A Study of Milovan Ðilas’s Perspectives on Njegoš in Njegoš: Poet, Prince, Bishop

Milovan Đilas’s study Njegoš: Poet, Prince, Bishop occupies a special place in the reception of Njegoš in the U.S. because its publication in translation from Serbian, (with a preface by Michael Petrovich and an introduction by William Jovanovich) constitutes a major event in Njegoš studies.¹ Both Petrovich and Jovanovich point to the multitude and completeness of Đilas’s perspectives on Njegoš in his roles of writer, ruler, and religious leader. Moreover, they note the fact that Đilas was the most famous prisoner from the former Yugoslavia, something that must have intrigued Americans at the time. Both Petrovich and Jovanovich claim that the figure of Njegoš and Montenegro itself are no less intriguing. The reasons, of course, are many! Đilas had previously attracted American audiences with his political texts, such as The New Class (1957) and Conversations with Stalin (1962). Jovanovich points to Đilas’s criticism of Yugoslav communist society and his brave behavior both when he was removed from his very high political position and during his trial. What distinguishes him from many other dissidents and from other European pro-Communist writers is the fact that he himself was a pre-WWII Communist and warrior, then subsequently one of the most powerful men of the Communist Party, brave enough to accept the consequence of his rebellion. Jovanovich is convinced that later two of his books faced Đilas both with himself and Njegoš: Land without Justice (1985) and Montenegro (1963).

Njegoš had attracted American scholars with his poetic and epic works, such as Mountain Wreath, which resulted in six translations in English. When compared, the two authors have more that differentiates them than connects them: Njegoš was a hereditary ruler, while Đilas was a revolutionary ruler; Njegoš was an Orthodox bishop, Đilas was an atheist; Njegoš was an idealist in philosophy, but Đilas was a representative of dialectic materialism. Nevertheless, both were in power and both were “poets.”

American interest in Njegoš and Đilas is also confirmed by European authors and evidenced in Svetozar Koljević’s very illuminating study Njegoš u engleskoj i američkoj kulturi (Njegoš in English and American Culture).² Koljević agrees with Michael Petrovich’s statement that Đilas could write about Njegoš because they had much more in common than not: being himself from Montenegro, he shared with Njegoš the totality of experience. However, Koljević raises some of the contradictory questions encountered in Đilas’s masterful work: e.g., Đilas’s play on and exploration of identity, nationality, and state. For example, at that time Đilas protested that he was not a “Montenegrin,” but rather a “Yugoslav.” Koljević reminds us that what we must keep in mind is the fact that Đilas was the first translator of Milton’s Paradise Lost and that this must have influenced his preoccupation with the struggle between “good and evil.”³

Koljević’s study traces the reception of Njegoš: Poet, Prince, Bishop in American culture from the very first anonymous notice in the New York review Kirkus in 1966 through the following three decades.⁴ This critique, published before the book’s official publication, points out that it was the third of Đilas’s “prison books,” which, at the same time, could be his last book. The author notices that the book has some passages full of Đilas’s fire and some moments capturing the elevated dignity of an unhappy country and its people. However, it still lacks spontaneity of expression and the historical criticism necessary to make a piece of art more than regional, concludes this unknown author.

This review illuminates many of the future contradictory perspectives on Đilas’s study: on the one hand, negative ones, but on the other, some very positive ones, such as that of Philip E. Leinbach (1966),⁵ who evaluates Đilas’s work, without any political insinuation, as an excellent biography of one of the leading Balkan figures and interprets it as an intimate portrait of Njegoš and his people, written in an exciting and concise style and based on rich sources, which recommends it to be included in collections...