North American Society for Serbian Studies

3
SERBIAN STUDIES
PUBLISHED BY THE NORTH AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR SERBIAN STUDIES
CONTENTS
VOLUME 4, NUMBER 3
SPRING 1988
Alex N. Dragnich
AMERICAN SERBS AND OLD WORLD POLITICS
5
Vasa D. Mihailovich
THE IMAGE OF AMERICA IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIAN
LITERATURE
27
Michael Bora Petrovich
KARADZIC AND NATIONALISM
41
George Vid Tomashevich
BIBLICAL MOTIFS IN MEDIEVAL SERBIAN PAINTING AND
LITERATURE
59
Laura Gordon Fisher
THE PATRIOTIC POETRY OF MILAN RAKIC
71
NOTES (Student essays)
Jelona S. Bankovic-Rosul
ORIENTAL FATALISM AND VICTORY OF TANAT SIN
DEVJL'S YARD AND DERVISTI AND DEATJJ.
Ani Lo. L kic- Trboj vic
NARRATOR AND NARRATIVE IN ANDRI '
AVLIJA.
79
Pll KLETA
33
Anita Lekic-Trbojevic
83
NARRATOR AND NARRATIVE IN ANDRIC'S PROKLETAAVLIJA
Prokleta avlija * is a work which readily lends itself to a variety
of interpretations. The most obvious of these perhaps is the work's
political dimension, dealing as it does with the themes of oppression, confinement, and the arbitrary determination of guilt and innocence. In contradistinction to these somewhat obvious levels of
reading, however, the work may also be approached as a commentary on and illustration of what narration or storytelling is in fact
all about.
Characteristic of this work is not only its marked preoccupation
with the act of storytelling as evinced in the multitude of narrators
who take center stage at one point or another in the work. There is
a strong focus here on the importance of the utterance, the act of
narration itself, rather than on actions or deeds. Although Prokleta
avlija embraces a variety of characters and indeed spans a time frame
of several centuries, little occurs; the primary focus is on relating
what occurs. The few chapters in the work in which the course of
an entire life is depicted are characterized by an impersonal and
almost mechanical narration, that is, by a rapid recital whose import
is overshadowed by what actually happens to the narrator as he
relates the story. We think we are justified in claiming that Prokleta
avlija is a work which examines the relationship existing between
the narrator and his narrative on both a thematic and structural level.
Structurally, of course, Prokleta avlija is a classic example of a
literary narrative characterized by embedding, or the enclosure of
one story within another. The book exemplifies subordinating rather
than coordinating conjunctive relationships. The text, namely, does
not consist of a loose linear progression from one episode to another
in the manner of the picaresque novel. Prokleta avlija does not extend outward structurally but in depth; the strategy of embedding
illustrates the maneuvers the text undertakes to conceal its essence.
*Andric, Ivo. Prokleta avlija Beograd: Prosve ta, 1967. All citations are from thi s
edition.
Anita Leki6-Trbojevic
83
NARRATOR AND NARRATIVE IN ANDRIC'S PROKLETAAVLIJA
Prokleta avlija* is a work which readily lends itself to a variety
of interpretations. The most obvious of these perhaps is the work's
political dimension, dealing as it does with the themes of oppression, confinement, and the arbitrary determination of guilt and innocence. In contradistinction to these somewhat obvious levels of
reading, however, the work may also be approached as a commentary on and illustration of what narration or storytelling is in fact
all about.
Characteristic of this work is not only its marked preoccupation
with the act of storytelling as evinced in the multitude of narrators
who take center stage at one point or another in the work. There is
a strong focus here on the importance of the utterance, the act of
narration itself, rather than on actions or deeds. Although Prokleta
avlija embraces a variety of characters and indeed spans a time frame
of several centuries, little occurs; the primary focus is on relating
what occurs. The few chapters in the work in which the course of
an entire life is depicted are characterized by an impersonal and
almost mechanical narration, that is, by a rapid recital whose import
is overshadowed by what actually happens to the narrator as he
relates the story. We think we are justified in claiming that Prokleta
avlija is a work which examines the relationship existing between
the narrator and his narrative on both a thematic and structural level.
Structurally, of course, Proklcta avlija is a classic example of a
literary narrative characterized by embedding, or the enclosure of
one story within c:mother. The book exemplifies subordinating rather
than coordinating conjunctive relationships. The text, namely, does
not consist of a loose linear progression from one episode to another
in the manner of the picaresque novel. Prokleta avlija does not extend outward structurally but in depth; the strategy of embedding
illustrates the maneuvers the text undertakes to conceal its essence.
• Andri c, Iva . Prokleta ovlija Beograd : Prosveta , 1967. All citations are from this
edition.
Anita Lekic-Trbojevic
84
The heart of the text cannot be readily accessible; the narrative rile
requires initiation through the maze of stories it sets out for the
reader.
In terms of structure, the relationships among the various narrators may be projected over three levels.
The first of the several raconteurs we meet on the book's uppermost and in that sense most superficial level is the young friar who
views fra-Petar's grave from the monastery window. This is, of course,
the scene with which the book both opens and closes; the scene also
functions as a frame in the sense that what simultaneously propels
the story forward and brings it to an end is the encompassing glance
cast by an observer, through as it happens an actual window, at a
scene which in turn supplants the primary focus. This procedure of
substitution is therefrom deployed repeatedly. The detachment of
the young observer from the series of events related subsequently
illustrates Andric's views on how the narrator approaches his textas one who views his subject matter with detachment and at a remove, as a witness whose role it is to recount objectively with a
minimum of interference. In terms of their import in the work, the
storytellers Zaim, Haim, and the man with the bass voice are also
structurally incorporated within this top, superficial level. The intermediary who connects their stories with those in the text's substratum is Haim, who alone has a good deal of information to impart
concerning Camil, a character who appears on the third level. On
the second level a prominent role is played by fra-Petar who at
various points of Prokleta avlija appears to assume the role of primary narrator and commentator on Camil's life and fate. As opposed
to the young friar whose narrative frames the story, fra-Petar manifests greater involvement with what he relates; rather than detachment, he evinces compassion and sympathy; proceeding actively
beyond the mere observation and recording of facts, fra-Petar comes
to court the subject of his story. It is of course fra-Petar's fate to be
supplanted from the level of character to that of narrator as the
concentric circles of Prokleta avlija gradually spread outward from
their source. A similar narrative destiny befalls Karadjoz, the supervisor of the "devil's yard". His story is interesting in itself, but
does not lead directly to Camil's which occupies the third level. The
link here, of course, is fra-Petar. Finally, on the third and central
level, we have the story of Camil and the circumstances which led
Anita Lekic-Trbojevic
85
to his imprisonment in "prokleta avlija". Once again, however, in
accordance with the pattern hitherto established, the story of Camil's
life is eclipsed by the story he in turn has to recount: that of Dzemsultan. Given below are the three levels with the intermediaries
underlined:
The young monk - Zaim - Haim - the man with the deep voice
Karadjoz - fra-Pelar
Camil- Dzem-sultan.
On another level, one may perceive a linear progression extending
from the young monk ("i sada, dok gleda njegov grab u snegu, mladic
ustvari misli na njegova pricanja", p. 11) to fra-Petar, and leading to
Haim as the intermediary who provides the link between fra-Petar
and Camil, which, ultimately, culminates in the story of Dzem-sultan. Haim, fra-Petar, and Camil are all simultaneously storytellers
and subjects of stories told. Dzem sultan alone is the subject of a
story. The storytellers illustrate how Andric views the process of
narration, as in this description of how fra-Petar's narrative takes
shape:
0 ta dva meseca, provedena u stambolskom istraznom
zatvoru, fra-Petar je pricao vge i lepse nego o svemu
ostalom. Pricao je na prekide, u odlomcima, kako maze
da prica tesko bolestan covek koji se trudi da sabesedniku ne pokaze ni svoje fizicke bolove ni svoju C:estu
misao na blisku smrt. Ti odlomci se nisu uvek nastavljali tacna i redovno jedan na drugi. Cesto bi, nastavljajuCi pricanje, ponavljao ono sto je vee jednom
rekao, a cesto bi opet otisao napred, preskocivsi dobar
deo vremena. Pricao je kao covek za kog vreme nema
vge znacenja i koji stoga ni u tudjem zivotu ne pridaje
vremenu ni redovnom toku vremena neku vaznost. Njegova prica mogla je da se prekida, nastavlja, ponavlja,
da kazuje stvari unapred, da se vraca unazad, da se
posle svrsetka dopunjava, objasnjava i siri, bez obzira
na mesto, vreme i stvarni, stvarno i zauvek utvrdjeni
tok dogadjaja.
Anita Lekic-Trbojevic
86
Naravno da je pri takvom nacinu pricanja ostalo dosta
praznina i neobjasnjenih mesta ... (pp. 12-13).
What Andric is emphasizing here is the well-known distinction,
posited by the formalists, between the actual temporal progression
of events (the fable or story) and its reformulation and representation
as "plot" by the narrative. The actual chronology of events is in fact
deceptive in purporting to provide a true representation of reality;
the text alone, as it maneuvers backwards and forwards through time
and space, may begin to apprehend the true import of otherwise
chaotic circumstances.
Karadjoz, who is not described as a storyteller, is, however, designated on several occasions as a lover of books, an important detail
in that it contrasts so markedly with his other trails. But his role is
in fact that of author; the characters of the text he shapes are the
men condemned to inhabit the "devil's yard". Karadjoz is the traditional omniscient narrator par excellence:
I poznajuci gotovo svakog od zatocenih, njegovu pro1Host i njegovu sadasnju krivicu, on je sa dosta prava
govorio da "zna kako dise Avlija". A kad pojedinca i
nije znao bas u glavu, poznavao je onu skitnicku ili
prestupnicku dusu u njemu i u svakom trenulku mogao
je stati pred njega i nastavili razgovor o njegovoj ili
tudjoj krivici. . .I zaista je ta Avlija i sve sto je sa njom
zivelo i sto se u njoj desavalo bila velika pozornica i
stalna gluma Karadjozovog zivota (p. 30).
It is no coincidence that the avlija is here designated as a theatre or
the site where the literary text is acted out. The avlija, apart from
its many obvious connotations, may also be viewed as the text that
delimits and contains but also reconciles and orders within itself
the many disparate elements from which it is constituted. And when
an episode out of the avlija's life is recounted, as when fra-Petar
relates one of the many exploits for which Karadjoz was justly notorious, it is the text which rewords the bizarre in order that it may
be made comprehensible:
Anita Lekic-Trbojevic
87
Cesto je fra-Petar pricao o Karadjozu ... sa zeljom i
potrebom da sto bolje recima prikaze sliku toga cudoviSta, kako bi postala jasna i onome koji slusa ... (p.
43).
Prokleta avlija abounds in references to acts of narration. In this
context one appreciates the significance of details continually drawing attention to the literary text. Thus , on the occasion of fra-Petar's
first meeting with Camil for whom he comes to feel affection and
sympathy, it is not Camil himself that he first sets eyes on but a
book:
Prvo sto je ugledao bila je nevelika, u zutu kozu povezana knjiga .... Trepnuo je ocima, ali knjiga je stajala
na mestu i bila zaista - knjiga. Tek tada je posao dalje
pogledom i video da je ta knjiga na krilu coveka koji
samo napola lezi a napola sedi, naslonjen na svoj kovcezic (p. 47).
The imparlance of the utterance, whether in the shape of the written
or spoken word, is continually underscored. Thus, both fra-Petar
and Camil value their exchanges as "unexpected gifts", while fraPetar remarks upon meeting the obsessive talker Haim: "Ja sam pomalo na mag amidzu ... koji je svakog mogao da saslusa i podnese,
i u sali uvek govorio: 'Ja bih bez hljeba jos nekako i mogao, ali bez
razgovora, beli, ne mogu'." Emphasized here, yet again, is the remarkable nurturing force of words which are, for Andric, man's primary sustenance. Andric also makes use of Haim lo explore the role
of Lhe narrator:
I nije samo opisivao ljude o kojima prica nego je ulazio
u njihove pomisli i zelje, i lo ceslo i u one kojih ni sami
nisu bili svesni, a koje je on otkrivao. On je govorio iz
njih (p. 56, italics mine).
The importance of this line is tremendous when one considers Andric's own procedure. Here is a theory of narration Lhat abandons
the impersonal, detached narrator in favor of narrator-character
equalily. A striking application of lhis view occurs, as we shalllaler
Anita Lekic-Trbojevic
88
see, in Camil's complete identification with Dzem-sullan.
Andric also utilizes Haim to deliver an apologia for devotees of
the written or spoken word:
(Mi smo uvek manje ili viSe skloni da osudimo one koji
mnogo govore, narocito o stvarima koje ih se ne ticu
neposredno, cak i da sa prezirom govorimo o tim ljudima kao o brbljivcima i dosadnim pricalima. A pri tom
ne mislimo da ta ljudska, toliko ljudska i tako cesta
mana ima i svoje dobre strane. Jer, sta bismo mi znali
o tudjim dusama i mislima ... da nema lakvih ljudi koji
imaju potrebu da usmeno ili pismeno kazuju ono sto
su videli i culi. .. Malo, vrlo malo. A lo sto su njihova
kazivanja nesavrsena, obojena licnim slrastima i potre·
bama, ili cak netacna, zato imamo razum i iskustvo ...
da ih primamo i odbacujemo, delimicno ili u celosti.
Taka, nesto od ljudske istine ostanc uvek za one koji
ih strpljivo slusaju ili citaju) (p. 57, italics mine).
As the story of Camil's youth is related, he is described as a man
"who lived with books". But the stories revolving around Camil
imply that this is a sphere in which certain bounds may not be
overstepped with impunity:
... Stali su po Smirni da kruze cudni glasovi, neodre·
djen i nejasan sapat da su Tahirpasinom sinu knjige
udarile u glavu i da sa njim nije dobro i nije sve u redu.
Govorilo se da je, proucavajuci isloriju lurske carevine,
"preucio" i, zamisljajuci da je u njemu duh nekog ne·
srecnog princa, stao da veruje da je i sam neki nesud·
jeni sultan (p. 64).
The risks of excessive knowledge are first described as external,
posed by the broader community surrounding the individual. Thus
for the valija who arrests him, any doubts about Camil's guilt are
dispelled once he sets his eyes on Camil's books:
Kad je valija ugledao gomilu knjiga, i jos na raznim
stranim jezicima, i mnozinu rukopisa i belezaka, on se
Anita Lekic-Trbojevic
89
toliko zaprepastio i tako naljutio da je resio da na svoju
odgovornost uapsi sopstvenika i posalje ga, zajedno sa
knjigama i hartijama, u Carigrad. Sam sebi nije umeo
da objasni zasto knjige, narocito strane knjige i u ovolikom broju, izazivaju u njemu takvu mrznju i toliki
gnev (68).
The dangers posed by the text are, however, also of an internal nature. As they become acquainted with each other, fra-Petar and Camil
engage in a dialogue the preponderant part of which is accounted
for by fra-Petar; once Camil launches on his story of Dzem-sultan,
however, his words are no longer directed towards the dialogic mode.
He enters the sphere of the monologic text:
Takvim glasom je jednog dana i trena ... dotle malorecivi Camil poceo da prica istoriju Dzem-sultana. I od
tada pa do kraja nije vise ni o cemu drugom ni govorio
(p. 81).
The narrative woven by Camil is devoted to one subject alone, to
the point of obsession. Chapter five (of the work's eight chapters) is
devoted wholly to the story of Dzem's life. And what the text makes
clear right at the beginning of this new narrative segment is that
Camil's tale is merely a variation of, or a continuation of an older
narrative lhal proceeds il: "To je u novom i svecanom obliku drevna
prica o dva brata" (p. 83). Camil has entered the sphere of the text
which designates his position as one more interpreter of alwaysalready wrillen narratives. And, as it turns out, by entering this
sphere he has taken an irrevocable step. In it he loses or cedes his
previous power as narrator; he now becomes a mouthpiece for a tale
ever in the process of retelling itself, a tale which knows no interruption:
Ovo sa mladicem iz Smirne iSlo je daleko i trajalo dugo.
On so satima zaboravljao potpuno, pricajuCi sudbinu
Dzem-sultana, kao da se radio necem sto treba da bude
kazano sto pre, jos ovog trena, jer sutra vee moze biti
dockan. Sluzio se cas turskim cas italijanskim jezikom,
zaboravljajuci, u brzini, da prevede francuske i spanske
Anita Lekic-Trbojevic
91
aware of the dire consequences involved.
In final, eighth chapter, after which there is only a brief, one-page
epilogue, the initial structure deployed by the work is carefully mirrored. The Camil-Dzem identification, itself the story, remains at the
heart of the structure. The embedded narratives which led to that
story are now taken up again, as the text weaves its way to its starting
point. The "time without Camil begins." Previous intermediaries are
once again invoked- Zaim, the man with the bass voice, and Haim.
Finally, there is the story of how fra-Petar was ultimately able to
leave the "devil's yard". In the world of narrative there is none of
the linear progression we are accustomed to on the basis of temporal
chronology. Narrative knows no clearcut beginning or end; it is ever
in the process of being told. Thus the work ends at the same point
at which it started, with the young monk viewing fra-Petar's grave
from the monastery window. For a moment Andric seems to be
almost on the verge of submitting that there is a finality that even
narrative cannot ultimately escape, that of death:
I tu je kraj. Nema viSe niceg. Sarno grab medju nevidljivim fratarskim grobovima ... Nema viSe ni price ni
pricanja . .. Niceg nema. Sarno sneg i prosta cinjenica
da se umire i odlazi pod zemlju (p. 131).
And yet, significantly, the signs of life coming from the adjoining
room which draw the young man out of his reverie are precisely
those life-giving words of the world Andric inhabits. The very last
image we have in this work is that of the friars who have survived
fra-Petar speaking, dictating, and writing. The text lives on.
University of Illinois at Chicago