The Reception of Momcilo Nastasijević in Serbia and Yugoslavia

3
SERBIAN STUDIES
PUBLISHED BY TilE NORTH AMERICAN SOCIEI'Y FOR SERBIAN STUDIES
CONTENTS
VOLUME 5, NUMBER 4
FALL 1990
Edit Petrovic and Andrei Simic
MONTENEGRIN COLONISTS IN VOJVODINA: OBJECTIVE
AND SUBJECTIVE MEASURES OF ETHNICITY 1
5
Nicholas Moravcevich
THE PORTRAIT OF NIKOLA PASIC IN DOBRICA COSIC'S
NOVEL TIME OF DEATH
21
Zora Devrnja Zimmerman
ON THE HERMENEUTICS OF ORAL POETRY: AN
ANALYSIS OF THE KOSOVO MYTH OS
31
Svetlana Velmar-Jankovic
THE RECEPTION OF MOMCILO NASTASIJEVIC IN SERBIA
AND YUGOSLAVIA SINCE 1938
41
Dragan Kujundzic
THE EARLY CRNJANSKI: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS
OF WRITING
55
BOOK REVIEWS
Slavko Todorovich
The Chilandarians: Serbian Monks on the Greek Mountain .
Boulder, Colorado
East European Monographs, 1989
(Paul Pavlovich)
69
Svellana Velmar-Jankovic
41
THE RECEPTION OF MOMCILO NASTASIJEVIC IN SERBIA AND
YUGOSLAVIA SINCE 1938
Momcilo Nastasijevic, poet, novelist and dramatist, whose works
stood out during the Serbian and Yugoslav literary epoch between
the two world wars, died in February 1938 at the age of 44. After
his death, the Belgrade PEN Club devoted its first regular meeting
to his creative work 1 . These talks, in which the most eminent representatives of Serbian literary and cultural life took part, are significant for the subject of this paper, as the basic models of acceptance
or non-acceptance, of the reception of this author in Serbia and
Yugoslavia, were indicated in them.
The talks held in 1938 in the Belgrade PEN Club disclose the main
differences in contemplating and interpreting Nastasijevic's works
from the moment he began to publish. In 1922 his first poems came
out, and in 1923 his first prose in the leading Belgrade reviews,
Srpski Knjiievni Glasnik, and Misao. Since that time and up to the
mid-sixties, when polemics about the significance of Nastasijevic's
works were renewed, and even until today, those types of contemplations persist, although in a somewhat changed form. We shall
examine here their basic models.
A mystic within the Orthodox-Christian tradition, preoccupied by
the phenomenon of spirituality and devoted to the search for the
essence of existence, much more than for its contents, Nastasijevic
devoted his great creative energy to endeavours to build up a particularly concise and hermetic language. In his opinion, this condensed language was one of the means for a poetic language to attain
as much as possible the essence of things spiritual, or of "spiritual
reality, super-reality, transcendentiality". 2 Conciseness was also meant
to enable the establishment of a special kind of intonation: an intonation indicating and invoking something which Nastasijevic named
the truthfulness of tone 3 • As the most essential factor of the artistic
effect of poetical language, this truthful tone should suggest the deepest
layers of the conscious and the unconscious, but also the even deeper
layers of the things beyond, the totality of things above reality, the
transcendental, and divine. 4 In NastasijeviC's works, this conciseness and this lone condition each other; his ver~e is written in a not
so much archaic as in an intentionally archaicized vocabulary 5 and
a syntax which, in fact, moves away from the syntactic rules of the
Svetlana Velmar-Jankovic
42
contemporary literary language and seems lo approach the canons
of the medieval church language.
As an author who holds that the arts, and particularly poetry and
music, should lead human beings on the road to internal radiance,
to a presentiment of divinily, 6 Nastasijevic also demanded of its
reader considerable efforts if this reader wanted to accept and follow
him. As is the case with many poets who, in their limes, seemed
hardly understandable or totally unundcrstandablo (St6phane Mallarme, for instance), and tested their readers with calls to follow
them along their difficult voyage through the secrets of language to
the spaces of the incomprehensible, Nastasijovic also mel wilh resistance and even with a total denial of the significance of his creative endeavours.
In the period up to 1938, the strongest rejections came from a side
from which few would expect it. The most eminent Serbian and
Yugoslav Slavist and philologist, scientist of world renown, Dr.
Aleksandar Belie denied any value and any sense in NastasijeviC's
linguistic endeavours, and qualified them as "violence against the
language".? Published in 1933, when the word violence as a label,
and violence itself as a phenomenon, were becoming fashionable
both in the European way of thinking and in the European w--ay of
life, this article by Dr. Aleksandar Belie had a strong impact. Although far removed from Professor Belie in their perception of art,
some members of the small group of Belgrade surrealists (-vvhose
total number was aboul13) agreed with the great philologistth.at the
creative endeavours of Momcilo Nastasijevic wore leading astray. In
the first place, they contested the spiritual and religious component
in the poet's notion of superrealitfl which could never be, and was
not, related to their notion of surreality.o Some members 0 £ this
surrealist group, who otherwise did not present themselves as champions of "clarity" and "understandability" in poetry, considered
that, in the case of Nastasijevic, his lack of "clarity" and "u..nderstandability" does not indicate a deeper significance, as it i__ s not
authentic but artificial. They did not, however, substantiate these
opinions by any convincing arguments.
At the above-mentioned meeting of the PEN Club, attended rr:tostly
by friends and admirers of Momcilo Nastasijevic, no strong questioning of his works could be expected, but a certain mild doubt
regarding them could not be avoided. When one reads toda....:y the
Svctlana Velmar-Jankovic
43
precious report of this meeting, written, under the pseudonym of
Swan, 10 by Stanislav Vinaver, the most passionate defender of Nastasijevic's creativity, and himself a great name in Serbian literature,
it is not difficult to distinguish three ways/models of viewing and
interpreting this creativity. Those three models have persisted, more
or less amended or adapted to the demands of new limes, even
during the decades following World War II.
The first model has been described by Stanislav Vinaver in his
introductory and his final speech at this PEN Club meeting; his
viewpoint was shared by cultural figures of high standing (the writer
Todor Manojlovic, university professor Dr. Miodrag Ibrovac). According to this first model, Momcilo Nastasijevic is one of the most
daring innovators of poetical language who had fully invested his
life in the realization of his poetical aspirations. His parallel research
into the variants of the ancient Slavonic church language and the
language of folk literature, his endeavours aimed at a native melody,
a truthful tone and a real word - notions created by him and explained in his essays - as well as his poetical invocation of the
supra-realistic, are, according to Vinaver, absolutely new and authentic in Serbian and Yugoslav literature. The poetical language of
Momeilo Nastasijevic, turned towards the mythic and mythologic,
on the one hand, and towards a specific popular language, on the
other, is a language which, by its multiple significance, belongs more
to the future than to the present, is a language of a poet who is also
a prophet.
This first model of contemplation and acceptance, as can be seen,
bestows on Momcilo Nastasijevic the role of a most dedicated creator
of a new poetic expression and testimony among the prominent
Serbian poets during the epoch between the two world wars, among
whom were poets such as M. Crnjanski, R. Petrovic, S. Vinaver and
I. Andric.
According to the second model of contemplation, expressed by
prominent, but now almost forgotten authors in the period between
the two wars (Kodric, Veljkovic, Djuricic), the value of Nastasijevic's
endeavour towards the spiritual and spirituality, as well as the value
of his linguistic efforts cannot be doubted, but some of the results
of these efforts can be contested. This opinion also poses the principal esthetic question regarding the new form, the new elements in
Nastasijevic's poetical expression. The representatives of this sec-
Svellana Velmar-Jankovic
44
ond model considered that Nastasijevic's creative intentions were
exceptionally significant, but that some resulls of his croativily were
questionable. In their opinion, there was such a high degree of incomprehensibility in Nastasijevic's poetical language, increasing with
the years, that his intentional hermetics almost prevent communication with even the most advanced readers, willing to make the
necessary effort. Those who advocated this second model also asked
the well-known question about the sense of such a strongly hermetic
poetry which is rather rejecting readers than allracling them. Some
of them objected to Nastasijevic's obvious intention to make his
poetical language not only extremely enigmatic, but even totally
impossible to comprehend.
This second model of contemplation, therefore, questions the realization of some of Nastasijevic's poetical endeavours, as well as
the sense of the "exclusiveness" and "lack of transparence" of the
poetical texts written during his last years (referring mainly to the
cycles "Words in Stone" and "Deafness").
The third model of contemplation, expressed at this meeting, with
great respect for Nastasijevic and with doubtless reticence in uttering judgments, was to a certain extent based on tho opinion expressed in 1933 by Professor Aleksandar Belie. Those who were in
favour of this model - and among them were highly eminent literary and cultural figures of the times (Dr. lvo Andric, Milan Grol,
Dr. Milos Djoric), speaking about the results of Nastasijevic's poetical intentions, avoided using the expression violence against the
language used by Belie but, significantly, in all their differently intoned presentations, they all use one and the same qualification;
tragic, indicating NastasijeviC's creative failure which, according to
them, is unquestionable, particularly in the field of tho poet's experiments with language. Ivo Andric, the future Nobel Prize winner,
considered that Nastasijevic's case, when the results of these experiments were examined, was "profoundly tragic".
According to Andric, such experiments are like deep diggings in
a tunnel, not leading to the other side of the mountain, because that
other side does not exist. Milan Grol, a theater critic of high repute
and a brilliant stylist, believes that Naslasijevic's research is questionable because, too often, his verse is written in a manner which
contracts his research and his theory, while Dr. Milos Djoric, physician and writer, stated that Nastasijevic contradicts himself when,
Svetlana Velmar-Jankovic
45
on the one hand, he demands that art should throw light on the
inner being of man, but, on the other, by the hermetic character of
his poetical language, does not allow this inner being to burst forth
into radiance, or to let radiance penetrate into it.
Thus, this third model denies any greater significance of the linguistic experiment, and, in general, of the literary works of Momcilo
Nastasijevic.
Soon after his death, in the first half of 1938, his friends published
the first three of the seven volumes of his Collected Works, which
were to be completed the next year. NastasijeviC's early demise and
the publication of his Collected Works resulted in numerous, mostly
short articles in which the first model of viewing his work predominates, not only in Serbia but also in Slovenia and Croatia. I shall
present here two opinions by literary figures who did not earlier
express a marked predilection for Nastasijevic's works. The first is
Dr. Nikola Mirkovic, a great expert in medieval Serbian literature:
"Momcilo Nastasijevic is a true mystic, a Christian mystic at that a fanatic of his artistic and philosophical-religious vision, and therefore inexorable, consistent, in fact simple, and not at all sentimental" .11 The second is the opinion of a representative of the then
youngest literary generation, Radivoj Koparec, ideologically clearly
oriented towards the left. The then 19-year-old Koparec writes: "As
a lyricist, Nastasijevic is the most expressive, the most independent
poet, the one nearest to the pure music of the "seven heavens", and
the farthest removed from what is called logical and in which people
presently believe; our poet is a poet of pure intuition and expression."12
The impression prevails that, during those two years, in 1938 and
1939, the Serbian and Yugoslav literary public opinion increasingly
emphasized the value of Nastasijevic's literary work so that even a
larger readers' audience acquired a certain idea of his significance.
During this period of almost general recognition of Nastasijevic, in
accordance with the first evaluative model, we notice that the reviews of "literary and social issues" (which, camouflaged under
such a sub-title, were the organs of the so-called revolutionary proletariat] were totally silent about NastasijeviC's death and the appearance of his Collected Works. For those organs, these were events
not worthy of notice.
Svetlana Velmar-Jankovic
46
During the war, the Belgrade press under German occupalion1 J
published, in 1943, on the 5th anniversary of Nastasijovic's death,
short articles pointing to the significance of his work. ll seems that
those articles have been used as a good pretext, after the war, in the
years when a Socialist society of the totalitarian type was being built
up in Yugoslavia, not to utter a single word about the works of
Momcilo Nastasijevic. As was the case with the majority of pre-war
writers who did not appreciate the Communist ideas (M. Crnjanski,
R. Petrovic, D. Vasic, S. Krakov, G. Bozovic and others), Nastasijevic
was also condemned to non-existence in tho Yugoslav cultural world,
to a gradual disappearance into oblivion. Perhaps he was even more
silenced than some other prominent authors of the period between
the two wars (Crnjanski, Petrovic, Vasic) who - although not very
often - were occasionally mentioned by critics - advocates of Socialist realism, but also by politicians in power. Mentioned negatively, of course. At that time, in the late forties and early fifties,
authors favoring Nastasijevic (Vinaver, Blagojevic, Kovacevic), being
out of political favour, were also mostly condemned to silence.
The name of Momcilo Nastasijevic was first mentioned again by
the most prominent member at that time, of the Belgrade surrealist
group, the author Marko Ristic. He occupied a high social position
in the new regime, and his word carried a great weight. His book of
critical essays Literary Politics was published in 1952. The Index,
or "Register and Interpreter of Notions Mentioned in this Book"
(Ristic's title), also interprets the "notion" Naslasijevic Momcilo. In
this interpretation, in a few sentences, Rislic joins the third model
of viewing Nastasijevic's work - totally denying it any significance.
He uses two qualifications, characteristic of the terminology of literary critics in the period of Socialist realism, not only in Yugoslavia. Those are the terms of obscurantist and obscurantism:
Nastasijevic is an obscurantist as a writer, and his prose is obscure.
With the use of this term which outside the mechanism of totalitarian societies means practically nothing, but within these mechanisms sometimes signifie~ a fateful condemnation, R.islic contributed
to strengthening the official position that the works by Nastasijevic
are not only useless but also undesirable for the culture of the new,
Socialist society.
But as totalitarianism - as manifested during the last four decades
in the countries of Socialist realism - gives rise to a parallel, un-
Svetlana Velmar-Jankovic
47
official, dissident culture, a certain form of this culture emerged in
Belgrade, at the beginning of the fifties. With this culture, verbal,
but still muted, pre-war writers, and particularly Milos Crnjanski,
Rastko Petrovic and Momcilo Nastasijevic, who had not been mentioned and had been politically condemned, were increasingly coming to the fore again. This is how it could happen that, with the first
political freedoms and a certain relaxation of ideological constraints,
a· conflict broke out in 1952 and 1953 between literary dogmatists,
advocates of Socialist realism described as "realists", and the nondogmatists, young writers with modern orientations, called "modernists". This conflict, which went on for several years, ended with
the victory of the "modernists", many of whom, particularly the
youngest among them, held NastasijeviC's work in high esteem.
As soon as the victory of the "modernists" was consolidated, the
first mentions of Nastasijevic's name appeared in public, at first very
rarely and cautiously. For the first Lime after the war, three of his
poems were published in 1954, together with a note about their
author, and in 1955 two longer articles about Nastasijevic's creative
work. 14 1956 marks the return of Momcilo Nastasijevic to Serbian
culture and literature. The then leading literary critic, anti-dogmatist
Borislav Mihajlovic Mihiz broke the ring of silence surrounding Nastasijevic, by an article published in the review NIN. 1 5 This same
critic inserted some of NastasijeviC's poems into his anthology Serbian Poets Between the Two Wars. 16 Not long after Mihajlovic's volume, the famous Anthology of Serbian Poetry by the essayist Zoran
Misic, gave a marked place to Nastasijevic and paid him a considerable tribute. MiSic considered that Nastasijevic's linguistic experiment "contain a fruitful ferment linking his poetry ... to the most
modern tendencies."1 7
1956 can, therefore, be considered as being decisive for the beginning of a period of a new reception of MomCilo NastasijeviC's literary
works. The word "new" should be taken here as conditional because
it is a case of renewed reception based on the first model of contemplation.
In the period between 1956 and 1963 a series of articles and essays
had been published about Nastasijevic in Serbia and also in Croatia.
The first post-war book of his works, a selection of poetry, stories
and dramas was published in 1958. 18 The first model of interpreting
Nastasijevic's work almost fully prevails in all the texts written at
Svetlana Velmar-Jankovic
48
that time: within the cultural climate somewha t relieved of the constraints of Socialist realism, the young literary artists see inMomcilo
Nastasijevic their great predecessor, a modern researcher of the hidden powers of poetic language. The text whic h, perh aps, most concisely, and in a most inspired way, expressed this view, was a short
essay by Vasko Popa, published as an epilog ue to tho, until then,
fullest edition of Nastasijevic's poems, entitled Soven Lyrical Circles.19 In this text Papa views Naslasijevic's poetry as a "winged
flute", and the poet as a prisoner who, "with his poem, found himself in an evil and contrary world." 20
The cult of MomCilo Nastasijevic, based on the first model, and
gradually formed through a series of critical texts published since
1956, was finally established in 1962 precisely by th is Vasko Papa's
text.
But although it had been firmly established, this cull also provoked contestations. A direct pretext to the adversaries of this cult,
a challenge to contest it, was provided , in addition to Papa's text by
that of a young critic, Muharem Pervic. 21 This text, published as an
introduction to the book Mom Gila Nastasijovic, 22 is still regarded as
one of the essays most profoundly and fully analyzing NastasijeviC's
poetry. In his interpretation, Pervic combined, to a certain degree,
the first and second model of contemplation, giving an explicit preeminence to the first model. His essay contends that, in spite of all
his creative errings, Nastasijevic is one of the greates t Serbian poets,
and certainly the only one who is fully devoted to things spiritual
and out of this world.
The opponents of Nastasijevic's works claimed that the texts by
Vasko Popa and Muharem Pervic were attempts to threaten the basis
of Socialist culture. Paradoxically, the main attack came from the
"modernists" and not, as could have been expected, from the "realists." The first to react to the choice of poems and lo Vasko Papa's
text was Zvonimir Golob, a Croatian writer. In reviewing Nastasijevic's book Seven Lyrical Circles, edited by Vasko Papa, he joined
the third model of contemplation which denies any literary value
to NastasijeviC's work; he discovered in it a masked ideological exclusiveness of the Bolshevik type. It is interesting lo note that this
severity resembled the irreconcilable lone expressed by AJeksandar
Belie, thirty years earlier, in his criticism, describing NastasijeviC's
poetical researches as violence against the language. Three decades
Svetlana Velmar-Jankovic
49
after Belie's text, one could read in Golob's article that Nastasijevic's
"poems ... are at war with word cases, enslaved to an archaic syntax,
and are incomprehensible to contemporary readers." According to
Golob, such poetry "is leading astray, it is a dead channel in the
development of our poetry, an adventure with a sad ending not
deserving to be followed ." 23
Somewhat milder than Golob, Milovan Danojlic 24 also reacted immediately to Popa's selection. Like Golob, he also belongs to the
party of "modernists" and is also, as Golob, close to the circle of the
former Belgrade surrealists, particularly to Marko Ristic, a powerful
figure within this circle. The young Danojlic carefully guarded against
arguments of an ideological type but, using literary arguments expressed by the advocates of the third model of contemplation, adroitly
questioned all the values of NastasijeviC's works.
A few months later, both polemicists reacted anew, this time to
the already mentioned Nastasijevic book edited by Muharem Pervic
and, in particular, to Pervic's introduction. 25 Both of them, Golob in
Zagreb and Danojlic in Belgrade, were even more consistent in their
rejection of Nastasijevic. While Golob started a merciless campaign
both against Nastasijevic's work and against those who had lost their
minds and were now developing a cult of his work, Danojlic, apparently more mildly but, in fact, more dangerously because more
slyly, contested the sense of NastasijeviC's work. At the same time,
however, he praised the analytical character and value of Pervic's
in trod uclion.
But times had changed and these texts were causing objections
and protests, because of their attacks against Nastasijevic and also
because it was clear they had been inspired from outside. Very soon,
the assumed main inspirator of the resistance against Nastasijevic
emerged from the wings: the powerful Marko Ristic, angered, went
himself to the attack. 26 Once a leading surrealist, he was now a
leading "modernist" which should mean that he is also an antidogmatist, but he wasn't. His bad-tempered and malicious assessments, both of Nastasijevic himself and of those who defended his
work, were not even in these changed times based on literary, but
on ideological arguments - if one can call arguments the qualifications which he never stopped using. As Ristic did 12 years ago
when he used terms like obscurantist and obscurantism, he now
wanted to do the same, with similar if not quite identical expres-
Svetlana Velmar-Jankovic
50
sions. Nastasijevic was - he said in a press interviow27 - "something (!) not only unauthentic but also obscure and morbid," and
"the hyper-inflated glorification" of his works was a "sad and retrograde phenomenon" in the new, Socialist culture.
Ristic thus, once again, attempted to add, to the third model of
contemplation, the weight of "arguments" customary in the politics
and culture of the totalitarian regimes of the so-called Socialist realism period. But such "arguments" arc not acceptable any more
because, in changed times, this kind of ideological cannonade does
not have its former effect, and misses its target. Truo, voices raised
in Nastasijevic's defense (Milosav Mirkovic, Rade Kuzmanovi6)2 8
are only weakly attacking Nastasijevic's strongest opponent, Ristic,
and much more so Ristic's soldiers Golob and Danojlic. The public
did not miss the fact that, in their articles, both Golob and Ristic
had used the same senseless formulation - that NastasijeviC's poetry was "poetically retrograde!" It was probably becoming clear to
Ristic himself that the times of his power were past: protests against
his non-literary condemnation of Nastasijevic had not yet died down,
and important studies about Nastasijevic were published, written by
the most eminent writers of the younger generation: Miodrag Pavlovic, Pavle Zoric, Novica Petkovic, Predrag Palavestra.zo These studies
developed and added to the first model of contemplation, and the
significance of Nastasijevic's works was confirmed in many ways.
Marko Ristic's literary putsch fully failed. It could be said that it
produced an effect contrary to the one he had probably expected:
the larger public showed an increased interest in Nastasijevic's work,
and literary researchers were stimulated to study him.
A particular intensification of studies regarding the works of
Momcilo Nastasijevic went on during the sixties and in the first half
of the seventies. During that decade (1965-1975) an average of about
10 to 12 new articles, essays or studies about Nastasijevic was published annually, all of them based on the first model of contemplation. There is practically no literary critic or essayist who does not
consider it his obligation to deal with Nastasijevic's work during
this period. This was also the time of domination of a Nastasijevic
cult: arguments in favour of contesting the value of Nastasijevic's
work, i.e. arguments taken over from the third model, were very rare
and, in view of the almost unanimous reception according to the
first model, rounded even blasphemous. The value and significance
Svetlana Velmar-Jankovi6
51
of his work were generally accepted as something uncontested and
uncontestable.
By the end of the seventies the number of texts devoted to Nastasijevic is somewhat declining; the ones that were published did
attempt to view his works from different angles, but they were all
based on the first model. Among these works, of a particular significance are the studies by the English Slavist Edward Goy, 30 Radomir
Konstantinovic, 31 Milosav Suti6, 32 Novica Petkovi6, 33 and Tanja Kragujevic.34
In the early 'eighties, the interest of both the readers and critics
was changing. Some of the most contested writers of the period
between the two wars - Crnjanski, Petrovic, Nastasijevic - had
now long been recognized as great men. Nastasijevi6's work was still
attracting the attention of researchers, but the time when sacrifices
were made on the altar of his cult was over. Sacrifices are unnecessary now because the significance of Nastasijevic's work is widely
recognized. The advocates of the first model have won an absolute
victory, or so it would seem. I say that because as a winner, Nastasijevic's literary work is arousing now, at the very end of the eighties,
a considerably lower attention from the side of younger generation
of critics than a quarter of a century ago. The fact that is now slightly
worrying the numerous admirers of Nastasijevic's work, is that on
the 50th anniversary of his death, in 1988, only a few, rather circumstantial articles about Nastasijevi6 were published, so that this
anniversary has truly been poorly marked. If this fact is any kind of
a testimony, it is then possible to assume that the nineties will bring
forth forms of somewhat changed reception of MomCilo Nastasijevic's works, just as it can be assumed that any form this changed
reception will take will remain within the framework of the three
basic modes of interpretation of Nastasijevic's work which have been
presented here.
•Swan, "Knjizevno stvarala~tvo i knjizevna tehnika. Licnost i dolo Moml:ila Nastasijevica pred sudom njegovih prijatelja u PEN klubu." - Nova smena, 1/2 1938,
83-89.
Svetlana Velmar-Jankovic
52
2 Moml:ilo Nastasijevit, Celokupna deJa, Ill, "Nokoliko rofloksija iz umotnosti", 2930.
3 Ibidem, 26-29.
•a)Trifunovit, Djordje, "Drevna leksika u poeziji Moml:ila Nastasijevita" I - Vidici, VlV42-43,Jll-IV, 1959,6
b)Trifunovit Djordje, "Drevna leksika u poeziji MomWa Nostasljovl~a," II. - Vidici, VII/44- 45, V-VI 1959, 10.
•Belit, Aleksandar, "Nasilje nad jezikom". - Na§ jezik, 1/9,1933, 257- 262.
•Nemoguce, (L 'impossible), almanah, Nadroalistil:ka izdanja (Edition surrealistes),
Beograd, 1930, 50.
7 "Nadrealizam danas i ovde",2/Il, Beograd 1932, 40 .
•Ibidem, 28.
•Swan, op. cit., 9.
10M(irkovi!5), dr N(ikola), "Moml:ilo Nastasijevi!5" (1894-1938). - SKG, ns,Uil/4,16.III
1938, 318-319.
11 Koparec, Radivoj,"Povodom srnrti Moml:ila Nasta sijovi~a" . - jugoslovenski rasvit,VI/7-8, 1938,113-116.
12 a)Anonym, "Moml:ilo Nastasijevit". - Srpski narod, 1/6,10.Vl 1942, Boograd,7.
b) Najdanovit, dr Dimitrije, "Moml:ilo Nastasijovic". - Srpski narod, II/6, 13.1I
1943, Beograd, 5.
c) Z. "Tvorac sustastvene proze". - Srpski narod, ll/6,13.1! 1943 Boograd,6.
13 S. Beleska o piscu (Momcilu Nastasijevitu) . Na§ vesnik, 1/36, 17.XII 1954,
Beograd,10.
14 a) Pejatovic, Prvoljub, "Sedamnaest godina od MomWa Nastasijovica" Vi'dici,lll/12,10 .ll 1955, Beograd,14.
b) Maksimovic, Miodrag M, "Nastasijevic". - Mlada kultura, IV/36,1 0.XI 1955,
Beograd, 10.
"(Mihajlovic, Borislav), "Moml:ilo Nastasijevic", NlN,Vl/262, 0.1 1956,12.
'"Mihajlovic, Borislav, Srpski pesnici izmedju dva rata, Nolit, Beograd 1956.
17 MB!c, Zoran, "Moml:ilo NastasijeviC", Antalogija srpske poezijo, Matica srpska,
Novi Sad 1956.
'"Mihajlovic, Borisav, Momtilo Nastasijevi{;: Pesme. Pripovetke. Drama. Novi SadBeograd; Matica srpska - Srpska knjizevna zadruga, 1956.
'"Popa, Vasko, Moml:ilo Nastasijevit, Sedam lirskih krugova, Prosveta, "Brazde"
28, Beograd 1962. Including:
a) Trifunovic, Djordje, Zivotopis Momtila Nastasijevica.
b) Trifunovic, Djordje, Retnik drevnih reti u poeziji Momcila Nastosijevica
20lbidem 7
21 Pervit.' Muharem, "Poetika i poezija Momacila Nastasijovico" Delo VIII/
12,ll,1962, 1421-1447.
22 Pervic, Muharem, Momtilo Nastasijevi{;, Noli!, "Zivi pesnici", Beograd, 1963.
23 Golob, Zvonimir, "Poezija iii kabala". - Kolo,l/2, Zagreb 1962, 247- 253.
24 Danojlic, Mita, "Volite li Nastasijevita?" - Delo, IX/1, Beograd 1963,124-127.
"a) Danojlit, Mica, "Za i protiv Nastasijevica". Borba ,XXIX/66 , 8.lll 1964,1 o.
b) Golob, Zvonimir, "Uvi mnje, uvi", - Telegram, V/203,13.lll 1963.5.
26 a) Ristic, Marko, ("Nemoj da mi gledas zube, moj golube"). Borba .XXVIII,
1D.Xl 1963,16.
b) Ristic, Marko [12 C 6 Paris 8. 11-12.12 1962) . Naknadni dnevnik (nasta.vak 6)].
- Forum, II/11-12, Zagreb 1963, 728- 750.
27 Ibidem, a)
26 a) Mirkovic, Milosav, "M.Nastasijevic i nesporazumi". - Beogrodska I!edelja,
IV/131,22.1Il 1964,6.
Svetlana Velmar-Jankovic
53
b) Kuzmanovic, Rade, "Kreket o fruli Moml:ila Nastasijevica", - Student,XXVIII/
10,31.III 1964, Beograd, 6.
••a) Pavlovic, Miodrag, "Moml:ilo Nastasijevic". In: Osam pesnika, "Brazde", Prosveta, Beograd 1964,161-205 ..
b) Hristic, )ovan (Oblici vezanog pesnmva). Ut pictura poesis-Knjiievnost, XX/
4,XL, Beograd 1965,283-3 00.
c) Glu~cevic, Zoran, "Izmedju zvuka i nirvana". In: Perom u rabos, Svjetlost, Sarajevo 1966, 81-85.
d) Glu~cevic, Zoran, "Ni rel: ni stih ni zvuk tugu moju ne kaza", Ibidem, 86-89.
e) Palaves tra, Predrag, "Moml:ilo Nastasijevic". In: Srpska i hrvatska poezija XX
veko, Savremena ~kola, Beograd 1964.
f) Palavestra, Predrag, "Posleratna srpska poezija" . - Savremenik XIII/
6,XXV, 1967,505- 534 .
'"a) Goy, Edvard D., The poems "Gluhote" and "Rel:i u kamenu" by Moml:ilo
Nastasijevic. - Annali dell' institute universitario sezione slave oriental, IX, Napoli
1966,161-196.
b) Goj, Edvard, D: Pes me "Gluhote" i "Reci u kamenu" MomCila Nastasijevica(I).Bagdala, XI/10,1969,7-11.
c) Goj, Edvard, D:Pesme "Giuhote" i "Reci u kamenu" Momcila Nastasijevica"(II).
- Bogdolo,XI/128(11).1969, Kru~evac, 7-11.
d) Goj, Edvard, D: Pesme "Giuhote" i "Reci u Kamenu" Momcila Nastasijevica (Ill).
- Bagdala, XII/129(12),1969, Kru~evac, 1-8.
e) Goj, Edvard, 0 : 0 dva lirska ciklusa Momcila Nastasijevita. Bagdala, Kru~evac
(1969), MCMLXIX. Mal~ biblioteka De arte
Treti program,
31 a) Konstantinovic, Radomir, "Iskustvo pesnika Nastasijevica". ll/12, summer 1969, Beograd, 450-464.
b) Konstantinovic, Radomir, "Momcilo Nastasijevic" . - Tre6i program III/2, autumn 1970, Beograd, 650-720.
>• Sutic, Milosav, /Nad knjizevnim delom/, In: Misao koja ne odustaje , Delo '71,
2, Beograd 1971.
" Petkovic, Novica, "Poetska misao MomCila Nastasijevica". In: Artikulacija pesme,
Svjetlost, Sarajevo 1968, 106-134.
"Kragujevic, Tanja, Mitsko u Nastasijevi(;evam delu, Vuk Karadzic Beograd 1976.