This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 93.143.144.51 (talk) at 19:16, 19 December 2024 (→John Van Antwerp part: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:16, 19 December 2024 by 93.143.144.51 (talk) (→John Van Antwerp part: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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.
John Van Antwerp part
Why is that there? I mean we can say about any figure before 19th cenutry. 93.143.144.51 (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: