lights a candle below the
family icon and instructs her children to join her in prayer to their family
protector saint, St. George, to save us from evil hosts! (33). While they
290
Svetlana Tomi
pray, Marica is silent, with tears flowing like two streams, and she stares upon
the saint and up to the heavens, as if to her God. When Lazarevi emphasizes that she stares upon her God, he made an important change in his collection of stories. Instead of writing at whom she looked, Lazarevi wrote
whom she saw, (34) and by this apparently unimportant change, he reveals
the relationship between Marica and her God, who is neither a God of her
giving in to Him, of her unquestionably worshiping Him, nor is He a static
and limited designation of a semantic religious heaven, but the God of active
observation and examination, which hints to some sort of interactive
recognition.4
Lazarevi presents this observation between Marica and her God as
mutual. Immediately afterwards follows a sentence in which the transformation inside Maricas soul is presented, which, as is hinted at by the scenes
context, happened exactly through this mutual examination of her God and
herself. In both cases, these gods, one Orthodox Christian, and the other,
probably, constructed by her own gender identity, represent the powers of
recognized and unrecognized laws, which could be the key words of this
story. They hide an extremely conflicted politicization of might, power, order,
and law in patriarchal society. The first God is Mitarshe comes from the
sphere of patriarchal laws. When that God shows Himself as Maricas friend
no more, when He abandons her, Marica finds her Other God. The Other God
is Maricas God who comes from the sphere of patriarchal women who have
no rights. That God came into being by her observations, thinking, and understanding of the position of women, of her own position, juxtaposed with the
one of men. Contrary to the first God, the Other God looks at this woman,
which means that He sees her because He observes her, thinks about her, and
therefore he can understand her. I believe that these are the possible and relevant causes of Lazarevis emphasis of the mutual dependence between these
acts of observation: that of a woman observing her God, and the other of a
God observing a woman.
Popovi does use the words saint and God when he translates her
looking at the icon and the heavens above, but he translates Lazarevis
words, There, above, there was something that she saw: there was her God,
whom she saw and who saw her, (34) as: There, on high, was something
4
The editors of the critical edition of Lazarevis stories, prepared by the Serbian Academy of
Arts and Sciences, did not recognize the important function of the change in word choice. In
the section Lazarevis corrections and variations, Branimir ivojinovi does not cite some
very important changes made by Lazarevi, and which create a more complete and adequate
understanding of the story. See and compare these remarks in the critical edition, Vladan Nedi
and Branimir ivojinovi, eds., Laza K. Lazarevi, Celokupna dela, Sveska Vol. 1. (Belgrade:
SANU, 1986) 14, 31112.
About the English Translation by Dr. Pavle Popovi
291
that she could see, her God, whom she adored and who looked down again
upon her. (81). Popovi added the italicized words to the translationthey
do not exist in the original. Changing the meaning in this way, Popovi ignored the difference between the two gods; he weakened the worship of
Maricas different Godher new God. By doing so, Popovi preserves only
the old God, that of the patriarchal norm, adding that Marica adores Him
while doing so.
By his designation of a saint and heavens, and later, her (Maricas)
God, Lazarevi not only creates the differences between up and down, terrestrial and celestial, sublime and dismal, but he also creates another important, politically nuanced meaning. By juxtaposing the saint with the
heavens, Lazarevi separates the official, institutionalized religion, represented by icons, from a different faithunofficial, non-institutionalized, private, and personal, a faith in a God that Marica molds according to her special
believes and values. As such, the locality of these two faiths is separated. One
remains to dwell on earth, as an icon, limited by its form and as an image,
while the other one shoots to the heavens, and signifies an ideal to which the
woman strives.
The most important matter in all of this might be Maricas creation of her
own faith in her own God, doing it from her powerless female position, which
demands respect for its differences, expression of its identity, and its own way
of thinking. Marica, from that differentiating point, creates her faith, and
when she finds strength in it, a sort of bliss spread over her face. Her son,
Mia, notices this change but he connects it to the earthly official saint and
God, in whom he recognizes compassion and approval, since the following is
happening:
And then, a sort of bliss spread over her face, some kind of illumination, and it seemed to me that God caressed her with His hand, and
that the saint smiled, while the dragon below his feet opened its jaws
wide. Later, my eyes were overwhelmed by the light, and I prostrated
myself next to her, and she prevented my collapse with her left hand,
and I prayed for the hundredth time: God, you see my mother! God,
I pray to You for my dad! And then, I do not know why: God, kill
that Zelemba!
When Mia calls upon that official God, he does not recognize that such a
God does not see his mother, yet he calls upon Him to see her, to take a look
at her, to notice her. His words may be synonyms for a command, God, look
at my mother! but also an inquiryGod, do you not see my mother?
292
Svetlana Tomi
These subsequent narrations from Mia confirm that his God, the only one he
knows to call upon, differs from that of Maricas, who is her own, personal
God.
All of these examples testify that translators, before anything else, must
understand the story itself, and any irony if present in order to render the text
adequately. They must respect the relationship of the translation with the
original textwhich means that the author of the story must be respected
and they must think through which word to choose. If an adequate expressive
correlative cannot be found, translators need to inform the reader of that
problem in their remarks. Popovis translation provides no such remarks.
More precisely, he compounded the distortion of the words and meanings of
the story, translating in contradiction to the original text. Popovi did not adequately understand Lazarevis story and that is why he interpreted it incorrectly. Just like other interpreters, Pavle Popovi burdened Lazarevis story
with his own cultural baggage, which was centered upon a patriarchal
worldview, in spite of the storys more liberal and free-spirited nature.
The Epiphany of the Mother and the Son
In this chapter, a possible explanation of the epiphanic illumination of the

mother and son is provided. Described are the specific differences between
their meanings. Also discussed is the importance of the sons confession in
which he illuminates the motive of his confession and the problem of his
epiphany. A new interpretation of the storys ending is also offered.
Gorana Raievis interpretation of the Christian epiphany in To Matins with

Father for the First Time may be understood as a tribute to the newer sort of
political narration or nationalistic rhetoric that Ivan olovi has noted in the
Balkan countries, particularly the former Yugoslavia, and which he described
as a nations spiritual space.1 Instead of a more extensive analysis of the
scene, which represents an epiphany in Lazarevis story, Raievi prefers to
emphasize the religious experience of an epiphany. On the one hand, her
interpretation emphasizes a connection between the religious and the cultural which is not sufficiently confirmed by Lazarevis story. On the other
hand, after emphasizing the religious epiphany in the story, Raievi does not
explain the kind of religiosity possessed by Lazarevi, but leaves the reader
in an ambivalent position about how to judge that problem by quoting contrary opinions on the subject by Milan Bogdanovi and Milan Kaanin.2
While Raievi positions the emotional and not the intellectual relationship as the focus of the epiphany, I think that the focus involves both elements. The text of Lazarevis story represents the scene of the epiphany as a
specific illumination that originates in the sudden discoveries, by the mother
and her son. At the moment when the son thinks that God has caressed his
mother with his hand, a special mercy is expressed, which is followed by a
sudden awareness by both the mother and the son about their existence. I be1
See Ivan olovi, Balkan: Teror kulture (Belgrade: Knjiara Krug, 2008) about this kind of
rhetoric, which has been active in the southern Slavic lands since the 1990s. For a detailed
description of such phenomena, see Ivan olovi, Vesti iz kulture (Belgrade: Peanik, 2008).
2
See Gorana Raievi, Epifanija u pripoveci, Prvi put s ocem na jutrenja, Laze Lazarevia,
in Laza Lazarevijunak naih dana (Novi Sad: Akademska knjiga, 2007), 112.
294
Svetlana Tomi
lieve that Vlatko Pavleti assigns the most accurate designation to this
epiphany:
the presence of the universal, otherwise distant and queer, is transformed into the one intimate and imminent, and the spiritoccupied
by the intuitive comprehension of life, regardless of time and other
humansseeks the words by which such a state would be expressed
by poets, mystics, and philosophers.3
Epiphany, therefore, signifies the moment when we actually were able to see
for the first time.4 Because of that new vision, life is differently perceived
from that moment on. That vision transforms Marica, and its power is transmitted further, upon Mia, transforming him, too, so that he is able, through
his mothers esoteric revelation, to experience his own instant enlightenment.
According to the author, epiphany is a singular, wholly new comprehension.
For Ellis Borchard Green, it is a revelation that may be characterized as revolutionary since it changes awareness. Green points out that there is a special
simultaneous activity of silence and illumination. Both of these elements are
present in Lazarevis story. Silence is a medium through which secrets are
revealed, and a sign and a symbol of supreme experience.5
While the mothers moment of epiphany is part of the contextual silence
and complete stillness,6 dramatic, emotionally exciting movements of Mias
body follow his new experience. He falls onto his mothers dress, and upon
her arm, which supports him, and then he starts to pray. This scene provides
repetition of the previous one in which the mother collapses by the trunk from
which her husband takes their last money. She then faints while her children
surround her, kiss her hand, and rouse her back to consciousness.7 This scene
shows the mothers strong connection with her children, and vice versa, of the
children with their mother, presented through the childrens emotions and
through the mothers whole personality, especially through her moral virtues.
3
Vlatko Pavleti, Trenutak vjenosti: uvoenje u poetiku epifanija (Zagreb: kolska knjiga,
2008), 11.
4
Pavleti, Trenutak vjenosti, 15.
5
See Alice Borchard Greene, Tiina kao izvor znanja, Filozofija tiine, trans. Zoran
Paunovi (Belgrade: Geopoetika, 2001), 15383. The whole study is important for the understanding of different kinds and relationships between silence, speechlessness, and knowledge.
6
7
The fathers hands are destructive. Help and comfort are not sought from the mothers hands,
but salvation. Throughout the narration, Lazarevi emphasizes the sons respect for his
mothers hands.
295
Lets examine how Lazarevi molded this important scene. The mother
returns to consciousness and lays her hand onto Mias head; then she whispers something and suddenly stirs to her feet. Lazarevi keeps these words,
pronounced by Marica, forever as a whisper, as an unvoiced narration, designating them as unreachable, or locked inside a secret. They could have been
the first words of Maricas epiphaneous revelation, the experience that Lazarevi will describe later in the story. But, the author decided to keep this extraordinary revelation in the readers minds as an illumination, as a comprehension, which is present but not palpable.
It is an essential question to investigate what could have been contained in
Maricas and her sons, epiphaneous illuminations. If epiphany creates awareness about ones own existence, what else could Marica have concluded but
that: Mitar is unchangeably selfish; losing the last money does not mean anything to him, as his wife and children mean nothing to him; her husband is
capable of losing everything in order to satisfy his own passion and pleasure;
for the patriarchal society, her family exists only for the pleasure of her husband, because his wife and children have to stay silent and suffer; Marica, as a
woman and a wife, is helpless and cannot change her husbands treatment of
her because she is a woman. Is it possible that Marica realizes her own power
as a mother who becomes aware of her childrens strong emotional connection with her when they call to her, and she recognizes her own pain in the
expression of their suffering? Her children are as helpless as she is, or even
more so. They depend only on their mother, her awareness of the situation,
and her decisions, since their father keeps working against them. This suffering sobers Marica, and yet it does not touch Mitar even once.
Did Marica start to experience her epiphaneous revelation when she regained consciousness, and saw her son, Mia, as the one who should succeed
his father? Could it be that Marica wished her son would play a different role
with his wife, that he would build different relationships with womenhis
mother, his sister, and his future wife? Was it when she lays her hand upon
her sons head and whispers something? Or when she later stirs to her feet
and lights a candle before St. Georges icon? Or when she commands her
children to pray to be saved from the ungodly host? Maybe by that moment
Marica knows she will be the one who will save Mitar and her family from
that ungodly host and evil.
Why did Lazarevi insert the icon of St. George into that part of the story
and why describe the slaying of the dragon, a typical phallic symbol, at the
moment when the son sees his mothers bliss? Since it represents victory of
good over evil, the sons telling of the dragons death when he sees his
mothers bliss hints at the victory of his mothers positive character. It repre-
296
Svetlana Tomi
sents the triumph of her principles for human dignity, which are connected
with the divine sphere of good because they are seen as ideal for humankind.
Therefore, two pictures of the fathers death are presentedhe being the
source of the horrific evil. One is the picture of the dragons death, impaled
by St. Georges spear, and the picture of his nearly dead father, whom Mia
sees locked up in his room. The son recognizes his mothers decision as the
one that will slay the monster and evil, that is, his father and his gambling.
Thus, when the son connects his mothers epiphany with the victory of good,
he also sees his fathers death and his father as the source of evil.
There, up on high, was something she saw; thereher God, whom
she saw, and who saw her. And then, over her face spread some bliss
and some radiance, and to me it seemed as if God caressed her with
his hand, and that the saint smiled, and that the dragon at the end of
his spear expired. (34)
According to the interpretation by Carl Jung, the fight between a hero and
a dragon tells us about the archetypical theme of victory of
our Ego over the regressive tendencies. For most people, the dark, or
negative, side of the self remains unconscious. But a hero must be
aware that there exists a shadow, and that out of it he may extract
strength. He has to come to understand its destructive powers if he
wishes to become strong enough to overcome the dragon. That is, before the Ego may win, it must master the shadow and assimilate it.8
Jung interprets the symbols as signs of lifes situations, and in the case of this
scene, Lazarevis imposition of the archetypical picture into his narration
reveals yet another meaning. When he sees his mothers bliss, Mia understands that the dragon is dead; then his eyes shine, and he falls and prostrates
himself next to his mother. Lazarevi connects the sons physical collapse
with the death of the dragon. The moment of his collapse overlaps with the
moment of his fathers death since, according to patriarchal law, Mia
would succeed him as the eldest male heir. But, Mias collapse would turn
out to be just a momentary and illusory death.
Why momentary and illusory? When Mia, as an adult, again confronts the moment of the epiphaneous illumination from his childhood, and he
confesses: So beatified I was, as if laved! Woe, why it may not be so anew?
8
Jean Chevalier and Alain Gheerbrant, Rjenik simbola, trans. Ana Buljan, Danijel Buan,
Filip Vuak, Mihaela Vekari, and Nada Gruji (Zagreb: Grafiki zavod Hrvatske, 1994), 795.
297
(34; emphasis added). This confession, spoken at the moment of the juncture
of remembrance and reality, illuminates at least three important matters: the
confessions motive itself, the problem of Mias epiphany, and the final message of the story. Mias words are formed as questions because he, as the
narrator, still had not been able to divine their meaning. Mias confession
testifies to his personal discontent, which surfaced only at this moment of the
story because of the confessional honesty, when the past repeats itself in the
present, allowing our ordinary perception, that is, allowing the perception of
the ordinary to become, momentarily, extraordinarily and rarely, a very precious revelation.9 Because one part of the story remained untold: between the
departure to church when Mia was nine years old, and when Mia, as an
adult, probably as a merchant, went to Belgrade to buy some goods and saw
Pera Zelemba dressed in prisoners robes. It makes it obvious that Mia succeeded his fatherbut did he inherit only his fathers business? Or, did he
also inherit all the rights that were his as a man, regardless of his memories of
his mother, that make him aware that they are joined with force and power?
The story ends by merging the two ages, two events, and two meanings.
One is the age of childhood, the other, the age of maturity; the moment when
his mother steps out of her prison into the world, into the realm of the public,
and the moment when the son connects his confession to a real prisonthe
moment when he recognizes Pera Zalemba, sentenced to time and hard labor
in prison. At the end of the story it is the mother who gains recognition, and it
is the son who brings the picture of a prisoner doing hard labor to the readers
attention. By this description, Lazarevi establishes a connection between the
father and the son via Pera Zelemba, defining the male sex through the symbolism of imprisonment and gloom. At that, Mias awareness of the whole
situation, and the relationship between his mother and father remained without any direct criticism, although it was not neutrally narrated. Mias story
reflects the opposition between the law and justice. This conflict kept reminding him of a scene from his childhoodthe relationship between his father and mother, and the relationship between the son and his mother. The
illumination that Mia, as a boy, felt due to his mothers help never happened
again. Mias epiphaneous revelation was not constructive, thus preventing
the transformation of his personality. Mia knows that now it cannot be
again, he cannot again feel himself as if laved, that is, cleansed and reborn.
By this confession, Mia subconsciously reveals that this spiritual renewal is
not possible, regardless of how much he manages to notice a number of his
mothers values and present them to the public. Although his mother left an
indelible mark on his soul, he, himself, did not completely sever his connec9
298
Svetlana Tomi
tion with his father. His gender-based connection was set by the economy of
possession, the organizing and monopolizing function only for the benefit of
the male, as the head of family. The fathers legal code was passed on to his
son, although the gap still exists within Mia. He notices it as something irritable and unpleasant; he recognizes the inability to experience a renewal,
feeling a yearning for the purity of the soul, which he experienced as a child,
while, in the present, he asks: Woe, why it may not be so anew? Therefore,
we may conclude that the gapthat insufficient understanding of the relationship and the conflict in the importance of the roles of his father and mother
caused the climax of the drama Mia felt and confessed. Mia did not conquer
his retrograde tendencies. On the one hand, the son keeps revealing his own
strong experience of his mothers importance, her worthiness and extraordinary strength, but, on the other hand, he refuses to accept and value them
openly and directly, which would mean openly and directly rejecting him
through that process as an authority in their family and in his society. Mias
role as a witness, in this sense, is shown as insufficiently honest, or strongly
repressive, since until the end of the story it was not used in the function of an
open confirmation of his mothers worth, being at the same time a clear rejection of the father. In that divergence between the awareness of her worth and
the rejection of an honest and unreserved siding with her, there lies the element of his guilt, and probably the greatest motive for his confession. Since
the son did not act entirely honestly, that is, he did not act critically, his own
deceit of himself, and of the society as well, keeps on going. Therefore, the
end of the story does not offer either a happy ending or a moral lesson about
the punishment of evil, although Serbian literary historians and critics emphasized the storys simplified and ideological interpretation. Skerli hears only
the Te Deum of the church bells. He does not see the picture of the convict:
After such a scene, nothing else was left but the fragrance of incense and a
worshipful song: Glory to God in the highest!10 Since the story does hint that
the father never really changed, another of Skerlis statements about Mitar is
problematicthat he is healed and reborn.11 Mitars authoritarian harshness, judging by all available evidence, remained his permanent mark. Contrary to Skerli, in Deretis focus there is only Pera Zalemba, or an incarnation of the devil. Dereti does not see Mitars tyranny and he does not
mention it.12
10
Skerli Laza K. Lazarevi, Studije i kritike, izbor (Belgrade: Zavod za udbenike i

nastavna sredstva, 1999), 85.
11
12
Jovan Dereti, Istorija srpske knjievnosti, 3rd expanded ed. (Belgrade: Prosveta, 2002), 854.
299
The picture of Pera Zelemba, which was so enigmatic for Milan Bogdanovi, may hold a double meaning in terms of ironythe irony of the end of
the story that seems to be happy, and the irony of the sons awareness. Lazarevi illuminates both of them by the symbolism of imprisonment. The reality
of the imprisonment is connected with the male gender, which, unenlightened,
serves its own ideology founded upon slavery and lack of freedom. And this
slavery is dual. Men keep women as slaves, unaware that by doing so they
enslave themselves ideologically, because they construct a picture of an ethical society that turns out to be false. Although he became enlightened only for
one short moment of his childhood, by this confession Mia demonstrates
how much he remained unaware of remaining captured within such a construct. Therefore, the end of Lazarevis story may be understood as a fantastic appearance of the storys self-awareness. This self-awareness of the story
is not revealed directly, but indirectly. It is more a drama of awareness, and
thus, a drama of critique.
Despite the radical distance from patriarchal ideology that may be seen
through Mias veneration of his mother as a saint, Lazarevi follows tradition
and remains faithful to the linguistic usage of the masculine gender (svetac).
This linguistic detail may be understood as provocative, because, aside from
Lazarevis distance from the ruling social contract in his title, it reveals additional distance from the described and pronounced, but gender-undetermined, representation of Marica as a bearer of supreme virtues. Mia associates his mother with holy, saintly people because of her rare virtues, visible
through her suffering and martyrdom, which is caused by her husbands tyrannical humiliation and enslavement of her as a woman. Therefore, when her
son sees her as a saint, he transmits a message of his new canonization of a
mother/wife within the patriarchal institution, which does not recognize such
a woman and does not include her as an equal member of its society.13
In addition to such exclusion of women by patriarchy, it may be said that
Lazarevi raises the question of the patriarchal structure of the Church, which
also excludes women and does not respect their value. Together with the apparatus of the State, the Church enforces the belief that women are secondary
to men. Lets remember the moment when Marica moves her eyes from the
icon to the heavens above, and to her God, the one who sees women. Vladeta
13
During my work on this study, I unsuccessfully tried to learn more about the time of
recognition of Serbian female saints and their earliest inclusion into the canon of the Serbian
Eastern Orthodox Church. It might be that Lazarevis differences in using the masculine form
of the word saint in To Matins with Father for the First Time (1879) and the feminine form of
the same word in his Mother (written around 1890) have a basis in a real debate in Serbian
society of that time about the canonization of women as saints.
300
Svetlana Tomi
Jeroti, when analyzing male perverted projections toward women, quotes

Christ who, according to the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, replied to his disciples questions about the arrival of Gods Kingdom:
Then, when out of two there will be one, when outside becomes the
inside, when up becomes equal to down, and when one being is created out of men and women, so that a man is not a man any more, and
a woman is no longer a woman.14
But, something more is important about these novelties. When Marica
looks up and sees something that she was seeing, Lazarevi says that
there was her God that she saw, and who was able to see her (34). This vertical axis of the ideal of a new and different male God passes like a trajectory
through Marica as a woman, but Lazarevi describes this vertical axis as a
male dreamer of a different society in which a woman gets to have a different
man. The difference is expressed according to their seeing each other, understanding of each other, and their care for one another, according to the development of a complementary connection between a man and a woman. This
formed a basis for many Serbian female authors, starting with Draga Gavrilovi and continued by Mileva Simi, Jelena Dimitrijevi, Danica Bandi,
Milka Grgurova, and Kosara Cvetkovi.
A new parallel of the female ideal, but also of Lazarevis anti-conservatism, is illuminated by the end of his story Verter (Werther), when Marija, with tears in her eyes, looks at a red star in the sky.15 Marija is a young
woman, who was, from her first appearance, presented as a symbol of sexuality and sensuality, before whom people grow paralyzed and silent. Her husband, Mladen, is presented, on the other hand, as a person who addresses her
as son, and has only fatherly kindness for her. The final conflict of the story
14
To learn more about the negative and exclusive male, patriarchal-religious attitude toward
women, and about abhorrent male projections, see Vladeta Jeroti, Eve and Maria: Christian
and Jungs Understanding, in Psychology of the Female, ed. Velimir B. Popovi, (Belgrade:
Nolit, 1995). Eve Kosofsky Sedgewick argues that patriarchy is a homophobic society: Eve
Kosofsky Sedgwick Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1985), especially in the introduction (121). This book was
twice cited by the world-renown literary critic, Jonathan Culler, as the one that studied not only
the cultural construct of sexuality but the gender basis of culture as well, see Jonathan Culler,
The Literary in Theory (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007), 34, and Jonathan
Culler, Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press,
2000), 131.
15
This story is a complex and critical reflection on a Johann Wolfgang von Goethes novel The
Sorrows of Young Werther.
301
stems from a womans desire for passionate marital coupling. That desire remains unfulfilled, just like the red planet Mars is unreachable, but into which
both the husband and the wife are looking, and which symbolizes erotic
power. The husband hints to his wife that his erotic powers are weak (maybe
even non-existent), and that she, therefore, has to resign herself to the reality
that her desire will remain unfulfilled.
It will be important to studiously investigate how Serbian female writers,
and not only of Lazarevis era, envisioned their ideal of the new man, and
how they molded that ideal in their works through their male characters. The
aforementioned nineteenth-century female authors, instead of writing about
marriages in which wives suffer their tyrannical husbands and are distressed
because they cannot change their childrens destinies, rather write about couples who love and respect each other. At first, they create such utopian relationships that can be seen in the narratives by Draga Gavrilovi. Later, in the
prose by Mileva Simi, Jelena Dimitrijevi, Danica Bandi, Milka Grgurova
and Kosara Cvetkovi, the relationships between wives and husbands are actively constructed and are established mostly positively. Similar examples can
be found in the works of nineteenth-century Serbian female playwrights, who
are ignored in standard histories of Serbian literature. One may find more
about these authors in the study by Biljana ljivi-imi, Women in Life
and Fiction at the Turn of the Century (18841914),16 by which a more complete impression may be acquired about the tradition of literature created by
Serbian women. Lela Davio (The Night of the Ball, 1887) and Danica
Bandi-Telekova (The Emancipated One, which was awarded the yearly
prize of Matica srpska in 1895) wrote these plays. According to the conclusions by ljivi-imi, in these plays the leading female characters are as
intelligent and emancipated as their fiancs and husbands. The conception of
these plays characters might have been influenced by Draga Gavrilovis
prose, as well as the different cultural awareness of a new generation of educated female authors. Their male characters respect and seek out intelligent
women because they recognize women as necessary and desired members of
society. These different men see in emancipated women true friends and not
obedient patriarchal maids.
16
Biljana ljivi-imi, Women in Life and Fiction at the Turn of the Century (1884
1914), Serbian Studies 7, no. 2 (Fall 1993): 10622. Celia Hawkesworth does not include any
other Serbian or Bosnia-Herzegovinian female authors, except for Jelena Dimitrijevi, in her
history of such writers; cf. Celia Hawkesworth, Voices in the Shadows, 11123. The latest
study by Slavica Garonja Radovanac and her analysis of the works by Serbian female authors
from the second half of nineteenth century includes Draga Gavrilovi and Jelena Dimitrijevi.
See Slavica Garonja Radovanac, Pogled u 19. vek, in ena u srpskoj knjievnosti (Novi Sad:
Dnevnik, 2010), 1567.
Could Marica Be a Type of Mannish Woman?
This article discusses the inadequacy of understanding and interpreting

Marica as a type of mannish woman or husbandly wife in To Matins
with Father for the First Time. Specific differences between strong female
characters in the works of both male and female Serbian authors of that era
will be examined. The importance of Lazarevis description of the different
aspects of Maricas sufferings are identified. Additional emphasis is placed
upon Mitars lack of emotional attachment to Marica in the text of Lazarevis story, even though certain interpretations insist on its existence.
At a time when almost nothing was written about feminism in Serbia, genderrelated problems, and the gender representation of female characters, Biljana
ljivi-imi did write about the evolution of Serbian feminism, Serbian literary heroines, the conception of their personalities, and the presentation of
women in Serbian folk maxims, starting with the first issues of the publication
of Serbian Studies in 1980. Unfortunately, her work is rarely quoted in Serbian scholarly studies. Had Biljana ljivi-imis work about the beginning
of feminism in Serbia and United Serbian Youth (USY) been known to Serbian scholars, the problem of USYs controversial approach to the emancipation of women may have been more deeply analyzed. The way the matter
stands now, a gap still exists in Serbia between the passage of time and the
acquisition of relevant knowledge. There is also a gap between the application
of that knowledge in the methodology of teaching and the improvement of
society.1
In her study, in which she describes the main types of Serbian female
characters in nineteenth-century Serbian prose, ljivi-imi accepts the
manner of understanding women held by Serbian realists (that is, one created
1
See and compare: Biljana ljivi-imi, The Beginnings of the Feminist Movement in
Nineteenth-Century Serbia, Serbian Studies 3, no. 1/2 (Fall/Spring 1984/1985): 3553 and
Vitomir Vuleti, Ujedinjena omladina srpska i druteni poloaj ena, in Srbija u modernizacijskim procesima 19. i 20. veka, Poloaj ena kao merilo modernizacije, Book 2, ed. Latinka
Perovi (Belgrade: Institut za noviju istoriju Srbije, 1998), 16374.
304
Svetlana Tomi
by male writers). She separates these female characters into different groups,
such as shrinking violets, juxtaposing them with mannish women, withered roses, and stuck-up fakes.2 While interpreting Marica from Lazarevis To Matins with Father for the First Time, ljivi-imi understands
her suffering as voiceless, and sees her psychological strength only in the final
moment of the crisis, classifying her, thus, among the mannish women or
husbandly wives.
I have already discussed, Lazarevis new approach to female characters.3
Contrary to other Serbian writers of his time, Lazarevi did present a female
character in To Matins with Father for the First Time, not only in more
depth and more complexly, but also as the formation of moral virtues. I have
quoted examples of when Marica acts as an intelligent and composed woman,
who questions her husband and artfully proves that reality is the opposite of
his lies. Although there are different aspects of Maricas suffering and her
feeling of pain, ljivi-imi states that Maricas suffering is voiceless and
quiet in the text of Lazarevis story. However, ljivi-imi emphasizes
that the intensity of Maricas suffering does change, despite giving no further
explanation.4
I believe that the different ways in which Lazarevi described suffering
are very important because they influence the male child-narrators awareness, engraving into his memoryhis mothers powerful and lasting pain. Thus,
all such descriptions influence the reader to understand the paradoxical relationships within the nineteenth-century Serbian patriarchal family. These paradoxes consist of morality and goodness on one side, and of evil and selfish
profit on the other. If Marica is the incarnation of goodness, she does not receive any goodness herself, but is forced to suffer perpetual evil. Marica is
also an incarnation of intelligence, but she is helpless in stopping her husbands thoughtless acts. Contrary to Mitar, Marica is not protected by any patriarchal law, and patriarchy removes all meaning from her person and devalues her. According to the Civil Law of Serbia, which was in force from 1844
until 1946, a married womans position was lower than that of a seven-yearold child, who had the right to work, and also lower than that of unmarried
women and widows, who had inheritance rights. A married woman in Serbia
2
Biljana ljivi-imi, The Modest Violets, Their Varieties and Antipodes in NineteenthCentury Serbian Literature, Serbian Studies 1, no. 4 (Spring 1982): 93116.
3
See the first article, Studies of Laza K. Lazarevis Works during the Twentieth Century and
Possibilities for Different Interpretations, in this volume.
4
When her husbands gambling became his regular way of life and his losses began to be felt
at home, the mothers silent sufferings increase. She looked older, pale, sad, and serious.
ljivi-imi, The Modest Violets, 107.
305
at that time had the right neither to conduct business, nor to manage property, while she was obliged to obey absolutely and submit herself to her husband. In the case of the loss of husband, a wife, if she were also a mother, did
not possess parental rights, and a tutor would be assigned to decide the destiny of her children.5
At the beginning of the story, when Mia describes the opposite characters of his parents, Lazarevi emphasizes Maricas painful suffering of her
husbands tyranny: When he is harsh with her in his speech, she almost
withers away weeping, and, at that, she has to hide her tears both from us and
from him (28). Immediately after that, Lazarevi associates Mitars politics
of power and control with Maricas confinement within the small space of
their home and with her lack of contact with the outside world: He never
went anywhere with her, nor did she dare ask him to take her anywhere (28).
After that, there is another confession of his fathers tyrannical power in managing his family, which reveals the sons awareness of his mothers intellect.
In that short episode, it is not Mitar but Marica who is able to think of and
recommend better business options. But because she is a woman and society
has marked her gender as worthless, her husband rejects her solutions. Afterward, Mitar yells at Marica, attacking her character, declaring her immoral
and ungrateful since she dared to voice her opinion: And he just bellows at
her: Are you hungry, or lacking in something? The money is in your hands,
so, when you need more, just say a word! And do not meddle in my business! (28). In addition, Mitar misrepresents the situation as one where
Marica decides how the earned money would be spent. In reality, Marica does
not have such a role, but can only follow her husbands orders. For example,
during the fateful night, Mitar demands that Marica surrender the last twenty
gold coins to him (33). Mitar says, Give! or Give more! (33), and
Marica is the one who must obey and cannot say anything because her husband has forbidden her from talking. Mitars words, The money is in your
hands, so, when you need more, just say the word! are only an illusion of his
democratic dealing with his wife. Despite the fact that Marica sees the money
disappearing, all her warnings about the consequences of gambling, and all
her begging for him to stop that evil, Mitar is the only one who can decide
what to do and how to do it. But Mitar does not decide to control his passionhe decides to control and punish his wife. He only decided to forbid her
from talking, i.e., preventing her from meddling in his business. In this way,
Mitar does not only punish Maricas speech but also her integrity as a person,
5
For more details, see Marija Draki and Olga Popovi-Obradovi, Pravni poloaj ene
prema Srpskom graanskom zakoniku (18441946), in Srbija u modernizacijskim procesima
19. i 20. vek (Belgrade: Institut za noviju istoriju Srbije, 1998), 1126.
306
Svetlana Tomi
and, most of all, he prevents her from possibly changing her politically limited role. With that decision, he also tries to maintain the authority he possesses in the family. He, furthermore, attempts to prevent any additional revelations about himself, something in which he will not succeed completely.
While Lazarevi uses Maricas speech to display the powerful connection
between thinking and ethics, through Mitars speech he reveals the connection
between tyranny and a lack of intelligence. After Mitars yelling at Marica,
she grows silent. Such a reaction is an element of her distress, grown out of
suffering the humiliation of her personality and limitation of her attempts to
save her family.
The reader may conclude that Maricas suffering accumulated over time,
well before Mitars passion for gambling overtook him. Mia, in such cases,
uses words such as never and he did not (28), testifying to his fathers
unchanging treatment of his mother. Mia does not always describe his
mothers reactions to his fathers behavior, but he leaves valuable testimonies
about the consequences of his fathers behavior upon his mothers life. When
the fathers gambling started to ruin their familys life, the son confesses, It
took half of her life away. She weeps, so much as if to die. And no ones there
for her to unburden to (29). In these statements, an experience from the past
is joined with one from the present. How was it possible for him as a little boy
to know that his fathers gambling took half of his mothers life away, unless
he, as an adult, was able to see how destructive the consequences of his fathers behavior were? Is Marica actually alive when Mia tells the story of his
life? Or, can we conclude that his mother was dead at that time because her
husbands behavior shortened her life?
If his mother weeps so much that Mia believes that she will die, (29)
may that kind of suffering be described as silent and voiceless, as ljiviimi says? What kind of crying is it exactly if one may die from it? That is
something Mia does not describe in detail. Does it start with moving confessions, or only with sighs? Do these sighs grow into wails? Or, it might go on
as whimpering until the pain dies away from exhaustion? Does Mias description of her crying unto expiring point to the connection between her
pain and her desire to die? Does she cry so much because she wants to die
and willingly rush to the end of her life because she does not see any meaning
in it? Because her suffering cannot be changed constructively? Why does her
son state that there is no one to whom she may unburden (29)? How is he
aware of that? Did his mother, in her confessions to him, note this detail, thus
engraving it itself into his memory like some heavy burden? Or, maybe, while
confessing, the son makes the connection between his mothers isolation with
the arduousness of bearing the pain in solitude? With whom could Marica
307
share her suffering? To whom may she unburden when she is not permitted to
leave the house, when she has no contact with the outside world? On the one
hand, Lazarevi emphasizes Mitars power and sway, relating his hedonism to
his inability to empathize with Marica and their children. On the other hand,
next to Maricas intellectualism and morality, Lazarevi depicts her suffering
through the self-devouring weeping, which takes her to the border of death.
All of these details show that Maricas suffering is audible, and, that it is
literally verbose. For example, in two cases, Maricas suffering is shown
through verbal expression, which happens while she is crying. When some
people take away the horse Mitar lost gambling, at first Marica starts to
whimper, then to cry and weep, and when her husband mocks her tears and
boasts that he will gain a lot more from gambling, Marica begins to wail. In
both cases, when she talks to her husband, Marica cries. The first time she
begs him, reminding him of God and their children, bringing up examples of
other wealthy families, who, because of gambling, have lost everything. The
second time, she reminds her husband that they gained the house by mutual
hard labor and that she does not want to be left with nothing. The scene takes
place in the middle of the night, in a room the husband and the wife share
with their children. In both instances Mitars manner is harsh, and he rudely
and selfishly separates his identity from that of his wifes, reminding her that
he is the one who may talk, give orderss and manage because he possesses the
power and agency. He juxtaposes Maricas you, as something that calls
upon God, cries, whimpers, and preaches, with his own I, seen by
him as the ego that earns, buys, teaches and possesses wisdom.
One of the most important questions is why Marica ceases to hide her
tears from her husband and her children? Is it because she cannot control her
suffering anymore, or because she sees it as something that no longer has
meaning? Or might it be that it is important to her that someone (who?) sees
and remembers her suffering? So that someone (who?) would have in mind
the picture of her being torn to pieces by her tyrannical husband? Can such a
husband see and remember such a wife? It is unlikely because, in that case,
Lazarevi would have used Mitar as the narrator confessing this story. The
picture of a mother who suffers horribly is remembered by her son, Mia.
What sort of message is sent to the readers of To Matins with Father for the
First Time if they see Marica as the one who cares about everyone, and Mitar
as the only one who could care about Marica but does not? What kind of morality is possessed by those who accept the care of a woman, wife, and
mother? In that context, Lazarevis emphasizing Mias awareness of his
mothers suffering serves to illuminate the questions about the morality of
caring and responsibility, both of those who care and are responsible, and the
308
Svetlana Tomi
others, who accept the care and responsibility. Therefore, of great importance
is Mias confession that he feels his mothers crying even when he cannot
see her, but listens to her conversation with his father: Again they are silent,
only my mother sniffs from time to time, and I clearly feel her crying (31).
That is the only time that Mia uses the word feel, just as later he admits
that something made it so hard for me to watch my mother and my sister
(32). While he kept using the words I remember, I know, I say, I see,
Mia only twice confesses that he felt the gravity of the situation because of
his mothers suffering. And because of his awareness of his mothers suffering, Mia is capable of being aware of his sisters suffering, too.
Let us move on to the problem of understanding Marica as a mannish
woman or husbandly wife. When Biljana ljivi-imi describes this
problem in nineteenth-century Serbian literature, she notices the positive approach to such heroines by Serbian male authors, such as Janko Veselinovi
and Milovan Glii. Yet, although she notices the unusual and unexpected
circumstances of such heroines, she does not connect the specifics of such a
positive approach by male authors, who were capable of envisioning such
strong female characters only when they lost their husbands, breadwinners
and protectors of their children. The unusual and unexpected circumstances
of such heroines might not be associated with the dead husbands/fathers, as
ljivi-imi states, but with their further destiny, usually as younger widows and single parents who, in both Veselinovi and Gliis stories, refuse to
marry again. These women defy and win against the strong pressure of society
to become wives again, that is, a passive possession of a husband. In such
cases, they would lose the unusual role and circumstance that the law did not
mean to assign to women at that time. They would not be independent any
longer; no longer could they possess and manage even the humble property
they owned, although a marriage would improve their general economic situation from that of a single mother. While the male authors were able to envision, respect and mold strong, independent women only in the role of widows
and mothers, Draga Gavrilovi created a number of female characters who
were strong, independent, young, and unmarried women/intellectuals, teachers, authors, artists, and actresses. While Veselinovi and Glii were able to
present only a conflict between a widow-mother and the society in which she
lived, Lazarevi, in To Matins with Father for the First Time, presented a
conflict between a husband and wife.
Why might ljivi-imis designation of the women of strong character
as mannish women and husbandly wives appear problematic and not
quite acceptable? On the one hand, ljivi-imi points out the lack of selfpity in such characters. She reveals their strong desire to succeed in their en-
309
deavors, their great pride for which they gain respect and recognition in the
society. On the other hand, in her categorization of female characters, ljiviimi perpetuates the patriarchal point of view of strong women. While
ljivi-imi explains that Serbian society employs certain epithets in its
descriptions of strong women, such as a real man, mannish woman, or
man-like,it was as if they did not believe that a real woman could
achieve all she did6she, herself, does not make some necessary differentiations. When a society describes strong women in a way that turns them into
men, it transforms female identities into male ones, not recognizing the different rights and political relationships between the two genders. Thus, the
problem of female identity of this type remains both unclear and diminished,
and the ideological patriarchal discourse remains unrecognized.
None of the female characters described in the following works married
willingly: Tatiana in the novel Eternal Bachelor (1878) by Ignjatovi; Miona
in the story The First Furrow (1885) by Glii; and Anelija from the novel
A Peasant Woman (1888) by Veselinovi. When these women lose their husbands, they become widowed mothers, and for the first time they gain a privileged status in society. They can decide on their own about their possible future marriage. All of them oppose it, neither because of the love for their children (which ljivi-imi unconvincingly tries to prove by quoting Tatianas
words), nor because they will leave their late husbands homes and names by
transferring themselves and the children to another mans home, as Miona
excuses herself from a new marriage. All three of them refuse to remarry because of their own selves. Among the three of them, Miona refuses the most
pressure by her late husbands brother, using a most powerful weapon: the
words of her late husband, the validity of which only she can confirm. By
such decisions, these women choose to prove that they, on their own, may
take care of their families as single mothers. In addition to revealing the
strength of their characters, they reveal the truth about the tyranny of patriarchal marriage, which is related to the concept of the morality of remaining
unmarried, something that Draga Gavrilovi develops in her heroines.
The essence of this problem is in the fact that mothers, as widowed wives,
cross beyond the boundaries of patriarchal laws, attaining the rights possessed
only by men. Such women decide on their own about their business and relationships both inside and outside the home. There is no male head of the
family above them. The so-called womans head (enska glava), which
makes decisions in these cases, an expression which has such derogatory con6
The exact quote is: But they also called her a real guy (pravi mukarac) or man woman
(mu ena) or (todays pejorative) butch (mukobanja) as if they did not believe that a real
woman could accomplish as much as she could, ljivi imi, The Modest Violets, 104.
310
Svetlana Tomi
notations in Serbian, both past and present, is capable of thinking and making
decisions. And their physical female bodies, after becoming widows, labor
even more than before, including at jobs that are reserved for men. Veselinovis Anelija, from A Peasant Woman, is an exceptional example of such a
mix of abilities. But, the most important matter is that women have proven
themselves capable of managing both their families and properties. With such
proven capabilities, the whole of the patriarchate crumbles, because these
women show that they are able and capable of directing family members and
managing the family wealth. As such, these female characters should have a
special name because they go beyond the male law context, and, thus, fall
outside the male nomenclature of a womans place in society. They should not
be seen as true men but as women who possess the characteristics that patriarchal law denies them. If such a distinction is made in naming such female
characters, if they are identified as independent and successful women, then
their subversive power is highlighted, while the political gender differentiation is also emphasizedthe very one established by the patriarchal gender
hierarchy. It is not the same when success is achieved by a person who has all
the rights, as when it is done to the same extent by a person whose rights
were denied her.7
In his story, Lazarevi does not say that Marica thinks like a man, or that
she makes decisions as if she were a husband, or a head of the family. Such an
example may be found in The First Furrow by Milovan Glii, published in
the Belgrade magazine Housewife in 1885, in which one of the characters,
Uncle Jezdimir, directly describes Miona as a mannish woman due to the
strength of her beliefs.8 ljivi-imis interpretation, therefore, becomes
controversial. In her endeavor to identify special female characters, ljivi7
Since I have used the expression women-writers, it is necessary to explain the discrepancy
between the usage of that expression and my opposition to labeling female characters as males.
While the expression woman-writer primarily emphasizes the subversive force of the work of
women in culture, in relation to and in opposition to men as privileged participants in Serbian
literature, the other expressionmannish womanis used to label a dependent, with no
identity qualifications, molded in accordance with patriarchal male subjectivity. While the first
term undermines the legitimacy of the patriarchal discourse, since it entices the activation of
the female in the culture, the other term strengthens that legitimacy, limiting and diminishing
the perception of female identity in the political system of society. Excellent insight into the
feminist problems of language may be found in The Feminist Critique of Language: A Reader,
ed. Deborah Cameron (London: Routledge, 2005). To learn more about todays usage of the
term woman-writer in discussions of Serbian literature and discrimination of female authors
in Serbia, see Tatjana Rosi, ena-pisac: Kiborg u srpskoj knjievnosti, in Teorije i politike
roda: Rodni identiteti u knjievnostima i kulturama jugoistone Evrope, ed. Tatjana Rosi
(Belgrade: Isntitut za knjievnost i umetnost, 2008), 1129.
8
Milovan Glii, Prva brazda, in Pripovetke (Belgrade: Rad, 1966), 266.
311
imi does not distance herself from, but follows the ideological norms related to female gender, and by that to female characters. Grouping female
characters with male characters because they possess strong wills, daring, and
are principled, that is, the characteristics that are desirable only in males, confirms the stereotypes of the patriarchal way of thinking. In addition, ljiviimi does not discuss the fact that these heroines, widowed mothers, who
possess strong wills, are not represented by the majority of male writers of
that era. They may mostly be found in the stories by Veselinovi, which raises
other issues, such as why Veselinovis female characters significantly differ
in the typical characterization from other characters in Serbian prose of that
time, as well as how atypical approaches are in interpreting such cases.
Although she mentions widowed mothers, ljivi-imi still refers to
them as mannish women, by which she, as Feterly warned, gives a masculine element not only to such female characters, but to the female readers as
well. ljivi-imi, thus, reads Marica through a patriarchal, male lense, not
freed from it. In that context, although her analysis notes a number of important details, especially related to Maricas extraordinary security in her
determination, it cannot illuminate new meanings of Marica in a revisionist
way. Therefore, ljivi-imis perception of a wife and husband contains a
paradoxical contrast: that Marica possesses extraordinary strength but that
she is not aware of it, or, that Mitar becomes aware of his strong emotional
connection to Marica, although the author did not express it in any way.
ljivi-imi notices Maricas superiority as an enormous calm and
strength of which neither she nor anyone else was previously aware9 but she
does not adequately explain her position. ljivi-imi sees Maricas
strength of character only at the climax of the story, even though Lazarevi
develops and varies it from the beginning of the story. In her interpretation,
ljivi-imi does not touch upon Maricas epiphany although it influenced
Marica to be calm enough to take control of her husbands attempted suicide.
In her epiphany Marica realizes that she has been abandoned by the patriarchal God, who does not look upon her, does not care about women or understand them. It is the God to whom she prayed for a long time: God, be a
friend to us! (32), God, do not abandon me! (32). That God was not
Maricas friend, and neither was He a friend to her children. Because of that
God, Marica understands that her husband abandoned all of her pleadings and
hopes. Maricas epiphany happens when she realizes she must have a personal
God, different from the one who stands only by Mitar. At that moment, her
9
The full quote is: Whether her prayers helped her or not, in the climax of the story Marica
shows tremendous composure and strength of which neither she nor anyone else was previously aware. Biljana ljivi-imi, The Modest Violets, 107.
312
Svetlana Tomi
son notices that she looks into some God of hers, the one she looked at and
who looked upon her (34), and Marica merges the morality of her care with
that of her responsibility. Thus she decides whether she will stand with Mitar
or not. Before her, along with her God, she sees her three children surrounding her just as she always has been. For her children, Marica is the center of
their world, and all four of them are within the world of her God. Marica
knows that the destiny of her children depends on her and her support of Mitar, and that her husbands suicide depends only upon her. Therefore, in the
last fateful scene, out of her power of awareness, springs the calm selfassurance that ljivi-imi emphasizes as her extraordinary and special
characteristic.
It seems that ljivi-imi does not adequately explain her thesis that
Mitar, at the end of the story, understands his strong emotional connection
with Marica. Gorana Raievi, many years later, and independently of ljiviimis analysis, also finds the same kind of emotion, though she also does
not add further explanation. Lazarevis story does not provide any basis for
such interpretations. In To Matins with Father for the First Time, Mitar
never expresses his strong emotional attachment to Marica. The only relationships between them, presented in the story, are the ones of familial, nuptial,
and social connections, in all of which Marica and her children suffer Mitars
selfish, self-centered, and irresponsible family management.
When Mitar gasps at the end of the story, he manages to pronounce only
two words: Why, you?! These words of simultaneous recognition and surprise derive from shock after he realizes his wife, the one whom he constantly
humiliated, was intellectually and ethically superior to him. The readers may
glean even more in this pronouncement, for example, that a woman of such
character suffered, and yet, despite her suffering, decided to save her husband.
She knows she will be forced to continue being subservient to him, since the
laws of that age did not allow for improvement in her positionthey were
created to do just the opposite.
If we continue to discuss the matter of sameness, as we have been taught
to think and talk about it for a long time, we will not understand each other
Luce Irigaray warned.10 What is specific about Marica if not that she is a
woman who, despite Mitars numerous warnings, confronted her social inferiority, searching for her own expression within the repressive male system of
(re)presentation? To read and understand a literary work, and the critics attitude toward it, which is also an attitude toward the author and the readers,
10
See Luce Irigaray, This Sex Which Is Not One (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press: 1985),
205.
313
means that we must note the politics, or the regime of insights11 in the interactive relationship between fiction and reality. In that relationship, feminists
have shown the definitions of a woman and of the world very often are contradictory, in the same manner in which there is contradiction between ideology and criticism. The definitions of women and the world show misogyny as
an essential point of perception, by which the very concept of humaneness is
undermined. The humanities, as Helen Cixous emphasized, only reproduce
the male worldview, the purpose of which has shown itself to be the repression of female individuality.12 Therefore, each critical reading in its essence
shows itself to be revisionist. It separates the truth from the lies, the important
from the unimportant, attempting to activate new cultural codes.
11
The expression comes from Nancy K. Miller, Subject to Change: Reading Feminist Writing
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 175.
12
Helen Cixous, The Laugh of the Medusa in Feminism: An Anthology of Literary Theory
and Criticism, ed. Robyn R. Warhol and Diane Price Herndl (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
Lazarevis Confession to His Mother:

Do you see your tombstone? I am it, I!
This paper compares the confessions of the sons in To Matins with Father
for the First Time to another story by Lazarevi, Mother. The importance of the specific differences between these two works is also discussed.
Even though Lazarevi was among the few nineteenth-century Serbian male
authors who wrote about the importance of mothers, an even more intimate
story of his has been almost totally forgotten in Serbian culture. Mother is
not included in most editions of Lazarevis stories, although, because of a
number of similarities with To Matins with Father for the First Time the
two should be published together. Yet, Mother has had an unrecognized
existence, and has been unavailable to readers despite the fact that Branimir
ivojinovi recognizes it in his remark at the end of Lazarevis Complete
Works as a short note, which, in terms of its expressiveness, maybe stands
completely apart from Lazarevis other worksand it might not be too much
to say: in Serbian literature in general.1
Editors of Lazarevis works suppose that he wrote Mother, after the
death of his son Vladan (d. January 9, 1890), and not long after the earlier
death of his mother Jelka Lazarevi (d. January 14, 1887). Regardless of the
passage of time since the moment he wrote To Matins with Father for the
First Time, which was originally published in 1879, both of these stories illuminate the same dynamics of a sons relationship with his mother: respect
derived from emotions. While in Mother the son recognizes his mothers
value directly, freely, and honestly, in To Matins with Father for the First
Time, there is a certain control, repression, and reserve that prevent the son
1
Vladan Nedi and Branimir ivojinovi, eds., Laza K. Lazarevi, Celokupna dela, Sveska
Vol. 1. (Belgrade: SANU, 1986), 359. While reading Lazarevis lesser-known stories, I have
come to the conclusion that some of them have been put aside under the suspicious and
unjustified pretext that they were not finished. They possess great expressiveness and also
completeness, even though some of them may also be seen as drafts. See, for example,
Lazarevis story, A Husbands Letters, in Celokupna dela, 297.
316
Svetlana Tomi
from siding completely with his mother and recognizing his fathers evil behavior. Both stories were written in the first person, with the difference being
that in Mother, the sons confession involves his mother only and is told
without restraint about his feelings of love, tenderness, and dedication to her.
Most importantly, both stories emphasize the memory of the mother as an essential energy that molded the sons character. While the memory, as the seed
of the story, remained in the background of To Matins with Father for the
First Time, in Mother Lazarevi directly insists on the importance of
memory. He starts the story with the confession of his memories importance,
with the words, I remember you! and then he builds to the culminating
point, with awareness that his memory is an active mechanism in his life. The
sons life preserves and transmits his positive memories of his mother: the
picture of you, and your name have not been nicked at all (303).
In both stories, the perception of the mother is presented through the position that the female gender is denied value. As we read in Mother, a
woman is unknown, abandoned, pushed away (303). Her stormy and hard
days are juxtaposed with her calm and silence. That makes the narrator wonder, Is it just my love, that what exalts you above all other women? Or were
you truly a hero and a philosopher? (303). And, a little later, Lazarevi
writes the same thing he wrote in To Matins with Father for the First Time.
His narrator, the son, experiences his mother as a saint, but in this case, the
author uses the feminine version of the noun:
Oh, woman, female martyr [muenice], female saint [svetiteljko]! If
only for a bit you could see me, kneeling with so much godliness before your image! If only it were possible to make my brain create you
before me as an apparition! What if the world would call me crazy
happiness is my own matter! (303)
Judging by Lazarevis careful choice of words, but also because of the
authors ironic stance, and knowing him as someone who distances himself
from the norm, I believe that Lazarevi used the feminine form of the word
saint in his second story because it agrees in terms of gender with the word
mother and because of a more intimate and personal, freer painting of his
mothers portrait. This story preserved the significance of the mother from
To Matins with Father for the First Time as a woman who inspires respect
due to her stoic suffering, but in Mother it is expressed more explicitly.
Also more explicit is the sons direct address to his mother, especially his demand for her to recognize the inverted irony. Before her, a woman unrecognized, unknown, abandoned, pushed away, he kneels and prostrates himself.
Lazarevis Confession to His Mother
317
To him, she represents the magnificence of gender identity, which he as an

individual, recognizes, respects, and values, contrary to society.
When Lazarevi chooses to italicize the pronoun I (I), he, through that
specific self-recognition, emphasizes a few matters: Can you see your tombstone? I am it, I! (304; emphasis original). The son is simultaneously a living
being and his mothers tombstone. Paradoxically, he is part of her post-mortal
actuality, as much as a testament of her passing. The son-memorial symbolizes both of these levels. Death will follow his life, but his work, his words
about his mother, will persevere in their testimony to his mother. They will
live on to talk about a different culture, which respects women. The awareness of his mothers worth continues on, in a spiritual way, thanks to the sons
written memory.
In Mother, the son keeps addressing his dead mother as if she were as
alive as the connection he has with her:
Is not it true that you feel more at ease, Soul, when you see that I remember you? Do you see your tombstone? I am it, I! See how big I
am! The pyramids look like the seeds of millet compared to me! Who
else has so large a tombstone? And is there a grander grave for a
tombstone? (304).
When Lazarevi relates his life to his mothers death, his awareness about the
vigor of her post-mortal existence becomes an awareness about his own life
after her deaththat they are one life force. Therefore, whenever he addresses
his mother as Soul, the son does not only emphasize his sensibility, but the
essence of his humaneness that connected him so with his mother. Her soul is
part of his ownthe mother molded his soul. In that context, Lazarevi builds
upon the idea of lustrous sepulchers, which Jovan Jovanovi Zmaj expressed
in his poem Svetli grobovi, (Lustrous Sepulchers, 1879), but Lazarevi, in
many aspects, outdoes Zmaj. In Zmajs poem, the improvement of the human
race happens only among men: grandfather to grandson, father to son, one
fighter to another exclaimd.2 Contrary to Zmaj, Lazarevi focuses on the
fundamental problems of patriarchal societythe way men relate to women,
especially mothers. In both stories, Lazarevi demonstrates a strong influence
of the mothers characters upon their sons, recognizing the great importance
of mothers upon the lives of their sons, the legitimate representatives of the
patriarchal society. When he depicts the son as his mothers tombstone in
2
Jovan Jovanovi Zmaj, Pesme (Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1970), 85. Also available from the
Serbian Digital National Library at http://serbia-forum.mi.sanu.ac.rs/wb/?action=getbook&
bookkey=647#page/1/mode/1up.
318
Svetlana Tomi
Mother, Lazarevi acknowledges the problem of interactive influence

between a mother and a son in terms of creating either a negative or a positive
relationship between them. It might be that the author suggests that the
number of selfish and irresponsible sons, that is, tyrannical men, primitive and
anti-intellectual types in a society depends, to a high degree, on their mothers.
Mother ends with the words that show Lazarevis masterful irony:
Alas! There appears a worm! Did it, oh, horror! Did it dare? Is it to be a
relic for me! Itmy semi-brother! (304). The pathetic style here is, of
course, fake, because it hides irony. If the worm, seen on the grave, is part of
horror, how may that same worm be recognized as a relic, a semibrother? That worm aids in the process of decomposition of his mothers
corpse and it represents Lazarevis awareness that the human spiritual existence continues after the physical one. Exalted above the sons awareness of
his mothers physical existence is his comprehension of the importance of his
mothers character, which helps him overcome and prevail against the loss of
her as a physical being. The son knows that the worm is nurtured by his
mothers corpse, but he also knows that the worm cannot devour the image of
his mother. That image is preserved by the twofold role of the son. First of all,
he is a living son, with an erect body, which, as a tombstone stands above his
mothers grave. Secondly, his awareness of his mothers important influence
upon him transforms him into a memorial, a cultural tributethat transformation being performed by his act of writing about her. Through such sublimation, the son became a spiritual vestige of his mothers existence. In that
manner, these two stories, To Matins with Father for the First Time and
Mother, remain with us as Lazarevis permanent testimonies about male
awareness of mothers as extraordinarily important characters.

Serbian Studies 23-2 4-27-13

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Serbian Studies 23-2 4-27-13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SERBIAN STUDIES

JOURNAL OF THE NORTH AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR SERBIAN STUDIES

North American Society for Serbian Studies

Membership in the NASSS and Subscriptions to Serbian Studies

Copyright 2013 by Serbian Studies: ISSN 0742-3330

Serbian Studies is produced and distributed by Slavica Publishers. Individuals should

[Toll-free] 1-877-SLAVICA (752-8422)

Svetlana Tomi, Alfa University, Belgrade

The First Matins with My Father ...................................................... 147

Svetlana Tomi, Alfa University, Belgrade

A Question of the Father as Key Paterfamilias Figure ........................

Preface to the Special Issue on

This issue of the Serbian Studies is dedicated to Laza K. Lazarevi (185191),

Preface to the Special Issue on Laza K. Lazarevi

is understood through his presentation of the problems under the patriarchal

Preface to the Special Issue on Laza K. Lazarevi

Preface to the Special Issue on Laza K. Lazarevi

In Bethesda, MD, 200911

Prvi put s ocem na jutrenje1

Bilo mi je veli onda tek devet godina. Ni sam se ne seam svega ba

Prvi put s ocem na jutrenje

pojasom jedan srebrnjak iskien zlatom i dragim kamenjem. Ue on, a kao da

Prvi put s ocem na jutrenje

Prvi put s ocem na jutrenje

Dugo smo se tako molili.

Prvi put s ocem na jutrenje

mati i sestra sede s rukama u krilu; ne kuha se ni ruak; prolaze na prstima

Prvi put s ocem na jutrenje

Prvi put s ocem na jutrenje

The First Matins with My Father1

The First Matins with My Father

motherworse than a stranger, he really was. Whereas my mother,good as

The First Matins with My Father

And what is that chain?

The First Matins with My Father

The First Matins with My Father

The First Matins with My Father

The First Matins with My Father

The First Matins with My Father

Translated by Pavle Popovi

To Matins with Father for the First Time

I was only nine, he says, at the time. Personally, I dont remember

To Matins with My Father for the First Time

always somehow strict, harsh with herworse than a stranger! And my

Is that so? I cant light a candle myself, or maybe Im drunk, so I cannot

To Matins with My Father for the First Time

And what kind of chain is that?

To Matins with My Father for the First Time

would be a pair of boots, a cloak, a horse saddle, or a dozen silver spoons;

To Matins with My Father for the First Time

My Mom drooped beside the chest and fainted. My sister screamed. I

To Matins with My Father for the First Time

To Matins with My Father for the First Time

So what! said my Mom.

To Matins with My Father for the First Time

Translated by Sneana Bogdanovi

Translated by Sneana Bogdanovi

A New Understanding of Laza K. Lazarevics Story

To my daughter and to my sons

a woman's reading pleasure in any patriarchal society must be a product of

Studies of Laza K. Lazarevis Works during the

I remember my class on Serbo-Croatian literature in 10th grade at Belgrade

Studies of Lazarevis Work during the Twentieth Century