Talk:Johannes Lucius

Name of Trogir

Quote from [[1]] page; "Please, keep in mind that, per WP:NC, for the purposes of naming this article the names used for this artist by Latin, Italian, Croatian or Chinese-speaking individuals and authors (of the past, present and future) are irrelevant. Instead, we should consider only the names commonly used in English-language" Trogir is known in English language as Trogir, not Trau:) And that is also its historical name (on Croatian language). Also Marulić is an Croatian writer (father of croatian literature). |Ceha 18:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

Lucio is Italian for culture, instruction, life, birth and ethnicity. I wrote his works in Italian. So that I have correct the article. The previous claim for a supposed 'Croatian' nationality was not based on accurate sources. He was not born in Croatia, and he did not even knew Croatian. --Giovanni Giove 08:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your claims are unsourced. I provided three scientific sources that mention him as a Croatian. Please explain why my sources are not accurate. --Zmaj 08:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your sources are totally based on Yugoslavian papers. It's well know that in Yugoslavia and Croatia Giovanni Lucio is claimed to be Croatian, and he is called Ivan Lucic. Try with logic arguments.--Giovanni Giove 09:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's simply not true. My first source is a Dutch scholar, my second an American one. Only the third reference is a Croatian book, and I'll remove it for the sake of objectivity. --Zmaj 09:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

All your sources are based on Croatian sources. I shall futhermore to point out something that is not reported in the Yugoslavian books you used at school: Lucio clearly denided to be Croat, in fact he pointed out the existence of a Roman Dalmatia, different from the Croatian Dalmatia, for habits, language and culture. That Lucio... not an evil 'irridentist'.--Giovanni Giove 09:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

All your sources are based on Croatian sources. - Are they? Could be, we'd have to check. But even if we checked and found out they really used Croatian sources, if contemporary Dutch and American historians consider them valid sources, where's the problem?

Lucio clearly denied to be Croat - Did he? Somehow I doubt that. Please quote where he said that he was not a Croat. Then we'll see whether that should be taken at face value.

not an evil "irridentist" - Who are you talking about?

--Zmaj 09:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The source you want is Johannis Lucii De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae - Liber duos, (Amsterdam 1666). Read your sources, they are based on Yugoslavian sources. Depsite this, I wrote some more logic argumets, such as language, culture birth place, spoken languges, studies, political possession of the birth place, life... Similar argumets to enforce a possible Croatian nationaly: nothing at all. --Giovanni Giove 10:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I provided non-Croatian sources that mention him as a Croatian. How about you provide some non-Italian sources that mention him as an Italian? Then we can continue the discussion. Until then, you're in the wrong. "Logic arguments"? It's your own private logic. Read WP:REF. --Zmaj 10:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Manual of style states that: Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.) The word citizen has emphasis. Is Giovanni Lucio, a citizen of Croatia or Italy? That's the question, and please don't edit war, until a reasonable conclusion is made. Thank you.--Dark Falls ^talk 11:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

He was a citizen of Venice (there was no Italy back then). He definitely wasn't a citizen of Croatia. On the other hand, his ethnicity is relevant for his notability - he means much more to Croatians (who call him "the father of Croatian historiography") than to Italians. So my proposal is to write that he was a Venetian historiographer, but to include his importance for Croatian historiography in the opening chapter, since it's crucial. Is that OK? --Zmaj 11:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We agree that he is Venetian, but put a link to show his relation to Croatia? We cannot put him as Italian, because of its non-existence. For an example, see other articles such as the Roman emperor Julius Caesar. Is Caesar considered Italian or Roman? The solution seems acceptable to me, but I am not sure about Giovanni... --Dark Falls ^talk 11:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can say he was an Italian in the sense that Giovanni Lucio lived in the realm of medieval Italy - which is well-established and widely used historical notion. The same way are Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci Italians.--Giorgio Orsini 13:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci lived on Apenine peninsula in ancient roman province of Italia. Dalmatia is not and can not be Italy in any sense. We can only talk about parts of Dalmatia being part of Italy in political sense from 1920 to 1944-45. --No.13 21:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Not nationality - something else

Yes, we can say he was an Italian in the sense that Giovanni Lucio lived in the realm of medieval Italy - which is well-established and widely used historical notion. The same way are Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci Italians.

Proof:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9108470/Leonardo-da-Vinci

Leonardo da Vinci born April 15, 1452, Anchiano, near Vinci, Republic of Florence [now in Italy] died May 2, 1519, Cloux [now Clos-Lucé], France

Italian painter, draftsman, sculptor, architect, and engineer whose genius, perhaps more than that of any other figure, epitomized the Renaissance humanist ideal. --Giorgio Orsini 13:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that Lucius was memeber of St.Jerome church in Rome where for someone to join that person should have ethnic Slavic/Croatian origin and should be able to speak "Illyric" (Croatian) language. He is equally part of Croatian heritage as he is of Italian. Please respect that. --No.13 21:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This beloved Croatian never wrote a line in Croatian, he pointed out the difference between the 'Roman Dalmatia' and the 'Slavic Dalmatia'....--Giovanni Giove 21:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes and? There are other facts which point to his Croatian origins such as memembership in St.Jerome church/fraternity, his close friendship and cooperation with various memers of Croatian nobility. And in the end Leibnitz for example wrote in French and Latin and he was no doubtably German. While you mention his work "De Regno Croatiae and Dalmatiae" is one of the most important for Croatian historiography because it speaks about Croatian kingdom from it's begining's to his time. --No.13 21:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

...pointing out it was quite different and separatd from Dalmatia:-)... and basically enemy of the Dalmatian cities :-))))

He presented the core facts buddy, that is what historians do. --No.13 21:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversial changes

Theirrulez, please don't delete controversial info from text without any discussion, especially if the article doesn't have any references. Thanks. Kebeta (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Lucius himself wrote about his "nationality". In the preface of the book Memorie storiche di Tragurio hora detto Traù (in Venezia, presso Stefano Curti, 1674), he stated that: "Avendo io Giovanni Lucio figlio di Pietro raccolte le memorie di tutto ciò, che da tempi antichissimi, fino al secolo passato è succeduto in quella parte dell'Illirico, che dopo la declinazione dell'Impero Romano fu detta Regno di Dalmazia, e Croazia, l'ho anco sotto l'istesso titolo pubblicate; nella qual opera essendomi convenuto esaminare molti detti di varij autori Greci, e Latini, mi sono valso dell'antica lingua romana che tra letterati di diverse nationi è comune. Hora dovendo scrivere le Memorie di Traù mia Patria, ho voluto valermi della moderna o volgare, che non più Italiana, che Dalmatina può dirsi; onde havendo havuto riguardo solamente d'usar parole, che siano intese da Dalmatini, sarò scusato se non scriverò Toscanamente".

"I, John Lucius son of Peter, having collected the memories of all this, succeeded since ancient times until the last century in that part of Illyricum whiich after the decline of the Roman Empire was called the Kingdom of Dalmatia and Croatia, I even published it under the same title, in which the defendant Having examined many of these several Greeks and Latins authors, the ancient Roman language which among scholars of different Nation is common. Now, having to write the memoirs of Trau, my country, I wanted to use the modern language or vulgar, that no more Italian, nor Dalmatin we can call; because having had regard only for using words that are intended by Dalmatian, I don't have to apologize if I write Tuscany."

Then, P. 522: "E' stato longamente accennato nell'altra opera et anco nel primo libro della presente accennato, come li Croati occupassero quella parte di Dalmatia, che s'estende tra l'Istria, e il fiume Cetina, e li Serbliani il resto fino a Durazzo, così li Croati vennero a confinar con Zara, Traù e Spalato, e li Serbliani con Ragusi: quattro città, che in terraferma conservarono il nome de Dalmatini, Romani, o Latini".

"It was said for a long time in the other work and even in this first book mentioned, how the Croats occupy that part at the back of Dalmatia, which extends between Istria and the river Cetina, and the rest by Serbliani to Durazzo, so Croats were on the border with the campaigns of Zadar, Trogir and Split, and with Serblianis on the border of the territory of Ragusa: four cities on the mainland who kept the name and the language of us Dalmatins, Romans or Latins"

So Lucius said to be a "Dalmatin" (similar, but different from "Dalmatian"), a synonymous of "Romano" (Roman) or "Latino" (Latin). The "Dalmatins" - said Lucius - were still living in Zara (Zadar), Traù (Trogir) and Spalato (Split). This people - according to Lucius - had his language: the "moderno" or "volgare", very closed to the Italian ("Tuscanian" is a synonymous of "Italian"). And Lucius used his proper language in the book about his homeland: Traù. You can read this fundamental Lucius' study here.--79.48.206.54 (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice essay, thanks for the source!--Theirrulez (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The first who said that Lucius was a "Croatian" was the Croatian historian Franjo Rački in 1879, despite the well known Lucius' self-identification. Furthermore, Lucius said to be of Romanian descent: the last member of the Latin family of "Lucianus" (Lucianii --> Lucii). It's very interesting this historical "Croatian battle" to make "pure Croatian" all the Dalmatian (and many Istrian) people through the history. The Italian-Croatian writer Giacomo Scotti some years ago wrote this study about this strange Croatian attitude. Ciao.--79.48.206.54 (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

79.48.206.54, please log in and translate from italian to english your "source". Kebeta (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done I translated it for you Kebeta, - Theirrulez (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed nationality references in the beginning, so as to not start an edit war, much like Roger Boscovich. --Jesuislafete (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Log in

Edit made by 109.60.25.15 on 09:50, 2 June 2010, was mine. I forget to log in. Sorry. Kebeta (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol Lucius has got a double passport??? oh dear.. --Theirrulez (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost as funny as having a passport to a city hundreds of kilometers away from his birth town.--Jesuislafete (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You seems a bit confused. Just as information passports are to states not to cities. And if a person was born in lands which that time and for centuries were part of the Venetian Republic are Venetian for sure, and, despite your pov, certainly not Croatian, where there wasn't any Croatia that time yet, and however not there.--Theirrulez (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

People who call POV on others are almost always guilty of it themselves, in your case, 100%. You find the need to edit out Croatian articles and hide behind the "Venetian" citizen route. Just because Croatia was not independent is no reason to deny them of their people and heritage. How can he be called Venetian during such a time of occupation and gray lines in nationality? --Jesuislafete (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Johannes Lucius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061230050018/http://pubwww.srce.hr:80/hpm/p0248003.htm to http://pubwww.srce.hr/hpm/p0248003.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Article name

While I think the disupte above is rather ridiculous (of course the guy was simply a Dalamatian like all the others living there at the time, neither "Italian" nor "Croatian" in the modern sense make any sense), I would like to contest the article name. Why should it be the German version of the name, of all the possibilites, that names that article? Latin would be Ioannes Lucius, Italian Giovanni Lucio, Croatian Ivan Lučić. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Johannes Lucius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719234523/http://www.arcipelagoadriatico.it/saggi/dalmazia/dati/saggi%26contributi_Dalmazia_StoriaDalmazia_Toth3.pdf to http://www.arcipelagoadriatico.it/saggi/dalmazia/dati/saggi%26contributi_Dalmazia_StoriaDalmazia_Toth3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

"Father of modern Croatian historiography" - here we go again

I see that another user has already beaten me to the punch, but this page is yet another instance of the silliness that pervades every Wikipedia article related to the western Balkans.

First of all, the question of Giovanni Lucio's ethnic origins is beyond question - the Lucii were an ancient Venetian noble family of whom the Dalmatian Lucii were only one branch. See:

https://www.heraldrysinstitute.com/lang/it/cognomi/Lucio/idc/8557/idt/en/#

As for the question of what he considered to be his nationality, he clearly states that he is writing in the spoken "volgare" (dialect) of his fellow Dalmatians of Traù, and throughout every portion of the text clearly distinguishes between Dalmati, Slavi and Croati. Furthermore, that he considered the language of Traù to be the idiom in which he writes, and that he considered himself a Dalmatian speaking the aforesaid language, and that he considered Dalmatians on one hand and Slavs or Croatians on the other to be different people, is clear from even a cursory look at Lucio's Historia di Dalmatia et in particolare delle Città di Traù e Sebenico. Page numbers are from the Internet Archive scan at https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_Zv1VRc8avowC. I'm not much of a translator, so I'll try to give it word-for-word.

Page 16 (Preface):

"Hora dovendo scrivere le Memorie di Traù mia Patria, ho voluto valermi della moderna, ò volgare, che non più Italiana, che Dalmatina può dirsi; onde havendo havuto riguardo solamente d'usar parole, che siano intese da' Dalmatini, sarò scusato se non scrivo Toscanamente.

"Essendosi dunque nell'opera predetta, con le cose seguite, narrati anco li costumi universali di Dalmatia, e Croatia, da quali depende la notitia de particolari della Patria..."

"Now having to write the Memoirs of Traù my Homeland, I have desired to avail myself of the modern, or vulgar [language], which as much Italian as Dalmatian can be called; thus having taken care only to use words that are understood by the Dalmatians, I will be pardoned if I do not write in the Tuscan manner.

"Having, in the aforementioned work, with the things followed, narrated also the universal costumes of Dalmatia, and Croatia, upon which depend the description of the particulars of [my] Homeland..."

Page 22:

"...fù dunque dalli scrittori Greci Traguron detto, e da Romani Tragurium; sussequentemente poi doppo la declinatione dell'Imperio degl'Orientali Latino Greci, che l'antica lingua Greca alterarono Tetragurion, come pure nell'idioma latino corrotto sino l'anno 1400, Tragura, e d'indi Tragù, e Trahu, hoggi finalmente Traù, & in Slavo Trogir, e questo quanto al nome."

"...it was therefore called Traguron by the Greek writers, and by the Romans Tragurium; [it was] subsequently after the decline of the Latin Empire of the Eastern Greeks, that the ancient Greek language they altered [into] Tetragurion, as also in the Latin idiom corrupt since the year 1400, Tragura, and from there Tragù, and Trahu, [and] today finally Traù, and in Slavic Trogir, and this is all regarding the name."

Page 24/25:

"Sussequentemente poi i Dalmatini s'accostarono à Carlo Magno, e di nuovo furono fatti ritornare sotto à Greci fino all'Imperio di Michel Balbo Amorco, per la dapocagine del quale abbandonati, e postisi in libertà, furono necessitati accostarsi à Venetiani per difendersi unitamente dagl'insulti de Saraceni, e Slavi; e se bene assunto all'Imperio Basilio Macedone mandò l'armata in Golfo in soccorso di Dalmatini; nientedimeno per non far guerra insieme con Saraceni, e Slavi si contentò, che li medesimi Dalmatini constituissero certo tributo alli Slavi, accioche potessero più facilmente resistere alli Saraceni; ma declinando doppo la morte di Basilio vie più le cose dell'Imperio, e gli Slavi sottrattisi dall'Imperio de Franchi giornalmente occupuando à Dalmati più Isole, furono questi necessitati per la lor debolezza ricorrere alla potenza de Venetiani, ch'ogni giorno diveniva più vigorosa, come è stato descritto..."

"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 put themselves in freedom, were required to bring themselves close to Venice to defend themselves together from the offenses of the Saracens, and Slavs; and though [once having] become Emperor Basil the Macedon sent the army 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 selfsame Dalmatians send a particular tribute to the Slavs, so as to be able to more easily resist the Saracens; but declining after the death of Basil even more the possessions of the Empire, 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 seek the power of the Venetians, which from day to day became more potent, as has been described..."

So to recap: Giovanni Lucio is a self-declared Dalmatian of Traù, who is writing in the modern dialect of the aforementioned city, which is different from Italian (the Tuscan of Dante), so that his fellow Dalmatians may understand; he tells us that his city is now known as Traù, and in the language of the Slavs, one of whom he is not, Traù is called Trogir; and finally, he does us the favour of slaughtering one of the sacred cows of Yugoslav and Croatian historiography in telling us that Dalmatia came under Venetian rule not by force but for the purpose of mutual defence against the attacks of Saracens and Slavs. I don't know how anyone can look at this and say this is the "father of Croatian historiography." Wannabe rockstar (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)