Knežević Challenges Historical Authorship in Open Letter

In an open letter addressed to the revered figure of Petar II Petrović Njegoš, the President of the Democratic People’s Party, Milan Knežević, has raised provocative questions regarding the authorship of the iconic work, Gorski vijenac. Knežević’s letter, marked by a blend of admiration and critical inquiry, touches on contemporary issues surrounding Montenegro’s identity and its historical narrative.

Knežević begins by acknowledging the way people commemorate Njegoš on this significant day, with many quoting his verses and laying wreaths at his grave. He contrasts this with his own approach, admitting that he initially considered quoting one of Njegoš’s lines but felt it unnecessary given the current disarray among Montenegrins. The letter suggests a deep reflection on how Njegoš is perceived today, with Knežević expressing a desire to steer the conversation towards more pressing concerns.

The core of Knežević’s letter lies in his inquiry about the authenticity of Njegoš’s literary contributions. He asks, “Did you truly write Gorski vijenac?” This question stems from claims that the work may have been attributed to Ilija Garašanin, described by Knežević as a “corrupt genocidaire.” The letter reveals a growing skepticism surrounding the historical narrative that has long been accepted in Montenegro, particularly in light of political changes and the current trajectory towards European integration.

Knežević expresses concern about Montenegro’s standing in the European Parliament, imagining a scenario where he might have to listen to discussions about Montenegro recognizing Kosovo. He highlights how figures like Obilić and Karađorđe have become associated with radical ideologies, raising alarms about the implications for national identity. His vivid imagery underscores a deep-seated anxiety over how Montenegro’s past is being interpreted and used in contemporary politics.

The letter also touches on generational shifts, as Knežević notes that today’s youth, the Z Generation, hold different views about national identity compared to previous generations. He questions whether the values associated with Njegoš still resonate or if they have been lost in the modern political landscape.

Knežević’s critique extends beyond literature and history, addressing the troubling dynamics of nationalism and identity in Montenegro. He provocatively suggests that if Njegoš does not acknowledge the misuse of his identity, then perhaps a new version of Gorski vijenac should be written, one that reflects the current realities of drug trafficking and corruption.

In closing, Knežević wishes Njegoš a happy birthday, despite the controversial tone of his letter. He emphasizes the urgency of confronting these issues, stating, “I have no one else to turn to.” This open letter not only serves as a personal reflection but also as a call to engage in a broader dialogue about Montenegro’s future and its historical narrative. The implications of Knežević’s words resonate with the ongoing discussions regarding national identity, literature, and the legacy of historical figures in the context of contemporary politics.