7
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  
A S  T H E  S T A T E ’ S  T O O L  
I N  M O D I F I C A T I O N  O F  
P U B L I C  S P A C E  A N D 
I T S  I D E N T I T Y :  T H E 
Y U G O S L A V I A N  C O N C E P T  
O F  T H E  T W O  S Q U A R E S  
I N  M A R I B O R
S a r a  H a j d i n a c
Introduction1
Designing public spaces is closely connected to the preservation of 
memory and identity of a place. Psychologist Jane Kroger described 
identity as the subjective impression of continuity of various places and 
social positions over time.2 Sociologist Jean-Paul Codol understood 
identity mainly in terms of relations between different identities,3 to 
which architect Christian Norberg-Schulz added a connection to space, 
grounding the notion in people’s identification, which depends on the 
1  This paper is the culmination of several years of research on the topic and derived from 
my BA thesis under the guidance of Assoc. Prof. Franci Lazarini, PhD, whom I thank for his 
mentorship and support.
2  Jane Kroger, Identity Development: Adolescence through Adulthood (Newbury Park: Sage, 
2000), 7.
3  Jean-Paul Codol, “Social differentiation and non – differentiation,” in The Social Dimen-
sion, European Developments in Social Psychology, Volume 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press, 1984), 315–323.
https://doi.org/10.35469/poligrafi.2025.476 Poligrafi, no. 117/118, vol. 30, 2025, pp. 7–46
P o L I g r A F I
8
place in which they live.4 It has been pointed out that the word ‘iden-
tity’ holds a special meaning in public space, as it indicates a special 
meaning relation between a place and its contexts,5 while a place be-
comes a differentiated space only when people become familiar with it 
better and give it meaning.6
Individual and collective memory were discussed primarily by 
Maurice Halbwachs,7 who argued that different collectives are defined 
by the narratives from their pasts that best suit them. When a collec-
tive changes, its stories – and with them, its identity – change as well. 
Nevertheless, Halbwachs did not understand the concept of collective 
memory as national memory but rather as social (collective) and his-
torical memory that build (social) identity, i.e. memories of different 
groups of people that build their identities.8 However, this theory can 
certainly be applied to the study of public space (as every collective 
memory occurs within a spatial frame) as building blocks of collective 
memory, or the state as the entity that creates official memory. on a 
visual level, public space is most easily determined by public sculptures 
or architecture, which usually serves as an indicator of history of a cer-
tain place and the group of people that coexist within it. In his work 
The Collective Memory, Halbwachs does not directly engage with the 
question of the influence of social change on place, yet his ideas can be 
used to understand the connection between social changes and place. 
given that memories and collective memory seem to be closely tied to 
social groups, we can presume that social changes are reflected in place 
4  Christian Norberg-Schulz, Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture (New 
York: razzoli, 1980), 21–22.
5  Joel goldsteen, Cecil Elliot, Designing America: Creating Urban Identity (New York: van 
Nostrand reinhold, 1994), 29.
6  Yi-Fu Tuan, Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience (Minneapolis: University of Min-
nesota Press, 2001), 6.
7  Maurice Halbwachs, Kolektivni spomin (Ljubljana: Studia Humanitatis, 2001).
8  Jay Winter, “Foreword: remembrance as a Human right,” in Memory and Political 
Change, eds. Aleida Assmann, Linda Shortt (great Britain: CPI Antony rowe, Chippenham 
and Eastbourne, 2012), IX; notes to Halbwachs’ study were also published by Taja Kramberger, 
“Maurice Halbwachs: kolektivna memorija ni ne spomin in ne zgodovina,” Monitor ZSA: revija 
za zgodovinsko, socialno in druge antropologije 12, no. 1/2 (2010): 273–322. See also: Kramber-
ger, Taja, rotar, Drago B., “Za antropološko raziskovanje: (namesto uvoda),“ Monitor ZSA: 
revija za zgodovinsko, socialno in druge antropologije 12, no. 1/2 (2010): 9–14.
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  A S  T H E  S T A T E ' S  T O O L 
9
as well. If, for example, social relations, values, and identity change, the 
function and perception of place can also change.
Changes in content of public space are conditioned by prominent 
political and historical shifts. An example of such shift is World War I 
(1914–1918), which led to the collapse of Austro-Hungarian mon-
archy, which had included the historical region of Styria. The latter 
was divided into two parts – Austrian Styria became a part of the new 
republic of german Austria (later the republic of Austria after 1919), 
while Slovenian Styria9 became part of the newly formed Yugoslavian 
state.10 Because the new (South) Slavic state sought to sever its memo-
ries and connection to the german Austrian political entity and its 
national identity, the latter was to be removed from public spaces,11 
leaving an emptiness that was filled with new content.12 This was 
most noticeable in spaces now known as Maister Square and Liberty 
9  Slovenian Styria of today became a part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes 
only after months of conflict in the ethically varied regions of Carinthia and Styria in 1918 
and 1919, in which Franjo Malgaj and Anton Lavrič, in addition to rudolf Maister, played 
prominent roles. Distribution of territory was determined by diplomats at Paris Peace Confer-
ence (1. 11. 1918–13. 2. 1919). More on this in: Bogo grafenauer, “Narodnostno stanje in 
slovensko-nemška etnična meja na Štajerskem kot dejavnik osvoboditve severovzhodne Slo-
venije 1918/1919,” Zgodovinski časopis 33, no. 3 (1979): 385–405; Janez J. Švajncer, Slovenska 
vojska 1918-1919 (Ljubljana: Prešernova družba, 1990); Janko Kuster, ed., Spominski zbornik 
ob 60-letnici bojev za severno slovensko mejo 1918-1919 (Maribor-Ljubljana: Klub koroških 
Slovencev, Sklad Prežihovega Voranca, Zveza prostovoljcev-borcev za severno slovensko mejo 
1918-1919, 1979); Lojze Penič, Boj za slovensko severno mejo 1918-1920: kratek oris bojev za 
slovensko severno mejo po razpadu Avstro-Ogrske (Maribor: Muzej narodne osvoboditve Maribor, 
1988); Lojze Ude, Boj za severno slovensko mejo: 1918-1919 (Maribor: Založba obzorja, 1977); 
Valerija Bernik, “general rudolf Maister v vojaških dogodkih na območju Maribora in sloven-
skega Štajerskega v letih 1918 in 1919,” Vojaška zgodovina 15, no. 2 (2019): 23–54.
10  Jurij Perovšek, “Ustavna razprava in vprašanje državne ureditve,” in Slovenska novejša 
zgodovina 1848–1992: Od programa Zedinjena Slovenija do mednarodnega priznanja Republike 
Slovenije (Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2005), 240–244; Jurij 
Perovšek, “Značaj kraljeve diktature,” in Slovenska novejša zgodovina 1848–1992: Od programa 
Zedinjena Slovenija do mednarodnega priznanja Republike Slovenije (Ljubljana: Mladinska knji-
ga, Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2005), 321–323.
11  Memorial monument locations are visible on Maribor city plan of 1893, published in: Jože 
Curk, Primož Premzl, Mariborske vedute (Maribor: Umetniški kabinet Primož Premzl, 2004), 
138–139; Jerneja Ferlež, ed., Deutsche und Maribor. Ein Jahrhundert der Wenden 1846–1946 
(Maribor: Umetniški kabinet Primož Premzl, 2012), 22–23.
12  Between 1918 and 1941, only three memorial monuments were constructed in Maribor, 
yet many more were demolished or removed from public spaces. The artistic emptiness of 
public space in Maribor is evident from the content of the Jutro newsletter “since the symbols 
P o L I g r A F I
10
Square. Accordingly, many memorials of historically important figures 
of Maribor were removed. Today’s general Maister Square (formerly 
Tegetthoffplatz in the Austro-Hungarian era, Yugoslavia Square after 
1918, and later Lenin Square) once contained the memorial of Maribor-
born Admiral Wilhelm von Tegethoff (Heinrich Fuss, 1882).13 The me-
morial is considered the most important landmark in Maribor’s public 
space during the Austro-Hungarian era.14 
Liberty Square is located east of the city castle, which once belonged 
to the Brandis noble family. The space was created in the early 19th 
century, when the city’s defensive ditch was filled in and replaced by a 
castle garden, which was later bought by the municipality in the 1860s 
to create a straw and hay market. The square was named Sophienplatz 
after Countess Sophia Brandis until 1918, when it was renamed Liberty 
Square.15
of german thought have gone, Maribor has been without memorials.” (“Postavimo spomenik 
našemu Parmi,“ Mariborski večernik Jutra, 8. 1. 1935, no. 1, 2).
13  Immediately after his death in 1871, preparations were made to construct a memorial that 
would be revealed on July 10, 1883. Maribor city mayor, Matthäus reiser, wished to commis-
sion the memorial from the Viennese sculptor Carl Kundmann, the author of Tegetthoff me-
morial in Vienna. As Kundmann turned down the commission, it went to Kundmann’s former 
student, Heinrich Fuss. The latter created a portrait of Tegetthoff based on photographs of his 
later years. He also added bronze personifications (full body female figures) of Helgoland and 
Vis, where the vice admiral ensured his best-known victories against the Kingdom of Italy. The 
personifications were taken to the city museum (today Maribor regional Museum) after the 
collapse of the empire in 1918, and, as works of lesser importance, recast into the Memorial of the 
Fallen in the Struggle for National Liberation in 1947. The portrait of Tegetthoff was removed 
in 1918 revolution due to regime change, while the tall granite pedestal remained in the square 
at least until 1934. Sonja Žitko, Po sledeh časa: Spomeniki v Sloveniji: 1800-1914 (Ljubljana: 
Debora, 1996), 112; Jože Curk, Vodnik po Mariboru in bližnji okolici (Maribor: Umetniški 
kabinet Primož Premzl, 2000), 72.
14  Sergej Vrišer, “Znamenja in javni spomeniki v Mariboru do 1941,“ Časopis za zgodovino in 
narodopisje n. v. 7, no. 2 (1971): 188–189; Žitko, Po sledeh časa, 112; Polona Vidmar, “Lokal-
patriotismus und Lokalpolitik: die Denkmäler Wilhelms von Tegetthoff, Kaiser Josefs II. sowie 
Erzherzog Johanns in Maribor und die Familie reiser,“ Acta historiae artis Slovenica 18, no. 2 
(2013): 68–71.
15  Sašo radovanović, Mariborske ulice (Maribor: Kapital, 2005), 245.
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  A S  T H E  S T A T E ' S  T O O L 
11
Figure 1: Tegetthoff Memorial in a postcard c. 1908 (PAM/X1702, razglednica s 
Tegetthoffovim spomenikom v Mariboru).
P o L I g r A F I
12
In Search of a Location for a Serbian orthodox Church
In the new common state of South Slavs, Serbian orthodoxy was 
one – but not the only – state religion. This was evident primarily in 
citizenship ceremonies, where one had to pledge allegiance to god (in 
addition to the king). The question that arises is: to which god? The 
census of 1921 recorded the state’s population as 46.6% orthodox, 
39.4% Catholic, and 11.2% Muslim.16 The 1931 census recorded Celje 
as 4.4% orthodox and 91.6% Catholic; Ptuj as 2.5% orthodox, and 
94.4% Catholic; Maribor as 3.6% orthodox, and 93% Catholic; and 
Ljubljana as 3.5% orthodox, and 95% Catholic.17 Nonetheless, the 
question of which god to pledge allegiance to is redundant. The ruling 
family was Serbian, and the state’s political power was centralised in 
Serbian politics. The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (SCS) 
and later the Kingdom of Yugoslavia were, due to economic, social, and 
above all political reasons, manifestations of the ideal of great Serbia.18 
Serbian identity was mainly demonstrated through religion, Serbian 
national identity had fused with orthodoxy, which constituted the 
strongest point of divergence from the Catholic Croats.19  
Dravska Banovina, which encompassed the entire territory of mod-
ern Slovenia with the exception of the Littoral region, contained three 
orthodox parishes (in Ljubljana, Maribor, and Celje, which emerged 
in 1921) that were quite specific, being set in a predominantly roman-
Catholic environment. The majority of orthodox population in the 
country was composed of Serbian soldiers, and the priests were, in 
16  Mateja ratej, “odtenki politizacije rimskokatoliške in Srbske pravoslavne cerkve pri 
Slovenski ljudski in Narodni radikalni stranki med svetovnima vojnama,” Prispevki za novejšo 
zgodovino 48, no. 2 (2008): 36.
17  ratej, Odtenki politizacije, 37.
18  The entire period from the creation of the Kingdom of SCS onward was marked by a de-
sire to liberate Serbs outside of the Kingdom of Serbia. great-Serbian ideas of Vuk Stefanović 
Karađić in 1836 and Ilija garašanin (Načertanije, 1844) that represent the foundations of later 
(great) Serbian tendencies and are derived from medieval Serbian state must be taken into 
account. More on Serbian nationalism and its history and development in Miro Hribernik’s 
doctoral dissertation: Miro Hribernik, Vojna na Hrvaškem 1990–1995 (Maribor: Filozofska 
fakulteta Univerze v Mariboru, 2013), 80–88.
19  gilbert In der Maur, Der Weg zur Nation. Jugoslawiens Innenpoltiik 1918–1938 (Berlin-
Wien-Zürich: Verlag für Wirtschaft und Kultur Payer & Co, 1938), 96, 100, 140.
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  A S  T H E  S T A T E ' S  T O O L 
13
fact, army clerics.20 After multiple years of struggle, all three orthodox 
communities secured their own religious buildings, constructed in ac-
cordance to designs by the Serbian architect Momir Korunović.21 The 
Maribor orthodox Church of St. Lazarus was the northernmost such 
construction in the new Yugoslav state and, along with the Serbian 
orthodox Church of St. Sava in Celje, represented an example of 
construction in a city that had previously had a strong germanic 
appearance.
The Serbian orthodox religious community in Maribor initially 
had its religious ceremonial spaces in the building of the military real 
school. Later, with the help of Commander Pantelij Draškić, a military 
priest named Petar Trbojević secured the grand hall in King Alexander 
Barracks. Soon, as the number of worshippers increased, new spaces 
were required. The first solution involved repurposing the former 
Minorite church on Vojašniški Square. Subsequently, ideas of a new 
building were introduced (on Yugoslavia Square, Main Square, Zrinjski 
Square, and by Union Hall on Alexander road, somewhat southeast of 
Yugoslavia Square. 
The Serbian orthodox community had chosen the location on 
Yugoslavia Square as early as 1926.22 At first, construction on Yugoslavia 
Square was prevented by the resolution that prohibited the municipal-
ity from building on the area purchased from the Brandis noble family 
in 1863.23 Some citizens24 who thought an orthodox church in the 
park was unnecessary also opposed the construction of a building with 
a strong Yugoslav (Serbian) identity.25 Contradictions in public opinion 
on the construction affair culminated in a poll organised by the mayor 
Alojzij Juvan on April 11, 1930, in the city council chamber. 
20  The history of Serbian orthodox communities in the territories of modern Slovenia was 
explored in detail by Bojan Cvelfar. Bojan Cvelfar, Srbska pravoslavna cerkev na Slovenskem med 
svetovnima vojnama (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2017). 
21  Cvelfar, Srbska pravoslavna cerkev.  
22  Cvelfar, Srbska pravoslavna cerkev, 479–486.
23  radovanović, Mariborske ulice, 60.
24  Cvelfar, Srbska pravoslavna cerkev, 516–517; Marjan Žnidaršič, Do pekla in nazaj. 
Nacistična okupacija in narodnoosvobodilni boj v Mariboru 1941-1945 (Maribor: Muzej narodne 
osvoboditve, 1997), 123.
25  Maksimiljan Fras, Mariborski župan dr. Alojzij Juvan in njegov čas (Maribor: EPoS, 2013), 225.
P o L I g r A F I
14
The invitees included the principal of Maribor real School, Jakob 
Zupančič; the vice president of the orthodox community, Colonel 
Božo Putniković (who, in principle, represented the War Minister); 
Vice Mayor Franjo Lipold; artist and real-school professor Viktor Cotič; 
painter and professor Anton gvajc; orthodox priest Petar Trbojević and 
other members of the orthodox community; chief councillor of con-
struction Albin Černe; unnamed municipal councillors; unnamed rep-
resentatives of the Beautification Society and the King Petar Memorial 
Committee (among them Principal Detela); and news reporters. It was 
also attended by two of the most prominent cultural authorities of the 
time in Slovenia: modernist architect Vladimir Šubic, and art histo-
rian and conservationist France Stele. Both defended the view that the 
church’s design should be adapted to the square, and the choice of lo-
cation should be left to the architects. Stele wanted the church to be 
built in the Byzantine architectural style. According to Slovenec, only 
Cotič opposed the construction of the church. Interestingly, Principal 
Detela, a member of the King Peter Memorial Committee, supported 
the construction of the church on the new (i.e., eastern) section of the 
Main Square.26 
An orthodox church on Main Square was certainly a grandiose idea, 
as it is the central and most important square in Maribor. Should any 
building be planned for construction on Main Square, the design of 
the square would be disrupted, the Plague Memorial would have to be 
relocated, and the Jesuit Church of St. Aloysius and the renaissance 
city hall would have to surrender their dominant positions to the new 
building. It would be stranger still if the new building was to be con-
structed in the Serbian national style and, due to its sheer size, fill nearly 
the entire square. This would have been unacceptable to any urban 
planner, as well as to the mayor, no matter how supportive they may 
have been of the Serbian orthodox community. 
The fifth regular meeting of the municipal council of November 
19, 1931 concluded that the construction of the orthodox church on 
Yugoslavia Square be held off, as a new location by Union Hall came 
26  “Kje bo stala pravoslavna cerkev,” Slovenec, 12. 4. 1930, no. 1, 5.
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  A S  T H E  S T A T E ' S  T O O L 
15
into consideration.27 In 1932, Mariborski večernik Jutra reported on the 
unknown status of the church’s construction, which was now planned 
for Zrinjski Square, which was enlarged for this express purpose, while 
Yugoslavia Square was to receive the King Petar Memorial.28 In June of 
that year, the poll on the church’s location was repeated. The argument 
for constructing on Zrinjski Square was supported by the function of 
Yugoslavia Square as a park and an aesthetic background to the city 
castle. Meanwhile, Zrinjski Square was “neglected and in much need 
of renewal.”29 
The sixth regular meeting of the municipal council of September 1, 
1932, concluded that the land for the church in the middle of Yugoslavia 
Square should be plotted in a way that would not harm (i.e., build on) 
the park. The church was to face eastward, with the entrance facing 
Maribor real School. The Department of Construction approved these 
guidelines as well. This time, construction at this location was opposed 
by municipal councillor Štefan Dolček, citing citizens’ disapproval. The 
municipal council voted in favour of constructing the orthodox church 
on Yugoslavia Square, with 18 votes for and 5 against, confirming the 
present plans,30 while the construction and free allocation of a 900 m2 
plot were not confirmed by the city council until September 11, 1934.31 
27  PAM, fond Mestna občina Maribor, b. 164, Zapisniki sej mestnega občinskega sveta Me-
stne občine Maribor v letu 1931, V. redna seja, 19. november 1931, 165.
28  “razgovor z g. mestnim županom,” Mariborski večernik Jutra, 7. 5. 1932, no. 103, 2.
29  “Anketa radi pravoslavne cerkve,” Mariborski večernik Jutra, 4. 6. 1932, no. 125, 2.
30  PAM, fond Mestna občina Maribor, b. 164, Zapisniki sej mestnega občinskega sveta Me-
stne občine Maribor v letu 1932, IV. seja, 19. november 1931, 128.
31  PAM, fond Mestna občina Maribor, b. 164, Zapisniki sej mestnega občinskega sveta Me-
stne občine Maribor v letu 1934, V. IV. seja, 19. november 1931, 11. 9. 1934; Cvelfar, Srbska 
pravoslavna cerkev, 493, 500.
P o L I g r A F I
16
Figure 2: Location of the orthodox church on Yugoslavia Square (PAM, fond Zavod 
za urbanizem Maribor, b. 53, Scale 1:1000).
This was followed by an unsuccessful complaint by citizens under 
the leadership of the Slovenian People’s Party leader Franjo Žebot, 
who filed the complaint with the National Assembly in Belgrade.32 He 
would go on to attempt to stop the construction several more times. The 
complaint stated they do not oppose the construction of an orthodox 
church in the city centre, but deemed Yugoslavia Square an inappropri-
ate location. The resolution of November 19, 1931, supposedly nullified 
all prior resolutions and predicted the construction of the church by the 
Union Brewery when the latter was abandoned. This resolution was 
only to permit construction of a small chapel in place of the Tegetthoff 
Memorial. They also citied all prior complaints filed by the Industrialist 
Union, Landlords Association, Merchants guild, Trade Cooperatives 
32  “Zavrnjena pritožba bivšega poslanca Žebota in tovarišev proti odstopu Jugoslovanskega 
trga za pravoslavno cerkev,” Mariborski večernik Jutra, 30. 1. 1934, 2.
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  A S  T H E  S T A T E ' S  T O O L 
17
Union, Innkeepers and Coffee Shop owners Cooperative, and the ob-
jection of the Museum and History Society of August 18, 1931. The 
ban of the Dravska Banovina, Drago Marušič, rejected the complaint 
as early as November 8, 1932, while all complaints by Žebot were col-
lectively rejected in December 1933.33 
Disagreement with the location can also be found in Ksaver Meško’s 
memoirs.34 A polar opposite is found in the views of the liberal Mariborski 
večernik Jutra that criticised the new building’s Yugoslavia Square loca-
tion because “the monumental building would be completely blocked 
out by the trees,” causing it to “stand alone like an unwanted child, 
pushed somewhere aside, without expression, constituting no perfec-
tion or wholeness.”35 
How architect Momir Korunović was chosen to construct Slovenian 
orthodox churches remains unclear. If the Serbian-Byzantine architec-
tural style was selected in advance, Korunović was likely suggested as 
one of the most important architects of sacral architecture in this style, 
or as one of the most important Serbian architects of his time. After 
successfully designing the first church in Dravska Banovina (Church 
of St. Sava, Celje, 1929–1932), he may have been requested to plan 
churches in Ljubljana and Maribor by local Serbian orthodox com-
munities. Minutes of the Maribor city council meeting of March 27, 
1930, show that a resolution was made to publicly list a contest for the 
construction commission.36 However, there are no other records of a 
public contest or of any alternative plans. 
The foundations of the Maribor Lazarus Church were laid during 
Maribor Week,37 and the foundations were blessed on August 12, 1934, 
at 9.30a.m., in the presence of Korunović.38 The construction officially 
33  Cvelfar, Srbska pravoslavna cerkev, 494–497.
34  Ksaver Meško, Izbrana dela, IV. del (Celje: Družba sv. Mohorja, 1959), 333.
35  “Pravoslavni božji hram v Mariboru,” Mariborski večernik Jutra, 2. 12. 1932, no. 174, 3.
36  “Mariborska obč. seja,” Slovenec, 27. 3. 1930, no. 72, 2.
37  “Mariborske vesti. Za pravoslavno cerkev,” Slovenec, 21. julij 1934, no. 163a, 4; Cvelfar, 
Srbska pravoslavna cerkev, 499–500.
38  “Blagoslovitev temeljnega kamna za pravoslavno cerkev na Jugoslovanskem trgu,” Mari-
borski večernik Jutra, 9. 8. 1934, 2; “Pravoslavna cerkev v Mariboru,” Mariborski večernik Jutra, 
11. 8. 1934, no. 181, 3; “Slovesna blagoslovitev temeljnega kamna srbske pravoslavne cerkve,” 
Mariborski večernik Jutra, 13. 8. 1934, 3.
P o L I g r A F I
18
began on August 27, 1935, on the exact location of the Wilhelm von 
Tegetthoff Memorial. By December, the church had been built up to 
the roof, followed by slower progression due to financial difficulties. In 
1936, 800,000 dinars were needed to complete the construction, with 
the funds still being collected in 1940.39 
Figure 3: View from Liberty Square, 1938 (PAM, fond Zavod za urbanizem 
Maribor, b. 53, Trg svobode 1938).
Serbian National Style in Architecture and  
Its Historical and Political Contexts
Serbian architecture between the end of the 19th century and World 
War I can be divided into three main movements: classicism, secession, 
and the Serbian-Byzantine style. The first Western-style buildings in 
39  Cvelfar, Srbska pravoslavna cerkev, 516.
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  A S  T H E  S T A T E ' S  T O O L 
19
Serbia appeared in the 1830s.40 The generation of architects born in 
the last quarter of the 19th century, which included Momir Korunović, 
had a strong impact on later Serbian architecture. It was at the turn of 
the 19th century that Serbian architects sought their own national style 
in architecture,41 which was part of a broader European trend of search-
ing for a distinctive national architectural identity.42
40  Examples of classic architecture in Serbia are Saboma Church (Franz Jancke, 1837–1845) 
and the House of Cvetko rajović (Franz Jancke, 1837–1838), Hotel Jelen (unknown architect, 
1841) and the Military Academy (Jan Nevola, 1851). Classicist architects were often commis-
sioned because they were mostly Serbs (e.g., Aleksander Bolgarski, Svetozar Ivanović, Kon-
stantin Jovanović, Vladimir Nikolić). The first building built in the spirit of historism was the 
Villa of Captain Miša (Jan Nevola, 1858–1863) where the antique-era inspiration was replaced 
by medieval Middle-Eastern art, which was entirely new. The most notable Byzantine-style 
architect was Jovan Ilkić (House of St. Sava, Belgrade, 1890), whose designs were later aided by 
Momir Korunović. Dimitrije T. Leko is considered the most prominent representative of Art-
Nouveau forms, with the style also represented by the Serbian Pavillion (Milan Kapetanović 
and Milodrag ruvidić) on the Paris World Exhibition of 1900. Zoran Manević, Srpska arhi-
tektura 1900–1970 (Beograd: Muzej savremene umjetnosti, 1972), 7–20; Zoran Manević, 
Jučerašnje graditeljstvo (Beograd: Zavod za planiranje grada Beograda, 1979); Zoran Manević, 
Jugoslovenska arhitektura XX veka (Beograd: Muzej savremene umjetnosti, 1986).
41  Aleksandar Ignjatović, Jugoslovenstvo u arhitekturi 1904-1941 (Beograd: gradjevinska knji-
ga, 2007); Aleksandar Ignjatović, “National Unity through regional Diversity: Architecture 
as Political reform in Yugoslavia, 1929-1941,“ in European Architectural History Network, ed. 
Hilde Heynen and Janina gosseye (Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgie voor 
Wetenschappen en Kunsten & Contactforum, 2012), 320–325; Aleksandar Kadijević, “Between 
unitarism and regionalisms Architecture in Yugoslavia (1918–1941),” in Architecture of indepen-
dence in Central Europe/Architektura niepodległości w Europie Środkowej (Krakow: International 
cultural centre, 2018), 248–274; Александар Кадијевић, “Између уметничке носталгије и 
цивилизацијске утопије: византијске реминисценције у српској архитектури 20.века,” 
Српска уметност III. Замишљање прошлости и перцепција средњег века у српској 
умјетности XVIII-XXI века (Београд: САНУ, 2016), 169–177; Александар Кадијевић, 
Југословенска архитектура између два светска рата (1918–1941): контексти 
тумачења (Београд: Универзитет у Београду – Филозофски факултет, 2023), 20–30.
42  gothic style, for example, was considered a german style (despite originating in France). 
Later, Jugendstil was said to be a Deutsche Volkskunst. National style was more-or-less suc-
cessfully employed by the Poles (Zdzislaw Maczenski, Adolf Szyszko-Bohusz, Josef Dziekonski, 
Edgar Karats) and the nations of the multinational Austro-Hungarian monarchy - Hungarians 
(Ödön Lechner, Károly Kós, István Medgyaszay), Slovaks (Dušan Jurkovič) and Czechs (Jan 
Kotěra). Marvin Trachtenberg, The Modern Architecture, Architecture. From prehistory to post-
modernism. The Western Traditions (New York: H. N. Abrams, 1986), 522; Ákos Moravanszky, 
Die Architektur der Donaumonarchie (Berlin: W. Ernst & Sohn, 1988), 139, 149, 140–164; 
Małgorzata omilanowska, “Searching for a National Style in Polish Architecture at the End 
of the 19th and Beginning of the 20th Century,” in Art and the National Dream: The Search 
for Vernacular Expression in Turn-of-the-Century Design, ed. Nicola gordon Bowe (Dublin: 
Irish Academic Press, 1993), 101–115; Ákos Moravánszky, Competing Visions: Aesthetic Inven-
P o L I g r A F I
20
The main inspiration for the Serbian national style was found in two 
architectural styles from the Medieval era of what was then Serbia – the 
raška43 and Morava Schools.44 The history of Serbian statehood begins 
tion and Social Imagination in Central European Architecture, 1867–1918 (Cambridge: MIT 
Press, 1998), 230–234, 249–261; Jindřich Vybíral, “Modernism or the National Movement 
in Prague,” in Art Around 1900 in Central Europe: Art Centers and Provinces, ed. Jacek Purchla 
(Kraków: International Cultural Centre, 1999), 206–209; Elisabeth Clegg, Art, Design and Ar-
chitecture in Central Europe 1890-1920 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 129; Jindřich 
Vybíral, “National style as a construction of art history,“ in The Plurality of Europe: Identities 
and Spaces, ed. Winfried Eberhard and Christian Lübke (Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 
2010), 465–474; Vendula Hnídková, ed., Národní styl: Kultura a politika/National style: Arts 
and politics,  (Prague: Academy of Arts, Architecture and Design, 2013); Dániel Veress, “Archi-
tecture as Nation-Building: The Search for National Styles in Habsburg Central Europe Before 
and After World War I,” in Empires, Nations and Private Lives: Essays on the Social and Cultural 
History of the Great War, ed. Nari Shelekpayev (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars, 2016), 8–39.
43  The term Raška School was first used by gabriel Millet as L’Ecole de Rascie, which was 
intended to denote the high-medieval art of the first half of the 14th century in the raška 
region. The term is somewhat unfortunate, as the style is in fact of Macedonian origin, derived 
from the Byzantine style. The Byzantine influence is most evident studying the dome of the 
Church of The Mother of god in Studenica, which resembles the dome of the Pammakaristos 
in Constantinople. Byzantine architecture is also reflected in the symmetrical segmentation of 
the ribs inside the dome. The restless rule of King Milutin (Stefan Uroš II. Milutin Nemanjić) 
saw the mixing of Macedonian styles (central plan, drawn-in crossing, polychrome façade of 
brick and stone) into the Byzantine style due to southwards expansion. Under his commission, 
numerous sacral buildings were constructed, e.g., Hilandar, The Mother of god of Ljevica in 
Prizren, and churches of Studenica and gračanica monasteries. Vojeslav Mole, Umetnost južnih 
Slovanov (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 1965), 71.
44  The Morava School was equally clumsily named by gabriel Millet, seen as it still contained 
Byzantine and Thessalonica styles. The term sought to demonstrate the first general unity in 
the style of sacral architecture in the area of Morava Serbia in the 14th century, i.e., the time of 
Dušan the Mighty and Prince Lazar (also the time of Serbian defeat at Kosovo Polje in 1389). 
This encompasses properties such as unity in ground plans of churches, side chapel function, 
symmetrical construction, balanced composition, and multiple domes (e.g., five) where the 
main one is always the largest. While there were some stylistic deviations, we could talk of typi-
cal plans (or blueprints). Important buildings of Morava School include: gradac Monastery 
(commissioned by Queen Jelena, the wife of Uroš I, c. 1276), church of St. Štefan/Lazarus 
Church in Kruševac (court church of Prince Lazar with a tri-conchal plan, influencing later 
construction, c. 1377), church of Mary’s Ascension in ravanica Monastery, church of Birth of 
The Mother of god in Naupara Monastery (1382, influenced by the Lazarus Church), church 
of Mary Appearing in Veluće Monastery (c. 1370), the church of rudenica Monastery (early 
15th century) and the church of Mary Appearing in Kalenić Monastery (1407–1413). The 
monastery church at gradac shows the qualities of the raška School (archivolts around the por-
tal and windows, lesenes with an arched frieze, biforas) as well as innovations (multi-coloured 
bricks, most evident at the Lazarus Church in Kruševac and the ravanica Monastery church). 
It is these two churches that are, out of all those mentioned, the richest both in decoration and 
exterior segmentation. It is important that the locations of conchs have changed. With the 
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  A S  T H E  S T A T E ' S  T O O L 
21
in the 9th century with the foundation of raška. Near the Adriatic Sea, 
several smaller states emerged (Zahumlje, Trebinjska, and Duklja) and 
united as the Zeta state, or Littoral Serbia, in the 11th century. The 
history of the independent Serbian state begins in the second half of 
the 12th century, when the great Mayor Štefan Nemanja united raška 
and Zeta.45 
The raška School in Serbian architecture developed between the 
final third of the 12th century and the first half of the 14th centu-
ry. Under the commission of the first Serbian king, Štefan Nemanjić 
(Prvovenčani: The First-Crowned), several churches were constructed, 
including the Church of St. george within the monastery complex in 
Djurdjevi Stupovi near Novi Pazar (between 1160 and 1170) and the 
Church of The Mother of god within the Studenica Monastery (c. 
1183–1186).46 Štefan’s grandson Miroslav commissioned the Church 
of St. Peter at Bijelo Polje (second half of the 12th century), his nephew 
Štefan Prvoslav commissioned the Church of St. george in Ivangrad (fi-
nal quarter of the 12th century), and another grandson, King radoslav, 
commissioned the Church of Ascension in Žiča Monastery (the Serbian 
church became independent in 1219, making Žiča the seat of the first 
archbishop; 1206–1217).47 
raška School we noted all three semicircular finishes on the eastern part of the façade, while 
the Morava chool is known for the aforementioned “typical plans“ wherein the conchs are 
distributed on the southern, eastern and northern face of the church. Although the churches 
of the Morava School are more-or-less alike, there is evident distinction between their building 
segments. Archivolts are the most expressive in the case of Lazarus Church, where they first 
encompass the portal with the lunette, followed by the rose window above the portal. rose 
windows were an essential part of Morava School architecture, while they are not found within 
raška School. Biforas appear in both architectural schools, becoming simpler as early as the 
rudenica church. Slobodan Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans. From Diocletian to Süleyman the 
Magnificent (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 671–682.
45  Mole, Umetnost južnih Slovanov, 71.
46  Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 409.
47  Ibid., 491–494.
P o L I g r A F I
22
Figure 4: Church in gračanica Monastery near Prizren (https://upload.wikimedia.
org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/gracanica_1.jpg/1280px-gracanica_1.jpg).
Figure 5: Church in ravanica Monastery (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/thumb/0/0c/Monastery_ravanica.JPg/1024px-Monastery_ravanica.JPg).
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  A S  T H E  S T A T E ' S  T O O L 
23
out of all periods in Serbian national history, Serbians were most 
drawn to the medieval era of Serbian statehood, when their country was 
at its largest and strongest. In light of the political instability of the 19th 
and 20th centuries, the desire for a strong (and, in memory, politically 
stable) state became ever stronger. The memory of great Serbia also 
represents the living memory of then “events of semi-modern history”: 
independence struggles in the beginning of the 19th century and other 
contemporary struggles – both Balkan Wars and the World War I, un-
derstood as one continuous conflict (1912–1918) from which Serbia 
emerged victorious and realised its great Serbian aspirations within the 
new Yugoslav state.
Architects developed this essentially Byzantine style, or a revival of 
the raška and Morava Schools, in the 19th and 20th centuries in a vari-
ety of ways, which led to different nomenclatures: Byzantine style, Neo-
Byzantine style, Semi-Byzantine style, Modern-Byzantine style, roman-
Byzantine style, Dušan’s style,48 and National style or Serbian-Byzantine 
style in national architecture.49 During the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the 
style became the de facto national style,50 reflecting the Serbian desire for 
their national style’s dominance throughout the Kingdom, derived from 
the drive for unitarism due to the unsolved national question.51 
Korunović remains the most prominent representative of this style. 
The rise of his career began immediately after completing his degree in 
1906 when he worked at the Ministry of Construction of the Kingdom 
of Serbia, which mainly oversaw construction of state buildings,52 as 
well as reconstructions of demolished buildings after World War I. The 
48  Aleksandar Kadijević, Vizantijsko graditeljstvo kao inspiracija srpskih neimara novijeg doba 
(Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 2016), 49–50.
49  Aleksandar Kadijević, Srpski arhitekti novijeg doba: Momir Korunović (Beograd: Muzej 
nauke i tehnike, 1996), 26, 70, 72.
50  Manević, Srpska arhitektura 1900–1970, 14–20.
51  Kadijević, Srpski arhitekti novijeg doba, 41.
52  He projected the Belgrade Sokolski Dom; in 1912 he created plans for Belgrade Post of-
fice (today the location of Yugoslav Army House); in 1913 he was part of the working commit-
tee of Meštrović’s Vidovdan Temple and the establishment of Yugoslav Modern gallery in Bel-
grade, which significantly improved his reputation. He was strongly marked by World War I, 
which prompted him to design the never constructed memorial of “undead giants.” Kadijević, 
Srpski arhitekti novijeg doba, 34–38; Aleksandar Kadijević, Tadija Stefanović, “Expressionism 
and Serbian Architecture Between Two World Wars,” in On the Very Edge. Modernism and Mo-
P o L I g r A F I
24
inter-war period was, for both Korunović and overall Serbian national 
style, the golden age of creativity (e.g., Ministry of Post, Belgrade, 1926; 
Post office 2, Belgrade, 1928–1929). He became an essential figure in 
overseeing construction projects and received by far the largest number of 
commissions. This remained so until the 1930s, when modernist archi-
tects gained popularity. Korunović remained faithful to traditionalism, 
ignoring modern architecture, which he considered soulless construction. 
Up until World War II, he primarily designed sacral buildings, which had 
previously constituted only a minority of his commissions.53
Korunović drew inspiration from both the raška-Littoral and Morava 
Schools. He commonly used stone (for example in Krupnje church, 1928; 
Kalamegdan church, 1937), and much more commonly, reinforced con-
crete (Church of St. Cyril and Methodius, Ljubljana, 1930–1936), as well 
as brick, which he then plastered (Church of St. Sava in Celje, planned 
1929, built 1932, demolished 1941; Church of St. Cyril and Methodius, 
Vis, 1932, demolished in the 1960s). His churches are characterised by a 
greek-cross-shaped floor plan. From this type of floor plan, the architect 
gradually continued construction towards the top, which the literature 
calls pyramidal composition or gradient-based increase of architectural 
mass.54 Such increase of architectural mass towards the top is the most 
evident in the Church of St. Lazarus in Maribor (1934–1939), St. Sava 
in Celje (1929–1932), Church of St. Cyril and Methodius in Ljubljana 
(1930–1933), and Church of St. John the Baptist in grdelić (1935–
1937, 1940). The latter was highly appreciated by Korunović himself, 
but Aleksandar Kadijević, a Korunović scholar, evaluates the churches in 
Maribor and Celje as constructions of superior quality.55 
The architect’s works are also recognisable by their distinct portals. 
Two narrow columns support a semicircular arch that functions as a 
small gatehouse. The portal also has its own roof. Such portals are repeat-
ed on all of his churches, since the aforementioned church of St. Elias 
in Bržan. other notable cases are the Church of Christ’s Assumption in 
dernity in the Arts and Architecture of Interwar Serbia (1918-1941) (Leuven: Leuven University 
Press, 2014), 184.
53  Kadijević, Srpski arhitekti novijeg doba.
54  Ibid., 47, 56, 47. 
55  Ibid., 97.
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  A S  T H E  S T A T E ' S  T O O L 
25
Krupnje (1928), Church of St. Sava in Celje, and Church of the Birth 
of St. John the Baptist in Negbina (1936–1939). In some places, the 
portals are somewhat less massive: Church of Archangel Michael in 
Deligrad (1930–1933), Church of St. Lazarus in Bulbuder, Belgrade, 
(1927), and Church of St. John the Baptist in grdelić (1935–1940). 
Some church buildings designed by Korunović do not feature his char-
acteristic portal style, such as the Church in glagovac (planned 1934–
1935, constructed 1934–1935) and the Church of The Mother of god 
in Belgrade (1933). In the first building, the façade is emphasised by 
a length of an arm of the greek cross, a gate, and a tympanum. The 
side façades, like the main one, include a rose window, a horizontal 
cornice, and semicircular arches. The other church also has a bell tower, 
which is not very typical of Korunović. A bell tower is also included in 
the Church of St. Lazarus in Belgrade and the Church of St. Cyril and 
Methodius on the island Vis. At the Church of The Mother of god, 
the bell tower emerges from the main façade. Another Belgrade church 
(St. Lazarus) has the bell tower added to the back of the church. The 
church on Vis is an exception, as the bell tower is added to the right 
side of the main façade. That is where Korunović adhered to Dalmatian 
architectural tradition, which he very successfully fused with his char-
acteristic architectural elements – shallow archivolts, narrow and long 
semicircular windows and an octagonal dome above the naos (cella).
Korunović’s architecture is characterised by octagonal domes. Some 
churches have but one, while many more have three or five. one of his 
preserved sketches shows a church with seven domes, among which the 
main dome has a hexagonal plan (Monumental Temple, 1937).56 This 
project, though it remained forever on paper, allowed the architect to 
design the building as he wished, which is why unrealised plans and 
sketches are just as important as realised projects for understanding his 
personal style. 
Along with the greek cross, the three-conch finish must be noted 
in considering floor plans. The inspiration for this was yet again drawn 
from medieval Serbian architecture that inspired the architect since 
56  The plan is family-owned, published on: Kadijević, Srpski arhitekti novijeg doba, 98.
P o L I g r A F I
26
his formative years.57 Along the main polygonally enclosed apse, these 
churches boasted two additional such apses on side façades. Churches 
without a three-conch finish nonetheless had an emphasised design of 
a greek cross (Church of St. george in Sušak, 1937). 
The Serbian-Byzantine style dominated Serbian architecture until 
modernism prevailed.58 Though it eventually lost its dominant posi-
tion, it nonetheless continued and again became very popular in the last 
decade of the 20th century, i.e. during the Milošević regime (Church 
of St. Basil ostroški in Belgrade (Mihajlo Mitrović, 1995–2000), 
Church of St. Luke the Evangelist in Belgrade (Aleksandar M. Lukić, 
1995–1999), Church of St. Dimitri of Thessaloniki in Belgrade (N. 
Popović, 1998–2001) and church of St. Cyril and Methodius in Jajinca 
(Branislav Mitrović, Boris Podrecca 1996–2002)).59 For Serbian society, 
the church represented additional ideological foundations for nation-
alism (e.g., Serbs as a holy nation of martyrs, the Kosovo Myth, St. 
Lazarus as Christ and Miloš obilić as St. Paul), while for the Church, 
this meant a dominant role in social life.60 
Throughout history, the Serbian orthodox Church has consid-
ered itself the vessel of Serbian national identity. There was even a 
deep-rooted notion that a non-orthodox person cannot be a Serb.61 
Christoforus Mylonas62 defined Serbian orthodoxy as an attribute 
of collective subjectivity, a response to the need of coherent identity 
in Serbia throughout history. When collectivity is understood as an 
emotional community, manifestations of identity are intended to pro-
mote national emotions.63 Serbian orthodoxy is a union of religion 
and nationality. Mylonas proposes a hypothesis that the Catholicism of 
Serbian orthodoxy should be understood as a united religious entity. 
The orthodox religion became a fundamental determiner of the nation 
57  Ibid., 23.
58  Kadijević, Srpski arhitekti novijeg doba, 24; Manević, Srpska arhitektura 1900–1970, 19–21.
59  More on churches: Kadijević, Srpski arhitekti novijeg doba, 69–77.
60  Marko Velikonja, “religizirani narod vs. nacionalizirana religija: verski vidiki kosovske 
krize,” Časopis za kritiko znanosti 27, no. 195/196 (1999): 97–98. 
61  Ibid., 98. 
62  Christos Mylonas, Serbian Orthodox Fundamentals: The Quest for an Eternal Identity (Bu-
dapest-New York: Central European University Press, 2003).
63  Ibid., 16.
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  A S  T H E  S T A T E ' S  T O O L 
27
mainly because of the Serbian orthodox Church’s autocephaly that was 
later transferred to the national level, aided by national myth64 (e.g., 
The Kosovo Myth and Vidovdan) and Serbian saints, (e.g., St. Sava) 
who were at the same time members of Serbian ruling families. By con-
necting past and present, as well as the sacral and the profane, Serbian 
religious identity provides a “map” of its existence and promotes the 
preservation of national ethos. Thus, a sacralised identity, based on an 
expanded awareness of the mythical/historical lore of a nation (a vision 
of a “thinking” diachronic community), is created.65
Church of St. Lazarus on Yugoslavia Square 
The orthodox Church of St. Lazarus was built in the middle of 
the park on today’s square, on the exact location of the memorial to 
Vice Admiral Wilhelm von Tegetthoff. It is known that it was properly 
oriented (eastwards) and measured 32 by 22 by 30 metres. It was sty-
listically very similar to the churches in Celje and in Ljubljana, from 
which it differed in number of domes, façade details, and floor plan. 
The Maribor church featured five domes, all of which were fully visible 
(reminiscent of the medieval gračanica Monastery). However, it was 
not inspired only by gračanica, but also other medieval buildings in the 
territory of medieval Serbia, such as the Lazarus Church in Kruševac 
and ravanica Monastery.
64  “A myth is typically a tale concerned with past events, giving them a special meaning and 
significance for the present and thereby reinforcing the authority of those who are wielding 
power in a particular community.” Carl Joachim Friedrich, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Totalitarian 
Dictatorship and Autocracy (New York-Washington-London: Frederick A. Praeger, 1961), 99.
65  Mylonas, Serbian Orthodox Fundamentals, 47–52.
P o L I g r A F I
28
Figure 6: The church during construction (MNoMb, Fototeka MNoMb, inv. no. 
15.308).
The external appearance of the church had been little known un-
til now.66 It is known that it had five octagonal domes, making it 
Korunović’s largest (and northernmost) church in Dravska Banovina. 
The church had a greek cross floor plan, extended westward by a gate-
house. The building functioned extremely plastically, gradually increas-
ing the mass towards the top using numerous construction elements. 
66  The church has been mentioned in the literature already. E.g.: Anton ožinger, “Cerkvena 
zgodovina Maribora od konca 18. stoletja,” in Maribor skozi stoletja (Maribor: obzorja, 1991), 
508; Kadijević, Srpski arhitekti novijeg doba; Fras, Mariborski župan dr. Alojzij Juvan, 225; Fran-
ci Lazarini, “Cerkve, samostani, redovne hiše in sinagoge,” in Igor Sapač, Franci Lazarini, Arhi-
tektura 19. stoletja na Slovenskem (Ljubljana: Muzej za arhitekturo in oblikovanje, 2015), 117; 
Nina gostenčnik, Delovanje mariborskega mestnega sveta med letoma 1929 in 1935 (Maribor: 
Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Mariboru, 2016), 139–143; Cvelfar, Srbska pravoslavna cerkev, 
427, 479; Nina gostenčnik, Maribor v času mestnega načelnika dr. Franja Lipolda (1931–1935) 
(Maribor: Založba Pivec, 2019).
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  A S  T H E  S T A T E ' S  T O O L 
29
Figure 7: The view of the orthodox Church of St. Lazarus from the direction of 
Maribor real School, 1936 (PAM, fond Zavod za urbanizem Maribor, b. 53, Pogled 
s strehe realke 1936).
P o L I g r A F I
30
This is typical of many of his churches (e.g., St. Sava in Celje, the 
Church of St. Cyril and Methodius in Ljubljana, and the Church of 
John the Baptist in grdelić). 
The western façade was divided into three axes. Attached to it was 
a five-arched gatehouse with a gabled roof that was not originally 
planned.67 The semicircular arches rested on slender concrete towers 
with capitals. The eastern façade included three portals. The oaken 
gates had a geometrical pattern and chamfered upper corners. Above 
them was an empty lunette, framed by encircled greek crosses. This lu-
nette was bordered by simple walling, all finished with a rectangle and 
another lunette with a trifora. Inside the trifora, there were two small 
columns with simple capitals with a greek cross.68 
A similar segmentation solution can be found on the frontal façade 
of the Lazarus Church in Kruševac (1375–1378), where lesenes frame 
both the portal and the rose window above it. The motif of the lunette 
with windows appears again on the Maribor Lazarus Church, but posi-
tioned somewhat higher, under the main dome. This larger lunette had 
five windows of varying height, framed by lesenes. The order Form for 
artificial rock parts shows that the space between windows was occu-
pied by columns with simple capitals with no crosses.69 There were four 
columns – grouped in equal pairs, following the size of the windows.70 
The main one was the tallest, the rest gradually decreased in height.71
67  PAM/18, fond Posamezne nerazvrščene fotografije Maribor, b. 1, osnovna skica pogled na 
glavni vhod pravoslavne cerkve Maribor in Nacrt crkve u Mariboru.
68  PAM/1758, fond Dev Saša (1908–1942), b. 8, Maribor – Srbska pravoslavna cerkev sv. 
Lazarja – “Nova Lazarica” – investitorja srbske pravoslavne cerkvene občine na Jugoslovanskem 
trgu [Trg generala Maistra], P-S.C. Portal; PAM/1758, fond Dev Saša (1908–1942), b. 8, Ma-
ribor – Srbska pravoslavna cerkev sv. Lazarja – “Nova Lazarica” – investitorja srbske pravoslavne 
cerkvene občine na Jugoslovanskem trgu [Trg generala Maistra], P-S.C. Portal z prerezom in 
tlorisom.
69  PAM/1758, fond Dev Saša (1908–1942), b. 8, Maribor- Srbska pravoslavna cerkev sv. 
Lazarja – “Nova Lazarica”- investitorja srbske pravoslavne cerkvene občine na Jugoslovanskem 
trgu [Trg generala Maistra].
70  PAM/1758, fond Dev Saša (1908–1942), b. 8, Maribor – Srbska pravoslavna cerkev sv. 
Lazarja – “Nova Lazarica” – investitorja srbske pravoslavne cerkvene občine na Jugoslovanskem 
trgu [Trg generala Maistra], P-S.C. Detajl I. z visokimi ozkimi okni.
71  PAM/18, fond Posamezne nerazvrščene fotografije Maribor, b. 1, Projekt crkve Lazarice 
u Mariboru; PAM/18, fond Posamezne nerazvrščene fotografije Maribor, b. 1, Fotografija s 
pogledom na glavno pročelje med gradnjo.
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  A S  T H E  S T A T E ' S  T O O L 
31
Figure 8: Plan of pentafora on the central axis of the western façade of the Church 
of St. Lazarus in Maribor (PAM/1758, fond Dev Saša (1908–1942), b. 8, Maribor 
– Srbska pravoslavna cerkev sv. Lazarja – “Nova Lazarica” – investitorja srbske 
pravoslavne cerkvene občine na Jugoslovanskem trgu [Trg generala Maistra], P-S.C. 
Detajl I. z visokimi ozkimi okni).
The main dome was wider and a story higher than the others.72 Due 
to its size, it required additional wooden construction. The sizes of the 
domes have also been preserved – the diameter of the large dome meas-
ured 240 cm, while the diameter of the smaller ones measured 163 cm. 
72  PAM/1758, fond Dev Saša (1908–1942), b. 8, Maribor – Srbska pravoslavna cerkev sv. 
Lazarja – “Nova Lazarica” – investitorja srbske pravoslavne cerkvene občine na Jugoslovanskem 
trgu [Trg generala Maistra], P-S.C. Mala kupola M. 1:20; PAM/1758, fond Dev Saša (1908–
1942), b. 8, Maribor – Srbska pravoslavna cerkev sv. Lazarja – “Nova Lazarica” – investitorja 
srbske pravoslavne cerkvene občine na Jugoslovanskem trgu [Trg generala Maistra], P-S.C. 
Lesena konstrukcija glavne kupole M. 1:20.
P o L I g r A F I
32
one layer of the wooden construction consisted of a cross-section of 
two greek crosses, with each section supported by tongs.73 
The eastern and northern sides of the church were never fully docu-
mented. All we know is that the church finished with a polygonal (5/8) 
apse, which is visible on the original floor plan of the church.74 This 
solution is characteristic of Korunović’s churches as well as the medieval 
Serbian buildings of the Morava and raška Schools that inspired the 
architect. 
reviewing the drafts from the 1939 public contest for the urban 
redesign of Liberty Square and the memorial to King Aleksandar I 
Karađorđević, we find three images with the Church of St. Lazarus in 
the background. Two of these are sketches75 and the other is a half-
photograph/half-sketch,76 where a competition participant aimed to 
realistically integrate the memorial into the urban landscape. The lower 
section of the draft depicts a sketch of Liberty Square, while the upper 
section shows a photograph of Yugoslavia Square with the municipal 
palace and surrounding buildings. The discovery of the sketch confirms 
the polygonal apse conclusion of the eastern section of the church. 
The three-conch floor plan is typical for Serbian medieval construc-
tion, which Korunović also incorporated in his churches in Ljubljana 
and Celje. The southern façade of the Maribor church is the most no-
table. While the architect used semicircular finishes on the western fa-
çade, the southern one involves a new approach that Korunović only 
used in Maribor. The closest stylistic parallels can be found in the fronts 
of the Church of St. george in Smedrevo (Aleksandar Damjanov, 
1851–1855). 
73  PAM/1758, fond Dev Saša (1908–1942), b. 8, Maribor – Srbska pravoslavna cerkev sv. 
Lazarja – “Nova Lazarica” – investitorja srbske pravoslavne cerkvene občine na Jugoslovanskem 
trgu [Trg generala Maistra], P-S.C. Mala kupola M. 1:20.
74  PAM/1758, fond Dev Saša (1908–1942), b. 8, Maribor – Srbska pravoslavna cerkev sv. 
Lazarja – “Nova Lazarica” – investitorja srbske pravoslavne cerkvene občine na Jugoslovanskem 
trgu [Trg generala Maistra], Lega cerkve na Jugoslovanskem trgu, situacija 1:1000.
75  PAM, fond Zbirka gradbenih načrtov (1796–1994), b. 2, “12 B – 1, 12b”; PAM, fond 
Zbirka gradbenih načrtov (1796–1994), b. 2, “Tehnični popis idejnega osnutka za spomenik 
blagopokojnemu kralju Aleksandru U. Uedinitelju v Mariboru.”
76  PAM, fond Zbirka gradbenih načrtov (1796–1994), b. “Tehnični popis idejnega osnutka za 
spomenik blagopokojnemu kralju Aleksandru U. Uedinitelju v Mariboru,” karton 1; PAM, fond 
Zbirka gradbenih načrtov (1796–1994), b. 2, “Idejni osnutek spomenika kralju Aleksandru I.”
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  A S  T H E  S T A T E ' S  T O O L 
33
Figure 9: round window plan on the western or lateral façades (PAM/1758, 
fond Dev Saša (1908–1942), b. 8, Maribor – Srbska pravoslavna cerkev sv. 
Lazarja – “Nova Lazarica” – investitorja srbske pravoslavne cerkvene občine na 
Jugoslovanskem trgu [Trg generala Maistra], Načrt okroglega okna s prečnim 
prerezom).
P o L I g r A F I
34
The photograph clearly shows that the Lazarus Church domi-
nated the Maribor skyline, both in terms of height and architectural 
prominence.
Beneath the front, a round window is visible, similar to those on the 
western façade. The order Form for artificial rock parts77 notes three 
different round windows. Item 38 shows the order of six pieces of round 
windows, each with a diameter of 1.80 m, with an inserted iron band, 
designed for glazing. The first three of these windows match the plan 
for a round window with a cross-section from the section plans folder, 
where the iron bands are interwoven with the greek cross in the middle 
in a braided pattern.78 The second group of three windows has the same 
diameter, with circles added to the pattern. Item 39 lists the order of 8 
round windows with the same pattern as those in Item 38, but smaller, 
with a diameter of 1.10 m. These smaller windows were meant for bell 
towers, two for the outer sides of each one. A similar architectural ap-
proach was used in Korunović’s church in Sušak. The question remains, 
which three windows from Item 38 were used for the western façade 
and which were installed on the lateral façades.
Two groups of six piers and three columns, measuring 2.85 m in 
height and resting on 45 cm tall bases, were also ordered. The first six 
piers had greek crosses chiselled into both the bases and capitals, while 
different ornamentation was planned for the other group. 
Two groups of the same piers decorated the exterior and interior 
of the building’s three entrances. The presence of three decorated en-
trances into the church is further confirmed by Item 50, which details 
an order for three smoothly cut brick frames with chamfered corners 
for church entrances. 
Three steps led into the gatehouse, with two steps leading from the 
gatehouse to each entrance. An order was placed for four 7.5 m wide 
and 80 cm tall pillars to support the main dome, and for two 2.5 m 
77 PAM/1758, fond Dev Saša (1908–1942), b. 8, Maribor- Srbska pravoslavna cerkev sv. 
Lazarja – “Nova Lazarica” – investitorja srbske pravoslavne cerkvene občine na Jugoslovanskem 
trgu [Trg generala Maistra].
78  PAM/1758, fond Dev Saša (1908–1942), b. 8, Maribor – Srbska pravoslavna cerkev sv. 
Lazarja – “Nova Lazarica” – investitorja srbske pravoslavne cerkvene občine na Jugoslovanskem 
trgu [Trg generala Maistra], Načrt okroglega okna s prečnim prerezom.
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  A S  T H E  S T A T E ' S  T O O L 
35
Figure 10: View from Liberty Square, April 1941 (PAM, fond Zavod za urbanizem 
Maribor, b. 53, Zborovanje na Trgu svobode).
wide and 30 cm wide pillars to support the quire. Both sets of pillars 
were concrete-cast and overlaid with terrazzo. 
The floor was paved with terrazzo tiles, with the order amounting 
to 355 m2. 3–4-centimetre-wide stones formed a diamond pattern, sur-
rounded by a 25 cm wide strip of darker, smaller stones. The sacristy, 
baptism chapel and the staircase to the quire were also tiled in terrazzo, 
but without the diamond-pattern segmentation. 
P o L I g r A F I
36
Figure 11: Demolition of the orthodox church following german  
occupation of 1941 (MNoMb, Fototeka MNoMb, inv. no. 7.049).
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  A S  T H E  S T A T E ' S  T O O L 
37
The King Aleksandar Memorial on Liberty Square
The church, designed in Serbian national architectural style, was to 
be ideologically connected to the Memorial of King Aleksandar the 
Unifier (Karađorđević). located on what is now Liberty Square. Even 
though Slomšek Square and Main Square were the areas most in need of 
renewal during the 1930s, the Department of Conservation of Cultural 
Heritage and the city of Maribor decided to work on Liberty Square 
instead. They planned to construct an equestrian memorial to King 
Aleksandar Karađorđević, who had been assassinated in 1934.79 
A public contest for the design of the memorial was announced in 
1938 and remained open until March 1939. on March 3, 1939, the 
royal office of Dravska Banovina sent a letter to Belgrade, requesting 
the approval of selected drafts. This letter also mentions the winners of 
the competition – architect Jaroslav Černigoj and sculptor Boris Kalin 
– under the project title “New Axis.”80 
According to their draft, the new layout of the square, featuring 
rectangular tiles, was to direct attention northwards towards the park 
(the Lazarus Church). This alignment strategy is also reflected in some 
other proposals, such as the project titled “111” (submitted by archi-
tects Joško Jež and Ljubo Humek, with sculptor Josip Sarnitz) and an 
unsigned proposal titled “Perspective.”81 
The primary focus of these designs was the memorial itself, which 
was positioned in the northern section of the southern half of Liberty 
Square. The proposed memorial consisted of two columns with capitals 
and an equestrian statue, oriented eastwards. The construction was to 
stand on a platform with an elliptical floor plan. It was to be marked 
79  More in: Damir globočnik, “Spomenik kralju Aleksandru I. v Mariboru,” Časopis za 
zgodovino in narodopisje 90=n. v. 55, no. 3-4 (2019): 133–163.
80  PAM, fond Mestna občina Maribor [1532-1849], b. 464, spis 3667/39, Za počastitev 
spomina blagopokojnega Viteškega kralja Aleksandra I. Ujedinitelja v Mariboru; PAM, fond 
Zbirka gradbenih načrtov (1796–1994), b. 2, Idejni osnutki za ureditev Trga svobode v Mari-
boru in spomenik kralju Aleksandru I. Karađorđeviću, osnutek načrta 12 B – 1, 12d.
81  PAM, fond Zbirka gradbenih načrtov (1796–1994), b. 2, “Tehnični popis idejnega osnutka 
za spomenik blagopokojnemu kralju Aleksandru I. Ujedinitelju v Mariboru,” geslo 1. 
P o L I g r A F I
38
with columns, approximately a metre and a half in height.82 The unveil-
ing of the unfinished memorial was originally planned for Vidovdan of 
1941 – a date of symbolic and political relevance. However, the out-
break of World War II in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia prevented the 
project from being completed.83
82  PAM, fond Zbirka gradbenih načrtov (1796–1994), b. 2, “12 B – 1, 12d,” PAM, fond 
Zbirka gradbenih načrtov (1796–1994), b. 2, “12 B – 1, 12d.”
83  Špelca Čopič, Javni spomeniki v slovenskem kiparstvu prve polovice 20. stoletja (Ljubljana: 
Moderna galerija, 2000), 148, 359; and: globočnik, Spomenik kralju Aleksandru, 133-163; 
Damir globočnik, Spomeniki (Ljubljana: revija SrP, 2022), 480.
Figure 12: Model of Liberty Square with the “New Axis”  
King Aleksandar Memorial (PAM, fond Zavod za urbanizem Maribor, b. 4).
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  A S  T H E  S T A T E ' S  T O O L 
39
Figure 13: Model of the “New Axis” King Aleksandar Memorial (PAM, fond Zavod 
za urbanizem Maribor, b. 4).
P o L I g r A F I
40
Conclusion
Yugoslavia Square functioned as a park set between representative 
city buildings (Maribor Castle, the Municipal Palace, and the Maribor 
real School), until 1918 centred around the Wilhelm von Tegetthoff 
Memorial. After the memorial’s removal, the park remained empty, cre-
ating an opportunity for construction of the orthodox Church of St. 
Lazarus in that very spot. Unlike Yugoslavia Square, Liberty Square had 
already been empty. Because the city had been expanding eastwards – 
with the important Aleksandar road, today known as Partizan road, 
leading to the railway station – the space created by the filling of the 
city’s defensive ditch started gaining the function of a more relevant 
square, requiring a central memorial. The construction of the church, 
however, faced frequent protests from the citizens of Maribor, as it was 
planned for a park area near Maribor Castle, just behind the former 
city wall.
Yugoslavia Square was both physically and symbolically domi-
nated by the Serbian orthodox Church of St. Lazarus, built in 1936 
(though never fully completed) in the Serbian national architectural 
style, which drew inspiration from the raška and Morava Schools of 
medieval Serbian architecture. Because the state was at its largest in 
this very period, the connection can be understood in the context of 
the great-Serbian ideal, which was still popular during the era of the 
“First Yugoslavia.” The Church of St. Lazarus was meant to be ideo-
logically connected to the uncompleted King Aleksandar Karađorđević 
Memorial on today’s Liberty Square, which was to give the whole city 
district a clear Yugoslavian identity. It was to be one of the most mod-
ern parts of the city, with a clear aspiration to become the most monu-
mental one. 
The ideological message embedded in the architecture was echoed 
by political discourse at the time. The liberal and former Maribor city 
mayor Franjo Lipold, also the president of the Beautification Society, 
defended the construction of the Aleksandar Memorial, saying “the 
centre of our border territory must show a clear sign of liberation, for 
which we must be thankful to King Petar I. the great Liberator, may 
he rest in peace, and the knight-king Aleksandar I. the Unifier who 
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  A S  T H E  S T A T E ' S  T O O L 
41
crowned this work,” and that “we wish to clearly show our Maribor in 
its national light,” as well as that “Maribor will, with utmost dignity, 
manifest the great national ideals of the late king.”84 
Ban Marko Natlačen indicated the role of equestrian memori-
als in Dravska Banovina in his 1940 statement that the Aleksandar 
Memorial represented “lasting evidence of the strong will of Slovenes 
to live in a common country with Croats and Serbs.”85 Maribor’s mil-
itary (orthodox) priest Petar Trbojević, attending a gathering of the 
orthodox community in Maribor National House in November of 
1932 to discuss the renewal of Yugoslavia Square and Liberty Square 
(already predicted to host a memorial of King Petar), outspokenly com-
mitted to Serbian medieval identity and the great-Serbian ideal by stat-
ing that “there would be no Kosovo without Dečani and gračanica.” 
Božo Putniković, the vice-president of the Serbian orthodox commu-
nity, also spoke of the meaning of tradition and national conscience at 
the same event.86
The realisation of the Alexander Memorial was ultimately thwart-
ed by the outbreak of World War II in Yugoslavia in April of 1941. 
Meanwhile, the Lazarus Church was demolished by the Nazis immedi-
ately following their occupation of Styria in a bid to erase Yugoslavian 
elements from Maribor. The grandiose and monumental plan for 
Yugoslavian appearance of both squares remained unrealised and, due 
to a new world war that represented a greater historical shift, gave away 
its space to content created by a different political system.
84  Summarised from: globočnik, Spomenik kralju Aleksandru, 136.
85  renata Komić Marn, “Možje na konjih. Vloga in recepcija konjeniškega spomenika na 
Slovenskem,” Acta Historica Artis Slovenica 18, no. 2 (2013): 113–114.
86  “Pravoslavni božji hram v Mariboru,” Mariborski večernik Jutra, 2. 12. 1932, no. 174, 3.
P o L I g r A F I
42
B i b l i o g r a p h y
Pokrajinski arhiv Maribor [Maribor regional Archive] (PAM):
 – PAM/1758, fond Dev Saša (1908–1942) [Dev Saša (1908–1942) personal 
fonds].
 – PAM/18, fond Posamezne nerazvrščene fotografije Maribor [fonds of 
Single unclassified photos Maribor].
 – PAM/X1702, fond Digitalizati arhivskega gradiva iz Zbirke albumov 
fotografij in razglednic v Pokrajinskem arhivu Maribor [fonds Digitisa-
tion of archival material from the Collection of Photograph Albums and 
Postcards in the Maribor regional Archives].
 – PAM, fond Mestna občina Maribor [fonds of Municipality of Maribor].
 – PAM, fond Zavod za urbanizem Maribor [fonds of Maribor Urban 
Planning Institute].
 – PAM, fond Zbirka gradbenih načrtov (1796–1994) [fonds Collection of 
building plans].
Muzej narodne osvoboditve Maribor [Museum of National Liberation Mari-
bor] (MNoMb):
 – Fototeka MNoMb [Photo library of MNoMb].
Bernik, Valerija. “general rudolf Maister v vojaških dogodkih na območju 
Maribora in slovenskega Štajerskega v letih 1918 in 1919.” Vojaška zgodovina 15, 
no. 2 (2019): 23–54.
Clegg, Elisabeth. Art, Design and Architecture in Central Europe 1890-1920. 
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.
Codol, Jean-Paul. »Social differentiation and non–differentiation.” In The 
Social Dimension, European Developments in Social Psychology, Volume 2, edited 
by Henri Tajfel, 314–337. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Curk, Jože. Vodnik po Mariboru in bližnji okolici. Maribor: Umetniški kabi-
net Primož Premzl, 2000.
Curk, Jože, and Premzl, Primož. Mariborske vedute. Maribor: Umetniški 
kabinet Primož Premzl, 2004. 
Cvelfar, Bojan. Srbska pravoslavna cerkev na Slovenskem med svetovnima voj-
nama. Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2017.
Čopič, Špelca. Javni spomeniki v slovenskem kiparstvu prve polovice 20. stoletja. 
Ljubljana: Moderna galerija, 2000.
Ćurčić, Slobodan. Architecture in the Balkans. From Diocletian to Süleyman 
the Magnificent. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.
Ferlež, Jerneja, ed. Deutsche und Maribor. Ein Jahrhundert der Wenden 
1846–1946. Maribor: Umetniški kabinet Primož Premzl, 2012.
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  A S  T H E  S T A T E ' S  T O O L 
43
Fras, Maksimiljan. Mariborski župan dr. Alojzij Juvan in njegov čas. Maribor: 
EPoS, 2013.
Friedrich, Carl Joachim, and Brzezinski, Zbigniew. Totalitarian Dictatorship 
and Autocracy. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1961.
goldsteen Joel, and Elliot Cecil. Designing America: Creating Urban Identity. 
New York: Van Nostrand reinhold, 1994.
gostenčnik, Nina. Delovanje mariborskega mestnega sveta med letoma 1929 in 
1935. Maribor: Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Mariboru, 2016.
gostenčnik, Nina. Maribor v času mestnega načelnika dr. Franja Lipolda 
(1931-1935). Maribor: Založba Pivec, 2019.
globočnik, Damir. »Spomenik kralju Aleksandru I. v Mariboru.” Časopis za 
zgodovino in narodopisje 90=n. v. 55, no. 3-4 (2019): 133–163.
globočnik, Damir. Spomeniki. Ljubljana: revija SrP, 2022.
grafenauer, Bogo. “Narodnostno stanje in slovensko-nemška etnična meja 
na Štajerskem kot dejavnik osvoboditve severovzhodne Slovenije 1918/1919.” 
Zgodovinski časopis 33 (1979): 385–405.
Halbwachs, Maurice. Kolektivni spomin. Ljubljana: Studia Humanitatis, 
2001.
Hnídková, Vendula. Národní styl: Kultura a politika/National style: Arts and 
politics. Prague: Academy of Arts, Architecture and Design, 2013.
Hribernik Miro. Vojna na Hrvaškem 1990-1995. Maribor: Filozofska fakulteta 
Univerze v Mariboru, 2013.
Ignjatović, Aleksandar. Jugoslovenstvo u arhitekturi 1904-1941. Beograd: gra-
djevinska knjiga, 2007.
Ignjatović, Aleksandar. “National Unity through regional Diversity: Archi-
tecture as Political reform in Yugoslavia, 1929-1941.” In European Architectural 
History Network, edited by Hilde Heynen and Janina gosseye, 320-325. Brussels: 
Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgie voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten & 
Contactforum, 2012.
In Der Maur, gilbert. Der Weg zur Nation. Jugoslawiens Innenpoltiik 1918-
1938. Berlin-Wien-Zürich: Verlag für Wirtschaft und Kultur Payer & Co, 1938.
Kadijević, Aleksandar. Srpski arhitekti novijeg doba: Momir Korunović. Beo-
grad: Muzej nauke i tehnike, 1996.
Kadijević, Aleksandar, and Stefanović, Tadija. “Expressionism and Serbian 
Architecture Between Two World Wars”. In On the Very Edge. Modernism and 
Modernity in the Arts and Architecture of Interwar Serbia (1918-1941). Leuven: 
Leuven University Press, 2014.
Kadijević, Aleksandar. Vizantijsko graditeljstvo kao inspiracija srpskih neimara 
novijeg doba. Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 2016.
P o L I g r A F I
44
Kadijević, Aleksandar. “Between unitarism and regionalisms Architecture 
in Yugoslavia (1918–1941).” In Architecture of independence in Central Europe/
Architektura niepodległości w Europie Środkowej, 248-274. Krakow: International 
cultural centre, 2018.
Кадијевић, Александар. “Између уметничке носталгије и цивилизацијске 
утопије: византијске реминисценције у српској архитектури 20.века,” 
Српска уметност III. Замишљање прошлости и перцепција средњег века у 
српској умјетности XVIII-XXI века. Београд: САНУ, 2016, 169–177.
Komić Marn, renata. “Možje na konjih. Vloga in recepcija konjeniškega 
spomenika na Slovenskem,” Acta Histrorica Aris Slovenica 18, no. 2 (2013): 
113–114.
Kramberger, Taja. “Maurice Halbwachs: kolektivna memorija ni ne spomin 
in ne zgodovina”. Monitor ZSA: revija za zgodovinsko, socialno in druge antrop-
ologije 12, no. 1/2 (2010): 273–322.
Kramberger, Taja, rotar, Drago B. “Za antropološko raziskovanje: (namesto 
uvoda).” Monitor ZSA: revija za zgodovinsko, socialno in druge antropologije 12, 
no. 1/2 (2010): 9-14.
Kroger, Jane. Identity Development: Adolescence through Adulthood. Newcas-
tle-upon-Tyne: Sage, 2000.
Kuster, Janko, ed. Spominski zbornik ob 60-letnici bojev za severno slovensko 
mejo 1918-1919. Maribor, Ljubljana: Klub koroških Slovencev, Sklad Prežihovega 
Voranca, Zveza prostovoljcev-borcev za severno slovensko mejo 1918–1919, 1979.
Lazarini, Franci. ‘‘Cerkve, samostani, redovne hiše in sinagoge. In Igor 
Sapač, Franci Lazarini, Arhitektura 19. stoletja na Slovenskem. Ljubljana: Muzej za 
arhitekturo in oblikovanje, 2015. 
Manević, Zoran. Srpska arhitektura 1900–1970. Beograd: Muzej savremene 
umetnosti, 1972.
Manević, Zoran. Jučerašnje graditeljstvo. Beograd: Zavod za planiranje grada 
Beograda, 1979.
Manević, Zoran. Jugoslovenska arhitektura XX veka. Beograd: Muzej 
savremene umjetnosti, 1986.
Meško, Ksaver. Izbrana dela, IV. del. Celje: Družba sv. Mohorja, 1959.
Mole, Vojeslav. Umetnost južnih Slovanov. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 1965.
Moravánszky, Ákos. Die Architektur der Donaumonarchie. Berlin: W. Ernst & 
Sohn, 1988.
Moravánszky, Ákos. Competing Visions: Aesthetic Invention and Social Imagi-
nation in Central European Architecture, 1867–1918. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998.
Mylonas, Christos. Serbian Orthodox Fundamentals: The Quest for an Eternal 
Identity. Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2003.
Norberg-Schulz, Christian. Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Archi-
tecture. New York: razzoli, 1980.
R E L I G I O U S  I D E N T I T Y  A S  T H E  S T A T E ' S  T O O L 
45
omilanowska, Małgorzata. “Searching for a National Style in Polish Archi-
tecture at the End of the 19th and Beginning of the 20th Century.” In Art and 
the National Dream: The Search for Vernacular Expression in Turn-of-the-Century 
Design, edited by Nicola gordon Bowe, 99–116. Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 
1993.
ožinger, Anton. “Cerkvena zgodovina Maribora od konca 18. stoletja.” In 
Maribor skozi stoletja. Maribor: obzorja, 1991.
Penič, Lojze. Boj za slovensko severno mejo 1918-1920: kratek oris bojev za 
slovensko severno mejo po razpadu Avstro-Ogrske. Maribor: Muzej narodne osvo-
boditve Maribor, 1988.
Perovšek, Jurij. “Ustavna razprava in vprašanje državne ureditve.” In Sloven-
ska novejša zgodovina 1848–1992: Od programa Zedinjena Slovenija do medna-
rodnega priznanja Republike Slovenije, 240–244. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 
Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2005.
Perovšek, Jurij. “Značaj kraljeve diktature.” In Slovenska novejša zgodovina 
1848–1992: Od programa Zedinjena Slovenija do mednarodnega priznanja Repu-
blike Slovenije, 321–323. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, Inštitut za novejšo zgodo-
vino, 2005.
radovanović, Sašo. Mariborske ulice. Maribor: Kapital, 2005.
ratej, Mateja. “odtenki politizacije rimskokatoliške in Srbske pravoslavne 
cerkve pri Slovenski ljudski in Narodni radikalni stranki med svetovnima voj-
nama.” Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino 48, no. 2 (2008): 35–52.
Švajncer, Janez J. Slovenska vojska 1918-1919. Ljubljana: Prešernova družba, 1990.
Trachtenberg, Marvin. The Modern Architecture, Architecture. From prehistory 
to post-modernism. The Western Traditions. New York: H. N. Abrams, 1986.
Tuan, Yi-Fu. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: 
University of Minnesota Press, 2001.
Ude, Lojze. Boj za severno slovensko mejo: 1918-1919. Maribor: Založba 
obzorja, 1977.
Unknown Author. “Mariborska obč. Seja.” Slovenec, 27. 3. 1930.
Unknown Author. “Kje bo stala pravoslavna cerkev.” Slovenec, 12. 4. 1930.
Unknown Author. “razgovor z g. mestnim županom.” Mariborski večernik 
Jutra, 7. 5. 1932.
Unknown Author. “Anketa radi pravoslavne cerkve.” Mariborski večernik 
Jutra, 4. 6. 1932.
Unknown Author. “Pravoslavni božji hram v Mariboru.” Mariborski večernik 
Jutra, 2. 12. 1932.
Unknown Author. “Zavrnjena pritožba bivšega poslanca Žebota in tovarišev 
proti odstopu Jugoslovanskega trga za pravoslavno cerkev.” Mariborski večernik 
Jutra, 30. 1. 1934.
P o L I g r A F I
46
Unknown Author. “Mariborske vesti. Za pravoslavno cerkev.” Slovenec, 21. 7. 
1934.
Unknown Author. “Blagoslovitev temeljnega kamna za pravoslavno cerkev 
na Jugoslovanskem trgu.” Mariborski večernik Jutra, 9. 8. 1934.
Unknown Author. “Pravoslavna cerkev v Mariboru.” Mariborski večernik 
Jutra, 11. 8. 1934. 
Unknown Author. “Slovesna blagoslovitev temeljnega kamna srbske pravo-
slavne cerkve.” Mariborski večernik Jutra, 13. 8. 1934.
Unknown author. “Postavimo spomenik našemu Parmi.” Mariborski večernik 
Jutra, 8. 1. 1935.
Velikonja, Marko. “religizirani narod vs. nacionalizirana religija: verski 
vidiki kosovske krize.” Časopis za kritiko znanosti 27, no. 195/196 (1999): 97–98.
Veress, Dániel. “Architecture as Nation-Building: The Search for National 
Styles in Habsburg Central Europe Before and After World War I.” In Empires, 
Nations and Private Lives: Essays on the Social and Cultural History of the Great 
War, edited by Nari Shelekpayev, 1–39. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars, 2016.
Vidmar, Polona. “Lokalpatriotismus und Lokalpolitik: die Denkmäler Wil-
helms von Tegetthoff, Kaiser Josefs II. sowie Erzherzog Johanns in Maribor und 
die Familie reiser.” Acta historiae Artis Slovenica 18 (2013): 68–71.
Vrišer, Sergej. “Znamenja in javni spomeniki v Mariboru do 1941.” Časopis za 
zgodovino in narodopisje n. v. 7, no. 2 (1971): 175–195.
Vybíral, Jindřich. “National style as a construction of art history.” In The Plu-
rality of Europe: Identities and Spaces, edited by Winfried Eberhard and Christian 
Lübke, 465–474. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2010.
Vybíral, Jindřich. “Modernism or the National Movement in Prague.” In 
Art Around 1900 in Central Europe: Art Centers and Provinces, edited by Jacek 
Purchla, 203–209. Kraków: International Cultural Centre, 1999.
Žitko, Sonja. Po sledeh časa: Spomeniki v Sloveniji: 1800-1914. Ljubljana: 
Debora, 1996. 
Žnidaršič, Marjan. Do pekla in nazaj. Nacistična okupacija in narodnoosvobo-
dilni boj v Mariboru 1941-1945. Maribor: Muzej narodne osvoboditve, 1997.
Winter, Jay. “Foreword: remembrance as a Human right.” In Memory and 
Political Change, edited by Aleida Assmann and Linda Shortt. great Britain: 
CPI Antony rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne, 2012.