| Revision as of 05:16, 14 October 2007 editAradic-en (talk | contribs)1,070 edits →University of Padova← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:29, 21 December 2024 edit undo93.143.143.19 (talk)No edit summaryTags: Manual revert Mobile edit Mobile web edit | ||
| (41 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{WPBiography | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |listas=Marulic, Marko |living=no |1= | |||
| |living=no | |||
| {{WikiProject Biography | |||
| |class= | |||
| |a&e-work-group=yes | |||
| |priority= | |||
| }} | |||
| {{WikiProject Croatia|importance=High}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Croatian Works Section == | |||
| ==He didn't write anything in Italian== | |||
| Marko Marulić didn't write anything in Italian. He wrote only in Latin and Croatian. This Italian site has the complete bibliography: . Therefore, there is no reason to include the Italian version of the name only because Venice ruled his hometown during his lifetime. --] 11:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Let's suppose you are right: Marco Marulo is referncied: so you have to leave it where he is.--] 20:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The debate here largely ignores the complexities and specificities of Marco Marulic's culture. He was a native of Venetian-controlled Split, clearly identifying with the dominant Romance language-speaking society ruling the place. These were the governors, administrators, bishops, military commanders, teachers and scholars who spoke Latin, the Venetian dialect or some Romance lingua franca, whether they were Venetian, imported from other regions in the Italian peninsular or locally born. Importantly, Marko himself also acknowledged the Slavic-speaking community which obviously embodied the majority vernacular language in the Dalmatian region, namely, Croatian, Hrvatski or as he put in a famous work, "haruacchi". This writer and intellectual figure consciously reflected both aspects. He is a symbiotic figure like Hektorovic, Drzic and Gundulic, epitomising the essence of a multilayered Dalmatian culture which developed from Roman, Slav and Venetian influences. When we talk today of him being an Italian or a Croat with our modern, post-19 Century nationalistic sensibilities we are seeking to oversimplify who he was ethnically, culturally and liguistically. We need to detach our own contemporary worldview from the historical account. The same applies to the debates focused around Marco Polo, Juraj Dalmatinac and other Dalmatians. I wish upon you a cooling breeze.--] 13:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == About "Croatization' of history of Dalmazia == | |||
| The fact is that the idea of Croatia and Croats - as it could seen today - emerged in the second half of 19th century. It is baseless to extend the same idea in the past and apply on the people who never called themselves Croats and territories which never belonged to any Croatia in the past. Misplaced Pages is not a place for political propaganda. --] 12:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Read the ] and learn something. You could also check the article called ] to understand what you're doing right now. --] 12:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I read more than your propaganda pamphlets. And, please, be civil.--] 13:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hypocrite! --] 13:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry but you are writing nonsense here. Marulić openly declared and wrote he is writing in Croatian. Also your hypothesis that the idea of Croats and Croatia emerged in 19th century is laughable. The idea of Croats and Croatia existed throughout history and was expressed by various people in Dalmatia. Not just ordinary people but people of meaning, people like Marulić, Držić, Vrančić and so on. So please why don't you stop with this nonsense and actually do something useful for Misplaced Pages. And stop vandalizing fine articles already. --] 14:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is those things written by people like GiorgioOrsini that should be reported to an administrator--his comments openly admit he does not believe the Croatian people existed until the second half of the 19th century. He writes off everything that contradicts him as "propaganda." Is there anyway he can be reported to stop his attacks against Croatia and its culture?? He doesnt even attempt to learn about Croatia, as can be seen. This is getting ridiculous--every Croatian should be insulted over this. And thank you Zmaj for introducing me to the ] article. Now I have an official name on what he has been doing.--] 02:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again I witness the historical facts offending our nationalist worldviews, ie that each "nation" must have an ethnically homogenous population and that multiculturalism only existed after 1953. And I note the desperate efforts made to defend the nationality of a figure who himself would not quite understand what the all the fuss is about. Let me remind you that Spalatto / Split was more of a city state within the Venetian Republic and Marulic's allegiences were to his Western European home town, and not Venice or Padua or Florence or Bologna or Rome. So we can remove the Italian designer label from his scholarly robes. Nor did Marulic ever harp on about King Tomislav's reign in the 10 tenth century or the Hungarian/Croatian Dual crown - and he would have known about this being a historian and a man of the church. We can therefore remove the "Made in Croatia" sticker from his spectacles. What he does truthfully reflect however by the language of his work is a culture informed by the two elements of Romance and Slav. The comments from Signore Orsini are not helpful. Likewise, the proponents on the Croatian side - though not the main offenders - should think a bit deeper as well.--] 14:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| =My edits= | |||
| My edits are logic and referencied. I invite Croatian users to list where I am wrong and, in the case, to change just the proper lines, without to perform edit wars (all togheter) and to insult me.--] 20:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No they are not logic nor referenced. Your supposed source has no mention of Marulić or his work. All international sources and scholars consider Marulić to be a Croat, including Encyclopedia Britannica and Italian mainstream sources, not counting those few right-wing extremists like yourself. Stop ruining this article, find some other amusment. --] 21:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::1) Marco Marulo is referencied<br /> | |||
| ::2) Marulo was not born in Croatia but in Dalmatia.<br /> | |||
| ::2) he wrote Italian poems<br /> | |||
| ::3) the old names of the cities were italian (see wikirules for historical names)<br /> | |||
| ::4) You, uncivil, do not insult!--] 21:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::None of your arguments have any meaning. Show me the poems he wrote in Italian. And please some me one reference which mentions him as "Italian poet". --] 21:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I've listed the pushing POV you have inserted in the aricle such as 1) imposing modern Croatian names 2) you claim is Croatian but he is born in Dalmatia 3) you deleted the Italian name... | |||
| :::As a matter of fact, I don't deny you deny his Itlian side, it's not me that deny the slavic side.--] 21:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Until you provide what other people here have asked from you we have nothing to say to each other. --] 21:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So you REFUSE to answer... poor boy!--] 21:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I repeat that my edits were sourced and that 1)The name Marco Marulo is referencied 2)Marulo was not born in Croatia but in Dalmatia (so he can be Italian and Slavic in the same tim e). ) he wrote Italian poems, so he is an Italian poet (that it is not against the fact that he wrote Illyric poems. 3) the old names of the cities were italian (see wikirules for historical names).--] 15:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Enlighten us and shows us where in your source does it says he is Italian poet. Also I don't see what meaning does it has wheter he was born in Kingdom of Croatia ruled by Hungary or in Venetian Dalmatia. It is common knowledge that Croats were in fact majority in Dalmatia and that medieval Croatian kingdom was in fact based in Dalmatia. Also he wrote in Croatian language, those were his exact words, that is why he is "father of Croatian literature", because he openly declared his ethnicity. I would very much like to see any of his poems in Italian though since I never heard of it. I agree with ''Marco Marulo'' name though, it should be mentioned perhpahs. Also to remind you that Italy was founded in 1861, there was no Italy in Marulić's time. --] 15:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::A cool breeze upon Signore Giove.--] 14:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Here's a link to the library of HAZU. Search result . ''Opera di Marco Marulo da Spalato Della institutione del buono, e beato uiuere secondo l'essempio delle uite de' santi, del Vecchio e Nuouo Testamento : diuisa in sei libri'' / <u>tradotta in '''lingva toscana'''</u> da M. Remigio Fiorentino, del ordine de' predicatori. - . - In Venetia : Appresso Francesco Bindoni, 1574.<br> | |||
| Someone denies here the existence of Croatian language, but the historical sources say that in the Marulić's time, he knew for "Croatian language", but at that time it wasn't used "Italian", for the languagename, but "lingua toscana". Does that mean that Italian language didn't existed? No. It was named under regional name, just as was Croatian historically <u>also></u> named after its historical provinces ("''dalmatinski, ilirički, slavonski, bosanski''").<br> | |||
| See the languagename of Croatian here - explicitly named as "Croatian". See this link from the ''Libar Marca Marula Splichianina v chom se vsdarsi Istoria vdouice Iudit v <u>versih haruacki</u> slosena : chacho ona ubi voivodu Olopherna posridu voische gnegoue i oslodobi puch israelischi od veliche pogibili00. - (3rd edition). - In Venetia : Appresso Marco Bindoni, 1586. <br> | |||
| Here's the 4th edition: ''Libar Marcha Marula Splikyanina v chom se vzdarxi istoria sfete vdouice Iudite u <u>versih haruaschi</u> sloxena : chacho ona ubi voyvodu Olopherna posridu voyske gniegoue i oslobodi puch israelski od veliche pogibili''. In Venetia : Apresso Agostin & Alessandro Bindoni alla Libraria della Giustizia a S. luca, 1627. ] 09:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Croatian language and historical name in use == | |||
| Few links from library of HAZU<br>. | |||
| . Book by Bernardin <u>Splićanin</u> (Bernardin of Split). ''Pistvle i Evanyelya po sfe godischie <u>harvatschim yazichom</u> stumacena. Novo pristampana i spomgnom priuiyena, po nacinu nouoga Missala nareyena po sfetoy materi Crichui. - Prodayuse v Bnetcih pri sfetomu Xulianu v chgnigara chi darxi zlamen od Macche'', <u>1586</u>. <br> | |||
| catalogue search result and scanned first page . Book from <u>1699</u>. ''Naredbe od zbora darxave '''<u>splitske</u>''' / dane na svitlo od prisuit. i prip. gna gna Stipana Cosmi arkibiskvpa '''<u>splitskoga</u>''' inako Solinskoga, poglauice Dalmatie i sue <u>harvuatske zemglie</u>.''<br> | |||
| and . By Ivan Dražić: ''Proslavglienje s. Dujma, parvoga archibiskupa solinskoga braniteglja <u>Splieta</u> grada i svoieh darsciavaa sve <u>Harvaske semglje</u> poglavize / Prikasano piesnim slovinskima po Ivannu Drasichju popu <u>Spliechjaninu</u>. Pris. i priposit. g. Stippanu Cosmi archibiskupu <u>splieskomu</u> priklono poklogneno''. - U Bnezih : pritiskano po Antonu Bartoli, <u>1706</u>.<br> | |||
| Unknown author. Note: 2n edition?. ''Pripraugle k s misi, pribogogliubne molitve koje imaju misniczih pria i poslie s. misse govoriti prinesene iz latinskoga u <u>harvaski jezik</u> za lasnost i potribu misnikah <u>Harvachianah<u>.'' - . - U Mleczi : Po J. Tommasinu, <u>1747</u>.<br> | |||
| I'll translate you the text later. Note: all these texts are church texts, and they were printed in '''<u>Venice</u>'''. <br> | |||
| Even in Venice from 16th century, and Roman Catholic Church at all, it was clear that Croatia existed; though, at that time, under foreign rulers, but still, existed as country ("harvuatske zemglie" = "Croatia"). ] 09:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Nonsences by Giovanni Giove == | |||
| 1) Marco Marulo is referencied | |||
| As well as Jackie Chan , Bruce Lee.... So what?? Artistic names for the foreigners... | |||
| Do you know they their real names ? Off course not, because you can not pronounce them!! | |||
| 2) Marulo was not born in Croatia but in Dalmatia. | |||
| In that case Dante Alighieri , Michealngelo ,da Vinci were not italian artists, scientists at all . they were not born in Italy , neither Italy existed in time. And nobody called Rome, Venice, Florence ,Naples as Italian | |||
| 2) he wrote Italian poems | |||
| your counting is not too good! 3 . | |||
| if you are saying the truth and Marulić was writting in toscany language ..... George Bernard Shaw, James Joyce have have been writting in English , but they were not English. | |||
| Btw, there was no Italy at that time. Neither Split was italian ever . So these his (never unrevealed) poems might belong | |||
| to Dalmatia, Croatia, etc. Surely not to Italy. | |||
| 3) the old names of the cities were italian (see wikirules for historical names) | |||
| Another fake !! Old names were either Illyric, either Greek or Latin. | |||
| Surely not Italian !! | |||
| 4) You, uncivil, do not insult!--Giovanni Giove 21:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Here we go ! Bingo!!! a high -class civilized irredenta boy... | |||
| Looking for uncivilized:take a look at a mirror!! | |||
| Is there any way to stop those two guys:Giorgio Orsini and Giovanni Giove?? | |||
| Just spitting out their ] propaganda. and at the same time accusing for the things they are doing themselves?? | |||
| Or we should bring here ] | |||
| --] 10:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == University of Padova == | |||
| Here is a website of the '''Italian''' ] about Marko Marulić. | |||
| http://marulianum.storia.unipd.it/ | |||
| On that are list his Croatian works (''Opere croate'') and Latin works (''Opere latine''). No any mention of his works in Italian (Toscan or Venetian ) language. | |||
| "American historian John Van Antwerp Fine, Jr. emphasizes that Marulić belongs to a group of humanists and clerics placed in the "Croat" camp who, at least at the time they wrote their texts, did not seem to have a Croatian ethnic identity." | |||
| No mather that in the biography of him in Italian is mentiooend his italianized name , the name of the article '''Marko Marulić''' (1450-1524) | |||
| The reference quoting John Van Antwerp Fine, Jr. shouldn't be in the article considering it does not contribute any useful information except to discredit any reference to Marko Marulić being a Croat. It should be noted that Venetian and other authors of Italian ethnicity only wrote in Italian or Latin during the existence of the Venetian Republic. Marko Marulić wrote his major work 'Judita', stating in the foreword, '...u versih haruacchi slozhena' - '...arranged in Croatian verses'. The adjective 'haruacchi' is important as it shows Croatian as the language he chose to write in - 'hrvatski' in modern Croatian. Had he been anything other than a Croat, he wouldn't have chosen to write in a language he himself called 'Croatian'. A high percentage of people in Dalmatia at the time were illiterate, and Venetians only spoke Italian and Latin, therefore Marko Marulić would have had to have good reason to call his language Croatian and to write in a language that would, in the eyes of Venetians, have been obscure, alien and of no importance. There would be no reason to call his language Croatian were it not for the fact that he was a Croat. When Marko Marulić was born, Split was already a part of the Venetian Republic and therefore no one can argue that he chose to call his language 'Croatian' based on the political entity he lived in. He lived in the Republic of Venice and he chose to write in Croatian, a Slavic language that Venetians couldn't read or understand. What would make a writer of his prominence do so unless he personally felt a connection with Croatian ethnicity. | |||
| It should be noted that in his work, John Van Antwerp Fine, Jr. writes a conclusion - not a fact. There is no evidence or reference in any of the works by Marko Marulić where he explicitly stated that he did or did not feel Croatian. He did state his language as Croatian however. This would be akin to saying that because, during his lifetime, Leonardo Da Vinci never stated he felt Italian, he was therefore not Italian. It should be noted that in a critical review written by professor Neven Budak of the University of Zagreb, Budak (https://hrcak.srce.hr/49246?lang=en) stated "ideological prejudices", "omission of historical facts" and "preconceived conclusions" about John Van Antwerp's work partly because in the book John Van Antwerp exposes his personal bias regarding former Yugoslavia which shouldn't be a part of academic work of this nature. Furthermore John Van Antwerp Fine, Jr has family members with links to former Yugoslavia that could have influenced his writing. | |||
| So much about Italianhood of Marko Marulić. lol | |||
| --] 05:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:29, 21 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marko Marulić article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Croatian Works Section
"American historian John Van Antwerp Fine, Jr. emphasizes that Marulić belongs to a group of humanists and clerics placed in the "Croat" camp who, at least at the time they wrote their texts, did not seem to have a Croatian ethnic identity."
The reference quoting John Van Antwerp Fine, Jr. shouldn't be in the article considering it does not contribute any useful information except to discredit any reference to Marko Marulić being a Croat. It should be noted that Venetian and other authors of Italian ethnicity only wrote in Italian or Latin during the existence of the Venetian Republic. Marko Marulić wrote his major work 'Judita', stating in the foreword, '...u versih haruacchi slozhena' - '...arranged in Croatian verses'. The adjective 'haruacchi' is important as it shows Croatian as the language he chose to write in - 'hrvatski' in modern Croatian. Had he been anything other than a Croat, he wouldn't have chosen to write in a language he himself called 'Croatian'. A high percentage of people in Dalmatia at the time were illiterate, and Venetians only spoke Italian and Latin, therefore Marko Marulić would have had to have good reason to call his language Croatian and to write in a language that would, in the eyes of Venetians, have been obscure, alien and of no importance. There would be no reason to call his language Croatian were it not for the fact that he was a Croat. When Marko Marulić was born, Split was already a part of the Venetian Republic and therefore no one can argue that he chose to call his language 'Croatian' based on the political entity he lived in. He lived in the Republic of Venice and he chose to write in Croatian, a Slavic language that Venetians couldn't read or understand. What would make a writer of his prominence do so unless he personally felt a connection with Croatian ethnicity.
It should be noted that in his work, John Van Antwerp Fine, Jr. writes a conclusion - not a fact. There is no evidence or reference in any of the works by Marko Marulić where he explicitly stated that he did or did not feel Croatian. He did state his language as Croatian however. This would be akin to saying that because, during his lifetime, Leonardo Da Vinci never stated he felt Italian, he was therefore not Italian. It should be noted that in a critical review written by professor Neven Budak of the University of Zagreb, Budak (https://hrcak.srce.hr/49246?lang=en) stated "ideological prejudices", "omission of historical facts" and "preconceived conclusions" about John Van Antwerp's work partly because in the book John Van Antwerp exposes his personal bias regarding former Yugoslavia which shouldn't be a part of academic work of this nature. Furthermore John Van Antwerp Fine, Jr has family members with links to former Yugoslavia that could have influenced his writing.
Categories: