The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918: An Urban History 9781474211017, 9781472523556, 9781472531070

Citation preview

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918 An Urban History Mary Sparks

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com Bloomsbury is a registered trade mark of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2014 Paperback edition first published 2016 © Mary Sparks, 2014 Mary Sparks has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: 978-1-4725-2355-6 PB: 978-1-4742-7924-6 ePDF: 978-1-4725-3107-0 ePub: 978-1-4725-3320-3 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sparks, Mary. The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918: an Urban History/Mary Sparks. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4725-2355-6 (hardback) – ISBN 978-1-4725-3107-0 (e-pdf) – ISBN 978-1-47253320-3 (e-pub) 1. Sarajevo (Bosnia and Hercegovina)–Social life and customs. 2. Sarajevo (Bosnia and Hercegovina)–Social conditions. 3. Sarajevo (Bosnia and Hercegovina)– Economic conditions. 4. Sarajevo (Bosnia and Hercegovina)–Buildings, structures, etc. 5. Sarajevo (Bosnia and Hercegovina)–History–Sources. 6. City and town life–Bosnia and Hercegovina–Sarajevo. 7. Bosnia and Hercegovina–History–1878-1918. 8. Austria–Politics and government–1867-1918. I. Title. DR1776.2.S63 2014 949.742–dc23 2014004657 Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India Printed and bound in Great Britain

For Jonathan and Mark

Contents List of Illustrations, Graphs and Tables Acknowledgements Abbreviations and Terminology

Introduction Approaches and historical context Comparative urban contexts Research methods and sources 1

2

3

Ottoman Sarajevo Urban spatial separation, including residential, trade and government features Architecture and building methods Demography and confessions: confessional institutions, schools and vakufs The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province Priorities Building regulations and their implementation Public health and safety Transport, communications and other infrastructure The importance of record Military presence Civil presence Confessional public buildings Schools The Private Face: Middle-Class Building Development in Sarajevo Private development Areas of development Mapping and recording change and private ownership

ix xi xii 1 4 7 9 13 16 24 26

33 35 43 48 53 55 57 59 64 69 73 74 78 80

Contents

viii

Spatial comparison of property ownership by confession, 1886–1918 Building development: the investors Property portfolios The new middle class: architects and style The buildings: a chronological and visual survey

4

5

6

82 87 90 92 95

Sarajevo at the Centre of the Developing Bosnian Economy Developing the economy of the city – beginnings Schmarda, the Lagerhaus and business networks in Sarajevo Local businesses The economy at street level – shops and services Later development

107

The Development of a Middle-Class Society Apartment life and layouts Clubs and societies European ways of knowing and understanding Newspapers and periodicals

131

Conspicuous Consumption and Cultures of Urban Display City-centre shopping Entertainment Cafés Hotels Tourism and the development of the Ilidža spa European ways of death

159

Conclusion Notes Bibliography Name Index Subject Index

108 112 115 119 128

133 139 144 150

161 165 168 171 173 178 181 189 231 241 244

List of Illustrations, Graphs and Tables Figure 1.1 Sarajevo City map pre-1878 showing key areas Figure 1.2 Ottoman bridges at the east end of the Miljacka Figure 2.1 Map showing areas of administration and confessional development by 1918 Figure 2.2 Josip Vancaš as a young man Figure 2.3 Graph showing public building of all kinds, including infrastructure and military, 1880–1918 Figure 2.4 Post Office building Figure 2.5 Main entrance of Sheriat Law School Figure 3.1 Graph showing numbers of recorded private buildings in survey, 1880–1918 Figure 3.2 Graphs showing comparisons in areas of residence by confession, 1885/1910 Figure 3.3 Mud-brick and timber frame house, Derebent ulica Figure 3.4 Villa Mathilde, Koševo 38 Figure 4.1 Lagerhaus of the Trade and Transport Joint-Stock Company, Mule Mustafa Bašeskije 5 Figure 4.2 The new brewery buildings at Franjevačka 15 Figure 5.1 Milena Mrazović. Picture from The Sketch, 19 April 1899 Figure 5.2 Leopold Ács’ and Josef Martinek’s advertisements in Bosnischer Bote Figure 6.1 Plan of ground floor of Café Central. Ajas-Pašin Dvor Figure 6.2 Blueprint of western façade of the new Hotel Central Figure 6.3 ‘Sunday Afternoon at Ilidža’ Table 3.1 Numbers of houses, households and total population for Sarajevo, 1879–1910, according to census figures Table 3.2 Changes in the number of households taken from the census figures given in Table 3.1, showing changes in mean household size over time Table 3.3 Mean number of households per house Table 3.4 Mean number of inhabitants per house Table 3.5 Areas of residence by confession: 1885/1910

17 23 37 50 60 63 67 74 85 96 100 114 118 132 138 170 172 177 76

77 77 77 84

x

List of Illustrations, Graphs and Tables

Table 3.6 Percentage of total building by each confession for sample of buildings in Sarajevo, 1880–1918 Table 3.7 Demographic change, listed by confession, Sarajevo, 1879–1921 Table 6.1 Shops and businesses in Rudolfsgasse, 1899

89 89 162

The accompanying webpage (http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-developmentof-austro-hungarian-sarajevo-1878-1918-9781472523556) includes Appendix 1, Sparks, M. (2006), Chronological Record of Buildings in Sarajevo, 1880–1918, and Appendix 2, Maps of Sarajevo 1878–1918 showing European-style Development, based on Sparks, M. (2006), Chronological Record of Buildings in Sarajevo, 1880–1918. All photographs are by the author unless otherwise stated.

Acknowledgements I should like to thank first the late Dr Mark Pittaway, Prof. Tim Benton and Dr Annika Mombauer of the Open University for the time, patience and support which they gave me to enable me to carry out the research project which developed into this book. In Sarajevo, Sandra Biletić and her team from the Arhiv Bosne i Hercegovine provided an excellent range of documents and other sources, without which much of the contextual evidence for the development of the city could not have been assembled. Haris Zaimović of the Istorijski Arhiv Sarajevo was similarly helpful and generous with his time. Sonja Elazar and Prof. Francine Friedman advised me on the particular experience of the Jewish confessions in Sarajevo, while Fahrudin Kulenović at ABiH provided much valuable background reading and encouragement. I am also indebted to Prof. Robert Donia, who shared research material and advice at a key stage of the project, and Tatjana Neidhardt, who offered architectural insights on several buildings. In the preparation of the text, I am grateful for the critical reading and suggestions of Dr Mombauer and Dr Katy Layton-Jones and, at the editorial stage, for the suggestions of Rhodri Mogford and Emma Goode at Bloomsbury Academic. I would also like to thank my family and, in particular, my late partner, Jonathan Pearse, for the ongoing textual, theoretical and emotional dialogue and support which helped to shape the project throughout. Gallows Gore, December 2013

Abbreviations and Terminology Arhiv Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo (ABiH). Istorijski arhiv Sarajevo (IAS). Zavod za planiranje razvoja grada Sarajeva (ZPRGS). National and University Library, Skopje (NUB Skopje). Österreichische Nationalbibliothek,Vienna (ÖNB). Glasnik Zemaljska Muzeja (GZM).

Notes on terminology used in this book Addresses for buildings are usually given using the post-1995 street names, as they appear on maps and street signs today, usually without the inclusion of the word ‘street’ (ulica); sometimes, the Austro-Hungarian period name is used if it is directly relevant to context. Some street names that include elements of a person’s name have been shortened: for example, Mule Mustafa Bašeskije is often shortened to M. M. Bašeskije. In places, the names remain the same as for the Austro-Hungarian period, but in most cases there have been at least two changes, one in the Yugoslav period and another after the recent war. These changes reflect the changing political realities in Bosnia over time. The main modern map used is Freytag and Berndt’s city map of Sarajevo.1 ‘The administration’ means the Austro-Hungarian government of BosniaHercegovina following the occupation. There were several tiers, the uppermost (the Landesverwaltung), headed by the Joint Minister of Finance in Vienna, the second (the Landesregierung) based in Sarajevo under the leadership of both military and civilian governors (Landeschef and Civiladlatus) and subsidiary tiers in the regions and districts. ‘Builder’ means the person who commissioned and paid for a building to be built. ‘Confession’ means the religious allegiance of the city’s inhabitants, but also may or may not have had overtones relating to nationality; these became more

Abbreviations and Terminology

xiii

pronounced as the period progressed. The four key confessions which played dominant roles in the development of Sarajevo in the period were the Muslims, numerically the strongest group in the city, the Serbian Orthodox Christians, the Catholics, initially the minority, but growing to about a third of the total population of the city by the end of the period, and the Jews, initially mostly Sephardim, but joined, following the occupation, by many Ashkenazim. ‘Incomer/outsider/occupier/immigrant’ are terms used to indicate people who came to Sarajevo following the occupation to live or work and were not native to the city. These might include officials of the administration, soldiers, tradesmen, professionals such as teachers or lawyers, merchants and shopkeepers of all types. ‘Indigenous/occupied/local’ refers to the local population who were ‘in place’ at the time of the occupation in 1878. ‘K.u.K’ is the Austrian abbreviation for Kaiserlich und Kőniglich, meaning Imperial and Royal; this has often been translated as ‘imperial’ for the sake of brevity. ‘Local language’ is the term used for the language spoken in Bosnia-Hercegovina during the Austro-Hungarian period, usually known during the twentieth century as ‘Serbo-Croat’, and more recently in Bosnia as ‘Bosnian’. The languages used in public documents varied depending on the time period and the author but were usually a combination of German and the local language. The ‘occupation’ of Bosnia-Hercegovina followed the decision by the great powers at the Congress of Berlin in July 1878 that, while nominally remaining a part of the Ottoman Empire, the region should be occupied and administered by Austria-Hungary. The military campaign to occupy the country took from July to October, with some fierce resistance by Bosnian forces. Sarajevo was occupied, after heavy fighting, in late August 1878. ‘Storeys’ in buildings are counted from the ground floor up – so a two-storey house has a ground floor and a first floor. Translations. All translations, unless otherwise stated, are the author’s own. Maps of Sarajevo are oriented with North at the top of the (landscape) page.

Introduction

For visitors to Sarajevo in the first years of the twenty-first century, the burnedout National and University Library of Bosnia and Hercegovina, dominating the east end of the right bank of the river, was a poignant reminder that the city had endured siege. In August 1992, at the start of the 1992–5 Bosnian war, the building was extensively shelled and the majority of its contents reduced to ashes. Although reconstruction had already begun, the damaged library remained a symbol of what has been lost in terms of the cultural heritage and traditions of the city. Like so many traditional symbols, however, the library, originally designed for use as the town hall, dates from only 1896 when it was erected by the AustroHungarian administration as home for the city council and its officials. Built in an extravagantly eye-catching ‘Pseudo-Moorish’ style, the building apparently caused great offence to the Muslim majority in the city owing to its siting on a traditional Muslim marketplace; elements of Islamic design in the architecture seem to have done little to mitigate this. Nevertheless, it quickly won favour with the local population and with tourists, appearing on postcards and in guidebooks. In addition to a carefully balanced council of 26 members, it housed Magistratsbeamte, officials who included the city planning department, market inspectors, medical and veterinary staff, city accountants and many others. In 1910, it became the home of the new Bosnian Assembly, and Archduke Franz Ferdinand was received there by the city council and other local dignitaries on the day of his assassination, 28 June 1914. It is perhaps for these reasons that it is the most famous example of the urban development which occurred in Sarajevo between the Austro-Hungarian occupation in 1878 and their departure in 1918. Built solidly of fired brick to designs by two Vienna-trained architects, it represents the Austro-Hungarian intention to be up to date and functionally modern and shows how a well-run occupied provincial capital could be. However, the city which developed during the period of Austro-Hungarian administration was not only the result of the modernizing intentions of the occupiers. While presenting a history of the developing urban space of Sarajevo in the period 1878–1918, this book explores the extent to which the city was a

2

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

creation of the Austro-Hungarian administration, in its role as a colonial-style government, and how far urban development was driven by the local middleclass and élite populations, who adopted European lifestyles and patterns of investment, which, in turn, led to huge changes in the social, cultural and built environment. The book also discusses the role of confessional (religious) groups and considers confessional and indigenous/immigrant integration and cooperation, particularly in the economic sphere. One overarching theme is the way in which the Sarajevan model of urban modernity, which became evident in the city after 1878, relates to the broader context of central and western European urban development in the same period. The models that were being followed, socially, architecturally and culturally, as well as the origins of the main influences, are examined. In the midst of this change, there was much continuity in terms of both the architectural and situational redevelopment of the fabric of the city and the social, cultural and religious practices of its citizens; this element is also explored. The development of the urban fabric in the Austro-Hungarian period, which is the primary focus of this study, was mainly in the western-central part of the city, in the narrow corridor (c. 2.5 km by 1 km) between the mountains, on a relatively flat area which runs west from the town hall on either side of the river: the old Ottoman core at the east end and on the hills remained largely intact. Compared with other provincial capitals in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it was a tiny city, with views of the surrounding country from almost all streets. However, there was swift population growth, from c. 25,000 in 1879 to almost 52,000 by 1910, and much building activity. Sarajevo, therefore, provides an excellent example for the study of urban modernity in this period; it was relatively small and compact and yet shows clear evidence of the influence of the much wider forces which were affecting urban development throughout Europe. More than 400 years of Ottoman rule in Bosnia and relative inaccessibility from the west owing to poor communications and infrastructure meant that there was very little European-style development before 1878. The Austro-Hungarian invasion in 1878 (following the agreement by the great powers at the Congress of Berlin that Austria-Hungary should occupy the province) and their departure in 1918 after their defeat in World War I provide definite beginning and end points for the assessment of elements of continuity and change; this is a relatively short time in terms of a research study of this type. The period following World War I, when Bosnia was part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, is marked by a relative paucity of urban development in different

Introduction

3

architectural styles, and therefore, 1918 represents an architectural as well as a political break between periods. This book presents the public, private, economic, social and cultural change within the city between 1878 and 1918. Chapter 1 explores the nature of the Ottoman city, which the occupiers invaded in 1878, providing a basis for the discussion of the urban development which followed. The ‘public’ face of the city, the buildings and infrastructure put in place by the Austro-Hungarian administration, forms the subject of Chapter 2, indicating what the occupiers considered to be good government in the province and how they went about expressing this. The ‘private’ face, the development of apartment blocks, shops and offices by the local élites and the business community, is discussed in Chapter 3, and Chapter 4 looks in more detail at the role of the business community in the city at different levels, from international import-export companies to small shops, showing how economic policies and practice affected the urban fabric and indicating the diversity of commercial activity. As will become clear within the work, the concepts of ‘public’ and ‘private’ are over-simplistic as categories to describe the agencies of building in the city in the period and fail to encompass the true complexity of the range of groups involved. However, they provide a starting point and structure for exploring building development and help to underline the fact that Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo was not the work of the occupying government alone. The majority of development was, in fact, built by private people, locals and immigrants alike, with a range of different agendas, some of which had ‘public’ aspects. Examples are explored through case studies. New development in the city after 1878 provides insights into what could be termed a ‘European’ middle-class culture at that time, at a stage when technological advances in communications of all types were revolutionizing access to information, social behaviour and consumption patterns. In researching social change, it is not possible to find much detailed evidence of what life was like for the ordinary working people of the city, except from the commercial perspective discussed in Chapter 4.1 The book, therefore, deals mainly with the lifestyles and ‘networks’ of the urban élite and the developing middle class because it was they who drove this new urban development. The buildings that they built, the clubs and societies that they attended, the cafés and shops that they patronized and the books, newspapers and periodicals that they wrote, read and in which they featured, constitute a wide range of primary sources of evidence. A description of the key aspects of this middle-class culture and

4

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

lifestyle forms the main content of Chapter 5, while Chapter 6 discusses patterns of consumption within and outside the middle-class home. These last chapters explore the relationship of the middle-class inhabitants with their environment, showing how they shaped it to suit their needs and aspirations.

Approaches and historical context Historians, both in Bosnia and beyond, have thus far largely failed to examine Sarajevo as a ‘modern’ city in the period. This could arguably be because events such as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 and the siege of the city, which played a huge part in the war in Bosnia in 1992–5 following the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, have coloured approaches to the study of the city, foregrounding negative associations. In the twentieth century, historical writing in the West and America concentrated on Sarajevo as a centre of national, confessional and ‘ethnic’ tensions, including, after the war of 1992–5, books such as Misha Glenny’s The Balkans, which sought to explain what had happened and why.2 Both within and outside Bosnia, the demise of Austro-Hungarian rule was seen as evidence that they had mismanaged their occupancy and that their departure was the result of their inability to control these tensions effectively.3 The arguments in favour of this view represent a huge area which is outside the scope or focus of this research, but it is such a pervasive view that it seems to have prevented objective assessments of the development of Sarajevo between 1878 and 1918 and has certainly obscured many interesting aspects of its urban history. A famous example from 1940 is John Gunther’s description of Sarajevo in 1914 as a ‘mud-caked primitive village’, which could not be further from the mark, as this book shows.4 According to Glenny, ‘Gunther’s contempt reflects a solid body of Western popular opinion that regarded and still regards the Balkans as a toxin threatening the health of Europe.’5 This indicates how Sarajevo and, by association, the entire Balkan region, have typically been viewed in the West as a result of such events. Recent Bosnian literature on the city also shares a tendency to describe events in Bosnia and Sarajevo in confessional, ‘ethnic’ or ‘national’ terms.6 This is evident in new guidebooks to the city which use this approach while at the same time stressing Sarajevo’s essentially multicultural nature.7 Although this book uses the term ‘confession’, as did the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian census takers, to categorize the cultural and religious loyalties of the people of

Introduction

5

Sarajevo, these categories have been linked by others to national identities and loyalties beyond Bosnia. The rise of nationalism in Europe in the nineteenth century, which challenged multinational administrations such as the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires, had begun to affect the way that subject peoples saw themselves in relation to their governors. There was a developing sense of national identity within Europe, leading to the unification of states such as Italy (1861) and Germany (1871), and the rise of Zionism among Jewish populations at the end of the nineteenth century. ‘Nationalist’ historical accounts and approaches to Bosnian history, including the examination of tensions between the different confessions as a way to understand events, need to be seen in this context. So too does the Hapsburg policy in Bosnia which helped to shape the city of Sarajevo following the occupation in 1878. The new province was challenging for the Austro-Hungarian occupiers because of the loyalties which the different confessions had to wider groups beyond Bosnia, including the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches and, through them, to bordering Croatia and Serbia. Bosnian religious communities and institutions also had connections with spiritual leaders outside the province.8 The Muslims had traditionally been the dominant confession under the Ottomans and held key positions in government; several had direct links to the Ottoman government in Istanbul. Many Muslim landowners had Christian serfs; thus confessional allegiance and tensions between confessions might be related to relative power balances within the population in terms of class and wealth (or lack of it). As Noel Malcolm notes when discussing the problems of the ‘confessional differences’ approach to an understanding of Bosnia’s history, ‘the animosities which did exist were not . . . the inevitable consequence of the mixing together of religious communities. The main basis of hostility was not religious but economic . . . .’9 The Serbian Orthodox community, too, had a powerful élite class, many of whom were also landowners with serfs. There were very few Catholics in Sarajevo until the occupation, though there were more in the south-west of Bosnia, adjacent to Croatia. Catholicism was to be the largest area of confessional growth as many of the newcomers from elsewhere in the Monarchy were Catholic. The Sephardic Jews, though numerically a minority throughout the period and generally ignored by historians exploring the ‘nations’ in Bosnia, were well-established traders in Sarajevo, having arrived in the sixteenth century following their expulsion from Spain and Portugal. Their role in the development of the city in the period has not so far been explored in detail in the available literature, and the book addresses this omission. Many

6

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Ashkenazim came after the occupation, and the two Jewish sects had separate places of worship and maintained different cultural societies and traditions. Ottoman policy before the occupation had allowed for freedom of worship under the millet system, and the Hapsburg administration continued this policy, while attempting to control overt pressure expressed by some elements of the population who wished to end their rule and dissolve Bosnia, to make it a part of either a pan-Slav Serbian state to the east or a ‘Greater Croatia’ to the west, leaving no role or place for the Muslim population. Hapsburg policy intended to maintain Bosnia as a multiconfessional province within the wider context of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, treating all confessions equally so far as was practical, in order to deter overt dominance by any one group and maintain stability in the province. To do this, as well putting in place censorship and other elements of state supervision, great efforts were made, particularly in the early years when Benjamin Kállay was Joint Minister of Finance at the head of the administration in Bosnia (1882–1903), to develop an integrated Bosnian ‘nation’ with a distinct identity which would override confessional loyalties and nationalist pressures from Croatia and Serbia and promote bošnjaštvo (Bosnian-ness). The book explores how this worked out in practice in Sarajevo in terms of building development and social and cultural activities and controls.10 The nationalist context is, therefore, important for an understanding of Austro-Hungarian policy in the period and in subsequent accounts of Bosnian history. However, though there is certainly validity in seeing confessional or ‘national’ allegiances and loyalties as an important element in assessing the city’s urban development, overemphasis on this affects approaches to the primary evidence, masking other interesting networks which were based, for example, on economic or social advantage and where confession was less important. The relative inaccessibility of Bosnia and its language for much of the twentieth century also played a role in limiting the number of publications in the West on the topic of Sarajevo’s Austro-Hungarian urban development. There has been much Yugoslav and Bosnian research on architectural, economic, social, urban and cultural studies for the period under investigation, some of it relating particularly to Sarajevo. However, this is not usually available in translation, which makes it generally unavailable outside Bosnia and less easily accessed by western historians unfamiliar with the local language.11 One notable exception to this is the work of Robert Donia, whose ‘biography’ of Sarajevo includes a chapter on the subject, ‘The Making of Fin-de-Siècle Sarajevo’.12

Introduction

7

Within Bosnia, historians from the socialist period under Tito from 1945 to 1989 produced accounts of the Austro-Hungarian time foregrounding political and national struggles, including the development of the workers’ movement, and praised post-1918 improvements (an example is Jahiel Finci’s work on housing) at the expense of what had gone before.13 Western post-colonial discourse has created a framework for viewing the activities of the AustroHungarian administration in Bosnia as essentially patriarchal, oppressive and controlling, with the local people in a mainly passive role.14 It would be difficult to deny that the administration had a strong colonial-type presence in the region and in the city, but as will be seen, the picture presented by the built environment in Sarajevo suggests a more complex reality. Approaches to Bosnian (and by extension, Sarajevan) history have also been influenced by the debate which was stimulated by Edward Said’s Orientalism. His book challenges imperially based Western concepts of the East as the ‘Other’.15 Maria Todorova applies this view to the Balkan region, explaining from a chronological perspective how the Western account which viewed the region in this light developed over the centuries and showing how it served its various creators.16 She argues for more nuanced, separate accounts that relate more directly to the particular peoples and countries that make up the ‘Balkan’ area and reacts strongly against (often American) writers such as Gunther, whose opinions were shaped by the influences Todorova discusses and who have contributed to a misleading impression in the West of Sarajevo in the Austro-Hungarian period.17

Comparative urban contexts Schorske’s Fin-de-Siècle Vienna and, in particular, his chapter on ‘The Ringstrasse, its critics, and the birth of urban modernism’, was one of the most important works for providing background and context for this study.18 His multi­ disciplinary approach has been employed in this research, using a wide range of evidence, including the urban fabric itself, and interpreting this material to produce an account which is not solely shaped by post-colonial or ‘ethnic’ debates.19 Work on the private domain as a way of exploring social change also provides a useful model as these ‘private’ aspects are clearly evident in the decoration of many of the buildings researched and the activities of their occupants.20 Schorske’s study includes a very useful section on the development of residential/business apartment blocks for the middle classes, according to the

8

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

pattern of the baroque palaces in Vienna, which was widely copied in Sarajevo. He details the economic aspect of this in terms of investment opportunities, which, along with his discussion of building layout and use, was useful for comparison.21 Schorske’s approach to Vienna has been applied by Péter Hanák to Vienna and Budapest and has also influenced Gábor Gyáni’s work on Budapest: both explore the relationship of the built environment to cultural and social change.22 These books have extended the range of useful comparative material for this research on urban development in Sarajevo as well as suggested research methods and ways of structuring the analysis of evidence. Hanák stresses the value of a broadly interdisciplinary approach and the constant interaction of culture with society.23 His exploration of central European middle-class living, including information about layout, furnishing and daily life in a typical apartment and the origins of development in new tastes, styles and mentalities at the end of the century, provides a useful model which is directly applicable, at least as a starting point, to Sarajevan apartment lifestyles.24 His discussion of drivers for latenineteenth-century urbanization provides helpful parallels and ways of looking at what was happening in Sarajevo after 1878, as well as suggesting the influence on urban development of Hungarian architects and other professionals and small business people who arrived in the wake of the Austro-Hungarian army. Gyáni uses microstudies to illustrate various aspects of people’s lives in Budapest during the period, taking examples from household inventories, diaries and housing records. These present parallels for comparison with Sarajevo, indicating similarities with both Budapest and Vienna, as does his work on investors in building and the building cycle.25 In terms of urban planning, government control, private development and social and cultural activity, Schorske, Hanák and Gyáni have described a central European model of urban modernity which, while allowing some comparisons with American and Western European models, provides a contextual framework against which Sarajevo’s claim to be such a city in the period can be assessed. In the concluding chapter of Capital Cities in the Aftermath of Empires, Nathaniel Wood explores the tensions for urban development in the period between rising national awareness and the drive for modernity, expressed in a desire to emulate ‘great cities’ such as London and Paris.26 He notes that ‘modernity, was, and remains, something much larger than nationality’.27 As Wood argues, most cities ‘modernized in locally particular ways’ while following larger pan-European models in key areas of urban development.28 This theme is explored in Sarajevo through the medium of the built environment using

Introduction

9

examples to show how elements such as architectural choices and the move to apartment-style living reflect different aspects of these tensions. Ákos Moravánszky’s work on central European architecture in the period and Anthony Alofsin’s recent book on architectural language in the Hapsburg Empire provide the contextual background for architectural development in the region, and the photographs, drawings and text included in both books have been useful for assessing how far patterns and models elsewhere were contemporary with, and contributed to, the style and decoration of the Sarajevo buildings.29 Maximilian Hartmuth has explored Ottoman architectural models throughout the Balkan region, noting Islamic influences in Sarajevo which were used in both the public and private spheres of building to establish visual links with the city’s Ottoman past.30 This has provided further useful architectural context and reinforces the importance of visual culture in creating a historical account of the city’s development.31 Accounts that foreground colonial aspects and explore urban development in Sarajevo in essentially passive terms give only a partial view. They do not adequately explain the volume of relatively high-quality European-style buildings and the context in which they were inhabited, nor do they explore the identities and motivations of the ‘builders’. This book addresses these shortcomings, building on the work done by previous architectural and urban historians of the city on the buildings, ‘builders’ and organizations and expanding it to include aspects of social and cultural history.32 Using a multi­ disciplinary ‘bottom-up’ approach, it aims to present a fuller, more rounded picture of urban development in Sarajevo in the Austro-Hungarian period.

Research methods and sources The legacy of the built environment and associated material from the period provide evidence for the more rounded picture presented here and indicate how new influences and pressures interacted with tradition and continuity to form a functioning, integrated city which, while an Austrian provincial capital, still retained elements of its Ottoman past. Bosnian architectural historians Nedžad Kurto and Ibrahim Krzović have (independently) surveyed a sample of the Austro-Hungarian buildings in Bosnia; their work on Sarajevo has been invaluable for the identification and dating of many of the buildings featured in this study. Both used material from the planning archive to date many of the buildings and list the names of their builders, indicating who built and paid

10

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

for much of the sample which formed the core of the primary evidence.33 This information has made it possible to follow up further primary archival evidence from newspapers, government documents, maps, contemporary postcards and a range of other sources in order to build up a fuller picture of who these people were. In this way, professional, business, confessional and political networks between the various ‘builders’ and other élite members of the community could be established, showing the dynamics of how the development was driven and the motivations of the developers. In each case, the questions being asked of the evidence were: who was ‘networking’ with whom and why? It is clear that economic considerations were well to the fore. This evidence also throws light on the political, social and cultural context in which this networking took place and gives an indication of what life was like for some of the users of the buildings. A set of maps was prepared as part of the research, showing the development of new military, public, confessional, business and private buildings at 5-year intervals from the occupation up to 1918. The maps gave a visual indication of the type, pace and siting of buildings and showed clearly when particular areas became fashionable and for whom.34 They were also useful in assessing how various factors such as economic or planning conditions affected individuals and organizations in their choice of site and development. Case studies were used to illustrate aspects of administrative control and relationships between officials and élites, both indigenous and immigrant. These case studies were based around building applications for three different types of building sited in the city centre, with subsidiary material in the form of papers, letters, directory content, books, advertisements and photographs which augment the plans and associated documents to show who the particular ‘builders’ were, what their aspirations and intentions were concerning the parti­ cular building projects and, where possible, what their social and professional roles were in the life of the city during the period. While choices of subject were partly made on a pragmatic basis, depending on available material, examples have been chosen which illustrate particular aspects of development. Taken together, they contribute to a view of Sarajevo as a modern city, also showing how aspects of the older Ottoman city adapted to develop a European face. Issues explored through these studies include the role of women in business life, newspapers and censorship, the development of modern hotels and Sarajevo’s place as a tourist centre on the European circuit and business networks between Sarajevo and the wider world. In working with buildings as an initial source of evidence, there are clear and unavoidable problems of interpretation. Over the years, many of the buildings

Introduction

11

have been damaged, altered by having decoration removed from their façades or have had extra storeys added. Some have been demolished and replaced by post-1918 buildings. However, in many cases, evidence from contemporary postcards shows how they looked in the Austro-Hungarian period.35 The post­cards present views of the urban fabric before post-1918 building, with different roof and building lines and more of a mix of Ottoman-style and European-style building. This is important in terms of understanding the relationship between change and continuity and shows how the ‘new’ might have appeared to the inhabitants at the time. As most of the buildings studied are in private hands, access to interiors is not usually possible, though a representative sample could be visited. Information about layouts of apartments could be found in publications such as Der Bautechniker, a building trade journal which was published in Vienna, and on the plans themselves.36 Photography of some key buildings owned by the Bosnian state is prohibited for security reasons, or alternatively, where access is permitted, identification of the buildings is not. This constraint affected the choice of higher-status examples of buildings. Unfortunately, some of the material referred to in earlier publications on Sarajevo seemed to have been destroyed (e.g. newspapers), and primary source references obtained in secondary sources could not always be found in the archives. This is at least in part due to the effects of the 1992–5 war and post-Socialist reorganization, which have led to the destruction, dispersal or reorganization of sources and texts; these difficulties in accessing some archival and library material necessitated the adoption of the pragmatic approach to the evidence mentioned earlier. In extreme cases, some lines of enquiry had to be abandoned for lack of required documents. * In the new millennium, there is growing interest in research on aspects of eastern and central Europe, and related urban studies. Sarajevo is, relatively speaking, small and has been the focus in the past of historical accounts which have foregrounded political and national conflict; perhaps for these reasons, it has so far not been the subject of the in-depth research into its social, cultural and urban history in the Austro-Hungarian period which is provided by this book. This study, therefore, makes an important contribution to current research on the comparative urban history of central Europe, and to the urban history of Sarajevo in particular.

1

Ottoman Sarajevo

In the summer of 1875, Arthur Evans, later to find fame and knighthood as the excavator of the Minoan civilization, was on a walking tour of BosniaHercegovina during the troubled period of the ‘insurrection’ – revolts by peasants against Ottoman rule in Bosnia-Hercegovina.1 The country, so far relatively unexplored by Westerners, was coming increasingly under the political spotlight in Britain and elsewhere, and Evans was curious to see it for himself. He provides a valuable record of Sarajevo at the time seen through Western eyes. He describes the city as a vast garden, from amidst whose foliage swell the domes and cupolas of mosques and baths; loftier still, rises the new Serbian cathedral; and lancing upwards, as to tourney with the sky, near a hundred minarets. The airy height to the East, sceptred with these slender spires of Islâm [sic] and turret-crowned with the Turkish fortress (raised originally by the first Vizier of Bosnia on the site of the older ‘Grad’ of Bosnian princes), commands the rest of the city, and marks the domination of the infidel. Around it clusters the upper town, populated exclusively by the ruling caste; but the bulk of the city occupies a narrow flat amidst the hills, cut in twain by the little river Miljaška [sic], and united by three stone and four wooden bridges. Around this arena, tier above tier – at first wooded hills, then rugged limestone precipices – rises a splendid amphitheatre of mountains culminating in the peak of Trebević, which frowns over 3,000 feet above the city – herself near 1,800 feet above sea level.2

Evans’ account sees the city in essentially ‘Oriental’ terms, noting the domination of Ottoman rule as expressed through the ‘sceptres’ of the minarets and the ‘crown’ of the fortress.3 The place he describes had been founded in the fifteenth century after the Ottoman invasion of the region and shared many common features with other Ottoman towns and cities in Bosnia-Hercegovina and further east, in terms of its spatial organization, its economic and commercial basis, buildings, institutions and élites. It was home to four main confessional groups with their corresponding social and cultural traditions; Serbian

14

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Sephardic Jews were allowed to organize their own religious and communal affairs under the Ottoman millet system, while the Muslim majority in the city held the dominant position, as reflected in Evans’ description. The presence in Sarajevo by the 1860s of the consulates of the six major powers had expanded the number of curious westerners, both in an official capacity and those who came as tourists to explore, paint and write about this relatively unknown region. Although it was only a few days’ journey from the ‘West’, it had for them a strongly ‘Eastern’ feel. The records of writers such as Evans, and other contemporary paintings, maps and references to buildings in the city, although at least in part intended to show the bad state of the country in the last stages of Ottoman rule, provide a very useful (if incomplete) indication of how Sarajevo looked, worked and was lived in by its inhabitants in the years immediately preceding the occupation.4 They also show how the city and its people looked to the influx of military and civilian personnel on arrival in 1878 and indicate how the occupiers might have experienced what they saw and considered to be in need of improvement when compared with their Western standards.5 Unfortunately, it has not been possible to access Ottoman government records or travellers’ accounts for the immediate pre-occupation period, but the Western visitors’ tone is relatively negative (and at times superior). Their negativity can be seen in the context of the Western powers’ (self-) perceived role as the arbitrators and key players in ‘the Eastern question’.6 This ‘question’ had developed as a result of the increasing instability and weakness of Ottoman rule in the Balkans at the time, which affected Sarajevo’s economic prosperity.7 Friedrich Schlesinger, though he could be charged with commenting with hindsight, echoed this when writing on the economic development of Sarajevo for the directory Bosnischer Bote in 1902: ‘the impression created in the later part of the nineteenth century was that its previously significant prosperity must already have been declining for some time’.8 Sarajevo’s urban geography, so clearly described by Evans, would have contributed to his experience of its ‘otherness’ when compared to west-European cities. Partly owing to the natural boundaries supplied by the mountains and the relatively narrow flat area along the river, many streets were no more than 6 metres wide, without a clear building line; two-storey houses built on the surrounding hills were sited to get maximum light and followed the contours of the steep slopes.9 There were few public spaces such as squares, and most public life, almost exclusively involving men, was centred around the streets and, in

Ottoman Sarajevo

15

particular, the market area, Baščaršija, with its small wooden shops and artisanal workshops. There were also public bath houses, segregated for men and women, hans in the market area where travellers and traders could stay for one night free of charge under vakuf endowments, and in every mahala, or district, a mosque, often small and built of wood, with its minaret and fountain outside for ritual washing.10 These physical characteristics were all part of what made Sarajevo a quintessentially Ottoman city. Evans’ initial description of the city bears comparison with visual records of the time. Sir William Holmes, the ‘English consul’, painted a watercolour of Sarajevo from the west in 1864, which shows much of the detail described by Evans.11 This was later published as a postcard, demonstrating the popularity of both the subject and the vantage point. A photograph from the east, also made into a postcard later, is said to date from 1878 and similarly shows the minarets, domes and greenery, surrounded by mountains, with poplar trees along the banks of the river. In this photograph, the Gazi Husrev-beg mosque, the new Serbian Orthodox church, konak and military barracks are dominant features on the right and left banks of the river respectively, rising out clearly above the domestic buildings and smaller mosques which are at most two storeys high.12 Another watercolour painter who recorded Sarajevo much as it would have looked to visitors such as Evans, albeit post-occupation, was Lieutenant Eduard Loidolt, an officer in the Austro-Hungarian army, who was stationed in Sarajevo and other parts of Bosnia between September 1879 and September 1882.13 He too painted the low-level indigenous architecture, trees and incidental detail, helpfully labelling and numbering parts of many of his pictures to show what he had painted. His 1881 picture of the two bridges, which together spanned the Koševo stream by the Ali-Paša mosque, shows the wooden bridge structure with the stone bridge behind.14 These can also be seen in the Kataster map of 1882, which records Sarajevo much as it was before the Austro-Hungarian developments, and can be taken, with a few exceptions, to be a visual account of the city as it was when the occupiers first arrived.15 Its key gives an indication of the prevalence of greenery; there are symbols for orchards, vegetable gardens, ornamental gardens, scrubland, arable land, grazing land and meadow, and examples of all of these are to be seen throughout the map. Even in the centre of the city there were plenty of small orchards and vegetable gardens, often surrounded by walls. Many were subsequently built over during the following 30 years as land prices in the city centre rose and demand grew for more residential and retail space.

16

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Other painted images of the pre-Austro-Hungarian city are to be found in Ljubica Mladenović’s work on painting in the nineteenth century.16 The book contains reproductions of watercolour sketches by war artists L. E. Petrović and Theodor Breidwiser [sic], showing battles in the streets of Sarajevo in 1878 when the occupying forces were struggling to take possession of the city. Although presumably intended as records of the fighting, they provide much incidental detail of key buildings and their surroundings. Petrović’s view of Alipašina džamija, Donja Hiseta i Musala (the Ali-Paša mosque, the Donja Hiseta area and the Musala) shows the area from the south, before the Miljacka and Koševo stream were regulated and the Landesregierung’s first administration building (now the presidency building) was built.17 Similarly, Breidwiser’s pictures of heavy fighting around the Magribija mosque and at Nadkovaći show how in the former case much, and in the latter, little, has changed since 1878.18 Mladenović also features J. J. Kirchner, another Austro-Hungarian officer, who stayed in Sarajevo between 1874 and 1884 and painted street scenes, some of which are reproduced.19 They show a more human scale and are full of busy people and animals, suggesting the intimate, semi-rural nature of the city centre before the occupation.

Urban spatial separation, including residential, trade and government features As Evans notes, and these paintings illustrate, the pre-1878 city was dominated to the east by the old walled citadel with its fortress, on a steep hill above the bend in the river and commanding views westwards down the valley of the Miljacka to the plain.20 The Vratnik area (also known as ‘Grad’ or ‘Castell’), which is within the walled part, remains today much as it must have looked then, partly owing to the narrow and winding streets which are steeply inclined, making development of larger structures difficult. To the west of this, also on a steep slope on the northern flank of the hills, is the Kovači area. The buildings here were, and remain, predominantly of the older, indigenous type; some have retained their orchards of plum trees, as were recorded in the Kataster map throughout the city in 1882. The streets are narrow here too, following the contours of the hillside, and houses are built on terraces, allowing views out across the valley. Among these were the houses of the élites, ‘the ruling caste’, as Evans put it. The Kataster map shows many vegetable gardens

Ottoman Sarajevo

17

Ko�evo Kova�i

Bjelava

Grad

Ko�evo Stream Gazi Husrev-beg Baths Synagogues

Ali-Pa�a Mosque

Gazi Husrev-beg Mosque

New Serbian Ba�čar�ija Orthodox Church Sultan’s Mosque Roman Catholic church Miljacka River and schools Konak

Musala

Donja Hiseta

Old Serbian Orthodox Church

Bistrik-Čobanja

Barracks

Hrvatin Ottoman Government Area

Figure 1.1  Sarajevo City map pre-1878 showing key areas. The chief area for post-occupation development was along the valley floor westwards from Baščaršija; this was made possible partly as a result of the regulation and embankment of the river in the 1880s and 1890s. Much of the housing on the surrounding hills remained relatively unchanged (for comparison, see Figure 2.1 in Chapter 2). Source: Map based on Hartleben 1895, adapted.

18

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

and orchards in both these areas, indicating a relatively low density of housing. Some small workshops are also attached to the plots, suggesting that the areas were not exclusively inhabited by the wealthy. Schlesinger agrees with Evans’ report on these higher, eastern areas being the preserve of the well-to-do Muslims, observing: The valley floor with the densely-built Čaršija was little-inhabited by the wellto-do Mohammedan population; they preferred to settle on the neighbouring hills, surrounded by orchards and little groves. There were very few houses in Čaršija, which contained mainly shops and workshops, locked up and left at dusk.21

In saying this, he also emphasizes a key feature of the spatial organization of the city which was to change after 1878; the separation of residential and market and manufacturing areas. The post-occupation ‘Europeanization’ of parts of Sarajevo introduced the mix of ground-floor shops with apartment accommodation above; this was a major contrast to the ‘zoned’ Ottoman model. In this period, Sarajevo still retained an important role as a trading centre for goods, as it was, in Evans’ words, at ‘the meeting place of the main roads leading to Austria, north of the Save, Dalmatia and Free Serbia, and being situate on the caravan route to Stamboul’.22 Ferdinand Hauptmann, in his major study of the Bosnian economy published in 1983, explains the city’s importance as a Stapelplatz (depot), providing storage not only for goods produced in Bosnia but also for Western goods going east to the Turkish provinces. He notes that the lack of passable roads and the difficulties of transport meant that most other places in Bosnia got their imported goods from Sarajevo, as they were not able to import them directly themselves; this was to change with improved communications following the occupation.23 Schlesinger refers to the difficulties for traders in his account of the pre-occupation economy: Although there were already some roads, the transport of almost all goods was by pack animal; as a result of the bad roads and the fact that people did not dare to travel by night, the journey from the nearest port to Sarajevo took about a week, from the next railway station a couple of weeks, from Constantinople, a month. Goods of large volume, or those for which the price in relation to the weight was too low, were not transported, and it is understandable that the now-flourishing trade in wood did not exist at that time. In relation to this it is curious to note concerning the difficulties of the transport, that one could buy in the market in Sarajevo, for very reasonable prices, English cloth, Turkish carpets or Indian metal goods.24

Ottoman Sarajevo

19

He also remarks that the yearly pilgrimage to Mecca provided opportunities for trade with Muslim merchants ‘from Morocco to India’, expanding the range of trading opportunities to the east. A more up-to-date analysis of the trading importance of Sarajevo at the time is given by Peter Sugar in his important work on the industrialization of Bosnia in the Austro-Hungarian period. He discusses imports and exports which passed through the city in the final years of Ottoman rule. Imports included spices, sugar, coffee and textiles from the East and also Western household goods from Vienna and Trieste. Iron products from Vareš and locally produced highquality craft products including carpets, carved wooden items, pottery, metal and leatherwork formed part of the export trade. He also mentions hides, skins, wool, furs and prunes, a major export.25 Many Sarajevo merchants grew rich from the import-export trade, though there were two major impediments: the difficulties of transport and the lack of available capital owing to the sharia law, whereby ‘all interest was considered usury’.26 Schlesinger emphasizes the ‘almost-entirely Oriental character’ of Sarajevo and its trading basis. There were apparently only two types of product produced by tradesmen/artisans – basic products for everyday needs, and the luxury items produced by a small group of master craftsmen; there was a limited demand for these.27 Although the Kataster map indicates many small workshops or sheds attached to houses and gardens, most of the production was carried out in Baščaršija, where rows of densely packed workshops and shops are clearly visible. Many of these artisanal trades were based here, including individual skilled craftsmen. The key lists 32 different čaršije, which represented different trades, such as the sarači (saddlers/harnessmakers), tabaci (tanners), kazandžije (coppersmiths) and kundurdžije (shoemakers). Many streets in the areas where these trades were traditionally carried out still bear these names; for example, Sarači and Ćurčiluk (furriers’ district), both in Baščaršija, and ‘new’ Tabaci, to the west, by the river and near the (post-occupation) tobacco factory, presumably to keep the tannery smell clear of the city.28 The trades or crafts were organized according to a guild system, with a Ćehaja or guild master in charge of each guild; guilds were organized according to ancient statutes and were carefully policed.29 All this was another aspect of the way of life in Sarajevo which was to change after the occupation. For example, many traditional trades such as harness making, which had been vital to the maintenance of the pack-animalbased transport system, were adversely affected by the post-1878 development of roads and railways.

20

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Another key aspect of the Ottoman city’s trading area were the two bezistans, stone-built roofed market buildings with rows of separate retail spaces around a central area or passage; both of these had been endowed by two of the ‘founders’ of the city, Isabeg Ishaković in the second part of the fifteenth century and Gazi Husrev-beg in the first part of the sixteenth.30 Evans describes the larger of these, the Brusa bezistan, as a court, surrounded by cloisters, and with a fountain in the middle: but from the outside you can see little of the building except some stone cupolas, as the wooden shops of the market are built against its walls.31

Attached to the other bezistan on the west side, in the Tašli han, built by Gazi Husrev-beg and damaged in the great fire of 1879, were the most important warehouses and depots of the merchants of Sarajevo before the occupation. Schlesinger describes the building as having been spacious, built of tufa and fired brick, a vaulted building of about 70    110  m square . . . now partly dilapidated. It had a roomy courtyard which was surrounded by vaulted arches on the ground and upper floor; the outer walls of the building to the east, south and north, were surrounded by rows of shops roofed with small lead-covered domes. On the east side the building was joined to the bezistan with a vaulted passageway with alcoves built into it. The building is the property of the vakuf and the individual alcoves and vaults are given out to the merchants by the administration on the basis of a one-off payment and can be inherited; the user has no rights to the land, even less is he able to do any alterations to the building. This property rights relationship has been recorded to explain why this spacious building has been badly maintained, and as already mentioned, is starting to fall down. As a result of the frequent fires in Sarajevo and also because of the relativelyinsecure building methods of the local houses which were not burglar-proof, the merchants previously valued these alcoves or vaults very highly, closed as they were with strong iron doors; many of the best trading families had a space here as a ‘safe deposit’, rather than as a shop. The one-off payments which were paid to the vakuf were high, and for one vault might be up to 1000 Ducats for between 15 and 20 sq.m.32

This account shows the importance attached to the safe storage of goods in relation to Sarajevo’s role at the time as trading centre and the attendant difficulties for the merchants in the years immediately preceding 1878. The problem of secure fireproof warehousing was one which was shared by traders in the West

Ottoman Sarajevo

21

and which the Austro-Hungarians were to tackle following the occupation using Western building methods. The hans, or hostelries, were another important aspect of Ottoman Sarajevo which would have appeared strange to Western eyes. They were intended for travellers and their transport and goods, with space for the animals and storage below, and people above, arranged around a courtyard. Three of the largest of these, the Kolobara, Đulagin and Morića hans, were all situated in Baščaršija, which was efficient for the trading of merchandise, as well as keeping much of the commercial activity in one ‘zone’.33 The zoning arrangement must also have contributed to the swift spread of information, as visitors from outside the city congregated and passed on news and other communications within the network of streets and shops.34 Another area which was ‘zoned’ was the Ottoman government complex on the left bank, clustered round the Careva džamija (Sultan’s mosque) and the konak (mansion) of the Ottoman governor.35 The present-day konak, first built by Omer-Paša Latas in 1867–9, was an imposing European-style building, which had central heating.36 Loidolt painted it in 1881, remarking that despite its appearance, it was totally made of wood.37 However, this was not the first site for a konak; the previous one had been just to the south-east, where the present Franciscan monastery building stands; it was pulled down and the site used as the government printing works from 1869.38 As well as a printing workshop, next door to the konak there was a telegraph office built in European style in 1864.39 The mosque, built in honour of Sultan Mehmed II, also represented Ottoman authority; a Sheriat law court formed a part of the mosque compound.40 Just to the west of the mosque was the Kršla, a large square barracks building which housed Ottoman troops and dominated the left bank of the river at that point.41 Loidolt painted several interesting views of it, then inhabited by AustroHungarian forces, and also of the surroundings and interiors.42 The river seems to have created a mental division between city and government which the AustroHungarians were to attempt to remove later by siting the Landesregierung’s administration buildings and the Town Hall on the right bank of the river. Behind these Ottoman government buildings, the hills of Bistrik slope sharply upwards, with more houses in terraces in narrow, steep streets, as on the opposite side of the valley. The area to the west along the left bank was relatively undeveloped, with a narrow band of houses along the flat area beside the river as far as the junction with the Koševo stream and a few groups of buildings on the hills above; this can be clearly seen in Holmes’s painting.43

22

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Away on the hills to the south-west beyond the city proper was the cemetery of the Sephardic Jews and, opposite, across the river, a Christian cemetery. There were many Muslim cemeteries which were sited centrally within the city, both small ones surrounding mosques and larger plots such as that on the approach to the walled citadel in the east at Nadkovaći. Many of the smaller cemeteries were later built over or made into park areas following the occupation, as at Džidžikovac. Most of the numerous mosques formed the centre of a mahala or group of streets; some mahalas were quite small in terms of area, particularly in the densely populated parts of the city. One hundred and three mahalas are listed in the key of the Kataster map.44 Most mahalas were named after the person who endowed the mosque at their centre, exceptions being the Varoš Bala which was home to the old Serbian Orthodox church, the Sijavuš Paša Daire (Velika avlija) around the old and new Sephardic Jewish synagogues and the Latinluk, traditionally the base for traders from Ragusa (Dubrovnik), which had a small Franciscan church on the right bank of the river between Sime Milutinovića and Despića streets.45 This church burned down in the great fire of 1879 and was subsequently rebuilt on the other side of the river. The new Serbian Orthodox church, completed in 1872 and which Evans describes as a ‘pretentious pile’ and a ‘swaggering edifice’, is in an apparently Muslim mahala. Donia comments in his ‘biography’ of Sarajevo when discussing the development of the city in the Ottoman period that ‘Each mahala was typically home to members of only one religious community’ and that ‘all but three or four of Sarajevo’s mahalas were Muslim’.46 He notes that with the exception of the Jews who were more widely dispersed throughout the city, ‘the mahala system’s religious-based residential segregation persisted into the 1940s’.47 However, it seems unlikely that this was entirely the case, even in the years leading up to the occupation; Ottoman census figures for Sarajevo’s population from 1851 quoted in Hamdija Kreševljaković’s work on the city in the period show 5,878 non-Muslims out of a total population of 21,102.48 Even if the Jewish group (1,714) is removed, that leaves over 4,000 non-Muslims, who could not all have lived in the three small ‘non-Muslim’ mahalas. Thus, it is clear that there was some degree of confessional integration in terms of residence. The Austro-Hungarian censuses gave figures by administrative district in the city from 1885, and these show that by then there was a considerable mix of confession in each district, though most were predominantly Muslim. Such residential confessional integration within districts continued during the Austro-Hungarian period.49

Ottoman Sarajevo

23

Figure 1.2  Ottoman bridges at the east end of the Miljacka. Source: Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja, (1910), NUB Skopje, CS III 50/1910, p.122.

The infrastructure of the city included both stone and wooden bridges (as described by Evans: see Figure 1.2 above), streets with steps built of local marble where there were steep inclines and česme (fountains) outside mosques and in public places not only for ritual washing before prayer, but also for providing a water supply for each mahala. Forty-nine kilometres of pipe supplied fresh water to the city from the hills at the time of the occupation.50 There were public bath houses, the most famous of which was the Gazi Husrev-beg baths, sited just to the north of the present Catholic cathedral (completed 1889). Evans gives an enthusiastic description of a visit to what he describes as a ‘Bosnian bath’: We entered to find ourselves under a spacious dome, pierced with a constellation of star-like openings, which shed a dim religious light on marble pavements and ogee arches and niches.

He describes the different rooms of the baths in terms of the Roman frigidarium and calidarium and explains how he and his companion were basted by our minister. Then succeeded excoriation by a rough gauntlet that served as a strigil, then we were well lathered and so the process was repeated till a final douche of cold water from a wooden bowl gave the signal for girding

24

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918 ourselves once more and making our way through the cool chamber – tenfold refreshing now! – to our couch.51

It is interesting, though not surprising, to note that he records his experience in terms of the Roman baths encountered in his classical education, though bathing provision and water supply were again typical of an Ottoman city. The city had a library, also endowed by Gazi Husrev-beg, and a dispensary and a hospital established by the muteveli (administrator of a vakuf), Hadži Asimbeg Mutevelić, using income from the Gazi Husrev-beg vakuf.52 The running costs of the hospital, situated to the east in the old part of the city in Halilbašića, were originally paid by the Istanbul government. The hospital opened in 1866 and could admit 32 male patients. Later, a separate section was built to accommodate eight women. Treatment was free of charge and patients were admitted ‘regardless of their social rank and confession’.53 These philanthropic institutions, as well as the water and bathing facilities, indicate the collaboration of historic endowments and the Ottoman government in providing for at least some of the needs of Sarajevo’s citizens. Evans also reports that there was a ‘Board of Health’ which was responsible for street cleaning; they had groups of ‘sanitary staff ’ who scavenged at night and picked up the ‘offal’ and slept in the streets in the daytime. Evans considers these people to have been dangerous and liable to assault ‘pedestrians’.54 There were also zaptiehs whom he describes as a mix of gendarmes, soldiers, tax collectors and executioners – ‘factotums of the Mahometan government . . . which leaves them without pay sufficient for their bare subsistence’.55 These were all areas that would be ripe for change and development under the new administration.

Architecture and building methods Although buildings such as the telegraph office were built in ‘European’ style, most of the buildings in Sarajevo at the time, both public and private, were built using materials that were traditional to the region, in styles which, particularly in the case of public buildings, owed much to Oriental influences. Džemal Čelić, in his article on the influences of the Islamicization of Bosnia in terms of the cultural heritage, is of the opinion that there was a ‘long lasting symbiosis . . .  between the existing, autochthonous culture and Oriental-Islamic influences’.56 He relates this directly to buildings, noting regional variations, and cites Gazi Husrev-beg’s endowments in Sarajevo as evidence of the direct Oriental influence,

Ottoman Sarajevo

25

considering these to have been part of the ‘so called early Constantinople architectural school’.57 However, he suggests that all the domestic architecture ‘belongs to the regional architectural schools of Bosnia and Herzegovina’ and describes the typical ‘old house’ with its solid ground-floor level (usually stone at the bottom) and a ‘wood-panelled floor protruding’ above.58 It had a ‘high steep hipped roof, covered with shingle’; the whole was intended to withstand the cold, snowy Bosnian winters.59 Guy Petherbridge, writing on Islamic vernacular architecture, refers to such a house; making the point that ‘activities that in the central areas of Islam would take place out of doors have to be under cover’.60 Houses of this type were common in Sarajevo before 1875, and examples can be seen in some of Loidolt’s pictures of Vratnik and Jekovac.61 Čelić notes that there were also houses in the Sarajevo region which were more directly influenced by the Oriental model: ‘The house is wider along [sic] with yards surrounded by walls, split into a winter and a summer part, opened towards nature with its porches, living rooms and oriels.’ He notes that these houses had ‘low tiled roofs’, which, together with the ‘open living rooms’, made them unsuited to the harsh winter climate.62 Svrzo’s house at Glođina 2, now a museum, is an excellent example of this type of seventeenth/eighteenth-century Bosnian domestic architecture.63 Many of the larger houses, particularly those belonging to more prosperous families such as the Svrzos, were built in this style. Many of these houses had upper storeys which protruded over the street in the form of oriels, and also wooden latticework over some of the windows so that people inside could see out without being seen; this was particularly important in the female part of the house. One of Loidolt’s pictures entitled ‘Türken beim Fensterln!’ shows courting in progress under one such window, recorded in 1881.64 These houses were surrounded by walls with a wide gate in the wall. They presented a relatively blank face to the street, especially at ground level, and this was a key aspect of the Oriental style in Bosnia. These houses were essentially private domains centred on the activities in the interior; they did not offer a public façade to indicate wealth, privilege or status, as was to become the fashion with much new building after the occupation. Another important point in relation to the way in which houses were inhabited in the Ottoman city is that most houses usually contained only one household; this was another area that would be subject to change following the occupation.65 Whether built around courtyards in the Oriental style or of Bosnian type, most of the domestic architecture shared common construction techniques and materials. Miss Paulina Irby, a regular visitor to Sarajevo in the period who set up a school there, writes in her work on Bosnia in 1875:

26

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918 The beautiful marble of the country, white and white with red streaks, is put to but sorry use in the rough Turkish pavements. Stone for building purposes is plentiful: yet even in Sarajevo wood, rubble and shingles still prevail: only here and there brick and stone houses, roofed with tiles, are beginning to appear.66

Looking with the eyes of an affluent English person whose family lived at Boyland Hall in Norfolk, her opinion is perhaps not surprising.67 It may be that she did not appreciate the cost of stone construction or the limited availability of stonemasons; only the higher-status buildings such as the larger mosques and the two bezistans were built of stone. Wood frame infilled with sun-baked bricks on a stone base was the normal method of construction for private or less important buildings. The surface was then plastered to keep out the weather, using a matrix made of rushes or similar material to fix the plaster to the wall. Such building materials were readily available; bricks baked by the sun did not require firing and the hills above the valley of the Miljacka are covered in trees. However, the buildings were susceptible to fire and flooding, which either burned the houses (a perennial problem) or caused the bricks to disintegrate into a muddy heap and washed the structure away.68 Evans records on his arrival in the city ‘a great fire which had destroyed one entire side of the street’ and later reports that the fire had been accidentally started and 15 houses burned in the vicinity of the Serbian Orthodox cathedral because the guns intended to alert the firefighters had been misinterpreted as part of the revolt which was in progress in Bosnia-Hercegovina at the time.69 Problems of fire and flood were to be one of the key areas of concern for the Austro-Hungarian administration on their arrival in the city in 1878.

Demography and confessions: confessional institutions, schools and vakufs Kreševljaković’s table for demographic change between the Ottoman census of 1851 and the post-Austro-Hungarian census of 1921 lists the citizens of Sarajevo, as the Ottomans did, in terms of their confession, defining them as Muslimani (Muslim), Pravoslavni (Serbian Orthodox), Rimokatolici (Roman Catholic), Jevreji (Jew) and Ostali (Other). In 1851, the city had 21,102 inhabitants, of which 15,224 (72.23 per cent) were Muslim, 3,575 (16.94 per cent) Serbian Orthodox, 239 (1.14 per cent) Roman Catholic, 1,714 (8.12 per cent) Jewish (a mix of Sephardic Jews and some Ashkenazim) and 330 (1.57 per cent) ‘others’ who are

Ottoman Sarajevo

27

listed as Cigani (Roma).70 No statistics are available for the period just before 1878, though in 1875, Paulina Irby, when bemoaning the lack of literacy, notes that despite the 40,000–50,000 inhabitants, there are no bookshops in Sarajevo.71 This population figure is almost certainly an exaggeration, as the AustroHungarian census of 1879 gave the total as 21,377. Kreševljaković estimates that there were probably about 30,000 in 1878, the number temporarily swollen by the immigration of people as a result of revolts in neighbouring areas. He also notes the emigration of Muslims from the city just before and in the days and weeks following the occupation as the reason for the apparent drop by 1879.72 Both Irby and Evans describe their impressions of the people of Sarajevo in confessional terms: parts of Evans’ description are derivative of Irby’s. Irby states firmly that Bosnia’s people, in common with those ‘in Free Serbia, Old Serbia and Montenegro’, are of the same race, the ‘Southern Slavs’, who have been ‘exposed to the full sweep of the Turkish deluge’.73 However, she explains that differences in ‘creed’ mean that they are ‘commonly spoken of as three different nations’, and she subsequently describes them as such.74 The largest confessional group in the city at the time was Muslim, though the majority in Bosnia were Serbian Orthodox. The élites of each confessional group held power and control over aspects of the running of the city, and Muslim élites also held provincial government posts under the paša from Istanbul.75 Many of the largest and richest of the Muslim landowning families (Begs and Agas, who had serfs), such as the Fadil-pašićs, were based in Sarajevo, as were wealthy merchants from all confessions. Evans remarks approvingly: ‘thus arose a civic government based on the possession of real property and prosperity in trade’.76 Each confessional group also included artisans and poorer members who bore the biggest burden of the inequalities of the tax system, both religious and secular. This applied particularly to the non-Muslims, and Evans cites religious taxes imposed by the Serbian Orthodox hierarchy as a further cause of suffering for the poor of that confession.77 It may well be that the social strata of whatever confession had more in common in terms of daily experience, aspiration and occupation than differentiation by confession might suggest. However, as ‘outsiders’ and writing for a tourist audience, both Evans and Irby are keen to explain and describe the confessions in terms of the different behaviours and costumes of the various groups, and Evans’ book has pictures to illustrate these.78 Irby remarks that in line with their religion, the Muslims did not often have parties but occasionally went up to Trebević (the mountain to the south-east of the city) for picnics. The richer Muslim women were ‘infected with Stamboul

28

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

fashions’, including transparent veiling, notes Evans. As one moves down the social scale, ‘modesty increases’, and he describes the ordinary Muslim women as wearing ‘long white shrouds’.79 He observes that ‘the Mahometan is incapacitated by his fatalistic want of enterprize [sic] from taking part in any but small retail trades’. This stereotype is echoed in Hauptmann’s work on the economy of Bosnian cities in the Austro-Hungarian period where he quotes from Antun Radić, writing in 1899. Radić describes the čaršija where Muslim shopkeepers were apparently indifferent to profit, spending all day at their ‘first home’ to sell very small quantities of goods; they then sold off parcels of their inherited land in order to keep their shops going.80 Evans’ description of the Serbian Orthodox includes the word ‘bourgeoisie’, and he explains how their approach to money and the acquisition of property was so different from that of the Muslims. He observes that they ‘hold in their hands most of the external commerce of the country’ and calls them a ‘moneygrubbing, unamiable lot’ who ‘set their faces against culture in every form’.81 The merchants had apparently formed themselves into an exclusive caste and were in league with the Orthodox Church in trying to extract the maximum in taxes from the unfortunate poor of their own confession.82 Many of them, such as Petro Petrović, had serfs on their estates, and Irby singles him out as one of the worst offenders. She writes that the Serbian Orthodox people were merchants, small tradesmen and farmers, and despite the Turkish law in Bosnia regarding property, ‘some have attained the possession of landed property’.83 The Serbian Orthodox élite in Sarajevo had a powerful role within their religious community, controlling their church commune and administering funding as well as appointing priests.84 This was an important role which was to continue after the occupation, as was their enthusiasm for middle-class lifestyle. The Roman Catholic presence in Sarajevo was minimal in the years immediately preceding the occupation, and Irby makes scant mention of them as a particular group when describing the confessions; she remarks that they are ‘orderly and submissive’, and ‘on a much better understanding with the Turks’ (presumably than the Serbian-Orthodox).85 Bosnian Catholics were more numerous in western Hercegovina and southern parts of Bosnia and ‘lacked the urban elite of the Serbs’.86 The Franciscans had played a major role in Bosnia for centuries among rural congregations, and most Bosnian Catholics were poor peasants. One of the few Catholics of the ‘urban élite’ in Sarajevo was the Franciscan Father Grgo Martić, who was to play a key role as a representative of the Catholic community during and after the occupation.87

Ottoman Sarajevo

29

The Sephardic Jews came in for considerable comment from both writers, who displayed elements of the anti-Semitism which was common at the time throughout Europe. Evans notes that they acted as treasurers and interpreters to the Turkish authorities in Bosnia and used the power which this gave them to amass more ‘ill-gotten’ gains.88 They were descendants of the Jews expelled from Spain in the fifteenth century, who had been given refuge and the right to practise their religion in peace by the Ottoman rulers. They spoke Ladino, an ancient form of Spanish, which had been current at the time when their forebears left Spain. Irby reports that some of them had grown very rich in the last 10 years, acquiring property in land and houses. She observes that they were very careful in looking after their poor and very law abiding: ‘No Jew is ever accused of murder, theft or violence, or found in the Turkish prisons, except on account of debt.’89 They apparently kept to all their old traditions and customs (including a particular style of dress for the women), and Irby primly remarks that they ‘have many holidays and feasts, and more merrymakings at home than any other “nation” in Sarajevo’.90 The various urban élites mentioned above must between them have held much of the land and property which made up the city of Sarajevo, though some belonged to the Ottoman authorities and much was held as vakuf endowments. There was apparently no Kataster record in the pre-occupation period, but the record for Sarajevo, which was finally published in 1886 and prepared by the Austro-Hungarian administration some time before this, insofar as there is evidence of it, suggests that there was a confessional mix of property holding before the occupation. Comparison of confessional holdings in Chapter 3 shows how this situation developed after the occupation up to 1918. The Ottoman millet system meant that each confession could organize its own religious affairs and communities. This included schooling, which was an important function as there was no public education. According to Okey, literacy in pre-Austro-Hungarian Bosnia stood at 4.2 per cent in 1866.91 There were differences between confessions in terms of the provision of schooling. The Muslim community in Sarajevo, using endowments from the vakufs, administered about 40 mektebs (Koranic primary schools) and five madrassas (religious secondary schools). In the mektebs, the text of the Koran was learnt by rote, while the secondary schools taught Arabic grammar and religious subjects.92 There was also a military school and one ružija, an interconfessional school which taught secular subjects.93 The Sephardic Jewish community had a school for boys, and the Serbian Orthodox school community ran two primary schools and a realka, a commercial school ‘modelled on the German

30

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Realschule’.94 Paulina Irby established a school in 1866 for the education of Serbian Orthodox girls, using funds from Britain. Evans paid her a visit during his trip to Sarajevo in 1875 and comments on her desire to alleviate ‘the backward state of education among the rayah women of even the better classes’. He says that the school was intended ‘to promote the spread of a liberal education among the women’ and ‘bring up native school mistresses’.95 On the day of his visit, he found the school in upheaval, as a result of the political situation; it was subsequently removed to Prague until after the insurrection.96 There were also two Roman Catholic primary schools; Father Grgo Martić established one for boys in 1865 and brought in the Austrian Sisters of Charity based in Agram (Zagreb) to provide one for girls in 1871. Both were in the Latinluk area.97 The religious background to these schools meant that not only was access limited, particularly for girls, but so also was curriculum content, which depended on what the various religious groups considered suitable. The diversity and variety of sources of funding was also an issue; Noel Malcolm writes of how the interests of Bosnian Christians ‘were now being promoted by the foreign consular corps and the would-be “protector” powers – Russia for the Orthodox and Austria-Hungary for the Catholics’.98 He might also have added Britain, in the shape of Miss Irby and the British consul, Holmes. The issue of education was one which was to exercise the occupiers greatly after 1878 as they strove to develop a European-style secular education system for Bosnia independent of confessional influence while still offering even-handed support to confessional groups who wished to manage their own educational affairs. Press censorship was a further area of policy for development by the new arrivals after 1878, and in comparison with the last days of Ottoman rule, the occupiers appear to have been relatively liberal in their approach. Todor Kruševac’s thoroughly researched and detailed work on newspapers and periodicals in Bosnia-Hercegovina during the nineteenth century makes it clear that, compared with the Austro-Hungarian period, there was minimal printing and publishing in the years immediately before 1878.99 The first-print works were established in Sarajevo in 1866 during the reform period of Topal Osman-Paša (1861–9), and the first official newspaper published in the local language, Bosanski Vjestnik, appeared on 7 April 1866, printed in Cyrillic script.100 There were also dual-language publications such as Bosna (1866) and Neretva (1876) around this time, printed in Arabic and Cyrillic script.101 Irby records that the Turkish authorities had stopped the sale of books, and

Ottoman Sarajevo

31

confiscated any found at the frontier; Serbian newspapers were similarly barred from entering Bosnia.102 Press censorship of the kind she mentions must have made it very difficult for groups working to provide education, as she was, to local people. The ‘insurrection’ which Evans experienced in Bosnia was a part of the increasingly unstable situation throughout the Balkans as a result of the diminishing power of the Ottoman Empire in the region. Both the Russians and the Austrians had designs on the area, and in 1877 Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire, resulting in the Treaty of San Stefano, which increased Russian influence in the Balkans, particularly in the greatly expanded Bulgaria. The other major powers were not happy with this change in the Balkan status quo and determined to redress the balance of power in the region; in July 1878 the great powers met at the Congress of Berlin to revise the terms of the treaty. For Bosnia-Hercegovina, this resulted in an agreement that while it would remain officially a part of the Ottoman Empire, it would be occupied by AustriaHungary. At the end of the introductory chapter of his book on the Hapsburg ‘Civilizing Mission’ in Bosnia, Okey writes of the ‘misleading implications of a tabula rasa’ in the concept of the ‘mission’.103 In that context, he describes the cultural mission to Bosnia-Hercegovina as a whole, but any assessment of the effects of the Austro-Hungarian occupation and administration on the development of Sarajevo and its urban and social fabric needs to be solidly based on an understanding that the city which they occupied and used as a provincial capital and seat of government was no more a tabula rasa, even after the fire of 1879, than was Bosnia-Hercegovina itself. Changes and developments, though apparently imposed in many cases from ‘above’, were often adaptations from, or in response to, conditions which already existed within the city and its population, and continuity in this context is just as relevant a concept as change. The most obvious manifestation of change, the ‘public face’ of the city which the administration started to put in place following its arrival in 1878, is the subject of the next chapter.

2

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province

The image of the fairy-tale Sleeping Beauty roused from centuries under an evil spell might seem an unlikely metaphor for either the city of Vienna following the removal of its fortifications to create the Ringstrasse in the second half of the nineteenth century or Bosnia-Hercegovina on the arrival of Austro-Hungarian troops as the occupying force on its soil in 1878.1 However, the underlying concept of the transformation of Vienna by the enlightened liberal planners of the Ringstrasse development and the transformation of the land which the occupying forces invaded following the Congress of Berlin, as travel-writer Heinrich Renner expressed it, to ‘usher in the new era’, bears some comparison. In each case, a modernizing spirit was at work, apparently confident of the correctness of its approach and ready to develop the ‘Sleeping Beauty’ according to the latest standards and ideals of political, civil, social and cultural life. Vienna and Sarajevo are also linked, in that many of those who invaded Bosnia in 1878 would have known the Austrian capital well and would have seen it as the epitome of European modernity in terms of its civic administration, public and private buildings, architecture and infrastructure. Correspondingly, it must have made them all too aware, on their first arrival in Sarajevo, of what was ‘lacking’. The example of Vienna provided some sort of mental ‘blueprint’ for potential development in what was to become the provincial capital of Bosnia-Hercegovina under the Austro-Hungarian administration. However, Vienna was far from being the only model of central or western European urban modernity for the Hapsburg administration. Structured approaches to town and city planning had been developing throughout Europe and in America during the second half of the nineteenth century, with much international sharing of ideas.2 With the rise of industrialization, development of rail networks and the shift in balance between rural and urban populations, there were new challenges for cities and towns as they grew. These included issues surrounding public

34

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

health and safety, decent standards of accommodation for the low-paid, effective infrastructure, land management and the developing roles of public authorities in controlling certain aspects of these.3 Other cities that demonstrated European modernity and with which some of the occupiers would have been familiar were Budapest, Berlin and Paris, which had all seen varying forms of controlled development in the period immediately prior to the occupation.4 By contrast, Sarajevo was far smaller (21,377 people, according to the census of 1879) and did not have a large industrial base.5 Nevertheless, the experience of those in command, both military and civil, regarding the organization, facilities and necessary standards to be expected in a city would have dictated to a large degree how they intended to alter it to suit their expectations and to facilitate their task of administration in Bosnia. Of course, proposals for change and development in the city were not couched in those terms. Austria-Hungary had been called ‘an agent of civilization’ by the contemporary Belgian publicist, Emile de Laveleye, and the idea of a ‘civilizing mission’ to Bosnia-Hercegovina, first proposed as a ‘cultural’ mission by Gyula Andrássy (Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister from 1871 to 1879) in a memorandum making the case for the occupation in April 1878, is one that has been much used since to explore and explain Austro-Hungarian policy and practice in the province.6 It also has direct relevance for an assessment of the occupiers’ role in the change and development of Sarajevo. Robert Donia’s account of the occupiers’ contribution to changes in the face of the city in the period is largely based on this approach, showing how public and confessional building was intended to demonstrate their even-handed policy in relation to the confessions and assertion of European values and cultural norms in their choice of architectural styles. He deliberately relates developments in Sarajevo to Ringstrasse styles and planning.7 In this context, all types of development in the urban fabric and organization of the city which were either directly the responsibility of, or sponsored and policed by, the administration can be seen as contributing to this ‘mission’, namely an intention to present Bosnia-Hercegovina in general and Sarajevo, in particular, as a ‘showpiece’. Modernizing changes in the city would, thus, provide material evidence of good government and administration for the indigenous population and visitors alike. How far the occupiers succeeded in this aim will be explored in this chapter, while the role of local élites and the business community in contributing to the changes is the subject of Chapters 3 and 4. The expression of this ‘good government’, which was to ‘improve’ and modernize the city, was to be largely European, using European methods and

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province

35

practices. In line with developments in planning and contemporary concerns about urban growth noted earlier, there was a clear agenda for change in towns and cities throughout Europe. This agenda included street regulation and widening, the creation of public parks, institution of building regulations to control future development, and fire and flood prevention measures involving embankment and channelling of rivers and streams.8 It also included major infrastructure developments such as clean water supplies and drainage in the interests of public health and the provision of public services like hospitals, schools and a fire service.9 These were enthusiastically included in plans for Sarajevo, albeit on a somewhat piecemeal basis over time. The public face of the city was also developed by the leaders of the confessional groups. Vakufs, Muslim religious leaders, the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Franciscans, the Roman Catholic archbishopric of Bosnia and the Sephardic Jewish community were all prominent in building schools, places of worship, reading rooms and other public facilities in a variety of architectural styles. These contributed much to the perceived ‘civilization’ of the city and its development as a provincial capital in the period and showed that even at the public level, changes in the urban fabric, though often overseen and supported by the administration, were far from being the work of the occupiers alone.

Priorities Following heavy fighting in late August between local resistance groups and the Austro-Hungarian occupation force in the streets of the city, the Landesregierung (provincial government) was set up in Sarajevo in September 1878.10 The Austro-Hungarian presence was initially military, led by General Joseph Philippovich. This military government quickly moved into the old Ottoman government area on the left bank, at Bistrik. Philippovich used the konak, which had been the Ottoman governor’s residence, to receive deputations of citizens, and soldiers occupied the barracks.11 Troops were also billeted on townspeople, with some mosques taken over initially for military purposes.12 On 23 August 1878, Philippovich issued a provisional statute for the setting up of a Gemeindevertretung (city council) in Sarajevo. It was responsible for many official tasks: billeting and provisioning the army, publishing and enforcing laws, collecting taxes, administering educational matters, overseeing public health, city drainage, keeping the peace and similar duties. The military and civilian

36

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Right Bank

Bet tefila (Sephardic Jews)

Bethlehem Orphanage

Archbishop’s Palace and Dom Kanonika

Bjelava Sisters of Charity Convent and school

Koševo

First Landesregierung building Regierungspalast Koševo stream

New AustroHungarian Administrative Area ‘Palace of Justice’

Left Bank

Evangelical Church Military Post and Telegraph Office.

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province Daughters of Divine Love Convent and school 1

Roman Catholic Cathedral

Daughters of Divine Love Convent and school 2

37

Roman Catholic Parish Office Roman Catholic Seminary Kova�i Sheriat Law School Old Serbian Orthodox Church Vjećnica City Council

Ba��ar�ija

Franciscan church and monastery

Bistrik Gymnasium and state school area

Military School for boys

New Serbian Ashkenazi Synagogue Orthodox Cathedral Archbishop’s palace at right

Serbian Orthodox Primary/Girls’ Secondary School

Old Ottoman Government Area VakufsCommission Administration building

Figure 2.1  Map showing areas of administration and confessional development by 1918.

38

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

governors appointed members of the council on the basis of proportional representation (as had been the custom in the Ottoman era) from élite members of the four confessions (five Muslim, six Serbian Orthodox, three Catholic and four Jewish); they also appointed the mayor.13 These were honorary posts.14 With variations, this was to remain the basic format for the council throughout the period, though voting for members on a narrow electoral base began in 1884 when the provisional statute became permanent. János Asbóth, the official historian of the early days of the administration, reports that the first election took place on ‘the Ides of March’, with ‘eight hundred and thirty-nine voters’ taking part; he infers from this that ‘the control of the town already rests actually upon a representative and autonomic basis’.15 A Regierungscommissar, an AustroHungarian government official, was appointed to oversee their activities.16 Their beledija (town hall) was on the left bank of the river in the Ottoman government area.17 The city council, a centralized and exclusive form of urban governance, was to be an important instrument in the development of the city according to the new Austro-Hungarian norms, as it managed many of the day-to-day affairs, and its Magistratsamt later handled planning applications and building control. Meanwhile, the Landesregierung, overseen by the Landesverwaltung which was based in Vienna under the aegis of the Austro-Hungarian Joint Ministry of Finance, established political, judicial and financial sections and began its rule in Bosnia-Hercegovina. A growing army of officials from all over the Monarchy staffed the burgeoning collection of offices in the six Kreise (regions) and their subdivisions, the Bezirke (districts), throughout the province. These were based on the old Ottoman administrative regions, probably on the grounds of expediency.18 Some sense of the scale and complexity of this organization may be gathered from the perusal of a section of the census statistics book for 1886 entitled ‘Schema der bosnisch-hercegovinischen Behőrden und ihrer Organe’, which runs to 11 pages and lists the number and type of personnel employed in the various offices; these include financial, judicial, educational, mining, railway and post and telegraph sections at the various regional and district levels and is printed in German, and in the local language in Latin and Cyrillic script.19 Bosnischer Bote, the directory published from 1897 onwards, lists the names of many of the post holders of these jobs and also indicates the structure of government in Bosnia from the top down, starting with the Landesverwaltung in Vienna.20 In January 1879, General Philippovich was replaced in Sarajevo as the head of government by the Duke of Württemberg, another military commander.21 All

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province

39

the main offices of government at Landesregierung level were based in Sarajevo, mainly on the very cramped site to the east of the Bistrik barracks; labelled on a map of the area at the time were, among others, the prison, printing press and finance department.22 The decision to use the old Ottoman government centre was presumably, as with the continuity in administrative regions, a pragmatic one, particularly given that the Ottoman Empire still retained a nominal influence in the region. However, the buildings were expensive to rent and maintain, as shown in the accounts given by the Landesregierung’s Baumeister, Edmund Stix, in his useful publication on government and other building matters in the province from the occupation to 1887.23 They were mostly relatively small buildings in the Ottoman style and not suited to a modernizing government on a ‘civilizing mission’.24 Various plans were quickly put in place to alleviate the financial and spatial pressure and provide the administration with buildings on a site and of a style which befitted its station. Priorities in the building programme seem initially to have been largely military and intended to lessen the need for billeting soldiers in the city. Stix records a new barracks on the present Jajce barracks site overlooking the city to the east at Vratnik, an extension to the garrison hospital originally built by the Ottomans to the north-west of the city at Hiseta and new officers’ quarters next to the Bistrik barracks.25 A Kreisgericht (regional court) was another priority.26 By 1882, work had started on a new larger barracks complex for the infantry on undeveloped land to the west of the city, about two kilometres from the centre (later ‘Tito’ barracks). A military bakery and food warehouse at Koševo provided for some of the needs of the occupying army.27 With both military and civilian population in mind, in 1882, the adminis­ tration built a railway station with a goods yard on a relatively flat open space just to the south-west of the new barracks site, with plenty of room in the vicinity for future expansion.28 The area around the station was later to develop into the nucleus of ‘Novo Sarajevo’, including railway sheds for the repair and maintenance of rolling stock and housing for employees of the railway works.29 The Bosnian railway, which was built in sections, represented a major element of the plans to develop a modern communications system throughout Bosnia and link the province more effectively to the rest of the Monarchy and beyond.30 The administration also started to build a tobacco factory to the east of the old Christian cemetery.31 The factory was part of the first stage of plans for economic development and was to expand in size throughout the period, providing much employment, especially for local women.32

40

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Tourist facilities were also a factor in the initial planning, with work starting on redeveloping the Ilidža spa, 12 kilometres to the west. The spa had previously been used by the Romans and during the Ottoman period; it was near the source of the Bosna river which contained sulphur springs. The Ilidža complex was extensively developed within the next 20 years and became a popular social centre during that period: already in June 1879, Stix lists work on a restaurant building, a plunge bath, stabling and the laying-out of the park at a cost of 22,957 fl. 97 kr.33 This represents about half the sum spent on the new courthouse but shows that the administration was already thinking beyond immediate political and military needs to the kind of ‘civilized’ society it hoped to build in the province, one which would enjoy spending time in a ‘watering place’ in European style. Given the unsuitable and expensive accommodation for the administration’s offices, plans were drawn up in Sarajevo in November 1879 to build a new administrative government centre on the right bank of the river, some two kilometres west of the city centre on the open land beyond the Koševo stream. This stream seems to have represented a mental division between ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ Sarajevo to the west, with non-Muslim cemeteries and the gypsy quarter, for example, in the ‘outer’ region; it was also chosen as the site for the tobacco factory by the authorities, perhaps because of the smell. The planned government area was laid out on a grid basis and included administrative buildings for the various government departments, a mining department and a court of justice for the province.34 The plan shows how the Landesregierung was thinking and working at the time; the owners of the land are indicated, and the plan also shows how the road was to connect the new development with the main part of the city and other small houses or farms in the vicinity. It is clear from this and from plans for the (private) Marijin Dvor development, which was somewhat closer to the city, that the administration’s intention was to develop the western area between the Magribija mosque and the new barracks along spacious, straight streets laid out according to a grid system.35 This was to be the new ‘modern’ city, with rail connection, government buildings, barracks and modern apartment blocks and amenities. Perhaps they also saw it as a potential area for the private development of the suburban villas for the middle classes which were becoming a feature of cities such as Berlin (Grunewald), London (Camberwell) and Budapest (Városliget end of Andrássy ut.) by the 1870s.36 Given the steep hills on either side of the established city to the north, south and east, the relatively flat, undeveloped ‘Sarajevo polje’ to the west was the obvious area for such suburban extension.37 Only one complete street of private

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province

41

development of apartment blocks, starting from the eastern end of the area, was ever built, and that in the period just before 1914, though the later tourist maps of the city include this undeveloped grid.38 This first set of plans for the government buildings remained on the drawing board. The administration may have gradually become aware of the dis­ advantages of being so far outside the city, both literally and mentally. Božo Madžar, in his centenary article on the building of the first administration building, suggests that cost was a major factor in getting anything built and that it took the arrival of the new Joint Minister of Finance, Benjamin Kállay, on the scene in 1882 to convince the powers that were that, despite the Imperial requirement that Bosnia-Hercegovina had to be self-financing, money needed to be found for the great work to be accomplished in proper premises.39 Ongoing plans were at least partly interrupted in 1879 by the great fire on the night of 8 August. The fire started in a house in Latinluk and owing to a strong wind and the lack of rain in the previous 2 weeks, by morning large areas of the central part of the city on the right bank of the Miljacka between the Emperor’s bridge and Čumurija bridge, extending to the north as far as čemerlina, were in ruins. Hamdija Kreševljaković’s account lists 304 houses, 434 shops (many in the western end of the Baščaršija area) and 135 other buildings as having been destroyed over an area of 36 streets. He records that among the notable buildings damaged by this fire were four mosques, the Catholic church in Latinluk, the German consulate and the Tašli han. The damage was estimated at 23 million forints.40 As Sarajevo was a small city, the fire represented a huge level of damage which had implications for the private sector of the economy, as is discussed further in Chapter 3. The immediate response of the administration was to set up a rebuilding commission which, given the potential ‘blank slate’ of the burned-out areas, produced a Regulirungsplan.41 This map shows proposed street widening and straightening, demolition of unsafe structures, a new piazza where the Catholic cathedral was later to be built and a Rathaus (town hall) on the corner of presentday Zelenih Beretki, next to the Latin bridge. The plan’s title announces that it has been made by decree of the city council at its session on 11 March 1880, but it is signed by Philipp Balliff, a senior buildings official for the administration for much of the period. The Landesregierung also published a set of building regulations and a proclamation about relief from building taxes during the renewal phase, published in poster form. It was written in German and in the local language in Latin and Cyrillic script.42 The commission explored issues

42

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

such as the establishment of a fire service and warning system (cannon shots) and flood-control measures which centred on the regulation and embankment of the river and channelling of the streams which fed into it. It is likely that they were influenced in these plans for regeneration by ideas about urban development in Germany in this period, where Reinhard Baumeister had produced ‘Germany’s first extension-planning manual’ in 1876. This was superseded by Joseph Stübben’s ‘massive textbook’, Der Städtebau, in 1890.43 These works were among the first to codify the key areas concerning the expansion and alteration of towns which were being addressed by the AustroHungarian administration in the plans and documents created by the rebuilding commission in 1879–80. Their activity and the proposals which it generated show an administration at the forefront of ideas about urban planning. The Regulirungsplan shows careful surveying and classification of the streets by width, which was an established area of interest in urban planning, and was later to be developed in the building regulations into a relationship between permitted heights of buildings to street width.44 The map also indicated which buildings had been totally destroyed by the fire and needed to be demolished, which areas should be cleared for street-straightening purposes and which buildings were in a sufficiently strong state to be left standing. It is important to be aware that this map, like the first plans for the government buildings, represented the proposals for what the administration thought should happen and not what actually did. Owing to the fact that almost all the plots mapped were in private hands, it was hard to effect the widening and straightening measures intended for several streets even with powers in the building regulations for compulsory purchase: perhaps sufficient funds were not available, especially as land prices in the centre of the city rocketed.45 The establishment of European-style building lines in streets was slow and occurred in many cases only as plots were redeveloped, in a piecemeal fashion. As a result, the inherited ‘organic’ medieval Ottoman street grid remained, with the addition of several new streets on the periphery over time. Even today, the part of the city where most of the AustroHungarian building took place still has relatively narrow streets. There was no overall development plan, but this was not unusual in the period. From the 1870s, several towns and cities in Germany had extension plans, and Vienna produced regulation plans for the whole city in 1890.46 Haussman’s major work in Paris between 1852 and 1870, including streets, sewerage, parks and public buildings, was one of the first which ‘was planned as a whole’.47 Budapest’s Metropolitan Board of Public Works, proposed in 1869, followed, with plans to coordinate

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province

43

the unification and urban development of Obuda/Buda/Pest.48 Nedžad Kurto, an expert on architecture and urban development in Bosnia between 1878 and 1918, asserts that the first formal development plan for Sarajevo was not put in place until 1912.49 Market forces and pragmatism seem to have played as large a role in the city’s development as any overarching intentions on the part of the administration.50 However, as Mehmed Bublin points out in his work on the development of Bosnian cities up until the 1992–5 war, the occupation marks a watershed in terms of urban change: under the Ottomans, the basic ‘urban unit’ was the mahala or small group of streets surrounding a mosque; afterwards, it became the street itself, according to the European model.51

Building regulations and their implementation The building regulations indicate what the administration saw as important and necessary for the new city. They were brought into law in Sarajevo on 14 May 1880. The proclamation about relief from building taxes during the renewal phase followed on 18 May.52 The regulations are a lengthy document, published in parallel columns in German and the local language in Latin script, with 82 separate clauses. Bublin notes that they were a development of the Ottoman law on Construction and Roads of 1863; unfortunately this was not available for comparison.53 The new regulations were directly based on Austrian models, adjusted as necessary by the authorities to suit the needs of Sarajevo. They bear a close resemblance to the building regulations for Graz for 1881, though the clauses are in a slightly different order.54 Anthony Sutcliffe records English municipalities drawing up building regulations ‘from around 1870’, and after the Public Health Act of 1875, a model set of building by-laws was published by the Local Government Board.55 The 1880 regulations for Bosnia-Hercegovina were the first of a series; a second set was published in 1893, also in German and the local language, and another in 1910. There were further additions published after 1910, relating to specific trades such as glaziers, stonemasons and bricklayers; these are in three columns, local language (Cyrillic and Latin scripts) and German in third place.56 The changes in the way in which the three sets of regulations were presented in terms of both language and script neatly encapsulate the changing political fortunes and power balance of the various inhabitants of Bosnia in the period. The later drafts, such as that in 1893, may have been a direct consequence of changes taking place in urban planning in

44

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Germany, where Staffelbauordnungen (zoning by height) was beginning to be seen as an important factor.57 Again, this suggests that the Sarajevo administration was at the forefront of Europe-wide developments in planning. The regulations show a desire on the part of the administration to regulate the way of life of Bosnian citizens and to assert their authority in the creation of new spaces and public life in the city according to a European urban model. Arthur Evans’ account, detailed in the previous chapter, indicates some aspects of how Sarajevo may have ‘fallen short’ of the European ideal and appeared in need of redevelopment.58 There are three main themes: a desire for order, the importance of accurately apportioning responsibilities (usually in consultation with the appropriate parties) and concern for fire, flood and public health and safety. Two subsidiary themes are a tendency to forbid most things and then include a variety of exceptions and exemptions to these rules, and statements of the apparently obvious which may have seemed necessary in the circumstances. The theme of order is exemplified by the fact that there were strict rules about applications for building consent, including requirements for each application such as the content of plans. Careful specifications were made in Section III (Construction) about permitted sizes, types and materials relating to chimneys, walls etc. Section II, which dealt largely with straightening, widening and general regulation of streets, again shows the perceived importance of order and a desire to impose it on the mainly Ottoman street grid; it was recommended that plots being reorganized after the fire should ‘as far as possible’ be given the form of squares or rectangles.59 Proposed heights of buildings were directly related to the width of a street, and streets were graded by width.60 This width grading is also present to some extent in the Graz regulations and is noted in the German context by Sylvester Baxter, an American, in his 1909 article for Atlantic Monthly where he discusses planning initiatives, including the Saxony Law of 1900, which specified very similar widths for similar circumstances.61 Building lines and datum levels were to be established and adhered to, and this altered the look of the city after the more natural and organic developments of the Ottoman period.62 These aims were not always achieved; even up to the early 1900s there were still several older buildings on the main streets which can be seen in contemporary postcards protruding over the new building line.63 The presence of existing housing stock, though somewhat depleted by the fire, was a significant obstacle to this desire for order. The regulations reflected the authorities’ pragmatic approach; for example, where there were buildings extant not in compliance with the new regulations, they were not to be repaired

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province

45

in the old way.64 Non-fireproof roofs on buildings within particularly designated areas had a 15-year grace period for replacement by their owners.65 Responsibilities of particular parties were clearly defined, including the roles of the building authorities: who should attend at site meetings, whose job it was to tell them to attend, who would value and who pay compensation to whom for expropriated land in the various circumstances.66 The building applicant was responsible for replacing or building pavements and gutters along the section of street which faced his house and garden wall, but streets belonged to the city.67 When construction was underway, the foreman could be held responsible for any deviations from the agreed plan and could be either fined or imprisoned for such acts; the applicant might also be considered culpable.68 The applicant and building contractor, as well as anyone else responsible for the erection of the building, had to sign the plans when applying. This is very useful information from a historical point of view, providing evidence of who was working with whom and when. Similarly, city council members and anyone involved in meetings had to sign the minutes.69 Throughout the document, it is made explicit who should do what, and also, often, within what time period; the authority had a responsibility to make swift decisions.70 The timings and process of complaints procedures for all parties were also clearly defined. Consultation was considered essential; neighbours and other interested parties were to be informed and invited to comment on plans, and minuted site meetings formed part of the planning process. If proposed plans were for an area near a railway, military fortification or river, the relevant authority had to be consulted.71 Street regulation plans drawn up by the building authority had to be shown to the owners of plots and houses affected, and these owners had to be ‘summoned to an inspection’.72 Furthermore, neighbours had the right of veto on the establishment of workshops which used fire.73 This suggests the desire for tight control of the developing urban environment by the administration and the importance of involving all parties as fairly as possible in this development. Fire safety was an area of huge importance in Sarajevo as well as elsewhere in Europe, as it threatened economic and social stability. Of the 82 clauses in the regulations, 29 were directly or indirectly related to this, either in terms of the use of modern fireproof materials such as metal girders, brick vaulting and concrete or in terms of the relative position of flammable building material and contents. Chimney construction was carefully detailed, and there were special regulations for buildings that housed trades that used fire, such as smithies and smokeries. Suitable flooring surrounding house stoves and ranges and rodding

46

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

points for chimneys were also carefully detailed.74 The danger of flooding was an issue and was one of the reasons for the specification for fired brick in floodprone areas; unfired brick was permitted only above flood levels.75 Public safety and health were invoked on several occasions, including in the development of workshops and industrial premises; ‘isolated areas’ were considered suitable for this, and workshops which created unpleasant noises and odours could ‘only be established in distant, sparsely-inhabited suburbs’.76 There were clauses about traffic and pedestrian safety on streets, relating to potential obstructions such as trapdoors, shutters and balcony brackets, and about personal safety for tradesmen such as roofers, who had to be securely attached to the ‘most solid part of the roof ’ when undertaking repairs to roof or gutters.77 Standards for drainage and the construction of proper sanitary facilities including lavatories and cess pits were given, as were details on the provision of clean drinking water through individual wells or the city water system, showing clear understanding on the part of the authorities of its importance in promoting public health.78 Adequate light was referred to only in relation to the size of windows, and ‘sufficient allowance’ was apparently only to be made for ventilation where the building was intended ‘for a large number of persons’.79 Otherwise, the applicant could decide on the arrangement of the dwellings under development. This is not borne out by one application studied in detail: that of the newspaper proprietor Milena Mrazović, where the building inspector commented unfavourably on the lack of direct light to the servant’s room in one of the flats.80 There were many exemptions, despite apparently rigorous prohibition in some areas. Clause 41 exemplifies this well: ‘At the proposal of the municipality, in Sarajevo the Landesregierung . . . may designate certain areas of the city in which the regulations outlined in Nr. 40 are to be unconditionally adhered to.’ Hugo Piffl noted this factor in the key to his map, where he writes: ‘Die zahlreichen Neubauten im landesüblichen Stil sind in der Darstellung den alten Bauten gleichgehalten.’ (The numerous new structures built in the local style are represented in the same manner as the old buildings.)81 He marked in red those buildings that were ‘modern’ in building style and construction, thus showing, presumably, where the designated areas, which had to be built according to the regulations, were.82 Exemptions to providing plans when applying for building consent might be allowed ‘if the building is a simple one’, and alterations and improvements needed no notification if they were ‘minor’.83 Similarly, regarding applications for the division of plots for new development ‘in the suburbs’, formalities could be dispensed with at the discretion of the authority. Furthermore, while awaiting a decision on building consent, a building could be

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province

47

commenced up to ground level if application was made in advance. Exemptions to some fire safety regulations could also be allowed on the basis of cost if this did not endanger other properties.84 It would be interesting to discover how strictly the regulations were actually applied in individual cases and how far this was dependent on the applicant. Some of the apparently obvious restrictions (e.g. that it was forbidden to build out into any street or public square; any building in which there was a fire must have a chimney) suggest that it was clear to the authority that these rules had to be explicitly stated.85 It also suggests that they believed the population would comply – or could be forced to comply – a gesture of confidence in the potential of the city and their control. The regulations were intended for ‘Sarajevo and all . . . towns and market towns’ of Bosnia-Hercegovina but impacted most strongly on the capital as it experienced the largest urban growth of this ‘European’ type. Examples of planning applications viewed, though relatively high profile in each case, show that the regulations could be very carefully applied, requiring much paper work, many meetings and signatures and passing of papers between government departments. Responsibility for handling the applications lay, in Sarajevo, with the Magistratsamt of the city council, who had technical staff in the form of eight ‘technical officials’, one of whom was responsible for the fire service, one for buildings inspection and two for streets.86 Those listed as ‘engineer’ (Ingenieur), judging by the evidence of the building applications, were also part of the buildings inspectorate staff and provided advice on building matters.87 In addition, the administration had its own building department with a team of architects, technical engineers, draughtsmen and overseers (Baupoliere). Higher-profile buildings required input from this higher-level department, as in the case of Schmarda, Rotter and Perschitz’s warehouse and office development in 1900.88 The application includes seven different foolscap folders, folded in half lengthwise, with blueprints and other inserts such as site meeting invitations and records. These are in chronological sequence and relate to the stages of the planning application. Each folder has up to 12 different dates and signatures on the front, indicating that the paperwork was not only shuttling between the offices of the city council and the administration’s building department but also came under the eye, stamp and pen of the Regierungscommissar. Each office had its own system of stamps, printed on the back of the folder, to show that documents had been passed. This rigorous implementation in the central areas of the city show that the administration, through the work of the municipality and its own building department, was genuinely concerned to build Sarajevo

48

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

into a modern capital city which, although small and on the periphery of the empire, could bear comparison with larger capitals elsewhere in Europe and beyond. That said, there were areas where the system did not work so well. Piffl’s map key shows that not all new buildings were built in this way, and Stix reports that the lack of enthusiasm for private building was notable following the inception of the building regulations. He explains that the local people were not used to building regulations and were nervous (eine gewisse Scheu zeigte) of building in the ‘new way’. This ‘nervousness’ could also be seen as a rejection of imposed norms which challenged traditional methods and the Bosnian way of life. It was not until 1883 that the situation changed.89 However, once citizens became accustomed to their application, the regulations had a positive effect on the economy as they stimulated the production of fired brick and drainage piping as well as other building materials and caused a major expansion in employment in the building trades.

Public health and safety The content of the building regulations is not the only evidence for the administration’s intention to show its modernizing credentials as far as health and the well-being of the citizens of Sarajevo was concerned. Among the first measures to be put in place was the erection of a modern slaughterhouse at Grbavica on the left bank, down the river to the west at a safe distance from the city, with a veterinary officer attached to the Magistratsamt to supervise operations.90 This replaced a small row of buildings on the right bank of the river just to the south-west of the tobacco factory site. Built in 1881, it was one of the first major building projects undertaken by the city council: they were to carry out many more civil engineering and city improvement projects which would materially alter the look and living standards of the city. The regulation of the Miljacka river was a key priority. In summer, it was relatively low, in a wide pebbled bed, as can be seen from photographs of the period.91 However, particularly when the snow melted in the mountains and hills above, it became a raging torrent, bursting its banks and sweeping away buildings. The work was one of the first tasks tackled by the rebuilding commission, and detailed costings and surveying of the section of the river within the city had taken place by 1880.92 The fire had destroyed many of the buildings on the right bank, and a high embankment with a street along most

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province

49

parts on each side was planned. The river was to have a solid bottom and stonefaced walls which could withstand the force of the flash floods. This work, from the site of the proposed new Rathaus to the (then) western end of the town, was carried out in sections between 1886 and 1897, and according to Kreševljaković, cost 700,000 kr.93 London, Paris and Vienna are other examples of cities which similarly embanked their rivers in the nineteenth century, and it is a common feature of urban development in the period.94 Some of Sarajevo’s bridges were rebuilt and, in the case of (wooden) Čobanije and Skenderija bridges, replaced with modern iron bridges with open, curved, functional design. The new Skenderija bridge was built a little further east, so that it connected more directly with the new administration building, perhaps as an incentive to encourage building for the professional classes on the Skenderija (left) bank of the river. The old bridge was removed sometime between 1892 and 1895.95 The Emperor’s bridge was also the height of modernity when it was rebuilt in 1897 with its single arch, concrete construction, iron railings and electric lamp standards; it replaced the old stone Ottoman bridge which had fallen into disrepair.96 This functional, modern development using modern building materials is symbolic of the changes overtaking the city at the time. Improvements to the provision of fresh drinking water and drainage were another important area, and the city council embarked on a programme of augmenting the city’s water supply through the building of two reservoirs. One was by the Yellow Bastion and one above the Višegrad gate on the eastern edge of the city, with an aqueduct from the Mošćanica spring, several kilometres to the east, to supply them. This work took just over a year and was completed in 1890.97 Kreševljaković gives figures for the total cost of ‘about one million crowns’. It seems that the military authorities paid 160,000 kr, the vakuf authorities helped with 100,000 kr and the rest was paid by the council, partly through loans.98 The drainage systems were developed gradually, starting with the area damaged by the fire; most of the work was completed by 1903.99 Planning applications show on the blueprints, as required by the building regulations, how the new building’s drainage system connected to the street’s main drain. Evidence of the administration’s concern for public health can also be seen in its provision of a large Christian cemetery on the periphery of the city to the north at Koševo. The perceived importance of situating a cemetery outside the city was of long standing in both Vienna and Budapest. In The Garden and the Workshop, Péter Hanák devotes a whole chapter to the topic of how death was ‘civilized’ in both cities from the end of the eighteenth century.100 His work shows

50

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Figure 2.2  Josip Vancaš as a young man. Source: Vrhbosna III (1889), br. 18 ABiH P1/1889, p. 293.

the role of the city councils in regulating such cemeteries, and he notes that, in Vienna, it became illegal to bury people around houses or churches after 1783. In Sarajevo, the older Christian cemetery was also outside the city to the west, so whether the administration were taking their lead from Viennese practice or Ottoman tradition is not clear. The new cemetery was one of the first jobs for the promising young architect, Josip Vancaš, on arrival in Sarajevo; he had come from Vienna to work for the government and made his home in the city until 1921 (Figure 2.2).101

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province

51

The cemetery was in two parts, although there was no dividing wall. The southern section was for Roman Catholics, and the northern (larger) end was for the Serbian Orthodox community. It was later used by many prominent Sarajevo citizens, both indigenous and ‘incomer’, and at the Serbian Orthodox end it was to become the last resting place of the group of assassins including Gavrilo Princip, whose murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand marked the beginning of the end of the Austro-Hungarian experiment in urban modernity in Sarajevo. Also at Koševo, a little further north and east, on rising ground and approached by a wide, straight road, was the administration’s pride and joy, the national hospital. It was opened in 1894 amid plaudits in the local press and national and international publications such as guidebooks.102 It had the latest medical equipment and was staffed by doctors with a variety of specialisms from all over the Monarchy.103 The hospital was open to everyone, regardless of creed, and Heinrich Renner reports that ‘of course’ it was able to provide for the needs of all confessions, including the special dietary requirements of the Muslim population. He praises the green, rural, healthy position. The hospital was laid out in the form of a small village with ‘pavilions’ for each area of care, with gardens between, to minimize transmission of infection and allow more light and air; St Thomas’s Hospital in London had been similarly planned and built in 1870–1.104 The new hospital had 250 beds, and Renner describes the intricacies of the modern concrete drainage system, hot water provision and telephone connection with great approval.105 It replaced the vakuf hospital (which became the city’s mental hospital after 1894) and can be seen as a major ‘showpiece’ for the administration’s modernizing aims, intended to impress both Sarajevans and visitors. Following the setting up of a public health department in 1879, all doctors, midwives and headmasters were to be registered at the government’s public health offices. Pilgrims to Mecca had to be isolated on their return, and they and their luggage disinfected as a precaution against cholera, typhus and plague.106 There was a police doctor, who also took consultations at the Ilidža spa, and a doctor who specialized in STDs; following practices founded under the Ottomans in 1864, prostitutes were regularly checked and had their own medical cards.107 The building of Nova ulica (‘New street’) for prostitution in c.1900, on the left bank to the west of the city, with its police station at the end in case of difficulties, shows another example of the orderly zoning of less desirable aspects of life. The opening of the market hall on 1 November 1895 on a newly created piazza in the city centre gives further indication of the administration’s

52

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

desire to show how it could bring order to the city, this time through the hygienic sale of fresh food. With its elegant neo-classical portico, metal tiebeam roof and refrigeration facilities below, it was a very grand building in which to purchase dairy produce, fish, meat and vegetables: Kreševljaković compared it to a theatre.108 The opening was enthusiastically reported in the local press; the head of the provincial government Baron Appel, Civil Adlatus (civil governor) Kutscher, head of the buildings department Stix and deputy mayor Petrović all graced the occasion with their presence, indicating the importance which was attached to this new development.109 The 1890s were a boom period for such public provision: steam baths were built at Bistrik in 1890, again using the services of Vancaš, and after much discussion between the Landesregierung and the city council, the idea of a poorhouse, initially for those affected by the great fire, finally came to fruition at Bistrik in 1893, using foundation endowment left over from the fire relief fund.110 The directory, Bosnischer Bote, records that it had a large room for 16 men, two large rooms for 32 women, a spacious nursery next to two workrooms and attics for the temporary accommodation of whole families. Such details, listed under the overall heading of ‘Medical and Humanitarian Establishments’ and including information on the two hospitals and a newly built Catholic orphanage at Bjelava, show the perceived importance of this type of provision.111 In the same part of the directory, also relating to public health and safety, the firefighting systems are clearly explained: a civil section was formed by the city council in 1882, which was based beside the river on the left bank, about half way between Bendbaša and Skenderija; it had a tower from where firefighters had a clear view over the city.112 There was also a military branch based at the ‘large infantry barracks’.113 The city council’s fire station was replaced in 1912 by the modern purpose-built, architect-designed fire station which still exists today. A major element of Western thinking about urban development at the time was the importance of the provision of parks and other public open spaces where ordinary people could go to relax and enjoy exercise and fresh air.114 The Ottoman pattern of public life, conducted largely in the street and mejdan (a place where several streets met), was gradually superseded in the western parts of the city by parks, laid out as gardens with winding paths, shrubs, flowerbeds and grass. This was not always easy to accomplish in the Bosnian climate, but postcard pictures of Ilidža, in particular, show what could be done, albeit with a little touching up from the printer.115 The first big parks were set out

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province

53

in 1886 on land to the north of the new administration building at Džidžikovac on the site of two Muslim graveyards.116 Much later, after the Bistrik barracks had been largely rebuilt, the area in front by the river was laid out to gardens, with a bandstand built in 1911. The administration’s attempts to provide large piazzas were foiled by the relative lack of space in the centre of the city and the private ownership of land. The piazza cleared for the Catholic cathedral and that for the market hall are largely filled by those buildings, with limited space to sit and admire. However, postcard evidence shows that the three main east–west streets, especially once they were regulated, offered a relatively wide space for the evening corso, and café tables and trees in pots can be seen outside some of the establishments.117 The major development of parkland and gardens at Ilidža, accessible by a 15-minute train ride, could make up for any perceived shortfall in public parks within the city.118

Transport, communications and other infrastructure Transport to and around Sarajevo was an important element of the strategy for opening up the city to the modern world. The development of road and railway systems within Bosnia was a major priority for the administration in the first years. Roads were built or repaired using soldiers and the robot, which meant conscription of men and their draught animals to be used for road or railway building for a part of each year. The robot was an important motivation behind the first census in 1879. János Asbóth, in the German version of his official history of Bosnia-Hercegovina published in 1888, gives detailed tables for the road-building project, showing how many kilometres of which type of road had been built each year and the costs, including the number of man-days and animal-days of the robot, by region. Similarly, for the progress of the railway project, he details the amount of train track laid, the width of these tracks, the buildings and tunnels built in connection with these tracks, and the rolling stock and costs on the sections of line that had been built by 1887. The level of detail shows that he had access to government sources, as one might expect in an official history, and there is no doubt that it was intended to impress.119 As with building applications, it shows the meticulous level at which the administration’s bureaucracy worked to accomplish its mission. This opening up to the outside world had a huge effect on the development of Sarajevo as Bosnia’s capital city, as the administration presumably intended. It

54

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

is clear from the hotel reports in the 1880s in the local paper, the Sarajevski List, that many people came on business. Several international trading companies established branches in the city, such as the aforementioned Schmarda, Rotter and Perschitz, an import-export company which had branches throughout Bosnia and Croatia and trading links with Triest, Budapest, Vienna and Fiume (Rijeka).120 Banks were established; many were branches of major banks else­ where in the Monarchy, offering investment capital, which also encouraged economic development. The directories from 1897 onwards are full of advertise­ ments for goods and services from Vienna, Paris and Munich, and none of this would have been possible without an effective transport system. Sarajevo had always been involved in the import-export business, and since the alterations in customs barriers following the occupation, new business opportunities plus the new provincial infrastructure changed and developed the range and scope of trade into and out of the city. The railway and improved road system were, thus, vital elements, so too were the telegraph and postal service which were built up during the period. Telegrams were used extensively, initially through the military telegraph system, to transfer information swiftly, as the examples in the rebuilding commission’s files show. Telegraph reports from outside Bosnia published in the Sarajevski List give up-to-date accounts of international events; in September 1889, the paper reported one of the Whitechapel murders in the same edition which gave lengthy details about the opening of Sarajevo’s Catholic cathedral. In November 1894, there was an update on the Dreyfus case in Paris.121 Evidence of the effectiveness of the postal system is lacking before about 1900, but the profusion of postcards from Sarajevo to all parts of the Monarchy after the picture postcard became fashionable there, and the speed with which some of them travelled show that it was certainly working well from then on.122 In 1898, a public telephone system was started in Sarajevo: it initially had relatively few subscribers, mainly the members of the élite community and business people, but by 1915, there were about 370, including businesses and public offices.123 From the 1900s, Bosnischer Bote had a telephone directory listing several of the leading businesses and important people in the city, and the Landesregierung published one for government departments.124 These papers and directories provide evidence that Sarajevo was becoming a well-connected international capital. How far the Landesregierung and its various officials monitored or policed these communications would be an interesting area of further research; the content of printed and published material, such as newspapers and periodicals, was certainly monitored, and this is discussed in more depth in Chapter 5.

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province

55

Public transport within the city also developed. Tram tracks were laid in 1884 between the station and the cathedral square for a horse-drawn tram service. Following the construction of a small electric power station at Hiseta in 1894 (also beyond the Koševo stream, on land reclaimed by the embankment work), electric lighting was introduced in the main streets. In May 1895, an electric tram service began between the tobacco factory and the Latin bridge and, later, went as far as the new Rathaus. The Landesregierung was responsible for the initial investment, but the city council took over ownership in 1897.125 The timetables and tariff of charges to travel were published in Bosnischer Bote, as was a list of costs to hire private carriages; it seems that all areas were carefully controlled.126 The main road from the station was surveyed and rebuilt in 1891–2 to improve the connection to the town centre.127 The station site received further development in 1892 with more sheds and workshops to expand the industrial base there; this included depots for importexport firms. A central freight station and tram sheds were built in the 1890s on land in a burned-out part of the city centre (now Oslobodjenje Trg), with stabling for horses in Štrosmajerova (Rudolfsgasse). The Landesregierung also built a customs warehouse and offices there; the offices presented a regimented historicist façade to Ferhadija, again suggesting order and authority.128 By 1914, the city was well connected to the outside world, particularly to the west, in terms of transport and communication links. In terms of continuity, the Baščaršija market retained its network of small streets, shops and workshops, and the postcards from the period show that transport by person or pack animal (presumably from the immediate locality in many cases, when peasants came into town to sell produce) was far from unusual and suggest that much news and information was still passed on by word-of-mouth during meetings in the street.129

The importance of record Statistics were a key element of Austro-Hungarian policy, and the administration’s first census of Bosnia-Hercegovina was carried out in 1879, with further, increasingly complex censuses in 1885, 1895 and 1910.130 Categories for data collection changed with the needs of the time; in 1879, the males were grouped by age (for conscription into the Austro-Hungarian army and the robot for road and railway building), and the census takers also counted cowsheds, horse and ox carts, horses, mules, donkeys, cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, bristly pigs and

56

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

beehives. Ivo Andrić, in his novel The Bridge on the Drina, describes the arrival of the Austro-Hungarians in Višegrad and captures the disruption which this created: The newcomers were never at peace, and they allowed no one else to live in peace. It seemed that they were resolved with their impalpable yet ever more noticeable web of laws, regulations and orders to embrace all forms of life, men, beasts and things, and to change and alter everything.

He describes them, calmly measuring, counting and recording, and explains how the true reason for their activities became clear some months later when new regulations on, for example, movement of cattle or felling of trees was announced. He comments that as a result, though ‘their individual liberties were curtailed or their obligations increased, . . . the life of the towns and villages, and of all their inhabitants as a mass, became wider and fuller’.131 The next two censuses did not include animals, but by 1910, the criteria included literacy, place of birth, mother tongue, blind, deaf-and-dumb and insane. Many of these criteria were common to censuses throughout Europe and, as with planning regulations, were a matter for international discussion. In his important work on political and social change in Budweis/Budĕjovice in the second half of the nineteenth century, Jeremy King notes that from the early 1870s, demographers throughout Europe had been trying to standardize census taking. The International Statistical Congress in St Petersburg in 1872 was one such attempt, where the criterion of one language per person was proposed (and rejected by delegates from the Hapsburg Monarchy). Allowing only one language per person gave a false indication of ‘nationhood’ or ethnicity for many, both in Budweis/Budĕjovice and in Sarajevo, who spoke two or even three languages, depending on context.132 Producing censuses necessitated further ordering of the Ottoman city according to the European model. In order for accurate statistics to be taken, streets had to be named and houses numbered. According to Friedrich Schmid, who in 1914 wrote a detailed account of the practical aspects of the administration’s work, orders were given for house numbering in April 1879. Inhabited buildings were to be numbered in order, starting with the number one, and the number was to be written on a metal plaque, paid for by the owner of the house; in villages, wood was permissible. Andrić describes the ‘most learned and respected of the Višegrad Turks’ gathering on the bridge to discuss ‘passive resistance’ to the census taking and house numbering. Pleas of illiteracy and whitewashing of houses after the plaques were put up were two suggestions, which

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province

57

must have caused some problems for the authorities.133 Schmid also comments on the difficulty of street labelling in Bosnia owing to confessional differences which necessitated different scripts, and says that this was also a difficulty in other towns in the Monarchy such as Prague and Laibach (Ljubljana). Evidence from postcards for Sarajevo streets shows that names were usually written in three scripts, Cyrillic, Latin and Arabic, though the order of precedence varied and, according to Schmid, was still a contentious issue when the elected Bosnian Parliament attempted to enact a new law on streets in 1911.134 The Kataster or land registry was another important priority, and the administration used surveyors from the military-geographical institute in Vienna to assist in the huge task of surveying Bosnia. Work began in 1880 and was completed by 1886.135 The survey of Sarajevo was finished by 1882, and the resulting map shows a high level of detailed information. The Kataster office in Sarajevo formally opened in 1887 and is listed as one of those in the new administration building discussed later.136 The Kataster record provided an important source of information for the administration on potential timber and mineral resources throughout Bosnia which were to be developed in the future, as well as supplying a basis for taxes on land and buildings. The mass of statistical information, which could be published and discussed in the Delegations in Vienna and made available to interested parties such as outside investors, was intended to provide evidence to the outside world, when contrasted with the declining years of Ottoman rule in Bosnia-Hercegovina, of the administration’s good government and management of the province.

Military presence The occupation of Bosnia was, first and foremost, a military one, and therefore, military needs continued to be paramount for the administration in the early years. Their programme of building included developing the barracks to the west of Sarajevo on a large rectangular area of approximately 12 hectares; this was to continue over a number of years. The first phase, for 55 officers and 456 men, was completed in 1888, at a cost of 200,000 fl.137 New sections were built in 1897 and 1899 on the south-east and north-east corners of the site, respectively, and an officer’s pavilion to the south in 1900. The north façade was finished in 1907.138 The eastern barracks at Castell, first developed as the ‘Prince Eugen’ barracks in 1881, were rebuilt in 1914 to bring them up to date. From 1898, the barrack buildings at Bistrik were also remodelled; the work

58

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

continued under at least three different architects up until about 1902.139 The large Corps-Commando building for the 15th Division, which still maintains a strong presence on the left bank of the river today, was built in two parts, starting in 1895, with the second part finished in 1901, to plans by Vancaš.140 Ibrahim Krzović’s record of buildings from the period includes a picture of the half-completed building, which looks huge alongside the contemporary mainly autochthonous architecture.141 In 1898, a small stone fortress was built on the mountainside to the south-west, at Vraca, three points of the compass surrounding Sarajevo thus being defensively covered.142 In 1890, a new home was built for the military boys’ school (Knabenpensionat) near the Bistrik barracks, when the school had to make way for the second administration building, and the old garrison hospital was updated in 1902 with a new surgical department.143 The administration developed a stud farm in 1885–86 to improve the stock of horses in the province, which Stix describes in some detail.144 All these structures indicate that ongoing military strength remained a priority throughout the period. Following the official switch from military to civilian government, in 1881, the Ottoman buildings in the Bistrik area which were now surplus to military requirements were turned over for civilian use.145 The military telegraph office was moved to smart new premises in Sutjeska, near the military bakery at Koševo; the building also provided administrative offices for the army and was extended in 1900.146 This was superseded in 1913 by the splendid post and telegraph office built on the right bank of the river, taking up the entire block between two streets, just to the west of Čobanje bridge. The building was designed by Vancaš and is a proud assertion of military strength and modernity.147 The army also had a presence in the city centre. Nr. 5 Rudolfsgasse (Štrosmajerova), part of a business/apartment block built by the Sephardic Jewish developer G. V. Salom, housed the offices of the K.u.K. Militär-Intendanz, with three other military offices at Nr. 3.148 These were in the European part of the city, between the two main commercial streets, close to modern hotels, cafés and places of worship, asserting the role of the higher-ranking military personnel at the heart of the community. The 1881 army Casino (Officer’s Club) was built as ‘a present from the builders of Brod-Sarajevo railway line to the officers and clerks of Sarajevo’.149 It was also in the city centre, just by the tram terminus, and provided a place of relaxation for the officers when in town. In the early years of the occupation, it was used as a theatre and concert hall and, by 1899, housed the library of the military-scientific reading society.150 It was also a suitable place

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province

59

for Western-style formal dinners and other events which were part of the élite social calendar: one example is the dinner following the opening of the cathedral in 1889, reported in the Sarajevski List.151 In 1912, the Casino was renovated with new rococo-style decorations inside and out and a new storey which made space for a large concert hall.152 Its various uses suggest the social connections and blurring of boundaries between the officer class of the occupying army and the élite civilian population. The building represents a spatial manifestation of the link between the public and the private spheres of Sarajevo social life. The military component of the public building programme in Sarajevo left many large, solid structures which became landmarks in the city. However, any list of military buildings developed over the period does not necessarily equal all the buildings which were used for military purposes. Many would have been rented or leased, as at first. A list of 59 ‘public institutions’ (Oeffentliche Anstalten/ Javni zavodi) in Sarajevo from the statistics book for the census of 1895 includes 19 military facilities of different types, many already mentioned. Others include a paymaster’s office, an artillery depot, kennels and a carrier pigeon station. The number of offices labelled ‘Commando’ and the importance of the Post and Telegraph Office show what a central role the city played in military operations throughout Bosnia.153

Civil presence As well as military institutions, the list of ‘public institutions’ in Sarajevo included 20 educational establishments, two craft factories and a mix of other public buildings ranging from the hospitals to the high court, provincial museum and central mining department offices. The various office buildings constructed to house the ever-growing army of officials are too numerous to mention in detail; several of the more prominent ones have been extensively discussed elsewhere by architectural and other historians.154 They broadly come under the groupings of administrative, judicial and financial; many of the legislative decisions were taken at Landesverwaltung level in Vienna. Until 1891, the Austro-Hungarian government in Sarajevo was split into those three departments, with the building department making the fourth from then on.155 Figure 2.3 shows public buildings of all types from 1880 to 1918 and indicates that the early 1890s was the time of greatest growth. This was when many of the key public buildings such as offices for the pension fund, Bosnian railway, tax and customs administration offices,

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

60 14 Number of buildings

12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Figure 2.3  Graph showing public buildings of all kinds, including infrastructure and military, 1880–1918. Source: Data from Sparks, M. (2006), Chronological Record of Buildings in Sarajevo, 1880–1918. See Appendix 1, online.

central police station and prison were constructed. As time went on and most of the key structures were in place, the need changed to the refurbishment and improvement of existing structures. The buildings were in the main built in a monumental, historicist style, which included an eclectic mix of classical, renaissance and baroque motifs in the exterior design. They were relatively large scale which made them stand out, certainly from the indigenous local architecture. Pride was obviously taken in their appearance; it was possible to buy a postcard of the tax and customs administration offices and the neighbouring district offices (Bezirksamt) sited just to the west of the Koševo stream.156 Presumably, these splendid edifices were considered to be material examples of good government and show, if any further evidence were needed, the perceived importance of the bureaucratic approach which the administration took in all areas of its work. The postcard pictures, mailed to other parts of Bosnia and beyond, sent out a visual message to the people of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the wider world, indicating how well things were going in Bosnia and how order was being created by the administration. The site finally chosen for the important first Landesregierung building, the Regierungspalast, built between 1884 and 1885 towards the west end of the town, was in the present Maršala Tita street, the main east–west axis, east of

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province

61

the Ali-Paša mosque. It was much closer to the centre of activities than the original choice of site and on the ‘right’ side of the river – the rents on many of the old Bistrik premises could now be discontinued. It was in a large open space, the musala (meaning ‘area for open-air prayer’), which had been an army parade ground under the previous regime. According to Madžar’s article, the Isabegov vakuf offered it to the Landesregierung on the condition that the Roman Catholic cathedral was not built there. Kállay instructed Württemberg to offer the vakuf 4,000 fl. for it, though it was finally bought for somewhat more.157 It cost over 400,000 fl. to construct, which was more than the yearly total expenditure on the buildings programme for the whole of Bosnia in some of the early years of the occupation.158 The architect Vancaš drew up three possible plans: the administration could choose between early Florentine Renaissance, Italian Gothic and late Italian Renaissance. They went for the early Florentine Renaissance, apparently on the grounds of cost.159 The new building’s partial resemblance to the Medici palace in Florence, which may have served as a model, would perhaps have impressed officials from the Monarchy and curious tourists but would probably not have had the same effect on the local population.160 Madžar records that Vancaš insisted that the main entrance of the building faced north, onto Čemaluša as it was the busiest street, rather than to the quieter street to the south, as the administration had originally intended. An article in Der Bautechniker, a building trade journal based in Vienna, gives a ground-floor plan and section, showing the large double-height hall for banquets and other formal occasions, and lists all the government departments housed inside the building. These included offices of the accounts department, the main official newspaper, Sarajevski List, and the justice department.161 The administration was soon to outgrow the available space, necessitating an extra floor (1911) and further building in the vicinity. The area became established as the new government ‘zone’. A second large administration building for the Landesregierung was built in 1897 on the east side of the first. It replaced an Ottoman structure which had housed the Austro-Hungarian military school following the occupation.162 The railways and building departments moved there, freeing up office space in other buildings. In 1896, the government also constructed a purpose-built printing works in present-day Mis Irbina, just to the south of these buildings, to replace the one in Bistrik; it was presumably important for the printers to be close to the source of all the documents and forms which they produced.163 Yet more Landesregierung offices were built just across the street to the

62

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

south-west of the first set, starting in 1895, and constructed in sections; these were completed by 1903. This major development of office space reflects the growth of bureaucracy in Sarajevo and Bosnia as a whole throughout the Austro-Hungarian period.164 Suitable accommodation in the form of villas for the higher officials was built at Gorica to the north: a house for Herr von Balliff, the Baurat, and another for Herr von Layer, director of the Hilfsamt, are listed by Stix as two of the building costs for that year, funded from the government pension fund.165 They are on rising ground and had good views of the new administration building from the balconies; a healthy 10-minute walk would have brought the official to work. The Civil Adlatus Baron Kutscher’s villa (1894), also built with pension fund money, had views across the new park and was close to the administration building; he lived next door to Herr Stix.166 Sometime around 1896 Dr Joseph Preindlsberger, a high-ranking surgeon at the new hospital, also built a large house in the same street. Architectural design was, almost without exception, based on European models, as were layouts of the interiors.167 This grouping of élite residences around a park suggests a desire on the part of the incomers to recreate some of the more familiar aspects of residential Western life; their counterparts from the indigenous population also became keen to copy this cosmopolitan lifestyle, as will be seen in Chapter 3. The judicial and police departments of the administration were more centrally placed. A prestige site across the street from the Sultan’s mosque at Bistrik was used for the high court, built in 1891 in heavy rectangular and well-rusticated style by Carl Panek, another architect who carried out several commissions for the government. A new prison and a central police station, designed by Karl Pařik to replace those in the old Ottoman government centre, were built on the right bank of the river at the east end of the city in 1893, close to the new town hall site.168 The general appearance of all these public buildings was grandiose and patterned with a range of derivative styles on the façades. Many are similar to those found in Vienna and other large central-European cities in the period, suggesting conservatism in public taste on the part of the administration. However, they were more adventurous in terms of architectural design where there was a prospect of economic gain. In 1886, the Landesregierung, as a pension fund investment, built a smart post office on the west side of the new cathedral square where the Catholic cathedral was in the process of construction. The design was the first by architect Karl Pařik for the government; like Vancaš, he went on to undertake several more commissions for them as well as getting plenty of private work.

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province

63

Figure 2.4  Post Office building. Karl Pařik, 1886. The new cathedral obscures half of the building. The north end (which is a mirror image of the visible part) was later used to house the National Museum before its move to purpose-built premises in 1913. The two-storey building on the opposite side of the square was the original theatre, demolished in 1894 to make way for Babić’s shop and apartments. Source: Hartleben, A. (1892), Reiserouten in Bosnien und der Herzegovina, ÖNB Vienna: 113.855-B. Neu, p. 69.

The building’s exterior decoration conforms to the usual mix of Renaissance elements, but unlike the more sober office structures, it has statues and a grand balcony in the central section of the piano nobile. To provide rental income, it included a café and shops on the ground floor and 21 apartments above.169 This set a precedent for large mixed-use buildings of this type elsewhere in the city, breaking the old Ottoman pattern where living and commerce were kept apart. It is a good example of development built by a public body, intended for a variety of both private and public use.

64

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

The role of the city council was important in changing the face of the city after 1878, particularly in relation to the improvements in infrastructure, but it was not until 1896 that their new purpose-built Rathaus/vijećnica (town hall) was formally opened. The new site was on the right bank of the river, almost opposite their old premises, on a triangle of land surrounded by three streets. It provided a counterbalance to the administration’s own offices at the west end of the city.170 The building was designed by Vienna-trained architects Aleksander Wittek and Ćiril Iveković. The elements of Islamic design in the interior and exterior decoration such as the shape of windows, striped façade and merlons along the roofline were a departure in terms of choice of architectural style for the administration, and yet the structure was essentially European, with solid fired brick walls. The stained glass lantern over the central area echoed a strong feature of western and central European design from the end of the nineteenth century; examples can be seen in Victor Horta’s work in Brussels and in shopping arcades of the period, such as the Parisi Udvar in Budapest.171 The choice of Eastern-influenced elements of decoration, which was common to some government-sponsored confessional buildings discussed later as well as other smaller private developments, can be seen in the context of Kállay’s intention to promote bošnjaštvo, a sense of Bosnian identity, by self-consciously including supposedly Ottoman-style references into the overall design. Although the decorative elements are derived from Arabic and Egyptian architecture rather than anything specifically Bosnian, the building remains an iconic symbol of the city even today.172

Confessional public buildings Donia, in his ‘biography’ of Sarajevo, highlights the administration’s role in the development of public buildings such as churches and reading rooms by various confessions. He notes that by 1882, the administration ‘had secured control over the personnel appointments and budgets of the Catholic and Serbian Orthodox communities’.173 It is not clear how far the relationship was financial and how far it was based on the administration giving its consent in an even-handed fashion to the construction of the various confessional buildings which were developed following the occupation either to replace those lost in the fire or, in some cases, to expand and improve or build completely new institutions to serve the changing demography of the city. Stix’s accounts show that a yearly amount was put aside for Subventionen (subsidies) for schools, churches, mosques and hospitals

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province

65

throughout Bosnia: for the period 1879–87, this amounted to 232,762 fl. 2 kr, equivalent to about 5 per cent of the total expenditure on buildings. Confessions also qualified for relief from tax on building materials.174 The subsidy was split between Schulen and Cultusbauten, the greater part in each year usually being spent on places of worship rather than schools. In 1887, he reports a payment of 48,000 fl. for the first part of the Sheriat Law School in Sarajevo.175 However, from this evidence, it would appear that for the most part, costs of confessional buildings were largely borne by the confessional groups concerned, as was common throughout Europe. This is well exemplified by the Catholic cathedral, completed in 1889; Stix is careful to point out that though it received subsidies in 1884–7, the costs of the actual building came from Privatmitteln (‘private means’), and the lengthy account of the opening in the Catholic periodical Vrhbosna lists contributors in due detail.176 Donia discusses the development of religious buildings in the period in terms of an even-handed balancing act on the part of the Landesregierung, led by Kállay, whose intention was to be seen to treat each confession the same and thus avoid potential rivalries and nationalistic tensions from beyond Bosnia.177 Each confession undertook major building projects in the 1880s and 1890s, reflecting treaties and arrangements which the administration made with the Catholic and Serbian Orthodox Churches. A concordat between the Dual Monarchy and the Vatican in 1881 led to an archbishopric being created in Sarajevo with jurisdiction for bishoprics throughout Bosnia-Hercegovina. The Monarchy also secured an agreement with the Serbian Orthodox Church hierarchy by a convention of 1880, which gave the emperor the right to dismiss the Sarajevo Metropolitan and appoint his successor.178 The Muslim religious leadership was reorganized following the occupation, with a new Reis-ul-ulema, Mustafa Hilmi Omerović, as leader of Muslims in Bosnia. The individual vakufs, which had held large amounts of endowment land and property throughout the Ottoman period, were reorganized by the administration with the creation of a Vakufscommission to oversee and regulate vakuf activities. The main offices were built in 1886 in solidly imposing neo-Renaissance style at the edge of the Ottoman market area on the eastern-most end of Zelenih Beretki (Franz Josefsgasse), with its modern shops selling fancy Western goods.179 The Sephardic Jewish religious hierarchy appear to have been largely unaffected by the changes, continuing to run their own affairs. The Roman Catholic presence, already established before the occupation, expanded considerably thereafter. The new archbishopric was responsible for the building of the small Catholic cathedral in 1889 in the centre of the

66

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

newly developing part of the city (see Figures 2.1 and 2.4). In 1895, Vancaš designed a parish office and accommodation and offices for the Archbishop, Dr Josip Stadler, as well as a Dom Kanonika (priests’ house) nearby. The large seminary of Saints Cyril and Methodius (1893–6, also Vancaš) dominated the ridge to the north of the cathedral, and all these buildings were in easy walking distance of one another.180 The Sisters of Charity, who came from Zagreb and had been active in the city since 1871, had lost their site in the Latinluk area as a result of the great fire.181 In 1883, they built the church of St Vincent de Paul, a convent and school further to the west on the corner of M.Tita and Šenoina; the school was enlarged in 1904, with Secession decorations by Vancaš.182 The Daughters of Divine Love arrived in 1882 and built on the ridge to the northwest of the cathedral. They built another convent and school in 1893, dedicated to St Augustine and also designed by Vancaš, almost immediately behind the cathedral and very close to the new seminary building. In 1898, Archbishop Stadler founded the ‘Bethlehem’ orphanage up on the hill at Bjelava, with room for 100 girls; Bosnischer Bote of 1905 explains its history, activities and qualifications for entry in the section on humanitarian institutions.183 The Franciscans built the small church of St Anthony of Padua at Bistrik on the left bank of the river in 1881 (rebuilt in 1912–14, Vancaš), followed by a monastery on the site of the old Konak next door in 1893, designed by Carl.184 This was totally separate from the other Catholic structures in the centre of the city, representing the uneasy relationship which the Franciscans had with Archbishop Stadler.185 The Serbian Orthodox community already had an old church and ‘new’ cathedral (1863–72) and in 1887 built a seminary for the education of priests at Reljevo outside Sarajevo.186 On a site just to the north of their cathedral, where various members of the community owned property, they built in 1898 a large boys’ and girls’ primary school, which, by 1905, included a girls’ high school. The façade is elegantly divided with neo-classical pilasters and balustrades under the first-floor windows, and moulded plaster panels feature elements such as the owl symbolizing wisdom and a lamp for education. There is no reference, unlike some of the Muslim public buildings, to anything which might be construed as relevant to Serbian Orthodox ‘style’ or culture; rather, the building reflects the shape and style of the administration’s Post Office building from 1886 across the street (Figure 2.4). However, on the south-west corner of the same plot, on the newly developed Štrosmajerova, there followed in the same year a palace for the Metropolitan designed by Rudolf Tönnies.187 The exterior design of the palace echoes aspects of the ‘new’ Orthodox cathedral

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province

67

Figure 2.5  Main entrance of Sheriat Law School. Karl Pařik, 1887.

next door. This ‘palace’ was not entirely intended for private residence; there were shops below. These were rented out to a variety of traders; in 1899, they housed a dressmaker, a shoemaker, a grocery store and a painter’s shop: the income from rents presumably contributed to the upkeep of the building.188 The Metropolitan’s palace forms the north-west corner of the junction between the commercial Zelenih Beretki (then Franz Josefsgasse) and the new Štrosmajerova (then Rudolfsgasse) and looks across to the Ajas-pašin Dvor which later became the Hotel Central. The contrast in styles between the two is striking as the Ajas-Pašin Dvor, designed by Vancaš for the Vakufs-commission

68

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

as an investment property, is built in neo-Moorish style, as were many of the buildings built by the Muslim community at the time.189 One of the first sacred Muslim structures to be built after the AustroHungarians arrived was the Šerijatska Škola (Sheriat Law School, Figure 2.5), designed by Pařik in 1887, also in neo-Moorish style. This was followed by a Kiraethana (reading room) designed by Vancaš in 1888 in a similar style. Vancaš also worked on several other vakuf projects, including the 1898 Dženetić vakuf building just behind the cathedral, which had similar striped decoration and ‘Moorish’ detail around the windows. Like the administration’s pension fund properties, these developments raised funds for the vakufs through income from rents on the apartments and shops. The Serbian Orthodox Church School community also used real estate development to raise funds for its schools, building an apartment house at Šljivingasse (now destroyed) in 1888, and later, between 1910 and 1914, four more investment properties which included apartments and shops for rent. The largest is at M. M. Bašeskiye 58–60, a huge four-storey block richly decorated in Secession style with heads of Mercury and imposingly accentuated doorways, opposite the old Orthodox church.190 The development of these buildings reflected the growing strength of the Serbian Orthodox community in the city at the time. The archbishopric of Bosnia also owned property in the city which generated revenue for investment purposes; this is discussed further in Chapter 3. The Sephardic Jewish welfare organization, La Benevolencia, built a very large business-residential block as its headquarters in 1913; it is likely that much of the space was used to raise rental income to support the poorer members of the Jewish community in the city. Although these confessional buildings cannot be classed as ‘public’ buildings in the strictest sense of the term, they show how the various confessions, often supported by the administration, used investment in property to fund their educational, charitable and religious activities. They contributed secular as well as sacred buildings, sometimes in fashionable secular styles, to the developing urban landscape. The ‘left bank factor’ continued to be an issue in relation to power structures; this applied to confessional building also, as already noted with the Franciscans. The Ashkenazi Jews, most of whom arrived after 1878, had their own meeting place for prayer on the left bank and retained a religious community separate from the Sephardic Jews. When they finally built their own synagogue with a strong mix of neo-Moorish elements (Pařik, 1902), it was on this site on the left bank of the river.191 In 1899, the Evangelical German Church built a large

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province

69

green and yellow church further to the west, also along the left bank; this was later extended. Again, the architect was Pařik, and the very different designs he produced for each client show his versatility.192 The Christian School Brothers, who provided schooling for the poor throughout the world, built a fourclass primary school there for boys in 1895 and, in 1907, a residential block, presumably to raise funds for their work.193 The Sephardic Jews’ only new sacred building from the period appears to have been the Bet Tefila (prayer house) at Bjelava in 1891.194 However, in common with all the confessions, they built schools in the city to educate their children, including a secondary school at Čemaluša 1 in 1902, also by Vancaš. A list of educational institutions in Sarajevo in 1905, published in Bosnischer Bote, contains all the earlier mentioned, plus several medresas (schools for Koranic instruction) alongside the state provision.195 In terms of Donia’s account of attempts by the administration to be confessio­ nally even-handed, the built evidence suggests that the Catholic population had the largest sacred building programme, especially in relation to their relative size.196 Although, as Donia points out, ‘the Ottoman-era religious monuments were largely preserved’ (92 mosques and 6 tekijas [dervish monasteries] were noted in the 1895 Census, which mostly predated the occupation), there seems to have been little building of mosques in the period.197 However, some such as the Sultan’s mosque in Konak street were refurbished and altered (1910–12), apparently at least partly at the expense of the administration, and as noted previously, some Muslim teaching institutions were built.198 As far as siting was concerned, religious buildings of all confessions and denominations were well mixed, particularly in the centre of the ‘Austro-Hungarian’ part of Sarajevo, and in this sense, the administration achieved its objective of promoting the development of a multiconfessional city.

Schools Education was one of the key elements of the Austro-Hungarian policy for cultural mission, and the administration’s educational structures of all kinds are part of the urban fabric of the period in the city.199 As the provincial capital, it was important that Sarajevo should be home to a range of educational establishments, in particular, at secondary level, which would go some way to meet the needs of the province’s population, challenging confessional offerings

70

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

and developing young people who would be useful and appreciative citizens of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Beginnings were small. Before the erection of a purpose-built Gymnasium in 1891, the school was set up in premises rented from a private individual, G. V. Salom, a Sephardic Jewish merchant. It is the building on the right of the theatre building in Figure 2.4. It was later used for the technical middle school. A boys’ primary school and teacher training college were also built in these early years on land near the river by the new embankment. By 1905, when Bosnischer Bote published its list, there were seven state primary schools in Sarajevo, four for boys and two for girls, with a mixed school on the road out to the station. The others were evenly spread throughout the city, including one for boys at Bendbaša, a predominantly Muslim area. As well as the Gymnasium for boys, there was also a girls’ high school on the new embankment, a technical school, a commercial school in the city centre at S. H. Muvekita and the military school on the left bank. The list starts with state schools, then the confessional schools, ending with the Jewish secondary school.200 Education was seen as a way to the hearts and minds of Bosnia’s young people, and the ‘competition’ from the confessional schools, which were closely supervised, was a direct challenge to the administration (e.g. the combined confessional schools for girls at secondary level in Sarajevo outnumbered their own). Subsidies to confessional schools were, as Noel Malcolm puts it, ‘a way of gaining their cooperation and exercising a degree of control’.201 Architects Pařik, Panek and Niemeczek were employed to design imposing structures suited to the administration’s noble intentions. Panek’s boys’ primary school from 1891 succeeded very well, creating a neoclassical structure which dominates the embankment at that point.202 The ‘educational quarter’ in the vicinity of the Gymnasium building was an important visual and physical statement of intent, and there were postcards of this too.203 A large new building at Obala Kulina Bana 3, further to the west along the embankment, was completed in 1909 to provide a new Realgymnasium. The school was by Pařik in the latest, more horizontal style with wider windows with minimal decoration around them. It dominated the frontage to the river. These large, imposing buildings showed the cultural mission at work through both their prominent siting and their architectural design. * A final flowering of government building in heavy monumental style along the river frontage included the new state printing house next to the Realgymnasium site in 1908, the military Post and Telegraph Office at O.K.B. 8 and the huge

The Public Face: Sarajevo as the New Capital of an Austrian Province

71

‘Palace of Justice’ with neo-classical façade to the river at O.K.B. 7. These largescale buildings, in common with several banks from the same period, suggest a huge confidence in the future and the permanence of the régime. Although this confidence turned out to be misplaced, the administration may have been justified in feeling, by 1914, that they had achieved what they had set out to do in Sarajevo. The verdict from (published) Western visitors to the town in the period on the administration’s mission to bring European-style good government and order through the development of the urban fabric of the city was generally positive. Not only ‘official’ historians such as Asbóth but also writers of guide books such as Renner and Hartleben enthusiastically praised the modern development of all types, noting the order, taste and quality of the public buildings and smooth-running of the institutions. The visitors were impressed by the travel connections, the new ‘European standard’ hotels (see Chapter 6), the two cathedrals, the museum and the shops. Two English writers, William Miller and Harry Thomson, apparently on fact-finding missions to report on the changes in Bosnia since the occupation, were uniformly positive, commenting not only on the built environment but also on the ‘comfort, energy and order’ which apparently now prevailed.204 Both writers were keen to emphasize positive comparisons with Britain, which to them obviously represented a yardstick with which to measure civilization and modernity as they understood it. This suggests that for the average military or civilian official, a posting to Sarajevo by the 1890s would have done more to come up to his expectations of the way in which a modern capital city (albeit small) should look and function than it had for his colleague arriving in 1878. The number of officials in the province grew from c.600 in 1881 to 9,533 in 1908, and the apartment-style properties, which were built by private developers to house them, suggest that for many it was a family posting; other people also came on business and to do private work in the city.205 In this sense, the aim of creating a city based on the mental ‘blueprint’ of Vienna or Budapest, with good communications, comfortable and safe streets and infrastructure, had gone at least some way to being realized. However, the city still retained many of its Ottoman, pre-occupation aspects such as the indigenous housing, particularly on the hills to the north and south, and its traditional workshop/shop-based core, which carried out traditional trades, in Baščaršija. The predominant population too, mainly still retaining its traditional dress and customs, was still not ‘Europeanized’, as can be seen in photographs and postcards from the time. Sarajevo may have had a ‘new’ face for the middle-class visitor and inhabitant, but many aspects of the pre-occupation life persisted too.

72

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

How far it could be said that Sarajevo was a ‘showpiece’ for any evidence of the Austro-Hungarian civilizing mission on the ground is harder to assess. Certainly many ways of thinking, building, organizing and recording the life of the city had changed out of all recognition as a result of their efforts, and these changes had created the basis for swift growth and development in many areas. It was certainly possible to have a comfortable, ‘European’ existence in this tiny provincial capital if one had sufficient money or connections. The urban fabric, and, in particular, the buildings, increasingly showed the influence of new architectural styles and presented a modern face for the visitor. New technological developments such as the telephone, electric tram and use of concrete and asphalt created new possibilities for communication, transport within the city and building. The provision of schools, a new hospital, better rail and road communication and improved water and drainage systems also suggested a degree of success in European terms in the public sphere, and the profusion of sacred and educational structures built by the various confessions showed the administration’s policy of even-handed respect for religious diversity in physical form. However, the piecemeal nature of the redevelopment of the city, combined with a lack of central funding for more structured redevelopment, meant that their plan for new growth on wide, straight streets was only partially realized, and major elements of the Ottoman urban fabric were retained among the newer buildings. The Austro-Hungarian changes to Sarajevo could be seen to have been made largely for and by the middle classes, and there is no doubt that this sector of the population particularly benefited from the increased comfort and living standards created in the public sphere. The next chapter discusses the way in which their needs and comfort were also provided for in the private sphere in the form of European-style housing and shops which did more even than the administration’s public building programmes to develop the European face of the city.

3

The Private Face: Middle-Class Building Development in Sarajevo

The new city . . . was largely put up by private capital. “Austrian Sarajevo” was therefore not an absolutistic urban creation but basically the product of an industrious society – local or “foreign” in origin – aiming for a maximum taxability both of space and of the parcels they purchased and built on. It was a product of capitalism.1

So concludes Maximilian Hartmuth when discussing the impact of the AustroHungarian period on the city of Sarajevo, having first refuted the notion of an urban form which was imposed from above, with a minimal role for local élite groups and the private sector. He emphasizes that ‘a multi-storey apartment ­building . . . was simply a better investment than a typical “Turkish house” ’.2 A close examination of the evidence of private development in the period confirms his assertions, and an analysis of the role and identity of builders and investors and the context in which they were operating reveals much information about the different types of people who were prominent in Sarajevo at the time and how they regarded themselves, their city and their potential tenants. It suggests a developing middle class and shows how far they were influenced by current standards of taste, developments in technology and economic pressures and how far these overrode (or did not override) confessional loyalties and social and political alliances. Programmes of public building in the city, executed by and for the administration, city council and confessional groups have already been described both in this study and elsewhere, but, apart from architectural works by Ibrahim Krzović and Nedžad Kurto, which include details of ownership for many properties of particular architectural interest, no research has previously been conducted on either the extent of private building in Sarajevo during Austro-Hungarian rule or the identity of the builders.3 Yet, a visual survey of the Western-style buildings from the 1878 to 1918 period still extant shows a huge variety in size, decoration and quality as well as three different types of private development.4 Archival material in the form of plans in Istorijski Arhiv Sarajevo

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

74

(the city archive) and Arhiv Bosne i Hercegovine (the national archive) and occasional articles in the Viennese builder’s journal Der Bautechniker provide evidence of the names of some of the original builders and often give insights into their motivations for building.5 The plans indicate whether the building was intended as a private family house (Villa, Einfamilienhaus or occasionally Palast/Palata), an apartment block for rent (Zinshaus) or a residential block which included shop and/or office space on the ground floor and often also on a mezzanine floor above (Geschäfts und Wohnhaus/stambeno-poslovna).6 The range of private building which is explored in this study demonstrates clearly that Hartmuth is correct in his assertion that Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo was the product of ‘private capital’, both ‘local’ and ‘foreign’.

Private development

Number of buildings

The number of building projects in the public sector, including infrastructure and confessional development for public or fund-raising purposes, as discussed in Chapter 2, was considerably less than that for the private sector (see Figures 2.3 and 3.1). The latter began more slowly as a result of the uncertain economic climate following the occupation and initial unwillingness of many private builders to comply with the building regulations put in place after the great fire of 1879. This was despite relief from building and related property taxes designed to encourage new growth.7

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Figure 3.1  Graph showing numbers of recorded private buildings in survey, 1880–1918.8 Source: Data from Sparks, M. (2006), Chronological Record of Buildings in Sarajevo, 1880-1918. See Appendix 1, online.

The Private Face: Middle-Class Building Development in Sarajevo

75

The graph shows this ‘slow’ start and also the ‘boom’ periods in the late 1880s, mid-1890s and 1910–11. As not all new buildings are recorded, it may not give an entirely accurate picture. However, the censuses, which the AustroHungarians carried out, list the total number of houses and households in the city of Sarajevo at different points in the period: Hamdija Kreševljaković notes that in 1918 there were 7,274 ‘houses’ (stambene kuće) in Sarajevo, only about 1000 more than in 1879 when the AustroHungarians arrived. However, this apparently small increase disguised huge differences between the type of ‘house’ that existed in 1879 and the buildings that were counted as a ‘house’ by the end of the period.10 The Ottoman-style vernacular houses, generally home to only one household, gradually gave way in some parts of the city to apartment buildings. Todor Kruševac, in his work on the development of the city’s economy in relation to the building trade, gives figures for more than 25,000 square metres of new build in 1912 alone, of which over 15,000 square metres were four-storey buildings, intended for multiple-occupancy use.11 These figures indicate the demand for the larger type of apartment housing later in the period and make it clear that a ‘house’, in the terms of the census, might in fact be subdivided, or be an apartment building, and contain more than one household. The figures in Table 3.1 show the effect of the great fire on the housing stock between 1879 and 1885, though by the latter date rebuilding was well underway.12 Within the period between the first two censuses, although the stock of houses diminished by 184, there was an increase of 994 in the number of households, indicating growing demand on old-style housing stock. Between 1885 and 1895, the number of houses increased by 1,060 (the total figure including uninhabited houses) and the number of households by 1,609, suggesting some multiple occupancy. Counting inhabited houses only, between 1895 and 1910, the figures for houses rose by 1,110, while the number of households increased by 3,700. Coupled with the material evidence of the buildings themselves, this shows that many sites which had old-style, single-occupancy houses were redeveloped for new-style apartment and commercial use. Although it is difficult to assess the relatively low increase in houses in relation to households accurately owing to the change in the method of recording which stipulated the inclusion of ‘inhabited’ and ‘uninhabited’ by 1895, this low increase shows the shift to apartment-style living: with only a total increase of 426 ‘houses’ over the period between 1879 and 1910, the housing stock was able to accommodate 6,303 more households. The change to apartment use can also be seen in Table 3.4, where, by 1910, the mean number of people in any ‘house’ has risen from 3.5 in 1879 to 7.94.

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

76

Table 3.1  Numbers of houses, households and total population for Sarajevo, 1879–1910, according to census figures 1879 Hses 6,110

Hhlds 5,305

1885 Pop 21,377

Hses 5,926

Hhlds 6,299

1895* Pop 26,268

Hses 5,425

Hhlds 7,908

1910* Pop 38,083

Hses 6,536

Hhlds 11,608

Pop 51,919

Source:  Official Census Figures.9 *The statistics for houses in 1895 indicates ‘inhabited’/‘uninhabited’ houses; this table uses the ‘inhabited’ figure. The ‘uninhabited’ figure is 1,562, a relatively large proportion of the total number of houses (6,987), which may indicate building activity or, alternatively, ‘local-style’ houses which were no longer in use. The data for 1910 only include ‘inhabited’ houses.

The Private Face: Middle-Class Building Development in Sarajevo

77

Table 3.2  Changes in the number of households taken from the census figures given in Table 3.1, showing changes in mean household size over time Date Number of households Total population Mean number of people per household

1879

1885

1895

1910

  5,305 21,377 4.03

  6,299 26,268 4.17

  7,908 38,083 4.81

11,608 51,919 4.47

Table 3.3  Mean number of households per house Date

1879*

1885

1895

1910

Number of houses Number of households Mean number of households per house

6,110 5,305 0.87

5,926 6,299 1.06

5,425 7,908 1.46

6,536 11,608 1.8

*The proportion indicated in the ‘mean number of households’ box indicates that, in fact, many of these houses were uninhabited at the time; Kreševljaković suggests 805 out of the total of 6,110, as he notes that it was unusual at the time for any house to have more than one household in it.13

Table 3.4  Mean number of inhabitants per house Date Number of houses Total population Mean number of inhabitants per house

1879

1885

1895

1910

  6,110 21,377 3.5

  5,926 26,268 4.43

  5,425 38,083 7.02

  6,536 51,919 7.94

The  results are less obvious in Table 3.3, where comparable data suggest an increase of less than one additional household per ‘house’ over the period. This can be  explained by the fact that the majority of the housing stock still consisted of the smaller local-style houses on the periphery of the city and on the steep slopes in areas such as Bjelava, Kovači and Bistrik, which continued to be inhabited in the old way. This continuity is an important element in any assessment of change and development in the city during the period. The low figure for the number of households per house in 1879 reflects, at least in part, the considerable emigration which occurred around the time of the occupation. There has been much debate on the accuracy of population figures around this time because it may not have included the number of refugees who left during the occupation period, some of whom subsequently returned, aided by repatriation funding from the occupiers.14 The rise in household size towards the end of the period (Table 3.2) suggests the presence of more family units, perhaps attracted to the city by economic growth and also

78

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

by the increase in the relative comfort and amenities of both the housing stock and the city itself. In the first years of Austro-Hungarian rule, Sarajevo cannot have seemed a family friendly posting for the occupiers. After the fire of 1879, there was a serious shortage of housing, partly owing to the billeting of soldiers within the city, which continued until new barracks were completed. This lack of suitable accommodation for the new officials was a problem noted by several commentators.15 Friedrich Schlesinger’s 1902 report on economic development in Bosnia-Hercegovina recalled the housing situation following the occupation: ‘The existing types of domestic building in the province had little to satisfy modern tastes for security, shelter from the winter cold and comfort.’16 Those unused to Ottoman-style housing arrangements found the available rented rooms cramped and dirty. Dr Ćiro Truhelka, who arrived in the city in 1886 from Zagreb to take up his post as a permanent official for the newly formed National Museum Society, describes his accommodation thus: After a lot of searching I found a ‘furnished’ room on the corner of Čemaluša and the Kulovićgasse, in the house of Huršid-Effendi. . . . Here I got a room on the ground floor with a window onto the courtyard. The room was modest, over-modest for a modest man. The floor was of tiles, the door had no lock, the windows let in draughts on all sides, and the furnishings comprised a military cot with a straw mattress, a small table with two rickety easy chairs and an old chest with a lead washing bowl upon it. The only advantage of this damp apartment was that it was near the Regierungspalast, and in the vicinity of a good eating house.17

The fact that a relatively senior official such as Truhelka found himself in these circumstances on his arrival shows that, for newcomers, the lack of comfortable housing was a very real difficulty.

Areas of development This shortage of housing led to high rents, forcing the administration to use pension fund money to build housing for their more senior officials. However, speculative building of houses and apartment blocks in the region of the Regierungspalast at the west end of the city by local entrepreneurs prompted by tax breaks and the chance to use investment capital with a good return gradually made up the shortfall and provided more suitable accommodation for the new arrivals. Initially, there was building across the new park which was laid out to the north of the Regierungspalast, and August Braun built the first stage of his

The Private Face: Middle-Class Building Development in Sarajevo

79

large Viennese-style apartment block, the Marienhof/Marijin Dvor, in 1885, and completed the second part in 1897.18 The building provided 78 apartments of varying sizes from one room to four, with kitchen and lavatory, on four levels, including shops on the ground floor facing the main street. It must have seemed a disproportionately large building when it was first constructed, as much of the surrounding area was undeveloped and other buildings were of autochthonous construction and only one or two storeys high.19 It was built on part of the Zigeunerviertel (gypsy quarter) at the west end of the town, beyond the ‘inner city’, which was delineated at that end by the Koševo stream, where land values were cheaper than the city centre.20 The site belonged to Javer and Daniel Baruh until 1891, when Braun bought it.21 Plans by the administration detailed in Chapter 2 indicate that Braun’s development was intended as the first of a new type of Ringstrasse-style large apartment block on wide streets which extended westwards on a grid pattern as far as the Tito barracks. The new apartment block was well sited on the road which led to the new railway station, with a horse-drawn tram service going past its doors into the centre of the city, and might reasonably have been expected to increase considerably in value.22 However, further development in that area was slow to take off and did not really get going until the late 1890s. Proximity to the gypsy quarter and being on the ‘other’ side of the stream may not have helped; the tobacco factory opposite may also have affected the area’s popularity. Other institutional buildings such as the Pension Fund Administration building and the headquarters of the Bosnabahn (Bosnian Railway Company) were built in the vicinity, which doubtless increased the demand by officials for suitable accommodation nearby. The gradual embankment and regulation of the Miljacka, including replacement and building of new bridges, contributed to the development of modern-style housing on the left bank of the river. However, this side was never as popular for redevelopment as the right bank, which included the city centre. There were some villas there, such as Karl von Langer’s with its eye-catching Ottoman-style windows, balcony and façade onto the street, showing that a few of the more senior officials of the administration chose this quieter, more spacious area.23 There were also several smaller apartment blocks in the two streets, Hamdija Kreševljakovića and Skenderija, which run parallel to the river on the south side; the earlier ones were mainly two-storey, but developments later in the period were larger and had three storeys or more.24 The new iron Skenderija bridge directly to the south of the Regierungspalast, which replaced

80

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

the old wooden one following the embankment of that section in 1893, was wide enough for vehicular traffic in the centre and had pedestrian walkways on both sides, making crossing the river much easier at this western end of the city. However, both the quantity and quality of the housing, as well as the relative lack of redevelopment, when coupled with the evidence from a study of trades and businesses discussed in Chapter 4, suggest that the left bank of the river, particularly at the west end (Čobanja onwards), was never very fashionable. When assessing development in different parts of the city, it is notable that some areas, such as the traditionally Muslim and mainly residential districts of Kovači and Vratnik, changed very little during the period as far as new building styles and different types of development were concerned, retaining their largely ‘Ottoman’ character. This also applied to the Bistrik/Hrvatin area to the south-east, though the hilly nature of the terrain in each case may also have been a deterrent to speculative builders of large apartment blocks. The largest area for development was undoubtedly the relatively flat space, much of which had been destroyed by fire in 1879, along the three main commercial streets from Baščaršija west as far as the Koševo stream, bounded by the Miljacka to the south and the line of hills behind Čemaluša to the north. Although some ‘modern’ buildings were erected in the streets which extended north from there (e.g. Logavina, the Bjelava area), they were a minority. As the main Westernstyle centre filled up, the Koševo valley became a new focus for development, as did the Hiseta area to the south of Marijin Dvor.

Mapping and recording change and private ownership One of the factors which made such a detailed study of urban development in Sarajevo possible is the Austrian enthusiasm for recording. Shortly after the occupation, work began on surveying the new territory.25 The Sarajevo Kataster map was finished in 1882 and published in 1884 at a scale of 1:3125. The map is approximately 2 metres by 4 metres, printed on 16 panels backed with cloth, and shows the whole city from east to west as far as the new station. It also includes a larger-scale map (1:1562.5) of ‘Čaršia’ [sic], the market area. The map is coloured, and the key shows details of types of garden and forest, public and private buildings, buildings of stone and wood, burnedout buildings and ruins and various kinds of bridge and road or track. The mahalas are all listed, as are street and square names. Features such as the new

The Private Face: Middle-Class Building Development in Sarajevo

81

slaughterhouse on the edge of the city and the various toll posts on entry roads are all marked. This map is extremely useful, partly owing to its size and clarity, in giving a ‘baseline’ for subsequent development, as it indicates where there were gardens, workshops or other buildings on plots which have subsequently been redeveloped. It also shows the street layout in 1882, before key focal points for the administration such as the cathedral square were cleared. Subsequent maps including those in Hartleben’s series of guidebooks to Bosnia-Hercegovina show how the city developed over time, though these were neither always accurate, particularly in terms of development on the outskirts of the city, nor did they always keep up with recent change.26 Baedeker published a similar tourist map in 1905, and there are later maps by others such as Finci (1914/18), Kajon (local printers and publishers) (1906/7) and Walny (1904/8 and other dates – based on surveys by the Imperial Military-Geographical Institute in Vienna and linked to the directory Bosnischer Bote).27 Despite the inaccuracies, when combined with the evidence on the ground in the form of extant Austro-Hungarian structures, present-day maps which show footprints for many of the buildings and information from the numerous postcards which were published in Sarajevo from the mid-1890s, it is possible to see changes and development in the urban fabric over the period and in some of the houses in particular.28 More general comments on the areas and types of development in the private sector noted earlier are based on these sources of information. Another valuable form of evidence is the planning applications, which, with the Kataster record, indicate ownership of buildings and the development of a strong private property-owning élite in Sarajevo during the Austro-Hungarian period, together with a middle-class clientèle who rented accommodation of this type. Krzović’s study of a sample of about 100 such buildings provides a starting point for exploration of who built and owned property, whether plots or buildings were passed on by inheritance or sold, when and with whom such trading occurred and whether property was mainly sold to other members of the same confession or other confessions and ‘outsiders’.29 However, Krzović’s sample is relatively small (approximately one-tenth of the total number of new builds and extensions of this type). His individual examples also give different levels of information, often depending on the siting of the building; buildings in the city centre may have a full list of ownership from 1886 (the first Kataster records), while those in the suburbs where development did not begin until after the mid-1900s (e.g. parts of Koševo, Valtera Perića) only have ownership details from the date of the building. Therefore, for some, it

82

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

is possible to track multiple property transfers in the period, while for some, it seems that the initial date of development is the only evidence. It must also be borne in mind that Krzović only worked on the larger buildings from the 1878–1918 period which were of architectural interest and had required planning permission; the planning office was where he gained much of his evidence; he gained evidence also from buildings extant in the streets. His study was not concerned with the mass of autochthonous housing in the suburbs and areas outside the core of the city which had not required planning permission or dated from before the period of study. However, as this book explores the economic and social aspects of property development as an investment, and the buildings for which he has gathered information are largely of this type, his material provides useful data. Using additional data from Kurto and archival sources, it is also possible to assess, at least to a small degree, whether developers built in confession-specific areas of the city (suggesting confessional segregation) or if development occurred as and where space became available to developers’ economic advantage, creating a spatial mix of ownership.30 The evidence is valuable in exploring the extent to which social class and wealth were more important than confessional allegiance and also whether being an ‘outsider’ was any barrier to integration at this level. It also indicates who was able to benefit most from the economic policies put in place following the occupation.

Spatial comparison of property ownership by confession, 1886–1918 In order to assess whether there were specific areas in the city which were predominantly owned in the private sector by any particular confession, research on building plans in the archives, plus Krzović’s data and information from Kurto, was used to plot property ownership by confession in 1886 and 1918 (when the Austrians departed). The information was added to plans already made as part of this study to record buildings of various types, public, private and business for the years 1885–9 and 1915–18, respectively, to create maps of confessional property ownership.31 According to Ottoman law, only Muslims could own land. Therefore, it could be expected that, at the occupation, the only real estate owners in Sarajevo would have been the Muslim élite.32 Krzović’s data from 1886 show that, by then, parts of the modern city centre, following the fire of 1879, were owned by Serbian

The Private Face: Middle-Class Building Development in Sarajevo

83

Orthodox and Sephardic Jews. Of course, ownership in 1886 does not mean that the same people had been owners in 1878. Some Muslims left Bosnia after the occupation, and this may have been a prime time for property transfers, given the new laws on ownership introduced by the Austro-Hungarians, which overturned the Ottoman law, and the effects of the great fire.33 Schlesinger reports that many merchants had lost fortunes in the fire; they may have sold land to recoup losses.34 However, Paulina Irby’s account of Sarajevo before 1878 points out that Ottoman law did, in fact, allow the purchase of property by nonMuslims at that stage, so long as all the neighbouring owners first had the right of refusal.35 Austro-Hungarian maps relating to the rebuilding of the city after the fire in 1879–80 show Jewish and Serbian-Orthodox ownership as well as Muslim (insofar as any ownership is noted).36 The evidence available suggests that by the time of the occupation, there was some non-Muslim land ownership in Sarajevo. The 1886 census figures indicate that all districts in the city were home to a mix of confessions. The first parts of Table 3.5 and Figure 3.2 indicate this mix and, when compared with the 1910 figures, show changes during the period. The growth in the number of Catholics in the Koševo and Bjelava districts, for example, as well as on the left bank in Hrvatin and Bistrik/Čobanje, demonstrates the preferred areas where immigrants were settling, partly at least because of the modern housing development there. By contrast, the mainly Muslim areas of Kovači and Grad, where there was less modern development, retained their Muslim majorities throughout the period, though there was some growth in the Serbian Orthodox population there too. As these are figures for the district of residence, rather than ownership of property, they are not directly relevant to the discussion of confessional ownership, but they do show how the different confessions were not exclusively confined to specific areas of the city and also where many of the immigrants settled after the occupation. Since their arrival in the sixteenth century, the Sephardic Jewish population had been based in the ‘Velika Avlija’ (‘Great yard’), which contained two synagogues between the eastern ends of Ferhadija and Čemaluša, and by 1878, many were settled in the Bjelava area to the north-west.37 Some owned land and buildings on the slopes to the south-west of the city, near their cemetery at Kovaćima.38 By 1886, Sephardic Jewish property holdings were recorded along the level area to the west of the old synagogue and north of Ferhadija, as far as its junction with Maršala Tita (the middle of the old Čemaluša street). The Serbian Orthodox owned property to the south of Ferhadija in a tight grouping west from the Hotel

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

84

Table 3.5  Areas of residence by confession: 1885/1910 Sarajevo districts – 1885 Number of houses Number of households Muslim Serbian Orthodox Roman Catholic Jewish Other

I Čaršija

II Koševo

2,114 1,551 846 1,813 1,949 1,541 57

393 528 981 427 620 78 15

III Bjelava 659 810 2,766 162 193 688 17

IV Kovači

V Grad

1,065 1,325 3,770 1,643 152 260 6

543 523 2,322 6 4 3 7

VI Hrvatin 392 663 1,980 209 170 19 3

VII Čobanija 760 899 3,067 106 229 1 1

Sarajevo districts – 1910 I Čaršija Number of houses Number of households Muslim Serbian Orthodox Roman Catholic Sephardic Jews Ashkenazi Jews Evangelicals

593 1,486 387 1,478 2,477 1,558 597 123

II Koševo 845 2,304 1,077 1,417 6,471 59 263 195

III Bjelava 1,001 1,708 2,266 1,114 3,353 1,694 94 63

IV Kovači

V Grad

1,343 1,903 4,612 2,184 838 1,141 89 26

802 856 3,313 256 40 13 . .

VI Hrvatin 1,031 1,446 3,066 1,228 1,627 194 74 47

VII Bistrik, Čobanija 1,247 1,905 3,739 773 1,559 326 295 93

Source: Census data in Ortschaftschafts-und-Bevőlkerungs-Statistik von Bosnien und der Hercegovina (1886). Sarajevo: Landesdruckerei; Rezultati popisa žiteljstva u Bosni i Hercegovini (1912), Sarajevo: Zemaljska Štamparija.

The Private Face: Middle-Class Building Development in Sarajevo Areas of residence by confession – Sarajevo 1885

4,000

Muslim SO RC

3,500 3,000 Population

85

Jewish Other

2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0

7,000 6,000 Population

5,000

Čaršija

Koševo

Bjelava

Kova�i Districts

Grad

Hrvatin Čobanija

Areas of residence by confession – Sarajevo 1910 Muslim SO RC

Sephardic Jewish Ashkenazi Jewish Evangelicals

4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0

Čaršija Koševo Bjelava Kova�i Grad Districts

Hrvatin Bistrik,Čobanija

Figure 3.2  Graphs showing comparisons in areas of residence by confession, 1885/1910.

Europa as far as the new Orthodox cathedral, bounded to the south by the river. Land holdings were also grouped around the old Orthodox church on the northwest edge of the market area, Baščaršija. Before 1878, there had been a small ‘Latin quarter’ (Latinluk) near the Latin bridge, traditionally inhabited by the Catholic minority, with its own church and primary schools. There were apparently very few developments by Catholics, either local or immigrant, at this time. Few of the private buildings which Krzović lists appear to be in Muslim hands despite their predominance as a confession. This apparently low number results from the fact

86

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

that he concentrated on the legacy of Austro-Hungarian period architecture and recorded few of the numerous privately owned Muslim buildings and the many small dwellings built in the old Ottoman style which remained from the time before the occupation or were built afterwards. In 1886, though there were elements of ‘grouping’, map and the census material in Table  3.5 indicate that there does not appear to have been rigorous confessional spatial segregation. The picture for 1918 is certainly much fuller, with a spread of property over a much larger area, particularly to the west in the Valtera Perića area and at Koševo. The Sephardic Jewish community increased their holdings considerably. There was some confessional grouping (though individual properties are in different names), and owners had redeveloped parts that they owned in 1886: it is not clear whether they extended holdings by buying next to those already owned or whether the ownership had become apparent owing to the redevelopment. Some developments, such as the Salom palace at M. Tita 54, were very large, with shops and apartments up to six floors (including a mansard roof level) surrounding a courtyard; others were smaller apartment blocks, often part of a group in a street owned by different members of the Sephardic Jewish community, as on the east side of Kaptol, where the Saloms, Danons and Fincis all owned property. Members of the élite Serbian Orthodox families, the Petrovićs, Jeftanovićs and Besarovićs dominated the landholdings for their confession, and they and other members of their élite group also supported the Serbian Orthodox Church School community with donations of land to build its own residential/business blocks to raise income for its work. The core area for Serbian Orthodox property ownership which was present in the 1886 map was also present in 1918, though it is diffused by Sephardic Jewish and Catholic immigrant development. It certainly could not be viewed as an especially Serbian Orthodox area. There were a few new Serbian Orthodox developments a little further west of the original core, along Zelenih Beretki, and to the east of the old Orthodox church, but for the most part, redevelopment seems to have been in the area indicated by the ownership pattern from 1886. There were some examples of Muslim development in a European style during the period. They were mainly apartment houses for rent in the Bistrik and Skenderija areas on the left bank of the river and along the south embankment, though there were a couple of apartment blocks in the Koševo region too. A redevelopment in Kovači from 1907 represented the desire of a wealthy Muslim lawyer named Biserović, whose family were pearl importers, to rehouse his family in a more ‘modern’ and sanitary residence after the death of one of his children from scarlet fever. It is a splendid villa with internal fittings including a bathroom,

The Private Face: Middle-Class Building Development in Sarajevo

87

very much in the European style, with herringboned wooden floors and wide double doors. According to an oral history of the house, architects were invited from Vienna. The new house was resited along the street building line rather than in the garden as the previous house had been. All these elements reflect the Muslim élite’s acceptance of aspects of the fashionable European middle-class lifestyle which had developed in Sarajevo during the Austro-Hungarian period. The northern embankment of the river, which created a new street on the right bank (now Obala Kulina Bana), was very evenly shared between confessions in terms of development and was also popular with government departments and banking institutions as a prestigious and visible site. The most striking change when comparing the two maps is the volume of Catholic/ immigrant development. This is not surprising given the change in the Catholic percentage of the total population of Sarajevo from 3.26 per cent in 1879 (678 people) to 34.51 per cent (17,922 people) in 1910.39 The development was well interspersed with buildings by other confessions in the centre of the city. The immigrants formed the majority in the newly developed areas to the west at Koševo, on the approach to the new city hospital and near the main government offices by the Ali-Paša mosque. There was also much Catholic/immigrant development in the western Marijin Dvor area, including Valtera Perića and Kralja Tvrtka streets in the Hiseta region, though there were large Sephardic Jewish residential/business buildings also. This area, close to the government tobacco factory and military hospital and barracks, was one of the latest areas to come under development, and much of it had been open fields at the time of the occupation. A comparison of the two maps shows elements of continuity in confessional grouping but also much change and development. There is no clear evidence of specifically mono-confessional areas in the centre of the city, and confession seemed to have been no bar to investment (see transfer of property later in this chapter). However, there is evidence of a ‘left bank/right bank’ mentality, which resulted in the development on the left bank of relatively small size housing, shops and businesses, suggesting that the area was less popular, less influential and less busy.

Building development: the investors Analysis of data about individual investors in new building projects suggests an integrated local business élite which transcended confessional divisions, not

88

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

only in terms of investment but also in spatial terms. It seems that class and economic and commercial investment considerations overrode confessional loyalties in many cases where building development was concerned, and as the period progressed, wealthy investors who had moved to Sarajevo following the occupation were also taking an active role in this aspect of business life. The ‘European’ model of private property development of apartment buildings, often including shop and business space, was already common in Vienna, Budapest and other major cities in Europe at the time. With the arrival of credit institutions following the occupation, many of the Sarajevo élite began to invest in this type of real estate rather than (or as well as) in goods for trading. However, there were marked confessional differences in the relative proportions of population to real estate investment (see Tables 3.6 and 3.7). The Muslim population, which according to census figures retained a (diminishing) majority as a confessional group in Sarajevo, built a disproportionately small percentage of the buildings which are represented in the sample. The ­Serbian Orthodox group, though it started by building a larger percentage of the total than its relative population, shows a similar proportion to its percentage of population later in the period. Jews, though starting the period as only just under 10 per cent of the population and rising to 12.33 per cent, built 31.5 per cent of the total buildings in the sample and are responsible for as many as the far more numerous Catholic group overall, showing their relative importance within the economic community. The figures for the percentage of private Catholic building show a rise similar to the demographic change, with a ‘high’ of 39 per cent of the total buildings between 1900 and 1910; this suggests that wealthier immigrants saw Sarajevo as a good investment opportunity. When interrogating these results, the previously mentioned limitations of the sample must be taken into consideration. Regarding the Muslim figures, the fact that they continued to build in the ‘old’ style, which was not a part of the architectural sample, must be a factor in their apparently low percentage of buildings, as these would not normally have appeared in the building record. The figures do not represent a full picture of all buildings, although the census figures do represent percentages of the total population of Sarajevo. Some examples of Muslim buildings which are in the sample, such as the Biserović family home at Kovači, show that the Muslim élite did sometimes build family residences for themselves, though they built relatively little in the European style for rental or investment purposes. This may be related to the fact that

The Private Face: Middle-Class Building Development in Sarajevo

89

Table 3.6  Percentage of total building by each confession for sample of buildings in Sarajevo, 1880–1918 Date 1880–1889 1890–1899 1900–1909 1910–1918 Total from sample for period

Serbian Roman Sephardic Muslim Orthodox Catholic Jewish 0 0% 6 11% 15 16% 10 13% 31 13%

4 31% 9 17% 9 10% 14 18% 36 15%

3 23% 16 30% 36 39% 20 25% 75 31.5%

4 31% 20 37% 26 28% 25 31% 75 31.5%

Other

Total buildings in sample

2 15% 3 6% 6 7% 10 13% 21 9%

13 100% 54 100% 92 100% 79 100% 238 100%

The upper figure in each pair represents the number of buildings built in each time period by members of a particular confession; the one below is the percentage of the total for that time period. Figures for percentages were rounded up or down to the nearest whole number (the set for 1910–18 add up to 101 per cent according to this system). Figures are based on Sparks, M. (2006), Chronological Record of Buildings in Sarajevo, 1880–1918 (see Appendix 1).

Table 3.7  Demographic change, listed by confession, Sarajevo, 1879–1921

Date

Muslim

Serbian Orthodox

1879

14,848 69.45% 15,787 60.09% 17,787 45.06% 18,460 35.57% 21,465 35.73%

3,747 17.52% 4,431 16.88% 5,858 15.39% 8,450 16.27% 12,479 20.77%

1885 1895 1910 1921 (post-AH)

Roman Catholic 678 3.26% 3,326 12.66% 10,672 28.02% 17,922 34.51% 18.076 30.08%

Jewish (Sephardic and Ashkenazi) Other 2,077 9.74% 2,618 9.96% 4,054 10.64% 6,397 12.33% 7,427 12.36%

7 0.03% 106 0.41% 337 0.89% 690 1.32% 640 1.06%

Total 21.377 100% 26,267 100% 38.083 100% 51,919 100% 60,087 100%

Table 3.7 is laid out as Table 3.6; the upper figure refers to population as counted for the census, the lower one to its expression as a percentage of the total population of the city. The census figures for the Jewish Confessional group amalgamated the two types until 1895 and therefore cannot be directly compared with Table 3.6, where Ashkenazi Jewish builders are listed as ‘Other’. The Sephardic group alone is, thus, even smaller than the figures given here, but no separate figures are available for the earlier censuses. The demographic trends by confession, as recorded in the Austro-Hungarian censuses of the city, carried out as part of the census for the whole of Bosnia, are quoted in Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 38.

90

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

many had large estates elsewhere in Bosnia, and their capital was ‘tied up’. It may also be a reflection of religious attitudes to credit, debt and investment income.40 It was uncommon for other confessions to build solely for their personal use, certainly on the scale which appears in the sample; though the owner might have lived in the ‘best’ apartment, most building was mainly for investment purposes.

Property portfolios The data from which the sample was taken and also information from Kurto’s book which lists works by various architects, including names of customers, have made it possible to draw up lists of property owned by major investors.41 Several investors owned multiple properties simultaneously, and it was interesting to discover whether property was ‘rolled over’ to provide further investment capital or whether buildings were mainly retained by the owners to provide income and service loans. Schlesinger, in his article on the economy, notes that developers could get up to 20 per cent return on their capital through building for rental purposes.42 With a 6 per cent interest rate in 1902, this suggests a clear incentive for capital-rich investors despite a 4 per cent tax on rental income.43 When assembling ‘portfolios’, several local élite families were prominent – the Saloms, Kabiljos, Danons and Fincis from the Sephardic Jewish community, the Jeftanovićs, Besarovićs and Petrovićs from the Serbian Orthodox community and individual investors such as August Braun, who, as well-being a major real estate developer, set up a brickworks and a building materials empire. Public bodies too were involved in real estate ownership and development; the archbishopric of Bosnia had a large portfolio, and several confessional organizations such as the Vakufs-commission and the Serbian-Orthodox Church School community also invested in property to provide funds for their charitable work in the city. Individual Muslims did not generally invest in property of this sort, as noted earlier. Most of the buildings featured in portfolio lists were retained by the families or individuals who owned or built them (insofar as the data from Krzović’s work provided relevant evidence), though Ante Štambuk, a vigorous investor from 1902 until 1911, with at least seven large and very large properties to his name at different times, seems to have sold at least four of these before 1918, suggesting that he did roll his capital over for

The Private Face: Middle-Class Building Development in Sarajevo

91

reinvestment. The archbishopric of Bosnia owned land which was built on by others – for example, the site of the Corps-Commando building in H. Kreševljakovića; this was not sold until 1917. In exploring multiple ownership relating to Sephardic Jewish families, though it was clear that particular people owned property, as many have the same family name, it was not possible to obtain information on more than a couple of rudimentary relationships which related to inheritance. Some names, such as Giuseppe Vita Salom, a merchant from Triest, and Josef Zadik Danon, occurred frequently; it seems likely from Krzović’s data that many of the other Saloms and Danons noted are their children, brothers and wives. Families were closely related through intermarriage within the confessional community; therefore, a sale between nominally different Sephardic Jewish families might, in fact, represent a sale to, for example, a brother-in-law or sonin-law. According to Todor Kruševac, there was a very small property-owning élite: he comments that there were ten key wealthy families, and the rest of the community was very poor.44 The data on the property owners with large portfolios suggest that they tended to retain the property they owned or had developed during the Austro-Hungarian period, often through inheritance, though there was some selling, particularly in the early years, of plots for development or redevelopment. Krzović’s sample was the main source of data for exploring how and in what way property was transferred and gave some indication as to how far capital was ‘rolled over’ by sales. The data also indicate whether investors sold within confessional groups, and how much of the property in the sample was passed on through inheritance. Three areas were examined; confessional sales, interconfessional sales and inheritance. Of course, some properties experienced combinations of these over the period under examination (1886–1918), but where this was the case, only the movement directly relevant to the building was noted (i.e. not an inherited plot which was subsequently built over and sold, for example). The results for the 76 buildings that had suitable data yielded 16 properties inherited, 16 transferred through sales to a member of the same confession and 44 transferred through inter-confessional sales. This suggests that within the Sarajevo real estate investment community, confessional barriers were the exception rather than the rule. There is an example of at least one inter-confessional consortium which seems to have acquired and managed sales of a prime site on Štrosmajerova when the street was first laid out for new development.45 Members of other confessional groups who

92

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

arrived following the occupation, such as Evangelical Protestants (Augsburg Confession) and professionals from the Ashkenazi Jewish community, were actively involved in the élite economic life of the city; for example, Dr Josef Fischer, a Jewish lawyer, who was on the board of the Trade and Transport Joint-Stock Company, Schmarda, Rotter and Perschitz as well as the Statesponsored amalgamated brewery. However, there were more ‘confessional’ sales towards the end of the period (e.g. the Salom palace site, which was bought from Zadik Sabetaj Finci) and many property purchases from Muslims and Sephardic Jews at the start – obviously, given that other groups seem to have been able to own only a small minority of the available plots. Many buildings in the suburbs are only recorded when first built, which is one reason for the small size of the sample. Public buildings built by the administration and for religious purposes are not included in the sample. Similarly, it is likely that evidence about more private ‘family’ dwelling houses would alter the figures for inheritance, but as stated earlier, the buildings in the sample relate directly in most cases to investment in real estate. It is also notable that the Serbian Orthodox community passed on more property by inheritance than did other groups and that up to the 1890s, ownership of most of the recorded properties was transferred by inheritance, with the pattern changing thereafter. Private investment in property could, thus, be said to have been a huge force for change in terms not only of the redevelopment of a large part of the city, independent of the work of the administration, but also as a means of integrating indigenous confessional élites and ‘incomers’ at the middle-class and élite social levels. The buildings themselves also helped to establish a new European-style rental clientele, bringing with it service industries, shops, amenities and clubs and societies.

The new middle class: architects and style Perhaps the biggest change after the occupation, in terms of both public and private buildings, was the almost wholesale adoption in the new western part of the city centre of European standards and styles of building. This was partly owing to the building regulations put in place by the administration. The use of more modern technologies such as metal floor joists and fire doors affected the look of the new buildings, as did their often multipurpose

The Private Face: Middle-Class Building Development in Sarajevo

93

function not only as residential accommodation but also as shops and offices on lower floors; this was also part of the prevailing European pattern of building. However, perhaps more important was the fact that most of the new buildings were designed by architects who had trained mainly in Vienna, Graz and Brno and therefore disseminated standards of taste which were prevalent within the Dual Monarchy.46 Many had learnt their craft at the Vienna Academy of Fine Art and the Technical High School, coming under the influence of architects such as Hansen, Hasenauer, Schmidt and Ferstel.47 Some came from the ranks of the various engineers and architects who worked for the municipal building department which was set up in 1880 to administer the new building regulations and oversee the redevelopment of the city after the fire. Two of the earliest and most successful were Josip Vancaš, originally from Sopron, Hungary, who came in 1883 to work on the Roman Catholic cathedral, and Karl Pařik from Moravia, who was employed by the Landesregierung from March 1886. They both designed several key public buildings but also worked for private customers, creating buildings with a wide range of styles and decorative elements. Most of the stylistic elements introduced by these ‘new’ architects were expressed in terms of shapes of windows and doors, roof pitch and arrangement of decoration on the façade, often in imitation of the palaces of the nobility, for example, in the Herrengasse in Vienna. This was a common pattern for the development of middle-class apartment buildings throughout Europe at the time and can be seen in many late nineteenth-century developments in Budapest, Paris, Berlin and other towns and cities which experienced similar growth in middle-class population in the period. An excellent and famous example is the Ringstrasse in Vienna, which, in its private development, shows a range of historicist styles. It would have been a familiar ‘blueprint’ for most of the architects working in Sarajevo after 1878 and also for their customers.48 The development of private buildings after 1878, though cautious at first, demonstrates the widespread enthusiasm of the élites of Sarajevo, both immigrant and local, for these European styles. All confessions were keen to show their wealth and taste through their new buildings, though, as noted previously, Muslims built a far smaller proportion than others. This suggests that, in the main, fashionable living in the modern, middle-class style was more important than any confessional differences. Presumably encouraged by

94

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

commissions from their clients, Sarajevo architects imitated the latest fashions in external decoration using a range of elements, usually in the form of moulded plasterwork on the façades of the buildings. They were happy to mix classical motifs with renaissance, baroque and, at the turn of the century, the new Secession style which had started in Vienna and quickly spread throughout the empire and beyond. Architects working in Bosnia in the Austro-Hungarian period also adopted stylistic elements based on folk culture. This became common throughout Europe after the turn of the century as a reaction to increasing technological progress and urbanization and as a way of exploring national-cultural roots; it was also expressed in music and art and craft work. Ákos Moravánsky, in his major work on central European architecture of the period, devotes a whole chapter to the influence of folk culture on architecture.49 Although his examples are mainly from Hungary and Romania, he also mentions the work of Ernst Lichtblau, who recorded the vernacular architecture ‘aus Bosnien und Dalmatien’, published in the periodical Der Architekt in 1908.50 In Sarajevo, from the 1880s onwards, architects such as Hans Niemeczek, Josip Vancaš and Karl Pařik were using aspects of Islamic architecture, including shapes of windows, non-representative decoration and stripes of colour, on exteriors of some buildings in reference to the Ottoman heritage of the city: this has been called the ‘pseudo-Moorish’ style.51 From about 1909, Vancaš began to experiment with a new ‘Bosnian style’ based on more traditional forms which reflected Bosnian vernacular cultural heritage (as recorded by Lichtblau), including wide eaves, oriel windows and ‘stalactite’ string courses.52 Hartmuth, in his work on the ‘De-Ottomanisation’ of Balkan cityscapes, describes the style as ‘a reinterpretation of traditional Bosnian Ottoman-period house forms filtered through a European aesthetic’.53 This ‘European aesthetic’ hugely affected the relative size of these buildings, as did the materials of which they were constructed. All these European-type buildings, though identifiable from their exteriors as being of different architectural styles, shared common factors; they were broadly similar in construction, being large thick-walled structures made of fired brick, with thick plastered façades using a metal mesh matrix instead of traditional rushes for the plaster.54 The decoration, almost entirely of plaster, though made to look like stone in, for example, rustication and balcony brackets, faced onto the street (and sometimes to the sides, though buildings were often contiguous). Interior layout (depending on the intended use of the building, but particularly for those intended for mixed residential and

The Private Face: Middle-Class Building Development in Sarajevo

95

business use) was also similar to the layout and use of living space common in apartment buildings in Vienna, Budapest and elsewhere; it was mainly the arrangement of windows and plaster decorations attached to these façades which mark out the different architectural styles. Function was firmly in control, with form allowed to riot on exterior.55 Hanák, writing about the Sugárút in Budapest, observes: ‘As for the buildings, it was mainly the façade that was imposing and ornamental, rather than the contents.’56 The same seems true for Sarajevo, though it is hard to get any real impression of how interiors looked at the time; the only evidence comes from blueprints and surviving apartments accessible today, which are not necessarily either furnished or used in the way in which they would have been in the Austro-Hungarian period.57

The buildings: a chronological and visual survey After 1878, with the arrival of new architects and different demands for accommodation, the city’s new architectural styles changed and developed rapidly in response to these external influences. Analysis of a variety of examples from the period up to 1918 shows which groups wanted to assimilate the new fashions and in what way. Such analysis can also provide insights into the extent to which the investors and builders were adopting European styles from elsewhere and how far they wished or were able to add their own personal or (increasingly) ‘national’ slant in their choice of architecture. The early beginnings of Western-style architecture appeared in Sarajevo before the occupation, initially in the form of adaptations of the existing methods and construction techniques, as described in Chapter 1, but with an outwardfacing façade including rows of windows looking onto the street. The surviving examples are relatively modest buildings, of mud-brick construction between timber framing, usually only two storeys high. Windows to the street are evenly spaced rectangles. There are still some examples of this type of building extant; the example in Figure 3.3 has lost its plaster cladding, which helped to protect it from the weather. The earliest post-occupation building in Krzović’s 1987 catalogue of key buildings, from ‘around 1880’, was a property belonging to Giuseppe Vita Salom, a Sephardic Jewish merchant.58 This appears on the Regulirungs-plan von Sarajevo dated 11 March 1880 and, therefore, may well be of slightly earlier construction.59 It is not clear from the exterior whether it was constructed in

96

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Figure 3.3  Mud-brick and timber frame house, Derebent ulica.

fired brick or using traditional methods. It is an L-shaped rectangular building on the corner of M. M. Bašeskije and Jelića, in the centre of the city near the area which would later be cleared for the building of the Catholic cathedral. It has two storeys, with a relatively plain façade and rows of identical windows, evenly spaced; these have minimal decoration above, though there is a hint of neoclassicism in the pilasters which are at the sides of most windows on the upper storey. There is a band of contrast-coloured plaster (obviously recently renewed, but probably similar to the original) marking the upper floor going horizontally right along the façade, which is divided vertically by more pilasters, which extend right up to the roofline. The decorative style has some similarities with older buildings in Vienna from the Biedermeier period.60 Across the street are other examples of the long, low properties with minimal but clear classicizing decoration on the windows and door apertures, sometimes including rustication at the corners; these are also similar to Viennese models. They are plastered and, in keeping with their location in what became one of the main ‘modern’ commercial streets of Sarajevo, have shop and other business space on the ground floor. Opposite G. V. Salom’s house, on M. M. Bašeskije, is Jove Jovanić’s, designed by Vancaš in 1890. It is a long, two-storey building with a bakery shop including an oven on the ground floor and an apartment above. Its decoration is similarly minimal, suggesting that private development was still cautious as to design, at least for the smaller business people, throughout the 1880s.

The Private Face: Middle-Class Building Development in Sarajevo

97

These early buildings are entirely derivative in terms of architectural decoration, following models of historicist style. It is not clear how far the clients made their own choices as to decoration and how far they were influenced by what was available through builders’ merchants and the plans of the architect or building contractor. Krzović observes that some of the many and varied (mainly female) faces which adorn Sarajevo façades are modelled on the owners and the women in their lives.61 Window frames, exterior doors and door furniture (where still extant) show some variation throughout the period, with elegant metal grilles on doors which, in some cases, are individually designed (the Officers’ Pavilion, Tito barracks) but in some cases not (Koševo 14 and Daniela Osme 18).62 Moulded plaster façade decorations are extremely varied, reflecting great exuberance and desire to make a mark on the city environment. They include apparently solid balcony brackets in Italian style, masks, friezes, decorated cornices and statues (often with classical references such as the god Mercury or personifications of, for example, Industry). There are also ovals, discs and flower and vegetable motifs from the Secession period, including sunflowers and chestnut leaves (a particular favourite of Vancaš), and several buildings have cornucopia, garlands and the ubiquitous cartouche, often with initials of the owner and date of construction.63 Some reflect the intended use of the building (cornucopia for a bank at S. H. Muvekita 11, Mercury masks and caduceus for the Trade and Transport Joint-Stock Company at M. M. Bašeskije 5) or some personal motif such as a loved one’s face or name (flowers on Flora Israel’s house at Ferhadija 37); all are doubtless intended to demonstrate the taste of the owner. The most prestigious sites in the new city centre, where Schlesinger records that land prices were running at about 200 kr. per square metre in 1902, were developed and redeveloped in the 1890s to provide maximum use of space and therefore income; this resulted in the loss of much of the green space which is evident in the 1882 map.64 The mid-1890s was one of the relative ‘boom’ periods for private building, when architects, the planning department and clients all seemed to be getting well into their stride. An excellent example of a stambenoposlovna (residential-business) building from 1895 which employs a rich mixture of classical influences in its decoration, originally made in terracotta, is Petro Petrović’s building at the south-west corner of Ferhadija and S. H. Muvekita (S. H. Muvekita 11). It was a central site just off the cathedral square, near the newly developing Rudolfsgasse (present-day Štrosmajerova), and was next door to Petrović’s ‘palace’ at Ferhadija 20, which Vancaš had designed for him in 1888. However, for his new commission, he chose Karl Pařik.

98

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Petrović had bought the corner plot in 1894 from Ana Kraljević. It is not a large site, and he seems to have made maximum use of the plot in terms of the footprint, apparently filling all the available space. However, this was not a problem as the plot backed onto the yard of his ‘palace’ next door; this would have provided light and access to the rear. It is a three-storey building with ‘cellars’ beneath and was originally built as a business venture to house the Bosnia-Hercegovina Volks-Actien Bank, including accommodation for the director.65 The local paper, the Sarajevski List, which reported that Sarajevo had celebrated the opening of the new purpose-built city market hall, also announced in the same issue that Petrović’s new building was open for business.66 The article gives a detailed account of the building in terms of its layout and description of the façade, remarking that its ‘genteel and tasteful’ nature meant that ‘it may be counted amongst the premier buildings in Sarajevo’.67 Given that Petrović was among the most powerful members of the SerbianOrthodox élite in the city and deputy mayor at the time, such praise is perhaps not surprising; nevertheless, the terracotta decorations, probably against an initially white plaster finish, must have made the building externally striking, not to mention the apparently high standard of internal fixtures and fittings. The article helpfully informs us of the disposition of the various floors. On the ground floor, raised approximately 5 ft. above the level of the street and approached by steps at the front, was the public space for the banking area and offices. ‘Beautiful marble stairs’ led up to the first floor, where there was a board room and a conference room, with further offices for the director and for book keeping. The top floor was entirely taken up with a ‘large and well-arranged apartment’ for the director. The area beneath the ground floor, which was only partly below the level of the street, had a flat for the concierge and various small business premises, showing that Petrović wanted to make maximum use of this business opportunity. The report also pays tribute to Wohlgemuth, the building contractor, and Pařik, the architect, who is described as nadmjernik (senior surveyor), probably because of his work for the Landesregierung.68 Throughout the text, the language of Western-style building and interior space is used, evidence of the fact that in the public, social sector of Sarajevo life, this was now considered the norm. The external decoration shows classicizing elements of taste in several areas. Along the roofline is an entablature with modillions along the cornice, and a repeating pattern with alternating cherubic faces and foliage on the frieze. The upper floor has decorative panels of terracotta between the windows and at the

The Private Face: Middle-Class Building Development in Sarajevo

99

corners are larger rectangular panels with relief portraits of classical gentlemen. These may be based on Roman models. However, as Petrović showed his enthusiasm for the classical past by calling his sons Diogenes, Socrates and Aristotle, perhaps they were the originals? In keeping with the building’s intended use as a bank, there are garlands of flowers and fruit over the windows on the first-floor level, and a series of lions’ heads hold long bunches of flowers and fruit in their jaws between the windows. The windows on the first and ground floors have small balustrades along the bottom. The terracotta mouldings, with the exception of the portraits, can be seen on other buildings of similar date elsewhere, for example at Valtera Perića 12 and 14; this suggests that such mouldings could have been chosen from a catalogue rather than individually designed. Over the main doorway in S. H. Muvekita, there is a Bosnian crest on a cartouche supported by two robust cherubs. This may have been an original feature, but it is probably a reflection of the fact that the building’s use quickly changed. Despite the provision of the apparently superior accommodation, the bank ceased operations there. On 1 December 1895, the Sarajevski List br.143 announced that it had gone into liquidation and that its business was being transferred to the Landesbank. In 1899, the building was listed in Bosnischer Bote as the Handelsschule (commercial school) for Bosnia-Hercegovina, hence the Bosnian crest.69 Petrović’s bank building is typical of many private buildings in the mid- to late 1890s in terms of its external decoration. Round the corner at present-day Štrosmajerova 6, Eduard Pleyel’s new pharmacy building from 1894–95, also by Pařik, shows classicizing elements in the entablature but has a more baroque revival style lower down the façade.70 Five pairs of windows are evenly spaced across the front at first-floor level, with the initials ‘EP’ on a cartouche above each, topped by elaborate hooded mouldings over each pair. The establishment was patriotically named ‘The Emperor of Austria’.71 However, with the turn of the century, design became bolder and more forward-looking, changing, particularly in terms of private building, to more adventurous and varied decoration and architectural style.72 There are many excellent examples of Secession style and decoration dating from within the next 10 years, several of which were sadly in a poor state of repair when photographed in 2004–6. One early example which shows the characteristic ovals, discs and grooves of the style is ‘Villa Mathilde’, a small apartment building at Koševo 38, part of the fashionable new development on the road up to the new national hospital. The building was designed by Vancaš for the Nagy family and named after Mrs Nagy. It exemplifies how Sarajevo architects were keen to design in modern styles

100

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

for their clients. The decoration shows a clear departure from the historicist styles of the 1890s. Kurto, in his discussion of the influence of Viennese Secession on the work of Vancaš, mentions that this is one of the buildings where he used the ‘omega’ shape which was a characteristic of the work of Josef Maria Olbrich.73 It can be seen in Figure 3.4 around the windows at attic level.74 Vancaš also used the shape around the central attic window of M. M. Bašeskije 27, designed in 1903 for Isak A. Salom, a member of the wealthy Sephardic Jewish family. The decoration on the façade is more detailed than that of the Villa Mathilde and, as well as the discs and grooves, includes panels of chestnut leaves and a cartouche with the owner’s initials surrounded by more chestnut leaves between the central two windows on the first floor. The initials are written in the fashionable Secessionstyle script which had become popular in publications such as Bosnicher Bote and which Vancaš also used in his plans at this period.75 The vegetable and floral motifs, which were a major aspect of Secession design, can be seen on many Sarajevo façades of the period; also heads or masks, often with flowing locks, and other fluid decorative forms. Dr Joikić’s building at S. H. Muvekita 6, immediately opposite Petrović’s bank building, is one example. Designed in 1906 by the architect Josef Gramer, it is a threestorey building with business space on the ground floor, and either apartments or offices above.76 Although relatively functional at ground-floor level, the plaster decoration on the upper storeys, particularly around the first-floor windows, shows elegant, fluid flower, stem and leaf forms. Each window has

Figure 3.4  Villa Mathilde, Koševo 38, Josip Vancaš, 1902–3.

The Private Face: Middle-Class Building Development in Sarajevo

101

a heading with three flowers with stems which curve round on either side and a continuous band of three strips of plaster waves across the centre of the façade, separating the first from the second storey. The upper windows also have flower headings, though these are less detailed, and there are also discs and horizontal and vertical bands of plaster between each window; these are typical of the Secession style, as are the decorative panels under the windows. Over the ground-floor entrance is a threatening mask of Medusa, with her hair of ferocious snakes which drop venom into urns on each side of the door; the snakes indicate that Dr Joikić was a medical doctor.77 The sheer number and variety of buildings which use elements of Secession style in the outward decoration of the façade and also in window mouldings, doors and decorative ironwork such as balconies shows that it was very popular in the private sector for both business and private developments. Josip Vancaš, Ludwig Jungwirth and Josip Rekvényi were some of the many architects working in Sarajevo who used the Secession style in their designs.78 Another non-vernacular fashionable style for private houses and apartment buildings, several examples of which were built in the period, was the so-called ‘National Alpine’ style. This was popular with Austrian officials, perhaps because Baron Kutscher, Civil-Adlatus in charge of the civil side of the administration in Bosnia-Hercegovina from 1887 to 1904, had an elegant villa in this style on a prime site across the park from the Regierungspalast. It dates from 1894–95, though architectural historians seem unsure about the identity of the architect.79 The principal feature is highly decorated barge boards on extended gable ends, often with seahorse-shaped supports. Spasojević describes the style as ‘Romanticism’.80 There are several houses of this type at Gorica, on the hillside to the north of the present-day city hospital, and a more central example at Petrakinje 24, which is described as being a house for ‘one family’, built in 1903 for the Landesregierung’s Forestry Commissioner, Herr Miklau, to a design by Rudolf Tönnies.81 The previous examples show that Sarajevan builders were keen to use architectural styles and decoration from a range of sources outside Bosnia. The design of a pair of semi-detached houses at Avdage Šahinagića 15/17 suggests that, in one case, they looked as far away as Britain for their inspiration. The houses are similar in appearance to late Victorian and Edwardian suburban semi-detached properties, though the plaster cladding rather than red brick and the proportion and type of the windows affect the resemblance somewhat. Kurto discusses these in some detail, attributing the influence to Charles Voysey and the ‘English domestic revival’.82 However, these are apparently the only examples, and it was obviously not a style which was popular.

102

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

As the new century progressed, the enthusiasm for national and folk art and culture developed throughout Europe; this was linked to academic and anthropological research into the music, dress, customs and living habits of indigenous peoples, which was explored, in the main, by the educated middle and upper classes: this is discussed in more detail in relation to the Museum society and periodical in Chapter 5. In Bosnia-Hercegovina, it paralleled the rising consciousness of national/confessional rather than local loyalties, which increasingly challenged the Hapsburg administration. In architectural terms, this led to the introduction of vernacular elements into larger, essentially middleclass buildings, which was pioneered by Vancaš from 1909 onwards, leading to what became known as the ‘Bosnian style’. The style was popular among the Sephardic Jewish community, who were among his major clients. One of the first examples was an apartment building at Kaptol 4 for J. A. Salom from 1909. It has oriel windows through both the first and second floors and has ‘stalactite’ decoration above the first-floor windows; this is an element which can be seen around the windows of Orthodox churches from the medieval period.83 The style became more confident after 1910, and his apartment building for Zadik Haim Levi in 1911, on the edge of the Velika Avilja (the ‘Great Yard’ of the Sephardic Jewish community since their arrival in the city in the fifteenth century), is clearly moving away from the work of the previous years. The decoration is no longer related only to the façade or balcony, and the overall structure includes more rounded shapes with oriels at first-floor level and above, and alterations in the pitch and shape of the roofs. The building has wide eaves and stalactite patterning under the windows. The oriel on the corner ‘tower’, as with the oriel at Salom’s building at Kaptol 4, extends through several storeys.84 A little further along the street at M. M. Bašeskije 62 is the Hotel Stari Grad, another example of Vancaš’ ‘Bosnian style’. It also has wide eaves and a two-storey oriel on the corner; there is also another wider, flatter one along the façade facing the street; this oriel has wooden cladding on the upper storey. The wooden cladding echoes the projecting enclosed gallery (divanhana) with wooden latticework at first-floor level on many of the Ottoman town houses in the older parts of the city such as Vratnik and Kovači. The style seems appropriate to a building which is so close to the old heart of the city, the Baščaršija market. Rudolf Tönnies, like Vancaš, was a very versatile architect, designing buildings in a range of styles to suit his clients’ tastes and to show off their wealth and standing in the community. He too designed in the ‘Bosnian style’, executing major commissions for members of the Muslim élite with whom the style also became popular. An example from 1910 is a large villa for the family of

The Private Face: Middle-Class Building Development in Sarajevo

103

H. Nurudinbeg Azabagić at Logavina’s junction with Toromanova. This has the typical wide eaves, an oriel on the corner facing over the street and windows with pointed-arch tops at first-floor level below. He also designed an unusual pair of semi-detached houses for the Čurčić and Arnautović families on the south bank of the river at Avdage Šahinagića 6/8. The street was then newly created and offered fine views to the north over the river Miljacka to the town hall and hills beyond. Tönnies used the same pointed windows as in the previous example, this time between the small oriels above the main door of each house. The curving shape of the walls and windows at the attic level is also typical of this style.85 The house of Mehmed-beg Fadilpašić at Franjevaćka 2 combines the fluid, curving elements of ‘Bosnian style’ with flower and leaf patterns. It was designed by Tönnies in 1910 and belonged to a member of one of the most influential Muslim families in the city and throughout Bosnia. Mehmed-beg’s brother, Mustafa-beg Fadilpašić, had been mayor of Sarajevo under the AustroHungarian administration until his death in 1892 and was one of the wealthiest landowners in Bosnia.86 Robert Donia explains that Mehmed-beg ‘inherited his elder brother’s mantle of leadership’ in terms of the élite Muslim community and the growing Muslim autonomy movement. Therefore, this must have been another prestigious commission, though the site does not show off the building well: the façade is on a narrow lane behind the carpet factory building which goes through to the Franciscan monastery and brewery. It is directly behind the konak on the left bank of the river in the Bistrik area.87 The house is on three floors and has an undulating shape across the front from first-floor level upwards, with four sets of windows which curve gently out. Across the top of the windows on the first floor is a wide band of moulded plaster with a repeated pattern of a flower and leaves. Above the upper floor windows are stylized flowers in square shapes, and these window headings are connected by a band of stalactite brickwork three layers deep. The eaves are again very wide, with thin wooden covering underneath in the style of the underpart of many of the first-floor balconies on the vernacular buildings. Although now in a poor state of repair, the building must have looked superb when new. The use of ‘Bosnian style’ by these Muslim families suggests a desire to move away from the European styles which had been so popular earlier in the period and had been chosen by members of the local élites such as Petrović. Fadilpašić’s choice of architectural decoration which reflected aspects of vernacular style may be seen as a conscious expression of nationhood. The last major architectural fashion which was assimilated and developed by Sarajevo architects and their patrons in the Austro-Hungarian period was

104

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

what Krzović describes in his account of Secession architecture in BosniaHercegovina as the ‘geometric tendency’, which, he explains, led the way to modern architecture.88 Moravánsky writes in terms of ‘Cubism’ when discussing a far more pronounced style in Prague at the same time.89 In Sarajevo, this gentler, ‘geometric’ style showed itself from 1910 onwards in more angular, less fluid shapes, in terms of both decoration on the façade and the quantity of decoration and in the shapes of door arches and the relatively plain, if not unadorned, windows. Between the windows were plaster panels with geometric shapes such as squares and diamonds, and these were in horizontal bands across the building’s façade, often separating one floor from another. Some of the buildings from this final period are very tall, one example being Abraham Majer Altarac’s corner business-residential development at Ferhadija 22, which rises to six floors. Although not as tall as the Orendi house in Vienna, it is on a similar corner site, and areas of use are similarly clearly defined in its decoration and colouring.90 The lower ‘business’ floors (shop and mezzanine for offices) have a differentcoloured plaster finish, buttressing and angular tops to the windows, with a line of plain moulding above those on the mezzanine floor. The two storeys above, the residential part of the building, have bow-fronted windows in groups of three and a horizontal row of diamond patterns separating the two floors. As with the Orendi house, there is clear delineation of the start of the roof line, with another two attic floors above. The separation of the business from the residential storeys of a building through articulation and decoration on the façade is an aspect that had been common in Vienna and elsewhere for some time; Otto Wagner’s Anker house at Graben 10 (1894) in Vienna, with glass-panelled front and sides on the ground and first floors, and balcony, neo-classical plaster decoration and cornice on the residential floors above, is just one example.91 Relatively few buildings were designed in this style in Sarajevo, presumably because it arrived late in the period, and the effects of World War I largely cut Bosnia-Hercegovina off from the influence of Vienna and other central European areas of architectural importance. However, in 1910–11, there was a boom in private buildings for both residential and business uses, with some of the largest and most spectacular developments taking place during this period. Many of these are discussed in detail by Spasojević in his book on the residential-business ‘palaces’ of the period, and several were part of the late redevelopment of the junction of Maršala Tita with M. M. Bašeskije and Ferhadija.92 They rose to five and six storeys and were built by groups such as the ‘Napredak’ society (M. Tita 56, 1912–13) and members of the Salom family (M. Tita 54, 1912).

The Private Face: Middle-Class Building Development in Sarajevo

105

The ‘Salom palace’ was a huge apartment block surrounding a courtyard with shops at ground-floor level and 49 apartments of varying sizes ranged over the five upper floors. The apartments had modern conveniences including electric lighting and a lift.93 The development used late Secession styling, and this extended to patterning on interior doors and mouldings of arches and around windows. The central arch into the courtyard was elegantly framed by two peacocks, their tails draping down on each side; below was a cartouche framed by swags of fruit, bearing the initials ‘MS’. The façade to the street had a row of eight sculptures set into the façade between the windows above groundfloor level. They show examples of Serbian, Croatian and Muslim ladies and gentlemen in relief, wearing urban and rural folk costume, framed by swirling semi-abstract patterns.94 The subjects on the façade, rather than using classical motifs and models, also deliberately celebrate Bosnian nationhood. This type of display in terms of sculptural decoration or moulding on a building’s façade had been evident right through the period, but increased in complexity for these high-status buildings just before 1914. * When considering this sample of private buildings, it is important to emphasize that there are several hundred from the period which show the influence of central and western European architectural styles. Although many are in a relatively poor state of repair today, they exemplify the middle-class enthusiasm of Sarajevan citizens of a mix of confessions and origins for the latest architectural fashions. This, along with other patterns of taste and consumption, suggests that middle-class standards of taste overrode other considerations such as confessional difference and local/immigrant divides, promoting social and economic integration for much of the period, though this may have been less so in the final years before World War I. Those who commissioned the buildings were mainly the local social and business élite, who, as Hartmuth suggests earlier, were mainly interested in good investment opportunities. The fact that they built on such a scale and with such confidence shows that they realized that there was a demand for these properties which they were able to satisfy. Many were also investors in other business ventures which developed during the years of Austro-Hungarian administration in Bosnia, and this aspect is discussed in more detail in the next chapter.

4

Sarajevo at the Centre of the Developing Bosnian Economy

The business community played a major role in the development of the urban fabric of Sarajevo. At street level, in the Western-style shops and offices and also with larger business concerns such as factories and warehouses, they were building according to Western models and using the improved communication systems including railways, roads and trams to move goods in and out of the city and to and from the wider world beyond. Many of the local élites were actively involved as bankers, merchants, factory owners and real estate investors, and there was also a large community of business people at all levels from outside Bosnia-Hercegovina, who came to the city and played a role in its economic life and development. This chapter gives an overview of the policies put in place by the administration to develop the economy of Bosnia, showing how they impacted on Sarajevo at various levels. Through the example of Johann Baptist Schmarda’s import-export company, it explores the wider business connections of some of the new entrepreneurs who arrived following the occupation, indicating the complex local, national and international networks and the way in which the business projected a modern image in the city. The role of the local business community, including the building industry, which experienced huge growth in the period, is explored. A survey of the trades and businesses within the city streets in 1899 gives a detailed picture of the integrated nature of business life at this level, both confessionally and in relation to the role of the immigrant population; it also shows the role of women in the commercial life of Sarajevo. Analysis of some of the late business buildings in the city suggests an economic confidence and optimism within the business community just before 1914. The economic history of Bosnia-Hercegovina has been well documented by both Peter Sugar and Ferdinand Hauptmann in terms of the changes in industrial policy and the development of infrastructure following the AustroHungarian arrival in the province.1 Economic policies which were intended

108

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

to improve generally poor living standards, create employment and develop the country’s extensive mineral and timber resources were an important element of the administration’s ‘civilizing mission’. As Michael Palairet notes in an article assessing the relative success of these policies, much of the recent Yugoslav literature on the topic has been ‘pessimistic’, a stance which he attributes to the rejection of ‘non-national rule’; the Yugoslav socialist context which rejected capitalist approaches to economic development may also have played a part in this pessimistic view.2 Similarly, much primary material in the form of travelogues and János Asbóth’s An Official Tour Through Bosnia and Herzegovina represent ‘partisan pleadings or outright propaganda’, as Sugar puts it, though he recommends the work of Friedrich Schmid, a statistician from Leipzig, who published a study on the work of the administration in BosniaHercegovina in 1912.3 A uniformly negative account is that of André Barre, published simultaneously in Paris and Belgrade in 1906, in which he details what he perceived to be the maladministration of the Austro-Hungarian regime in economic and other matters in Bosnia from 1878 until the death of Benjamin Kállay, the Joint Minister of Finance, in 1903.4 Barre’s work can be seen as an example of the sort of negative commentary which the administration was facing from outside Bosnia’s borders in the period.

Developing the economy of the city – beginnings Although they give information on economic change in Bosnia as a whole, the works cited earlier do not deal explicitly with Sarajevo. The city, as the provincial capital, had been and continued to be the economic hub of the province, a centre for commerce and import-export activities which continued to expand as communications improved. However, as a city which was gradually rebuilding itself according to western and central European models of consumer culture and middle-class living, it was far from representative of the rest of a predominantly agricultural and rural Bosnia-Hercegovina. Hauptmann discusses the widening differences between town and country during the period. He notes the growth of towns such as Mostar and Tuzla, which developed new roles as administrative centres for their respective regions, and Zenica, which was transformed by heavy industry through its coal mining and iron and steel works.5 All these towns were far smaller than Sarajevo; a map attached to the census reports for 1895 shows that the capital’s population was between 30,000 and 40,000 (actually 38,083 on

Sarajevo at the Centre of the Developing Bosnian Economy

109

census day), while regional centres like Banja Luka had 15,000 or less, and most towns had only between 2,000 and 5,000 inhabitants.6 Therefore, any account of the economic development of the city, though it needs to be seen in the context of the overall economic development in the province, is not typical of BosniaHercegovina as a whole. In 1878, Bosnia-Hercegovina was seen by its occupiers as a rich source of raw materials such as minerals and timber, but they faced a serious problem – the infrastructure and capital necessary to exploit these profitably was not in place.7 Poor roads and a minimal railway network meant that most goods were transported by pack animals over long distances, as can be seen from Friedrich Schlesinger’s comments on the effects of the bad roads on the import-export trade and the economy in general.8 A law was passed in February 1880, according to which both parts of the Monarchy had to agree to any financial contributions for the development of Bosnia-Hercegovina; this effectively meant that the province had to be self-supporting and generate its own investment capital.9 This posed a huge challenge, particularly owing to the pressing need to develop the roads and railways to stimulate industrial investment. Joint Finance Minister Kállay responded to it in various ways, in part through systems of ‘occupation credits’ and the granting of ‘privileges and guarantees’ to stimulate outside investment.10 A further problem for the development of the economy was created when, in 1880, Bosnia-Hercegovina officially joined the Austro-Hungarian Zollgebiet, leading to new customs borders to the south and east, high prices for staple foods and cheaper ready-made goods coming in from the Monarchy which badly affected the profitability of home-produced goods from traditional craftsmen.11 Many went bankrupt. The Austro-Hungarian government monopolies for salt, tobacco and gunpowder were also extended to Bosnia-Hercegovina, creating further hardship for local merchants who had previously traded in these commodities. Owing to the sharia law on usury, trade credit before 1878 had been dependent on banking houses in places like Trieste, outside the Ottoman Empire.12 In the early years of the occupation, access to credit remained a problem for local traders, as it was very expensive to borrow money because of the difficult economic conditions, including the great fire in Sarajevo of 1879 in which many leading merchants lost their fortunes. Sugar quotes an interest rate of 20 per cent for the end of 1880, which initially severely limited the development of local capital investment in the economy.13 One of the administration’s reforms was the introduction of banks. This policy gradually brought the interest rate down: in 1902, it was 6 per cent.14 The arrival of financial institutions was one

110

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

of the major changes after 1878 which arguably made the most difference in terms of developing a middle class in the city and stimulating economic growth throughout the province. Among the first banks were branches of the Wiener Union Bank and the Hungarian General Credit Bank which managed the salt and tobacco monopolies.15 In 1895, the Privilegirte Landesbank was founded as the central bank for the province; it had branches in Tuzla and Mostar and agencies in smaller towns throughout Bosnia.16 Sugar notes that banks did remarkably little to help the development of commerce, especially of industry, in Bosnia-Hercegovina. However, they provided deposit, savings and loan facilities for individuals, based on urban and rural real estate. The larger banks handled all the Landesregierung’s transactions.17 The administration also set up credit institutions in the Bezirke (regions) to help peasants fund improvements to their holdings, but these were not popular, and towards the end of the period, independent savings cooperatives were formed.18 The Chamber of Commerce report for the years 1911–12 lists savings banks in all the main centres of population and nine major banks in Sarajevo itself.19 Although Kállay resisted the establishment of financial institutions with ethnic or religious labels in line with his policy of trying to develop a specifically ‘Bosnian’ identity for the province, this was permitted after his death, and almost all the banks listed by the Chamber of Commerce in 1912 are named in this way, with a predominance of Srpska, presumably reflecting the demographic majority.20 Initial investment by the administration in infrastructure, financed through military and ‘occupation’ credits, was intended to stimulate outside investment in heavy industry which would bring vital revenue into Bosnia and raise living standards generally. This policy seems to have been only partly successful, with the administration itself developing ore and coal mining and transportation.21 Metal works, mainly based at Vareš, were a mix of public and private companies, and there were four chemical works in private hands which all benefitted from government privileges and concessions.22 There were major outside investors in the timber industry (e.g. Steinbeis from Germany); Bosnian oak staves in particular were in great demand for wine barrels elsewhere in Europe, but the Landesregierung’s forestry service was too small to control and manage their activities, leading to exploitation of resources and not enough re-forestation. Although such companies provided employment, much of the profit did not stay within Bosnia-Hercegovina.23 Lighter industries such as textile production and breweries were started by local businessmen with varying success; those

Sarajevo at the Centre of the Developing Bosnian Economy

111

based around Sarajevo are discussed in more detail in later sections. The system of government concessions for everything from newspapers to transport meant that Kállay and his officials could keep close control over business activities in the province, which was important for keeping the economic arm of the ‘civilizing mission’ on track and instilling confidence in potential outside investors. Sugar and Hauptmann have used public, parliamentary and administrative records in constructing their accounts of the development of the economy in Bosnia-Hercegovina. This approach led Sugar explicitly to conclude that ‘the local businessmen could have established more small enterprises’, arguing that greater involvement and encouragement by the administration and outside investors with the local business community would have been in everyone’s interests and could have helped to foster the idea of specifically Bosnian economic success which would ‘counteract unfavourable nationalistic tendencies of the population’.24 Research focusing on the Sarajevo business community, their building programmes and other primary sources such as directories and Chamber of Commerce literature paints a more positive picture of local business investment and achievement. This was often in partnership with ‘incomers’ and mainly based around the provincial capital. The directories give valuable information on economic activity at various levels within Sarajevo and beyond, in the form of advertisements, details about major banks including board members and officers, lists of insurance companies, trades and businesses with addresses and information on major industries throughout Bosnia, with pictures of the foundries and factories and lists of key personnel.25 There are also lists of protokollirten firms, those with a formal governmental seal of approval; in 1899, there were over 300 of these in the Sarajevo district, which, even allowing for the fact that many were on a very small scale, suggests much local business activity in this middle period and evidence of some encouragement from the administration.26 Some were Hoflieferanten (‘by appointment’) to the EmperorKing. The Chamber of Commerce material includes separate chapters on a wide range of businesses throughout Bosnia, from fruit preservation to financial services, and a list of 60 members. Of these members, just over half were from Sarajevo and were familiar from other lists and material in the directories.27 This number suggests that Sarajevo, at least, was a centre of considerable business activity at a range of levels. The record of building development also shows this; examples are the Landesbank and many larger bank buildings towards the end of the period and also the numerous business premises and buildings intended for a mix of commercial and residential use.28

112

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Todor Kruševac, as part of his larger work on the history of Sarajevo during the Austro-Hungarian period, also examined the economic conditions in the city.29 Despite Palairet’s comments on the ‘pessimistic’ stance of many Yugoslav writers, Kruševac is generally positive about the effect of the administration’s policies in promoting economic development: he writes that though the new capitalism caused the decline of the old ‘guild-based and feudal social order’, there was a ‘real feeling of economic activity’ in the city and the growth of new businesses, which responded to the changing needs of the enlarged urban population.30 Changes in the demography of the Sarajevo and the development of more cosmopolitan, middle-class lifestyles led to the demand for new consumer goods and services and the establishment of European-style trades and commercial ventures. Involved in several of these was the Vienna-based businessman Johann Baptist Schmarda.

Schmarda, the Lagerhaus and business networks in Sarajevo Schmarda’s business operations in Sarajevo were complex and wide ranging and offer a relevant example of the sort of networks which were not uncommon in the city by the middle of the period. These networks developed partly as a result of deliberate policies of the administration in Vienna and Sarajevo and partly from independent initiatives of local and immigrant business people. In 1899, three other import-export companies were based in the city, but Schmarda’s Trade and Transport Joint-Stock Company (Schmarda, Rotter and Perschitz) was the largest, with branch offices throughout Bosnia and on the Adriatic coast and one in Alexandria. There were company offices in Vienna and Budapest; the Vienna office was in an imposing building just off the Ringstrasse. Advertisements in the local directory show the range of the company’s activities; they were also insurance agents and involved in the sales of government salt, coal and timber products as well as having commercial links to the military postal system and state railways in Dalmatia.31 Schmarda had offices in Sarajevo, at Čukovićgasse, close to the cathedral square. From 1896, he also owned the government-sponsored newspaper Bosnische Post/Bosanska Posta (published in both German and the local language) and the associated printing works at Čukovićgasse Nrs 7–11, had newspaper offices at Nr. 4 and also managed Schmarda, Rotter and Perschitz from the same premises, a large, classically decorated building at the south end.

Sarajevo at the Centre of the Developing Bosnian Economy

113

Sugar suggests that Schmarda had some financial link to the Joint Minister of Finance: ‘This was the man whom the French Consul called the “alter ego” and the “Prête-nom” of Kállay,’ and he notes that his business interests, including seats on the boards of banks and heavy industries, left him open to attacks in the Austro-Hungarian Delegations.32 Whether he was Kállay’s ‘front man’, as Sugar suggests, is outside the range of this work, but Schmarda certainly featured strongly in economic activity in Bosnia-Hercegovina. The directories show that he had several responsibilities. In 1899, he was named first in a list of board members for the Actiengesellschaft für Verarbeitung und Verwerthung landwirtschaftlicher Producte, a government-controlled company processing and marketing agricultural products. The company managed the sugar factory at Usora and a distillery at Tuzla.33 He was also on the board of the ironworks at Vareš.34 In the banking section, he was a Directionsrath for the Landesbank, and his company topped the list of concessions for insurance companies operating in Bosnia-Hercegovina.35 The networks which emerge, both in relation to contacts in Vienna and within the Sarajevo business community, show that he was very well connected: the names of Franz Poech, who was the administration’s Bergrath (Director of Mines), Moritz Bauer, director of the Wiener Bankverein and Arnold Bock, director of the Sarajevo branch of the Unionbank, appear more than once on the same lists of board members.36 If Schmarda was linked with Kállay, as Sugar suggests, this would have been another way to exercise economic control in the province. Similarly, at local level, Hofrath Heinrich Reiter, who held various key positions in the administration, shared many such responsibilities with Schmarda, including the directorship of the Joint-Stock Brewery Company in Sarajevo, of which Schmarda was vice president in 1900. Petro Petrović and Risto Besarović, two important members of the Serbian Orthodox élite and business community, had similar links. Schmarda’s brother Albrecht also appears on several lists. It is interesting to note that other members of the local élites from the Muslim and Sephardic Jewish communities were not obviously linked in this way, though as Sarajevo was such a small place, they must have known him. Following his death in 1912, the Trade and Transport Joint-Stock Company with its base at the Lagerhaus was taken over by Messrs Šahinagić, Besarović and Salom, Muslim, Serbian Orthodox and Sephardic Jewish businessmen, respectively, showing that confessional allegiance was no bar to economic cooperation. In 1900, Schmarda built a new modern Lagerhaus (warehouse) and offices for the company in the centre of the city with elegant Secession façade.

114

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Figure 4.1  Lagerhaus of the Trade and Transport Joint-Stock Company, Mule Mustafa Bašeskije 5. Josip Vancaš, 1900. Source: Bosnischer Bote VI, (1902), ABiH P-15/1902, p. 49.

The Lagerhaus was intended as a showpiece for the company, showing the high profile which they wished to present in the city. The plaster mouldings on the façade include the caduceus, a symbol of Mercury, in reference to the import-export business. The warehouse storage space was built to be fireproof according to the latest building regulations. Warehouse fires in cities were a problem throughout Europe because the highly inflammable nature of much of the merchandise hugely increased the risk of fire and loss of life to nearby inhabitants, while for owners they resulted in loss of capital. Technological developments in Western Europe focusing on iron floors, columns and doors had improved safety considerably: the plans for Schmarda’s new warehouse show many of these elements, although the upper floors were made of wood. The project was a redevelopment and extension of an existing warehouse which can be seen to the right in Figure 4.1. The new part included more warehousing on the ground floor at the front, with a 33-metre extension behind. There were brick-vaulted cellars below ground-floor level which would have been suitable for the storage of ‘oil, pitch, alcohol and other fluids’.37 Party walls

Sarajevo at the Centre of the Developing Bosnian Economy

115

were 45  cm thick, and the north wall, which backs onto the neighbouring property, was 60 cm thick. There was office space at first-floor level, with areas for bookkeeping, finance, a director’s office, which overlooked the street and could only be accessed through the other offices, and a telephone booth. The site was within easy walking distance of the city centre and Schmarda’s other business premises at Čukovićgasse and had the additional advantage of its own tram spur into the yard. This meant that goods could easily be moved between the Lagerhaus and the company’s other warehouse at the station, some three kilometres to the west.38 The whole development projected modernity, efficiency and good taste. The planning application and building were carried out quickly. Plans were drawn up in March 1900, and the building was constructed between May and October of that year, with an application for use dated 9 October 1900.39 It was a relatively important application; this is indicated by the fact that it was overseen by the Landesregierung’s building department and the Regierungscommissar for Sarajevo, who had to approve all documents. The application, with its seven different sections and many signatures at each stage, testifies to the high level of bureaucracy which was operating in Sarajevo at the time and shows how connections between the various departments worked in practice. Given that it was a city of only around 40,000 inhabitants in 1900, with a central business and commercial area of only about one and a half square kilometres, much business and political activity was probably carried out face-to-face in the numerous offices and cafés which lined the main streets. It seems likely that the application may have been well discussed ‘off the record’ before anything went down on paper. What is clear is that procedure was carefully followed to a successful conclusion.

Local businesses Evidence of other business activity in and around Sarajevo during the period is visible in the built environment and from the directories. One key area was the building industry itself, which was, in its various forms, one of the major employers of both local and immigrant labour. Kruševac suggests that most of the skilled and qualified personnel working in the building trade were from outside Bosnia, while local labourers carried out the ‘traditional’ building work using the old methods and materials.40 Schlesinger, writing about the development of building trade in 1902, notes that though initially this was the

116

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

case, Sarajevo ‘artisans’ quickly developed more modern building skills in line with the new building regulations and ‘now it also happens that buildings in neighbouring Balkan countries are being built by Sarajevo tradesmen’.41 The new building regulations, with their demands for fired brick and fireproof standards, helped to promote a major boom in the more modern style of building, while the growing numbers of immigrants of all sorts from government officials to business people and tradesmen increased the need for new housing, shops and business premises. As well as new building, there was much refurbishment and extension of old properties and also new buildings by local builders using the traditional methods.42 The new way of building stimulated the development of a large number of brickworks, many using the latest technology in the form of ring ovens. The east side of the Gorica hill was a major source of material for the bricks, and the site of August Braun’s brick factory at Koševo: there were six other major brickyards operating in Sarajevo by 1914.43 Braun’s business, founded in 1878, quickly expanded to provide a wide range of building materials. Headed notepaper from 1906, with pictures of his factory at Koševo and housing development at Marijin Dvor, listed not only bricks but also drainage goods, tiles, stoves, windows, doors and prepared timber for building and flooring, terracotta exterior decorations and a building service offering competitive terms.44 An advertisement showed various factories, including two sawmills and another brick factory to the west of the city at Pofalići.45 This suggests a real change from the situation which Schlesinger describes at the start of the period, when, although there had been no lack of raw material for building in the vicinity, ready-made goods such as stair treads from Dalmatia, tiles from Venice and even slates from Cornwall needed to be imported.46 Another large factory which made furniture and did joinery work for the building trade was Butazzoni and Venturini, originally based in Mostar; they started a branch in Sarajevo in 1890.47 There were also quarries in the locality, such as Da Riva’s at Mošćanica. According to Schlesinger, this development of the building materials industry led to a reduction in costs of materials, which further promoted building activity.48 The advent of new ways of building, such as the increased use of metal girders, cement and asphalt, also expanded the range of ancillary trades. Following the occupation, building contractors were busy in Sarajevo, working not only for private investors and householders but also for the administration itself. The administration developed its own building department in 1890 which managed its ongoing programme of municipal works as well as

Sarajevo at the Centre of the Developing Bosnian Economy

117

tendering for private business.49 The list of trades and businesses in Bosnischer Bote for 1910 included 16 different firms, and in addition, there were several cooperative companies and three limited companies, one of which was headed by August Braun and another by Josip Vancaš, both major forces in the building industry.50 The strong state of the building industry by 1910 suggests growth and ongoing confidence within the local economy. Other medium-sized enterprises based in or around Sarajevo included Racher and Babić’s; an advertisement in Bosnischer Bote for 1899 describes them as ‘purveyors of iron and other metal goods’, ‘At the sign of the Golden Shovel’ in Sarajevo and with a factory making wire, nails and iron goods at Pofalići.51 Their major development in 1913, a building with a mix of shop and apartment space on a corner site on the north-east of the cathedral square, indicates that the firm had done well and had investment funds available for real estate.52 Bosnischer Bote for 1910 listed under ‘Factories and Industrial Enterprises’ 16 businesses, including some already mentioned. There were also Steinmetz, Levy and Finci’s sawmills, a soda water company, a plaster works, a stocking factory, a cigarette paper factory and a lace goods factory owned by the partnership of Ješua and Moise Salom.53 The Chamber of Commerce report for 1911–12 noted in its section on private textile companies that the Salom’s partially mechanized factory in Sarajevo had been producing goods in Oriental style and, in 1911, had exported 400 cases of headscarves in a variety of designs to Bombay and Calcutta.54 This suggests a well-connected and wide-ranging sales strategy on the part of the firm, indicating that improvements in communication and transport links during the period were being utilized to the full by industrial entrepreneurs in at least some sections of the economy. It also shows that Sarajevo was keen to maintain its trading connections to the east. The administration was also involved in commerce. One of its more famous projects was the brewery, built at Bistrik on the site of Levi’s brewery. There had been various breweries in and around Sarajevo since 1864, and in 1893, those still extant were amalgamated, with new buildings added.55 The style, with archway and bright colouring, and the interior use of large iron girders, pillars and brick vaulting, is similar to that of breweries such as Eldridge Pope of Dorchester, England, and suggests again how, in the public sphere, building models were largely European based and, in this case, driven by the needs of the developing brewing technology (see Figure 4.2).56 In 1892, the administration also took over the carpet factory which had been founded in 1888 by Philip Haas and Sons of Vienna. The factory

118

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Figure 4.2  The new brewery buildings at Franjevačka 15. Source: Bosnischer Bote IV (1900), ÖNB Vienna: 188.273-B.4.1900 Neu, p. 201.

produced a range of carpets for the export market, including Bosnian-woven designs and hand-knotted rugs in wool and silk using ‘Oriental’ designs created by a ‘Persian painter’.57 This proved very successful, and Sugar notes that ‘by 1901 the plant employed 209 weavers’.58 As well as carpets and other woven goods designed for Western consumption, the administration was keen to promote Bosnian craft work such as traditional embroidery in cotton and silk and metal and wooden items with ‘Oriental’ style and decoration for the luxury market. These high-quality articles were advertised in guide books, sold through a ‘Bureau’ in Vienna and exhibited at major events such as the World Fair in Paris in 1900.59 To encourage local craft trades, in 1892, the administration built a school at Šljivingasse, on the west side of present-day Oslobodjenje Trg. The school is described in Hartleben’s 1895 guide; it was a boarding school, with places for 50 Muslim boys between the ages of 10 and 12. The boys came for three months and as well as learning traditional craft skills from experienced master craftsmen, had lessons in reading, writing and ornamental drawing, and received religious instruction.60 There was a workshop in Hulusina, behind the Franciscan monastery, where women and girls worked on needlecraft items using ‘Oriental’ patterns.61 Diana Reynolds,

Sarajevo at the Centre of the Developing Bosnian Economy

119

in her work on the representation of Bosnia in Vienna through the medium of arts and crafts, gives the context for these developments. A museum in Vienna had a collection of the best examples of craft items from different regions and periods. There were craft schools there and in the provinces of the Monarchy such as Bosnia, which were linked to the museum and used the craft items as a design source to improve the quality of production.62 The administration’s support for traditional local crafts and its efforts to market them to a clientele beyond Bosnia can be seen as elements of their concern to develop and maintain Bosnian cultural identity, albeit within the context of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Other sources of employment included the administration’s railway workshops and tobacco factory. The railway workshops employed about 1000 ­people.63 The station next door provided a focal point for much economic activity as it facilitated the transport of raw materials and finished goods in and out of the city, including, increasingly, the import of consumer goods for the Europeanstyle shops, which are discussed in the next section.

The economy at street level – shops and services A clear indicator of economic growth and change in the city throughout the period can be found in the shops and workshops at street level. The traditional čaršije (market areas) of the Ottoman period with small wooden booths and artisanal workshops where business and social life was carried on in the narrow lanes gradually gave way in the western part of the city to the European model of wider, straighter streets with shops at ground-floor level and apartments above, and communication between offices and shops by memorandum or telephone. One constant in terms of social presence and ‘networking’ was the café or coffee house, though Bosnischer Bote insisted on distinguishing between the type which was a la franca (European) and that which was a la turka (local style).64 These cafés, discussed further in Chapter 5, present a good example of the social change in the city which led to a demand for a wider range of goods and services. This was partly due to demographic change in the makeup of the population, with an increase in ‘incomers’ from elsewhere in the Monarchy and beyond. The consumer demands of this new populace, as well as the changing tastes of the local population as a result of the flood of new goods from the west triggered by changes in customs laws on the borders and improved transport facilities, meant

120

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

that the new shops offered very different goods and services in a different milieu when compared with the čaršije. When discussing the economic development of Sarajevo at this level, it is important to understand what sort of trades and businesses were involved. Such information also contributes, from a commercial perspective, to an assessment of how far Sarajevo was becoming a modern European city at the time, and how far it retained its traditional Ottoman character. For 1899, Bosnischer Bote included a list of trades and businesses operating in Sarajevo.65 These were listed by category (‘Grocers’, ‘Photographers’) in alphabetical order, noting in many cases addresses and starring the firms that were protokollirt (on the ‘official’ list approved by the administration). Analysis of the list gives excellent (albeit incomplete) information about the types of trade and business operating in Sarajevo at the time, the relative positions of different types of shop and where they were sited in the city. It also shows which were especially favoured by the government, the role of women in the commercial community, the confessional mix of shopkeepers and how far particular trades were common to particular confessions and the relationship of ‘incomers’ to ‘locals’ in the mix. Advertisements elsewhere in the directory indicate the size of some of the businesses listed. Data examined can be interpreted in the light of work on the economic context written at the time. As the list is dated 1899, it gives a picture of aspects of the commercial life in the middle of the AustroHungarian period; unfortunately, in later years, similar data were not available for comparison. Kruševac suggests that the businesses that formed the most important branches of the economy at the time were import-export, the catering trade, craft trades, industry, building and banking.66 The list provided a first-hand evidence of, at street level at least, the truth of this statement. The central area of the new western part of the city, on what is now the site of Oslobodjenje Trg, was then the customs offices and warehousing and central tram station, linked to the railway station three kilometres to the west by tram lines. This transport link enabled the development of import-export businesses in the centre of the city; within a short distance were wine traders, ironmongers, paint and cement factors, agents for transport and handling of goods, exporters and coal and military supplies merchants. The large number (c.100) of Gastwirthe (proprietors of restaurants, bars, cafés or lodging houses) on the list testifies to the importance of the catering trade. The statistics for individual small craftsmen, many of whom were based in Baščaršija, did not at first indicate a major group. However, when the numbers

Sarajevo at the Centre of the Developing Bosnian Economy

121

in different categories, from goldsmiths to slipper makers, are added to the large number of employees in, for example, the carpet factory and other government workshops which were not included in the list, the strength of the craft trades as a contributor to the economy of the city becomes clear. The larger industries were not all included as many were not in Sarajevo itself. Seven brickyards were listed, five at Koševo, all protokollirt, and two more at Borki (Grbavica), showing the importance of the building trade; Buttazoni and Venturini also had a branch within walking distance of the central tram station and a large advertisement in the directory. The listed businesses were clustered around the central parts of the three main east–west streets in the European area of the city, Čemaluša (Maršala Tita and Mule Mustafa Bašeskije), Ferhadija and Franz Josefsgasse (Branilaca Sarajeva and Zelenih Beretki). The intersections between these streets were also mainly used for business purposes at street level. Franz Josefsgasse was the most densely filled, with 124 firms listed in a street which numbered 135 properties. It was also the most uniformly ‘European’, with 88 businesses apparently run by ‘incomers’ and a large proportion of the shops, particularly in the centre, involved in the sale of clothing: ladies’ fashions, military outfitters, tailors and dressmakers. There were also perfumers, jewellers, photographers and hairdressers and barbers, as well as two servants’ employment exchanges. On the western extremes, the shops thinned out and were involved in trades rather than the sale of consumer goods and services. There were several Gastwirthe, a chimney sweep, a carpenter and a plumber/tinsmith. There was also a funeral parlour. Ferhadija’s extreme east end appeared not to have business occupants. However, further west on both sides most premises had shops, and some had two or three in one building. There were several large businesses near the tram station, but it was also an important street for public institutions: the Handelsschule, a Serbian Orthodox school for boys and girls, a technical middle school, a state boy’s primary school and the National Museum and Military Post Office by the cathedral. Within the market hall which faced onto the street were 27 vendors of meat, fish, greengrocery and dairy products. Shops in the vicinity were also involved in the sale of food; there were grocers, three charcuteries and wine merchants. Again, the street was punctuated by Gastwirthe. Čemaluša was approximately two kilometres long, with almost 200 numbered properties. However, businesses were more spread out there, with only 105 along the entire street. The east end was predominantly residential,

122

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

and the evidence on the ground and in old photographs shows small, mainly two-storey, houses. There were some grocery stores and wholesale goods importers, including an importer of ‘colonial goods’; these shops were close to Baščaršija and appeared to be run entirely by locals; there is a sense of a more traditional feel when compared with further west. The contrast is evident from the cathedral square/hamam baths onwards, with shops in the central part more like those in the streets to the south, more densely occupied and selling clothing, books, glassware, bicycles and other consumer goods. Beyond the junction with the west end of Ferhadija, along with another funeral parlour which also sold wreaths, were ironmongers, three laundries and more Gastwirthe. There were grocers, firewood and coal merchants, two saddlers and blacksmiths. As with Franz Josefsgasse, the west end seemed more orientated towards trades than towards consumer goods. The larger firms such as Kasparek Bruder, who sold bicycles and were plumbers/tinsmiths and asphalt contractors, were situated in the new European-style buildings. Postcards of the street show a mix of old and new to the west, with smaller businesses including booksellers, a hat-maker and clockmakers mainly in the older buildings.67 At Nr. 158, Brunner and Co. sold ironmongery, bicycles, cement, paint and building materials. This shop was on the tram line, and the one next door, Franz Steinmetz and Co., dealt in building and fire wood as well as being a coal merchant. Clearly, the transport factor was important to the siting of these businesses. There were also three wine merchants along the section of the street served by the tram line, and a barrel maker at Nr. 105 in the same building as one of them. The new government administration buildings and the park opposite at the extreme west end of the street near the junction with Koševo may have encouraged the development of cafés at this end; there were five in relatively close range, either recorded as actual cafés or listing Gastwirthe. Streets running north–south between these three main shopping streets also contained businesses. Corner sites, such as the crossroads where Rudolfsgasse (Strossmajerova) intersected Franz Josefsgasse, were full of shops. Rudolfsgasse, discussed in detail in Chapter 6, was then newly built and catered to the needs of the occupying forces. The evidence from old postcards, as well as from the premises themselves, shows relatively high-status shops. There was only one woman (a dressmaker) among the businesses in the street. This was below the average for the rest of the central area in the data sample, suggesting that women were generally involved in less high-status occupations and could not afford the rent for shops in this prestigious location.

Sarajevo at the Centre of the Developing Bosnian Economy

123

Čumurija, which runs south of Rudolfsgasse to the river, seems to have been similarly populated by businesses from outside Bosnia, including two hairdressers, a musical instrument maker and seller, and a tailor. Several premises were not apparently used for trade, and a basket maker and Tabaktrafik (a small kiosk-type state monopoly shop selling tobacco, letter and duty stamps and stationery) suggest lower-status businesses.68 Other Tabaktrafik shops were situated towards the east and west ends of the main streets; at least four of the seven listed were run by women; perhaps the same financial restraints applied as for the dressmaker. Čukovićgasse (S. H. Muvekita), between Franz Josefsgasse and Ferhadija to the east of Rudolfsgasse, had fewer shops; however, there were several offices, including those for Schmarda’s printing, publishing and transport and supply concerns, as well as the commercial school at its north end. The administration’s cultural magazine ‘Nada’ was run by its chief editor, Hofrath Konstantin Hörmann, from the second floor of the printing works building, built by the previous proprietor of the Bosnische Post, Milena Mrazović, in 1894. Apart from the midwife operating from Nr. 5, this seems to be a street for influential people and decision-makers; it is in the centre of the European part of the city, within easy walking distance of the Rathaus and the Museum complex with which Hörmann was actively involved, and 10 minutes from the administration buildings to the west. Other streets between Ferhadija and Franz Josefsgasse also included business premises. Among these were midwives, shoemakers and laundries, mainly run by ‘incomers’. With the exception of Čumurija, very little business was recorded in the streets which link Franz Josefsgasse to the Appelquai, possibly because these were relatively new streets formed by the recent embankment of the river. Koševo was still in a state of development at the western edge of the city, as shown by the presence of a gardener and dairy. Many of the businesses listed there have no number in the address, and it is difficult to establish how the buildings in the street were numbered in 1899. They were certainly well spread out over about one kilometre. There was a large military presence, with a telegraph office, bakery and food warehouse. The new public cemetery for the Catholic and Serbian Orthodox communities, established in 1884, as well as the military cemetery further up on the opposite side, gave work for Anna Fieber’s firm of monumental masons. There were potters, presumably because of the proximity of a plentiful supply of clay, also used by the brick factories in the immediate vicinity, and Buttazoni and Venturini were listed as locksmiths there.

124

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Risto Besarović and Daniel A. Salom had a lace goods factory. This is another example of a ‘small enterprise’ run by local businessmen such as Sugar had felt was lacking in the period.69 Sahtijanuša (Mis Irbina), like Koševo, was in the process of development at this time. In 1896, the administration had built a printing house and bookbinders, and there were furniture and carriage workshops on the south side to the west of this. The solid neoclassically faced buildings housed two carpenters, a blacksmith and Lackierermeister (painter). The east end seems to have been almost entirely residential, with the exception of the chief doctor for the state railway, who was also a specialist in ‘women’s illnesses’, and the K.u.K. regimental dentist, who was listed as being next door to the printing house. The soda water factory was also sited here. The remaining data which it was possible to collate into street lists related to businesses on the south side of the river. Given that Bistrik/Hrvatin at the east end was a predominantly Muslim area, with winding narrow streets and steep slopes, it is perhaps hardly surprising that there was relatively little European-style development there in the Austro-Hungarian period. The barracks at Bistrik was a key feature which inevitably attracted some trades and businesses, and the two streets to the west of this on the flatter ground also shared in the new development, particularly after the replacement of the old wooden Čobanija and Skenderija bridges with modern metal ones in 1887 and 1893, respectively.70 The city fire station was about half way along the street on the river side, and there was also the military school and a department of the national carpet factory. Trades and businesses on the left bank seem to have been generally of lower status and less numerous than those clustered around the new centre on the right bank. There were a blacksmith, carriage painter and builder next to the military headquarters, the Platz Commando at Nr. 1. Theresiengasse (the east end); presumably they were involved in servicing military needs. Apart from this, there were few shops – only 31 businesses in a street of about one kilometre; the toy shop at Nr. 67 seems to be the only example of a shop selling consumer items. The street was like the western end of Čemaluša, with a predominance of trades, including a chimney sweep, roofer and slater, locksmith, decorator, gardener, two carpenters and three carriage painters. There were also the usual grocers and Gastwirthe, a shoemaker, laundry and dressmaker. Konakgasse (Konak, Franjevačka), to the east of the barracks, was similarly thinly populated with trades or businesses, the main business being the large brewery noted earlier. There were two Gastwirthe near the brewery, a third a little further along the street and a general store and a

Sarajevo at the Centre of the Developing Bosnian Economy

125

grocery near the Konak. The presence of two cafés a la franca among the three hostelries on the Kaiserstrasse along the left bank of the river suggests that the clientèle may have been largely military personnel from the nearby barracks and military headquarters, though there was also some European-style housing in the vicinity. Moritz Schiller, one of the protokollirte tradesmen who had a grocery and delicatessen at Nr. 6, had transferred his business to a large solid premises on the other side of the river by the Latin bridge by 1914, suggesting that business was better on the right bank of the river, and it was outside his shop there that the assassination occurred. Analysis of the data in the Bosnischer Bote list for firms that were protokollirt suggests that although the administration favoured immigrant traders over the local population, the discrepancy was not huge. Any bias seemed to have more to do with gender, type of business and ‘class’ of business: for example, jewellers rather than fishmongers or second-hand goods shops. Status appears to be the key factor, reinforcing middle-class aspirations and values. Women’s role in the commercial life of Sarajevo was marginal, and the type of businesses in which they were involved was restricted by contemporary attitudes to women’s place in society. They were midwives, dressmakers, sellers of ladies’ fashions, tobacco, stamps and stationery (Tabaktrafik), grocers (one protokollirt) and Gastwirthe (two protokollirt). They were also laundresses (though there were male laundry proprietors too) and had stalls in the market hall selling dairy produce. There were some knitters and embroiderers; one, in Franz Josefsgasse, had a workshop, suggesting she might have had employees. Two ladies ran employment agencies; this related to women’s role as household managers. Women were also listed as piano teachers (three); one offered singing lessons too. Another made and sold musical instruments. Of the more than 550 businesses listed, only 60 appear to be run by women (although sometimes a single initial makes it impossible to know). The traditional role of women in Sarajevo at the time within confessional traditions meant that many, particularly Muslims, spent much time within their houses and only went out heavily veiled and covered. It seems that most of those involved in trade and business were incomers; even with dressmaking and midwifery, with 20 and 17 practitioners, respectively, only a few of each were apparently local women. The picture was the same for Gastwirthe, the other main acceptable commercial opportunity for women. One trade which was not listed but was well established in Sarajevo was prostitution. In 1899–1900, in an effort to control the trade, the administrationapproved bordellos of Nova ulica were developed by private entrepreneurs to

126

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

the west of the city, within walking distance of the centre and the large barracks. There were seven bordellos, with a police station at the end of the street, and each had a female proprietor. Plans for Nova ulica 5 indicate how it was organized.71 On the ground floor were a large and a small saloon for the entertainment of guests (officers and other ranks), plus an office for the Hausfrau, a kitchen, pantry and cook’s room and one room for what is referred to as Nachtgeschäft. On the first floor were eight more rooms for Nachtgeschäft (all relatively narrow, with one window apiece), toilets and a two-room apartment for the Hausfrau with bathroom attached. The first-floor layout for Nr. 1 is similar, but there is also a room labelled Kaserne, perhaps a dormitory for the women. Prstojević gives the figures for registered prostitutes as 228 in 1908, but not all were registered, and Nova ulica was certainly not the only bordello area.72 However, the sex trade was probably not a numerically significant ‘employer’. Working as house servants, sewing and employment in the state tobacco, carpet and craft factories were the main options for Sarajevan women in need of an income. Schlesinger notes that some trades were closed to certain confessions for religious reasons, but that business connections between members of different faiths usually allowed these potential ‘gaps’ to be filled.73 This is borne out by analysis of the data; certain trades or types of shops were predominantly run by members of certain confessions. Examples are butchers of certain types (pork, and pork sausage-makers, not open to Muslim or Jewish traders), opanken (soft leather shoes) made only by a small group of Serbian Orthodox craftsmen for their Serbian Orthodox customers who traditionally wore these shoes, and coppersmiths, who were Muslim. The local craft trades and largerscale suppliers of manufactured goods, traders in hides, furs and metal goods were predominantly ‘locals’, members of the Muslim, Serbian Orthodox and Sephardic Jewish groups. The few obviously Croat Catholics in the street lists were mainly wine merchants. The grouping of confessional members in terms of the siting of businesses bears some relationship to the 1886 map for property ownership by confession, in that several Serbian Orthodox tradespeople had businesses around the old Serbian Orthodox church in Čemaluša, and there was a grouping towards the east end of Franz Josefsgasse. However, they also had businesses elsewhere and seemed to feature particularly as dressmakers and Gastwirthe. They represented a relatively strong presence in the economic community at this level, with c.20 per cent of the shops or businesses on the street list and many in traditional trades centred round Baščaršija. There were relatively few Muslims in the street

Sarajevo at the Centre of the Developing Bosnian Economy

127

lists, particularly as shopkeepers (c.7 per cent), but many were in the original directory list in Baščaršija without addresses, involved in traditional craft occupations. These craft trades, many involving small artisanal workshops based on the feudal guild system, had declined after the occupation despite the liberalization of trading laws in 1909.74 This was partly because of the influx of western factory-made goods and partly owing to changes in the way people lived and worked, which meant that some traditional products were no longer needed.75 The Sephardic Jews were also in a minority on the street map (as they were demographically in the city with about 7 per cent of shops/trades and approximately 10 per cent of the population), and there seems less of a correlation between their 1886 property ownership pattern and positions as shopkeepers and traders. In a publication to mark the 400-year anniversary of the arrival of the Jewish people in Bosnia, Kruševac mentions their major role in the economy as traders, merchants and bankers, in industry and as suppliers to the army post-occupation. He notes the huge polarization between the few very rich families and the many very poor, none of whom would probably have shown up in the list of trades and businesses.76 In the same volume, Julije Hamamović writes about the Ashkenazi Jews who arrived after the occupation and found employment in many of the professions, as doctors, lawyers and administrators, bringing new approaches.77 They were also involved in shopkeeping, and many of the names listed for this study as ‘from elsewhere in the Monarchy’ are from this confessional group. It is not always possible to be certain about confessional allegiance, but corroborative evidence, such as Hamamović’s chapter and the list of people in Bosnischer Bote involved in the running of the Ashkenazi Jewish community based in Theresiengasse, is helpful in this respect.78 Similarly, the Catholics as a group are hard to assess in numerical terms; some came from elsewhere, and some were Croats who may have arrived after 1878 or may have lived in Bosnia-Hercegovina for generations.79 Catholics were, therefore, not always, though often, incomers in terms of this survey. Corroborative evidence for several is to be found in the Catholic cemeteries at Koševo, which formed the last resting place for some of the people found in the sample and elsewhere. At around 63 per cent, the ‘incomers’, a mix of Roman Catholic and Ashkenazi Jew, with some Evangelical Protestants and members of other faiths, form the largest proportion of the trades and businesses listed in my street survey, though a figure of about 50 per cent or less may be nearer the mark when businesses without addresses are added to this for Sarajevo as a whole. However, as a key

128

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

aspect of the survey was to find out who was using the buildings in the new part of the city at street level in 1899, this gives some indication. The survey shows strong evidence of European-style shopping patterns in the new central area of the city, particularly in the buildings developed since the occupation, and therefore presumably a sufficient market for these modern consumer goods. However, there was also continuity in the more traditional occupations, types of product and the people who were involved in selling to, and servicing, the population of Sarajevo. Many of these more traditional types of trade and product were situated on the periphery of the new commercial area and in the traditional mercantile area at Baščaršija. In terms of confessional differences, the results show that Sarajevo in 1899 had a thriving multi-confessional economic community at shop and small business level, mostly run by men. There were fashionable and less fashionable areas from a commercial point of view, and though this may have been related to power centres within the city, there was clearly no segregation by confession. In terms of consumer items and services to be purchased, transport and communication systems which were in place to provide them, and modern-style premises in which to purchase them, Sarajevo was well on the way to being a modern up-to-date capital city which copied the Western consumption patterns of its much larger relations, Budapest and Vienna, while still offering the aspects of traditional Eastern trade and commerce for its local population and curious tourists alike.

Later development The development of new bank buildings and larger business blocks towards the end of the period cannot only be explained by changes in the building regulations allowing greater building heights; it also suggests a spurt in business confidence and available capital with which to build. Kreševljaković lists six new banks or savings institutions founded between 1905 and 1914 in Sarajevo and notes their connection to ‘national–confessional groups’.80 One example is the Croatian Central Bank from 1912, a large and imposing building on the corner of Franz Josefsgasse and (now) Oslobodjenje Trg, which looks across to the military Casino and Salom’s department store. The Austro-Hungarian bank building on Obala Kulina Bana is similarly massive and imposing with its neo-classical columns and pediment on the façade.

Sarajevo at the Centre of the Developing Bosnian Economy

129

Probably designed by Rudolf Tőnnies, it was also built in 1912 and suggests huge confidence and importance. This building is serious in its size, purpose and architectural references, though there is interest in the external detail; the three entrances each have a stone sculptured head on the keystone. The central head appears to be a Muslim with a turban, the head on the left is Serbian and that on the right is presumably Croat to symbolize the three key confessions or ‘nations’ as they were classified by this time.81 The Slavija bank building just along the river bank at Obala Kulina Bana 15 is an interesting example of the work of Jan Kotěra, who in 1898 had been made professor in the School of Decorative Art in Prague.82 He had already designed key public buildings in Czechoslavakia, such as the exhibition pavilion for the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Prague in 1908 and a museum in Hradec Králové which was completed in 1912.83 His design for the bank in Sarajevo shows similarities in form and decoration to his Urbánek house in Prague (1911–13) and is dated 1911.84 Throughout the structure, there is a strong emphasis on rectangular forms, and the building is symmetrical, with entrance doors at each side. There are four heads in the form of corbels between the three central windows on the ground-floor façade, but unlike those at the AustroHungarian bank, these are all the same and are stylized angular representations of a male head wearing a turban, with a thick moustache and deep-set eyes. Ibrahim Krzović observes that they are Bosnian figures, made of local limestone from the Sarajevo area.85 The high profile of the architect concerned, as well as the prominent site, shows the importance which the bank placed upon its activities in the province and its confidence in future growth there. The three banks mentioned above and the private ‘investment’ buildings from the late, post-annexation period, such as the Salom palace (also developed in 1912), show that by this stage and at this level the economy in Sarajevo was in a prosperous state and there was investment for the future. In the conclusion to his article on the Bosnian economy of the period, Palairet comments on the relatively successful economic outcomes of the rule of the administration in the province but observes that ‘the achievement was as yet unbalanced and fragile, as is characteristic of dualistic economic development, . . . the deceleration after the death of Kállay was probably giving way to renewed growth on the eve of World War 1’.86 The ‘deceleration’ he refers to was partly as a result of the policies of István Burián who succeeded Kállay as Joint Minister of Finance in 1903. Under his administration, industrial development ‘stagnated’ until the advent of the Bosnian parliament in 1910.87

130

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

However, though any exploration of economic development in Sarajevo is directly related to what was happening throughout Bosnia and beyond, it is important to be aware that the city had its own dynamic. Kruševac, in his summary of economic conditions in the city during the period, states clearly that the administration provided favourable conditions to support economic development. Although much of this development was fostered by entrepreneurs such as Johann Baptist Schmarda, with or without backers in high places, evidence from sources such as directories and the buildings themselves indicates that the local population played an increasingly confident role as the period progressed.88 This assessment of the business and economic activities in Sarajevo, particularly at street level, has revealed a mix of continuity with the Baščaršija workshops and traditional crafts, and change to more European-style shops and businesses in the western part of the city. The influx of business people from outside the city and the development by both local and outside investors of larger modern businesses which relied on the improved transport links and availability of capital, all contributed to a greater range of consumer goods and services and to the development of a middle-class European lifestyle for the wealthier inhabitants of the city. The next chapter explores how and where this developing middle class lived and spent their leisure time, while Chapter 6 gives some insights into how they spent their money.

5

The Development of a Middle-Class Society

To those of them who would know something more of the primitive people . . ., this book is indispensable. Frau Milena Mrazovic loves the simple souls of whom she writes. She loves those wild passes, this almost desolate land. If she, perhaps, is not so grateful as she should be to the Austrian who has washed her country, she is but echoing the sentiment of the nation for whom she speaks – a nation which has found in her at all times a zealous and most able champion.

Thus wrote Max Pemberton in a book review for The Sketch dated 19 April 1899.1 The book was Milena Mrazović’s Selam, a collection of stories from Bosnia which had appeared in an English edition in that year, following translation from the original German publication of 1893.2 Although he refers to her elsewhere in the article as a ‘Bosnian lady’, Milena Mrazović was actually born in Bjelovar, Croatia, but lived most of her adult life in Sarajevo. When taken together, her lifestyle, the activities in which she participated and the people with whom she worked and spent her leisure time provide valuable evidence of the sort of life which developed and was lived by the middle classes in Sarajevo during the period of Austro-Hungarian administration.3 Milena Mrazović was born in either 1860 or 1863, depending on the source. She was from a middle-class family and completed her education at a school in Budapest. A few weeks after the occupation, she came with her parents to Bosnia where her father had a post as an administrative officer, first in Banja Luka, then, from 1879, in Sarajevo. She was a cultured young lady, a pianist and a composer who taught French at the local Sisters of Charity convent school in 1884–5 while developing her writing with contributions to newspapers such as the Neue Augsburger Postzeitung, and later, the Bosnische Post, of which she was to become proprietor in 1889 following the death of her fiancé, the previous owner of the paper. In 1893–4, she built an apartment block with newspaper offices and a printing shop on the ground floor. The building was intended to house herself and her business and provide rental income. The plans provide interesting insights into, and understanding of, norms in business and residential life when

132

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Figure 5.1  Milena Mrazović. Picture from The Sketch, 19 April 1899, p. 548. Source: The Bodleian Library, University of Oxford. Shelfmark N.17078 C. 32/1899.

The Development of a Middle-Class Society

133

seen in the context of other similar buildings from the period. In 1896, she sold the newspaper, printing and publishing business, married a doctor who was working at the new hospital at Koševo, and for the rest of her life continued to write stories and travel literature.4 She also gave lectures and held an exhibition on Bosnia-Hercegovina in Vienna, becoming the first female member of the Vienna Anthropological Society in 1889. After spending the World War I period nursing the wounded throughout the Balkan region, she, along with her husband, was expelled from Bosnia in 1919 as an alien under the new regime, on the grounds of her husband’s Austrian nationality. She died in Vienna in 1927. The development of a middle-class pattern of living, such as that experienced by Mrazović, was one of the key aspects of social change in Sarajevo after the occupation, showing a clear move in influence from ‘East’ to ‘West’. This was partly the result of the so-called ‘civilizing mission’ which had such a profound impact on the public face of the city, its infrastructure and organization and was partly the effect of the arrival of the invading forces and the armies of bureaucrats such as Mrazović’s father who followed them. This chapter will discuss such new models of behaviour and activity, showing how the changes affected the Sarajevan way of life for many people both inside and outside the home. The new types of apartment building which proliferated, modelled according to central- and western-European patterns, were a key feature, as was the development of clubs and societies. The chapter also explores the way in which improved educational opportunities, both confessional and state-funded, contributed to new ways of thinking and spending leisure time and the growth of print media in the form of new newspapers and periodicals, again based on Western models. The changing demographic makeup of Sarajevo as a result not only of new arrivals from elsewhere in the Monarchy and beyond, but also of movement by local people from rural Bosnia-Hercegovina to the city for work and education, meant that the urban population more than doubled in size within the period from the occupation up until 1914 with a large increase in professionals relative to other occupations.5 All these factors had a role in the development of a flourishing middle class whose life and leisure pursuits were typical of middle-class life throughout Europe at the time.6

Apartment life and layouts One of the most fundamental changes following the occupation was the way in which many people occupied their living space and the type of space it was.

134

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

The development of architect-designed apartment blocks which housed several families was a key feature of the new middle-class lifestyle. Considerations of fire and flood safety, familiarity (for the tenant) and the need to house the maximum number of people in relative comfort led to the adoption by developers of apartment layouts similar to those found in Budapest, Vienna and other towns and cities in central and western Europe. The layouts of apartments also reflected the middle-class aspirations of the tenants and owners who inhabited the buildings. Much work has been done by both Péter Hanák and Gábor Gyáni on the use and development of middle-class living space in this period in Hungary, and the evidence from blueprints and the interiors of the buildings suggests that most Sarajevo apartments were inhabited in the same way as those discussed in Gyáni’s and Hanák’s case studies.7 For Sarajevo, the key work on this topic is Prof.  Jahiel  Finci’s 1962 book on the ‘development of disposition and function in apartment culture in Sarajevo’.8 Finci looks at the way in which living space was organized in the buildings of the city from Ottoman times through to the late 1930s, splitting the time period into three sections: ‘Turkish’, ‘Austro-Hungarian’ and ‘the Period between the two wars’. He compares different styles of building and percentages of coverage per plot, the way in which the terrain is used and the availability of natural light, for each period. His assessment of the Austro-Hungarian period is generally negative on the grounds of its overdevelopment of plots and wasteful use of space, both horizontally and vertically.9 However, his views must be seen within the context of 1960s Yugoslavia and may be challenged factually and regarding the availability of light. Initially, apartments from the Austro-Hungarian period were mostly relatively small (several in the early Marijin Dvor development had only one or two rooms), but four-room apartments with lavatory and kitchen seem to have been an early standard. Apartments were accessed off a central stairwell, usually with an entrance lobby with access to the lavatory. Higherstatus apartments had a pantry and a servant’s room near the kitchen.10 This ‘service’ area of the apartment was usually at the back of the building with minimal light and on the opposite side of the central corridor from the family living rooms.11 In contrast, the main ‘salon’ and other living rooms of the apartment might have views over the street or even a balcony. The living rooms were often interconnected by tall double doors and the rooms had high ceilings: the sectional plan of Milena Mrazović’s development shows

The Development of a Middle-Class Society

135

this well. The double doors between rooms are drawn as 2.5  m high and ceilings are 3.5  m high, with the ‘less good’ apartments at the top 3.25  m. Finci reports that the average height was 4 m, but examination of other plans shows that Mrazović’s apartment dimensions were a standard for this type of development.12 Rooms were usually approximately 25 sq.m, although this depended upon the shape of the plot. As many of the new Sarajevo developments used plots which had been part of the old Ottoman city, irregularities of shape were common. There was usually a smaller Kabinett which might be half this width. Some apartments had a smaller room directly accessible from the main landing as well as from within the apartment; this could be sublet to a single occupant who would have shared kitchen and other facilities.13 Apartment buildings also had cellars for use by all occupants, mainly for storage of fuel, and attics for drying laundry and more storage. Most rooms were heated by either round or rectangular earthenware stoves which often reached the ceiling and were usually in the corner of the room; they can be seen as either circles or small rectangles on blueprints.14 The earliest inclusion of a bathroom found on a Sarajevo plan is 1889 in the new Ajas-Pašin Dvor apartment and café development built by the Vakufscommission for rental income.15 Although Mrazović’s apartment plan shows early en suite facilities with a connecting lavatory, bathrooms were certainly not common in Sarajevo apartment developments until late in the 1890s. Some post-1900 plans also have a ‘Gentleman’s’ room, probably used for smoking or as a private space or study for the ‘paterfamilias’.16 The uniformity in terms of layout is one notable factor both in Sarajevo and elsewhere; though outward designs on façades varied hugely according to architectural fashions and the tastes of the builder, within, the content and organization of the living space was generally similar, representing a middle-class European standard for the mid-to-late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries which was accepted by both incomers and some native Sarajevans. Rooms at the sides or backs of the apartment blocks often had minimal natural light; it has been argued by Finci that such apartments would have been very dark and gloomy as the buildings were so close together, with the use of up to 95 per cent of plot space.17 This may have been so in extreme cases and certainly is the effect when many of the buildings, surrounded by taller, more recent development, are viewed today; but it must be remembered that many of the presently surrounding buildings did not exist then, and previous buildings

136

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

on these sites were of the low-level Ottoman type which did not overshadow their new neighbours.18 The use of apartment space was relatively uniform; standard layouts included a main bedroom, a dining area, a salon for receiving visitors (shown in many of the plans, which say ‘salon’ as well as soba or zimmer) as well as the kitchen, pantry and lavatory, which were much smaller than the main rooms.19 Hanák discusses layouts in The Garden and the Workshop where he notes that the children of the family usually slept in their parents’ room when they were small and then slept in the living room.20 It has been argued that the salon, though often the largest room in the apartment, was heavily furnished and was hardly used, intended only for showing off wealth and social position to visitors, with the occupants spending their time in the kitchen.21 Advertisements in the directory, Bosnischer Bote, show that items for such furnishing were readily available in Sarajevo.22 Opening of the interconnecting doors meant that a larger space could be made available for social functions. However, because of the constraints of space and privacy, social life mainly happened outside the apartment in cafés and clubs.23 In keeping with middle-class women throughout Europe, women had a more private social existence than men; the society reports in the local paper in Sarajevo seem to bear this out, though there are some reports of women being active in society, and we have already encountered examples of female entrepreneurs earlier.24 Other floor layouts for different types of building show interesting elements of domestic detail and the intended use of valuable working and rental space. An early example of a ‘villa’ or family house, a type of housing also popular with the middle classes, was the one that was planned for Herr Hilfamtsdirektor Layer at Tepebašina 7 in 1887. It had three rooms and a Kabinett plus kitchen and lavatory on each floor, suggesting that it was meant for two families, vital at a time when there was such a pressing need for accommodation for government officials, as Edmund Stix records.25 Mrazović’s plan included five other apartments for rent and shows that her own apartment at the front of the building was relatively luxurious. As well as her bedroom with en suite facilities, there was a room for her parents, one for visitors, a ‘salon’, dining room, kitchen, pantry, servant’s room and second lavatory. On the ground floor were offices for the paper and the editor’s office, with workrooms and the printing shop at the back. The cellar plan shows where wood and coal were to be stored and the stockroom areas for the printing business. In the yard was a stable for two horses and a carriage shed, with a room over it for the coachman. As a general principle, none of these apartment buildings

The Development of a Middle-Class Society

137

had any access between floors except by the common staircase, which opened from a main door and hallway, usually at the front of the building or through a carriageway at the side. However, Mrazović had a private spiral staircase from her bedroom above the newspaper offices to the floor below. Plans show that, as with the above-mentioned example, not all layouts were intended solely for accommodation. Josip Vancaš’ plans for his own house at M.  M. Bašeskije 9 (1892), from which he ran his architecture business, show mixed use.26 As well as living space, the plans included his offices, as was common with many business people. ‘Im eigenen Hause’ was often written on advertisements (see Figure 5.2). In his account of domestic life in Budapest in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Gyáni comments on the use of a room or rooms of an apartment as ‘business space’ by middle-class professionals. He discusses the way in which the occupation of the head of the family might affect the division of space within the apartment, noting that the inclusion of studies, surgeries and offices was ‘by no means a rarity’.27 A Sarajevo example of a doctor’s surgery can be seen on the first-floor plan of Dr Preindlsberger’s house/surgery at Džidžikovac 5. It shows not only a surgery (in the sense of a doctor’s consulting room) but also a waiting room and operating room.28 This mixed-use apartment was presumably where Frau Preindlsberger-Mrazović lived after her marriage to the doctor in November 1896. Another mixed-use development belonged to Hinka Schlesinger the chemist. He built elegant Secession-style premises for himself and his business at Ferhadija 27, with another apartment for rent on the second floor.29 On the ground floor were his chemist’s shop with Laboratorium and Inspektionsraum behind, with a small shop and stockroom to the side, presumably also for rent. At the back were a small (3.3 × 2.1 m) servant’s room, lavatory and a larger room for the chemist’s assistant, with a large stockroom for the business which was accessible from the courtyard behind the shop. The first floor had the usual combination of four rooms and kitchen with a roof terrace above the stockroom; these may have been the owner’s living quarters. Such a development, in a prominent part of the city near the cathedral, shows both middle-class good taste and practicality. Close neighbour Babić’s neo-baroque corner building on the cathedral square had a similar mix of public and private space. There was a large shop to sell his wares with five apartments above. He had a spacious four-room apartment above the shop; the salon on the corner, with the balcony ostentatiously supported by Hercules figures, was more than 6 m square and commanded views up and down Ferhadija as well as over the cathedral square.30 The ground-floor shop took up

138

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Figure 5.2  Leopold Ács’ and Josef Martinek’s advertisements in Bosnischer Bote, 1902. The house mentioned in Martinek’s advertisement can still be seen at H. Kreševljaković 11. Source: Bosnischer Bote VI (1902), ABiH P–15/1902, p. xxxvi.

The Development of a Middle-Class Society

139

most of the long (32 m), narrow (c.6 m) site area. There was a concierge’s room at the north end and access to the living floors above by a staircase behind the shop. Another staircase, accessed from the shop, went down to the cellars and up to the mezzanine level (below the ‘piano nobile’ where the apartments began). The mezzanine was used for the storage and offices of the Racher and Babić firm: the mezzanine floor used in this way is quite common in residential/business buildings in Sarajevo, and the model can be seen in Vienna and elsewhere.31 The upper floors each had two apartments (one with four rooms, one with three), and there was another in the attic space. As with Schlesinger’s, we see an outward expression of culture and good taste and a pragmatic, economically advantageous use of interior space. Unlike Budapest and Vienna, few really large apartment blocks were built, and most of them, four or more storeys high, came late in the period following changes in building regulations around 1910, which permitted more storeys.32 The Budapest-style layout which included interior galleries for access at each level around a courtyard was largely absent in Sarajevo; even with the biggest blocks, interior stairs were the normal mode of access, probably at least in part because the available plots, mainly in the centre of the city, were relatively small and were not suitable for a central-courtyard-style arrangement. One exception was the Salom’s development at M. Tita 54, built in 1912, which had some short access walkways on the interior of the courtyard leading off from the main staircases at different levels.33 Once established, the pattern for layout of apartments changed little before 1918, reflecting the middle classes’ ongoing enthusiasm for this type of accommodation. Census statistics show that between 1879 and 1910, an increasing proportion of the city’s population lived in an apartment rather than the usually small houses occupied by one family which had been the norm in preoccupation times.34 This indicates a gradual adoption of middle-class lifestyles during the period as far as the home was concerned. The proliferation of clubs and societies following the occupation suggests that the same was happening in the public sphere.

Clubs and societies Pre-occupation patterns of social behaviour for men centred around the shops and cafés of Baščaršija, and if Hanák’s point about male social life being outside the rather cramped apartment holds good for Sarajevo, post-occupation life

140

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

would have been similar.35 However, one major change was the development of alternative, European-style places to meet, such as the military Casino, the theatre and reading rooms, as well as several cafés a la franca which are discussed further in Chapter 6. A wide range of professional and social clubs and societies developed in Sarajevo after the occupation, and these too provided venues for leisure outside the home.36 Bosnischer Bote, published each year from 1897, lists them usually with the date of founding, purpose of the club or society and key personnel. This makes it possible not only to chart the development of the range of such groups, but also to see which individuals were involved as officers and in what way. The social networks of Sarajevo in the period are, thus, revealed, especially when crossreferenced with the lists of members of the boards of local industry, commerce and religious and governmental groups at different levels. These names can also be used to establish context and background detail for signatures of city council or Landesregierung personnel on planning applications and to indicate the business or profession of some of the ‘builders’. The same names also appear in newspaper and other media reports and help to provide a broader picture of individuals, as well as showing what a relatively small and close-knit community the city was, particularly at the middle-class professional level. The evidence also indicates the growth of a flourishing ‘civil society’ during the period, a civil society, in which people from different backgrounds associated together in a semi-public context to further common interests and support the wider community. Most names are those of men, with women playing a minimal role according to the sources available; this reinforces earlier comments on separate social spheres for men and women at middle-class level. Milena Mrazović was unusual in operating in a man’s world in terms of her business interests: the newspaper Bosnische Post, for which she held the government concession, and her printing and publishing business. The lists suggest that many men met on a regular basis at a mixture of business, government and club activities, not to mention at fashionable cafés and at social events which were frequently reported in the newspapers. The Sarajevski List included a section on social events in the city, called Iz društva (From Society), which gave careful details of those present and often of what they said, did or even which songs they sang. The New Year concert of the Männergesangverein (Men’s Choral Society) published on 2 January 1895 was reported thus: Owing to the busy festive season, the Men’s Choral Society was forced to hold their New Year concert of 29th December in the hall of the Joint-Stock Brewery Company at Koševo. The occasion made clear that the venue is inadequate and

The Development of a Middle-Class Society

141

cramped for use as a public hall. The concert, which was directed by the combined forces of Messrs.Vancaš and Niemeczek, included a varied programme. The society started proceedings with harmonious singing of four songs, two in German, and two in Slav. After these came a humorous musical play, “Rigorozo in Summer” by Englesberg, with several solo parts (Messrs. Niemeczek, Kroker, Hascha, Proskowetz, Fischer, Lexow) which generated universal applause and laughter. Mr Warmersperger next sang a solo, then Messrs. Niemeczek and Fischer offered a duet from “The Merry Wives of Windsor,” and Messrs. Kroker, Heeger, Niemeczek and Fischer sang a humorous quartet. . . . The remaining numbers were directed by the Colonel in charge of Military Music. . . . At the end a gastronomic raffle was held, with splendid prizes of food and drink. The company did not disperse until after midnight.37

The concert report provides an interesting insight into the format of musical social evenings at the time. The fact that the reporter notes the even-handed choice of language for the first songs is significant, as the issue of the primacy of local language as opposed to the incomers’ German was important throughout the  Monarchy. Jeremy King discusses this in his work on nationalistic developments in Budweis/Budĕjovice in the same period.38 The choice of material suggests familiarity and the intention to amuse, rather than great musical pretensions. The opera ‘The Merry Wives of Windsor’ had first been performed in Berlin in 1849, and performing excerpts from it might be compared to including numbers from a Hollywood musical today. Several performers are familiar from documents and listings in Bosnischer Bote as architects, property developers, lawyers and other professionals. Many groups of this type contained a mix of confession and people from a range of ethnic backgrounds, unless founded by or for a specific confessional or national grouping.39 Some clubs made a point of saying in their inserts in Bosnischer Bote that they worked ‘without differentiation by confession or nationality’; examples of these from 1899 are the Kranken und Unterstützungsverein and the Womens’ Society.40 Sarajevo clubs and societies grew in number and range during the period, with only 21 listed in 1899, 36 in 1905, 76 in 1910, and 97 in 1915. The earliest society which lists a date of founding is the Kranken und Unterstützungsverein from 1885, closely followed by the Men’s Choral Society, founded in 1887, which by 1905 listed 62 men in its choir, with a women’s choir of 43. They also had a large number of non-singing members, making a total membership of 519. The other new foundation for 1887 was the Sarajevo cycle club, which had a social evening for gentlemen on Thursdays, with a family evening on Sundays in alternate weeks. It met at the Friedrich restaurant in Ferhadijagasse and boasted

142

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

of its cycle track at Ilidža, which was a third of a kilometre long and could be used for international races.41 These sorts of details link the societies to place as well as to people. In 1894, the demolition of the old theatre (visible opposite the Post Office building in Figure 2.4) apparently caused great consternation among the public, as it had provided a venue for concerts, assemblies and other social events; its demise led to the building of the Social Club by the river, where several societies met from 1899, including the Men’s Choral Society, the Herrenklub (Gentleman’s Club) and the Army Veterans’ Society.42 By 1910, the types of clubs and societies included a huge range of areas of interest. They were now grouped by category: Religious and Benevolent Funds, Arts and Sciences, Schools and Education, Trade and Industry, Clubs for Government Officials, Social and Professional, Music and Singing, National, Gymnastics, Tourism and Sport and ‘Other’ (one society to promote the erection of a statue of the Emperor Franz Joseph). Some had membership of less than 100 (the Credit Reform Club was the smallest, with 43), most had membership in the hundreds and the largest, perhaps not surprisingly at this period, was the Central Worker’s Group for Bosnia-Hercegovina, based at Terezija ulica 11 on the left bank, with 4,272 members. Many entries listed details of club finances, particularly if the society was involved in, for example, providing scholarships for education. One such was ‘Gajret’, the Muslim Student-Support Society, which announced that it handed out scholarships to the value of 45,000 kr every year. The Women’s Society’s was involved with support for the poor, and their annual report for 1905 reads as follows: Sarajevo Women’s Society (Founded 1885) Meeting Place: Sahtinjuša 31 Aim Support for all people regardless of religion or nationality who are in undeserved poverty; with money, clothing and free food supplied through a canteen set up and paid for by the society. [There then followed a list of the Committee, including a ‘Protector’, Baron Albori, head of the Austro-Hungarian administration in Sarajevo, an honorary president, president, vice president and 24 committee members, wives of the important élites. The Society had 426 members.] In 1903 this public-spirited society, from an income of about 21,233 K, (and 6,964K investment capital) paid out 15,177K for good causes.

The Development of a Middle-Class Society

143

Of this, 7,667K was in the form of ongoing support, 2,205K was one-off payments for support, 113K for travel costs for unemployed people, 2,092K was Christmas distribution of presents to the poor, 2,900K was payments for the canteen and 200K for the victims of the fire in Travnik, etc. In Sarajevo the same meritworthy society supports and leads a canteen, which in the last year received 14,103K and paid out 12,810K. Included in this amount were the following: 71,732 portions of bread, 34,766 portions of meat and vegetables and 33,475 portions of soup: and free of charge, 6,662 whole portions (soup, meat and vegetables) and 13,324 portions of bread, etc.43

It was clearly important that the society was publicly known for its ‘good works’, and the chief need appeared to be food for the poor. The society column of Sarajevski List for 10 November 1895 reported a meeting of the Women’s Society, which included Baroness Kállay, wife of the Joint Minister of Finance, Paulina Irby and Milena Mrazović.44 This shows that Mrazović mixed socially with people such as the Kállays, and other similar newspaper reports indicate that the circle of Sarajevo society at this level was small. The Women’s Society list in Bosnischer Bote for 1910 includes the wives of senior government officials, major industrialists and professionals from across the confessional spectrum, with the exception of Muslim ladies.45 The officers listed by most societies are mainly politically or economically influential men, and it was presumably one way of playing a prominent and active role in the life of the city and establishing and maintaining contacts in the business and professional world. By 1915, the range of national clubs included those for Croats, Poles, Slovenes, Czechs, Serbs and Hungarians. Several sports clubs were also nationality-specific by this point.46 Proposals for societies had been carefully vetted by the authorities in the Kállay years, and no national or confessional labels were allowed in the titles at that time.47 This was in line with the Hapsburg policy of treating all confessions equally and trying to build a sense of a specific Bosnian national identity (bošnjaštvo) to counter potential loyalties outside the province. Risto Besarović’s collection of government documents from the period, Kultura i umjetnost u Bosni i Hercegovini pod austrougarskom upravom, shows evidence of the care which went into approvals for libraries and reading rooms, periodicals, printers, publishers and booksellers, cultural and educational societies, newspapers, musical and singing societies and the theatre. All these areas of public social and cultural life required memoranda

144

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

and letters between the Civil-Adlatus, the joint minister of finance and sometimes the Regierungscommissar for Sarajevo, and were meticulously controlled. Even the founding of the Men’s Choral Society was the subject of at least three exchanges, while that for the Croat singing group ‘Trebević’ was more complex, extending over 6 months, and including two communications from the Regierungscommissar.48 The development of clubs and societies and their proliferation as the period progressed suggests that by 1915, many of the city’s population had adopted a European pattern of social behaviour outside the home. This seems to have been the case not just for the ‘outsiders’, but also for members of the indigenous population, sometimes in national or confessional groups, but often in mixed groups. Although accurate statistics are not available, the sheer number of members, as well as names of clubs and societies, indicates that membership was not just restricted to the professional classes but included, for example, railway employees. Such evidence shows social change and a shift in public attitudes to leisure time.

European ways of knowing and understanding The advent of Austro-Hungarian rule not only affected the urban fabric of Sarajevo and social behaviour of sections of the population but also how the history, culture and even the flora and fauna of the province was accessed, explored and recorded. This type of activity was largely promoted by the developing middle classes and, in particular, professionals and academics. Archaeological, anthropological, historical, geological and botanical studies had been growing in popularity and complexity in western Europe for some time, and the Victorian period in Britain saw the building of museums to house and develop collections, for example, the Natural History Museum in South Kensington in 1881. Major European capitals, including Berlin, Vienna and Budapest, had collections of long standing. Societies for the promotion of scholarly research, which regularly published learnt journals including papers on recent findings, were also part of the cultural and educational landscape of the later nineteenth century throughout Europe, as were national and international conferences and congresses; it is in this context that the founding and development of the Zemaljski Muzej/Landesmuseum and its periodical, the Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja (Provincial Museum Herald), should be seen. Arthur Evans,

The Development of a Middle-Class Society

145

travelling in Bosnia in 1875, had noted the quantity of Roman remains literally lying around the country, and for many Western-educated people, Bosnia must have represented a wealth of untapped interest, a pristine subject for scholarly research.49 ­Heinrich Renner observed in his 1896 account of travels in BosniaHercegovina that excavation had not been a part of the Ottoman way of life and that Bosnia’s ‘virgin soil’ was, therefore, an ‘inexhaustible treasure trove for discoveries from all periods’.50 This was a chance for the new arrivals to make new discoveries in their fields and explore the past as well as the ethnographic and natural-historical diversity of their new home, reinterpreting the country in Western terms and using Western taxonomy. It was also an opportunity for the administration to display its ‘civilizing’ credentials to the wider world. The epitome of this new approach was the Glasnik Zemaljska Muzeja (GZM), which, along with the museum, underwent considerable change during the period. The Museum Society for Bosnia-Hercegovina was founded in 1884 by a group headed by Dr Julius Makanec, the police and municipal doctor for Sarajevo who, also in 1884, founded the Bosnische Post.51 Members of the society came partly from the ranks of the newly arrived officials of the Austro-Hungarian administration and included Milena Mrazović, who was working for Makanec’s newspaper. A committee was formed in October of that year, and Kosta Hörmann, a trusted government official in Sarajevo who held various senior posts over the years, was made president. The society’s constitution was formally approved by the Landesregierung in 1885, and Kállay took a special interest in their work; Hartleben’s guidebook records that the Museum Society was founded at his suggestion.52 Robert Donia notes that the founding of the Museum Society was a key plank of Kállay’s project for bošnjaštvo, creating a case for the distinctiveness of the Bosnian people through exploration of their history, natural history and culture which would negate ‘Serb and Croat territorial claims’.53 Dr Ćiro Truhelka came from the Arts and Crafts Museum in Zagreb to be the permanent official of the society, and he began work in 1886. In August 1887, Dr Truhelka applied to the Joint Ministry in Vienna for permission to set up the museum, and on 1 February 1888, with the approval of Kállay, it opened in a section of the Post Office building on the cathedral square.54 Hörmann was the appointed director. The museum was not initially of great size, though it expanded swiftly as the Western-style exploration of Bosnia as a source of historical, anthropological and natural exhibits gathered momentum. Renner devoted three pages to it, noting that it had grown from four rooms to ten since being set up.55 One of the visiting days was exclusively for Muslim women, to promote their education; this

146

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

shows the importance attached by the administration to broadening educational opportunity, which might be noted by the world beyond Bosnia.56 Hartleben’s guidebooks too were enthusiastic; the 1892 edition devoted five pages, and in the 1895 edition, this had risen to seven. The contents of the collections were detailed carefully, and it is evident that there was considerable growth in the period between each edition.57 Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und der Hercegovina (Scholarly Communications from Bosnia-Hercegovina), based on a selection from GZM and intended for an international readership, began its first volume, published in 1893, with an account of the history, personnel and organization of the museum, and included floor plans and pictures of rooms of exhibits which show how it looked in the early days.58 Subsequently, plans were made to build a proper home for the now-extensive collections in a provincial museum on an independent site to the west, elaborately designed in four buildings around a botanical garden. It opened in 1913. The establishment of the Museum Society and the publication of GZM were important strands of the administration’s ‘civilizing mission’. While advancing learning, the Museum Society provided a focus for research activity, and the learnt journal could bring these activities to a wider public, both at home and abroad. Thus, not only was it possible to disseminate information on particular work, but the message was also going out to the rest of Europe that Bosnia was now on the cultural map, part of a much wider community. Perhaps concerned about the impression which an inexperienced team might have on audiences outside Bosnia, Kállay had insisted at the start that the journal be edited by Hörmann. Dr Moritz Hoernes of the Court Museum in Vienna, an expert on Prehistory, was appointed as a consultant on all scholarly matters. In this way, a careful watching brief could be kept to ensure the quality and suitability of content. The first edition of GZM was published in March 1889, as part of a quarterly publication which, at the end of a year, could be bound together with the June, September and December editions and a contents list for the whole year. These quarterly publications could be bought by subscription and were free to Museum Society members. Copies seem to have been circulated to other national capitals; Skopje National Library has the whole range for the period and beyond. Whether they paid for a subscription or were sent copies gratis as part of the disseminating mission mentioned earlier is not clear. Some volumes appear very clean, but marks on others show considerable use, indicating that the administration’s approach was at least partly successful. Yearly volumes ranged in thickness from c.2 cm to more than 4 cm. The journal was printed by the government printing house

The Development of a Middle-Class Society

147

and, from 1891, had the administration’s ‘Bosnian’ coat of arms on the title page. It was written in the local language and, as explained in the initial introduction of March 1889, was printed in both Cyrillic and Latin scripts, article by article alternately until 1915, when except in the first section, only Latin  script was used. The reason given in the initial introduction for this alternation was that it was too expensive to print two separate editions. The introduction also stated that there would sometimes be articles of interest translated into German for ‘the education of the public in the wider world’.59 This later resulted in 13 volumes of the aforementioned Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen between 1893 and 1916, published in Vienna under the auspices of Hoernes and Kállay, and several individual publications, also in German, on diverse subjects such as the Neolithic settlement at Butmir and the Jewish Haggadah in Sarajevo.60 The contents list and introduction to the 1889 edition indicate the aims and aspirations of the journal and the Museum Society at the time.61 The journal was unusual in the first years for its wide range of articles; for example, the contents list for 1889 has 77 articles from 30 different contributors, extending to about 440 pages. Contributors were a good mix of the local élites, including Mehmed-beg Kapetanović Ljubušak, later mayor of Sarajevo; all were ‘keen to contribute without consideration of confession or nationhood’.62 There were also enthusiastic amateur archaeologists, naturalists and historians from the ranks of Austro-Hungarian government officials; in the 1900 edition, Mrazović’s husband, Dr Joseph Preindlsberger, contributed an article on folk medicine practices in Bosnia.63 A rough assessment, based on names for the 1889 edition, suggests that contributors were about half ‘incomer’ and half local. This was a balance which was to alter markedly over the years. However, at the start, the desire to be inclusive, to value all work equally, is evident in this diverse mix of articles, grouped according to 12 different categories from Archaeology to Epigraphy, Heraldry to ‘Miscellaneous’, including greetings from well-wishers and a list of donors to the museum. Todor Kruševac notes that the lack of hierarchy in the organization of the journal’s content shows the intention of the editors to give equal value to each contributor.64 It also reflects Kállay’s desire to promote bošnjaštvo. The editor explained that the reason for starting the magazine was that dead things sit on shelves and say nothing except to trained and experienced people – these people could make these things speak, and their research should not be hidden away.65 To this end, the aims of GZM were two-fold: first, that there should be a publication for general readership representing the work of the museum, with experts’ reports on aspects of interest in Bosnia-Hercegovina,

148

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

and second, that the paper should have an educational mission, stimulating readers’ appreciation of their history, culture and environment. The editor also expressed thanks, praise and enthusiasm for the support of a variety of local people, without whom the experts’ work would have been impossible.66 The journal seems to have been generally well received at home, though the Bosanska Vila, a literary paper published in the local language, which was technically independent but, like other papers in the occupied territory at the time, worked under the scrutiny of the preventive censor, raised the question as to what it might mean for a Bosnian reader who read in GZM ‘our people’ and ‘our language’.67 In the wider sphere, the journal, the museum and the Museum Society seem to have swiftly established connections with other museums, libraries and learnt societies throughout Europe and beyond. In 1889, there is a report of an Oriental congress in Stockholm and Christiania (Oslo), attended by a representative from the museum, and in 1894, M. Salomon Reinach, a French delegate to the archaeological and anthropological congress in Sarajevo, described with great approval the renaissance of civilization which had occurred since the Austro-Hungarians’ arrival in Bosnia-Hercegovina.68 Robert Munro from Edinburgh, another enthusiastic delegate, in 1895 wrote a major survey in English of the archaeological and anthropological work in progress in the province, including a detailed report on the events and business of the same Sarajevo congress. This provides fascinating insights into procedures, characters and conduct and makes it clear that the 16 ‘gentlemen’ who were the guests of ‘the local men’ (Hörmann and team) were invited ‘for the purpose of examining and pronouncing an opinion on the remains already brought to light, and by this means to make their archaeological value better known throughout the scientific world’.69 Munro gives a lively account of outings, lectures and social events connected to the conference, including speeches in nine different languages at the farewell banquet ‘à la Turque’ in the Mayor’s private residence.70 His response to the conference was positive and would have helped to spread the work of the museum to an English-speaking audience. Members of the Vienna Anthropological Society visited Sarajevo in September 1895, and GZM devoted five pages to a description of attendees, detailed itineraries over 10 days, and the overall success of the event.71 There were delegates from elsewhere in Europe, including Germany, Serbia, England, Croatia and Switzerland, numbering about 30 people. Henry Balfour came from the Pitt-Rivers Museum in Oxford, and there were nine Germans from Berlin, Hamburg, Leipzig, Stuttgart, Heidelberg, Königsberg and Breslau. Two  Swiss came from Basel, one representative each from Belgrade and

The Development of a Middle-Class Society

149

Zagreb and several from other parts of the Monarchy. The range of visitors shows not only the interest taken in Bosnian archaeology and anthropology but also the success of the whole project in bringing Bosnia-Hercegovina to the attention of the academic world beyond its frontiers. The reporter proudly mentions local members of the society present at the event, including the ‘distinguished lady’ Milena Mrazović.72 Delegates were taken on a tour of all the key archaeological and historical sites, including much new Roman and prehistoric excavation, the museum and the new hospital in Sarajevo, a road-building project and the recently redeveloped spa resort at Ilidža.73 They dined with the Joint Minister, who must have come to Sarajevo from Vienna especially for the event, and Mayor Kapetanović. Assuming they received a favourable impression, it was doubtless Kállay’s intention that the delegates should spread the word at home about the great things which were happening in Bosnia under the Austro-Hungarian administration, as M. Reinach had done so fulsomely the previous year. In this way, not only was Sarajevo being showcased as a modern, cultured city throughout Europe, but also the success of these events and the visits by leading academics might have given the professional élites and members of Sarajevo society a sense that their home was not just a subject for taxonomic study but also a centre of some academic importance, which had something to contribute to western and central European learning. The content of GZM altered considerably over time, with a steady decline in the number of articles after the first years to the point in 1915 when there were only ten. However, the length of many articles increased hugely; by the turn of the century, although there were still some short one-or-two page pieces, some articles extended over 50 pages (and occasionally over a hundred), sometimes with detailed drawings. The 12 categories of the indices in the first volumes were restructured in 1895, so that there were just three, each subdivided into ‘Reports and Papers’ and ‘Memorandum’, which meant short reports of conferences, book reviews and ‘sketches from life’. The first category was Archaeology and History, the second Ethnography and the third Natural History. This remained the pattern up to 1915. The move away from the early variety of articles and the change to a more academic format such as was used by other learned journals may have been brought about by developments in the museum’s collection, research work and international connections. The museum itself, according to Renner’s account, was only split into two departments, Archaeological–Historical and Natural History, the ethnographic material apparently displayed as a subdivision of the latter.74

150

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

The journal also gradually moved away from the diverse, inclusive approach which encouraged and celebrated local achievement, to adopting a more serious, internationally academic style in tone and content, which would bear comparison with periodicals produced by museums in capital cities elsewhere. The sense of ownership-for-all which was promoted in 1889 seems to be absent in later editions, and the questions asked by Bosanska Vila in 1889 seems even more valid by 1910: who were ‘our people?’ What was ‘our language?’ They might also have asked ‘what is our history?’ The influence of Western academic scholarship was huge in terms of interpreting, classifying and generating lines of enquiry and ways of looking at all the material which formed the content of the journal. Although it always included many elements which reflected aspects of the past which were specifically Bosnian (e.g. papers on mosques, a survey of ‘Bogomil’ stečaks75) and the editors aimed to retain a mix of local contributors as well as immigrant experts, there was no doubt that the journal became more ‘about’ than ‘from’. Kruševac makes this point in his conclusion to his chapter on GZM when he observes that in the early Austro-Hungarian period the paper was a good ‘voice’ not only for the foreigners but also for locals. However, he quotes an article from a Sarajevo publication of 1911 which comments that the administration has stifled scholarly work in Bosnia about Bosnian subjects through censorship, privileging research and researchers from outside.76 There is certainly justification for this comment when the contents lists for the later period are analysed, though the view is extreme.77 The dichotomy between the local and the international community of scholarship is definitely more evident by 1910, but it would be interesting to know more about how contributors and the readership saw this dichotomy; for example, did writers such as Truhelka who had been living and working in Bosnia since 1886 see themselves as outsiders by 1910? And were the local élites who in so many ways wanted to be part of the new Western-looking Sarajevo not proud of their museum and its work? Initially they definitely were, as is evident from their part in the early editions of GZM and the international links which these forged. Later feelings on the subject are, however, more difficult to assess.

Newspapers and periodicals The development of the museum, Museum Society and journal represent one example of European cultural behaviour and socialization adopted by the middle classes in Sarajevo. The spread of newspapers and periodicals is another.

The Development of a Middle-Class Society

151

These papers were published in a variety of languages and scripts, catering to a range of tastes and interests among the increasingly educated reading public, but they were carefully controlled by the administration.78 Newspapers had been established in Bosnia before the occupation, albeit under careful censorship by the Ottoman authorities, which only allowed a handful of publications.79 Following the arrival of the Austro-Hungarian administration, the number of publications increased. This was the result, at least in part, of the development of educational opportunities, particularly in the capital, coupled with the immigration of many educated middle-class people, stimulating demand. Reading rooms and libraries set up by various confessional groups and societies flourished, and newspapers were also available to be read in cafés and hotels, as was common in other European cities.80 Censorship remained important. Besarović’s collection of material relating to censorship and control of activities, such as newspapers, publishing, clubs and societies, give useful insights into the world in which Milena Mrazović was working as a newspaper proprietor, even though it is only a sample of the whole.81 Personalities must have played a role, as did prejudices of all parties and the need to keep Kállay or his successors informed of everything. Censorship was quickly established with a law in October 1881, which included a system of concessions which could be ‘removed at any time without grounds being given’.82 There was to be a ‘preventive censor’ who inspected all periodicals and papers, and the administration had to see three copies of each edition before it could be published.83 These measures ensured considerable control of editors and proprietors. New publications also had to be formally proposed, with names of staff to be employed, costs and intended content.84 Censorship was relaxed in 1907 with a new press law which did away with the concessions system, though Schmid remarks that the press were ‘now free within legal boundaries’.85 The preventive censor was finally made redundant in 1910. Despite these restrictions, in the 40 years of Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia, 93 different newspapers and periodicals were published, suggesting that the press was not deterred. Some papers only lasted for a short time, but some, such as the Bosnische Post and Sarajevski List, were almost constantly in circulation throughout the period.86 There were weekly publications, and some appeared more often. The language range was wide: six papers were printed in both the local language and German and three in the local language and Turkish. Seventy were in the local language alone, with ten in German, two in Turkish and one each in Hungarian and Sephardic Spanish.87 Many had particular national or confessional affiliations, but it was not until the death of Kállay in 1903 and later with the liberalizing

152

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

law of 1907 that it became possible to include national names in titles; examples are the Hrvatski dnevnik (Croatian Daily; 1906–18) and the Srpski rijeć (Serbian Word; 1905–14).88 Milena Mrazović’s newspaper, the German language Bosnische Post, was an important government concession, intended, at least as far as the administration was concerned, as a ‘standard-bearer’ for their work outside Bosnia.89 William Miller describes it in his Travels and Politics in the Near East as a ‘semi-official’ paper which contained ‘the latest telegrams, a feuilleton and several articles on political or economic subjects’.90 Mrazović’s early feuilletons for the paper were Bosnian folk stories, often in serial form, and it was these that were later published as Selam. She owned and ran the Bosnische Post until 1896, when she sold it together with her other business concerns. She had been under increasing pressure from the administration in the previous 2 years owing to her refusal to toe the government line in the newspaper; two remarkable letters relating to her from Besarović’s collection indicate the way in which the preventive censorship and concession systems worked and the administration’s awareness of how it was perceived elsewhere in Europe, together with its efforts to present a positive ‘front’ in the face of criticism from within and outside Bosnia.91 The letters provide an excellent example of evidence of the Hapsburg policy in Bosnia in action, showing how it worked ‘on the ground’. The first letter, probably addressed to Kállay, was dated 29 November 1894. It indicates the feelings of Lothar Berks, the Regierungscommissar, about Mrazović personally, her work as a journalist and the decline of the paper under her proprietorship. He saw her behaviour as high-handed, irresponsible and irrational. He complained of her negative attitude to the administration and public criticism of its policies. The censor had apparently made sure that her worst outbursts had been kept from publication, but Berks described Mrazović as ‘hysterical’. He considered her to be ‘unbearable’, ‘quarrelsome’ and ‘scheming’, and he commented that she had ‘a knack of being able unobtrusively to stir things up’.92 He noted that she was planning to sell the paper to J. B. Schmarda. Given that both correspondents appeared to know Schmarda well, allowing him to buy the paper might have been desirable from the administration’s point of view.93 Berks thought that Schmarda would be useful in carrying out the proposals for the paper’s future outlined in the letter, which involved splitting it into German language and Cyrillic local language editions, with similar content; this would appease the Serbian faction and enable the administration to retain control of the content. Berks felt that Schmarda would do what he was told: ‘I am convinced

The Development of a Middle-Class Society

153

that Schmarda would be quick to come to an agreement . . .if it was the case that it was the expressed wish of your Excellency.’94 The letter also revealed insights into possible ways of altering the censorship system so that it appeared more moderate, creating ‘the outward appearance of a liberal order’ while balancing the demands of Serb and Croat groups with political agendas.95 On 28 March 1895, this was followed by an angry letter on the same topic from Baron Appel, the military head of the Landesregierung, to Kállay, suggesting that Mrazović was intending to sell to a consortium consisting of Dr Vošnjak, Reichsrathrepresentative from Slovenia, Dr Nieć, a city lawyer, Gjuro Vrignanin, her bookkeeper and possibly Schmarda.96 Nieć and Vrignanin were now formally applying for the concession. Appel detailed the financial assets of the various partners on the grounds that the Landesregierung needed to be assured that any new concession holders had sufficient capital to finance the expansion which was required. He expressed serious concern, as had Berks in the previous letter, about the applicants’ ‘personal political sympathies’ and potential nationalist issues, in particular, pan-Slavism and support for a Greater Croatia.97 He wrote scornfully of Nieć and Vrignanin, who apparently saw himself as ‘the standard bearer of the Greater Croatian party in the occupied territory’.98 Appel outlined plans for rejecting the application without making it look political. Whether the administration leaned on Mrazović to sell the paper to a more ‘suitable’ candidate is not known, but she eventually sold the whole business to J. B. Schmarda. By November, he was listed as Eigenthümer und Herausgeber (proprietor and editor).99 The first edition of Bosanska Posta, the proposed local-language version of the Bosnische Post, appeared on 15 November 1896, but it was not a success and had closed by the end of 1898. The letters show that the authorities considered themselves to have ultimate control over the paper and that they resented Mrazović’s attempts to make her own decisions about selling. They also indicate how journalism at this level was carefully monitored and controlled by the administration and how concerned they were to maintain political stability within the province in the face of competing threats from outside Bosnia, without making this control appear heavy-handed. When reading the letters, the close, face-to-face style of business networking within Sarajevo before the arrival of the telephone in 1898 also becomes apparent. Despite her middle-class upbringing and connections and despite her position in Čukovićgasse close to the central offices of several firms, including Messrs Schmarda, Rotter and Perschitz at Nr. 4, Mrazović’s gender probably excluded her from this essentially male world.

154

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Sarajevksi List, another government-sponsored publication, was the official newspaper for officers of the administration. It carried items of Sarajevo news, including new building development, obituaries and funerals of the local élites. The society section reported social events and club activities, again featuring the local élites. The paper also detailed visits of important people such as Crown Prince Rudolf and in the early days listed names of those staying at the larger hotels, including their trade or profession and place of origin. There were brief ‘telegram’ reports of international events such as Cowes week, featuring the various royal families of Europe and beyond.100 International news was also prominent; the laying of the transatlantic cable was reported in 1900 and the activities of General White at Ladysmith in the same year. Two conferences in Sarajevo, one on the development of a railway network to the east, with delegates from Serbia, Bulgaria and Turkey, and one on the therapeutic effects of bathing, mainly held at Ilidža, were also considered suitable and relevant fare for the cosmopolitan readership.101 The paper carried regular government statistics in areas such as public health and births and deaths, categorized by religious affiliation, sex and age. There were government announcements and a regular update of the exchange rate on the Vienna stock exchange. ‘Situations vacant’ and commercial advertisements were part of the mix, offering goods and services from as far away as Paris and as close as Kajon’s ‘Book, Art and Music dealers’ at Nr. 11 Franz Josefsgasse.102 This newspaper, with its deference to royalty and officialdom and Western-looking approach to social, cultural and commercial matters, shows well how middle-class Sarajevans perceived themselves and their world throughout the period and how they engaged with that world on a daily basis. Literary magazines, or belles lettres, were also popular with the reading public; content included stories, poetry, anecdotes, art work and music. They were modelled on similar publications elsewhere in Europe and show how quickly Western styles of written content and illustration became part of the popular culture of Sarajevo for the educated middle classes. These magazines worked under the same censorship laws as newspapers and represented national and confessional interests within Bosnia. An early example was Bosanska Vila (Bosnian Fairy), started in 1885. It was criticized by Berks in his letter about censorship noted earlier for encroaching upon ‘political-national areas in almost every edition’.103 It was printed in Cyrillic script and showed strong Serb sympathies and content. The Catholic Church had Vrhbosna and Franjevaćka glasnik (Franciscan Herald), both first published in 1887. Much later, in 1900, Behar (Blossom) appeared in Turkish for the Muslim community.104

The Development of a Middle-Class Society

155

Kállay realized that to challenge these papers’ influence with the increasingly literate population, it was necessary for the administration to produce a literary paper of its own which integrated confessional and national interests and presented a wide-ranging national-cultural face not only within BosniaHercegovina but also to the world beyond.105 Again, Kosta Hörmann was called in to develop the project, and he spent months planning and recruiting a range of contributors from within and outside the boundaries of Bosnia. Besarović’s collection includes Hörmann’s detailed reports to Kállay of his plans for the paper, dated February 1894, and his mission to Belgrade, Sophia and Agram (Zagreb) in May 1894, in search of literary connections and contributors.106 Because of the nature of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, he met acquaintances wherever he went and also explored museums and listed potential contributors on a variety of topics, both visual and written. Plans for the content of the first issues and advertising rates followed in November of the same year, and he quoted prices for advertising space from publications based in Italy, Paris and Leipzig for comparison; this shows how the paper modelled itself not only in literary, but also in commercial terms, on similar publications elsewhere. In December 1894, there was a circular from Baron Kutscher, the Civil-Adlatus, announcing the imminent publication of the first issue of Nada (optimistically called ‘Hope’) to all government departments and officials and encouraging subscription. The letter began by explaining that the swift development of education in Bosnia had led to an interest in, and a need for, an illustrated magazine among the population, which the government, as the most suitable agent, intended to supply.107 After publication of the first issue in January 1895, Appel wrote to Kállay with details of the 21 literary magazines outside Bosnia to which copies had been sent: these include publications from Budapest, Agram, Prague, two towns in Slovenia, Cetinje (Montenegro), Vienna, and four magazines in St Petersburg. The ‘civilizing mission’, as with GZM, was evidently to be publicized as fully as possible. The same letter gave detailed lists of content and contributors for the early issues, showing artists from Sofia, Hanover, Prague and elsewhere who had submitted work on subjects such as Baščaršija, Cetinje, Bosnian ‘genre’ pictures and watercolours of the Sephardic cemetery at Kovačić to the south-west of Sarajevo. The range of writers and topics was similarly broad. The letter concluded with an assurance that the requisite number of copies of each edition would be sent to Vienna for approval.108 The magazine was printed in a choice of Cyrillic or Latin script, though in its final two years of publication, as it was not succeeding financially, this was limited to Roman. The paper ceased publication in 1903.

156

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

The content reflected middle-class tastes, values and aspirations, albeit structured and monitored by direction from above. The first yearly binding announced on its title page that it was intended for ‘learning, entertainment and the Arts’.109 It contained a mix of poetry, prose, reports on technical and hygienic developments in the city and beyond, reports from other capital cities, paintings and engravings and some printed music, mostly Bosnian folk songs. There were also puzzles, society reports and translations into the local language of poems by Heine, Shelley and Sultan Javuz Selim I, among others. Historical articles featured topics and authors familiar from GZM. Each edition included some photographic material, such as Bosnian handicraft goods at an exhibition in Vienna, the emperor with his grandchildren and members of the archaeological and anthropological congress in Sarajevo.110 As with GZM at the start, both contributors and content appear carefully inclusive and celebrate Bosnia and her place in the Austro-Hungarian world. Although Mrazović was not listed in Hörmann’s initial proposal to Kállay as a potential author for Nada (all were male), she wrote two pieces in its first year of publication. One was entitled ‘Happy Days’, which seems ironic given that she had recently been having a difficult time with a recalcitrant editor and censorship and problems with the building of her new property.111 She also wrote four pages on the delights of the developing spa complex at Ilidža, which should have endeared her to Kállay as it was one of his favourite projects.112 * These manifestations of middle-class lifestyle show clearly the influence, particularly with the published material, of the administration’s policies for developing cultural life within Bosnia to give it a broad national and international appeal which would go some way to negating moves towards confessional or national divisions. Although this was unsuccessful in many ways, on the surface at least and for the upper echelons of Sarajevo society, it seems to have done much to promote social and cultural cohesion and an integrated Western-style social life based around society events and interest groups which bridged confessional and national divides. However, lifestyle choices which affected how and where one lived and how leisure time was spent owed far more to the effects of improved communications, the aspirations of the immigrant population and improvements in spending power than to any direct influence from Vienna. They were modelled, as was much social change in the city at the time, on social life in cities throughout Europe and, increasingly, America. At the middle-class level,

The Development of a Middle-Class Society

157

the citizens of Sarajevo under the Austro-Hungarians had more in common with other middle-class societies in urban centres elsewhere than with the rural communities which surrounded them. The European-style patterns of consumption which they adopted, including shopping and spending habits, cafés, hotels and tourism which reinforced their sense of themselves as citizens of the wider European community, are the subject of the next chapter.

6

Conspicuous Consumption and Cultures of Urban Display

The Bosnische Post for 11 December 1901 reported on a housewarming party which had been held the previous Sunday at the splendid new ‘palais’ of Ješua Salom, a leading member of a Sephardic Jewish family in Sarajevo. On Sunday morning Herr Ješua D. Salom invited Sarajevo society to the opening of his new palace on the Appel-Kai. His Excellency the Landeschef, Baron Appel and His Excellency the Civil-Adlatus Baron Kutscher were present, as were many high officials of the Landesregierung, other society ladies and gentlemen, friends and acquaintances of the house: with sincere admiration they inspected the successful creation of our own artist, Architect Herr von Vancaš. In fashionable good taste, which is displayed in this house in the form of perfect beauty combined with useful comfort, he has created something new in Sarajevo which we shall all wish to copy.1

This report, and, in particular, the detailed description of the interior of the house which follows show how European models of consumption were being followed by the élites of Sarajevo and that by 1900, there was a clear idea of a ‘Sarajevo Society’ which might behave in certain fashionable ways and which was influenced by its leaders in terms of patterns of spending on leisure pursuits, consumer goods and services. Although individuals and confessional groups at middle-class level retained aspects of behaviour from preoccupation times relating to religious observance and family obligation, the influence of western and central Europe became increasingly felt in fashion and consumption as the period progressed: even the Muslim mayor of Sarajevo was reported by Robert Munro to be wearing ‘European dress and a fez’.2 The expressions of ‘good taste’ and inclusion in ‘society’ relied not only on where one lived and how one spent one’s leisure time, but also on what one bought and how one used one’s disposable income. Shopping for clothes, furnishings, household goods, the theatre and opera one attended, and even how one was buried were all part of the middle-class culture of urban display, as were the hotels and cafés where leisure time might

160

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

be spent. The development of tourism within the city and at Ilidža, where local society mingled with visitors and important members of the administration from Vienna such as the Kállays, was also an element of this middle-class culture.3 Ješua Salom’s new house provides an excellent example of the enthusiasm for modern European fashions and tastes. In common with most of the new housing built in the centre and to the west of the city, it was heavily decorated with plaster moulding on the façade. The exterior design used Secession motifs. The first-floor windows had swags at the sides and were headed with sunflowers; masks of Flora adorned the upper corners, with discs and grooves below. There was decorative ironwork with circles on the upper balcony, and the panels on the balcony below had more vegetable motifs in the form of laurel leaves. Although when surveyed in 2005 the building was in a somewhat battered condition, it was still possible to detect that it would have seemed very elegant, innovative and modern in 1901. The correspondent from the Bosnische Post found the interior even more noteworthy than the exterior, perhaps because it was unlikely that many people would have had the opportunity to view it personally. He writes: What is immediately striking, particularly for the ladies, who are such experts in the science of Home Management, is the exceedingly practical layout of the building: in the cellar are rooms for the servants, a laundry room, a boiler room for the central heating and storage rooms; on the ground floor, a bedroom, breakfast room, children’s room and master bedroom, bathroom and kitchen: on the first floor a large reception room with a bay window, a dining room, smoking room, buffet and spare room; on the top floor more spare rooms.4

What he omits to list are the latest modern conveniences: the en-suite bathroom for the master bedroom and a dumb waiter adjoining the dining room. Salom was also on the telephone and was one of the very few private houses listed as such in the directory for 1905.5 A particularly interesting aspect of the report is the source of the interior furnishings and fittings: Salom (or his architect) had used a mix of local craftspeople while also buying the latest fashions and technology from Paris and Vienna. There was a stained glass lantern over a staircase made of ‘finely polished Sarajevo marble’ with a ‘richly gilded banister of wrought iron’ from the firm of Neuber in Vienna. The lamp standard figure adorning the newel post was based on a Parisian model, and the central heating with individually adjustable radiators was by Bruckner and Co., also based in Vienna. Much was made of the decoration of the smoking room, which, perhaps with reference

Conspicuous Consumption and Cultures of Urban Display

161

to the Ottoman past, was decorated ‘in Arabian style’ by the local joinery firm of Vekić. The salon was furnished in the style of Louis XVI, showing that a mix of styles was perfectly acceptable.6 Outside in the garden, the veranda, asphalt paths and fountains were admired. Asphalt was a new material and obviously worthy of note in this modern establishment. It would probably have been supplied by another local firm, Kasparek Bruder, who had a business in Čemalušagasse. However, perhaps the most important aspects of note in this article are the references to social mixing, the evident enthusiasm of the correspondent for this Western lifestyle and his suggestion that this ‘fashionable good taste’ was something ‘which we shall all wish to copy’. Of course, there must have been an element of seeking to praise the élite members of Sarajevo society, but this ‘palais’, though almost unique in being a private house on this scale for only one family, was typical of the many new apartment buildings in Sarajevo in terms of taste, decoration and architectural style.

City-centre shopping Ješua Salom was an influential member of Sarajevo’s business and social community. He is not conspicuous in public documents, but with his associate Mojce Salom, probably his brother, he left his mark in the form of three citycentre buildings which are still important today. The largest, already mentioned in Chapter 3, shows the Saloms’ confidence by 1912 in the profitability of the mixed-use type of building which asserted their commercial presence in the city. Another was a department store, discussed below. The first was a more modest development from 1898 in Rudolfsgasse which was a prime site in the centre of the western part of the city.7 The new street connected the cathedral square with Franz Josefsgasse (present-day Zelenih Beretki), already the most fashionable of the major streets; therefore, the Saloms’ building would have commanded high rents. The property had two shops at ground-floor level, and a four-room apartment on each of the two floors above, with a balcony at first-floor level.8 Rudolfsgasse provides an interesting example of the modern Western-style shopping spaces which developed during the period.9 Although not on the scale of the shopping arcades in major cities such as Budapest (Parisi Udvar), Vienna or London (Burlington Arcade), it can be seen as a deliberate attempt on the part of the administration to facilitate and encourage an alternative to the Oriental-style shops in Baščaršija, which, before the occupation, had sold

162

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

largely craftsman-made goods or imports from the East.10 William Miller noted approvingly in 1898: Even during the last two years I noticed an improvement in the shops at Sarajevo, which is now very well supplied with the necessaries and many of the luxuries of ‘European’ capitals, while it is far ahead of Belgrade and Sofia in this respect, as well as in its picturesque situation and still-surviving oriental character.11

The list of trades and businesses in the directory Bosnischer Bote for 1899 indicated the types of shops in the street at the time.12 The businesses in Rudolfsgasse were as shown in Table 6.1. Table 6.1  Shops and businesses in Rudolfsgasse, 1899 Rudolfsgasse NORTH   5. (Listed as Ferhadija 41) – Lohner, Ferdinand, Café.

12.  * Ž  ivković, Michael R. and Co. Tailoring and Ladies Fashions Dr Josef Fischer, Lawyer

(5) Intendanz of the K.u.K. 15 Korps Intendanz of the K.u.K. 1 Infanterie Truppen – Division

10.  * Sohr, Isodor, Grocery and delicatessen * Guban, Josef, Shoemaker * Grünhut, Alexander, Dr, District Doctor

(5)  Galamos, M., Hairdresser and Barber

  8.  * Pleyel, Eduard, Chemist (shop) * Blažek, Josef, glovemaker * Egger, Johann, Confectioner

(5)

  6.  * Fuchs, Hermann, Grocery and delicatessen

  3. Artillerie – Inspizierungs – Kommando Nr. 3 10 Gebirgs – Brigade 1 Infanterie Truppen – Division Schumann, Richard, Dentist *Ossko, Stefan, Photographer

  4.  * Studnička, J., Book/music shop Danon, Daniel H., Toyshop

  1. (Corner with FJ gasse – Mitropolit’s palace – listed as FJ 58) Lazar, Janka, Dressmaker Friedmann, E., Shoemaker Ceran, Petar, Retail Grocery Winkler, A., Painter

2.  *Kraljević, Vaso, Military supplier and cattle dealer (Corner with FJ gasse 56 was *Kabiljo, Elias and Co., Antique dealer and Carpet merchant)

Source: Table based on data in listings in Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, pp. 204–19. Street numberings are as they were in 1899, and stars indicate that a business had been protokollirt (approved) by the administration.

Conspicuous Consumption and Cultures of Urban Display

163

When compared with other streets, the stars in the table show that Rudolfsgasse had the largest proportion of protokollirt businesses and contained examples of the type of shops that were considered suitable by the administration. Military suppliers, photographers and purveyors of ladies’ fashions were approved; barbers and independent lady dressmakers were not. All but one of the businesses (the dressmaker’s) were headed by men; this may be a reflection of the relative cost of the rents, but as we have seen that the overall percentage of women in trade in Sarajevo based on the available data from 1899 was only c.11 per cent, it may say more about women’s formal role in economic life at the time.13 The table indicates that the Salom shops at Nr. 10 were occupied by a delicatessen and a shoemaker (both protokollirt), with the office of District Doctor Alexander Grünhut presumably in one of the apartments above. The street was clearly dominated by the military presence in Nrs. 3 and 5 opposite, and the chief customers of the photographer, shoemaker, glove maker and barber’s shops were probably the officers who worked there. Eduard Pleyel’s fashionable development at Nr. 8 housed his chemist’s shop, The Emperor of Austria, after its move from Franz Josefsgasse in July 1895.14 There had been a long tradition of Sephardic Jews working as apothecaries in Baščaršija, but a chemist’s shop in premises such as these was designed to appeal to a more stylish shopper, used to Western standards of fittings and merchandise.15 Studnička’s book and music shop was one of six such shops in the city by 1899, a major change from the Ottoman period, when Paulina Irby had commented that there were no bookshops at all.16 Danon’s toyshop was one of four. Richard Schumann was one of only two dentists practising in Sarajevo at the time. The type of food on sale in Rudolfsgasse was mainly intended for a more specialized clientele, the city food market down the road built by the administration in 1895 providing the basic necessities in hygienic conditions. Elias Kabiljo’s antique and carpet shop gave purchasers the chance to buy goods of Oriental origin in a Western setting. Lohner’s café on the corner and the shop selling ladies’ fashions which faced it, both overlooking the cathedral square, were long-standing businesses popular with Sarajevo society.17 Although there is no evidence of the goods on sale in Živković’s shop, a 1904 advertisement for D.Dm.Kočović’s round the corner in Franz Josefsgasse provides some suggestions.18 There was a range of fabrics, but also the latest fashions and ‘confections’. These were ready-made clothes for ladies, an international trend, which represented a move away from the tradition of using a dressmaker for individual garments.19 The advertisement refers

164

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

to the goods as being ‘locally made and French, always the most up-to-date’. The shop sold accessories including parasols and umbrellas, galoshes from St Petersburg, the ‘Aspetta’ range of corsetry, wedding trousseaux, and hunting costumes from ‘Wilh.Benger’s Söhne’. Kočović’s also stocked household linens, genuine Triest linoleum and travel and toilet articles. The variety of goods and their wide-ranging provenance suggest cosmopolitan tastes and the benefits of improvements in transport and communications for middle-class consumers. Other advertisements in Bosnischer Bote from the same period (as well as the description of the interior of Salom’s house) indicate that consumption and display did not apply only to dress and outward appearance; they were also important within the home and during leisure activities. Adolf Klein sold glassware and porcelain at Franz Josefsgasse 38, Josef Vogel made clocks at Nr. 13 and Max Feleki at Nr. 45 sold the latest English and French fashions for gentlemen including outfits for tennis and cycling.20 By the turn of the twentieth century, there was a demand in Sarajevo for the type of goods that would identify their owners and consumers as members of up-to-date middle-class European society with leisure pursuits to match. The range was wide, though essentially Western rather than Eastern in origin, and the emphasis in the advertisements on French style and modernity in relation to fashions shows that this was the model that was being copied by local society. Furthermore, the customers wished to purchase these goods in modern, fashionable shops such as Pleyel’s, with large glass windows, which showed the stock to best advantage and encouraged window shopping. In 1912, the Saloms built Sarajevo’s first department store on the corner of Zelenih Beretki (then Franz Josefsgasse) and the small square backed by the façade of the officers’ Casino.21 The central part of Franz Josefsgasse was full of shops selling Western consumer goods and services in 1899, including ladies’ fashions, military outfitters, tailors, dressmakers and perfumers, and thus was a suitable location in which to start such a modern venture. Department stores had been developing in size and complexity in Paris, Budapest and other large urban centres since the mid-nineteenth century, but Sarajevo was a relatively small city by comparison, with about 50,000 inhabitants in 1912.22 The project, therefore, suggests huge optimism on the part of the developers. Unlike the usual model of shops on the ground floor with apartments above, the shop space occupied both floors at the front. There were long windows on both levels to ensure maximum visibility for goods and window dressing and a long continuous floor space inside with elegant wooden parquet, again on both levels, to maximize the available area for sales.

Conspicuous Consumption and Cultures of Urban Display

165

Each ‘Salom’ development suggests their builders’ confidence as investors in the popularity of European ways of living and shopping; this was demanddriven building which promoted the Western way of life and changed the face of the city.

Entertainment Entertainment was an important element of the social life of the city, and as the period progressed, Western styles of entertainment began to predominate at middle-class level. Newspapers carried accounts of entertainments of all types, and one of the most eagerly reported was theatre. Theatre had been popular before the occupation, and the British Consul, Holmes, had opened up part of his house to travelling theatre companies each winter for the amusement of military officers, bureaucrats, consuls and their wives.23 The local Despić family did likewise, and after the occupation, key members of the administration and élite community held large gatherings of ‘up to 240 people’ for ‘theatre, plays, singing and dancing’.24 Operettas, comedy and drama were also performed in tents in the summer months by companies from all over the Monarchy and beyond. In 1881, Heinrich Spira’s German theatre company, including a 22-piece orchestra, came for a summer season to Sarajevo. Following this, Salomon Salom, in the back garden of whose hotel the performances had taken place, agreed to build a small theatre so that shows could continue for the public in the winter. The resulting purpose-built theatre, constructed at great speed to designs by Sarajevo architect Hans Niemeczek, who also designed the scenery, could hold 300 spectators (though many of them would have been standing) and apparently played to full houses when it first opened in October 1881.25 Following the sale of the site to Babić in 1894 and its subsequent redevel­ opment, Sarajevo society was concerned about where it could hold its plays, concerts, dances and public assemblies.26 Plans had already been drawn up by Josip Vancaš in 1890 to build a larger theatre better suited to the more educated public. Letters duly passed between the leader of the Landesregierung, Baron Appel, and Joint Finance Minister Kállay regarding the new development.27 The Viennese architects Ferdinand Fellner and Hermann Hellmer, experts on theatre design across the Austro-Hungarian Empire with whom Vancaš had worked in 1881, expressed the opinion that the proposed site was not large enough. However, plans went ahead until the untimely death of the developer, Dimitrije Jeftanović, a leading member of the Serbian Orthodox community who had

166

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

bought the site just to the east of the Čumurija bridge at the corner of the new embankment and Sime Milutinovića. He had planned to use the income from the theatre to fund primary schools for the Serbian Orthodox community. In 1898, the City Council supervised the building of the Vereinshaus (Social Club), also along the new embankment. It was intended not only as a venue for dramatic and musical productions but also as a meeting place and concert venue (with the inevitable refreshment facilities) for the various clubs and societies which were flourishing by this period. According to Josip Lešić, it was financed by the wealth of Sarajevans of all confessions, Jews, Muslims, Croats, Serbs and any foreigners who came to Sarajevo for service or trading purposes. Among these were banks and cultural institutions.

He goes on to list many of the local and national banks in the city, the railway coachworks, La Benevolencija (the Sephardic Jewish welfare society) and the Joint Stock brewery company, among others.28 It is a wide-ranging list and suggests the general enthusiasm of Sarajevo society for such a facility. Once finished, there were complaints about the cloakroom facilities, acoustics and insufficient electric lighting, but despite all this the Vereinshaus offered not only a theatre stage for dramatic and musical productions, but also a permanent home for the artistic and cultural life of the city. Prstojević notes that at the opening ceremony all three local choral societies sang and that the Croatian theatre company from Zagreb performed several works, including Maria Stewart by Schiller. The theatre staged opera and operetta such as Die Fledermaus, with companies from Vienna and Pest in the later years, but it was not until 1913 that the censors permitted works in the local language.29 Amateur groups performed plays, but these were carefully vetted by the Regierungscommissar for presentations of nationalist feeling which had to be suppressed. In 1913, more plans for a larger permanent theatre were made, and the detailed discussions and costings in Besarović’s collection of documents provide an interesting insight into actual and expected revenue, and the size and composition of the team of people considered necessary to run and perform in such a theatre. Subheadings for the list of personnel are Management, Actors (including a classical hero and heroine and a comic old person), Operetta and Comic Opera, Opera (the tenor was to be paid more than the conductor) and Technical Staff.30 Relative pay scales indicate gender differences; the ladies’ hairdresser was to receive approximately half the salary of the gentlemen’s. Franjo Brodnik, a government advisor dealing with the proposal, commented

Conspicuous Consumption and Cultures of Urban Display

167

that the theatre was ‘undoubtedly of cultural importance and of acknowledged worth in the education and development of the population through productions of both native and foreign literary and musical works’.31 The new theatre was never built, plans being halted by the events of 1914. Another major building development towards the end of the period which suggests investors’ confidence in the popularity of the European lifestyle, including entertainment facilities, was the Napredak ‘palace’ from 1913, designed by Dioniz Sunko. The Napredak (Progress) society was a Croatian organization which provided aid to students and apprentices in Bosnia to promote their intellectual, moral and cultural development.32 The building, at Maršala Tita 56, displayed the society’s presence in the city and was built on a large scale over five floors with attic space. In addition to shops and 28 apartments to provide rental income and rooms for society meetings, there were a large restaurant, a café and the Imperial cinema.33 Cinema was one of the latest modern entertainments in 1913, though Sarajevo had enjoyed early films from 1897 onwards, shown in travelling tents and venues which were prone to fire. The Apollo, the first purpose-built, fireproof cinema, opened in 1912 and was followed by Napredak’s Imperial on 5 October 1913. Prstojević, in his account of the opening taken from local newspapers of the period, recorded that ‘For the première, the historical drama “The last days of Pompeii” was played for three days, to the accompaniment of the “local army band”.’34 Newspapers at the time commented that cinema was ‘the most democratic indoor meeting place of our society’ as it was frequented by members of the Gentlemen’s Club, customers of the Central Café (see later sections) and the ‘population of Baščaršija’.35 Music played a major role in the city in areas of public social life. The ‘local army band’, which had played at the opening of the ‘Imperial’ cinema, was one of many which entertained people at the bandstand in the park at Atmejdan and other venues. The army provided live music throughout the city, including at the officer’s Casino, where formal concerts were held: Prstojević records a concert which took place there in 1881, with works by ‘Mendelssohn, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert and Havy’.36 Choral Society concerts such as that described in Chapter 5 were common occurrences, though also carefully monitored by the authorities in the case of the ‘national’ groups such as ‘Trebević’ (Croatian) and ‘Sloga’ (Serbian Orthodox).37 The artistic and cultural life represented by both dramatic and musical activities, which had developed swiftly in the city following the occupation, not only contributed to the cultured society which Brodnik wished to promote, but also provided an opportunity for the

168

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

developing middle classes to see and be seen outside their homes and spend their leisure time in a socially acceptable manner.

Cafés One place where much leisure time was spent, particularly by men, was the café. In his work on urban life in Budapest in the same period, Gábor Gyáni identifies the café as a true bourgeois establishment . . . because its clientele came from the bourgeois middle class. It reflected the lifestyle, consumer culture and sociability of the metropolitan inhabitants and became almost their hallmark . . .38

He uses the diary of a middle-class couple to explore patterns of café use. It seems that they did not frequent any one or two ‘favourites’, but rather visited a wide range of establishments. Furthermore, although the husband often visited cafés alone, the couple were regular visitors together when out walking or shopping, with women only becoming more acceptable ‘solo’ patrons in the early twentieth century. Most cafés offered drinks and snacks and, in some, lunch and dinner were available, with coffee being the most usual drink. As Gyáni has concluded, ‘it is not an exaggeration to say that the principal service provided by the café was the newspaper and the quasi-library reading room’, and his diary sources show that the couple spent their time in the cafés reading a range of papers.39 Information about cafés in Sarajevo in the period, taken from directories, plans and contemporary literature and postcards suggests that several were very similar to those discussed by Gyáni. The notable difference was that Sarajevo, with its recent Ottoman past, still retained a large number of the relatively small traditional ‘Turkish’ coffee houses along with the more modern, ‘European’style establishments. The directory of 1899 lists 35 cafés a la turka and 11 a la franca. There is also a long list of Gastwirthe/Gostioničari, suggesting that Sarajevo was well supplied with hostelries for a variety of tastes.40 Only four of the cafés on the a la franca list and one on the a la turka were protokollirt (approved by the administration – see Table 6.1). The ‘Turkish’ one was Pehla Husein’s establishment at ‘Bendbašigasse 4’, which was famous as a tourist haunt as it overlooked the river under a dramatic cliff.41 It is likely that much informal business was done during encounters at local cafés in the days before the telephone was commonly used; the larger modern cafés were all within easy

Conspicuous Consumption and Cultures of Urban Display

169

walking distance of each other and within the main business area and thus ideal for ‘networking’. The Café Central, or Café Kunerth/Pratschke as it was also called at different times during the period, provides a good example of a Europeanstyle café such as was frequented by middle-class society in the city. It was part of a development from 1889, including four rental apartments on the first and second floors. The building was designed by Josip Vancaš for the Vakufscommission to create income for their pension fund. The file of the planning application not only shows the plans but also details costs and payments made as well as a contract and schedule for the repayment of the loan from the administration. The Vakufs-commission borrowed 49,000 forints towards the cost of the building, which was to be repaid over eleven and a half years at a rate of 6.5 per cent interest.42 This investment, coupled with the support of the administration, shows that by the late 1880s, there was a perceived demand for this type of amenity, which the élite of the Muslim community, who ran the Vakufs-commission, were prepared to supply on a business footing. The rental of the café premises was hotly contested according to the Sarajevski List. Among those tendering were Eduard Lasslauer (later manager of the Café Europe in the hotel Europa), Gligorije Jeftanović (a wealthy member of the Serbian Orthodox élite who owned the Europa) and Joseph Kunerth, who had previously worked for the commission. Despite the higher bid of Jeftanović, Kunerth secured the tenancy, subject to the approval of the administration.43 The café was on a corner plot and was typical in shape and layout to cafés of the period throughout central Europe, showing again the Sarajevan acceptance of foreign patterns for public social space (see Figure 6.1). It was on the ground floor, in a prominent position in the centre of the town, fronting both streets (Franz Josefsgasse and Čumurije), with long windows along both sides so that customers could see and be seen. Postcards from the period show trees in pots along the pavement for added decoration, and anyone sitting at the small outside tables on the corner would have had an excellent view of passers-by and shoppers in Rudolfsgasse looking towards the cathedral and also up and down Franz Josefsgasse.44 The L-shaped room was light and airy and barrelvaulted with fireproof metal joists in the approved style. Behind the main café area was a connecting ‘games room’, perhaps for billiards, which was also large enough for a small string ensemble to entertain inside (see Harry de Windt’s account later in the chapter). To the south, separated from the main café area by the staircase which went upstairs to the apartments, there was a one-room flat

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

170

Courtyard Games room

Kitchen

Café Kitchen

16.17

F r a n z - J o s e f g a s s e .

Café

Café

Café

Entrance Hall

25.0 Cumurija gasse

Figure 6.1  Plan of ground floor of Café Kunerth/Pratschke/Central, Ajas-Pašin Dvor, Josip Vancaš, 1889. Source: Adapted from ABiH ZVS 116 1890 š.50/26/Der Bautechniker, Vol. XV Nr. 47, 22.xi.1895.

Proprietor’s Living room

Conspicuous Consumption and Cultures of Urban Display

171

with kitchen and lavatory for the café proprietor, and behind the café area was a small kitchen for the café plus a lavatory for the customers.45 This type of café can still be seen and experienced in central European cities such as Vienna and Budapest today, complete with newspapers to read.

Hotels The Café Kunerth was taken over by Anton Pratschke sometime between 1889 and 1897, and on 6 May 1897, he opened up the whole building as a hotel, using the upstairs apartment space as letting bedrooms. After 1897, the Vakufs-commission decided, following the purchase of the house next door in Čumurijagasse, to extend the building to the south and expand the hotel. Despite the presence of some 50 hans in the city at the time of the occupation, new hotels more suited to the tastes and comforts of European visitors were quickly developed by entrepreneurs keen to explore the new markets created by the military and political changes as well as increased tourism and commercial travel. Hamdija Kreševljaković remarks that the first hotels after 1878 were adaptations of houses already there and so blended with the local architecture; examples were the Austria and the Radetsky. However, Gligorije Jeftanović quickly showed his economic confidence in the new régime by building the Hotel Europa in the latest Western style: it opened in 1882.46 The new Hotel Central was the Vakufs-commission’s (or perhaps Pratschke’s?) challenge to the Europa, in that it was built to the highest standard to include the latest in comfort, including ‘52 rooms . . . electric lighting, telephone, telegraph office nearby and baths on each floor’.47 The café was already in position and was augmented by a large restaurant on the ground floor with another in the basement. There was a small drawing room and more extensive lavatory and cooking facilities than in the earlier plans and also rooms for staff in the attics.48 The design was again by Vancaš. A comparison of the schedules of payments for work on the two developments shows changes over 10 years; in addition to costs such as those for stonemasons, carpentry and joinery and roofing, now papering, telephone connection and electric lighting had also to be paid for. The exterior design continued the previous ‘Pseudo-Moorish’ striped patterning along the façade, with sgraffito designs over the windows on the first floor (see Figure 6.2). The hotel was well patronized and seems to have been a worthy competitor to the Europa. Journalist Harry de Windt, travelling Through Savage Europe in

172

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

Figure 6.2  Blueprint of western façade of the Ajas-Pašin Dvor when it was extended to form the Hotel Central, 1899. The drawing is signed by Vancaš, the architect, and Bašagić, the head of the Vakufs-direktion. The original blueprint is approximately 80 cm × 50 cm. Source: ABiH ZVS 60.

the spring of 1905, received a favourable impression of it when he stayed there during his fact-finding tour of the Balkans. He provides a first-hand account of the facilities and the clientele: [I]t resembles a military mess, and two thirds of the habitués wore the Austrian uniform or the tunic and scarlet fez of some Austrian-Bosnian regiment. The officers seemed to have little to do, for at this season of the year military exercises are generally over for the day by 10am, and the afternoons are usually spent in playing cards or talking scandal which, as far as I could glean is never lacking. This restaurant is also the chief centre for news from Europe which was posted up in the shape of telegrams twice during the day, though Sarajevo itself is well supplied with newspapers, several being published in German and at least half a dozen in the Bosnian and Turkish languages. In the evening tradesmen came in after the theatre with their wives and daughters to drink Bock and Mélange and to listen to the inevitable string band, while everyone spoke German to the exclusion of every other language, and a demand in English or French was met by a blank stare by the ‘Kellners’. The cuisine was good but trying, being of an international character, and comprising such contrasts as beef-steak and frogs, sourcrout [sic] and ‘Risotto à la Milanese’!49

He comments on the rudeness of a local ‘bourgeois’ at an adjoining table who had stopped the waiter to ask what this stranger was eating for dinner. His

Conspicuous Consumption and Cultures of Urban Display

173

account shows a busy hotel, full of middle-class and military personnel who seem rather bored by their lives and looking for diversion. The number of hoteliers in Bosnischer Bote’s list for 1899 was only four, excluding the administration’s hotels at Ilidža (see later sections); by 1910, the list had grown to seven names, the Hotel Europa under Eduard Lasslauer still at the top.50 However, neither list is complete; postcards from the period show hotels such as the Kaiserkrone from the turn of the century, and Prstojević notes that, by 1913, there were 13 hotels of this type.51 The ‘Golden Lamb’ was at the station, and in 1909, the Hotel Kontinental was built at the western end of the main street into the city from the station. It is a large five-storey building on a triangular corner site, with imposing decorated façades in late-Secession style.52 At the same time, at the extreme eastern end of the city, Vancaš, who designed the Kontinental, was also the architect for the Hotel Ghazi (present-day Hotel Stari Grad) which he built for the Gazi Husrev-beg vakuf in the totally different ‘Bosnian’ style. However, the development of higher-status hotels for discerning customers was not a guaranteed economic success. In 1893, keen perhaps to join the Europa in this high-status market, another member of the Salom family, Daniel A. Salom, built a large ‘totally new and elegant’ modern hotel at the intersection between present-day Ferhadija and Mule Mustafa Bašeskije.53 The Grand Hotel, opened in 1895, was turned into a theatre within a year and then became a branch of the Landesbank.54 In this context, Pratschke’s venture only 4 years later seems a brave step, but it obviously succeeded where Salom’s had failed and has been an ongoing landmark in the city ever since. After serious damage in the recent war, the Hotel Central has been completely restored and was in business again in 2011.

Tourism and the development of the Ilidža spa The development of hotels such as the Grand and the Central needs to be seen not only in terms of changes to the type of visitor coming to Sarajevo after the occupation for business, military or political reasons, but also in relation to a deliberate policy on the part of the administration to open the country up to tourism. Since the arrival of Austro-Hungarian forces and, later, administrative personnel to occupy Bosnia-Hercegovina, the empire had seen it as part of its task to show the rest of the world the good work it was doing in this small, unknown territory. Travel writers and political observers wrote favourably about developments, although this is not surprising with early accounts such as the

174

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

‘Official Tour’ by János ‘de Asboth’ who was a Hungarian well known to the then Joint Minister of Finance, Kállay.55 Okey, when discussing Kállay’s approach to Bosnia’s presentation to the outside world, considers that ‘Orchestration is the key word . . .’ and explains that journalists were given the administration’s careful assistance in order that they might see and present the country and the administration’s work in the most positive light.56 It certainly seems to have worked with Messrs Miller, Thomson and Renner who visited between 1895 and 1898. Harry Thomson heads Chapter 2 of his Impressions of a Journey through the Western Balkans ‘Perfect Tranquillity of Bosnia and the Hercegovina’ and points out that, as a result of the excellent new infrastructure of roads and railways, ‘. . . Bosnia, formerly so remote and inaccessible, has been brought into touch with the rest of Europe . . . it is possible to be in London in fifty-four hours from the time of leaving Serajevo’. He had obviously benefited from the ‘help’ described by Okey, commenting on the ‘cordial welcome’, and says that ‘anyone who may wish to travel through [Bosnia] may feel sure of receiving both courteous treatment and assistance’.57 William Miller considered ‘the experiment’ to have been ‘most successful’: ‘it is calculated to serve as a model for the future guidance of statesmen dealing with the Eastern Question’. He was similarly positive about the work of the administration and, in particular, that of the Kállays and concluded that in Bosnia-Hercegovina, this ‘Modern Balkan State’, ‘. . . the clock of civilisation cannot be put back’.58 Heinrich Renner’s account presents more of a travelogue, with fewer attempts at political analysis. His image of the hard-working Austrians clearing away the thickets which surrounded Sleeping Beauty’s magic castle in which she had been asleep for 400 years shows his enthusiasm for Bosnia as a tourist destination.59 Max Pemberton, in his review of Mrazović’s book of stories ‘Selam’ in The Sketch in 1900, seems to have picked up on some of these carefully orchestrated positive accounts of the country when he notes that there are crazes in travel as in fashion: ‘The craze has made, or is seeking to make, the fortunes of Bosnia.’ While his account of the work of the administration is comic in style, he makes points similar to those of other writers about the developments in cleanliness, order, schools and railways. All view Bosnia and the Bosnians in passive terms. Pemberton, assessing the country’s interest value for the tourist, notes that Bosnians are ‘a people which retains enough of its primitive savagery to charm the observer’.60 All the writers are generally uncritical of the work of the occupiers, and though it is hard to assess the writers’ effect on western- and central-European views of Bosnia among the travelling public, the fact that

Conspicuous Consumption and Cultures of Urban Display

175

Renner’s work went into a second edition and a British publisher saw it fit to publish an English version of Mrazović’s Bosnian stories suggests some impact in terms of interest in the country. The prospective tourist’s task was made easier when ‘Cook and Son came along’; by 1900, Bosnia was obviously an established destination for the more intrepid Western traveller.61 Baedeker included it in its 1905 edition on the Austro-Hungarian Empire, with a map of Sarajevo showing features of interest.62 The official guidebook (in German) seems to have been Hartleben’s, published in ‘Wien, Pest, Leipzig’. In the foreword to the second edition of 1895, Milena Mrazović is thanked for her ‘tireless and excellent exertions’ in assisting the editor in its preparation.63 This expands considerably on the first (1892) in its description of Sarajevo, particularly in its account of the National Museum. It includes new buildings such as the Franciscan monastery and the new Rathaus, which is described in positive terms.64 There are 68 illustrations and a map of Sarajevo, which provide invaluable information for the urban historian and also indicate what the authorities considered to be of interest and importance in terms of outsiders’ views of Bosnia-Hercegovina. As in Pemberton’s brief account, the guidebook features the dramatic and varied natural environment with opportunities for hunting, modern government-run hotels and safe modern roads and railways with swift communication to Vienna, Budapest, Trieste and beyond. It also mentions the ‘charm of this near East’ which seems to have been a major selling point, particularly in relation to Sarajevo. All these were important elements in the tourist package.65 Hartleben produced yet another edition in 1898. In 1913, the ‘Government of Bosnia and Hercegovina’ published a guidebook in English which also stressed the country’s recent inaccessibility and the positive changes made since the occupation as well as the excellent communications, climate and ‘Oriental scenery’ to be found. Again, most illustrations are of such scenery, with a preponderance of mosques and minarets in Sarajevo. A description of Baščaršija reads thus: The manycoloured market-bustle [sic], the stunning noise of the public criers, the loud dress of the Turkish and Christian women, the martial figures of peasants and noble calmness of the mahometan agas, all this contrives to form a magnificent living picture of the Orient.66

This ‘Orient’ had the advantage of being somewhat closer and apparently more ‘civilized’ for the British tourist than its counterpart further east. The effectiveness of such marketing for tourism in Sarajevo is hard to assess without more research, but the profusion of postcards, which were so much a part of social

176

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

communication throughout Europe and beyond by the end of the nineteenth century, gives an indication of the enthusiasm and range of travellers to the city. Prstojević’s collection in Forgotten Sarajevo mostly includes cards sent to destinations within south and central Europe; examples are Timoşoara, Graz, Budapest and, more locally, Mostar. Some of the earliest, from 1898, are tinted line drawings, but within a few years, black-and-white and tinted photographs appeared, and there is a huge range of views of the city from 1900 onwards. Postcards were produced mainly by the local printing firms such as Albert Thier, Simon Kattan and Leon Finci.67 Although Prstojević’s book includes a sample specifically chosen to illustrate aspects of the city, mostly from 1900 to 1918, the sheer number and the details he gives show that travel and postcard writing were popular for locals and visitors alike. These postcards are an invaluable source of evidence about life in the city during this period and give a visual history of the development of the streets, markets, parks and buildings. A great source of postcards was the spa resort of Ilidža, which the adminis­ tration had been building up as a potential tourist destination since 1880.68 The mineral springs had been used by the Romans and Ottomans in the past for their curative qualities, and developments in the Austro-Hungarian period included the baths complex and a restaurant, hotels and other facilities. Ornamental parks were laid out with a music pavilion, a bear pit, fishing lake and an aviary to create a fashionable ‘watering place’. There were also swings, a carousel, tennis courts, croquet lawn and a shooting gallery.69 In 1890, a rail connection was established between Sarajevo and the resort. A three-kilometre avenue of plane trees was planted to provide a gracious route for walkers or riders (there was also a bus) to the source of the river Bosna, where there was a pavilion and artificial lakes with swans.70 A racecourse ‘half an hour away’ held races throughout the year and was popular with both locals and visitors.71 The model farm, which the administration had set up to improve farming methods in Bosnia, was also in the locality and is suggested in Hartleben’s guidebook as a possible destination for outings from the resort. It provided milk and vegetables to the hotels. While at the resort, those taking the waters could consult a doctor provided by the administration without charge (mornings only), and a chemist’s shop was conveniently available in the Hotel ‘Austria’ in case of need.72 Figure 6.3 shows a careful mix of people in relaxed mood, suggesting that, in a confessional sense, this was an inclusive sort of place, with elegant entertainment in picturesque surroundings; even the obligatory flâneur, who is considered to be so much a part of the urban social scene of the late nineteenth and early

Conspicuous Consumption and Cultures of Urban Display

177

Figure 6.3  ‘Sunday Afternoon at Ilidža’ by Evald Arndt-Čeplin. Source: ÖNB Vienna: 188.273-B.3.1899 Neu, p. 193.

twentieth centuries in Europe, is present with his umbrella.73 Bosnischer Bote gave details of prices for the various baths, including for Muslim women. All the amenities were controlled by the administration.74 Apart from the guide books, there were numerous mentions of the resort in literature about Bosnia in the period; Mrazović described it in her contribution to Die OesterreichischUngarische Monarchie in Wort und Bild as an ‘English park’.75 Munro devoted almost two pages to it during his account of nearby excavations at Butmir. Delegates were entertained to supper by the Kállays in the restaurant there, and Munro noted the ‘beautifully kept flower-garden’ outside. The Kállays often used Ilidža for receiving and entertaining important visitors during the season. Miller praised Baroness von Kállay for her support of her husband’s work in the province and noted that ‘her receptions at Ilidže [sic] form the centre of society. . . . In her salon representative men of all creeds meet, and officials and natives assemble together.’76 Ilidža had a key role in the social life of the city; like the cafés, it was a place to see and be seen, which attracted visitors from beyond Bosnia as well as those wishing to get out of the city for mineral baths, a walk or a drive in the country.

178

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

European ways of death A new development from 1884 was the ‘European’ cemetery at Koševo. The final resting place of so many of the non-Muslim élite, both indigenous and incomer, shows as clearly as any building or social behaviour the acceptance by the Sarajevo middle classes of European ways of indicating status and modernity. The shape of a monument, the choice of stone, the inscription and even the position in the cemetery were status markers. Among those identified are several who have appeared earlier in the chapter and elsewhere in the book. The cemetery was laid out in two parts, with the (larger) Serbian Orthodox section to the north. Monuments here have inscriptions in Cyrillic. At the forefront, closest to the road in the north-east corner, is that of the Petrović family, on a long, low plot, with a list of names and dates and space for more which has never been filled. The monument is in white stone, low key and relatively restrained, with a square cross above the names. Dimitrije Jeftanović’s next door is a tall monolith in black granite which lists his name and dates under a plain engraved cross and also lists those of other members of his family. The vault has grey granite slabs and ornamental bollards with spiked chains around it. In the south section, which seems to be mostly for Roman Catholics, are to be found the family monuments of Eduard Pleyel, the chemist in Rudolfsgasse, and Josip Rekvényi, the architect. One of the smaller monuments to the west (‘back’) of the cemetery belongs to Angelina Ostojić, who died on 26 May 1913 aged only 18. Her grave displays well a fashion which is common to many of the Bosnian graveyards both then and now and also elsewhere in Europe – a photograph of the deceased on a china plaque fixed to the front of the gravestone. Many of those from the Austro-Hungarian period are faded or have fallen out of their sockets or become broken, but Angelina’s is still fresh and clear after almost 100 years. Some of the monuments are very imposing, and many use highly polished marbles and granites. A lovely example using Secession-style relief carving and lettering is that of the Fuchs family, showing a weeping woman with a broken laurel tree. The south part of the cemetery also contains non-Catholic graves. Another tall, black-polished monolith similar to Jeftanović’s, this time in Gothic script, belongs to Albert Wohlgemuth, a well-respected building contractor who was in charge of the construction of many of the buildings mentioned previously and who died in 1900. The monument reveals that he was born in Pomerania and had received the Iron Cross in 1870/1, presumably for his services during the

Conspicuous Consumption and Cultures of Urban Display

179

Franco-Prussian war. He is just one example of the huge mix of peoples from all over central Europe who came to the city during this period and became well integrated, building the mix of ‘Sarajevo society’. The report of his funeral, held at the Evangelical church of which he was a member, emphasizes the range and number of attendees, including officers of the administration and, in particular, the building department, headed by Civil-Adlatus Kutscher. There are past customers such as Petro Petrović, also the German consul, the presidents of the Provincial and Union Banks and other members of society.77 Many of the same faces were later to grace Salom’s housewarming party. Funerals and funerary monuments were another aspect of the way in which middle-class life and behaviours outside the home reinforced and promoted European values and patterns of consumption.78 A smaller tombstone in the Serbian Orthodox section, also in black granite, has a small relief carving of a stern-faced elderly lady; it records in both Cyrillic (local language) and Latin (English) script that ‘Here lies the body of Adeline Paulina Irby, a great benefactress of the Servian people in Bosnia-Hercegovina.’ Miss Irby had originally been buried in the Protestant cemetery across the road, but when this was redeveloped as a place for the university buildings, her grave was moved to join the ‘Servian people’ whom she had supported.79 The various chapters of this book describe the huge changes which she must have experienced in the urban fabric and the life of Sarajevo between the time when she had opened her school there in 1870 up until her death in 1911.80 * The new urban landscape included shops, theatres, cinemas, public parks, cafés, hotels and cemeteries. These were all aspects of the way in which European-style middle-class models of consumption and display affected Sarajevo’s urban space. For the most part, such developments were the result of economic confidence on the part of investors. They show an intention to create facilities and social space which would be profitable as well as fashionable. The result was the creation of a modern and cosmopolitan urban environment in which the city’s residents could interact in the public sphere.

Conclusion

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 and the war that followed put an end to the Austro-Hungarian ‘experiment’ which William Miller had observed on his visit to Bosnia in the late 1890s.1 Western-style urban development of Sarajevo came almost to a standstill after 1914, although the administration did not formally hand over power to make way for the ‘First National Government of Bosnia-Hercegovina’ until November 1918.2 An assessment of the changes which occurred in the period not only demonstrates growth in terms of the spread of the city to the west as far as the tobacco factory and to the north at Koševo, with new streets and the regulation and embankment of the river, but also displays elements of continuity on the steeper hills at Bjelava, Kovači, in the old Muslim ‘Grad’ area and on the southern slopes of Bistrik/Hrvatin above the left bank of the river. These smaller houses on the hills, built mainly of timber and loam bricks in the old style and occupied in the old way, by only one family, remained numerically dominant throughout the period. Continuity is evident not only in housing in those areas, but also in shops and artisans’ workshops, such as those in the traditional market area, Baščaršija, and the preservation of separate religious traditions such as the haj or pilgrimage to Mecca for the Muslim population and traditional dress for some members of the different confessions, which can be seen in postcards and tourist literature.3 There was a rich cultural legacy from the Ottoman period in terms of textiles, interior decoration, furnishings, music, craft work and architectural styles which were sometimes a fusion of Islamic motifs and Western models. The European face of the western part of the city centre was largely the result of the changes which occurred between 1878 and 1918. Research on buildings in this area indicates how the various building programmes of the different groups – the administration, private, confessional and business developers alike – were an expression of their particular agendas. AustroHungarian Sarajevo was, thus, a creation of an integrated mix of people and institutions, working within legal, economic, social and cultural constraints to achieve their aims.

182

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

There is no doubt that the Austro-Hungarian administration, engaged in its ‘civilizing mission’, played a key role in creating this European face. Its role had both direct and indirect effects on the city’s development. The government built major public structures such as the town hall and the Regierungspalast and several large office buildings to house the central offices of the Bosnian administration, for example, tax, customs and the Bosnabahn. It also established its military presence, developing and renovating barracks and other military buildings at strategic points around and within the city. Not all government construction, however, was for administrative or military purposes; rental properties such as that by the cathedral were built to boost the administration’s pension fund, while some of the pension fund’s money was used to house senior government officials in villa-type accommodation: in each case an apparently ‘private’ use of public resources. Buildings such as the officer’s Casino, where civic functions and concerts were held, represent the types of ­semi-public space where the urban élite mixed with officers of the Austro-Hungarian military and civil government. The administration also installed infrastructure, mainly through the agency of the city council, in the form of roads, drainage, improved water supply, river embankment, electric light, tram lines and other features common to modern cities of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, creating a new environment based on other European urban models, such as Vienna and Budapest. This indicates its aim to assert its presence in the public sphere and show the local population and the world outside Bosnia-Hercegovina that it was functionally modern and capable of ensuring that Sarajevo had all the amenities necessary for an up-to-date European capital city, albeit on a small scale. However, its indirect influence on the built environment in both ‘public’ and ‘private’ spheres was perhaps greater in the form of building regulations which stipulated European standards for fire safety, height of building in relation to street width, drainage, inspection of sites and procedures for building and moving into new properties. Careful policing of the regulations was also a form of control. The requirement that all buildings within the central zone be made of fired brick was a huge contrast to the previous practice of using sun-baked bricks, and this stimulated the building materials industry, providing hundreds of new jobs. The new building standards, coupled with the need to build European-style apartment blocks in which incoming foreign tenants would feel comfortable, seem to have set a pattern for development by local investors which, once established, remained throughout the period. The parks, Casino, theatre and other European-style amenities which were gradually put in place by a range of

Conclusion

183

agencies all helped to stimulate development in Sarajevo. Economic conditions and the tax breaks for investment in buildings to stimulate growth in 1880 and 1910 were other elements of indirect control by the administration which promoted change in the built environment.4 All these aspects were common to major cities elsewhere in Europe and reflect international models of urban modernity. The government’s early plans for Sarajevo’s improvement included straight­ ening and widening of streets and European-style building development beyond the Koševo stream to the west, although it is clear that their intentions were hampered by lack of central funding and investment. As a result, plans were not always followed through, and overall urban development, mostly privately funded, was of a more piecemeal nature. Rebuilding after the fire of 1879 and redevelopment of plots in the city centre on the old Ottoman street grid owed more to the business opportunities and aims of individual builders than to any overarching government plan. There was a range of different types of ‘private’ building by individuals and groups, some in a semi-public capacity. Many apartment blocks were built by local businessmen for investment purposes. Changes in economic opportunities following the occupation, as well as the great fire, badly affected traditional merchant trading. These factors encouraged members of the Sarajevo élites to look elsewhere for a secure income. The arrival of banks and credit institutions in Bosnia after 1878 made capital for investment more readily available. Furthermore, the state and shortage of the pre-occupation housing stock meant that rental prices were high and remained so throughout the period; it was cost-effective to borrow capital to build because the returns to be gained once the building was in use were substantially greater than the cost of borrowing. Economic advantage was, therefore, a major driving force. This private investment in real estate, already well developed in cities such as Budapest, arguably led to the biggest changes in the urban fabric of the city after 1878. Western and central European architectural trends, promoted by architects trained in central Europe, and particularly in Vienna, dictated the latest fashionable looks for the façades and interiors of buildings whose structure was largely prescribed by the building regulations and building materials such as fired brick and metal joists which these demanded. The private clients would also, in many cases, have brought the ‘models’ for these buildings directly with them from previous experiences as inhabitants, or as visitors to, cities such as Budapest, Vienna and Prague. Many of these buildings were built by a small nucleus of major private investors. Muslim and Serbian Orthodox ‘builders’ were in a minority, while

184

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

the Sephardic Jewish population, though numerically a much smaller group in Sarajevo throughout the period, produced just under a third of private new builds of modern type. The Catholic and immigrant populations were also responsible for about one-third. This proves that the local investors were the majority and were taking an active role in the development of their city. Some owned and built several properties at once. The buildings were mainly of a contemporary western and central European urban type, intended for residential and business use, often with shops at street level. Plaster exterior decoration and features such as windows and balconies were intended to reflect the owners’ ideas of ‘good taste’ and a desire to make their mark in the city. Development by confessional groups was another key element which contributed to the new Western-style city. The administration’s policy of treating all confessions equally and providing subsidies for confessional buildings meant that all the main confessions were able to embark on new buildings after 1878. The desire to assert their confessional presence in this multicultural city led to new places of worship and associated schools, reading rooms and community offices, which were for public use and intended to confirm confessional identity. Some received funding from outside Bosnia and were built on a relatively large scale. Confessional community groups also invested in real estate, building private residential/business blocks to raise funds for their charitable work. The Roman Catholic archbishopric of Bosnia was one such investor and the Serbian Orthodox Church School community and the vakuf organizations also invested in residential/business properties, from small apartment blocks to large commercial ventures such as the Hotel Central. Again, the architectural styles chosen related to the assertion of a particular identity in the public space; the Roman Catholics chose neo-Gothic for their cathedral, and the vakuf Hotel Central has neo-Moorish decoration on its façade. With the exception of styles used on the vakuf buildings and other Islamic religious structures such as the Sheriat Law School, confessional architectural decoration mainly adopted Western historicist idioms, often taken from Renaissance models. This applied in the private sphere also, though the ‘Bosnian style’ which developed later in the period was adopted by both Muslim and Sephardic Jewish clients in their private buildings and was also used by vakufs. The commercial life of the city was hugely affected by the policies and changes put in place by the administration, which were intended to develop Bosnia’s economy and bring foreign capital investment to the region. The growth of the banking sector not only introduced new economic means of development for potential investors, but the various financial institutions were also responsible

Conclusion

185

for some of the largest and most architecturally ostentatious structures in the new streets, particularly later in the period. The road and rail networks which the government established opened up the province to increased trade and improved the speed of communications from outside Bosnia-Hercegovina, particularly to the west. The introduction of new technologies by both local and immigrant investors led to the building of brick ovens, steam-powered mills, a modern brewery complex, semi-mechanized factories for the production of craft goods and other industrial development both within and on the outskirts of the city. Many of these businesses also had shops, warehouses and offices in the city centre for the storage and sale of their goods and services, in some cases linked to the railway station by the new electric tram system, which facilitated the movement of the goods. As a result of these developments, in the new part of the city, the street, rather than the old Ottoman mahala, became the economic and social unit. Similarly, the old Ottoman pattern for zoning and separation of commercial and residential areas altered. The new model, which was common to most European cities in the period, combined a mix of shops, offices and apartments in buildings along a building line. Both visually and commercially this was a huge change, which was resisted by many who already had workshops and shops in the traditional market area, Bašćaršija, and continued to live and work in the old way. The new shops served the large military presence and were popular with the immigrant population. This research suggests that more than 50 per cent of shops in the European part of the city in the middle of the period were run by people who had come from outside Bosnia. These shops catered to a mix of local customers, supplying traditional goods and services, and also to a more Western-looking clientele for whom they provided European-style foods, clothing and imported goods from as far afield as Paris. By the turn of the century, there was a thriving market for European consumer goods and also a mix of medium and larger businesses trading within the city, throughout Bosnia and, in some cases, with international connections. The business community was well integrated, both confessionally and in its mix of local and immigrant shops and businesses. These were mainly run by men, with women playing a minimal role, except in socially acceptable spheres such as midwifery and craft trades. As with the development of real estate in which many Sarajevan business people were also involved, the changes in the urban fabric promoted by the business community were directly related to economic advantage. At the same time their buildings were an outward expression of modernity, efficiency and good taste, intended to advertise their status in the community.

186

The Development of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo, 1878–1918

The social and cultural activities of the middle-class and élite populations show their acceptance of the norms of middle-class life in cities such as Vienna and Budapest in their apartment lifestyles, in the cafés which they frequented and in the clubs and societies in which they participated outside the home. The sources indicate the relatively active role which the more affluent indigenous population played alongside their new neighbours in promoting social and economic change; they were not passive recipients but active participants. With their fellow citizens, they held public and semi-public positions as directors on the boards of businesses and banks and as officers of the various clubs, forming part of a developing civil society in the city. The museum periodical, Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja, provides an example of how the intellectual élites, both immigrant and local, worked with the administration to bring their Westernstyle research on the natural history, history and culture of Bosnia to a wider audience, promoting academic cooperation in the form of international conferences which helped to put Bosnia on the cultural map of Europe and raised its intellectual status at home. The museum and its periodical exemplify Joint Minster of Finance Kállay’s policy to promote a specific Bosnian national identity in the province, as do the development of the literary periodical Nada and the negotiations and control which are apparent in the correspondence about society names and the concern over the proposed changes of personnel at the Bosnische Post. After Kállay’s death, ‘national’ labels for clubs and savings banks suggest a more relaxed approach by the administration, though censorship of newspapers and other publications as well as entertainment remained careful. Consumption patterns of the middle classes also increasingly followed European models, as can be seen from the types of shops and goods for sale in the city centre and also the layout and memorials in the Koševo cemetery. The developing tourist industry, while centring on aspects of the ‘Oriental’ charm of the area, also emphasized the efficient road and rail communications and up-to-date hotels and shops in order to advertise Sarajevo and the Ilidža spa to potential customers. European-style modernity was clearly a selling point. The functionally modern cosmopolitan legacy of the various builders of Austro-Hungarian Sarajevo was firmly based, for the most part, on financial gain, coupled with a desire to adopt current western- and central-European fashions in architectural decoration and middle-class lifestyle. This Sarajevan model of urban modernity can be seen as a response not only to the administration’s policies for political and economic development but also to the social, cultural, architectural and economic stimuli which were affecting urban middle-class

Conclusion

187

development throughout Europe. The legacy of the built environment and associated material from the period provide the evidence for this and indicate how new influences and pressures interacted with tradition and continuity to form an integrated city which became an Austrian provincial capital while still retaining elements of its Ottoman past.

Notes Abbreviations and Terminology 1 Sarajevo, 1: 17 500, ISBN 3-85084-164-2, Vienna, Freytag und Berndt. There is no publication date on the map, but it is certainly after 1994, and was acquired in 2004.

Introduction 1 Owing to post-war reorganization of archives, material such as original census returns, which would have yielded such information, was not available for consultation. 2 For example, Dedijer, V. (1967), The Road to Sarajevo. London: MacGibbon and Kee; Glenny, M. (2000), The Balkans.1804–1999. London: Granta Books; Silber, L. and Little, A. (revised edition, 1996), The Death of Yugoslavia. London: Penguin. 3 Robin Okey comments in the conclusion to his political history of the region in the Austro-Hungarian period that ‘the Habsburg period turned out to be another episode in Bosnian history which ultimately failed to deliver’: Okey, R. (2007), Taming Balkan Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 251. Neal Ascherson, in a review of Glenny’s book for the Observer, asserts ‘Glenny’s point is simple. For 120 years, the Great Powers have shown the Balkans only miscalculation and indifference.’ Glenny, The Balkans, inside front cover. 4 Quoted in Glenny, The Balkans, p. xxiii. 5 Ibid., p. xxiv. 6 Ibid.; Bublin, M. (1999), Gradovi Bosne i Hercegovine. Milenijum razvoja i godine urbicida. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Publishing. 7 Dizdar, M. (2005), Sarajevo. The Tourist-Historic Guide. Sarajevo: Sejtarija. 8 Donia, R. J. (2006), Sarajevo. A Biography. London: Hurst and Co., p. 75. 9 Malcolm, N. (1996), Bosnia. A Short History. London: Pan Macmillan, p. xxi. 10 Okey’s is a key text for discussion of Hapsburg policy in Bosnia. Okey, Taming Balkan Nationalism. 11 In Bosnia, this language is now called ‘Bosnian’, but in the West, it is usually known as ‘Serbo-Croat’. Juzbašić, D. (1974), Izgradnja Željeznica u Bosni i

190

12 13

14

15 16

17 18 19

Notes Hercegovini u svjetlu Austrougarske Politike od Okupacije do Kraja Kállayeve Ere. Sarajevo: Akademie Nauka i Umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine; Juzbašić, D. (2002), Politika i privreda u Bosni i Hercegovini pod Austrougarskom upravom. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine; Kraljačić, T. (1987), Kálayev režim u Bosni i Hercegovini 1883–1903. Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša; Kreševljaković, H. (1937), Sarajevo u doba okupacije Bosne 1878. Sarajevo: Islamska Dionička Štamparija; Kreševljaković, H. (1969), Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, (1878–1918). Sarajevo: Izdanje Arhiva Grada Sarajeva; Kruševac, T. (1960), Sarajevo pod austro-ugarskom upravom. Sarajevo: Muzeja grada Sarajeva; Kruševac, T. (1978), Bosansko-Hercegovački Listovi u XIX veku. Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša; Krzović, I. (1999), Eduard Loidolt. Akvareli iz Bosne i Hercegovine/ Aquarelles from Bosnia-Herzegovina 1880–1882. Sarajevo: Bosnian Institute; Krzović, I. (2004), Arhitektura Secesije u Bosni i Hercegovini. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Publishing; Kurto, N. (1998), Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine. Razvoj Bosanskog Stila. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Publishing; Ljiljak, M. (1975), Pošta, Telegraf i Telefon u Bosni i Hercegovini 1. Sarajevo: PTT Saobraćaja Sarajevo; Ljiljak, M. (1981), Pošta, Telegraf i Telefon u Bosni i Hercegovini 2. Sarajevo: PTT Saobraćaja Sarajevo. Donia, Sarajevo, Chapter 3, pp. 60–92. Lešić, J. (1973), Pozorišne život Sarajeva 1878–1918. Sarajevo: Svetlost; Kahmi, S. (ed.) (1966), Spomenica 400 Godina od Dolaska Jevreja u Bosnu i Hercegovinu. Sarajevo; Finci, J. (1962), Razvoj dispozicije i funkcije u stambenoj kulturi Sarajeva. Sarajevo. Reynolds, D. (2003), ‘Kavaliere, Kostüme, Kunstgewerbe: Die Vorstellung Bosniens in Wien 1878–1900’. In: J. Feichtinger, U. Prutsch and M. Csáky (eds), Habsburg Postcolonial. Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich, Bozen: Studien Verlag, pp. 243–57; Ruthner, C. (2008), ‘Habsburg’s Little Orient. A Postcolonial Reading of Austrian and German Cultural Narratives on Bosnia-Herzegovina, 1878–1918’. Kakanian Revisited, http://www.kakanien.ac.at/beitr/fallstudie/CRuthner5.pdf [accessed 22 May 2008]; Donia, R. J. (2007), ‘The Proximate Colony: BosniaHerzegovina under Austro-Hungarian Rule’. Kakanien Revisited, http://www. kakanien.ac.at/beitr/fallstudie/RDonia1.pdf [accessed 11 September 2007]. Said, E. W. ([1978] 1991), Orientalism. Western Conceptions of the Orient. London: Penguin. Todorova, M. (1994), ‘The Balkans: from discovery to invention’. Slavic Review, 53(2), 453–82; Todorova, M. (1997), Imagining the Balkans. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gunther, J. (1940), Inside Europe. New York: Harper, p. 437. Schorske, C. E. (1980), Fin-de-Siècle Vienna. Politics and Culture. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, pp. 24–115. Ibid., p. xxii.

Notes

191

20 Ibid., p. xxiv. 21 Ibid., pp. 49–62. 22 Gyáni, G. (2002), Parlor and Kitchen. Housing and Domestic Culture in Budapest, 1870–1940. Budapest: Central European University Press; Gyáni, G. (2004), Identity and the Urban Experience. Fin de Siècle Budapest. New Jersey/Budapest: Centre for Hungarian Studies and Publications; Hanák, P. (1998), The Garden and the Workshop. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 23 Hanák, The Garden and the Workshop, p. xviii. 24 Ibid., pp. 3–43. 25 Gyáni, Parlor and Kitchen. 26 Makaš, E. G. and Conley, T. D. (eds) (2009), Capital Cities in the Aftermath of Empires. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 258–69. 27 Ibid., p. 260. 28 Ibid. 29 Moravánszky, Á. (1998), Competing Visions. Aesthetic Inventions and Social Imagination in Central European Architecture, 1867–1918. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; Alofsin, A. (2006), When Buildings Speak: Architecture as Language in the Habsburg Empire and its Aftermath. 1867–1933. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 30 Hartmuth, M. (2006), ‘Negotiating Tradition and Ambition: A Comparative Perspective on the “De-Ottomanisation” of Balkan Cityscapes’. Ethnologia Balkanica, 10, 15–33; Hartmuth, M. (2010), ‘Insufficiently Oriental? An Early Episode in the Study and Preservation of the Ottoman Architectural Heritage in the Balkans’. In: M. Hartmuth and A. Dilsiz (eds), Papers on Ottoman Europe Presented to Machiel Kiel. Leiden: Nederlands Institut voor het Nabije Oosten. 31 Hartmuth, M. (n.d.), ‘Image-ing the Balkans’, p. 4. Kakanien Revisited, http://www. kakanien.ac.at/beitr/balkans/MHartmuth2.pdf. Accessed June 2010. 32 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave; Krzović, I. (1987), Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine 1878–1918. Sarajevo: Umjetnička Galerija BiH; Krzović, Arhitektura Secesije; Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine. 33 Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine 1878–1918; Krzović, Arhitektura Secesije; Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine. 34 See Appendix 2 (online). 35 Prstojević’s Forgotten Sarajevo presents his wide-ranging collection of postcards of the city, and has been a very valuable source of evidence. Prstojević, M. (1999), Forgotten Sarajevo. Sarajevo. 36 For example, Der Bautechniker for 22 November 1895, Nr. 47, Vol. XV (Ajas-Pašin Dvor); Der Bautechniker for 15 April 1904, Nr. 16, Vol. XXIV (Ferhadija 27).

192

Notes

Chapter 1 1 A clear, concise account of ‘the insurrection’ is given in Malcolm, N. (1996), Bosnia. A Short History. London: Pan Macmillan, pp. 132–3. 2 Evans, A. J. (1877), Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina on Foot during the Insurrection, August and September 1875. London: Longmans, Green and Co., p. 241. 3 For a full history of Western perceptions of, and relationship with, ‘the Orient’ in the period, see Said, E. W. ([1978] 1991), Orientalism. Western Conceptions of the Orient. London: Penguin. 4 Evans, Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina. Chapter VI, ‘Panic in Sarajevo’, pp. 234–84. 5 The word ‘occupiers’ is used throughout the book to indicate people who came to live in Sarajevo after the occupation in 1878 and who were not native to the city. They were from a range of social backgrounds and were mainly a mix of professional and business people, soldiers and government administrators, though some came to work as, for example, tradesmen in the building business and as shopkeepers. 6 The title of Chapter X of Richards, D. (1943), An Illustrated History of Modern Europe 1789–1939. London, New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co., p. 186. 7 This is well exemplified by the preface to the second edition of Georgina Mackenzie and Paulina Irby’s book Travels in the Slavonic Provinces of Turkey-inEurope which was written by W. E. Gladstone. He commented on the importance of the book as an aid to international politicians in deciding what should be ‘done’ about Bosnia-Hercegovina. He wrote that it enabled statesmen to question how far the Porte was fulfilling its obligations in the region and noted that at great cost to themselves these ladies had produced information which gave ‘a practical and living knowledge’ of the difficulties of life for the Christian populations (rayah). He suggested that the West had a religious obligation to effect change in the region, writing of ‘the insulted laws of the Most High’. Mackenzie, G. M. and Irby, A. P. (2nd edition, 1877), Travels in the Slavonic Provinces of Turkey-in-Europe. London: Daldy, Isbister, pp. vii–xiv. 8 Schlesinger, F. (1902), ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung von Sarajevo bis zur Gegenwart’, Bosnischer Bote VI (1902), ABiH P-15/1902, p. 41. 9 Regulirungs-Plan für den Wiederaufbau des abgebrannten Stadttheiles nach Beschluss des Gemeinderathes von Sarajevo in d. Sitzung v. 11 März 1880. ABiH ZVS-2 1879–80, 15755. 10 Vakufs were religious-charitable foundations which were active in the Ottoman period and which held and maintained property in perpetuity. Vakufs were powerful landowners and funded the upkeep of schools, hospitals, bridges, inns,

Notes

11

12

13

14 15

16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23

24

193

tekkes and mosques. Malcolm notes that by 1878, ‘nearly one third of all usable land in Bosnia was owned by vakufs’. Malcolm, Bosnia, p. 146. Both Evans and Miroslav Prstojević, who prints two copies of the picture in his book, refer to him as such. Evans, Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina, p. 250; Prstojević, M. (1999), Forgotten Sarajevo. Sarajevo, pp. 176, 200–1. Ibid., pp. 8–9 and 13. Despite the printed title on the postcard which says 1878, the picture must date from 1881 or later, as the small Roman Catholic church of St Anthony of Padua, built in 1881 to replace one in the Latinluk which had been destroyed in the great fire of 1879, is visible on the extreme left of the picture, behind the konak. Ibrahim Krzović’s book on Loidolt’s work, which contains copies of all 136 of Loidolt’s watercolour paintings, has been an invaluable source for many pictures of Sarajevo before the Austro-Hungarian redevelopment; in particular, the area around the military barracks at Bistrik and Vratnik. Biographical details (in English) are in Krzović, I. (1999), Eduard Loidolt. Akvareli iz Bosne i Hercegovine/ Aquarelles from Bosnia-Herzegovina 1880–1882. Sarajevo: Bosnian Institute, p. 35. Ibid., p. 74. Plan von Sarajevo. Reduction der Catastral-Aufnahme aus dem Jahre 1882. Vienna: K. K. Militär-geografischen Instituts zu Wien. ŐS-K AS: GIh 621-16. Examples of exceptions are the new theatre building and realgymnazija in Ferhadija (both 1881), the slaughterhouse at Grbavica (also 1881) and the first buildings of the tobacco factory complex to the west of the Koševo stream, beyond the developed part of the city at the time. Mladenović, L. (1982), Gradjansko Slikarstvo u Bosni i Hercegoviniu XIX veku. Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša. Ibid., p. 30. Ibid., pp. 31–2. Ibid., pp. 34, 36. There are also two ‘bastions’, the ‘Yellow’ and ‘White’, to the west and south, respectively. The site of the ‘Turkish’ fortress is not known, according to Prstojević but may be where the Austro-Hungarians built their first ‘Prince Eugen’ (later Jajce) barracks in 1880. Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, p. 67. Schlesinger, ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung’, p. 45. Evans, Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina, p. 279. Hauptmann, F. (1983), Die Ősterreichisch-Ungarische Herrschaft in Bosnien und der Herzegovina 1878–1918. Wirtschaftspolitik und Entwicklung. Universität Graz, p. 24. Schlesinger, ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung’, pp. 43–4. Miss Irby also records the problems of travel in 1875; one could either take a private cart from Brod, which took at least 3 days and nights to reach Sarajevo, a distance

194

25 26 27 28

29 30

31 32 33

34 35

36 37 38

Notes of ‘one hundred and thirty-eight English miles’, or hire one of the three places on the Austrian consulate’s postcart, which took ‘two days and a night or more’. She notes that other ‘fragments’ of roads exist but are ‘constantly out of repair’. Mackenzie and Irby, Travels in the Slavonic Provinces, p. 3. Sugar, P. F. (1963), The Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina, 1878–1918. Seattle: University of Washington Press, p. 17. Ibid., p. 17. Evans reports that the Sephardic Jewish community ‘are the chief bankers here’. Evans, Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina, p. 278. Schlesinger, ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung’, p. 41. The previous tanneries had been at the east end of the city on the right bank of the river (Tabaci dolnji): both appear on the Kataster map of 1882, but this original site became cut off from the water when the river was embanked along the right bank in 1897. Kreševljaković, H. (1969), Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave (1878–1918). Sarajevo: Izdanje Arhiva Grada Sarajeva, p. 31. For postcard pictures of Tabaci dolnji after the embankment, see Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, p. 55. Schlesinger, ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung’, p. 41. For an account of their activities, see Donia, R. J. (2006), Sarajevo. A Biography. London: Hurst and Co., pp. 17–23. Tatiana Neidhardt gives different information on the founder and founding date of the Brusa bezistan. She asserts that it was built by Rustem-paša Hrvat in 1561. Neidhardt, T. (2004), Sarajevo kroz vrijeme. Sarajevo: Arka Press, p. 80. Evans, Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina, p. 273. Schlesinger, ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung’, p. 44. Kreševljaković’s history includes a billeting list compiled in 1878 at the time of the occupation, showing the number of people and horses which could be accommodated at the various hans. Between them, these three hans could house 820 people and 155 horses. Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 124. Hauptmann, Die Ősterreichisch-Ungarische Herrschaft, p. 233, with reference to post-occupation changes in ‘networking’. William Miller, in his approving commentary on the effects of Austro-Hungarian administration in Bosnia, published in 1898, explains that ‘it was not until 1850 that the Bosnian magnates were constrained to allow the Turkish vali to fix his official residence at Sarajevo’. Miller, W. (1898), Travels and Politics in the Near East. London: T. Fisher Unwin, p. 90. Neidhardt, Sarajevo kroz vrijeme, pp. 120–1. Krzović, Eduard Loidolt, p. 84. The 1867 konak building was altered sometime in the 1890s to its present appearance. Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, pp. 43 and 96.

Notes

195

39 The building is discussed in Ljiljak, M. (1975), Pošta, Telegraf i Telefon u Bosni i Hercegovini 1. Sarajevo: PTT Saobraćaja Sarajevo, p. 114. 40 Neidhardt, Sarajevo kroz vrijeme, p. 60; Krzović, Eduard Loidolt, p. 86. 41 Bublin, M. (1999), Gradovi Bosne i Hercegovine. Milenijum razvoja i godine urbicida. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Publishing, p. 96. 42 Krzović, Eduard Loidolt, pp. 70, 85, 164, 169 and 170. 43 Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, pp. 200–1. 44 Donia translates this as ‘residential neighbourhoods’, Sarajevo. A Biography, p. 13. Malcolm explains them as ‘quarters – probably fewer than forty households each’. Malcolm, Bosnia. A Short History, p. 68. 45 Donia, Sarajevo. A Biography, p. 13; Neidhardt dates the first synagogue to 1580/8, though it was rebuilt after being destroyed in the fire as a result of the attack on the city by Eugene of Savoy in 1697. The building of the new synagogue was completed in 1821. Neidhardt, Sarajevo kroz vrijeme, p. 92. For information on the Sephardic Jews, see Levy, M. (1911), Die Sephardim von Bosnien. Sarajevo: Daniel Kajon. 46 Donia, Sarajevo. A Biography, p. 13. 47 Ibid., p. 15. 48 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 38. 49 The Censuses 1885/1895/1910 break down ‘Sarajevo Grad’ into seven districts (presumably based on those used before the occupation – see map at Figure 1.1): I Čaršija, II Koševo, III Bjelava, IV Kovači, V Grad, VI Hrvatin, VII Čobanija/ Bistrik. Ortschaftschafts-und-Bevőlkerungs-Statistik von Bosnien und der Herzegovina (1886). Sarajevo: Landesdruckerei; Hauptresultate der Volkszählung in Bosnien und der Hercegovina vom 22 April 1895. Sarajevo: Landesdruckerei; Rezultati popisa žiteljstva u Bosni i Hercegovini (1912). Sarajevo: Zemaljska Štamparija. See Table 3.5 and Figure 3.2. 50 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 32. 51 Evans, Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina, pp. 271–2. 52 Šeherčehajić, S. (2006), ‘Hastahana prva bolnica u BiH’. BiH City Review 3, 74–5. 53 Ibid., p. 75. 54 Evans, Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina, pp. 281–2. 55 Irby, in her account of a recruiting journey through Bosnia which she made with a colleague in July 1875, notes that they had encountered a zaptié [sic] who demanded that they appear before the Turkish authorities. She records that ‘I replied that we were English ladies and should do no such thing.’ Mackenzie and Irby, Travels in the Slavonic Provinces, p. 27. 56 Čelić, D. (2002), ‘The Domestic and the Oriental in the Material Cultural Heritage of Bosnian-Herzegovinian Muslims’. Prilozi za Orientalnu Filologiju, 50, 353–64, 363.

196 57 58 59 60

61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

69 70 71 72 73 74 75

76 77 78 79 80

Notes Ibid., p. 356. Ibid., p. 357. Ibid., p. 358. Petherbridge, G. T. (1978), ‘Vernacular Architecture: The House and Society’, in Michell, G. (ed.), Architecture of the Islamic World. London: Thames and Hudson, p. 182. Krzović, Eduard Loidolt, pp. 65, 69 and 75. Čelić, ‘The Domestic and the Oriental’, p. 361. Neidhardt, Sarajevo kroz vrijeme, pp. 112–13. Krzović, Eduard Loidolt, p. 118. Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 37. Mackenzie and Irby, Travels in the Slavonic Provinces, p. 2. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, vol. 29 (2004), pp. 327–9, gives biographies of Paulina Irby and her father, Frederick Paul Irby. Ivo Andrić, in his novel about Višegrad, a Bosnian-Ottoman town which shared many common features with Sarajevo, describes such a flood and its effect on the buildings in the vicinity: ‘. . . roofless, and with the mud and clay of their walls washed away, displaying only a black trellis of willow branches so that they looked like skeletons’. Andrić, I., tr. Edwards, L. F. (1977), The Bridge on the Drina. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 80. Evans, Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina, pp. 249 and 251. Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 38. Mackenzie and Irby, Travels in the Slavonic Provinces, p. 1. Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 37. Mackenzie and Irby, Travels in the Slavonic Provinces, p. 5. Ibid., p. 7. Robin Okey gives detailed information about late-Ottoman rule in Bosnia, in particular, the work of Osman-Pasha (1861–9). Okey, R. (2007), Taming Balkan Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 6–8. Kreševljaković also lists the government activities of several élite Sarajevans, both at local and at national levels, in the years before the occupation. Among other work, they held posts as judges, on a government commission on agrarian reform at Istanbul and on the city council. Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, pp. 10, 107–8. On p. 23, he briefly explains the three tiers of Ottoman government in the province, the centres for which were based in Sarajevo. Evans, Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina, p. 244. Ibid., p. 268. Ibid., pp. 195, 277. Ibid., p. 276. Radić, A. (1899), Čaršija, Kohn-Abrest, Bd.I, s.146, quoted in Hauptmann, Die Ősterreichisch-Ungarische Herrschaft, p. 215.

Notes

197

81 Evans, Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina, p. 279. 82 Ibid. 83 Mackenzie and Irby, Travels in the Slavonic Provinces, p. 11. As Sugar explains, following the arrival of the Ottoman conquerors in Bosnia, ‘land remained in the owner’s possession only if he was or became a Muslim’. Sugar, The Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina, p. 8. 84 Okey, Taming Balkan Nationalism, p. 10. 85 Mackenzie and Irby, Travels in the Slavonic Provinces, p. 16. 86 Okey, Taming Balkan Nationalism, p. 13. 87 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 18. 88 Evans, Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina, p. 277. 89 Mackenzie and Irby, Travels in the Slavonic Provinces, p. 18. 90 Evans, Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina, p. 277; Mackenzie and Irby, Travels in the Slavonic Provinces, p. 18. 91 Okey, Taming Balkan Nationalism, p. 20. 92 Ibid., p. 6. The figures for the number of schools are from Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 44. 93 Okey, Taming Balkan Nationalism, p. 6. 94 Ibid., p. 12. 95 Evans, Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina, p. 253. 96 Thomson, H. C. (1897), The Outgoing Turk. London: Heinemann, p. 62. 97 The details are in a long list of Martić’s apparently exemplary life and work which form a citation for the award of the Iron Cross 3rd class, made by Baron Appel to Joint Finance Minister Kállay on 3 December 1894, quoted in full in Besarović, R. (ed.) (1968), Kultura i Umjetnost u Bosni i Hercegovini pod Austrougarskom Upravom. Sarajevo: ABiH, pp. 271–2. 98 Malcolm, Bosnia, pp. 130–1. 99 Kruševac, T. (1978), Bosansko-Hercegovački Listovi u XIX veku. Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša. 100 Ibid., pp. 9, 11 and 28. 101 Ibid., pp. 41 and 63. 102 Mackenzie and Irby, Travels in the Slavonic Provinces, p. 19. 103 Okey, Taming Balkan Nationalism, p. 24.

Chapter 2 1 The reference to Vienna was published in 1873 in the Neue Freie Presse and is quoted in Schorske, C. E. (1980), Fin-de-Siècle Vienna. Politics and Culture. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, p. 29. The reference to Bosnia is in the

198

2

3

4

5 6

7 8 9 10

11 12 13

14 15

16

Notes introduction to the first edition of Renner’s guidebook to Bosnia-Hercegovina, published in Renner, H. (2nd edition, 1897), Durch Bosnien und die Herzegovina kreuz und quer. Berlin: Reimer, p. vi. For an in-depth treatment of the development of planning theory and practice in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, see Sutcliffe, A. (1981), Towards the Planned City. Germany, Britain, the United States and France, 1780–1914. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. See Morris, R. J. and Trainor, R. H. (eds) (2000), Urban Governance, Britain and Beyond since 1750. Aldershot: Ashgate; this title has a collection of essays discussing the development of local authority roles in key issues such as the provision of public health, space and policing. For the development of Paris and Berlin in the same period, see Goodman, D. and Chant, C. (eds) (1999a), European Cities and Technology. Industrial to PostIndustrial City. London: Routledge, pp. 178–221, 225–54. For Budapest, see Gyáni, G. (2004), Identity and the Urban Experience. Fin de Siècle Budapest. New Jersey/ Budapest: Centre for Hungarian Studies and Publications. Census figures from Ortschafts-und-Bevőlkerungs-Statistik (1880). Sarajevo: K.u.K. Regierungsdruckerei. Robin Okey explores the background to ‘contemporary notions of civilising mission’ in Okey, R. (2007), Taming Balkan Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–3, 26. Donia, R. J. (2006), Sarajevo. A Biography. London: Hurst and Co., pp. 67–73. Sutcliffe, Towards the Planned City; Conway, H. (1991), People’s Parks; the Design and Development of Victorian Parks in Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ibid. For details of the fight for Sarajevo, see Donia, Sarajevo. A Biography, pp. 49–59; Kreševljaković, H. (1969), Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, (1878–1918). Sarajevo: Izdanje Arhiva Grada Sarajeva, pp. 9–18. Ibid., p. 9. Kreševljaković, H. (1937), Sarajevo u doba okupacije Bosne 1878. Sarajevo: Islamska Dionička Štamparija, pp. 68–9. Sutcliffe notes that ‘in Prussia and most other [German] states the Bürgermeister was appointed by the government’. This suggests that Philippović was following German precedent. Sutcliffe, Towards the Planned City, p. 24. Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, pp. 131–3. Asboth, J. de (1890, English edition), An Official Tour through Bosnia and Herzegovina. London: Swan Sonnenschein and Co., pp. 185–6. Asbóth also lists the qualifications for voting rights, based on levels of tax payment or being ‘learned’ (in most cases, a civil servant). Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, pp. 36–7 for the work of the Regierungscommissar. Okey comments on the role of District

Notes

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24

25

26 27

28

29 30

199

­ ommissioners: ‘. . . as in colonial tradition, [they] were jacks of all trade, C combining political, judicial and tax functions.’ Okey, Taming Balkan Nationalism, p. 31. Asboth, An Official Tour, p. 185. It can be seen on the Kataster map labelled ‘Magistrat’. Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 23. Ortschaftschafts-und-Bevőlkerungs-Statistik von Bosnien und der Herzegovina (1886). Sarajevo: Landesdruckerei. For example, Bosnischer Bote (1905). ABiH P-15/1905, pp. 67–75. Ibid., p. 112. Situation der Konak-sammt Umgebung in Sarajevo. ABiH ZVS 2 1879–80 š.15755. Stix, E. (1887), Das Bauwesen in Bosnien und der Herzegovina von Beginn der Occupation durch die Oesterr.-Monarchie bis an das Jahr 1887. Vienna: Landesregierung für Bosnien und die Herzegovina, pp. 86–103. Stix lists the expenses paid out by the Landesregierung on building works throughout Bosnia, including rents, adaptations and maintenance, and the cost of new building by year, with some accompanying explanation of expenditure. These accounts have been very useful in tracking government buildings of all types in Sarajevo in the early years of the administration. Eduard Loidolt painted some of these from the east gate of the barracks: Krzović, I. (1999), Eduard Loidolt Akvareli iz Bosne i Hercegovine/Aquarelles from Bosnia and Herzegovina 1880–1882. Sarajevo: Bosnian Institute, p. 70, pl. 7. In 1910, Bosnischer Bote lists four different military offices in this building, including the paymaster and Platzcommando. Bosnischer Bote XIV (1910). ABiH P-15/1910a, p. 344; Stix, Das Bauwesen in Bosnien, p. 84. Stix, Das Bauwesen in Bosnien, pp. 84 and 87. These can be seen on the Kataster map of Sarajevo produced by the military geographers in 1882 as part of another Landesregierung project from this early period, the setting up of a land register of ownership for Bosnia-Hercegovina, which was completed in 1885. Plan von Sarajevo. Reduction der CatastralAufnahme aus dem Jahre 1882. Vienna: K.K. Militär-geografischen Instituts zu Wien. ŐS-K, AS:GIh 621-16. The first site proposed for the station was to the north-east of the new barracks, slightly closer to the city and further up the hill. This site may have been rejected owing to the slope. Prstojević, M. (1999), Forgotten Sarajevo. Sarajevo, pp. 193, 196–7, 205. For development of the railway works, see Donia, Sarajevo. A Biography, p. 65. The major work on the development of the railway system in Bosnia is Juzbašić, D. (1974), Izgradnja Željeznica u Bosni i Hercegovini u svjetlu Austrougarske Politike od Okupacije do Kraja Kállayeve Ere. Sarajevo: Akademie Nauka i Umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine.

200

Notes

31 Loidolt painted a useful labelled picture of the area from the south in 1881, showing the first tobacco factory buildings. Krzović, Eduard Loidolt, p. 72. pl. 9. 32 William Miller, a British enthusiast of the Bosnian ‘experiment’, writes in 1898 that ‘three hundred girls – all Christians – and one hundred and fifty men – all Mussulmans’ were employed at the Sarajevo factory. Miller, W. (1898), Travels and Politics in the Near East. London. T. Fisher Unwin, pp. 87, 102. 33 Stix, Das Bauwesen in Bosnien, p. 87. 34 ABiH ZVS 2 1879–80 Kt.2. š.15755. 35 In Spasojević, B. (1999), Arhitektura Stambenih Palata Austrougarskog Perioda u Sarajevu. Sarajevo: Rabić, pp. 209–10. 36 Gyáni, Identity and the Urban Experience, pp. 11–12 (Budapest); Sutcliffe, Towards the Planned City, p. 30 (Berlin), p. 56 (suburban development in Britain). 37 Miller seems to have picked up on these early plans; he writes, ‘The large plain, which extends westward and would have been preferred by some as the site of the new city at the time of the Occupation, affords ample scope for expansion, and the principal railway station has been placed at a great distance from the centre of the town, because it is considered that one day the capital will completely surround it.’ Miller, Travels and Politics, pp. 144–5. 38 For example, Sarajevo sastav. A.L.Studnička. Naklada J. Studnička i dr. (c.1910) IAS ZKP/Inv.Br.173/P. 39 Noel Malcolm explains this financial restraint: ‘. . . a law passed in Vienna in 1880 which decreed . . . that the expenses of the Bosnian administration must be covered by Bosnian revenues. This made it difficult to fund the large-scale infrastructure projects which the development of Bosnia required; but special government credits were devised to cover the gap.’ Malcolm, N. (1996), Bosnia. A Short History. London: Pan Macmillan, p. 141: Madžar, ‘Što godina’, p. 251. 40 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 24. The forint/gulden was the main unit of Austro-Hungarian currency up until the introduction of the gold standard in 1892, when it was replaced by the korona/Krone (100 heller = 1 korona). The value of the korona was set at 2 korona = 1 forint. In 1899, £1 was worth 24 kr. Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, p. 320. 41 Within days, the commission, headed by the Duke of Württemburg, was receiving letters, telegrams and catalogues from potential suppliers of building materials, fire-prevention systems and equipment, from firms throughout the Monarchy and beyond; from an English ironworks in Liverpool, which produced corrugated iron buildings, came one headed ‘To: His Highness the Duke of Wurtemburg, Serajevo, Bulgaria.’ ABiH ZVS 2-1879-80, š.15755; Regulirungsplan, 11. III.1880. 42 All in ABiH ZVS 2 – 1879-80, š.15755. There are two versions of the plan. The one showing less details of buildings, but a definite church-shaped footprint on the

Notes

43 44 45

46 47

48 49 50

51 52 53 54

55 56

57

201

proposed piazza where the Catholic cathedral now stands is in IAS G.P 1894g/Kut. Br.184/4.2.5. Sutcliffe, Towards the Planned City, p. 26 (Baumeister), p. 30 (Stübben). Ibid., p. 30. Bau-Ordnung (1880), ABiH ZVS 2 1879–80 š.15755 (Section 2, pp. 8–13). All the following references to the content of the regulations, including section and clause numbers, are based on the text, quoted in my translation from the German. For land prices, Friedrich Schlesinger writes: ‘In parallel with the progressive development came much-needed activity in the area of public infrastructure, such as streets, squares, water supply etc., from which followed a further large increase in land values throughout the whole city area; soon the price of land in the quiet residential areas rose from 15 to 18 kr., in the business quarter to 200 kr. or so per square metre.’ Schlesinger, F. (1902), ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung von Sarajevo bis zur Gegenwart’, Bosnischer Bote VI (1902), ABiH P-15/1902, p. 47. Sutcliffe, Towards the Planned City, pp. 20 and 30. Sutcliffe, A. (1979), ‘Environmental Control and Planning in European Capitals 1850–1914: London, Paris and Berlin’. In: S. Helmfrid, I. Hammarström and P. Reuterswärd (eds), Growth and Transformation of the Modern City. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Building Research, p. 80. Gyáni, Identity and the Urban Experience, p. 9. Kurto, N. (1998), Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine: Razvoj Bosanskog Stila. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Publishing, p. 364. Haussman’s plans for Paris, despite major public funding, were also severely constrained by economic forces. Sutcliffe, ‘Environmental Control and Planning in European Capitals’, pp. 80–1. Bublin, M. (1999), Gradovi Bosne i Hercegovine. Milenijum razvoja i godine urbicida. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Publishing, p. 93. Copies of both are in ABiH ZVS 2 – 1879–80, š.15755. Bublin, Gradovi Bosne, p. 91. Herzogthum Steiermark (1881), Landesgesetzte des Herzogthumes Steiermark. Erstes Bändchen. Erstes Heft. Bauordnung fűr die Landeshaupstadt Graz. Leuschner und Lubensky – k.k. Universitäts-Buchhandlung. No building regulations for Vienna for the period were available to view at ŐNB. Sutcliffe, Towards the Planned City, pp. 50–1. The 1893 regulations are printed in full in the local language in Spasojević, Arhitektura Stambenih Palata, pp. 181–95. The other documents were in ABiH, but had no reference attached. Sutcliffe, Towards the Planned City, p. 32. Ibrahim Krzović, in his work on Secession Architecture in Bosnia-Hercegovina, notes the effect of the 1910

202

58

59 60 61

62

63 64 65 66 67 68 69

70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

Notes regulations in increasing the height of apartment blocks in the city. Krzović, I. (2004), Arhitektura Secesije u Bosni i Hercegovini. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Publishing, p. 79. Evans, A. J. (1877), Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina on Foot during the Insurrection, August and September 1875. London: Longmans, Green and Co., pp. 235–84. Bau-Ordnung (1880), Clause 33. Ibid., Clauses 53 and 23 [32, sic]. Baxter, S. (1909), ‘The German Way of Making Better Cities’, Atlantic Monthly, 104, 72–95. His article shows the interconnectedness of planning ideas between Europe and America. Prof. Jahiel Finci emphasizes this when he compares the building styles of the city. Finci, J. (1962), Razvoj dispozicije i funkcije u stambenoj kulturi Sarajeva. Sarajevo: Gazi Husrev-beg Library, p. 10; Bau-Ordnung (1880), Clause 16. Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, p. 113, central view of ‘Franz-Joseph Street’, 1910–11. Bau-Ordnung (1880), Clause 73. Ibid., Clause 40. Ibid., Clauses 8, 28 and 75–7. Ibid., Clause 68. The male pronoun is used throughout, though there were female applicants. Ibid., Clauses 39 and 79. Minutes in planning applications often show signatures in three different scripts; one example is those for Milena Mrazović’s printing and publishing premises application at S. H. Muvekita 5 from 1893 to 1894. The first extant document of the series, the minutes of a site meeting dated 16 December 1893, is signed by two city council representatives (one in Arabic script, one in Cyrillic), a buildings inspector and notary from the council’s building department (Latin), four neighbours (three Latin, one Arabic) and the applicant herself (Latin). The set of documents relevant to the application is in IAS GP-1 Kut.180 br.8.1. Bau-Ordnung (1880), Clauses 8, 78 and 80. Ibid., Clauses 11, 17. Ibid., Clauses 24 and 29. Ibid., Clause 69. Ibid., Clauses 58, 69 and 52. Ibid., Clause 42. Ibid., Clauses 71 and 69. Ibid., Clauses 64, 55, 67 and 20. Ibid., Clauses 65 and 66.

Notes

203

79 Ibid., Clauses 55 and 54. 80 IAS GP-1 Kut.180 br.8 (3.1). 81 Piffl, H. (1898), Entwicklung der Landeshauptstadt Sarajevo Unter der Regierung Seiner Majestät des Kaisers und Königs Franz Josef 1. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid., Clauses 7 and 2. 84 Ibid., Clause 42. 85 Ibid., Clauses 25, 23 and 56. 86 Ibid., Clause 75. 87 Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, p. 187 lists the full staff of the Magistratsamt for that year, including Paul Czvetkovits. He is listed as Ingenieur and appears in the S. H. Muvekita 5 application on several documents where someone was needed to iron out technical problems. IAS GP-1 Kut.180 br.8. 88 ABiH ZVS (1900) inv. 438 š.123–238. 89 Stix, Das Bauwesen in Bosnien, p. 103. 90 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, pp. 30–1. 91 Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, p. 64 (top). 92 Records of the planning meeting and detailed costings for the work are in ABiH ZVS 2 1879–80 š.15755. 93 Information about dating of sections, costs and other details of bridge work is in Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 31. 94 For example, in London, see Goodman and Chant, European Cities, pp. 101–3. 95 Hartleben’s series of maps shows this clearly: in the 1895 map, the new electricity station is at the point where the right bank met the bridge in 1892. In Hartleben, A. (1892, 1895, 1898), Reiserouten in Bosnien und der Herzegovina. Vienna, Pest, Leipzig: A.Hartleben’s Verlag. 96 Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo. p. 64. 97 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 32. 98 Financial responsibility has been hard to establish in many cases and would need extensive further research which is beyond the bounds of this study: however, any assessment of the whole area of Landesregierung/city council responsibility for building and public works could be improved by further knowledge of who paid for what and where the funds actually came from. 99 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, pp. 32–3. 100 Hanák, P. (1998), The Garden and the Workshop. Princeton University Press, Chapter 4, pp. 98–108. 101 Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 385. 102 ‘Zemaljska bolnica u Sarajevu’, Nada I (1895), 406; Hartleben, A. (1895), Reiserouten in Bosnien, pp. 79–80.

204

Notes

103 They are listed, including areas of expertise, in Bosnicher Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, p. 204. 104 Curl, J. S. (1992), Encyclopaedia of Architectural Terms. Shaftesbury: Donhead, p. 237. 105 Renner, Durch Bosnien und die Herzegovina, pp. 100–2. 106 Schmid, F. (1914), Bosnien und die Herzegovina unter der Verwaltung ŐsterreichUngarns. Leipzig: Verlag von Veit und Comp., pp. 283, 287. 107 Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, p. 246. 108 Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 314; Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 34. 109 Sarajevski List, br.131, Sunday 3 November 1895. Mali vjesnik, ‘Otvoranje gradske tržnica’, ABiH. 110 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, pp. 34–5. 111 Bosnicher Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, pp. 191–2. 112 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 35. The tower can be seen in postcards from the period: Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, p. 155. 113 Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, p. 188. Although much of the directory was in German, with minimal local language content, information about the system for fire warning shots which indicates a fire’s location is given in both languages. 114 See Sutcliffe, Towards the Planned City, pp. 40–1 for German enthusiasm in planning circles in the 1890s for urban parks and the balance of ‘green’ space and buildings. For a discussion of the development and use of public parks in Budapest, see Gyáni, Identity and the Urban Experience, pp. 12–13. 115 Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, p. 211. Pictures of some British parks, for example, Abbey Park, Leicester in 1890, look similar, suggesting that this was a common European model. Conway, H. (1996), Public Parks, Shire Garden History No 9, p. 46. 116 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 26. The conversion of inner-city graveyards into parks was also happening in England in the mid-1880s; Conway, Public Parks, p. 29. 117 Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, p. 128. 118 Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, pp. 192–4, lists details of available facilities, transport and costs of the various baths at the spa. 119 Appendix Tables V, IX (roads, use of robot), X, XI (railways) in J. v. Asboth (1888), Bosnien und die Herzegovina: Reisebilder und Studien. Vienna: A.Hőlder. 120 Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, p. 351. 121 Sarajevski List, br.111, 18.IX.1889/br.135, 18.XI.1894, ABiH. 122 Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, passim; see especially p. 202. 123 Ljiljak, M. (1981), Pošta, Telegraf i Telefon u Bosni i Hercegovini II. Sarajevo: PTT Saobraćaja Sarajevo (p. 266). For number of subscribers, see Bosanski Glasnik (Bosnischer Bote) (1915), ABiH P-15/1915.

Notes

205

124 Verzeichnis über die Telephonsprechstellen bei der Landesregierung in Sarajevo. Sarajevo (1912). ABiH, no number. 125 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 33. 126 For example, Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, pp. 198–200. 127 IAS 1890–93, Kt.177, sp.2. 128 Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, p. 147. 129 Ibid., p. 302. 130 Ortschafts-und-Bevőlkerungs-Statistik (1880). Sarajevo: K.u.K. Regierungsdruckerei; Ortschaftschafts-und-Bevőlkerungs-Statistik von Bosnien und der Hercegovina (1886). Sarajevo: Landesdruckerei; Hauptresultate der Volkszählung in Bosnien und der Hercegovina vom 22 April 1895. Sarajevo: Landesdruckerei; Rezultati popisa žiteljstva u Bosni i Hercegovini (1912). Sarajevo: Zemaljska Štamparija. 131 Andrić, I., trans. Edwards, L. F. (1977), The Bridge on the Drina. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 135–6. 132 King, J. (2005), Budweisers into Czechs and Germans. Princeton University Press, pp. 58–9. 133 Andrić, The Bridge on the Drina, pp. 154–6. 134 Schmid, Bosnien und die Herzegovina, pp. 239–40; Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, pp. 91, 150. 135 Schmid, Bosnien und die Herzegovina, p. 755. 136 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 23. 137 Stix, Das Bauwesen in Bosnien, pp. 86 and 99. 138 Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 345. 139 Ibid., pp. 338, 352, 356 and 368; Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 219 Nr. 155; Krzović, Arhitektura Secesije, pp. 90–4. 140 Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 376. 141 Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, Fig. 57, pp. 73, 116, Nr. 57. 142 Dizdar, M. (2005), Sarajevo. The Tourist-Historic Guide. Sarajevo: Sejtarija, p. 251. 143 Krzović, Arhitektura Secesije, p. 95; Stix, Das Bauwesen in Bosnien, p. 84. 144 Ibid., pp. 95 and 97. 145 Ibid., p. 83; Okey, Taming Balkan Nationalism, p. 31. 146 Krzović, Arhitektura Secesije, p. 95. 147 Ibid., pp. 98–9. 148 Piffl, Entwicklung der Landeshauptstadt Sarajevo. 149 Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, p. 141. 150 Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, p. 196. 151 Sarajevski List, br.111 18.IX.1899, ABiH. A fuller account of the event including speeches is in the Catholic journal Vrhbosna III, br.19 (1 October 1889), 311–14, ABiH P- 1/1889.

206

Notes

1 52 Krzović, Arhitektura Secesije, pp. 113–15. 153 Hauptresultate der Volkszählung in Bosnien und der Hercegovina vom 22 April 1895, Landesdruckerei p. 3. 154 Donia, Sarajevo; Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine. 155 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 112. 156 Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, p. 180. 157 Madžar, ‘Što godina vladine zgrade’, p. 253. 158 Stix, Das Bauwesen in Bosnien, pp. 86–94. 159 Madžar, ‘Što godina vladine zgrade’ p. 252. 160 ‘Palazzo Medici’ by Michelozzo. Rosenberg, A. v. (1921), Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte. Bielefeld and Leipzig: Verlag von Belhagen und Klasing, p. 261. 161 Der Bautechniker. Vienna: 31 May 1895, Nr. 22. XV. 162 Loidolt shows this building in 1881, with the still-empty musala and the Ali-Paša mosque to the right. Krzović, Eduard Loidolt, p. 83. 163 Piffl, Entwicklung der Landeshauptstadt Sarajevo. By 1908, this was superseded by a much larger printing works on the Miljacka embankment, further south. 164 Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 359. 165 Stix, Das Bauwesen in Bosnien, p. 99. 166 Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 119, Nr. 91; Längenprofil der Džidžikovac und der Čekerkčinica ulica. IAS Kut.2.špis 1–56. 19st-1948 br.3. 167 For similar residential accommodation for the middle classes in England, see Tanis Hinchcliffe’s account of the development of St John’s estate in North Oxford in the second half of the nineteenth century: Hinchcliffe, T. (1992), North Oxford. Newhaven and London: Yale University Press. 168 Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 115 Nr. 55. 169 Details of cost and layout in Stix, Das Bauwesen in Bosnien, p. 97. 170 Žujo, V. (2003), Sarajevo Guide. Sarajevo: TKD Šahinpašić d.o.o, p. 30. 171 For Horta’s work, see Sembach, K.-J. (2002), L’Art Nouveau. Kőln: Taschen, pp. 58–63. 172 Maximilian Hartmuth notes Kállay’s preference for ‘Mamluk and Moorish . . . motifs’ in the design. Hartmuth, M. (2004), ‘K.(u.)k. Colonial? Contextualizing Architecture and Urbanism in Bosnia-Herzegovina 1878–1918’. In: C. Ruthner, R. Detrez and U. Reber (eds), WechselWirkungen: The Political, Social and Cultural Impact of the Austro-Hungarian Occupation of BosniaHerzegovina (1878–1918). New York: Peter Lang, p. 18. 173 Donia, Sarajevo. A Biography, p. 76. 174 Stix, Das Bauwesen in Bosnien, p. 102. 175 Ibid., p. 99. 176 Ibid., p. 94; Vrhbosna, God. III, br.18. 14 September, 1889, 299–300. 177 Donia, Sarajevo. A Biography, pp. 75–9.

Notes

207

1 78 Ibid., pp. 76–7. 179 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 40. 180 Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 112, Nr. 16 (Cathedral), p. 120, Nr. 99 (Dom Kanonika), p. 118, Nr. 76 (Seminary). 181 Besarović, R. (ed.) (1968), Kultura i umjetnost u Bosni i Hercegovini pod austrougarskom upravom. Sarajevo: ABiH, p. 272. 182 Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 220, Nr. 171. 183 Bosnicher Bote IX (1905), ABiH P-15/1905, p. 288. 184 Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 356. 185 Okey, Taming Balkan Nationalism, pp. 110–12. 186 This was paid for by the administration, as part of its arrangements with the Serbian Orthodox hierarchy: Okey, Taming Balkan Nationalism, p. 39. Stix records a payment of 18,000 fl. for a hostel for teachers at Reljevo in 1887. Stix, Das Bauwesen in Bosnien, p. 99. 187 Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 117, Nr. 64 (school), p. 120, Nr. 104 (palace). 188 Bosnischer Bote III (1899) ABiH P-15/1899, pp. 204–19. 189 Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 113, Nr. 22. Papers in ABiH, ZVS 116 (1890) š.50–26. 190 Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 218, Nr. 145. Spasojević features floor plans for it in his survey of large apartment blocks built in the period: Spasojević, Arhitektura stambenih palata, pp. 119–28. The labelling on the plans is all in Cyrillic script. 191 Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 223, Nr. 198. 192 Ibid., p. 120, Nr. 105. 193 Bosnicher Bote IX (1905), ABiH P-15/1905, p. 302 gives details about the society in its listings. Although it was apparently Roman Catholic in origin, it includes the names of teachers of religion from each confession. ABiH P-15/1905. The second building is clearly labelled ‘KUV’ on a cartouche; this stood for Kranken- und Unterstützungsverein. Krzović, Arhitektura Secesije, p. 77. 194 Pinto, A. (1987). Jevreji Sarajeva u BiH. Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša, p. 54. 195 Bosnischer Bote IX (1905), ABiH P-15/1905, pp. 286–7. 196 Donia, Sarajevo. A Biography, pp. 75–9. Comparative figures for confessional groups in Sarajevo according to censuses, as quoted in Kreševljakovic, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 38, show that Muslims represented 69.94 per cent in 1879 and 35.73 per cent by 1910, Serbian-Orthodox were 17.52 per cent in 1879 and 16.27 per cent by 1910, Roman Catholics were 3.26 per cent in 1789 and 34.51 per cent by 1910, and Jews were 9.74 per cent in 1789 and 12.33 per cent by 1910. The bulk of the incoming population was Catholics but also included some Ashkenazi Jews.

208

Notes

1 97 Donia, Sarajevo. A Biography, p. 78. 198 ABiH ZVS 60. The document refers to the purchase of a central heating system and is dated November 1914. 199 Okey, Taming Balkan Nationalism, pp. 32–4, 65–70; Malcolm, Bosnia. A Short History, pp. 143–4. Malcolm notes that ‘Modern Yugoslav writers have poured scorn on the educational efforts of the Austro-Hungarian government. . . . But no government which built nearly 200 primary schools, three high schools, a technical school and a teacher training college can be described as utterly negligent in its educational policy.’ By 1910, the list of educational establishments in Sarajevo of all types, both confessional and state, numbered 37. Bosnischer Bote XIV (1910), ABiH P-15/1910, pp. 334–5. 200 Bosnischer Bote IX (1905), ABiH P-15/1905, pp. 286–7. 201 Malcolm, Bosnia. A Short History, p. 144. 202 Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 112, br.14. 203 Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, pp. 144–5. 204 Thomson, H. C. (1897), The Outgoing Turk – Impressions of a Journey through the Western Balkans. London, New York: Heinemann, D. Appleton, p. 11. 205 Sugar, P. F. (1963), The Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina 1878–1918. Seattle: University of Washington Press, p. 29.

Chapter 3 1 Hartmuth, M. (2004), ‘K.(u.)k. Colonial? Contextualizing Architecture and Urbanism in Bosnia-Herzegovina 1878–1918’. In: C. Ruthner, R. Detrez and U. Reber (eds), WechselWirkungen: The political, social and cultural impact of the Austro-Hungarian occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina (1878–1918). New York: Peter Lang, p. 18. 2 Ibid. For ‘top-down’ accounts of the redevelopment of the city in the period, see Bublin, M. (1999), Gradovi Bosne i Hercegovine. Milenijum razvoja i godine urbicida. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Publishing, pp. 91–113; Donia, R. J. (2006), Sarajevo. A Biography. London: Hurst and Co., pp. 67–73; Makaš, E. G. (2010), ‘Sarajevo’. In: E.G. Makaš and T. D. Conley (eds), Capital Cities in the Aftermath of Empires. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 241–57. Makaš writes: ‘Sarajevo’s transformation . . . was primarily achieved through the dramatic efforts of the Austro-Hungarian administrators,’ p. 241. 3 Krzović, I. (1987), Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine 1878–1918. Sarajevo: Umjetnička Galerija BiH; Krzović, I. (2004), Arhitektura Secesije u Bosni i Hercegovini. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Publishing; Kurto, N. (1998), Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine. Razvoj Bosanskog Stila. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Publishing.

Notes

209

4 This visual survey, mainly in photographic form, was made in 2004–6. The text part appears in the thesis as Appendix 1 in Sparks, M. (2006), Chronological Record of Buildings in Sarajevo 1880–1918 (unpublished). 5 Headings on plans give an indication not only of the type of building, but also sometimes of the origin of the builder – early titles are usually in German, but later ones are in the local language and sometimes also in the builder’s mother tongue. 6 Palast/Palata was also used later in the period for large apartment blocks with commercial space, often round a courtyard, as with Salom’s ‘palace’ at M.Tita 54. 7 Hauptmann, F. (1983), Die Ősterreichisch-Ungarische Herrschaft in Bosnien und der Herzegovina 1878–1918. Wirtschaftspolitik und Entwicklung. Universität Graz, p. 216. 8 Sparks, Chronological Record of Buildings. 9 Ortschafts-und-Bevőlkerungs-Statistik (1880). Sarajevo: K.u.K. Regierungsdruckerei; Ortschaftschafts-und-Bevőlkerungs-Statistik von Bosnien und der Hercegovina (1886). Sarajevo: Landesdruckerei; Hauptresultate der Volkszählung in Bosnien und der Hercegovina vom 22 April 1895. Sarajevo: Landesdruckerei; Rezultati popisa žiteljstva u Bosni i Hercegovini (1912). Sarajevo: Zemaljska Štamparija. 10 Kreševljaković, H. (1969), Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave (1878–1918). Sarajevo: Izdanje Arhiva Grada Sarajeva, p. 65. 11 Kruševac, T. (1956), Privredne Prilike Grada Sarajeva za Vreme Austro-Ugarske Uprave (1878–1918). Sarajevo, p. 215. 12 Stix, E. (1887), Das Bauwesen in Bosnien und der Herzegovina von Beginn der Occupation durch die Oesterr.-Monarchie bis an das Jahr 1887. Vienna: Landesregierung für Bosnien und die Herzegovina. Few of these buildings appear in the survey, possibly because they were subsequently redeveloped, and also because many of them may have been rebuilt, despite the building regulations, in the landesüblichen Stil (local manner) which Piffl remarks on in the key to his map of new development in Sarajevo between 1878 and 1898. Piffl, H. (1898), Entwicklung der Landeshauptstadt Sarajevo Unter der Regierung Seiner Majestät des Kaisers und Königs Franz Josef 1. 13 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 37. 14 Hauptmann, Die Ősterreichisch-Ungarische Herrschaft, pp. 12 and 27. Kreševljaković gives a figure of c.3,000 emigrants from Sarajevo during the occupation period, while Noel Malcolm quotes for the whole of Bosnia’s 200,000 refugees in need of repatriation. Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 37; Malcolm, N. (1996), Bosnia. A Short History. London: Pan Macmillan, p. 139. 15 An official telegram of 7 February 1880 (ABiH ZVS 2 1879–80 š.15755) from Sarajevo to Vienna reports that a certain Risto Mlinaroević is requesting relief

210

16 17

18

19

20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27

28

Notes from military billeting as he and his family are trying to share their roofless tworoom house with soldiers. Schmid, F. (1914), Bosnien und die Herzegovina unter der Verwaltung Ősterreich-Ungarns. Leipzig: Verlag von Veit und Comp, p. 525. Schlesinger, F. (1902), ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung von Sarajevo bis zur Gegenwart’ in Bosnischer Bote VI (1902), P-15/1902, p. 46. Truhelka, Č. (1942/3), Uspomene jednog pionira. Zagreb/Sarajevo, quoted in Hauptmann, Die Ősterreichisch-Ungarische Herrschaft, pp. 220–1. My translation from Hauptmann’s German. Schorske, C. E. (1980), Fin-de-Siècle Vienna. Politics and Culture. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. Chapter 2, ‘The Ringstrasse, its Critics and the Birth of Urban Modernism’, contains much useful information about the development of similar buildings there some 10–15 years earlier: Schorske notes similar tax breaks to encourage building (p. 54), investment potential which encouraged the new growth and also notes how the buildings’ ‘“aristocratic” character was established . . . by their facades’. Both Braun and the administration were obviously heavily influenced by Viennese examples. The Building Regulations (Clause 53) stipulate the number of storeys relative to the width of the street; in the central part of the city, where most of the new or redevelopment was taking place, buildings were restricted to only three storeys, although the rules changed, allowing further upward extension in these narrower streets after 1910. Bau-Ordnung (1880), ABiH ZVS 2 1879–80 š.15755. Schlesinger, ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung’, p. 47. The plan of the area in the rebuilding commission documents (ABiH ZVS 1879–80, Kt.2.š 15755) dated November 1879 clearly shows that the site belongs to ‘Javer Effendi’. Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 115, br.47. This road, present-day Zmaja od Bosne, was surveyed and rebuilt in 1891. Documents and plans are at IAS 1890–93, Kt.177, sp.2. Von Langer is described as a ‘paymaster’ in Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 118, br.80. For example, Abdaga Šahinagić’s apartment building at Skenderija 40/42, from 1908. Schmid, Bosnien und die Herzegovina, p. 75. Hartleben, A. (1892, 1895, 1898), Reiserouten in Bosnien und der Herzegovina. Vienna, Pest, Leipzig: A. Hartleben’s Verlag. Baedeker, K. (1905), Austria-Hungary Including Dalmatia and Bosnia. Handbook for Travellers. Leipzig: Baedeker; Finci: ZKP/Inv.br.44; Kajon: ZKP/Inv.br.72; Walny: ZKP/Inv.br175/P. These are all at IAS. Several such maps of the city centre from the 1970s and 1980s (before the recent war and bomb damage) are available on the Croatian website: www.kartografia. hr/karte. Accessed 3 February 2009. A wide selection of postcards from the period

Notes

29 30 31 32 33

34 35

36 37

38

39

211

are in Prstojević, M. (1999), Forgotten Sarajevo, Sarajevo. See Appendix 2 for maps of development at 5-year intervals. Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine. Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine. See Appendix 2 (online). Sugar, P. F. (1963), Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina, 1878–1918. Seattle: University of Washington Press, p. 8. Census statistics for the city in 1851 and 1879 show that there were 372 fewer Muslims in 1879. Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 38: Malcolm reports (for Bosnia as a whole) that ‘The great majority of these émigrés were peasants, but there were also some landowners’. Malcolm, Bosnia. A Short History, p. 139. Schlesinger, ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung’, p. 46. Mackenzie, G. M. and Irby, A. P. (2nd edition, 1877), Travels in the Slavonic Provinces of Turkey-in-Europe. London: Daldy, Isbister, p. 11. She writes that, in fact, Muslim neighbours were often not keen to allow sales to Christians. However, she remarks that some Serbian Orthodox ‘have attained the possession of landed property’. She also notes on p. 18 that some members of the Jewish community ‘have grown rich in the last ten years and have acquired property in land and houses’. ABiH ZVS 2 – 1879–80, š.15755. Kahmi, S. (ed.) (1966), Spomenica 400 Godina od Dolaska Jevreja u Bosnu I Hercegovinu. Sarajevo: Oslobodjenje, p. 88; Pinto, A. (1987), Jevreji Sarajeva u BiH. Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša, p. 54. As with Bistrik and Kovači, which were predominantly Muslim, there was very little building development in the peripheral Kovačići area for which data are available. Though these could be said to be areas with specific confessional character, they are outside the scope of this assessment. Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 38. It is difficult to establish figures for the origin of the bulk of the Catholic immigration, but the 1910 census, which gives a Catholic figure of 17,922 for Sarajevo, also includes a breakdown by ‘Mother Tongue and National Affiliation’, which shows 5,246 German speakers (mainly Austrians and Hungarians), 1,392 Hungarian speakers and in descending numerical order, Czechs, Poles, Slovenes and Italians. When these totals are added, it suggests that the rest, at least 7,000 Catholics, were either from Croatia or had been living in Bosnia for many generations; they came under the figures for ‘Serbo-Croat’ mother tongue. However, as the mother tongue is not necessarily a marker for confession, these figures should be treated with great caution. Table V, Rezultati popisa žiteljstva u Bosni i Hercegovini (1912), pp. 44–5.

212

Notes

40 As Sugar notes when discussing the lack of credit institutions in Bosnia before the occupation, ‘. . . all interest was considered usury, and usury was outlawed by the Sharia’. Sugar, The Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina, p. 17. 41 Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine. passim. 42 Schlesinger, ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung von Sarajevo’, p. 46; interest rate p. 49. 43 See Schmid, Bosnien und die Herzegovina, pp. 764–5 for details of types of taxes for the period. He adds in relation to the rental tax that it could be payable by the tenant if it was a long-term tenancy and that, in fact, for many property owners it did not apply as they had a 10-year tax break to encourage new development of this type. This had originally begun in 1880 after the fire and was renewed in 1910. 44 Kruševac, T., ‘Društvene promene kod Bosanskih Jevreya za Austrijskog vremenom’. In: Kahmi, Spomenica 400 Godina od Dolaska Jevreja, p. 87. 45 The plot at Štrosmayerova 8 was bought by Ješua and Mojce Salom from a group including Dr Berthold Krase, Eduard Pleyel, Petar Todorović and Dr Josip Fischer: Krase’s confessional allegiance is unknown, but the others were Catholic, Serbian Orthodox and Ashkenazi Jew, respectively. 46 Nedžad Kurto’s encyclopaedic work on Bosnian architecture of the period, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, gives a list of architects working in Sarajevo, with details of date and place of birth, professional posts held (often as members of the Landesregierung’s building department) and particular projects undertaken. Plans by each architect are listed in chronological order with archive references as well as references in architecture periodicals of the time and the local paper where applicable; pp. 336–86. Ibrahim Krzović’s survey of Secession style in Bosnia-Hercegovina, Arhitektura Secesije u Bosni i Hercegovini, also gives much information about architects, engineers and technical personnel working there during the period, from 1878 onwards, pp. 200–20. He lists the chief building firms operating at the time; pp. 221–8. 47 Krzović, Arhitektura Secesije u Bosni i Hercegovini, p. 208; Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, pp. 336–86. 48 Development of this type and its relationship to middle-class lifestyle in Vienna is discussed in detail in Chapter 2 of Schorske, Fin-de-Siècle Vienna. Hanák and Gyáni offer similar insights in Gyáni, G. (2002), Parlor and Kitchen. Housing and Domestic Culture in Budapest, 1870–1940. Budapest: Central European University Press; Gyáni, G. (2004), Identity and the Urban Experience. Fin de Siècle Budapest. New Jersey/Budapest: Centre for Hungarian Studies and Publications; Hanák, P. (1998), The Garden and the Workshop. Princeton University Press; for related case studies, see Hanák, P. (ed.) (1994), Bürgerliche Wohnkultur des fin de siècle in Ungarn. Vienna: Böhlau.

Notes

213

49 Moravánszky, A. (1998), Competing Visions. Aesthetic Inventions and Social Imagination in Central European Architecture, 1867–1918. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, chapter 6, pp. 216–83. 50 Der Architekt 14 (1908), 81, quoted in Moravánsky, Competing Visions, pp. 245–6. 51 Examples quoted by Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, are Niemeczek’s plan for the Villa Hoffmann (1895, br.81, p. 118/picture p. 90), which has archtop windows with sgraffito decoration around the first floor, and Pařik’s villa for Karl von Langer (1893, br.80, p. 118). Accounts of the city in English-language guidebooks refer to ‘pseudo-Moorish’ when describing some of the public buildings in this style; for example, Dizdar, M. (2005), Sarajevo. The TouristHistoric Guide. Sarajevo: Sejtarija, p. 48. 52 Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 394. He says 1910 in his brief English summary to the book, but several buildings in this style date from 1909. 53 Hartmuth, M. (2006), ‘Negotiating Tradition and Ambition: A Comparative Perspective on the “De-Ottomanisation” of Balkan Cityscapes’, Ethnologia Balkanica, 10, 15–33, p. 26. 54 The building regulations specify at least 45 cm for main walls of fired brick. BauOrdnung fűr Sarajevo und jene Städte und Märkte in Bosnien und der Hercegovina, welche dieser Vorschrift durch eine Verordnung der Landesregierung ausdrücklich unterworfen werden (1880). Sarajevo: K.u.K. Regierungsdruckerei, p. 16, Clause 46. 55 Examples are Koševo 24, MM Bašeskije 58–60. 56 Hanák, The Garden and the Workshop, p. 17. 57 ABiH, ZVS-60, has a miscellaneous collection of plans and parts of plans for some developments from the period. 58 Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, br.7, p. 111. 59 In ABiH ZVS 2 – 1879-188, š 15755. The plan was part of the rebuilding commission’s work on the development of the western part of the city centre which had been destroyed by the great fire of 1879. 60 Examples of these, many of which were pulled down and redeveloped at the same time as Sarajevo was undergoing its own change and redevelopment, can be seen in the work of August Stauda, a photographer, who was active in Vienna from 1886. Up until 1917, he photographed the buildings of ‘Alt-Wien’ which were rapidly being destroyed at the time to make way for new buildings. He left a large legacy of prints, about 3,000 of which are now in the care of the Vienna Museum. Kos, W. (2006), August Stauda. Ein Wiener Stadtfotograf um 1900. Vienna: Vienna Museum. 61 Krzović, Arhitektura Secesije u Bosni i Hercegovini, p. 76. 62 Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 60. 63 An example is Omeraga Kramarović’s elegant corner property at Ferhadija 14 on the south side of the cathedral square, built in 1897 as part of the development

214

64 65

66 67 68

69

70 71 72

73

74 75

Notes of Štrosmajerova: it has a cartouche on the corner facing the square above the main door which says ‘1897’. The ironwork balcony below, at first-floor level, has a small ‘K’ on a plaque in the centre. These touches are typical of the desire of many developers to leave their mark. Schlesinger, ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung von Sarajevo’, p. 47. Clause 53 of the building regulations requires that new buildings in streets which are less than 12 m wide only have 2 storeys above the ground floor. S. H. Muvekita is listed in the Regulirungs-Plan of 11 March 1880 as a Class III street, at 7.5 m. Clause 63 states that the ground floor of all new buildings must be at least 0.3 m above the level of the street; this building has a ‘ground floor’ which is considerably higher than that. Bau-Ordnung (1880), pp. 19 and 23; RegulirungsPlan, all in ABiH ZVS 2 1879–80, š.15755. In ‘Mali Vjesnik’, Sarajevski List, br.131, Sunday, 3 November 1895. ABiH. The archive holds a collection of Sarajevski List for the period. Ibid. Wohlgemuth died on 16 March 1900 in Sarajevo and is buried in Koševo cemetery. Petrović’s must have been a prestigious commission for his building firm. Robin Okey, in his chapter ‘The Nature of the Kállay Regime’, notes that as part of the development of secondary education in the province, nine such schools were set up in Bosnia by the administration during the Kállay period ‘in the hope of engaging the interests of the Serb urban class’. Petrović, as an élite member of this group, was presumably showing his support for the project. Okey, R. (2007), Taming Balkan Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 66; Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, p. 189. Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 358. Advertisement in Sarajevski List, br.338, 21.7.1895. The Secession movement has been well documented by both Kurto and Krzović, including its swift manifestation in Sarajevo from just before 1900. Kurto, Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine. For discussion of the work of Olbrich and his importance within the Secession movement and central European architecture, see Moravánsky, Competing Visions, pp. 130–76; p. 147, Fig. 4.32 shows a photograph of a doorway using the ‘omega’ shape, from 1901. Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, pp. 67–8 and nn.180 and 181. Several advertisements in Bosnicher Bote for 1902 use this script; for example, Leopold Ács, the chimney sweep (Figure 5.2) and Josef Neuer who sold glass, porcelain and ‘all types of electric lamps’; Bosnicher Bote VI (1902), ABiH P-15/1902, pp. xxiv and xxxvi. Plans for the new Lagerhaus building from 1900

Notes

76 77 78

79

80 81 82 83

84

85 86

87

88 89 90

91

215

(see Chapter 4) include an elegantly titled drawing of the façade to the street written in Secession style. ABiH ZVS-1900, Inv. 438, š.123–238. Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, pp. 87 and 342. Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 217. Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, pp. 336–86; Krzović, Arhitektura Secesije u Bosni i Hercegovini, for development and adaptation of the style in BosniaHercegovina. Borislav Spasojević asserts that the architect was Carlo Panek, who had worked for the administration on buildings at the Ilidža leisure development: Spasojević, B. (1999), Arhitektura Stambenih Palata Austrougarskog Perioda u Sarajevu. Sarajevo: Rabić, p. 29; Kurto agrees, but lists Pařik too: Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, pp. 356, 358. Spasojević, Arhitektura Stambenih Palata, p. 29. Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 368. Ibid., p. 99. This form of ‘continuous oriel’ can also be seen in apartment buildings in other major central-European cities: for example, at Linke Wienzeile 108, Vienna, from the early years of the twentieth century. An example of ‘stalactite’ work is on the church of Sveti Naum, at the south end of Lake Ohrid in Macedonia. Following a change in building regulations in 1910 it was possible to have apartment buildings of four storeys or more on the wider streets in the city, and many developers took advantage of this. Krzović, Arhitektura Secesije, p. 79. Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, pp. 270–1. Donia, R. J. (1981), Islam under the Double Eagle: the Muslims of Bosnia and Hercegovina 1878–1914. Boulder, Colorado: Columbia University Press, pp. 44 and 59. The book gives detailed information about the development of the movement and the key figures involved. The whole area on which the present-day monastery stands, and on which the old Konak had been, had belonged to the Fadilpašić family since the mid-1800s. Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 43. Krzović, Arhitektura Secesije, p. 166 and elsewhere. His final chapter is called ‘Geometric tendencies and the road to Modern Architecture’. Moravánsky, Competing Visions, Chapter 8. ‘Folded facades: Cubism and Empathy’, pp. 332–63. The Orendi house (1896–7) was designed by Franz Neumann and can be found at Lugeck 4, Vienna 1. For a photograph of the building from 1913, see Nr. 114 of Seeman, H. and Lunzer, C. (2005), Wien – Innere Stadt. 1870–1910 Album. Vienna: Verlag fűr Photographie. Seeman and Lunzer, Wien, Nr. 85. Moravánsky discusses the solutions of architects such as Lajta, Lechner and Fabiani to the challenge of creating an elegant and

216

Notes

functional distinction between floors in their ‘mixed-function’ buildings. He stresses the need on the lower floors to have large glass surfaces which ‘allow light deep into the store’, while the upper floors need a ‘more closed surface perforated by smaller windows’. Moravánsky, Competing Visions, p. 196. When discussing Wagner’s principle of ‘functional honesty’ in relation to his Linke Wienzeile buildings of 1898–9, Schorske notes that ‘a forceful continuous band of glass and iron marks off the ground story as a commercial space. Above the second story, the residential function takes over the facades and ornament begins.’ Schorske, Fin de Siècle Vienna, p. 86. 92 Spasojević, Arhitektura Stambenih Palata. 93 For details and plans of this development, see Spasojević Arhitektura Stambenih Palata, pp. 103–8. 94 Krzović gives details about each sculpture in his discussion of the building. It is interesting to note that there are no Sephardic Jews on the façade, despite the building having been built by two of the most prominent members of that group. Krzović, Arhitektura Secesije, p. 81.

Chapter 4 1 Sugar, P. F. (1963), The Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina. Seattle: University of Washington Press; Hauptmann, F. (1983), Die Ősterreichisch-Ungarische Herrschaft in Bosnien und der Herzegovina 1878–1918. Wirtschaftspolitik und Entwicklung. Universität Graz. 2 Palairet, M. (1993), ‘The Habsburg industrial achievement in Bosnia-Hercegovina, 1878–1914: an economic spurt that succeeded?’ Austrian History Yearbook, XXIV, 133. Palairet quotes Kemal Hrelja and Dževad Juzbašić among his examples. 3 Asboth, J. de (1890, English edition), An Official Tour through Bosnia and Herzegovina. London: Swan Sonnenschein and Co. Other positive reports by supporters of the regime are discussed in more detail in the section on tourism in Chapter 6; Schmid, F. (1914), Bosnien und die Herzegovina unter der Verwaltung Ősterreich-Ungarns. Leipzig: Verlag von Veit und Comp.; Sugar, The Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina, p. 251. 4 Barre, A. (1906), La Bosnie Herzégovine; Administration Autrichienne de 1878 à 1903. Paris, Belgrade: Louis Michaud, Positije Obradović. 5 Hauptmann, Die Ősterreichisch-Ungarische Herrschaft, pp. 211–13. 6 Hauptresultate der Volkszählung in Bosnien und der Hercegovina vom 22 April 1895. Sarajevo: Landesdruckerei. Table I, p. LIV. 7 For more details on mineral and timber resources, see Sugar, The Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina, pp. 102–13 and pp. 129–43.

Notes

217

8 Schlesinger, F. (1902), ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung von Sarajevo bis zur Gegenwart’, Bosnischer Bote VI, ABiH P-15/1902, pp. 43–4. 9 Sugar, The Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina, p. 44. 10 Ibid., p. 58. 11 Hauptmann, Die Ősterreichisch-Ungarische Herrschaft, pp. 21–2. 12 Sugar, The Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina, p. 17. 13 Sugar, The Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina, p. 47. 14 Schlesinger, ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung’, p. 48. 15 Hauptmann, Die Ősterreichisch-Ungarische Herrschaft, p. 84. 16 Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, p. 173. 17 Sugar, The Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina, pp. 91–2. 18 Ibid., p. 95. There were 213 such savings cooperatives in BiH by 1912. 19 Sumarni i izvještaj trgovačke i obrtnićke komore za Bosnu i Hercegovinu o stanju obrta, trgovine i prometa njezinog područija u godini 1911–1912 (1913). Sarajevo: Štamparija ‘Narodna’ (Cyrillic script), p. 130. 20 Sugar, The Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina, p. 92. 21 Ibid., p. 101. 22 Ibid., pp. 113–14. 23 Ibid., pp. 130–6. 24 Ibid., p. 215. 25 All in Bosnischer Bote from 1897 onwards, in varying formats. ABiH P-15/year. Article on industries Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, pp. 154–72. 26 Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, pp. 112–14. 27 Sumarni i izvještaj trgovačke i obrtnićke komore, pp. 145–6. 28 Sparks, M. (2006), Chronological Record of Buildings in Sarajevo 1880–1918 (Appendix 1). 29 Kruševac, T. (1956), Privredne Prilike Grada Sarajeva za Vreme Austro-Ugarske Uprave (1878–1918), Sarajevo; Kruševac, T. (1960), Sarajevo pod austro-ugarskom upravom. Sarajevo. 30 Kruševac, Privredne Prilike, p. 223. 31 Bosnischer Bote VI (1902), ABiH P-15/1902, p. XII. 32 Sugar, The Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina, p. 111. 33 Ibid., p. 155; Bosnischer Bote III, (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, p. 157. 34 Ibid., p. 160. 35 Ibid., p. 174. 36 Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, p. 160. 37 Bau-Ordnung (1880), K.u.k. Regierungsdruckerei, Sarajevo. ABiH ZVS 2 1879–80 š.15755. Section III.70. 38 This can be clearly seen on Leon Finzi’s 1912 map of the city; Sarajevo (1912), Verlag Leon Finzi/Naklada Leon Finzi. Sarajevo. IAS ZKP/Inv.br.44.

218

Notes

39 A copy of the building application complete with architect’s plans is at ABiH ZVS (1900) inv. 438 š 123–238. 40 Kruševac, Privredne Prilike, p. 213. 41 Schlesinger, ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung’ p. 47. Hauptmann notes that the bricklayers were mainly Italian. Hauptmann, Die ŐsterreichischUngarische Herrschaft, p. 220. 42 Bau-Ordnung (1880), Clause 41, ABiH, no ref. Hugo Piffl shows this in his map key: Piffl, H. (1898), Entwicklung der Landeshauptstadt Sarajevo Unter der Regierung Seiner Majestät des Kaisers und Königs Franz Josef 1. 43 Krzović, I. (2004), Arhitektura Secesije u Bosni i Hercegovini. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Publishing, p. 213. 44 Spasojević, B. (1999), Arhitektura Stambenih Palata Austrougarskog Perioda u Sarajevu. Sarajevo: Rabić, p. 50. 45 Ibid., p. 47 (no date given). 46 Schlesinger, ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung’, p. 47. 47 Krzović, Arhitektura Secesije, p. 215. 48 Schlesinger, ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung’, p. 47. 49 Kruševac, Privredne Prilike, p. 213. 50 Ibid., p. 214; Bosnischer Bote XIV (1910), ABiH P-15/1910a. 51 Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P–15/1899, p. 242. 52 For a picture of the building in pre-war condition, see Krzović, Arhitektura Secesije, p. 173, Figure 110. 53 Bosnischer Bote XIV (1910), ABiH P-15/1910a, p. 368. 54 Sumarni i izvještaj trgovačke i obrtnićke komore, p. 99. 55 Kreševljaković, H. (1969), Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave (1878–1918). Sarajevo: Izdanje Arhiva Grada Sarajeva, p. 69. 56 See http://www.brewerysquare.com/index.cfm?page=163. Accessed June 2009. 57 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 68. 58 Sugar, The Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina, p. 148. 59 Preindlsberger-Mrazović, M. (1908), Die Bosnische Ostbahn. Vienna and Leipzig: A. Hartlebens Verlag, p. 184. This has a full-page advertisement for the various craft items and places of production, headed by the Vienna ‘Bureau’. 60 Hartleben, A. (1895), Reiserouten in Bosnien, pp. 75–6. 61 See note 59. 62 Reynolds, D. (2003), ‘Kavaliere, Kostume, Kunstgewerbe: Die Vorstellung Bosniens in Wien 1878–1900’. In: J. Feichtinger, U. Prutsch and M. Csáky (eds), Habsburg Postcolonial, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich, Bozen: Studien Verlag. 63 Donia, R. J. (2006), Sarajevo. A Biography. London: Hurst and Co., p. 65. 64 Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, p. 206. 65 Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, pp. 204–19. 66 Kruševac, Privredne Prilike, p. 224.

Notes

219

67 Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, p. 150. 68 There are still Duhanpromet (Tabaktrafik) shops in Sarajevo. Joseph Roth notes them in Vienna in The Radetzky March. Roth, J., tr. Hofmann, M. (2002), The Radetzky March. London: Granta Books, p. 42. 69 Sugar, The Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina, p. 215. 70 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 31. 71 Br.12, Kut.2. God.19st-1948, Spis.1-56, IAS. 72 Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, p. 246. 73 Schlesinger, ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung’, p. 44. 74 Hauptmann, Die Ősterreichisch-Ungarische Herrschaft, p. 231. 75 Ibid., p. 228. 76 Kruševac, T. (1966), ‘Društvene promena kod Bosanskih Jevreja za Austrijskog vremena’, in S. Kahmi (ed.), Spomenica 400 Godina od Dolaska Jevreja u Bosnu i Hercegovinu, Sarajevo, pp. 71–99. 77 Hamamović, J. (1966), ‘Aškenazi u Bosni i Hercegovini’, in Kahmi, Spomenica, pp. 141–52. 78 For example, see Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, p. 101. 79 For details on Catholics in Sarajevo see Chapter 3 Note 39. 80 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 79. 81 The list of the Bosnischer Landtag (elected provincial parliament based in Sarajevo and established in 1910) in the 1915 edition of Bosnischer Bote classifies members mainly in these terms. Bosnischer Bote IX (1915), ABiH P-15/1915a, pp. 50–2. 82 Moravánsky, A. (1998), Competing Visions. Aesthetic Inventions and Social Imagination in Central European Architecture, 1867–1918. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 200. 83 Ibid., pp. 204–5. 84 Ibid., p. 207. 85 Krzović, I. (2004), Arhitektura Secesije u Bosni i Hercegovini. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Publishing, p. 183. 86 Palairet, ‘The Habsburg Industrial Achievement’, p. 152. 87 Sugar, The Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina, p. 63. 88 Kruševac, Privredne Prilike, p. 223.

Chapter 5 1 Pemberton, M. (1899), ‘Selam. The Book and its Story’, The Sketch, 19 April 1899, 548. 2 Mrazović, M. (1893), Selam. Skizzen und Novellen aus dem Bosnischen Volksleben. Berlin: Deutsche Schriftsteller-Genossenschaft; Mrazović, M. (1899), Selam. Sketches and tales of Bosnian Life. London: Jarrold and Sons.

220

Notes

3 Information about Mrazović has been difficult to find, with patchy references from a number of sources. Early biographical details are mainly from Šarić, S. (2004), ‘Dvije zaboravlenje gospođe.’ Most, http://www.most.ba/084/028.aspx (accessed 28 August 2005) which was based on a memorial article by H. Kreševljaković in Napredak God.II 1927, br.6, str.89-90, which it has not been possible to trace. Further material based on the same article can be found in Kruševac, T. (1978), Bosansko-Hercegovački Listovi u XIX Veku. Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša, pp. 169–74. There is also a brief paragraph on Mrazović’s rôle as the proprietor of the Bosnische Post in Kreševljaković, H. (1969), Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, (1878–1918). Sarajevo: Izdanje Arhiva Grada Sarajeva, p. 70. 4 She travelled extensively throughout Bosnia recording everyday life and culture, and in 1901 produced the longest contribution to volume 12 of the series Die Oesterreichisch-Ungarische Monarchie in Wort und Bild on Bosnia-Hercegovina. Entitled ‘Landschaftliche Schilderung’, it was illustrated by various artists. Other contributors included Truhelka, Hoernes and Hörmann. Rudolf, Erzherzog Österreich (ed.) (1901), Die Oesterreichisch-Ungarische Monarchie in Wort und Bild (Bosnia und Herzegovina). Band 12, Vienna, pp. 39–153. 5 Figures are difficult to compare accurately, as the various censuses did not have the same categories for enumeration. However, in 1885, when the population of the city was 26,268, there were 507 civil servants and teachers; by 1912, with a population of 51,919, there were 6,868 ‘public servants’ listed – a change from approximately 1.9 per cent to 13.2 per cent. Censuses included variable statistics on categories such as health professionals, people working in industry, banking, publishing and other professional spheres for whom there are no accurate comparative figures; however, this example gives some indication of the growth of the middle classes in the city during the period. Statistics in: Ortschafts-und-Bevölkerungs-Statistik von Bosnien und der Hercegovina (1886). Sarajevo: Landesdruckerei; Rezultati popisa žiteljstva u Bosni i Hercegovini (1912). Sarajevo: Zemaljska Štamparija, Sarajevo, p. 57. These statistics can be seen in the comparative context of England: Gunn and Bell note the rapid increase in Class I and II occupations such as doctor and municipal officer between 1881 and 1911 relative to other occupations, based on census material. They note that ‘by the turn of the century nearly a quarter of the country’s working population was engaged in non-manual occupations’. Gunn, S. and Bell, R. (2003), Middle Classes. Their Rise and Sprawl. London: Phoenix, p. 22. 6 For work on public middle-class culture in English industrial cities in the same period, see Gunn, S. (2nd edition, 2007), The Public Culture of the Victorian Middle Class. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. For a more general overview of the English middle classes at the time, see Gunn and Bell, Middle Classes, passim.

Notes

221

7 Gyáni, G. (2002), Parlor and Kitchen. Housing and Domestic Culture in Budapest, 1870–1940. Budapest: Central European University Press; Gyáni, G. (2004), Identity and the Urban Experience. Fin de Siècle Budapest. New Jersey/Budapest: Centre for Hungarian Studies and Publications; Hanák, P. (1994), Bürgerliche Wohnkultur des fin de siècle in Ungarn. Vienna: Böhlau; Hanák, P. (1998), The Garden and the Workshop. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 8 Finci, J. (1962), Razvoj dispozije i funkcije u stambenoj kulturi Sarajeva. Sarajevo: Zavod za stambena izgradnja. 9 Ibid., pp. 27–36. 10 Blueprints of Javer eff. Baruh’s plans show this pattern. The plans for Mrazović’s new building at S. H. Muvekita 5 from 1894 also have an example. 11 Hanák, in The Garden and the Workshop, p. 24, notes the ‘strict division’ in spatial terms between the ‘private’ and ‘service’ spheres in these apartments, which was achieved by their being on opposite sides of the hallway. This does not quite fit with Finci’s analysis, but any such division would have been dependent on the relative size and/or social standing of individual households. 12 Finci, Razvoj dispozije, p. 35. 13 Kulovića 16/MTita 52, 1906, has an example. Spasojević, B. (1999), Arhitektura Stambenih Palata Austrougarskog perioda u Sarajevu. Sarajevo: Rabić, p. 52. He notes that this was one way of alleviating the problem of single people in need of housing. 14 Examples can be seen in the layout plans in Finci, Razvoj dispozije, pp. 33–4. 15 The development was by Vancaš and was featured in Der Bautechniker on 22 November 1895, Nr. 47, Vol. XV. The bathroom was on the first floor. 16 Gyáni, Parlor and Kitchen, p. 102. 17 Finci, Razvoj dispozije, p. 35. 18 An example of this is present-day Zelenih Beretki 14, built in 1904: it is a fourstorey building with cellars beneath. Although presently sandwiched between buildings of similar heights to right and left when viewed from the street, a postcard in Prstojević, M. (1999), Forgotten Sarajevo. Sarajevo, p. 132, shows it towering above a neighbouring Ottoman building in c.1912. 19 Finci, Razvoj dispozije, pp. 32–5: he comments on p. 32 that apartments were designed ‘from the outside in’ with the form of the façade dictating internal space, with restrictions imposed by, for example, window openings: appearance was more important than comfort. 20 Hanák, The Garden and the Workshop, pp. 22–4. 21 Finci, Razvoj dispozije, p. 35, Gyáni, Parlor and Kitchen, p. 102. 22 Hanák’s account of a rental property at Erzsébet körut 35, which is similar to the type of buildings in Sarajevo at the time, includes a probate inventory of furnishings for the owner’s apartment on the first floor, which had six main

222

23 24

25

26

27 28 29

30

Notes rooms. The salon contained four tables, six chairs, four stools and a divan, as well as a mirror and four oil paintings. ‘Ein Miethaus am Budapester Ring’, Hanák, Bürgerliche Wohnkultur, p. 159. Hanák, The Garden and the Workshop, p. 24. Examples from Sarajevo indicate a nuanced picture; Sarajevski List for 9 August 1900 br.94, announced that Vilma Kállay, wife of the Joint Minister of Finance, had been picnicking at Ilidža with several ‘popular and respected ladies’ from the Muslim community and with some Austro-Hungarian ladies ‘who knew the local language’. There are also reports of Women’s Society meetings and events (see following sections and Chapter 4 for women’s role in economic life at street level). For a discussion of the literature and validity of the concept of ‘Separate spheres’ in England in the period, see Vickery, A. (1993), ‘Golden Age to Separate Spheres? A Review of the Categories and Chronology of English Women’s History.’ The Historical Journal, 36(2), 383–414; for the social life of middle-class women in Budapest, see Gyáni, Parlor and Kitchen, pp. 101–6. Stix, E. (1887), Das Bauwesen in Bosnien und der Herzegovina von Beginn der Occupation durch die Oesterr.-Monarchie bis an das Jahr 1887. Vienna: Landesregierung für Bosnien und die Herzegovina, p. 100. Plan of villa at ABiH ZVS 60. Kurto, N. (1998), Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine. Razvoj Bosanskog Stila. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Publishing, p. 372. Vancaš labelled these plans in the local language, German and Hungarian, though the language chosen for plans was usually either of the first two and was usually the client’s. Gyáni, Parlor and Kitchen. p. 68. IAS br.5, Kut.2 God.19st-1948, Spis.1–56. There is a detailed description of the building and its decoration in Kurto, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, pp. 65–7. It is described by Vancaš under the heading ‘Zinshaus mit Apotheke des Herrn Heinrich Schlesinger . . . zu Sarajevo’ in Der Bautechniker for 15 April 1904, Nr. 16, Vol. XXIV. Fire safety must have been a high priority, as a report in the first edition of Bosanska Pošta in November 1896 announced that there had been a serious explosion of a flask of benzine at Hinka Schlesinger’s premises the previous evening, necessitating the arrival of the fire service; Bosanska Pošta, 15 November, 1896, br.1, God.1, p. 3. Der Bautechniker Nr. 20, Vol. XV, pp. 379–81, has an article with drawings and plans by Vancaš, titled ‘Geschäfts- und Wohnhaus des Herrn M. D. Babic [sic] in Sarajevo.’ Babić was known to the authorities as a supporter of the ‘Greater Croatia’ movement, and his building is topped by a Croatian coat of arms in a cartouche. Besarović, R. (ed.) (1968), Kultura i umjetnost u Bosni i Hercegovini pod austrougarskom upravom. Sarajevo: ABiH, pp. 460–1. The building replaced the old theatre mentioned below.

Notes

223

31 For example, the Oesterreichische Länderbank, Otto Wagner 1882–4 in Schorske, C. E. (1980), Fin-de-Siècle Vienna. Politics and Culture. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, p. 76, Fig. 18. 32 Krzović, I. (2004), Arhitektura Secesije u Bosni i Hercegovini. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Publishing, p. 79. 33 Ibid., pp. 80–2. 34 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 37. Figures for apartment living are taken from raw data in census statistics, as expressed in Chapter 3, Tables 3.1–4. 35 Hanák, The Garden and the Workshop, p. 24. 36 For comparison with English clubs in the same period, and the developing role of women within this more public sphere, see Gunn, The Public Culture of the Victorian Middle Class, pp. 84–105. 37 Sarajevski List, 2 January 1895 br.1 God.XVIII. Mali Vjesnik. Iz Društva. 38 King, J. (2005), Budweisers into Czechs and Germans. Princeton University Press, pp. 54–9. 39 An example of this type of society was the Serbian Orthodox Church Music Group, ‘Sloga’, founded in 1889. Bosnischer Bote XIV (1910), ABiH P-15/1910a, p. 352. 40 Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, pp. 196–7. 41 All data in Bosnischer Bote IX (1905), ABiH P-15/1905. 42 Details quoted from Sarajevski List of the opening on 2 January 1899 in Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, p. 195. 43 Bosnischer Bote IX (1905), ABiH P-15/1905, p. 304. 44 All copies of Sarajevski List for the period are in ABiH. 45 Clubs and societies are listed in Bosnischer Bote XIV (1910), ABiH P-15/1910a, pp. 350–9. 46 Bosanski Glasnik/Bosnischer Bote XIX (1915), ABiH P -15/1915a, pp. 516–28. 47 For example, there is a letter from Landeschef Appel to Kállay in 1900 about the suitability of the name ‘Jugović’ for a Serbian tambura society on the grounds of its connections to Serbian folklore. Besarović, Kultura i umjetnost, pp. 634–5. 48 Ibid., pp. 575–7 and pp. 606–15. 49 Evans, A. J. (1877), Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina on foot during the insurrection, August and September 1875. London: Longmans, Green and Co, passim. 50 Renner, H. (1896), Durch Bosnien und die Herzegovina kreuz und quer. Berlin: Reimer, p. 51. 51 Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 47. 52 Hartleben, A. (1892), Reiserouten in Bosnien und der Herzegovina. Vienna, Pest, Leipzig: A. Hartleben’s Verlag, p. 70.

224 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

65 66 67 68 69

70 71 72 73

74 75

Notes Donia, R. (2006), Sarajevo. A Biography. London: Hurst, pp. 88–9. Kruševac, Bosansko-Hercegovački Listovi, p. 386. Renner, Durch Bosnien, pp. 51–3. Ibid., pp. 51 and 53. Hartleben (1892, 1895), Reiserouten in Bosnien, pp. 64–70 and pp. 70–4. Hoernes, M. (ed.) (1893, Band 1), Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und der Hercegovina. Vienna: Carl Gerold’s Sohn. Hörmann, K. (ed.) (1889), Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja, Br.1. Sarajevo, p. 3. All copies quoted seen at NUB Skopje, Macedonia. Br.1 CS III 50/1889. Copies of several of these are at the Taylorian Slavonic and Greek Library of the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, TNR 5649-5653. Kruševac, Bosansko-Hercegovački Listovi, pp. 386–91. Ibid., p. 387. Preindlsberger, J. (1900), ‘Prilozi narodnoj medicini na Bosne’ in GZM, pp. 65–82. Kruševac, Bosansko-Hercegovački Listovi, p. 398. This is not quite the case, in that a gift to the Museum by the mayor, Mustaj-beg Fadilpašic, appears first on the list of museum donors in the March edition for 1889. Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja I (1889), 2. Ibid., p. 4. Quoted in Kruševac, Bosansko-Hercegovački Listovi, p. 390. Bosanska Vila IV (1889), br.8. str.128. This report was originally published in Anthropologie Nr. 5, (1894). Munro, R. (2nd edition, 1900), Rambles and Studies in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Dalmatia. London and Edinburgh: Blackwood and Sons, p. 54. The conference proceedings form Chapter III, pp. 53–88. Munro states in the preface to the first edition that his intention in the book was to ‘give an abbreviated account of the attractions – scenic, social, and scientific – of a portion of the Balkan peninsula, which, till lately, was almost inaccessible and unknown to the people of Western Europe’, p. xi. Ibid., pp. 82–8. GZM VII (1895), pp. 601–4. Ibid., p. 602. The 1895 volume also contains a fold-out map of the new spa/park development at Ilidža showing all the modern facilities. It apparently relates to an article on Roman remains there, but none are marked on the map: it looks more like an advertisement for the amenities. GZM VII, Table 1, between 161 and 198. Renner, Durch Bosnien, p. 51. For a discussion of the now-discredited theory that these Bosnian medieval gravestones relate to the Bogomil religious tradition, see Malcolm, N. (1996), Bosnia. A Short History. London: Pan Macmillan, pp. 29–31.

Notes

225

76 Pregled II/1911, Nr. 1–3, pp. 72–5, quoted in Kruševac, Bosansko-Hercegovački Listov, p. 391. 77 Vejsil Čurčić’s 109-page article, on fishing techniques in Bosnia-Hercegovina, shows that the writer was not entirely accurate. GZM (1910), pp. 379–488. 78 Kruševac, Bosansko-Hercegovački Listovi, passim. 79 Ibid., pp. 9–66. 80 Hadžiosmanović, L. (1980), Biblioteke u Bosni i Hercegovini za vrijeme Austrougarske vladavine. Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša, passim. Munro comments that visitors to Café Europa ‘enjoyed the comforts and pleasures of fashionable European life’ which included newspapers in a variety of languages but not the Times. Munro, Rambles and Studies, p. 12. For details of newspapers’ role in the building of a modern city in the period, see Wood, N. D. (2010), Becoming Metropolitan: Urban Selfhood and the Making of Modern Cracow. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. 81 Besarović, Kultura i umjetnost, passim. 82 Interestingly in Friedrich Schmid’s book on Bosnia under Austro-Hungarian administration, the chapter on press arrangements is headed ‘Administration of Security and Public Health’. The relevant section is titled ‘Press Police’. Schmid, F. (1914), Bosnien und die Herzegovina unter der Verwaltung Österreich-Ungarns. Leipzig: Verlag von Veit und Comp., p. 265. 83 Wood’s information on censorship in Cracow suggests that this was general Austro-Hungarian policy rather than specifically intended for Bosnia. Wood, Becoming Metropolitan, p. 55. 84 For example, the preliminary proposals for the government-sponsored illustrated periodical Nada run to 58 pages. Besarović, Kultura i umjetnost, pp. 74–132. 85 Schmid, Bosnien und die Herzegovina, p. 266. 86 Srce Isusovo (Heart of Jesus), a Roman Catholic periodical, only lasted between 1882 and 1886. Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, p. 61. 87 Ibid., p. 61. 88 Ibid.. 89 Besarović, Kultura i umjetnost, p. 455. 90 Miller, W. (1898), Travels and Politics in the Near East. London: T. Fisher Unwin. 91 Besarović, Kultura i umjetnost, Nrs. 177, 178, pp. 451–62. 92 Besarović, Kultura i umjetnost, p. 454. 93 For background to Schmarda and his business activities, see Chapter 4. 94 Besarović, Kultura i umjetnost, p. 455. 95 Ibid., p. 457. 96 Dr Nieć was from Ruthenia and was prominent in the city. He was deputy mayor from 1899 to 1908 and his signature appears on documents for Schmarda’s new Lagerhaus in this capacity. ABiH ZVS (1900) inv.438, š 123–238.

226 97 98 99 100

1 01 102 1 03 104 1 05 106 107 108 109 110 111 112

Notes Besarović, Kultura i umjetnost, p. 460. Ibid., p. 460. Bosnische Post, Nr. 107, 3 November 1896, XIII Jahrgang. Sarajevski List br.95 God.XII 9 August 1889. In this edition, there was news from Vienna, Budapest, Athens, Cairo, Paris, Berlin and Petrograd, and this range was not unusual. Sarajevski List, Mali vjesnik. br.40 God.XXIII 6 April 1900. In ABiH. Sarajevski List, Advertisement for ‘Printemps’ store, br.129 30 October 1889, Kajon’s shop, br.8 20 January 1894. Besarović, Kultura i umjetnost, p. 459. Details of all these are in Kreševljaković, Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, pp. 55–7. Besarović, Kultura i umjetnost, pp. 91–3. Ibid., pp. 74–91 and 94–115. Ibid., pp. 122–3. Ibid., pp. 123–8. Nada (1895), God.1. Nr. 273, ABiH P-12/1895. Ibid., Str III. Nada Nr. 8, 15 April 1895, 143, in the section entitled ‘Entertaining Prose’. Ibid., p. 188, in the section ‘From Nature and Society’.

Chapter 6 1 Bosnische Post, 11 December 1901, quoted in Der Bautechniker, 5 February 1904, Nr. 6. XXIV Jahrgang. p. 101. 2 Munro, R. (2nd edition, 1900), Rambles and Studies in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Dalmatia. London and Edinburgh: Blackwood and Sons, p. 14. 3 Miller, W. (1898), Travels and Politics in the Near East. London: T. Fisher Unwin, pp. 125–7. 4 As note 1. 5 Bosnischer Bote IX (1905), ABiH P-15/1905, p. 293. Salom was number 96. 6 All quotations from the Bosnische Post article referenced at 1. 7 It has not been possible to find an exact date for the creation of the street, but it is post-1882, and was probably formed around the time that the cathedral was under construction, 1884–9: Bejtić, A. (1973), Ulice i trgovi Sarajeva, Sarajevo. Sarajevo: Musej Grada Sarajeva, p. 32. 8 Der Bautechniker, Friday 7 April 1899 Nr. 14 XIX Jahrgang. p. 290. 9 In Britain, moves to ‘reconceptualise the town and street as ordered and civilised spaces’ had begun in the eighteenth century. For a discussion of the relationship

Notes

10

11 12 13 14 15 16

17

18 19

20 21 22

227

between consumption and urban spatial development, see Stobart, J., Hann, A. and Morgan, V. (2007), Spaces of Consumption; Leisure and Shopping in the English Town, c.1680–1830. London and New York: Routledge, p. 90 and passim. After the occupation and with the development of Sarajevo as a tourist destination, many of the goods sold in the market were for the tourist trade; in 1894, Munro describes ‘a great portion’ of the stock in the Gazi Husrevbeg bezistan as ‘of European make, and expressly manufactured for this market . . . though Oriental in appearance’. He also notes the ‘home-made metal work, carpets and other products of Bosnian industries’ in the same place. Munro, Rambles and Studies, p. 12. Miller, Travels and Politics, p. 113. Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, pp. 204–19. For a fuller discussion of the available material, see Chapter 4. Sarajevski List br.338 xviii. 21.7.95. A copy of an advertisement announcing the move can be seen in Prstojević, M. (1999), Forgotten Sarajevo. Sarajevo, p. 20. Levy, M. (1911), Die Sephardim in Bosnien. Sarajevo: Daniel Kajon, pp. 75–82. The lack of books pre-1878 was presumably related to tight Ottoman censorship as there are accounts of books being confiscated from travellers to the region before the occupation. Mackenzie, G. M and Irby, A. P. (2nd edition, 1877), Travels in the Slavonic Provinces of Turkey-in-Europe. London: Daldy, Isbister, pp. 1 and 19. A contemporary postcard view shows three fashionable ladies looking at the display in Živković’s window and Café Lohner opposite. Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, p. 124. Bosnischer Bote VIII (1904), ABiH P-15/1904 p. vi a. Friedrich Schlesinger refers to this trend in his article on economic development in Sarajevo. He writes: ‘The clothing trades in Sarajevo are not in a bad state, although as everywhere else, they are have to compete with the creations of big business, and the sellers of ready-made clothes.’ Schlesinger, F. (1902), ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung von Sarajevo bis zur Gegenwart’, Bosnischer Bote VI, ABiH P-15/1902, p. 48. Klein, p. 211, Vogel, p. 217 Bosnischer Bote III, (1899), ABiH P-15/1899; Feleki, p. xxxix; Bosnischer Bote VI (1902), ABiH P-15/1902. Details in Krzović, I. (1987), Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine 1878–1918. Sarajevo: Umjetnička Galerija BiH, p. 223, br.195. The introduction to Zola, E., trans. Nelson, B. (1995), The Ladies’ Paradise. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. ix gives detailed information about the development of the Paris stores and also discusses the historical and social context of the department store phenomenon and its relationship to changing social behaviour. Gabor Gyáni also devotes a chapter to the topic where he explores case studies relating to Budapest department stores. Gyáni, G. (2004), Identity and the Urban

228

23 24 25

26 27

28 29 30 31 32

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Notes Experience. Fin de Siècle Budapest. New Jersey/Budapest: Centre for Hungarian Studies and Publications, Chapter 5, pp. 111–28. Lešić, J. (1973), Pozorišne život Sarajeva 1878–1918. Sarajevo: Svetlost, pp. 44–6. Prtsojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, pp. 190–5, details the development of Sarajevo theatre life using extracts from Sarajevski List and Lešić’s book as his sources. Details of numbers are in Lešić, Pozorišne život, p. 130. The floor plan can be seen in Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 37, br.9. See also Figure 2.4, on the right side of the cathedral square. Sarajevski List, br.8, Mali vjesnik. 20.1.1894. Quotations from Sarajevski List in Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, p. 194. Letters in Besarović, R. (ed.) (1968), Kultura i umjetnost u Bosni i Hercegovini pod austrougarskom upravom. Sarajevo: ABiH, pp. 706–8. Lešić, Pozorišne život, p. 179, quoting from Sarajevska Scena, br.17 (1937) (no page ref.). Lešić, Pozorišne život, p. 305. Costings in Besarović, Kultura i umjetnost, pp. 748–54, whole correspondence, pp. 741–68. Ibid., p. 745. For a fuller discussion of the rôle of Napredak and its sister support organizations Prosvjeta (Serbian Orthodox) and Gajret (Muslim), see Okey, R. (2007), Taming Balkan Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 160–7. Details of the building with plans and elevations can be seen in Spasojević, Arhitektura Stambenih Palata, pp. 95–100. Prtsojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, p. 243. Ibid. Ibid., p. 195. Besarović, Kultura i umjetnost, Section VIII, ‘Pjevačka i Tamburaška Društva’, pp. 567–673. Gyáni, Identity and the Urban Experience, p. 98. Ibid., pp. 99–104. Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, pp. 206–7 and 209–10. It can be seen in a postcard on the cover of Prstojević’s Forgotten Sarajevo with a collection of European signatures across it. ZVS 116 1890 š.50/26 ABiH. Sarajevski List, br 95. Mali vjesnik, 10.viii.1889. Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, p. 126. Details in Der Bautechniker of 22 November 1895, Nr. 47, Vol. XV p. 883: the architect, Vancaš, notes that the lavatory was for men only; women would have to use the one in the proprietor’s flat, which was a ‘nuisance’. This suggests that café visiting by ladies was a marginal activity in Sarajevo at the time, not necessarily to be encouraged.

Notes

229

46 Kreševljaković, H. (1969), Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave, (1878–1918). Sarajevo: Izdanje Arhiva Grada Sarajeva, p. 80. 47 From the advertisement in Bosnischer Bote IV (1900), ABiH P-15/1900a p. 249. 48 These can all be seen in the architect’s plans and other details of the application in ABiH ZVS 60 – Hotel Central. Plans dated 21 March 1899. Unlike the plans for the original development which are labelled in German, the captions here are in the local language, suggesting a move in official policies and approaches to building regulation in the city. 49 De Windt, H. (1910), Through Savage Europe: Being the Narrative of a Journey Undertaken as Special Correspondent of the ‘Westminster Gazette’ throughout the Balkan States and European Russia. London: Collins’ Illustrated Pocket Classics, pp. 111–12. 50 Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899 p. 212: Bosnischer Bote XIV (1910), ABiH P-15/1910, p. 364. The 1910 edition differentiated in its listing between landesűblich (local-style) hotels and the European type; the earlier list omitted hans altogether. 51 Prstojević’s Forgotten Sarajevo gives a general discussion of hotel development, pp. 119 and 160. There is no reference for where these hotels were, though maps from the period offer some details. 52 Krzović, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 220, br.166. 53 Hartleben, A. (1895), Reiserouten in Bosnien und der Herzegovina. Vienna, Pest, Leipzig: A. Hartleben’s Verlag, p. 54. 54 Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, p. 151. 55 Asboth, J. de (1890), An Official Tour through Bosnia and Herzegovina. London: Swan Sonnenschein and Co.; Okey, Taming Balkan Nationalism. p. 72. 56 Okey, Taming Balkan Nationalism, p. 72. 57 Thomson, H. C. (1897), The Outgoing Turk – Impressions of a Journey through the Western Balkans. London/New York: Heinemann/D.Appleton, pp. 11–13. 58 Miller, Travels and Politics, pp. 87 and 130. 59 Renner, H. (2nd edition, 1897), Durch Bosnien und die Herzegovina kreuz und quer. Berlin: Reimer, pp. xi–xii. 60 Pemberton, M. (1899), ‘Selam. The Book and its Story’. The Sketch, 1899, p. 548. 61 Ibid. 62 Baedeker, K. (1905), Austria-Hungary including Dalmatia and Bosnia. Handbook for Travellers. Leipzig: Baedeker. Baedeker’s Travel Guides. 63 Hartleben, A. (1895) Reiserouten in Bosnien. Foreword. 64 Ibid., pp. 76–7. 65 Pemberton, ‘Selam’. 66 Government of Bosnia and Hercegovina (ed.) (1913), Guide through Bosnia and Hercegovina. Sarajevo. 67 Prstojević, Forgotten Sarajevo, passim.

230

Notes

68 Stix, E. (1887), Das Bauwesen in Bosnien und der Herzegovina von Beginn der Occupation durch die Oesterr.-Monarchie bis an das Jahr 1887. Vienna: Landesregierung für Bosnien und die Herzegovina, p. 87. 69 Such entertainments were common in European parks in the period, as was the overall layout of the park; see Conway, H. (1996), Public parks. Shire Garden History Nr. 9, pp. 77–82 and 27. 70 A plan of the spa can be found in GZM VII, Table 1, between pp. 161 and 198. 71 Details of the attractions are in Hartleben (1895), Reiserouten in Bosnien, pp. 82–5. 72 Ibid, p. 84. 73 Bosnischer Bote III (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, p. 193: Gyáni, Identity and the Urban Experience, Chapter 2, ‘The City as Theater’, pp. 59–82. 74 Bosnischer Bote III, (1899), ABiH P-15/1899, pp. 192–4. 75 Mrazović, M. (1901), ‘Landschaftliche Schilderung’ in Rudolf, Erzherzog Österreich (ed.), Die Oesterreichisch-Ungarische Monarchie in Wort und Bild. (Bosnia und Herzegovina), Volume 12. Vienna, p. 58. 76 Miller, Travels and Politics, p. 125. 77 Sarajevski List, 18 March 1900, br.32 ABiH. 78 Simon Gunn discusses civic funerals in English industrial cities in the same period, used ‘for the display of authority, social order and identity’. Gunn, S. (2000), ‘Ritual and civic culture in the English industrial city, c. 1835–1914’. In: R. J. Morris, and R. H. Trainor (eds), Urban Governance, Britain and Beyond since 1750. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 234–5. 79 Anderson, D. P. (1966), Miss Irby and her Friends. London: Hutchinson, pp. 235–6. 80 Ibid., p. 64.

Conclusion 1 Miller, W. (1898), Travels and Politics in the Near East. London: T. Fisher Unwin, p. 87. 2 Malcolm, N. (1996), Bosnia. A Short History. London: Pan Macmillan, p. 162. 3 Prstojević, M. (1999), Forgotten Sarajevo. Sarajevo, passim. 4 Schmid, F. (1914), Bosnien und die Herzegovina unter der Verwaltung ŐsterreichUngarns. Leipzig: Verlag von Veit und Comp., p. 526.

Bibliography Note: In some cases library/archive shelfmarks have been included.

Libraries and archives Arhiv Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo (ABiH). Bosniak Institute Library, Sarajevo. Gazi Husrev-beg Library, Sarajevo. Istorijski arhiv, Sarajevo (IAS). National and University Library, Sarajevo. National and University Library, Skopje (NUB Skopje). Ősterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna (ŐNB). Ősterreichisches Staatsarchiv-Kriegsarchiv, Vienna (ŐS-K). The Bodleian Library, University of Oxford. The British Library, London. The Open University Library, Milton Keynes. Zavod za planiranje razvoja grada Sarajeva (ZPRGS).

Primary sources Maps Baedeker, K. (1905), ‘Sarajevo’, in Austria-Hungary including Dalmatia and Bosnia. Handbook for Travellers. Leipzig: Baedeker. Hartleben, A. (1892, 1895, 1898), Reiserouten in Bosnien und der Herzegovina. Vienna, Pest, Leipzig: A.Hartleben’s Verlag (map in each of Sarajevo). Längenprofil der Džidžikovac und der Čekerkčinica ulica. IAS Kut.2.špis 1-56. 19st-1948 br.3. Piffl, H. (1898), Entwicklung der Landeshauptstadt Sarajevo Unter der Regierung Seiner Majestät des Kaisers und Königs Franz Josef 1. Plan des Terrains zwischen dem Militärspital und dem Baracken. (1879), ABiH ZVS 1879–80 Kt. 2. š. 15755. Plan von Sarajevo. Reduction der Catastral-Aufnahme aus dem Jahre 1882. Wien: K.K.Militär-geografischen Instituts zu Wien. ŐS-K GIh 621-16.

232

Bibliography

Regulirungs-Plan für den Wiederaufbau des abgebrannten Stadttheiles nach Beschluss des Gemeinderathes von Sarajevo in d. Sitzung v. 11 März 1880. ABiH ZVS-2 1879–80, 15755. Sarajevo (1912). Verlag Leon Finzi/Naklada Leon Finzi. Sarajevo. IAS ZKP/Inv.br.44. Sarajevo sastav A.L.Studnička (1914). Naklada J.Studnička i Dr./Verlag J.Studnička & Co. Sarajevo. IAS ZKP/Inv.br.173/P. Situation der Konak-sammt Umgebung in Sarajevo. ABiH ZVS 2 1879–80 š.15755.

Public documents Bau-Ordnung fűr Sarajevo und jene Städte und Märkte in Bosnien und der Hercegovina, welche dieser Vorschrift durch eine Verordnung der Landesregierung ausdrücklich unterworfen werden. (1880). K.u.K. Regierungsdruckerei, Sarajevo. ABiH ZVS 2 1879–80 š.15755. Hauptresultate der Volkszählung in Bosnien und der Hercegovina vom 22 April 1895. Sarajevo: Landesdruckerei. ABiH V271. Herzogthum Steiermark (1881). Landesgesetzte des Herzogthumes Steiermark. Erstes Bändchen. Erstes Heft. Bauordnung fűr die Landeshaupstadt Graz. Leuschner und Lubensky – k.k. Universitäts-Buchhandlung. ŐNB 66191 A – Neu Mag. Ortschafts-und-Bevőlkerungs-Statistik (1880). Sarajevo: K.u.K. Regierungsdruckerei ABiH TV/671. Ortschafts-und-Bevőlkerungs-Statistik von Bosnien und der Hercegovina (1886). Sarajevo: Landesdruckerei. ABiH V200. Rezultati popisa žiteljstva u Bosni i Hercegovini (1912). Sarajevo: Zemaljska Štamparija. ABiH V273. Sumarni i izvještaj trgovačke i obrtnićke komore za Bosnu i Hercegovinu o stanju obrta, trgovine i prometa njezinog područija u godini 1911–1912 (1913). Sarajevo: Štamparija ‘Narodna’ (Cyrillic script). ABiH IV 381/1911 – 12b 8853. Verzeichnis über die Telephonsprechstellen bei der Landesregierung in Sarajevo (1912). Sarajevo. ABiH, no number.

Newspapers, directories and periodicals Bosanska Pošta. Gazi Husrev-beg Library, Sarajevo. H 386/1896/7, I-III. Bosanska Vila. ABiH. P-16/1885–1914. Bosnische Post. ŐNB 505512-D Neu Mag. Bosnischer Bote. ABiH P-15/1897–1918. Der Bautechniker. 15.iv.1904, Nr. 16, Vol. XXIV (Ferhadija 27, pp. 341–2, 365). ŐNB 395-249-D Neu Per. —. 22.xi.1895, Nr. 47, Vol. XV (Ajas-Pašin Dvor, pp. 883–4), ŐNB 395-249-D Neu Per. —. 5.ii.1904, Nr. 6. Vol. XXIV (Salom’s, pp. 101–2) ŐNB 395.249 – D Neu Per. —. 17.v.1895, Nr. 20, Vol. XV, (Babić’s, pp. 379–81), ŐNB 395.249 – D Neu Per.

Bibliography

233

—. 31.v.1895, Nr. 22, Vol. XV (‘Regierungs-Palais’, pp. 415–17), ŐNB 395.249 – D Neu Per. Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja. Sarajevo: Zemaljska štamparija. NUB Skopje, Macedonia. CS III 50/1889–1918. Hoernes, M. (ed.) (1893–7), Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und der Hercegovina. Vienna: Carl Gerold’s Sohn. Bodleian. Taylor Slav TNR 5649-53, Bds. 1-5. Nada. Sarajevo, Zemaljska štamparija. ABiH P-12/1895–1903. Sarajevski List. ABiH 1880–1918. Vrhbosna. ABiH P1/1887–1918.

Published primary sources Andrić, I. and Hawkesworth, C. (ed.) (2003), The Damned Yard. Beograd: Dereta. First published 1954. Andrić, I., tr. Hawkesworth, C. and Rakić, B. (2003), The Days of the Consuls. Beograd: Dereta. First published 1945. Andrić, I., tr. Edwards, L. F. (1977), The Bridge on the Drina. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. First published 1945. Asboth, J. v. (1888), Bosnien und die Herzegovina: Reisebilder und Studien. Wien: A.Hőlder. Bodleian, TAY Nuneham 160.1.9. Asboth, J. de (1890, English edition), An Official Tour through Bosnia and Herzegovina. London: Swan Sonnenschein and Co. Bodleian, TAS Rare MORF: DR381.B7.A7. Bánffy, M., tr. Thursfield, P. and Bánffy-Jelen, K. (1999), They Were Counted. London: Arcadia. First published 1934. —. (2000), They Were Found Wanting. London: Arcadia. First published 1937. —. (2001), They Were Divided. London: Arcadia. First published 1940. Barre, A. (1906), La Bosnie Herzégovine; Administration Autrichienne de 1878 à 1903. Paris, Belgrade: Louis Michaud, Positije Obradović. Bodleian, TAS Rare NF.DR381. B7.B2. Baxter, S. (1909), ‘The German Way of Making Better Cities’. Atlantic Monthly, 104, 72–95. Czeike, F. (1999), Wien in Alten Ansichtskarten. Innere Stadt. Zaltbommel: Europäische Bibliothek. De Windt, H. (1910), Through Savage Europe: Being the Narrative of a Journey Undertaken as Special Correspondent of the ‘Westminster Gazette’ throughout the Balkan States and European Russia. London: Collins’ Illustrated Pocket Classics. Durham, M. E. (1904), Through the Lands of the Serb. London: Edward Arnold. Evans, A. J., B.A., F.S.A. (1877), Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina on Foot during the Insurrection, August and September 1875. London: Longmans, Green and Co. Forsyth, W. (1876), The Slavonic Provinces South of the Danube: A Sketch of their History and Present State in relation to the Ottoman Porte. London: John Murray. Friedrichsmeier, H. (1999), Das Versunkene Bosnien. Graz, Vienna, Köln: Styria.

234

Bibliography

Government of Bosnia and Hercegovina (ed.) (1913), Guide through Bosnia and Hercegovina. Sarajevo. ABiH 129455/13. Hartleben, A. (1892, 1895, 1898), Reiserouten in Bosnien und der Herzegovina. Vienna, Pest, Leipzig: A.Hartleben’s Verlag. ŐNB 113855-B Neu Mag. (1892); ABiH II-518 (1895). Holbach, M. M. (1910), Bosnia-Herzegovina. Some Wayside Wanderings. London: Lane. Kos, W. D. (2006), August Stauda. Ein Wiener Stadtfotograf um 1900. Vienna: Vienna Museum. Krzović, I. (1999), Eduard Loidolt. Akvareli iz Bosne i Hercegovine/Aquarelles from Bosnia-Herzegovina 1880–1882. Sarajevo: Bosnian Institute. Levy, M. (1911), Die Sephardim in Bosnien. Sarajevo: Daniel Kajon. ŐNB 248154 – C Neu Mag. Mackenzie, G. M. and Irby, A. P. (2nd edition, 1877), Travels in the Slavonic Provinces of Turkey-in-Europe. London: Daldy, Isbister. Meringer, R. (1899), ‘Pučka kuće u Bosni I Hercegovini’, Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja XI, 187–236. NUB Skopje CS III 50/1889. Miller, W. (1898), Travels and Politics in the Near East. London: T. Fisher Unwin. Bodleian, BOD Offsite 204 d.19. Mrazović, M. (1899), Selam. Sketches and Tales of Bosnian Life. London: Jarrold and Sons. Munro, R. (2nd edition, 1900), Rambles and Studies in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Dalmatia. London and Edinburgh: Blackwood and Sons. Bodleian, SAC Nuneham 579.M17. Musil, R., tr. Wilkins, S. and Pike, P. (1995), The Man without Qualities. London: Picador. Pemberton, M. (1899), ‘Selam. The Book and its Story’. The Sketch, 1899, p. 548. Bodleian, N.17078 C.32/1899. Preindlsberger, J. (1900), ‘Prilozi narodnoj medicini na Bosne’. Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja, XII, 65–82. NUB Skopje CS III 50/1900. Preindlsberger-Mrazović, M. (1900), Bosnisches Skizzenbuch. Dresden/Leipzig: E. Pierson’s Verlag. ŐNB 410222-B Neu Mag. —. (1905), Bosnische Volksmärchen. Innsbruck: H. Edlinger’s Verlag. ŐNB 436562-B Neu Mag. —. (1906), Das Grabesfenster. Innsbruck-Vienna: Edlinger. ŐNB 442991-B Neu Mag. —. (1908), Die Bosnische Ostbahn. Vienna and Leipzig: A.Hartlebens Verlag. ŐNB 458404 – B Neu Mag. Prstojević, M. (1999), Forgotten Sarajevo. Sarajevo. Renner, H. (2nd edition, 1897), Durch Bosnien und die Herzegovina kreuz und quer. Berlin: Reimer. ŐNB 90545-C Neu Mag. Rosenberg, A. v. (1921), Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte. Bielefeld and Leipzig: Verlag von Belhagen und Klasing. Roth, J., tr. Hofmann, M. (2002), The Radetzky March. London: Granta Books. First published 1932.

Bibliography

235

Rudolf, Erzherzog Österreich (ed.) (1901), Die Oesterreichisch-Ungarische Monarchie in Wort und Bild (Bosnia und Herzegovina), Volume 12. Vienna. ŐNB 291944-C.12 Neu Mag. Schlesinger, F. (1902), ‘Zur Geschichte der wirtschaftlichen Entwickelung von Sarajevo bis zur Gegenwart’. Bosnischer Bote VI, 41–51. ABiH P-15/1902. Schmid, F. (1914), Bosnien und die Herzegovina unter der Verwaltung ŐsterreichUngarns. Leipzig: Verlag von Veit und Comp. Stix, E. (1887), Das Bauwesen in Bosnien und der Herzegovina von Beginn der Occupation durch die Oesterr.-Monarchie bis an das Jahr 1887. Vienna: Landesregierung für Bosnien und die Herzegovina. ŐNB 187881 – C Neu Mag. Thomson, H. C. (1897), The Outgoing Turk – Impressions of a Journey through the Western Balkans. London, New York: Heinemann, D.Appleton. Bodleian, BOD Offsite 20534 d.7. Zola, E., tr. Nelson, B. (1995), The Ladies’ Paradise. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. First published 1883.

Secondary sources Books Allcock, J. B. and Young, A. (eds) (1991), Black Lambs and Grey Falcons. Women Travellers in the Balkans. Bradford: Bradford University Press. Alofsin, A. (2006), When Buildings Speak: Architecture as Language in the Habsburg Empire and its Aftermath. 1867–1933. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Anderson, D. P. (1966), Miss Irby and her Friends. London: Hutchinson. Bejtić, A. (1973), Ulice i trgovi Sarajeva. Sarajevo: Musej Grada Sarajeva. Besarović, R. (ed.) (1968), Kultura i umjetnost u Bosni i Hercegovini pod austrougarskom upravom. Sarajevo: ABiH. Bublin, M. (1999), Gradovi Bosne i Hercegovine. Milenijum razvoja i godine urbicida. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Publishing. Conway, H. (1991), People’s Parks; the Design and Development of Victorian Parks in Britain. Cambridge University Press. —. (1996), Public Parks. Shire Garden History Nr. 9. Curl, J. S. (1992), Encyclopaedia of Architectural Terms. Shaftesbury: Donhead. Dedijer, V. (1967), The Road to Sarajevo. London: MacGibbon and Kee. Dizdar, M. (2005), Sarajevo. The Tourist-Historic Guide. Sarajevo: Sejtarija. Donia, R. J. (1981), Islam under the Double Eagle: The Muslims of Bosnia and Hercegovina 1878–1914. Boulder, Colorado: Columbia University Press. —. (2006), Sarajevo. A Biography. London: Hurst and Co. Feichtinger, J., Prutsch, U. and Csáky, M. (eds) (2003), Habsburg Postcolonial. Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich, Bozen: Studien Verlag.

236

Bibliography

Finci, J. (1962), Razvoj dispozicije i funkcije u stambenoj kulturi Sarajeva. Sarajevo: Gazi Husrev-beg Library, br.15364 sig.III 4162. Glenny, M. (2000), The Balkans.1804–1999. London: Granta Books. Good, D. F. (1984), The Economic Rise of the Habsburg Empire, 1750–1914. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. Goodman, D. and Chant, C. (eds) (1999a), European Cities and Technology. Industrial to Post-Industrial City. London: Routledge. —. (1999b), The European Cities and Technology Reader. Industrial to Post-Industrial City. London: Routledge. Gunn, S. (2nd edition, 2007), The Public Culture of the Victorian Middle Class. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. Gunn, S. and Bell, R. (2003), Middle Classes. Their Rise and Sprawl. London: Phoenix. Gunther, J. (1940), Inside Europe. New York: Harper. Gyáni, G. (2002), Parlor and Kitchen. Housing and Domestic Culture in Budapest, 1870–1940. Budapest: Central European University Press. —. (2004), Identity and the Urban Experience. Fin de Siècle Budapest. New Jersey/ Budapest: Centre for Hungarian Studies and Publications. Hadžiosmanović, L. (1980), Biblioteke u Bosni i Hercegovini za vrijeme Austrougarske vladavine. Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša. Hanák, P. (1994), Bürgerliche Wohnkultur des fin de siècle in Ungarn. Vienna: Böhlau. —. (1998), The Garden and the Workshop. Princeton University Press. Hartmuth, M. (2010), ‘Insufficiently Oriental? An Early Episode in the Study and Preservation of the Ottoman Architectural Heritage in the Balkans’. In: M. Hartmuth and A. Dilsiz (eds), Papers on Ottoman Europe Presented to Machiel Kiel. Leiden: Nederlands Institut voor het Nabije Oosten, pp. 171–84. Hauptmann, F. (1983), Die Ősterreichisch-Ungarische Herrschaft in Bosnien und der Herzegovina 1878–1918. Wirtschaftspolitik und Entwicklung. Universität Graz. Helmfrid, S., Hammarström, I. and Reuterswärd, P. (eds) (1979), Growth and Transformation of the Modern City. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Building Research. Hinchcliffe, T. (1992), North Oxford. Newhaven and London: Yale University Press. Hyman, S. (ed.) (1988), Edward Lear in the Levant: Travels in Albania, Greece and Turkey-in-Europe 1848–1849. London: John Murray. Juzbašić, D. (1974), Izgradnja Željeznica u Bosni i Hercegovini u svjetlu Austrougarske Politike od Okupacije do Kraja Kállayeve Ere. Sarajevo: Akademie nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. —. (2002), Politika i privreda u Bosni i Hercegovini pod Austrougarskom upravom. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Kahmi, S. (ed.) (1966), Spomenica 400 Godina od Dolaska Jevreja u Bosnu i Hercegovinu. Sarajevo: Oslobodjenje. King, J. (2005), Budweisers into Czechs and Germans. Princeton University Press. Kliczowski, S. (2002), Otto Wagner. Barcelona: Loft Publications.

Bibliography

237

Kraljačić, T. (1987), Kálayev režim u Bosni i Hercegovini 1883–1903. Sarajevo: Veselin MasleŠa. Kreševljaković, H. (1937), Sarajevo u doba okupacije Bosne 1878. Sarajevo: Islamska Dionička Štamparija. —. (1969), Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave (1878–1918). Sarajevo: Izdanje Arhiva Grada Sarajeva. Kruševac, T. (1956), Privredne Prilike Grada Sarajeva za Vreme Austro-Ugarske Uprave (1878–1918). Sarajevo: Veselin MasleŠa. —. (1960), Sarajevo pod austro-ugarskom upravom. Sarajevo: Muzeja Grada Sarajeva. Kruševac, T. (1978), Bosansko-Hercegovački Listovi u XIX veku. Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša. Krzović, I. (1987), Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine 1878–1918. Sarajevo: Umjetnička Galerija BiH. —. (2004), Arhitektura Secesije u Bosni i Hercegovini. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Publishing. Kurto, N. (1998), Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine. Razvoj Bosanskog Stila. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Publishing. Lešić, J. (1973), Pozorišne život Sarajeva 1878–1918. Sarajevo: Svetlost. Ljiljak, M. (1975), Pošta, Telegraf i Telefon u Bosni i Hercegovini 1. Sarajevo: PTT Saobraćaja Sarajevo. —. (1981), Pošta, Telegraf i Telefon u Bosni i Hercegovini 2. Sarajevo: PTT Saobraćaja Sarajevo. Makaš, E. G. and Conley, T. D. (eds) (2009), Capital Cities in the Aftermath of Empires. London and New York: Routledge. Malcolm, N. (1996), Bosnia. A Short History. London: Pan Macmillan. Mazower, M. (2004), Salonica. City of Ghosts. Christians, Muslims and Jews, 1430–1950. London: HarperCollins. Michell, G. (ed.) (1978), Architecture of the Islamic World. London: Thames and Hudson. Mladenović, L. (1982), Gradjansko Slikarstvo u Bosni i Hercegoviniu XIX veku. Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša. Moravánszky, Á. (1998), Competing Visions. Aesthetic Inventions and Social Imagination in Central European Architecture, 1867–1918. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Morris, R. J. and Trainor, R. H. (eds) (2000), Urban Governance, Britain and Beyond since 1750. Aldershot: Ashgate. Neidhardt, T. (2004), Sarajevo kroz vrijeme. Sarajevo: Arka Press. Okey, R. (2007), Taming Balkan Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 29 (2004), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Palairet, M. (2002), The Balkan Economies c.1800–1914. Evolution without Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Papić, M. (1976), Tragom Kulturnog Nasljeđa. Sarajevo: Svjetlost. Pinto, A. (1987), Jevreji Sarajeva u BiH. Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša.

238

Bibliography

Prokopovych, M. (2009), Habsburg Lemberg: Architecture, Public Space, and Politics in the Galician Capital, 1772–1914. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press. Reynolds, D. (2003), ‘Kavaliere, Kostüme, Kunstgewerbe: Die Vorstellung Bosniens in Wien 1878–1900’. In: J. Feichtinger, U. Prutsch and M. Csáky (eds), Habsburg Postcolonial. Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich: Bozen, pp. 243–57. Richards, D. (1943), An Illustrated History of Modern Europe. 1789–1939. London, New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co. Rodger, R. (1989), Housing in Britain 1870–1914: Class, Capitalism and Construction. London: Macmillan. Said, E. W. ([1978] 1991), Orientalism. Western Conceptions of the Orient. London: Penguin. Sayer, D. (1996), The Coasts of Bohemia: A Czech History. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Schorske, C. E. (1980), Fin-de-Siècle Vienna. Politics and Culture. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. Seeman, H. and Lunzer, C. (2005), Wien – Innere Stadt. 1870–1910 Album. Vienna: Verlag fűr Photographie. Sembach, K.-J. (2002), L’Art Nouveau. Kőln: Taschen. Silber, L. and Little, A. (revised edition, 1996), The Death of Yugoslavia. London: Penguin. Skarić, V. (1937), Sarajevo i njegova okolina od nastarijh vremena do austrougarske okupacija. Sarajevo. Opština Grada Sarajeva. —. (1941), Iz proslošte Bosne i Hercegovine XIX vijeka. Sarajevo. Skarić, V. Nuri-Hagić, O. and Stojanović, N. (1838), Bosna i Hercegovina pod austrougarskom upravom. Beograd. Spasojević, B. (1999), Arhitektura Stambenih Palata Austrougarskog Perioda u Sarajevu. Sarajevo: Rabić. Spector, S. (2002), Prague Territories. National Conflict and Cultural Innovation in Franz Kafka’s Fin de Siecle. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press. Stobart, J., Hann, A. and Morgan, V. (2007), Spaces of Consumption; Leisure and Shopping in the English Town, c.1680–1830s. London and New York: Routledge. Sugar, P. F. (1963), The Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina 1878–1918. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Sutcliffe, A. (1981), Towards the Planned City. Germany, Britain, the United States and France, 1780–1914. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Thompson, F. M. L. (1982), The Rise of Suburbia. Themes in Urban History. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Todorov, N. (1983), The Balkan City, 1400–1900. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Todorova, M. (1997), Imagining the Balkans. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wood, N. D. (2010), Becoming Metropolitan: Urban Selfhood and the Making of Modern Cracow. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.

Bibliography

239

Zednicek, W. (2001), Wiener Architektur um 1900. Vienna: Walter Zednicek. Žujo, V. (2003), Sarajevo Guide. Sarajevo: TKD Šahinpašić d.o.o.

Journal articles Bakić-Hayden, M. (1995), ‘Nesting Orientalisms: The Case of the Former Yugoslavia’. Slavic Review, 54(4), 917–31. Binder, H. (2003), ‘Making and Defending a Polish Town; “Lwow” (Lemberg), 1848–1914’. Austrian History Yearbook, 34, 57–81. Čelić, D. (2002), ‘The Domestic and the Oriental in the Material Cultural Heritage of Bosnian-Herzegovinian Muslims’. Prilozi za Orientalnu Filologiju, 50, 353–64. Cohen, G. B. (2007), ‘Nationalist Politics and the Dynamics of State and Civil Society in the Habsburg Monarchy 1867–1914’. Central European History, 40, 241–78. Donia, R. J. (2002), ‘Fin-de-Siècle Sarajevo: The Habsburg Transformation of an Ottoman Town’. Austrian History Yearbook, 33, 43–75. Hartmuth, M. (2006), ‘Negotiating Tradition and Ambition: A Comparative Perspective on the “De-Ottomanisation” of Balkan Cityscapes’. Ethnologia Balkanica, 10, 15–33. Madžar, B. (1985), ‘Što godina vladine zgrade u Sarajevu (1885–1985)’. ‘Glasnik’, Arhiva i društva arhivskih radnika BiH XXV/1985 Sarajevo, 249–55. Palairet, M. (1993), ‘The Habsburg Industrial Achievement in Bosnia-Hercegovina, 1878–1914: An Economic Spurt that Succeeded?’. Austrian History Yearbook, XXIV, 133–52. Richardson, M. (1990), ‘Enough Said: Reflections on Orientalism’. Anthropology Today, 6(4), 16–19. Šeherčehajić, S. (2006), ‘Hastahana prva bolnica u BiH’. BiH City Review, 3, 74–5. Todorova, M. (1994), ‘The Balkans: From Discovery to Invention’. Slavic Review, 53(2), 453–82. Vickery, A. (1993), ‘Golden Age to Separate Spheres? A Review of the Categories and Chronology of English Women’s History’. The Historical Journal, 36(2), 383–414.

Electronic articles Donia, R. J. (2007), ‘The Proximate Colony: Bosnia-Herzegovina under AustroHungarian Rule’. Kakanien Revisited. http://www.kakanien.ac.at/beitr/fallstudie/ RDonia1.pdf [accessed 11 September 2007]. Hartmuth, M. (2009), ‘Image-ing the Balkans’. Kakanien Revisited. http://www. kakanien.ac.at/beitr/balkans/MHartmuth2.pdf. [accessed June 2010]. Lviv Interactive (LIA). http://www.lvivcenter.org/en/lia [accessed 10 June 2011]. Ruthner, C. (2008), ‘Habsburg’s Little Orient. A Postcolonial Reading of Austrian and German Cultural Narratives on Bosnia-Herzegovina, 1878–1918’. Kakanian

240

Bibliography

Revisited. http://www.kakanien.ac.at/beitr/fallstudie/CRuthner5.pdf [accessed 22 May 2008]. Šarić, S. (2004), ‘Dvije zaboravlenje gospođe’. Most. http://www.most.ba/084/028.aspx [accessed 28 August 2005]. Sethre, I. (2004), ‘The Emergence of National Identities in the Era of Modernization: Nation Building in Bosnia and Herzegovina’. Kakanien Revisited. http://www. kakanien.ac.at/beitr/fallstudie/Sethre1.pdf [accessed 22 May 2008].

Unpublished theses and manuscripts Hartmuth, M. (2004), ‘K.(u.)k. Colonial? Contextualizing Architecture and Urbanism in Bosnia-Herzegovina 1878–1918’. In: C. Ruthner, R. Detrez and U. Reber (eds), WechselWirkungen: The Political, Social and Cultural Impact of the Austro-Hungarian Occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina (1878–1918). New York: Peter Lang. Okey, R. F. C. (1972), ‘Cultural and Political Problems of the Austro-Hungarian Administration of Bosnia-Herzegovina 1878–1903’. Oxford: Oxford D.Phil. Bodleian Library. Prokopovych, M. (2010), ‘The Pros and Cons of Urban History Online. Session S29 in conference City and Society in European History’. 1–4 September 2010, Gent.

Name Index Albori, Baron  142 Alofsin, Anthony  9 Altarac, Abraham Majer  104 Andrássy, Gyula  34 Andrić, Ivo  56 Appel, Baron  52, 153, 155, 159, 165 Arndt-Čeplin, Evald  177 Asbóth, János  38, 53, 71, 108, 174 Babić, D. Mihailo  117, 137, 165 Baedeker, K.  81, 175 Balfour, Henry  148 Balliff, Herr von  62 Balliff, Philipp  41 Barre, André  108 Baruh, Daniel  79 Bauer, Moritz  113 Baumeister, Reinhard  42 Baxter, Sylvester  44 Berks, Lothar  152, 153, 154 Besarović, Risto  113, 124, 143, 151, 152, 155, 166 Biserović  86, 90 Bock, Arnold  113 Braun, August  78, 79, 90, 116–17 Breidwiser, Theodor  16 Brodnik, Franjo  166, 167 Bublin, Mehmed  43 Burián, István  129 Čelić, Džemal  24 Danon, Josef Zadik  91, 163 Danons family  86, 90, 91 de Paul, St Vincent  66 de Windt, Harry  171 Donia, Robert  6, 22, 34, 64, 65, 69, 103, 145 Evans, Arthur  13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 44, 144

Fadilpašić, Mehmed-beg  103 Fadilpašić, Mustafa-beg  103 Fadil-pašićs family  27 Feleki, Max  164 Fellner, Ferdinand  165 Ferdinand, Franz (Archduke)  1, 4, 51, 181 Ferstel  93 Fieber, Anna  123 Finci, Jahiel  7, 81, 117, 134, 135 Finci, Leon  176 Finci, Zadik Sabetaj  92 Fischer, Josef  92, 141 Franz Joseph, Emperor of Austria  142 Glenny, Misha  4 Gramer, Josef  100 Grünhut, Alexander  163 Gunther, John  4, 7 Gyáni, Gábor  8, 134, 137, 168 Hamamović, Julije  127 Hanák, Péter  8, 49, 95, 134, 136, 140, 221–2n. 22 Hansen  93 Hartleben, A.  71, 81, 118, 145, 146, 175, 176 Hartmuth, Maximilian  9, 73, 74, 94, 105 Hasenauer  93 Hauptmann, Ferdinand  18, 28, 107, 108, 111 Haussman  42 Heine, Heinrich  156 Hellmer, Hermann  165 Hoernes, Moritz  146, 147 Holmes, Sir William  15, 21, 30 Hörmann, Konstantin (Kosta)  123, 145, 146, 155, 156 Horta, Victor  64 Husein, Pehla  168 Husrev-beg, Gazi  20, 24

242

Name Index

Irby, Paulina  25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 83, 143, 163, 179 Ishaković, Isabeg  20 Iveković, Ćiril  64 Jeftanović, Dimitrije  165, 178 Jeftanović, Gligorije  169, 171 Jeftanovićs family  86, 90 Joikić, Milan, Dr  100, 101 Jovanić, Jove  96 Jungwirth, Ludwig  101 Kabiljo, Elias  163 Kabiljos family  90 Kajon, Daniel  81, 154 Kállay, Benjamin  6, 41, 61, 64, 65, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 129, 143, 145, 146, 147, 149, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 160, 165, 174, 177, 186 Kapetanović, Mehmed-beg Ljubušak  147, 149 Kattan, Simon  176 King, Jeremy  56, 141 Kirchner, J. J.  16 Klein, Adolf  164 Kotěra, Jan  129 Kraljević, Ana  98 Kramarović, Omeraga  213–14n. 63 Kreševljaković, Hamdija  22, 26, 27, 41, 49, 52, 75, 79, 89, 91, 128, 138, 171 Kruševac, Todor  30, 75, 91, 112, 115, 120, 127, 130, 147, 150 Krzović, Ibrahim  9, 58, 73, 81, 82, 85, 90, 91, 95, 97, 104, 129 Kunerth, Joseph  169 Kurto, Nedžad  9, 43, 73, 82, 90, 100, 101, 212n. 46 Kutscher, Baron  52, 62, 101, 155, 159, 179 Langer, Karl von  79 Lasslauer, Eduard  169, 173 Latas, Omer-Paša  21 Laveleye, Emile de  34 Layer, Herr von  62 Lešić, Josip  166 Levi, Zadik Haim  102, 117 Levy, M.  117

Lichtblau, Ernst  94 Loidolt, Eduard  15, 21, 25 Madžar, Božo  41, 61 Makanec, Julius  145 Malcolm, Noel  5, 30, 70, 200n. 39 Martić, Grgo  28, 30 Martinek, Josef  138 Mehmed II, Sultan  21 Miklau, Herr  101 Miller, William  71, 152, 162, 174, 181, 194n. 35 Mladenović, Ljubica  16 Moravánszky, Ákos  9, 94, 104, 215–16n. 91 Mrazović, Milena  46, 123, 131–7 passim, 140, 143, 145, 147, 149, 151, 152, 153, 156, 174, 175, 177 Munro, Robert  148, 159, 177 Mutevelić, Hadži Asimbeg  24 Nieć, Dr  153 Niemeczek, Hans  70, 94, 141, 165 Okey, Robin  29, 30, 31, 174, 189n. 3 Olbrich, Josef Maria  100 Omerović, Mustafa Hilmi  65 Osman-Paša, Topal  30 Ostojić, Angelina  178 Palairet, Michael  108, 112, 129 Panek, Carl  62, 66, 70, 215n. 79 Pařik, Karl  62, 63, 67, 68, 69, 70, 93, 94, 97, 98, 99 Pemberton, Max  131, 174, 175 Perschitz  47, 54, 92, 112, 153 Petherbridge, Guy  25 Petrović, L. E.  16 Petrović, Petro  28, 52, 97, 98, 99, 113, 179 Petrovićs family  86, 90 Philippovich, Joseph (General)  35, 38 Piffl, Hugo  46, 48 Pleyel, Eduard  99, 163, 164, 178 Poech, Franz  113 Pratschke, Anton  171, 173 Preindlsberger, Joseph  62, 137, 147 Princip, Gavrilo  51 Prstojević  126, 166, 167, 173, 176

Name Index Racher  117 Radić, Antun  28 Reinach, M. Salomon  148, 149 Reiter, Heinrich  113 Rekvényi, Josip  101, 178 Renner, Heinrich  33, 51, 71, 145, 149, 174, 175 Reynolds, Diana  118 Rotter  47, 54, 92, 112, 153 Rudolf (Crown Prince)  154 Šahinagić  113 Said, Edward  7 Salom, Daniel A.  124, 173 Salom, Giuseppe Vita  58, 70, 91, 95, 96, 113, 128, 139 Salom, Isak A.  100 Salom, J. A.  102 Salom, Ješua D.  117, 159, 160–1, 163, 164, 165, 173, 179 Salom, Moise  117, 161 Salom, Salomon  165 Salom family  86, 90, 91 Schiller, Johann Christoph Friedrich von  166 Schiller, Moritz  125 Schlesinger, Friedrich  14, 18, 19, 20, 78, 83, 90, 97, 109, 115, 116, 126, 139, 227n. 19 Schlesinger, Hinka  137 Schmarda, Albrecht  113 Schmarda, Johann Baptist  47, 54, 92, 107, 112–15, 123, 130, 152, 153 Schmid, Friedrich  56, 57, 93, 108, 151 Schorske, Carl Emil  7, 8 Schumann, Richard  163 Selim I, Sultan Javuz  156

243

Shelley, Percy Bysshe  156 Spasojević, Borislav  101, 104, 215n. 79 Spira, Heinrich  165 Stadler, Josip  66 Štambuk, Ante  91 Stauda, August  213n. 60 Steinmetz, Franz  117, 122 Stix, Edmund  39, 40, 48, 52, 58, 62, 64, 65, 136 Stübben, Joseph  42 Studnička  163 Sugar, Peter  19, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 118, 124 Sunko, Dioniz  167 Sutcliffe, Anthony  43 Thier, Albert  176 Thomson, Harry  71, 174 Todorova, Maria  7 Tönnies, Rudolf  66, 101, 102, 103, 129 Truhelka, Ćiro  78, 145, 150 Vancaš, Josip  50, 52, 58, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 117, 137, 141, 159, 165, 169, 170, 171, 173 Vogel, Josef  164 Vošnjak  153 Voysey, Charles  101 Vrignanin, Gjuro  153 Wagner, Otto  104 Walny  81 White (General)  154 Wittek, Aleksander  64 Wohlgemuth, Albert  98, 178 Wood, Nathaniel  8

Subject Index accommodation  18, 34, 40, 52, 62, 66, 78, 79, 81, 93, 95, 98, 99, 136, 137, 139, 182 Actiengesellschaft für Verarbeitung und Verwerthung landwirtschaftlicher Producte  113 advertisements  10, 54, 111, 112, 116, 117, 120, 121, 136, 137, 138, 154, 163, 164 Ajas-Pašin Dvor  67, 135, 172 a la franca cafés (European style)  119, 125, 140, 168 a la turka cafés (local style)  119, 168 Ali-Paša mosque  15, 16, 61, 87 ‘Alt-Wien’ buildings  213n. 60 America  4, 33, 156 Anker house (Vienna)  104 An Official Tour Through Bosnia and Herzegovina  108 anti-Semitism  29 apartment buildings see building(s) apartment life and layouts  133–9 Apollo (fireproof cinema)  167 approaches and historical context  4–7 archbishopric of Bosnia  68, 90, 91 architects and style, of building see building(s) architectural language, in Hapsburg Empire  9 architecture  1, 9, 15, 24–6, 33, 43, 58, 60, 64, 86, 94, 95, 137, 171 Bosnian type  25 central-European  9 folk culture  94 Islamic  94 Islamic vernacular  25 Oriental style  25, 117, 118, 161 Secession  104 vernacular  94 Western-style  95 Architekt, Der  94 areas of development  78–80

Arhiv Bosne i Hercegovine (National Archive)  74 Army Veterans’ Society  142 Arts and Crafts Museum (Zagreb)  145 Arts and Sciences  142 Ashkenazi Jewish Community  92, 127 Ashkenazi Jews  6, 26, 68, 84, 85, 89, 92, 127 Atlantic Monthly  44 Atmejdan  167 ‘aus Bosnien und Dalmatien’  94 Austrian enthusiasm, for recording  80 Austrian Province, Sarajevo as new capital of  33 building regulations and implementation  43–8 civil presence  59–64 confessional public buildings  64–9 infrastructure  53–5 military presence  57–9 priorities  35–43 public health and safety  48–53 record, importance of  55–7 schools  69–72 transport and communications  53–5 Austrian Sisters of Charity  30 Austro-Hungarian administration  1, 2, 7, 26, 29, 131, 149, 182 Austro-Hungarian bank  128, 129 Austro-Hungarian Delegations  113 Austro-Hungarian Empire  2, 5, 6, 60, 70, 119, 155, 165, 175 Austro-Hungarian policy  6, 34, 55, 69 Austro-Hungarian Zollgebiet  109 Avdage Šahinagića  101, 103 Balkans, The  4 Banja Luka  109, 131 bank(s) building  99 development  128–30 introduction  109–10

Subject Index Baščaršija  15, 17, 19, 21, 41, 55, 71, 80, 85, 102, 120, 122, 126, 127, 128, 130, 161, 163, 167, 175, 181, 185 Bautechniker, Der  11, 61, 74 Belgrade  108, 148, 155, 162 Belles Lettres  154 Bendbaša  52, 70 ‘Bendbašigasse 4’  168 Bergrath (Director of Mines)  113 Berlin  34, 40, 93, 141, 144 Besarović family  86, 90 ‘Bethlehem’ orphanage  66 Bet Tefila  69 Bezirke  110 bezistan  20 Bistrik area  21, 35, 39, 52, 53, 57, 58, 61, 62, 77, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 124, 181 Bjelava area  52, 66, 77, 80, 83, 84, 85, 181 ‘Board of Health’  24 Borki (Grbavica)  48, 121 Bosanska Posta  112, 153, 222n. 29 Bosanska Vila (Bosnian Fairy)  148, 150, 154 Bosanski Vjestnik  30 Bosna  30 Bosnabahn (Bosnian Railway Company)  79 Bosnia-Hercegovina  5, 6, 7, 54, 81, 83, 89, 90, 94, 98, 99, 101, 102, 131, 133, 144, 145, 146, 149, 150, 151, 155, 156, 167, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186 administration work  108 Austro-Hungarian rule, demise of  4 economic activity  111, 112, 113, 119, 130 economic changes  108–12 economic development  78 economic history  107–8 Franz Ferdinand, assassination of  4 historians  4 Ottoman rule  2 Secession architecture  104 see also Bosnian economy, development of Bosnian administration  182 ‘Bosnian bath’  23 Bosnian Catholics  28 see also specific entries

245

Bosnian economy, development of  107 banks, development of  128–30 business networks  112–15 economic changes  108–12 Lagerhaus  112–15 local businesses  115–19 Schmarda  112–15 shops and services, at street level  119–28 Bosnian national identity (bošnjaštvo)  6, 64, 143, 145, 147, 186 Bosnian Parliament  57, 129 ‘Bosnian style’ building see building(s) Bosnian war (1992–1995)  1 Bosnische Post  112, 123, 131, 140, 145, 151, 152, 153, 159, 160, 186 Bosnischer Bote  14, 38, 52, 54, 55, 66, 69, 70, 81, 99, 117, 118, 119, 120, 125, 127, 136, 138, 140, 141, 143, 162, 164, 173, 177, 214–15n. 75 bošnjaštvo  145, 147 ‘bourgeoisie’  28 Branilaca Sarajeva  121 brewery  92, 103, 110, 113, 117, 118, 124, 140, 166, 185 Bridge on the Drina, The  56 Britain  13, 30, 101, 144 Brno  93 Brunner and Co.  122 Brussels  64 Budapest  8, 34, 40, 42, 49, 54, 64, 71, 88, 93, 95, 112, 128, 131, 134, 137, 139, 144, 161, 164, 168, 171, 175, 176, 182, 183, 186 Budweis/Budĕjovice  56, 141 building(s)  20 apartment  3, 7, 40, 41, 58, 74, 78, 79, 80, 86, 88, 105, 131 architects and style  92–5, 184 Austro-Hungarian  9 ‘Bosnian style’  102, 103, 184 chronological and visual survey  95–105 Corps-Commando building  58, 91 development  3, 6, 87–90, 111, 154, 183 European-style  183 see also middle-class building development

246

Subject Index

European pattern  93 European-style  21, 103 industry  107, 115, 117 institutional  79 Ješua Salom  160–1 methods  24–6 mixed-use type  161 ‘National Alpine’ style  101 post-occupation  95 private see private buildings public see public buildings regulations  35, 41, 42, 43–8, 49, 74, 92, 93, 114, 116, 128, 139, 182, 183 religious  65, 69 Secession style  68, 94, 99, 101, 137, 173, 178 stambeno-poslovna (residentialbusiness)  97 three-storey  98, 100 trade  48, 75, 115, 116, 121 Western-style  73, 98 Bulgaria  31, 154 bureaucracy  53, 62, 115 Burlington Arcade  161 business community  3, 34, 107, 111, 113, 185 business networks  112–15, 153 Butmir  147, 177 Buttazoni and Venturini  116, 121, 123 Café Central  169 Café Kunerth/Pratschke  169, 170, 171 cafés  168–71 see also specific entries Capital Cities in the Aftermath of Empires  8 capital investment  54, 78, 90, 109, 184 capitalism  73, 112 Careva džamija (Sultan’s mosque)  21 carpet factory  103, 117, 121, 124 Čaršija  19, 28, 84, 85, 119, 120 Casino (Officer’s Club)  58, 59 ‘Castell’  16, 57 cathedral square  55, 62, 81, 97, 112, 117, 122, 137, 145, 161, 163 Catholics  5, 30, 64, 65, 83, 85, 86, 88, 123, 127 see also specific entries Ćehaja  19

Čemaluša  61, 69, 78, 80, 83, 121–2, 124, 126 Ćemerlina  41 cemetery  51, 83, 123, 186 Christian  22, 39, 49, 50 European  178 Muslim  22 Protestant  179 Sephardic Jews  22, 155 see also European ways of death censorship  6, 10, 30, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 186 Census  4, 22, 27, 34, 38, 53, 55–7, 59, 75 central Europe  134, 169, 178, 183 see also Europe Central Worker’s Group  142 Chamber of Commerce and Industry  110, 111, 117, 129 Christian School Brothers  69 chronological and visual survey, of buildings see building(s) city-centre shopping  161–5 city council  1, 35, 38, 41, 45, 47–49, 52, 55, 64, 73, Civil-Adlatus  101, 143, 155, 159, 179 civilizing mission  31, 34, 39, 72, 108, 111, 133, 146, 155, 182 civil presence  59–64 civil society  140, 186 Clubs for Government Officials  142 Čobanija bridge  49, 83, 84, 85, 124 confessional allegiance  5, 82, 113, 127 confessional (community) groups  87, 184 confessional property ownership  82–7 confessional public buildings  64–9 confession(s)  4, 5, 6, 22, 26–31, 34, 38, 51, 64, 65, 68, 69, 72, 81, 82–7, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 105, 120, 126, 128, 129, 141, 143, 147, 166, 181, 184 Congress of Berlin  31, 33 conspicuous consumption, and cultures of urban display  159 cafés  168–71 city-centre shopping  161–5 entertainment  165–8 European ways of death  178–9 hotels  171–3 Ilidža spa, tourism and development of  173–7

Subject Index Constantinople architectural school  25 construction  25, 49, 55, 62, 64, 79, 94, 97, 178, 182 chimney  45 mud-brick  95, 96 sanitary facilities  46 timber frame house  95, 96 consumer culture  108, 168 consumption  3, 4, 105, 157 conspicuous see conspicuous consumption; cultures of urban display European models  159 middle-class  179, 186 Western  118, 128 Corps-Commando building see building(s) Cowes week  154 craft work  94, 118, 181 credit institutions  88, 110, 183 Credit Reform Club  142 Croat Catholics  126 see also specific entries Croatia  5, 54, 148 Croatian Central Bank  128 Croats  2, 127, 143, 166 Cubism  104 Čukovićgasse  112, 115, 123, 153 Čumurija bridge  41, 123, 166, 169 Czechoslavakia  129 Czechs  143 Daughters of Divine Love  66 decoration  100 architectural  97 external  98, 99 terracotta  97, 98, 99, 116 demography, and confessions  26–31 ‘De-Ottomanisation’ of Balkan cityscapes  94 department store (Salom)  128, 164 Despića street  22 Directionsrath  113 Dom Kanonika  66 Donja Hiseta  16 Dreyfus case  54 Dual Monarchy  65, 93 see also Monarchy Džidžikovac  22, 53

247

economic activity  111, 112, 113, 119, 130 economic development  14, 39, 54, 78, 108, 109, 112, 120, 129, 130, 186 economic growth  77, 110, 119 economic policies  3, 82, 107–8 economic success  111, 173 education  24, 29, 30, 66, 69, 70, 131, 133, 142, 145, 147, 155, 167 Eldridge Pope of Dorchester  117 emigration  27, 77 ‘Emperor of Austria, The’  99 employment  39, 48, 108, 110, 119, 121, 125, 126, 127 England  117, 148 ‘English domestic revival’  101 entertainment Apollo  167 Babić, sale of site to  165 cinema  167 City Council supervision  166 Croatian theatre company  166 German theatre company  165 Imperial cinema (Napredak)  167 La Benevolencija  166 music  167–8 Napredak palace  167 Salomon Salom  165 theatre  165–7 Vereinshaus  166 Western styles  165 Europe  2, 3, 4, 5, 29, 33, 35, 45, 48, 56, 65, 88, 93, 94, 102, 110, 114, 133, 136, 144, 146, 148, 149, 152, 154, 156, 159–60, 176, 177, 178, 183, 186, 187 see also specific entries European consumer goods  185 ‘European’ middle-class culture  3 European middle-class lifestyle  87 see also specific entries European models of consumption see consumption of private property development  88 European-style building lines  42 ‘European’ style café  168, 169 European-style development  2, 124 European ways of death  178–9 see also cemetery

248

Subject Index

European ways of knowing and understanding  144–50 Evangelical German Church  68 Evangelical Protestants (Augsburg Confession)  92, 127

Graz  44, 93, 176 Grbavica (Borki)  48, 121 great fire, of 1879  20, 22, 26, 41, 52, 66, 74, 75, 78, 80, 82, 83, 109, 183 Gymnasium  70

factories and industrial enterprises  117 Ferhadija  55, 83, 97, 104, 121, 122, 123, 137, 141, 173 financial institutions  109, 110, 184 Fincis  86, 90 Fin-de-Siècle Vienna  7 fire safety  45–6, 47, 182 ‘First National Government of Bosnia-Hercegovina’  181 Fiume  54 Fledermaus, Die  166 Florentine Renaissance  61 foreign capital investment  184 see also capital investment Forgotten Sarajevo  176 Franciscan monastery  21, 103, 118, 175 Franciscans  28, 35, 66, 68 Franjevaćka glasnik (Franciscan Herald)  154 Franz Josefsgasse  65, 67, 121–2, 123, 125, 126, 128, 154, 161, 163, 164, 169 see also Zelenih Beretki Franz Steinmetz and Co.  122

Haas, Philip  117 Haggadah  147 haj  181 Halilbašića  24 hamam (baths)  122 Hamdija Kreševljakovića  79, 91 Handelsschule (commercial school)  99, 121 han  15, 21 Hapsburg administration  6, 33, 102 Hapsburg Monarchy  56 see also Monarchy Hapsburg policy  5, 6, 143, 152 Herrengasse  93 Herrenklub (Gentleman’s Club)  142 Hiseta region  39, 55, 80, 87 H. Nurudinbeg Azabagić family  103 Hotel Austria  176 Hotel Central  171, 173 Hotel Europa  83, 85, 169, 171, 173 Hotel Ghazi  173 Hotel Golden Lamb  173 Hotel Kontinental  173 hotels  171–3 Hotel Stari Grad  173 houses/household statistics in 1879  75, 76, 77 in 1885  75, 76, 77 in 1895  75, 76, 77 in 1910  75, 76, 77 housing development  83, 116 Hradec Králové  129 Hrvatin area  80, 83, 84, 85, 124, 181 Hrvatski dnevnik (Croatian Daily)  152 Hulusina  118 Hungarian General Credit Bank  110 Hungarians  143 Hungary  93, 94, 134

Gajret (Muslim Student-Support Society)  142 Garden and the Workshop, The  49, 136 Gastwirthe  120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 168 Gazi Husrev-beg mosque  15 Gemeindevertretung see city council  35 Gentlemen’s Club  167 Germany  5, 42, 44, 148 Glasnik Zemaljska Muzeja (GZM)  144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 155, 156, 186 ‘good government’  3, 34, 57, 60, 71 Gorica  101 Gostioničari  168 Gothic script  178 Grad area  16, 83, 84, 85, 181 Grand Hotel  173

Ilidža spa, tourism and development of  173–7 immigrant(s)  2, 3, 10, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 93, 105, 107, 112, 115, 116, 125, 150, 156, 184, 185, 186

Subject Index Imperial cinema (Napredak)  167 import-export business  19, 54, 108, 109, 114, 120 Impressions of a Journey through the Western Balkans  174 industrial development  129, 185 industrialization  19, 33 industrial policy  107 infrastructure  2, 3, 23, 33, 34, 35, 53–5, 60, 64, 71, 74, 107, 109, 110, 133, 174, 182 institutional buildings see building(s) interior furnishings and fittings  160 International Statistical Congress  56 investment capital see capital investment investors  87–90 Iron Cross  178 Istanbul  5, 27 Istorijski Arhiv Sarajevo (city archive)  73–4 Italian Gothic  61 Italian Renaissance  61 Italy  5, 155 Iz društva (‘From Society’)  140 Jekovac  25 Jelića  96 Joint-Stock Brewery Company  113, 140 Kaiserkrone  173 Kaiserstrasse  125 Kaptol  86, 102 Kasparek Bruder  122, 161 Kataster map  15, 16, 19, 22, 29, 57, 80, 81 Kingdom of Serbs  2 Knabenpensionat  58 konak  15, 21, 35, 66, 69, 103, 124, 125 Konakgasse (Konak, Franjevačka)  124 Koševo district  15, 16, 21, 39, 49, 51, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 99, 116, 121, 122, 123, 127, 178, 181, 183 Kovači area  16, 77, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90, 102, 181 Kovačića  83 Kralja Tvrtka street  87 Kranken und Unterstützungsverein  141 Kreisgericht (regional court)  39 Kršla  21

249

Kultura i umjetnost u Bosni i Hercegovini pod austrougarskom upravom  143 La Benevolencija (the Sephardic Jewish welfare society)  68, 166 Lagerhaus  112–15 Laibach (Ljubljana)  57 Landesbank  99, 111, 113, 173 Landeschef  159 Landesregierung (provincial government)  16, 21, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 52, 54, 55, 60, 61, 62, 65, 93, 98, 101, 110, 115, 140, 145, 153, 159, 165 Landesverwaltung  38, 59 Last Days of Pompeii, The  167 Latinluk area  22, 29, 30, 41, 66, 85 Leipzig  108, 148, 155, 175 library  1, 11, 24, 58, 168 see also specific entries lifestyle  3, 4, 8 European  2, 87, 130, 167 middle-class  28, 112, 134, 139, 156, 186 Western  161 local business community, role of  107 local businesses  115–19 Local Government Board  43 Logavina  80 London  40, 49, 51 madrassas (religious secondary schools)  29 Magistratsamt  38, 47, 48 Magistratsbeamte  1 mahala  22, 23, 80 ‘Making of Fin-de-Siècle Sarajevo, The’  6 Männergesangverein see Men’s Choral Society Maria Stewart  166 Marijin Dvor area  40, 79, 80, 87, 116 Maršala Tita street  60, 66, 83, 86, 104, 121, 139, 167 ‘Medical and Humanitarian Establishments’  52 mektebs (Koranic primary schools)  29 Men’s Choral Society  140, 141, 142, 144, 167

250

Subject Index

Merry Wives of Windsor, The  141 Metropolitan Board of Public Works  42 middle-class building development  73 architects and style  92–5 areas of development  78–80 building development  87–90 chronological and visual survey  95–105 mapping and recording change  80–2 private development  73, 74–8 private ownership  80–2 property ownership, by confession  82–7 property portfolios  90–2 middle-class culture  3, 159–60 middle-class living pattern  8, 108, 133, 134 middle-class society, development of  131 apartment life and layouts  133–9 clubs and societies  139–44 European ways of knowing and understanding  144–50 newspapers and periodicals  150–7 military presence  57–9 Miljacka  16, 23, 26, 41, 48, 79, 80, 103 Minoan civilization  13 M. M. Bašeskije  96, 97, 100, 102, 104, 114, 121, 127, 137, 173 modern-style housing  79 Monarchy  5, 38, 39, 51, 54, 57, 61, 65, 109, 119, 127, 133, 141, 149, 165 see also Dual Monarchy; Hapsburg Monarchy money  200n. 40 Moravia  93 Mostar  108, 110, 116, 176 Mother Tongue and National Affiliation (census)  211n. 39 ‘mud-caked primitive village’  4 multi-disciplinary ‘bottom-up’ approach  9 Munich  54 Museum Society  145, 146, 147, 148, 150 Music and Singing  142 Muslim(s)  5, 6, 27, 28, 35, 51, 69, 83, 85, 92, 113, 126, 183, 184 buildings  86, 90

demographic change, by confession  89 percentage of total building, by confession  89 population  88 Nada  123, 155, 156, 186 Nadkovaći  22 Napredak (Progress) society  104 Imperial  167 ‘palace’  167 National, Gymnastics, Tourism and Sport  142 ‘National Alpine’ style building  101 National and University Library of Bosnia and Hercegovina  1 national identity (bošnjaštvo)  5 see also Bosnian national identity (bošnaštvo) nationalism  5 National Museum and Military Post Office  121 National Museum Society  78 Natural History Museum (South Kensington)  144 networking  3, 6, 10, 21, 55, 107, 109, 153, 169, 185 Neolithic settlement, at Butmir  147 Neretva  30 Neue Augsburger Postzeitung  131 newspapers, and periodicals  150–7 non-Muslim land ownership  83 ‘non-national rule,’ rejection of  108 Nova ulica (‘New street’)  51, 125, 126 Obala Kulina Bana  70, 87, 128, 129 Oesterreichisch-Ungarische, Die Monarchie in Wort und Bild  177 Orendi house (Vienna)  104 Oriental congress in Stockholm and Christiania (Oslo)  148 Orientalism  7 Oriental style see architecture Oslobodjenje Trg  55, 118, 120, 128 Ottoman architectural models  9 Ottoman Empire  5, 31, 39, 109 Ottoman law  43, 82, 83 Ottoman millet system  6, 14, 29 Ottoman period  22, 40, 44, 65, 94, 119, 163, 181

Subject Index Ottoman Sarajevo  13 architecture and building methods  24–6 demography and confessions  26–31 urban spatial separation  16–24 Ottoman-style houses  75, 78 ownership see private ownership Paris  8, 34, 42, 49, 54, 93, 108, 118, 154, 155, 160, 164, 185 Parisi Udvar  64, 161 paša  27 Pension Fund Administration building  79 piano nobile  63, 139 Pitt-Rivers Museum  148 planning applications  38, 47, 49, 81, 115, 140, 169, 202n. 69 Platz Commando  124 Poles  143 population accuracy  77 in 1879  76, 77, 87 in 1885  76, 77 in 1895  76, 77, 108 in 1910  76, 77, 87 Muslim  88 Portugal  5 Prague  29, 30, 57, 104, 129, 155, 183 press censorship  30–1 see also censorship ‘Prince Eugen’ barracks  57 private buildings  73, 74–8, 93, 183 private investment  92, 183 private ownership  80–2 private property  88 Privilegirte Landesbank  110 property ownership, by confession  82–7 property portfolios  90–2 property transfer  82, 83 protokollirt  120, 121, 125, 163, 168 ‘pseudo-Moorish’ style  94 public buildings  24, 42, 59, 60, 62, 64–9, 71, 72, 73, 92, 93, 129 see also confessional public buildings Public Health Act  43 public health and safety  46, 48–53

251

Ragusa (Dubrovnik)  22 Rathaus (town hall)  41, 49, 55, 64, 123, 175 real estate development  185 investment  88, 91 ownership  90 private investment  183 Realgymnasium  70 record, importance of  55–7 Regierungscommissar  38, 47, 115, 143, 144, 152, 166 Regierungspalast  60, 78, 79, 101, 182 Regulirungsplan  41, 42 Regulirungs-plan von Sarajevo  95 Religious and Benevolent Funds  142 religious buildings see building(s) Rigorozo in Summer  141 Ringstrasse  33, 34, 79, 93, 112 robot  53, 55 Roman Catholics  5, 14, 28, 51, 65, 89, 127, 178 see also specific entries Romania  94 ‘Romanticism’  101 Rudolfsgasse  55, 58, 67, 97, 122, 123, 161, 169, 178 protokollirt business  163 shops and businesses  162 type of food sold  163 see also Štrosmajerova Sahtijanuša (Mis Irbina)  124 St Anthony of Padua  66 St Petersburg  56, 155, 164 St Thomas’s Hospital  51 Salom palace  86, 105 Sarajevan model, of urban modernity  2, 186 Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave  89 Sarajevski List  54, 59, 61, 98, 99, 140, 143, 151, 154, 169 savings banks  110, 186 Saxony Law  44 ‘Schema der bosnisch-hercegovinischen Behőrden und ihrer Organe’  38 Schools and Education  26–31, 69–72, 142 Secession architecture  104

252

Subject Index

Secession style  68, 94, 99, 101, 137, 173, 178 Selam  131, 152, 174 Sephardic Jews  5, 14, 22, 26, 29, 36, 65, 68, 69, 84, 87, 89, 92, 127, 163 cemetery  155 clients  184 community  29, 35, 86, 90, 102, 113 demographic change, by confession  89 families  91 percentage of total building, by confession  89 population  83, 184 Serbia  5, 148, 154 Serbian Orthodox (community)  5, 13–14, 26, 27, 28, 29, 51, 64, 65, 66, 68, 82–3, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 92, 98, 113, 121, 123, 126, 165, 166, 178, 179, 183 Serbian Orthodox Church School community  5, 15, 22, 28, 35, 65, 68, 86, 90, 184 Serbs  2, 28, 143, 166 sharia law  19, 109 Sheriat Law School  65, 67, 68, 184 S. H. Muvekita  70, 97, 99, 100, 123 shops and services, at street level  119–28 Sijavuš Paša Daire (Velika avlija)  22 Sime Milutinovića  22, 166 Sisters of Charity  66 Skenderija area  49, 52, 79, 86, 124 Sketch, The  131, 132, 174 Skopje National Library  146 Slavija bank building  129 Šljivingasse  68, 118 Sloga (Serbian Orthodox music group)  167 Slovenes  2, 143 Social and Professional  142 social clubs, and societies  139–44 Spain  5, 29 Spasojević  104 Srpska  110 Srpski rijeć (Serbian word)  152 Städtebau, Der  42 Staffelbauordnungen (zoning by height)  44 Stapelplatz (depot)  18

Štrosmajerova  55, 58, 66, 67, 92, 97, 99 see also Rudolfsgasse Subventionen (subsidies)  64 Sugárút  95 Svrzo’s house  25 Switzerland  148 Tabaktrafik  123, 125 Technical High School  93 terracotta decoration see decoration Theresiengasse  124, 127 Through Savage Europe  171 Timoşoara  176 tourism, development of  160 Trade and Industry  142 Trade and Transport Joint-Stock Company  92, 112, 113, 114 transport and communications  53–5 Travels and Politics in the Near East  152 Treaty of San Stefano  31 Trebević (Croatian singing group)  27, 144, 167 Trieste  19, 54, 109, 175 Turkey  154 Turkish law  28 Tuzla  108, 110, 113 Unionbank  113 urban development  1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 42, 43, 49, 52, 80, 181, 183 Urbánek house  129 urban modernity  2, 8, 33, 51, 183, 186 urban planning  8, 42, 43 urban spatial separation  16–24 vakuf  15, 20, 24, 26–31, 35, 37, 49, 51, 61, 65, 67, 68, 90, 135, 169, 171, 172, 173, 184, 192–3n. 10 Vakufs-commission  65, 67, 90, 135, 169, 171 Valtera Perića  86, 87, 99 Vareš  19 Vatican  65 Velika Avlija (‘Great yard’)  83, 102 Venturini  116, 121, 123 Vereinshaus (Social Club)  166 Vienna  1, 7, 8, 11, 19, 33, 38, 42, 49, 50, 54, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 71, 81, 87, 88, 93, 94, 95, 96, 104, 112, 113, 117, 118, 119, 128, 133, 134, 139,

Subject Index

253

144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 154, 155, 156, 160, 161, 166, 171, 175, 182, 183, 186 Vienna Academy of Fine Art  93 Vienna Anthropological Society  133, 148 Viennese Secession  100 Viennese-style apartment block  79 vijećnica (town hall)  64 ‘Villa Mathilde’  99, 100 Višegrad  56 Volks-Actien Bank  98 Vratnik area  16, 25, 39, 80, 102 Vrhbosna  154

Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und der Hercegovina  146, 147 women, role of  107, 125 Women’s Society  141, 142, 143 workshop(s)  15, 18, 19, 21, 45, 46, 55, 71, 81, 118, 119, 121, 124, 125, 127, 130, 136, 181, 185 World Fair  118 World War I  2, 104, 105, 129, 133 Württemberg  61

Western Europe  114, 134, 144 see also Europe Western lifestyle see lifestyle Western-style architecture see architecture Western-style buildings see building(s) Western-style exploration  145 Western-style urban development  181 Wiener Bankverein  113 Wiener Union Bank  110

Zagreb  66, 78, 148, 166 Zelenih Beretki  41, 65, 67, 86, 121, 161, 221n. 18 see also Franz Josefsgasse Zemaljski Muzej/Landesmuseum  144 Zenica  108 Zigeunerviertel (gypsy quarter)  79 Zionism, rise of  5

Yellow Bastion  49 Yugoslavia  4, 134