LJUBLJANA CASE: Defying Organizational Challenges and Collective Resilience at the Turn of the 20th Century: The Case of the Sokol Association in Styrian Ljutomer

Image  1: Ljutomer in 1870s 

Introduction 

Although the word Sokol literally translates to “falcon,” this study is not concerned with birds of prey, but with a remarkable grassroots gymnastic and cultural movement that took flight across Central Europe in the late 19th century.  

Originating in Prague in the early 1860s, the Sokol movement quickly spread throughout the Habsburg Monarchy, promoting not only physical fitness but also national consciousness. This paper focuses on the Sokol association in Ljutomer, a small town in the historical region of Styria (now northeastern Slovenia). This work complements ongoing research with our group, as Teja’s parallel study specifically examines the Sokol association in Ljubljana. 

The First Attempt to Establish the Association in 1872 

The people of Ljutomer first encountered the Sokol movement in 1868 at the first Slovenian “tabor”, which took place in Ljutomer. This national-political gathering, drawing several thousand participants demanding political rights, etc., is extensively analyzed in Nives’s research., is extensively analyzed in Nives’s research on the “tabori” movement. Among the participants were representatives of the Ljubljana Sokol. With their performance and red attire—shirts—they impressed the residents of Ljutomer.  

Soon, under the influence of an increasingly strong Slovenian national consciousness, the idea of founding a Sokol association in Ljutomer emerged. In May 1872, the founding assembly organized the inaugural meeting of the “Sokol Luttenberg” association. In June, they submitted a request for its establishment to the imperial local governor in Graz. The office (kaiserlich-königliche Statthalterei) in Graz prohibited the association based on Article 6 of the Association Act of 1867, thoroughly analysed by Teja, which states: 

§ 6. If the association, by its purpose or organization, is unlawful or poses a threat to the state, the competent state authority may prohibit its formation. This prohibition must be issued in writing within four weeks after the submission of the notification (§§ 4 and 5), stating the reasons. 

The rejection was based on Paragraph 2 of the association’s Statute, which allowed the organization of public gatherings.  

Image  2: Association's 1872 Statute 

But these gatherings were permitted by above mentioned provision. The law required the association to notify the authorities before each gathering, and the authorities had the right to send their representative to the meeting. 

Although the association had the right to appeal to the ministry under Paragraph 8 of the law, it instead resubmitted a request for establishment with an amendment to its Statute, stating that only those gatherings permitted [by the authorities] would be organized. However, the Imperial-Royal Governorate (kaiserlich-königliche Statthalterei) once again prohibited the formation, arguing that the amended Statute was insufficient. 

Image 3: Governorate's prohibition of the Association

This reasoning by the authority deeply troubled me. According to the 1867 Association Act, an association did not require government approval to organize gatherings. Yet, the authority rejected the application because the association's Statute did not explicitly require government permission for public meetings—even though the association had already included the required amendment. At this point, I was forced to ask whether there was another reason behind this argument for banning the association. 

In the early 1870s, German-Slavic relations were highly strained. The territory of present-day Slovenia was divided into crown lands (Avstrijsko Primorje, Kranjska, Štajerska in Koroška). While Ljubljana, where the first Sokol in Slovenia was founded, was located in the predominantly Slovenian Carniola, Ljutomer was part of Styria. At the time, Styria encompassed areas of modern Slovenia and Austria. In Slovenian Styria, during the late 19th century, the German minority played a significant role in cultural, economic, and political pressure, supporting the spread of the German language while restricting Slovenian. And because Sokol associations in other parts of the state were often seen as promoting Slovenian national identity, the following question arises: Was the ban of Sokol in Ljutomer influenced by the experiences the authorities had with the Ljubljana’s “Južni Sokol”, which are thoroughly described by my colleague Teja’s research? If the answer to this question is yes, then the ban on the association in 1872 must be seen as arbitrary. 

Successful Establishment of the Association in 1903 

The association had to wait 30 years for its successful establishment. The next attempt occurred in 1903, after the arrival of Dr. Karol Chloupek, a Czech, in Ljutomer. He was a strong supporter of progressive cultural-political ideas promoted by Masaryk in the Czech lands. He was assisted by Dr. Karel Grossman and Dr. Ivan Heric, both of whom had strong connections with the Czech lands. On May 26, 1903, the district administration in Ljutomer approved the association’s Statute, officially establishing the Gymnastics Association Murski Sokol in Ljutomer. 

In August, the association organized its inaugural rally, attended by several thousand people. Although the association was defined as apolitical, the rally featured several speakers who spoke about: 

• -strengthening Slovenian national consciousness, 

• -the importance of political struggle for small nations of the monarchy, 

• -advocating for the civil rights of Slovenes, 

• -the Slovenian language, 

• -Slovenian officials, 

• -the independent life of Slovenes and their oppression by foreigners [Germans]. 

Image 4: Association's group photo, its flag and coat of arms, 1904

Gathering in Ormož in 1905 

A particularly relevant event for the broader theme of the conference was the rally in Ormož, a town near Ljutomer, situated on the border between the Austrian and Hungarian parts of the monarchy (today: the border between Slovenia and Croatia). In 1905, Murski Sokol organized a rally there, inviting the Sokol from Varaždin, a town in neighbouring Hungary. Due to opposition from Ormož’s German community, which viewed Sokol as nationally intolerant, the district administration rejected the association’s request for the gathering twice. This outraged the newspapers, and the association's representatives appealed to Graz and Vienna. Two days before the rally, the authorities finally granted permission. 

Image 5: Local news article about the ban of the Ormož Celebration

More than five thousand people attended the event. However, as the crowd approached Ormož, they were blocked by armed gendarmes (žandarms). The crowd then moved toward the Drava Bridge, the border between the two states, to await the Varaždin Sokol, but gendarmes again blocked their way, preventing the Croatians from crossing the river. Tensions rose, and a scuffle broke out between the gendarmes and the crowd. The situation calmed down after intervention from association representatives. Dr. Karol Grossman threatened the Ptuj district commissioner, Franc v. Bouvard, saying: "You, Bouvard, are responsible for the rivers of blood that must flow!" The commissioner finally allowed the Croatians to cross the bridge—but only after they removed their symbolic association headgear. 

Image 6: Bridge in Ormož, dividing Austrian and Hungarian parts of the Monarchy

Collective rights 

As collective rights are part of this year’s theme, I sought to identify key tendencies in how they were recognized—or restricted—in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 

De facto v. de iure 

Despite relatively progressive and flexible Austrian regulations on paper, authorities, as can be seen in the above-mentioned examples, sometimes hindered the functioning of such organizations. 

A clear discrepancybetween de facto and de iure state can also be observed in the collective resilience of associations. While legal provisions allowed for appeals against prohibitions, members did not always take this route. This raises the question—was this truly inaction, or rather a strategic choice? Instead of openly challenging authorities, associations may have opted for patience and subtle compliance, aiming to navigate restrictions without jeopardizing future opportunities. 

Regional differences in association organization within the monarchy 

Although the Lesser German solution (Kleindeutsche Lösung) was officially adopted in 1871, the Greater German (Großdeutsche Lösung) idea persisted, shaping political and social attitudes in German-speaking world. In regions like Styria, this contributed to a climate less favourable to Slovenian associations.  

For example, in Carniola (Kranjska), the first Sokol association was founded as early as the 1860s, while in Styria (Štajerska), a similar organization was only successfully established three decades later, in 1890, in Celje. This delay was likely due to the broader socio-political environment: in Styria, the strong presence of the German-speaking population influenced the attitudes of regional authorities, who were more inclined to suppress forms of Slovenian association that, in other parts of the Slovene lands, were recognized as part of national revival efforts.  

Further research questions 

During my research several questions arose, that I will try to answer in my future research: 

• What was the role of German minorities in shaping administrative decisions in (Slovenian) Styria? 
• What was the extent of arbitrariness in decision-making regarding the prohibition of associations and gatherings?
• Comparison with Varaždin Sokol: How did the different legal framework in Hungary (compared to Cisleithanian Austria) influence the establishment and functioning of national associations like Sokol?

 By Domen Bogdan

This contribution is part of the Ljubljana students' collective project The rights of association and assembly between assertion and resistance among Slovenes with an outlook to Spain in the long 19th century: villagers, workers, academics, lawyers, gymnasts, citizens at large (curated by Prof. dr. Katja Škrubej).

References 

• Landesarchiv Steiermark. (1872). Turnverein "Sokol" Luttenberg, 1872: Statthalterei, 1. Geschäftsordnung, Akt 53-7214-1872 (K. 1512). 

• Landesarchiv Steiermark. (1903). Turnverein "Murski Sokol" Luttenberg, 1903: Statthalterei, 1. Geschäftsordnung, Akt 53-11959-1903 (K. 1617). 

• Pokrajinski arhiv Maribor. (1868, August 15). Triglav, 32. 

• Pokrajinski arhiv Maribor. (1872, June 20). Slovenski gospodar, 25. 

• Pokrajinski arhiv Maribor. (1872, June 27). Slovenski gospodar, 26. 

• Pokrajinski arhiv Maribor. (1904, June 10). Domovina, 44. 

• Pokrajinski arhiv Maribor. (1905, June 20). Domovina, 48. 

• Pokrajinski arhiv Maribor. (1905, September 15). Domovina, 73. 

• Pokrajinski arhiv Maribor. (1905, September 19). Domovina, 74. 

• Pokrajinski arhiv Maribor. (1905, September 17). Štajerc, 19. 

• Ratiznojnik, A. (2000). Telovadno društvo Sokol v Ljutomeru: 1903–1941. Zavod za kulturo in izobraževanje; Zgodovinsko društvo. 

Image Sources 

• Image 1 Wikimedia Commons. (n.d.). Europe 1871 map https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Europe_1871_map_en.png Na koncu vasi. (n.d.). Ljutomer – Lutenberg.  https://www.nakoncuvasi.si/img/znamenitosti/Ljutomer_Lutenberg.jpg 

• Images 2 & 3: Landesarchiv Steiermark. (1872). Turnverein "Sokol" Luttenberg, 1872: Statthalterei, 1. Geschäftsordnung, Akt 53-7214-1872 (K. 1512). 

• Image 4: Ratiznojnik, A. (1998). Telovadno in kulturno društvo Sokol v Ljutomeru 1903–1941. Kronika, 46(1/2), 119–128. 

• Image 5: Pokrajinski arhiv Maribor. (1905, June 20). Domovina, 48. 

• Image 6: Homo Cumolat. (2023). Ormož z okolico, 1906.  https://i0.wp.com/homocumolat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/1906-Ormoz-z-okolico.jpg.