Miroslav Krle？a’s Comments on Albert Haler

Sa？etak Miroslav Krle？a (1893–1981) made frequent remarks on the views propounded by Croatian philosophers, as in the case of his contemporary Albert Haler (1883–1945?). Krle？a’s first mention of Haler, a philosopher who later distinguished himself as an aesthetician of Crocean views, literary theoretician and historian, dates from 1923, when in a letter to his wife Bela Krle？a remarked on Haler as being a good and elegant writer from Dubrovnik. Later, Krle？a criticised Haler’s worldview and his approach to aesthetic topics in three of his articles published in 1939 and 1940 in the journal Pe？at, as well as in his diary entries from 1942. The same topics underlie Haler’s criticism of Krle？a towards the end of 1938 and during 1939. Krle？a thought that Haler criticised him as well as other authors of the social or ‘Left’ literature so as to draw attention to the detrimental influence of the “so-called Left book,” claiming that Haler intentionally ignored “whole piles of ideological logs in his views” (in “The Purpose of Pe？at and Discussion about It”). Krle？a also remarked that Haler was a “God-pleasing literary idealist” who had written a “study on the depoetisation of art,” and that the mentioned depoetisation, according to Krle？a’s interpretation of Haler, “we systematically execute, as genuine incarnations of Satan in human shape” (in “Dialectical Antibarbarus”). Haler’s essay “Depoetisation of Con temporary Life” or, as Krle？a put it, a “pamphlet on the depoetisation of art,” Krle？a singled out as an example of continuous attacks during which “all those Halers” fired their “heaviest cannons” at him (in “The Ruin of Reason”). He considered Haler as one of the leaders of the “pamphleteering action” against him (diary entry from 1942). His final observations on Haler Krle？a expressed around 1960 within his marginalia concerning Frange？’s encyclopaedic entry on Croatian literary criticism. On that occasion, he informed Ivo Frange？ that “Haler’s Crocean views on our literature” had not been properly examined in his entry, adding that Haler used a “one-sided criterion” while assessing “our literature.” Therefore, the antagonism that surrounded the relationship between Krle？a and Haler from 1938 was largely rooted in their different ideological orientation, which eventually spilt over into the field of aesthetics. Excluding the letter from 1923, Krle？a exposed his disagreement with Haler’s views in at least three articles, in his diary entries and in his lexicographic marginalia. Consequently, at least six of Krle？a’s bibliographical units from 1939 to 1963