If one visits the Wikipedia page of 17th century Dalmatian historian Giovanni Lucio (Latin: Ioannes Lucius), one will read that he is widely regarded in Croatia as "the father of modern Croatian historiography". By the dogged efforts of Croatian Wikipedians, the neologism "Ivan Lučić," invented in the late 19th century, even takes precedence over the name Giovanni Lucio, by which the author signed himself.
As is often the case, the Croatian claim to Giovanni Lucio is an unintentionally amusing one. The Lucii were an old Venetian patrician family, of which the Dalmatian Lucii were only one branch; but more to the point, "Croatian historian" Lucio - a notably thorough and scientifically-minded historian, by 17th century standards - in his History of Dalmatia and in Particular of the Cities of Traù and Sebenico, published in Venice in the year 1674 A.D., slaughters some of the most sacred cows of the aforementioned modern Croatian historiography, whose myths are all too often propagated by foreign journalists and academics.
One of the fundamental claims of Croatian nationalist historiography is that by the early Middle Ages, at latest, the inhabitants of the cities of Dalmatia were primarily (or, as some insist, entirely) Slavic-speaking Croats.
Here is what the "father of modern Croatian historiography" has to say in the preface (pg. 16, in the linked archive.org scan) about the language spoken by Dalmatians in his time:
"I, Giovanni Lucio son of Pietro, having collected the memory of all that which, from the most ancient times until the past century, has occurred in that part of Illyrium, which after the decline of the Roman Empire was called the Kingdom of Dalmatia and Croatia, have published it under that same title; in which work having found convenient to examine many writings of various Greek and Latin authors, I did avail myself of the ancient Roman language which among the literate of divers nations is common.
"Now having to write the Memoirs of Traù my Patria, I have wished to avail myself of the modern, or vulgar, which as much Italian as Dalmatian can be called; thus having taken care to use only words that are understood by Dalmatians, I will be pardoned if I do not write in the Tuscan manner."
He then repeats himself with even more clarity on page 26:
Because not all understand the ancient Roman language, commonly called Latin, in which I explained these things, I will repeat some of them here in this modern Roman language, called Italian (as opposed to the other, also Roman languages, which in their own Provinces are named Spanish, French and Vallachian) which is also called Dalmatian (since now, just as in the past, it is used here as it is in Italy, as further on will be proved) so that in this language also these records that are found in Traù may be understood...
...The name Dalmatian or Roman from then on belonged only to seven cities: three situated upon the Isles, in olden times called Flanatico, now called the Quarnaro, which are Ossaro, Veglia and Arbe; and four upon the continent, which are Zara, Traù, Spalato and Ragusi.
Lucio describes the Italian idiom in which he writes - so many centuries after Dalmatia is alleged to have been expunged of Latins - as the Dalmatian volgare, the language spoken by himself and his Dalmatian compatriots. Here and throughout the work, Lucio takes pains to emphasize that the name Dalmatian refers only to Romans and their descendants, and to distinguish between them and Slavs. When referring to the various South Slavic peoples collectively he uses the term Slav, and when discussing them individually, refers to them as Croats, Serbs, Narentines and Bosnians.
Next, it is a point of faith among Croatian nationalist historians that in the former Republic of Ragusa, moreso than any other Dalmatian city, the population was entirely Slavic-speaking (Croat) by the 10th or 11th century, and at absolute latest by the 14th century, the time of the foundation of the Republic. That not a single document was written in a Slavic language during the five centuries of Ragusan independence does not seem to be viewed as an issue; though, as they themselves occasionally admit, such circumstance does present a significant barrier to the Croatian historian who has not studied Italian.
With regards to such, the "father of modern Croatian historiography" on page 537 writes:
"It was mentioned at length in the other work and also in the first book of the present work, how the Croats occupied that part of Dalmatia, that extends between Istria and the river Cetina, and the Serbians the rest until Durazzo. Thus the Croats come to border against Zara, Traù and Spalato, and the Serbians with Ragusa: four cities, which on the mainland conserve the name of Dalmatians, Romans, or Latins."
Not only does Lucio emphasize that the inhabitants of Zara, Traù, Spalato and Ragusa are "Dalmatians, Romans, Latins;" he says that Croats didn't even live near the area of Ragusa, but rather that bordering Ragusa was the country of - horror of horrors - Serbians! As if to rub salt in the wounds of his fellow modern Croatian historians, again here Lucio clearly distinguishes between Dalmatians - among whose number he includes himself, and in whose language he clearly states he is writing - and Slavs.
Finally - at least for the purposes of this piece - most works dealing with the history of present-day Croatia published in recent years, whether authored by Croatians or Anglophones, repeat the false claim that "Croatian" Dalmatia was brought under Venetian domination by force in the 15th century. Arguably, this is the ur-myth and certainly among the first and most blatantly ahistorical falsehoods upon which Croatian nationalism has been built.
This is what the "father of modern Croatian historiography" has to say on pages 24-25 about how it was Dalmatia first came under Venetian influence:
Then subsequently the Dalmatians approached Charlemagne, and once more were made to return under the Greeks until the rule of Michael II the Amorian, by reason of whose incompetence [they were] abandoned, and having brought themselves to freedom, were required to align themselves with Venice so as to defend themselves together from the offenses of the Saracens, and Slavs; and though [once having] become Emperor Basil the Macedon sent the navy to the Gulf in aid of the Dalmatians; nevertheless, so as not to have to make war against Saracens and Slavs together he contented himself by [having] the same Dalmatians send a particular tribute to the Slavs, so as to be able to resist more easily the Saracens; but the possessions of the Empire declining even more after the death of Basil, and the Slavs, having removed themselves from the Empire of the Franks, daily occupying more islands from the Dalmatians, these (the Dalmatians) were required by reason of their weakness to turn to the power of the Venetians, which from day to day became more potent, as has been described..."
And again:
…The Doge of Venice, Pietro Orseolo II, in response to the offenses of Slavs in the Gulf of Venice around the 1000th year of Christ, went with his fleet to Istria, then to Dalmatia, where he was received by the Dalmatians; and having taken several places from the Slavs, they were forced to make peace with him, and to abstain from piracy in the sea. And since by the Dalmatians he was hailed as liberator, and acclaimed by them Prince of Dalmatia, from that time the Doges of Venice assumed the titular lordship of Dalmatia…
According to Lucio, his fellow modern Croatian historians are 4-5 centuries off the mark, as here he describes the rapprochement between Venice and Dalmatia as taking place as early as the 9th century, and the assumption by Venice of the title to Dalmatia by around the year 1000 A.D. Worse, he describes it as an alliance entered into voluntarily by the aforementioned "Dalmatians, Romans, Latins," who did not have the strength alone to defend themselves against the attacks of Saracen and Slav pirates after the decline and disappearance of Byzantine sea power in the western Mediterranean.
One does wonder how Lucio could have come to be seen as the father of Croatian historiography when the former was sober, scientific, and by culture and language Italian, while the latter is none of the three.
No comments:
Post a Comment