22 October 2022 – Online conversation
The first lecture “Croatian symbols of power from mid of the 19th century to 1990” (Professor Dalibor Čepulo) reconstructed medieval territorial framework and symbolic antecedents of the modern Croatian symbols of power. Medieval Dalmatia and Croatia that in 1102 became part of the Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen was a single area of the King’s rule and in the 14th-15th century it “evolved” into three different lands provided with their own regional coats of arms (Regnum Dalmatiae, Regnum Croatiae, Regnum Sclavoniae). The Ottoman and Venetian conquests in the 16th century considerably reduced the territory of these regna that were once again turned into a single administrative area, this time under the name “Kingdoms of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia”. Soon, their regional coats of arms were merged into the unofficial single three-parted coat of arms. Since 1848 this coat of arms and the red-white-blue tricolor flag that emerged in 1848 were gradually and via facti accepted as official symbols of the “Kingdoms of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia”. Yet, it was only in 1868 when the coat of arms of that land was laconically regulated by the Croatian-Hungarian Compromise. The decretal regulation of the Croatian Home Government of 1876 basically standardized the outlook of these symbols, but it was not consequently effectuated in practice until the new decree of 1914. In the meantime, the popular use of the single “chequered” coat of arms of Croatia set it as an alternative to the official three-parted coat of arms and established it as an all-Croatian national symbol. Apart from that, the solemn song “Our Beautiful Homeland” that appeared in 1846 was gradually accepted as de facto national anthem. The textual changes of that song introduced in 1862 stressed the territorial delimitation with Hungary and the Croatian national substance of the “homeland”. In 1918 the “chequered” coat of arms was constitutionalized and officially standardized as the symbol of Croats in the three-parted coat of arms of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Since that time it was the “chequered” Croatian coat of arms that has been accepted as the single all-Croatian national symbol and respective symbol of power. Thus, it was accepted as the symbol of the autonomous Banate of Croatia in 1940. It also became the basis of the coat of arms of the Nazi-fascist Independent State of Croatia (ISC), provided with the eared letter “U” and wickerwork pattern that also made elements of the national tricolor flag. “Our Beautiful Homeland” remained the anthem of the ISC with extended borders of the new state toward Serbia and “deep blue sea” added as its territorial delimitation. Yet, the
“chequered” coat of arms, surrounded with a Soviet type of heraldry, was kept as the basis of the coat of arms of Croatia as a federal republic of Yugoslavia with “Our Beautiful Homeland” constitutionalized as its anthem. Finally, the “chequered” coat of arms provided with a complex “crown” with the regional symbols of Croatia and the “oldest Croatian coat of arms” was defined as the coat of arms of the Republic of Croatia and set in the middle of the state tricolor flag. The history of the modern Croatian symbols of power showed how the traditional symbols were transferred from the symbols of the land to the symbols of the nation and the nation-state.
The second lecture “Symbolic competition and nation-building in Croatia-Slavonia 1868-1918” (Assoc. Professor Ivan Kosnica) elaborated on a connection between symbols and identity formation, as well as the connection between symbols and nation building. The speaker elaborated the constitutional position of Croatia-Slavonia based upon the Croatian-Hungarian Compromises and emphasized the concept of divided sovereignty as relevant for understanding that position. The speaker identified three agents that produced relevant norms and practices related to the symbols in Croatia-Slavonia: the Croatian-Slavonian autonomous organs, the Hungarian-Croatian organs and the Serbian church-school autonomy. Further on, the speaker analyzed the issue of the Croatian symbols during the Compromises, Hungarian symbols during the Compromises and ethnic-Serbian symbols during the Compromises. In the elaboration of Croatian symbols, the author analyzed the differences between Croatian and Hungarian texts of the Croatian-Hungarian Compromise and pointed out their implications to practice. In addition, the speaker analyzed the usage of Hungarian symbols in Croatia-Slavonia. The speaker pointed out that Hungarian flags were used on various occasions and Hungarian flags were conventionally used in joint Hungarian-Croatian offices in Croatia-Slavonia and on railways. Apart from that, the speaker indicated that only the Ban’s Decree of 21 November 1914 specifically regulated the usage of Hungarian flag in Croatia-Slavonia. Finally, the author analyzed the use of ethnic-Serbian symbols during the Compromises, particularly in regard to the use of the Serbian flag and coat of arms in Serbian church-school autonomy. The speaker elaborated different practices in relation to usage of ethnic-Serbian symbols during the governments of the bans Ivan Mažuranić (1873-1880), Khuen Héderváry (1883-1903) and Ivan Skerlecz (1913-1917). The speaker concluded that during that period there was a relatively weak implementation of single and unquestionable symbolic identity for all the population in Croatia-Slavonia.
