The
Serbian Orthodox Church and its Diaspora By: Dimso Perich
PhD
One of the substantive
issues in the Orthodox Church is her mission. Before his
assumption into heaven, the resurrected Lord commanded: "Go,
therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have
commanded you; and to, I am with you always, even to the end
of the age. Amen." (Matt.
28, 19-20). Our Lord
directed this commandment to the apostles who were present and
through the apostles to all Christians. There is an obligation
to preach the Gospel, which is blessed news, a joyous news,
the annunciation. The mission of the Church is two-fold, that
being: internal and external. The internal mission is the work
of the Church towards her members. One becomes a member of the
one, holy, universal. and apostolic Church through Holy
Baptism. The external mission of the Church is work with those
who are not its members. There is an imperative commandment of
the Lord of the daily obligation of spreading the Gospel. And
it must be preached in the manner which we got from the Lord,
and that is through peaceful work. The best example of this
manner of preaching the teachings of our Lord is the manner in
which that was done by the Holy Apostles. That is why their
work was succesful. Let us remember how our ancestors accepted
Christianity; that is why it was able to be accepted in the
slavic tree.
The Serbian people
obtained autocephaly in a canonically correct manner through
the foresight of Saint Sava, who did not allow events to pass
him by. His trek to Mount Athos where he became a monk, his
influence on his father Stefan Nemanja that he join him in
monastic asceticism, the obtaining of Hilandar from the
Byzantine Emperor in 1198, his arrival in the Studenica
monastery with the relics of Saint Simeon in 1206, his
remaining in Serbia until 1217 in the position of the abbot of
the Studenica monastery, these were all broad strategic
strokes which were crowned in 1219 with the granting of
autocephaly to the Serbian Church with a rank of archbishop.
The
destruction of the Serbian state forced a dual burden on the
Serbian Church which was both religious and civil. The state
had disappeared, but the Church, which was and remained the
only guarantee of the survival of the Serbian people, had
remained. Both the Greeks and the Turks recognized this well,
and in a non canonical manner they forcibly abolished the
patriarchate of Pec on September 13th, 1766, and, in the next
year, 1767, the archbishopric of Ohrid was abolished as well.
Both were made subservient to the patriarchate of
Constantinople.
In the time when
Byzantium existed, there were autocephalous churches in its
structure: the patriarchates of Constantinople and Antioch,
the archbishoprics of Cyprus and Ohrid. When Byzantium came to
an end, the Turks maintaned the situation as they found it.
Now, in a non Christian state, in additional to the above
mentioned autocephalous churches, two other patriarchates
found themselves, that is to say the patriarchtes of Pec and
Bulgaria. It didn't occur to anyone in Bysantium to abolish
the autocephalous churches so that only one, the patriarchate
of Constantinople, would remain. Her right to honour was
known. It was set out in the third rule of the Second
Ecumenical Council in the year 381. "The
bishop of Constantinople must be first in honour after the
bishop of Rome for that city is the new Rome".
Right up until the
forcible breaking apart of the organization of the
patriarchate of Pec, her patriarch bore the spiritual
responsibility over all Serbs, without regard to which state
they resided in.
The metropolitanate of
Karlovac was the spiritual defender of its people who found
themselves on the territories of Austria. The Austrian
Emperor, Franz I Franz Joseph (1830-1916)
by the establishement of the metropolitanate of Bukovina,
forcibly severed the spiritual unity of the Serbian people on
the territories of Austro-Hungary. The Dalmation dioceses were
taken from the metropolitante of Karlovac and attached to the
newly established metropolitanate of Bukovina (1874-1918)
which was made up of Serbs, Russians and Rumanians. The
metropolitan of this metropolitanate was always Rumanian, even
though Rumanians made up the smallest part of this
metropolitanate.
Following the occupation
of Bosnia nad Hercegovina in 1878, the metropolitanates of
Bosnia and Hercevovina were left in the fold of the
patriarchate of Constantinople de jure, although decisions
about the Serbian church on these territories were made in
Vienna de facto. Everything that Vienna wanted, the
patriarchate of Constantinople was forced to accept. Finding
themselves in an ultimately untenable position, the Serbs of
Bosnia and Hercegovina won their autonomy in 1905.
At the formation of the
Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes on December 1st,
1918, pieces of the indigenous Serbian church in six parts
were found on its territories. These were, the
metropolitanates of Belgrade, Karlovac, Cetinje, the church in
Bosnia and Hercegovina, two dioceses from the metopolitanate
of Bukovina and the church in southern Serbia. Only the
metropolitanate of Belgrade had been autocephalous from 1879.
With the reestablishment of the patriarchate of Pec on the day
of the Sabor of Serbian Saints, September 13 (August 31),
1920, in a canonically proper manner, the spiritual unity of
the Serbian people was realized under the sceptre of the
Patriarch of Pec, Dimitrije Pavlovic (1920-1930).
The Holy Assembly of
Bishops, as the highest hierarchical body of the Serbian
Church, in agreement with the competent authorities of the
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, completed a reorganization of the
dioceses. In the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church
of November 16th, 1931, there were 21 dioceses enumerated in
the land, and in clause 13, five additional diocese were set
out which were located outside the Kingdom. Clause 13 states:
"In
addition to the enumerated Dioceses in the previous clause,
the following additional dioceses abroad are subject to the
Serbian Orthodox Church spiritually and hierarchically:
1.
The Orthodox Czech diocese with its See in Prague;
2.
The Serbian Orthodox Church in the USA and Canada with its
See in Chicago;
3.
Mukacev-prijasevsko Diocese in Precarpatho Russia with its
See in Mukacev;
4.
The Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Zadar, with its See in
Zadar; and
5.
The Serbian Orthodox Vicariate of Skadar, with its See in
Skadar."
Upon the conclusion of
the Second World War, which in Yugoslavia had been a civil
war, the state structure was forcibly changed. The
Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church from 1931 was
amended in certain aspects in 1947. In clause 15 were listed
the Dioceses of the Serbian Orthodox Church which were found
outside the borders of the FNRJ:
"1.
the Serbian Orthodox Church in the USA and Canada with its
See in Chicago, that is to say in the monastery of St. Sava
near Libertyville;
2.
the Serbiani Orthodox Diocese of Budim;
3.
those parts of the Dioceses of Vrsac and Temisvar located
outside the boundaries of Yugoslavia with its See in
Temisvar;
4.
The Orthodox Diocese of Czech-Morava in Czechoslovakia;
5.
The Serbian Orthodox Vicariate of Skadar, with its See in
Skadar;
6.
Serbian Orthodox church congregations and parishes outside
the borders of Yugoslavia (churches in the diaspora)".
This provision of the
Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church of 1957 has
remained unamended.
Today the Serbian
Orthodox Church has 40 dioceses. Of these, thirteen are in
Serbia and Montenego. Because of this, I combined two clauses
of the Constitution - 14 and 15 - in my book Legislation of
the Serbian Orthodox Church from the formation of Jygoslavia
to Newer Times, printed by the Canadian Diocese in 1995. I did
this for a number of reasons. The SFRJ was falling apart, and
this dissolution has not been fully effected. The question of
Montenegro, Kossovo and Metohija, Raska and Vojvodina, are on
the daily agendas of the powers of this world. At the time
when Saint Sava organized the archbishopric of Zica, the
number of dioceses was between nine and twelve, a number over
which historians have not been agreement. And so, eight
centuries after Saint Sava, we have come to the same number of
dioceses today in Serbian and Montenegro.
In clause 15 of the
Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church of 1947, subclause
6 states: "Serbian
Orthodox church congregations and parishes outside the borders
of Yugoslavia (churches in the Diaspora)".
Patriarch Gavrilo (1938-1950)
understood very well that in the Constition of the Serbian
Orthodox Church something substantive was missing. For that
reason he did not leave our church congregations and parishes
outside the borders of Jugoslavia, which by virtue of
circumstances did not find themselves within any serbian
diocese, to their own devices. In order to protect them from
the possible influence of foreign jurisdictions, the above
noted formulation was brought into the Constitution, and later
it is shown to be very much in its place: the phrase "churches
in the diaspora"
was used. The word "diaspora"
is a word derived from the original greek meaning to "scatter";
from there "diaspora"
meaning scattering, dispersion, diffusion; in the New
Testament: the Jews driven from Judea and scattered across
other lands. (1)
The question of the
orthodox diaspora has not been much considered in canon law.
The reason was simple. This question was not raised until the
former Metropolitan of Athens, Meletije Metaksis became the
Patriarch of Constantinople. Meletije was expelled from Greece
in November, 1920. The following year he was selected as the
Patriarch of Constantinople (February 8th, 1921 - July 10th,
1923). Following his resignation he lived in Anerica, and was
selected Patriarch of Alexandria on May 7th, 1926. Patriarch
Meletije was a "energetic
warrier for the idea of pan helenism".
(2)
The pan helenic movement
came to life abruptly during the time of the patriarch of
Constantinople, Sauilo I Hancerica (1736
- 1768) who procured the
decree from the Sultan for the extinguishing of the
patriarchate of Pec in 1766. The Serbian church had already
once felt the consequences of pan helenism on its own skin in
the period of 1766 to 1920.
The patriarch of
Constantinople was, following the First World War, as indeed
to date, persona non grata in Turkey but under pressure of the
world media, is tolerated in Constantinople. As islamic
fundamentalism stengthens across the world, and indeed there
is no one to stand in its way, it could easily happen soon
that the patriarch of Constantinople is unwelcome in
Constantinople and that the see of the patriarchate has to be
moved outside the borders of Turkey.
The October revolution
destroyed imperial Russia, the orthodox in the world were left
without the strong patronage of the Russian emperor. Patriarch
Meletije shrewdly took advantage of this situation and
attempted with all his might to put the diaspora of all the
orthodox in the world under the jurisdiction of the
patriarchate of Constantinople.
On March 4th, 1923,
Patriarch Meletije ordained Archimandrite Savatije as "archbishop
of Prague and all of Czechoslo-vakia, giving him a tomos #
1132 for the establishment of the old Cyrilo-Methodian
archbishopric which he placed under the jurisdiction of the
patriarchate of Constantinople".
(3)
The Serbian church
already had an established diocese in Czechoslovakia for which
Patriarch Dimitrije had consecrated Gorazde Pavlika as Bishop
of Czecho-Moravia on September 25th, 1921. Bishop Gorazde was
shot by the Germans on September 4th, 1942, in the Prague
suburb of Kobilica, following which his body was burned in the
prague crematorium. (4)
Archbishop Savatije
interfered greatly with the work of the Serbian church in the
Czecho-moravian diocese as well as in PreCarpatho Russia. The
metropolitanate of Karlovac had been taking care of the
spiritual needs of the orthodox on these territories very
successfully. On the reestablishment of the Patriarchate of
Pec in 1920 this obligation was passed over to the Serbian
church. Bishop Docitej (Vasic) was elected as Bishop in Pre
carpatho Russia on August 19th, 1921.
On the territories of
Hungary, there were orthodox Serbs, Rumanians and some small
number of Hungarians. The Serbian and Rumanian patriarchates
had reached an understanding that on the territory of Hungary
each would take spiritual care over its own faithful. There
were very few Greeks on this territory. Without any
jurisdiction, the Constantinople patriarchate involved itself
in Hungary. Its plan was that the orthodox in this country get
autonomy, albeit under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of
Constantinople. With this goal in mind a delegation consisting
of three metropolitans came from the patriarchate of
Constantinople. First they visited the Rumanian patriarch and
then the Serbian Patriarch, Varnava, in 1936. Both the Serbian
and Rumanianian patriarchates rejected the proposal of the
patriarchate of Constantinople. The Holy Synod of Bishops of
the Serbian church was categorical: the orthodox in Hungary
are under the jurisdiction of the Rumanian and Pec
patriarchates. The Holy Assembly of Bishops of the Serbian
Orthodox Church confirmed the position taken by the Holy Synod
and at its regular meeting in 1936 took the following
decision: "To warn the
patriarchate of Constantinople not to further mix itself in
Hungary, to cease its negotiations with the Hungarian
govenment, lest it come to more serious and perhaps ominous
consequences in the relations between our two churches and to
the detriment of all orthodoxy".
(5)
The Patriarch of
Constantinople did not pay much heed to the warning of the
Serbian Church, and the Hungarian government helped in the
defrocking of priests who worked against the interests of the
Diocese of Budim. (6)
On the territories of
Albania there were orthodox about whose spiritual needs the
Serbian Church took care. On June 18th, 1922, the Church had
consecrated Victor Mihailovic, the secretary of the Decani
monastery, as vicar bishop. There was a long standing
disagreement between the Constantinople and Serbian
patriarchates on the question of the jurisdiction in Albania.
During this time, uniate propaganda led directly from the
Vatican successfully did its work. The minister of religions
of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia informs the Holy Synod of the
Serbian church: "It has
been confirmed through factual review as being totally correct
that the orthodox population in Albania under the pressure of
a strong italian propaganda action is leaving Orthodoxy and
converting to uniatism in droves".
(7)
Constantinople and
Belgrade did not find a common language on the question of the
orthodox in Albania. Bishop Victor of Skadar endured much
suffering until he was saved by death on September 8th, 1939.
By his wish he was buried in the churchyard at Decani
monastery.
Albania was occupied by
Italy in 1939. The uniates intensified their work.
Metropoplitan Hristifor Kisis went to the uniates. In
Grateferati near Rome a meeting of the uniate synod was held
on October 13th, 1940. A delegation from the albanian church
lead by the bishop of Berat, Agatangelos, took part as
observers. Those present were greeted by Pope Pius XII, who
delivered a speech.
The resistance of the
Bishop of Argirokastra, Pantelejmon Kotoko, did not yield
greater results, as the fact that the positions of
Constantinople and Belgrade could not be brought into accord,
was welcome news for the roman catholic propaganda. (8)
The question of orthodox
Rumanians in Yugoslavia and Serbs in Rumania was resolved
between the Rumanian and Serbian churches without any
difficulty, in that the Rumanians, through their vicar in
Vrsac concerned themselves with the spiritual well being of
their faithful, while the Serbs did the same by way of their
vicar in Temisvar. The Serbs and Rumanians were united on the
question of the orthodox in Hungary, which might have served
as a good basis for the resolution of the question of the
diaspora in the world. (9)
What is the reason that
the question of the diaspora is of fundadmental importance for
the Orthodox of the world? The Orthodox church in the world is
examined as to its maturity by its response to this question.
From that set out above it is clear wherever there had been
disagreements, and narrow selfish interests, today there are
very few orthodox (Czech, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Albania
...). Whom did that serve? It served those whose interest were
to destroy the Orthodox church.
In recent times, the
Constantinople patriarchate is striving to put the entire
diaspora under its jurisdiction. In this way the Third
Inter-Orthodox working committee in Chambezi - Geneva from
November 7-13th, 1993, clearly put the world on notice that
the Constantinople patriarchate considers that the entire
diaspora belongs only to it. The text about the orthodox
diaspora adoped in Chambezi states:
1.
The regions in which in the first phase Bishops sabors will
be organized are announced as follows:
I
North and Central America
II
South America
III
Australia
IV
Great Britain
V
France
VI
Belgium and Holland
VII
Austria and Italy
VIII
Germany
The Bishops of the
diaspora who reside in the diaspora and have parishes in
more than one region will be members of the Bishops' sabor
of those territories and will continue to effect their
jurisdiction over their already exiting parishes which are
not part of the above mentioned regions.
2. Draft regulations, which will be prepared by the
Secretariat for the organization of the Holy and Great sabor
according to their approved (by their own members)
competency, will be compiled on the basis of that approved
by the III Inter-Orthodox working commitee text (paragraph
2g) with reference to already existing examples of Bishops"
sabors in the framework of orthodox canonical tradition, and
a decision will be made with respect to that by the IV
prosynodal pan orthodox conference which is scheduled to
meet.
3. These sabors, which will be formed following the decision
of the IV prosynodal pan orthodox conference will be given
the responsibility to draw up detailed draft regulations
governing their work and to adapt it before the calling of
the Holy and Great Sabor. In that forum of adaptation,
motions at the Bishops" sabor ought to express, if possible,
unanimity of their members, and where unanimity is not
possible, will be carried by a majority vote.
4. The presidents of the Bishops" sabors will call and
preside over all sabors of bishops of their region
(liturgical, missionary, administrative etc.). On matters of
general interest, which by decision of the Bishops" sabors
require pan orthodox face to face resolution, w ill be
refered to the patriarch of Constantinople by the sabor
president for further action with respect to the pan
orthodox aspect.
5. The Orthodox churches obligate themselves not to take any
steps which might harm the above noted path to a canonical
resolution of the question of the diaspora, including the
formation of new diocese in the diaspora. On the contrary,
the churches in question, in their capacity as mother
churches, will do everything possible towards easing the
work of the Bishops" sabors and the establishment of normal
canonical relations in the diaspora." (10)
If the Serbian church
were to accept this position of Constantinople, that would be
equivalent to the betrayal of its people. The Holy Assembly of
Bishops of the Serbian Church rejected this position of the
Constantinople patriarchate at its session in 1995, and
withdrew the signatures of those who had represented the
Serbian Church in Chambesi. Only the mother Church is the
guarantee of the survival of its people wherever they may be
found, to which you all present here today, are witnesses.
Now here in the canons
is any patriarch called ecumenical. Mr. M. Petrovic correctly
noted that "it wasn't by
chance that Theophan the Confessor (+817) referred to all
patriarchates as ecumenical, which is the correct reflection
of parliamentarianism in the Orthodox church",
(11)
and the question "On the
basis of what is it concluded that the current system is "abnormal"
and "noncanonical"?"
(12)
Where does this type of
position taken by the Constantinople patriarch come from? The
number of orthodox Greeks in all of Turkey is several
thousand. Its position is weakened. Having numerous titular
metropoitans of this patriarchate without dioceses is clearly
playing with the canonical order of the Church. He wishes in
this way to portray the strength of his patriarchate which is
declining, and to ensure that at future ecumenical councils an
insignificant number of orthodox Greeks have a majority of the
Bishops at the council. From that it is not difficult to enfer
in which direction that council would work, which indeed C.
Troicki has stressed on a number of occasions in his works.
The powers of this world
wish to form a new world order in which everything will be
centralized. The Greeks have realized this, and as a result
have brought their interests in line with this goal. It must
be admitted that they are prepared to "find
a solution" without
reference to its cost. It is sad that they don't use the words
of the Lord "Go,
therefore, and make disciples of all the nations..."
(Matt.28; 19)
as a motto of their existance and precedence of honour in the
Church. There are many of those who have not heard of the
Lord, Jesus Christ (China, India and others) and the
Constantinople patriarchate could prepare missionaries for
those territories, that even there the Holy Trinity be
celebrated. If the Constantinople patriarchate acted in this
way, that would then be a positive example to other orthodox
churches. In that way the reputation of the orthodox in the
world would be enhanced.
However, "the
Roman bishop wishes that a "pope" exists in the East, against
whom he had a canonical right of precedence; it goes hand in
hand with this new world order of large scale unification in
which the centralization of power must dominate with a view to
the repression and total neglect of a sense of belonging to a
specified people, faith and even family, so that all may be
intermixed and absolutely submissive",
concluded M. Petrovic. (13)
The well known canonist,
S. Troicki, whom the Greeks did not like because of his views,
showed in his treatise on church jurisdiction over the
orthodox diaspora (14)
that the desire of the patriarch of Constantinople for the
diaspora has no canonical foundation. With justification he
warned at that time of the problem which is now real, that, "in
the very near future the Serbian church will have to deal with
the question whether it to must give in to this demand of
pan-helenism". (15)
Let us be practical even
during the events which await us. If the world wishes that the
patriarch of Constantinople has authority over the diaspora,
what are we to do? It is clear that there is no canonical
foundation for such an attempt, but the world cares little for
the canons. St Sava resisted the provocations of his time by
not allowing events to overtake him in his works, stresses M.
Petrovic. From those great works of Sava, let us take a lesson
for our time. He desired and created an autocephalous Serbian
church which had up to that time been under the jurisdiction
of the archbishopric of Ohrid. Little is known about us from
those times under the direction of Ohrid. It is just from
about the year 1219 that Serbs are known in the world which
they had enriched with their culture, churches, monasteries,
saints...
It is my view that the
autocephalous churches - Serbian, Russian, Bulgarian, Rumanian
and others, ought to take a united position on the question of
the diaspora, and not only on that. In that case there would
be an informal block of orthodox in the world which the
Constantinople pariarchate would have to respect. Then the
world would look at the orthodox church in a different light
and would behave differently towards her.
S. Troicki put the
question of the diaspora on the North American continent in
this way: "For the
Orthodox Church, the United States of America and Canada,
where Serbian Dioceses are located, are seen as teritorium
nullius as the great majority of the population here does not
belong the the orthodox church. As a result, the Serbian
church, as the other orthodox churches (Russian,
Constantinople, Antiochian, Rumanian and Bulgarian) already
have jurisdictions here on the basis that all autocephalous
churches have the right of missions."
(16)
Troicki writes further
that "the church in
Constantinope has not even the shadow of a right of
jurisdiction over the serbian population in America, if for no
other reason than because, while the serbian diocese was
founded here by decision of the Assembly of Bishops on
September 8th, 1921, the greek archdiocese was founded on May
30th, 1922, so that the Serbian Church would be more able to
contest the jurisdiction of the church of Constantinople, than
might the church of Constantinople that of the Serbian church,
for teritorium nullius cedit primo occupanti".
(17)
The respected orthodox
theologian Serafim Rouz in his book, Orthodoxy and religion of
the new world order, has demonstrated that nothing would be
left of the teachings of the Lord if they are submerged in the
waters into which Satan himself is pushing them. (18)
The proposition that in
one country there can only exist one autocephalous church is
unsupportable; the example of Byzantium eloquently tells us
that this type of thinking is not correct. One autocephalous
church can have its jurisdiction over many contries, which has
been historically confirmed. This is how the Greeks, Russians,
Bulgarians, and Rumanians were under the jurisdiction of the
patriarchate of Constantinople, although they lived in various
countries, and only achieved independence over time.
Where now is the
orthodox understanding of economy developed by the holy
fathers, which does not recognize boundaries nor narrow
selfish interests? The well known Serbian scholar and
politician, Stojan Novakovic (1842-1915)
wrote in 1907: "Historical
experience teaches us that an unjustly finished work is never
completed. Such works regularly return to the agenda, and
cannot be removed until at last, in whatever manner, they are
justly completed". (19)
As the question of the
diaspora has not been resolved in a worthy manner starting in
the first thirty years of this century, it has again come to
us for resolution. It is time that it be resolved to the
credit of Orthodoxy as a whole and to the glory of the Holy
Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
1.
Vujaklija, Milan, Lexicon of foreign words and expressions,
Belgrade, 1975, p. 228.
2.
Troicki, Sergije, Church jurisdiction over the Orthodox
Diaspora, Sremski Karlovci, 1932, p. 4.
3.
Ibid., p. 5.
4.
Sava, Bishop of Sumadija, Serbian hierarchs from the tenth
to the twentieth Century, Belgrade, 1996, pps. 135-6.
5.
Archives of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Serbian
Orthodox Church, Minutes of the Holy Synod, Sin. Pov. #
102/min. 683 of 19/6 May 1936 and Minutes of the Holy
Assembly of Bishops, AC # 34/min. 72 of May 23 (June 5)
1936.
6.
Peric, Dimso, Organization and work on the legislation of
the Serbian Orthodox Church in the first half of the XX
century (1901-1950), Belgrade 1990, p. 346. Doctoral
dissertation in writing defended at the Theological Faculty
of the SOC in Belgrade, June 1, 1991.
7.
Archives of the Holy Synod of Bishops, Albanian Church,
Folder I, Minister of Religions" Act. Pov. No. I, dated
January 10th, 1929.
8.
Supra 6, at p. 350
9.
Ibid., pps. 346-7
10.
Petrovic, Miodrag M., Orthodox Diaspora, Christian thought,
# 4-6/1994. p. 25
11.
Ibid., p. 26
12.
Ibid.
13.
Ibid.
14.
Supra 2
15.
Ibid, pp. 25-26
16.
Ibid., p. 62
17.
Ibid., p. 64
18.
Bishop Danilo Krstic - hieromonk Serafim Rouz, Orthodox and
religion of the new world order, Cetinje 1995.
19.
Novakovic, Stojan, The Constitutional question and laws of
Karadjordje's time, Belgrade, 1907, p. 64.
Translated
by: Milena Protich
|
