TIME IN THE NOVELS OF MILOS CRNJANSKI - Nottingham eTheses

CHAPTER ONE
Russia (101).
In his interview with Vuleti6 he was more
explicit about how the two came to be published
toaether:
Oba romana itampala je SK Zadruaa za
svoju (ne moju) 70 &odiinjicu. Ona ih
je itampala soju~eno. To nije bila moja
namera. To soju~enje stvorilo je veze
koje su bile i intensije pisca. ali i
takve koje nisu bile intensije pisca
(102) •
Both novels were printed bv Srpska
knji~evna zadru&a for its (and not my)
seventieth anniversary. It printed them
toaether. That was not mv intention.
Print ina them toaether created bonds
which were the writer's intentions. but
others which were not the writer's
intentions.
As he pointed out to Vuleti6. Dru&a knjiaa seoba was
written "pod sasvim druaim okolnostima" ("in completelv
different circumstances" 103).
Critical opinion on the links between the two
novels varies.
When Dru&a knji&a seoba first appeared
in Belarade a round-table discussion was held in the
offices of the journal ~. and afterwards published
in its paaes.
Muharem Pervi6 considered that the two
books were part of the same work:
Seobe i Dru&a knji&a seoba su jedna
knjiaa. is istoa aenzibiliteta. knjiaa
po~eta i zavrlena u naioj duhovnoj i
literarnoj klimi prvihdecenija
dvadesetoa veka (1011.).
Seobe and Druaa knji&a seoba are one
book. from the same senaibilitv.a book
beaun and completed in our spiritual and
literarv climate of the first deeades of
the twentieth centurv.
Borislav Mihajlovi6 countered Perv16 bv po1nt1na to the
12