ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS AS THE (CONFESSIONAL) OTHER IN KANIŽLIĆ’S CHURCH HISTORY AND THEOLOGICAL TREATISE KAMEN PRAVI SMUTNJE VELIKE [THE REAL STUMBLING-BLOCK OF THE GREAT DISCORD] (OSIJEK, 1780)

Uz primjenu imagološke analitičke metode, a na temelju Kanižlićeva kontroverzističkog djela Kamen pravi smutnje velike (Osijek, 1780), rad se bavi fenomenom konstituiranja konfesionalnog (katoličkog) identiteta i (pravoslavnog) alteriteta kao središnjeg dijela problematike. S obzirom na to da je u imagološkoj analizi vrlo važan društveno-povijesni kontekst rad se, osim na književnopovijesnim, zasniva i na kulturnopovijesnim spoznajama. Konfesionalna se drugost stoga nastoji jasnije definirati analizom suodnosa autopredodžbi i heteropredodžbi na relaciji katolici – pravoslavci u 18. stoljeću, ponajprije na području Slavonije. Na temelju takve analize glavna je svrha rada otkriti kako se oblikuje vjerski identitet, odnosno kroz suodnos autopredodžbi i heteropredodžbi „(re)konstruirati” bipolarnost identitet vs. alteritet. Alteritet (drugost) poima se dakle kao konstitutivni i komplementarni pojam u odnosu na pojam identitet i ujedno se definira svojom suprotnošću i inferiornošću u odnosu na identitet. (Hall 2006: 357–374) Specifičnost istraživačkog predmeta u ovome su radu identitetske razlike – dva konfesionalna identiteta (katolički i pravoslavni) na istom političkom prostoru (Habsburške Monarhije). U radu se, također, nastoji obrazložiti zašto su pravoslavni Grci vrednovani izrazito negativno (kao glavni krivci za crkveni raskol), a pravoslavni Slaveni (atribuirani kao braća) dominantno pozitivno.With the help of application of the imagological analytical method on Kanižlić’s controversial work Kamen pravi smutnje velike (Osijek, 1780) this paper deals with the constitution of confessional (Catholic) identity and (Orthodox) alterity. Given the importance of the socio-historical context in the imagological analysis, the paper takes into account not only the history of literature, but also the history of culture. The paper therefore aims to shed light on the confessional Otherness through the analysis of the interrelation of auto-images and hetero-images between the Catholic and the Orthodox Christians in the 18th century, primarily in Slavonia. The main purpose of this paper is to investigate the way in which religious identity is formed, in other words, to “(re)construct” the bipolarity of identity and alterity through the interrelation between auto-images and hetero-images. Alterity (Otherness) is, therefore, perceived as a constituent of and a complementary concept to the concept of identity and is also defined by its opposite and inferior character in relation to identity. (Hall 2006: 357–374) The specificity of the research topic in this paper are identity differences – two confessional identities (Catholic and Orthodox) in the same political area, primarily that of the Habsburg Monarchy. The paper also seeks to explain a different evaluation of the Orthodox Greeks (highly negative, seen as the main culprits that brought about the Schism) and the Orthodox Serbs (the Grenzers) in the Monarchy (ambivalent, but predominantly positive). On the basis of such a negative evaluation of Greeks, it can be concluded that there was an attempt in the Catholic polemics to portray the Orthodox Greeks, along with Ottomans, as dangerous religious enemies of the Catholics and Orthodox Christians (the Slavs) in the Monarchy. Laying the biggest blame on the Orthodox Greek renegades (who are arrogant, uncompromising and the main culprits who brought about the schism amongst Christian brothers) thus becomes a common procedure and probably a consciously chosen method in the Catholic religious polemics of the eighteenth century, whose main goal was to convince the Orthodox Christians to join the union