Talk:Republic of Ragusa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join.
History Portal
Geography Portal
Atlas Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).
Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WP Former Countries - Things to do:


Contents

[edit] title

Marin Držić wrote in good native language (today called Croatian) and in his plays he says "Republic of Dubrovnik", that was in 1500s. So this whole article is utter nonsense, and talk page is full of Italian and Serbian nationalism (Sargeras). Complete article needs to be rewritten. Official languages of the Republic were Italian and Latin, that's why Republic of Ragusa in all foreign (non-Croatian) historical sources. It's utter stupidity that Serbo-Croatian was poorly used - it was commonly used (particularly that Croatian is "recent" - Dric wrote in excelletn Croatian language, as did Mavro Vetranović and other writers),but in diplomatic and birocratic jobs Latin and Italian (and Turkish) were used. About the language itself, it was (and still is!) South-Slavic officially known as "Serbo-Croatian" between 1945 and 1990, but it's (in Drzic's plays and today in common speech of Dubrovnik area) the local "shtokavian" speech, which is now of course part of Croatian (as Dubrovnik is in Croatia since fall of the Republic, and by the way all Dalmatian reinessance writers which communicated with Dubrovnik writers considered them as part of same Dalmatian South-Slavic culture, which later became foundation of modern Croatian culture. But indeed, the name of language then wasn't Serbian nor Croatian nor Serbo-Croatian because languages were standardized only in late 1800s, so it's best to de described as local Dubrovnik koine (maybe with notion that it's still local dialect in Dubrovnik area and is part of /officially called/ Croatian language now). Tomsak 10:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


In English, this is almost always referred to as the "Republic of Ragusa". Would people object if I move it? john k 16:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems to have already been moved from "Republic of Dubrovnik", since other pages link there and the intro never mentions "Dubrovnik Republic". Shouldn't the intro use the same terminology as the title?--The Human Spellchecker 03:59, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, we should.
Sargeras 11:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, in the midst of all this, I see nobody objecting to Republic of Ragusa as the proper title for this article. It is always called Ragusa in this time period, and not Dubrovnik, and the elites were Italianized, so I'm going to move it. john k 14:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Kubura had moved it back to Republic of Dubrovnik, but it was done via copy&paste and without any reason shown, so I reverted it. --Joy [shallot] 19:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the Slavic language

What is with Croatian in the official languages list? The Serbo-Croatian language was poorly used in the Republic before SFRJ (which is long after the Ragusian Republic)

Before and during Napoleon's reign, they had still their own culture, and it is widely spoken with Croatian only recently (if you seperate Serbian and Croatian, I don't). If you already seperate the name, then you should put Serbian, because the Croatian language was completly recent. Sargeras 11:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC

And somebody wanted to have this person ("Sargeras" a.k.a. "HolyRomanEmperor" a.k.a. "HRE") as an administrator? Four times? A "neutral person"?? This text above is a typical example of open greaterserbian expansionism. Denying of belonging of Republic of Dubrovnik to Croatia and Croatian culture. Denying the Croatian culture and Croats at all. Kubura 08:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ. We have had this discussion several times on other Wikipedia articles, and User:Mir Harven has yet to see a rebuttal of his opinion, and the opinion of most Croatian literary historians, that the Dubrovnik language is Croatian heritage.
From Talk:Serbo-Croatian language:
virtually all literature written in shtokavian vernacular prior to Serbian language reformer Vuk Karadžić, ie. cca. 430 years of literary texts, belong to the Croatian linguistic and literary heritage. First major vernacular shtokavian text is "First Croatian prayer book", kept in Vatican library- date cca. 1380-1400. Then follow major authors covering Renaissance, Baroque, Classicist and Sentimental literaure: Držić, Menčetić, Gundulić, Bunić, Palmotić, Zlatarić (Dubrovnik), Kavanjin (Split, Dalmatia), Kanavelović (Korčula, Dalmatia), Divković, Posilović (Bosnia), Kačić(Dalmatia), Relković, Ivanošić, Došen (Slavonia)..The majority of these texts are titled as works on "Illyrian" or "Slovinian"/"Slavonic" language, but they explicitly equate Illyrian with Croatian- dor instance, first major shtokavian-based dictionary, Mikalja's/Micaglia's "Thesaurus linguae illyricae", Loreto 1649. "Hrvat, Hervat = Illyricus, Croata". Further info on older Croatian lexicography can be found at http://www.hlz.hr/eng/povijest.html
So- virtually everything written on shtokavian dialect (dramas, epic poems, sonnets, didactic epics, the first (unpiblished) Bible translation (1622-1637), grammars, dictionaries,religious texts (missals, prayer books, breviaries,..) from 1400s until 1810s (the commencement of Serbian reformer Karadžić's activity) is exclusively Croatian. More than 400 years of written word in multifarious forms, in shtokavian dialect, belongs to the Croatian culture. As Serbian-Jewish writer Oskar Davicho said: " Some still speak that Croats "got" their language from us. It seems it was the other way around." (A 1978. comment on a book by Croatian philologist Zlatko Vince)
From Talk:Greater Serbia:
a significant part (say, cca. 50%) of štokavian writers from 1500s to 1800s identified their name as Croatian, and virtually all as Slovin or Illyrian (and these terms were, in štokavian dictionaries like Mikalja's (1649) and Stulli (1810) explicitely identified as equal in meaning and content to the term Croat. Also- they never mentioned Serbian name as the name of their ethnic or national identity.
I'll try to dig out other quotes, I know I asked the Dubrovnik question even more directly at some page. --Joy [shallot] 12:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Ah yes, it was at Croatian language (doh, the obvious place):
The topic of language with the writers from Dalmatia and Dubrovnik prior to the 19th century is somewhat blurred by the fact they by and large placed more emphasis on whether they were Slavic rather than Italic, given that Dalmatian city-states were then inhabited by those two main groups. There was less notable distinction being made between Croats and Serbs, and this, among other things, has been used as an argument to state that these people's literature is not solely Croatian heritage, thus undermining the argument that modern-day Croatian is based on old Croatian.
However, the major part of intellectuals and writers from Dalmatia who used the štokavian dialect and were of Catholic faith had explicitly expressed Croatian national affiliation, as far as mid 1500s and 1600s, some three hundred years before the Serbo-Croatian ideology had appeared. Their loyalty was first and foremost to the Catholic Christendom, but when they professed ethnic identity, they called it "Slovin" and "Illyrian" (a sort of forerunner of Catholic baroque pan-Slavism) and Croat — these 30-odd writers in the span of ca. 350 years themselves never mentioned Serb ethnic affiliation any time. A Croatian follower of Vuk Karadžić, Ivan Broz, noted that the Serbian affiliation was as foreign as Macedonian and Greek appellation at this time. Vatroslav Jagić pointed out in 1864:
"As I have mentioned in the preface, history knows only two national names in these parts – the Croatian and Serbian. As far as Dubrovnik is concerned, the Serbian name was never in use; on the contrary, the Croatian name was frequently used and gladly referred to"
"At the end of the 15th century [in Dubrovnik and Dalmatia], sermons and poems were exquisitely crafted in the Croatian language by those men whose names are widely renowned by deep learning and piety."
(From The History of the Croatian language, Zagreb, 1864.)
--Joy [shallot]

Having said that, I also agree that the most accurate and neutral way to phrase this is simply "Slavonic language", because it's silly to try to put only Croatian and omit Serbian - it's fairly apparent that both of the languages meant by those titles today drew from this dialect. --Joy [shallot]

Of course put only Croatian language and omit Serbian. No some "undetermined" "Slavonic language". If you want to put it that way, than change the lines in the articles about Nederlands and all Dutch areas (possibly even about early medieval England, because of - Saxons), and put "German language", because the languages from those areas all drew their origins from "Plattdeutsch". Kubura 08:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In the official Ragusan documents, their native language was called ILIRIAN. In that time it was a usual name for a language that will later be called Serbo-Croatian, and now Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian (depending on official ideology). On the top of that, every year, during a ceremony at the Sultan's court, when Ragusan diplomats were delivering a tax money (it is haed to translate HARAC), thay had a right to address sultan in their Ilirian language. My souce is Bogdan Krizman, Consuls and diplomats in Old Dubrovnik (in Croatian). In the beggining of his career, Krizman was an expert for Ragusal diplomacy. His PhD had that issue as its main subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.146.131.15 (talk • contribs)., 09:39, 18 September 2006

Illyrian language (ilirički jezik) was one of synonyms of Croatian language. See, e.g., Joso Voltiggi's Ričoslovnik iliričkoga, italijanskog i nimačkoga jezika) from 1802/03 , Šime Starčević's Nova ričoslovica ilirička from 1812 (in these grammars, e.g., monthnames are equal as in Croatian, nothing in common with Serb language). Many scientist works were written about that, that proof that Illyrian language=Croatian language.Kubura 13:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Or if you want it this way, Croat's national renaissance movement, Croat risorgimento, was named at first as "Illyric" movement. Serb movement didn't have that name. Kubura 13:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Braudel

If anyone feels like doing some book research, there is a lot of good material on Ragusa in Fernand Braudel's History of the Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II. (I'm not watchlisting this page, so if anyone wants to communicate with me on this, hit my talk page.) -- Jmabel | Talk 22:40, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Italian

There is nothing on the role of Italian language. According to it:Repubblica di Ragusa:

l'italiano (con una certa influenza veneta) costituì per secoli (accanto al latino) una prestigiosa lingua di cultura, nonché la lingua ufficiale della Repubblica dal 1492 sino alla sua fine.
L'incremento della popolazione croata della città grazie all'immigrazione dal contado circostante si intensificò nel XVIII secolo, ma non riuscì a scalfire il prestigio dell'italiano fino alla fine del XIX secolo, epoca in cui gran parte della popolazione italofona si era gradualmente assimilata.

From Dalmatian language:

which were quoted by an Italian, Fillipo Diversi, the head of school of Dubrovnik in the 1430s.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.250.143.131 (talk • contribs)., 10:40, 26 January 2006

[edit] Post-Rep of Ragusa historical material moved

I moved the historical info for the post-Republic of Ragusa period (i.e., post-ca. 1815) to Dubrovnik#History since it was not about the Republic but about Dubrovnik. -


AjaxSmack 07:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)



[edit] The patrizie families of Ragusa were Italian

, this however did not prevent that many of their members learned the illirico (Croatian Dalmatian), and wrote component in such language. As an example Giovanni Gondola (Ivan Gundulic) is considered one of the fathers of the Croatian literature. Obviously these patrizie wrote also in Italian and many of they left literary works in this language. Unfortunately in Croatia (but not only), the names of the patrizie families are often introduce to you with the single Croatian dizione (than however it does not have historical base, being be introduced in posterior age). It is moreover stretched to introduce such families like “pure Croatian”, ignoring their Italian roots. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.30.255.131 (talk • contribs)., 00:54, 10 August 2006

Which Italian roots? They spoke and used Italian language, only to differ them from the serfs and other lower social classes. That is the case that existed all over Europe. Kubura 08:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to know that all the European social strata were Italian;-)--Giovanni Giove 20:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You're playing stupid, G.Giove. I'm speaking about that, that higher social classes spoke other language, to differ them from lower classes. In other areas, higher classes spoke German, French, Latin, Russian, English... You're speaking about Middle Ages and aristocracy, but you don't know that? Kubura 13:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Italian roots argument has no base in historical reality since Italy didn't exist until much much later. The only time Dubrovnik was part of Italy was during WWII while occupied by Italian fascist troops. The ruling class family names undeniably have Latin root but that does not make them Italian. gb 15:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of Kubura

The repeated vandalisms operated by Kubura have been reported to a moderator. The question of the names has already been discussed. The italian historical names in the article have just an historical meaning. They are reported because they were the names used in the old times. They are not a way for the espansionism of "fascist italians", and Ragusa is not a "fascist imposed name" as Kubura claims. --Giovanni Giove 12:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Weasel words and POV

This article is a major catastrophy. Not only does it feature blatant rasist remarks such as "ome time later some Slav (that had surpassed the barbaric stage)", but it seems to be based solely on original research. There is one reference added towards the end of the article from an Italian minority newspaper, hardly a neutral source. The article needs to be rewritten. 83.131.1.242 10:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ther is no racism. We are speaking about VII century. Ragusa was plundered by Avars and Slavic during barbaric invasions. It is evident that the phrase (translated from the cited reference), means that two century later the slavic where no more "barbarians". I remember you that the original meaning of "barbar" is foreigner. Barbaric invasion = foreigner invasion.--Giovanni Giove 23:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Here the link with the word "barbarians" [1]. It should be so evident it's no racistic! Nel frattempo gli slavi, usciti dalla fase barbarica, si stabilirono in insediamenti permanenti nell'area del'odierno monte Sr'D, che nei documenti latini dell'epoca viene chiamato Mons Virgatum il monte degli arbusti, nome che altro non è che la trasposizione di un toponimo slavo assai diffuso: Dubrava, la macchia delle querce--Giovanni Giove 23:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an English-speaking edition of Wikipedia. Please use sources in English to support your claims. Noneedforthis 09:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
So you instead of talking about "Slavs who are surpassing their barbaric stage" you are claiming the following: "some time later some Slav (that had surpassed the foreign stage"? Sorry, but this explanation makes no sense whatsoever. I have also checked the references you added. They originate from a site called DalmaziaNews and from an essay published on some guy's personal pages. This all is unsettling to say the least. After all, you question Encyclopaedia Britannica, but the references you have added (and for goodness sake they are all in ITALIAN) leave certainly much to be desired even if we disregard blatant racism. I am placing "totally disputed" and "weasel" tags until we can sort this out. Please do not remove them until we can agree that this page adheres to Wikipedia standards. Noneedforthis 09:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I was just telling you the origin of the word "barbarian", that had the original meaning of forigner, later it has assumed another meaning. Anyway when slavs has arrived in Balkans, they where, as a matter of facts, "barbarians". As the Germans and the Huns. Is it offensive? I'd say no. Later they adsoberd the Roman (and Greek) civilzation, and they were no more "barbarian". Such has the founders of "Dubrava". Do you still find racism in this version? I was looking for an English source for the origins, but I have found nothing. Anyway, as far as I can remeber, the version is correct. I can not see a reason to tag all the article just for one section.--Giovanni Giove 11:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I've found this English source that confirm the version[2]. You sholud delete the general tag, and to tag just the single sections. I shall remember you that the NPOV tag is inserted, after a discussion. You have inserted it without a previous discussion and this is not allowed. It's possible to correct the single section, without this extreme, resource. For this reason I'll delete it, but I expect further discussion on the single problmes.--Giovanni Giove 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible to stop playing these little games? Just what exactly does 1911 Britannica corraborate in the current Wikipedia article? Nonetheless, this is a huge step forward as we finally have a relevant source which, coupled with a modern edition of Britannica should bring the article to the official Wikipedia standard. All your other claims, unless backed by relevant sources, will have to go. I will start working on the proper version of this article when I find time. In the meantime, refrain from removing NPOV and weasel tags. The article hopelessly needs to be brought up to some standard. Noneedforthis 13:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not playing "Little game" as you are doing. I'disegree with your decision and I told you why. You should ask the help of a moderator, instedad to impose your point of wiev: these are the rules. Anyway, stop to do the false stupid: the 1911 Brit. article, corroborate just the "Origins", paragraphs. The later paragraphs are disorganized, and I've tried to made some order, reorganizing them in the proper cronlogy, But still they are not ok. I rember that it's not "you" that have to work to article "when you have time": you are not a moderator, you can just give your contibution. Furhtermore don't tell me "refrain", just call a moderator if you disagree with me. I suggest that the proper way it's to work toghther, and not "against". When we disagree, all the (referenced) points of view, shall be reported. These are the rules. I disagree with you, but i don't want to start an edite war. I pray you to contact a modertor. I'm afraid he's necessary. See you soon. Bye.--Giovanni Giove 14:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the first several paragraphs of Noneedforthis (explanation)

I am leaving the disputed and weasel tags in order to facilitate exchange of opinions on the proposed changes although the POV, and poorly referenced or unreferenced statements have been removed. Every single paragraph which has been rewritten or in one case renamed now features statements based on English-speaking peer-reviewed quality sources. All the POV statements basing their claims on information contained in other editions of Wikipedia or in other Wikipedia articles (as well as those based on information contained on some obscure sites or personal pages) have also been removed. Statements which are irrelevant to this article such as sejourns of different Serbian dukes (also happened to be unreferenced) belong in their respective articles.

I have also used Ragusa/Dubrovnik in order to neutralize contentions related to the name of the Republic. Exceptions are quotes. This solution is used in several of the books quoted as sources. Besides both names are used interchangeably in most of the sources.

Language and nationality section will be expanded in due course. Noneedforthis 19:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giovanni Giove's changes - comment

Removed the first paragraph which is unreferenced, POV or at best original research. Please, do not substantiate it with wikilink comments and/or information from other editions of wikipedia. Find an English-language peer-revied high-quality source to back your claim.

For the same reason, a comment based on what appears an Italian reference that came out of nowhere has been removed in the languages section. But more importantly, the insertion of claims WITHIN paragraphs that are REFERNCED is unaccaptable and misleading. Noneedforthis 18:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've revered the action of the user. The comment is referenced and neutral. Further information are avalaible in the wikilink. Anyway the origins of Venice and of other Adriatic city is a mistery for nobody. Just buy a touristic guide, a school book, or just do an internet search. It is enough: the concept is of public domain. I don't need a citation to write that Columbus did a trip to America, for the same reason I don't need a citation for the origins of Venice. I remember to the above user, that non-english reference are valid, and it should be hard to speak about Ragusa, avoiding Italian sources. I warn the user to avoid a further deleting. If he thinks I broke the rules, the first step is to try to discuss with me and to revert or modify my contributions. If I do non accept his critics, the next step is to contact a moderator. He will judge if my comments are good or not. Mr. Noneedforthis can not impose his own rules or his own point of wiev. Those are the wikipedia rules, not mine. --Giovanni Giove 18:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of the Republic

Can you please tell me what exactly do you find "nationalistic POV" in minor edits I made? Also you reverted all the grammar corrections I made...were they also nationalistic POV? Get a hold of yourself... --Factanista 08:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You should stop to introduce Croatian POV without a previous discussion. The name problem was already discussed.--Giovanni Giove 11:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Croatian name is not "Croatian POV". As Repulic of Ragusa is part of Croatian history (it is not part of Italian history) there should be a contemporary Croatian name and this is a fact. If it can have an English name it can have Croatian as well. Now I would really like you to explain to me at least once for a change what exactly is POV in my changes? --Factanista 12:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course. --PaxEquilibrium 17:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The last council of Ragusa and your members

The greater Council met for the last time the 29 of August of 1814 and the senators were the following ones:

Orsato Savino, conte di Ragnina; Niccolo Matteo di Gradi; Niccolo Niccolo di Pozza, Clemente, conte di Menze, Marino Domenico, conte di Zlatarich, Wladislao, conte di Sorgo; M. Conte di Cerva, Niccolo conte di Saracca; Pietro Ignazio di Sorgo-Cerva; Paolo Wladislao, conte di Gozze; Nicollo Gio, conte di Sorgo, Matteo Nicollo di Ghetaldi; Savino conte di Giorgi; Pietro Giovanni conte di Sorgo; Marino Nicollo conte di Sorgo, Sebastiano di Gradi; Matteo Niccolo di Pozza; Segismondo di Ghetaldi; Niccolo Luigi conte di Pozza; Wladislao Paolo conte di Gozze, Marino di Bona; Marco Niccolo conte di Pozza; Giovanni conti di Gozze, Francesco conte di Zamagna; Matteo Niccolo conte di Sorgo; Carlo conte di Natali, Orsato conte di Cerva, Matteo Conte di Cerva, , Niccolo conte di Giorgi; Segismondo conte di Sorgo; Biagio M. Di Caboga; Conte Giovani di Menze; Niccolo Matteo di Sorgo; B.D di Ghetaldi; Gio Biagio, conte di Caboga; Marino Matteo di Pozza, conte di Sagorio, Luca Antonio conte di Sorgo; conte di Giorgi Bona; Giovanni conte di Sorgo; Giovanni conte di Natali, Antonio Luca conte di Sorgo, Rafaelle Giovanni conte di Gozze; Natale Paolo conte di Saraca; natale Conte di Ghetaldi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.20.89.241 (talk • contribs)., 14:27, 1 December 2006

[edit] Elena Pucić-Sorkočević (1786-1865)

was the first female composer in Dubrovnik/Ragusa. After the fall of the Dubrovnik/Ragusa Republic, musical performances were mostly held in private houses of the noble families. Ragusino, please added!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.20.91.19 (talk • contribs)., 21:42, 27 December 2006

[edit] PLEASE ADDED

Charles VIII of France granted trading rights to the Ragusans in 1497. These rights were also granted by Louis XII in 1502. In the first decade of the 16th century, Ragusans consuls were in France with French consuls being in Ragusa. Prominent Ragusans were in France during this period and include such dignitaries as Simon Bonesa, Lovro Gigants, D. Bonda- Bondic, Ivan Cvletkovic, Captain John Florio, Petar Luccari-Lurarevic, Seraphin Gozze-Gucetic, Luka Sorgo-Sorkocevic. The Ragusan aristocracy was also well represented at the Sorbonne University in Paris at this time. Croatian Regiments were in French service in the 1600's and were called by Louis XIII's to be the Royal-Cravates. Because these soldiers wore a colorful scarf around their neck to distinguish themselves, this neck wear became known as cravats or ties. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.21.2 (talk • contribs)., 00:51, 8 January 2007

I don't see how cravats fit into article about Ragusa/Dubrovnik Republic? gb 17:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propagandism from the header

Croatian nationalism is getting the better of the article. Today Ragusa is a Croatian city known as Dubrovnik, however, this article pertains to the historical republic of Ragusa. Ragusa was an Italian Republic, not a croatian one. Today the city is Dubrovnic, a croatian city. lets not confuse the two. The ancient republic of ragusa was never known as the republic of Dubrovnic, and the language of the native citizens was an Italian dialect related to venetian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.107.173.80 (talk • contribs)., 04:08, 8 January 2007

Ragusa=ancient Italian republic on dalmatian coast. Dubrovnik=ragusa annexxed to yugoslav/croatian state. Republic of Dubrovnic=modern croation revisionism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.107.173.80 (talk • contribs)., 04:19, 8 January 2007

[edit] For those who doubt about Croathood of Dubrovnik

Here are some citations of the persons from Dubrovnik or neighbourhood in Middle Ages.
Here are the links: [3] and [4] Translation and more to follow. Kubura 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Any desputing of the Croathood (or Italianhood) of Ragusa or, by its contemporary name, Dubrovnik Republic is nonsense. It was founded by Latin population so the ruling class remained Latin or Italian but majority population was Slavic all along. If these people figured out how to prosper in harmony for circa 1400 years, I hope contributors to this article will work in harmony to enrich the article without denying historical contributions from either population group.gb 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ruling class remained Latin? Italian? Whome are you fooling? Are you one of those who propagate "Italians that have surname -ich"? And where have you left romanized Illyrians?
Second, I see your game with avoiding the adjective "Croat". Dubrovnik Republic had Croat population, not "some amorphous Slavs", learn that.
What do you mean by "harmony"? Don't make resistence to claims that "Dubrovnik Republic was Italian"?
Gbajramo, it's easy to share somebody else's meal. Do it with your own country. Kubura 12:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

First I'm not here to fool anyone but to contribute to Wikipedia. Second, I don't propagate anything - the names are well documented. Third, I did not avoid adjective 'Croat'. Fourth, non-Latin and Slavic population did not consist exclusively of Croats even if Croats were possibly in majority. Lastly, this is a free encyclopedia and it's not your place to tell me what I should do. Ragusa/Dubrovnik is world heritage. That's why we are all contributing here. Your harrasing tone simply shows that your contributions are POV and should not be taken seriously. I suggest to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies to avoid antagonizing contributors. gb 04:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Gbajramo, your assertions are very POV. "...non-Latin and Slavic population did not consist exclusively of Croats even if Croats were possibly in majority". Shame on you, Gbajramo. I don't know what to say anymore.
About "Slavic population", "not exclusively Croats": possibly there were some Czech or Polish traders. Of course, there was a Russian embassy in Dubrovnik.
About majority, you should read history books. Kubura 09:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Kubura, you are NOT the one to talk about POV and you should be ashamed for the manner in which you discuss. Use of "possibly" or "probably" is appropriate when sources are lacking. I stand by my statement that ruling class remained Latin (which is documented) and majority population was Slavic (exact distribution is not documented). It would be highly unlikely that other neighboring Slavic states did not contribute to population of Dubrovnik over the ages as well as other countries with which trade was established. Neither you or I have population census of 800AD we are both just guessing. Since you are as certain as if you were there every 10 years counting the population, please provide supporting documents and then criticize use of "possibly". gb 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"...when sources are lacking..."? "...not documented..."?
"...contribution to population..."? No country had 100% ethnic purity, except small isolated tribal states. Few Albanian traders don't change the picture.
About other neighbouring Slavic states, what states did you had in mind?
About POV, I don't know for you, but I've "covered" my contributions and my assertions with references.
User Giovanni Giove denied here the Croat nameforms of persons from Dubrovnik (see the section "Vandalism of Kubura" - he even dared to call my contributions as vandalism), under the excuse of "historical reasons". As you see in my recent contributions, he's wrong.
Also the city name in Croat language, Dubrovnik, was brought in question. Argument was "...it is always called Ragusa..." and similar. Somehow, on those links with scanned pages of those 15th and 16th century books, that I've posted here, it says "Dubrovnik". Kubura 15:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, this [5] is wrong. You haven't read the links I've posted?
OK, I'll be faster with my translations. I've promised something in the text above. Kubura 15:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PLESE *nobody doubts about the Slavoc presence in Ragusa, It's you the on who doubts abaout the Italianess. --Giovanni Giove 22:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you see your comments: "in Ragusa the slavic dialect was Illyric, later reconignzed as a Serbo-Croatian dialect"?
What are you doing? Spreading new pseudo-science here? Inventing new Slavistic?
You've substituted "Croatian" with "Chakavian" or, even worse, with "Serbo-Croatian"? Again, what are you doing?
Have you read any sources that I've posted here? Or you ignore and push your story further? Doing everything in every possible way, just to avoid the word Croat.
Croat language and Illyrian language were sinonyms.
Čakavian is the dialect of Croatian language.
Are you trying to turn the Slavistics upside down? Giove, you're thinking things up. Stop it. Izmišljaš stvari.
"Italianess". If it was so Italian, why was the book (I've posted the link already) translated "from Italian language into the language of Dubrovnik (not Ragusa)? And that note was written in Croatian. Kubura 12:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Croathood of Dubrovnik and translations

Now, to some links. Here [6] is a link to a library of Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts. This link shows a picture of first pages of a book named "Zarcalo dvhovno od pocetka i sfarhe xivota coviecanskoga : razdieglieno, i razreyeno u petnaes razgovora, a u stoo, i pedeset dubbia, alliti sumgna poglavitieh. Vcignenieh meyu mesctrom, i gnegoviem vcenijkom. / Istomaceno iz yezikka italianskoga u dubrovacki po D. Mauru Orbinu Dubrovcaninu Opattu od S. Marie od Backe, od Reda Sfetoga Benedikta. ". Printed in Venice, in 1621. These [7] and [8] are pages from the edition from 1703. Here are the catalogue search results [9], [10].
The important part is where it states "istomaceno iz jezika italijanskoga u dubrovacki" (translated from the Italian language into Dubrovnik's language), translated by the Dubrovnikan (not "Ragusan") D.Mauro Orbin.
Dubrovnik's language, a Slavic one. If Dubrovnik (not "Ragusa") was Italian-speaking, why it states in an old book that it was translated from Italian into Dubrovnik's language? Kubura 09:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A link from HAZU. The book of Ivan (Dživo) Bučić-Vučić [11]. 1st two pages. Title says: "Mandaliena pokorniza gospodina Giua Uvcichia Bunichia vlastelina dvbrouachoga.". Printed in Venice 1705. Catalogue search result [12].
"...of mr Dživo Vučić Bunić, nobel of Dubrovnik." Kubura 09:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A link from HAZU. The book of a Dubrovnik's nobel Nikola Bunić [13]. 1st two pages. Catalogue search result [14].
Title says:"Grad Dvbrovnich vlastelom v trexgniv. / Piesan gospodina Nicca Giva Bvnichia vlastelina dubrouachoga. " Printed in Ancona 1667. Kubura 09:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A link from HAZU. Regarding Gučetić family...
The book [15](1st page) titled "Rosario s'druxbom prislavnog imena Iesusa Spassiteglia nascega. Suprotiva kriviem kletvami proklinaniu i psovkami protiva imenu Boxiemu. / Sloxeno po nedostoinomu slusi boxiemu, poctovanomu pripoviedaozu Ozzu Fra Arkangelu Guceticchiu Dubrovcianinu od Reda Fratara Predikatura". Catalogue search result [16].
Written by franciscan Arkangel Gučetić Dubrovčanin (not "Ragusino"). Printed in 1597 in Rome. Kubura 10:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a book in Italian. Link with a review (though, in Croat, by academic Tonko Maroević) is here. Link is from online edition of magazine "Vijenac" of Matica hrvatska. Book is:
Ljiljana Avirović, La traduzione poetica in Croazia: a) Il caso dell'Aminta di Torquato Tasso i b) Petrarca e il petrarchismo — aspetti della traduzione del sonetto, Cleup, Padova, 1999
A cite from the review:
"Gotovo svi protagonisti hrvatskoga pjesništva 16. stoljeća istaknuli su se i svojim verzijama inozemnih klasika: Marulić prevodi Dantea i Petrarku, Katona i Kempenca, sv. Bernarda i sv. Bonaventuru, Hektorović i Lucić daju vlastita tumačenja Ovidijevih pjesama, Menčetić i Ranjina više nego variraju na Petrarkine motive, dok Dominko Zlatarić objavljuje čitave dramske tekstove Tassa i Sofokla, želeći Elektru posljednjega navedenog — prema vlastitim riječima — »učiniti Hrvaćkom«."
The translation is:
"Almost all protagonist of Croat poetry of 16th c. have proven themselves with their versions of foreign classics: Marulić translates Dante and Petrarca, Katon and Kempenc, st. Bernard and st. Bonaventura, Hektorović and Lucić are giving their own comments of Ovidius poems, Menčetić i Ranjina more then make variations on Petrarca's motives, while Dominko Zlatarić publishes whole drama texts of Tasso and Sofocles, wanting to make the Elektra of Sofocles, as he said himself, "a Croat woman" (»učiniti Hrvaćkom«)." Kubura 10:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

About some of my sources:
"Vijenac" are Matica hrvatska's newspapers for literature, art and science (Novine Matice hrvatske za književnost, umjetnost i znanost.).
"Matica hrvatska" is, as it declares in the article 2 of its statute "independent, non-profit, non-governmental society, founded 1842 as society for promotion of Croat culture, and that has, over the years, with his work and continuity, became a national institution". Name in Latin is Matrix Croatica. Kubura 10:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A link from HAZU. Regarding Gundulić family.
The book of Ivan Gundulić. The title says "Suse sina rasmetnoga gospodina Giva Frana Gundulichia vlastelina dubrovackoga. - V Bnecieh : po Francisccv Broiollv". Edition is supposed to be from 1650 (title page says M.DC.---). Title page [17]. Printed in Venice. Catalogue search result [18].
Fourth edition from 1703. Title says "Suse sina rasmetnoga gospodina Giva Frana Gundulichia vlastelina dubrouackoga.". Printed in Venice. Title page [19]. Catalogue search result [20]. Kubura 13:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A link from HAZU. Regarding Držić family.
The book of Marin Držić. Catalogue search result [21].
Title is "Tirena / comedia Marina Darxichia". Third edition from 1630. Printed in Venice. Kubura 13:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A link from HAZU. Regarding Ranjina family.
The book of Dinko Ranjina. Title says "Piesni raslike Dinka Ragnine, vlastelina dubrovackoga : u koih on kaxe sve sctose sgodimu stvoriti kros gliubav, stoiech u gradu latinskom, od Zangle". Catalogue search result [22]. Printed in Florence in 1563. Kubura 13:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A link from HAZU. Regarding Gradić family.
The book of Bazilije Gradić. Title says ˇˇLibarze od dievstva i dievickoga bitya v komse tomace sua kolika poglauita miesta staroga i nouoga sakona, koia od dieustua gouore i ono scto sueti naucitegli u mnosieh librieh pisciu ; Libarze velle duhovno i bogogliubno od molitve i contemplanya, sniekiem napomenam duhouniem, oniem ki xele duhouno xiuieti, uelle potrebno i korisno / [dum Basilio Gradich].". Printed in Venice in 1567.
Catalogue search result [23]. Title page [24]. Kubura 13:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Why is there an English version of the name and no Croatian version? Is there any specific reason for this? It certainly has more validity than the English variation.

Also the current coat of arms was not the arms of Dubrovnik Republic. That was Austro-Hungarian arms assigned to Dubrovnik after it was annexed by Austro-Hungary and incorporated into Habsburg Monarchy. The real coat of arms was the one that is today official arms of the city -> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.197.42 (talk • contribs)., 00:09, 11 February 2007 Image:Dubrovnik_grb.gif

[edit] Category

This article belongs in the Category:Repubbliche Marinare of Italy, because Ragusa was one of the Italian-ruled maritime city-states of the middle ages. Αργυριου (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a contentious claim. And even if it is true, it does not merit the category. Italy as a state did not exist at this time. So Ragusa/Dubrovnik could not be a seafaring republic of Italy because it is not located on the Italian peninsula. There was an Italian character to the Republic along with the Slavic (Croatian) character, but that does not merit this cat, because it has nothing to do with ethnicity - only geography.
Countries are not categorized by ethnicity. However, Category:Italian-speaking countries should address your concerns. --Thewanderer 03:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The category of Italian Maritime Republics certainly does apply, as Ragusa was an Italian(-ruled) maritime republic. None of those three descriptions is in the least contentious. "of Italy" can mean a number of things - in the Italian peninsula, of Italian ethnicity, or speaking Italian. While the category name is bad - it should be just "Repubbliche Marinare", as that is all that's needed to identify the "repubbliche" as Italian - it is an appropriate category for this article, and claiming otherwise is tendentitious editing. Αργυριου (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Italy does not coincide with "Italian peninsula", anyway the "Italian" adjective is not referred to geography. Ragusa is included in the article Repubbliche Marinare. Furthermore I suggest you to look at the present link [25]. The author is not an evil "irredentista", but a naturalized Croatian citizen, who moved to Jugoslavia for his communist ideas. To conclude, there are a large established consenus, that see Ragusa as a Maritime Republic, so the category is appropriate and nobody has the right to remove it. On the other side, nobody has removed the cat "history of Croatia", that in several ways is not appropriate. Ragusa never belonged to a Croatian state, even if it had (for sure) a Slavic component, but this component was of mixed roots, and the concept of "Croatian nationality" did not existed in that time. Greetings --Giovanni Giove 09:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Then what does "Italy" coincide with when the Republic was totally noncontemporaneous with the Italian state? You are trying to goad me into a battle over ethnicity or nationality. That is not what this is about. It's about the fact that, whatever Italian-ness the Republic may have exhibited, it has no link to Italy itself. The Republic is necessarily Croatian history because it is today wholly located in Croatia. Also, a historical (and successful) movement later existed in the region to join with Croatia, while no parallel Italian movement existed. You are not even trying to prove that the Republic was "of Italy" or part of the "History of Italy", because you know there is no such link. But you are trying to equate language, or culture with national statehood, which is totally POV and unacceptable. I am willing to make compromises, but too many parties seem to be coming at this issue acting with bad faith. --Thewanderer 23:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That your opinion. Italy does not mean of the Italian peninusla. It means also Italian per language and culture, and, as a matter of fact, Ragusa were Italian for language, and for culture too. The category "Former states of the Italian Peninsula" will be changed in "Former Italian states", so the cat is ok, even if wrongly named. Stop wut pushing nationalistic POV. Ragusa was Italian AND Slavic, if you like it or not. Tell us about the slavic people of the city (Croatian and Serbs), but don't try to deny his Italian component. And don't forget YOU HAVE NO CONSENSUS, try to reach it, if you can, and post some decent support for your personal opinions--Giovanni Giove 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
So, anywhere where Italian is spoken is Italy? That's news to me. Does that mean New York City is part of Italy because there's Italian culture there (as well as a heck of a lot more Italian speakers than Ragusa ever had)? You are confusing culture, ethnicity and nationality. The fact is "Category:Former countries on the Italian Peninsula" is totally innaccurate. I don't care what will happen in the future, right now the category is wrong. Second, "Category:History of Italy" is wrong because the Republic was never part of Italy. You are using totally shoddy logic to spread your POV. I have never doubted that the Republic showed some Italian-ness, but you are essentially trying to annex it to Italy, which is a historical falsehood. --Thewanderer 00:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Repubbliche Marinare of Italy"? Hey???? What are you saying?
First of all, Republic of Dubrovnik never was part of Italy.
Second, don't add romanized Illyiric population to Italian population.
Third, Ragusean Dalmatian language is not the same as Italian language, neither belongs to the same subgroup of Romanic languages.
Fourth, if you think that ruling of a certain ethnic group over some city, territorial unit or a country makes that area the ownership over that country, you're wrong. Does that mean that Chicago is Italian city, because Al Capone factically ruled over that city, or that New York was Italian city, because of "Lucky" Luciano? Or maybe you think that Peru is Japonese state, because Fujimori is the president of that country?
Fifth, is England French country, because their kings knew only to speak French (even Richard the Lionheart?)? Or maybe you find Croatia the succesor of Roman Empire, because Croatia was the last remaining country in the world (besides Papal States) that had Latin as official language of their parliament?
Sixth, should we act Croatia to Laotan-speaking countries, because there are few Laotans in Croatia?
Adding of such claims to Wikipedia, that "Dubrovnik Republic" was "Repubblicha Marinara of Italy" is blatant expansionism and imperialism! Such behaviour should not be tolerated. These thing aren't funstuff. These things are very serious.
Argiriou, why don't you add Greece from 19th (and early 20th) century to the list of Turkish countries? Inhabitants of freshly independent Greece knew Turkish. Or even better, why don't you add it to the list of Macedonian-speaking countries, because Macedonian Slavs had territorial distribution in the largest part of Greece, from Macedonian border to Larisa, and spoke their language actively? Kubura 12:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Both of you really don't understand history at all, and are filtering the facts through the highly distorting lens of your tin-pot nationalism. Arguing with you isn't worth the trouble. Αργυριου (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Croatia, Italy, Germany, are a modern concept!, the nationaly state were born in the late of the XIX century, Republic of Ragusa, was in the orbit of the Republic of Venice, the people spoke a italian language dialect, for example, Milan never was a part of Florence, and the two Sicilies, Genova, etc, in the german lands, the prussian people never was a part of the bavarian south german, they spoke the german very diferent, the dialect wasn´t the same!, the dialect of the city of Hamburg is very similar of Sweden language!! for more, the italian tyrol, most of 50% of them spoke german! and similar dialect of the german tyrol, inclusive the German-bavaria territory, don´t forget than Tito expulsed of the ex Yogoeslavia and confiscated the property all the italian people in Istria, Zara, Ragusa!, in europe the mix of culture is incredible, if we forget the italian orbit than culturized that now we know of Croatia is a big mistake! the slav heritage don´t forget too! the ilirian movement leading for Gundulic)Gondola), Palmotta, Darsa, Pozza, etc dreaming for a Slavs Estate Unite!! many slavs died with this dreams! Ragusino, 21:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.113.47.228 (talk • contribs)., 19:07, 17 February 2007

This [26]?
Giove, please, what says in those 16th century books? Have you seen the text on the scanned pages?
Giovanni, again this?
The site you've posted here as a source, http://www.arcipelagoadriatico.it, is a ...hmm...doubtful site.
BTW, in which language was written the anthem of the old Republic. "O lijepa, o draga, o slatka slobodo?". Is that Italian? (those lyrics Bono Vox recites in the song "Miss Sarajevo", if I remember well).
About this. And čakavian dialect of Croatian and štokavians dialect of Croatian were both referred also as "Illyrian". In old Dubrovnik, you'll find various names for domestic Croatian language (hrvatski, ilirički, ilirski, slovinski, dubrovački/Croat, Illyrian, Illyric, Slovinic, Dubrovnican) but nowhere can be found under the name of Serb language, neither Serbo-Croatian language). If you want to deny that those were all names for Croatian language, OK. I'll post you the links or references, where it shows that those were treated as synonyms.
This? Yes, I've forgot to translate.
Name in Italian language as "native name"? I disagree. If you want to present the language of higher social classes as "native" (despite majority's language), than, as a start, try to do something like that in the article about medieval England. See Richard I of England. Kubura 16:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Interesting for the "neutrality".
Authors from all over the world, but no Croat author. Interesting. Kubura 13:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evading the name of Croats

Some users here persistently try to avoid Croat name in this article.
Not "Croatian", but some "amorphous Slavs", or "Croats and Serbs" or even "Serbs"(?!) only.
Obviously, someone wants to lessen the Croathood of Dubrovnik as much as possible. The policy of Italian imperialists.
Despite a bunch of history facts.
I don't know what admins are doing.
I don't know what to do anymore.
I don't want to go into editwars. Kubura 10:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up a bit. But - the only mentions of "serb" in the article are where specific references to the Kingdom of Serbia or the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes are made. The references to "Slavs" in the early portion of the history I've left alone, because there's no evidence presented that the Slavs of the region had differentiated into Croats and Serbs and Bosniaks and Slovenes. Later mentions I've changed to "Croats", as such differentiation had occurred. Αργυριου (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People born after the end of the Republic of Ragusa

I commented out the section listing people who were born after 1808; Ragusino removed the comment-marks. This list of people does not belong in this article; it belongs in the article on Dubrovnik. The history of the Republic of Ragusa has a definitive end, in 1808. Anything which happened afterwards is part of some other history; in this case, the history of Dubrovnik. Αργυριου (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's ridiculous to have people like Vlaho Bukovac and Frano Supilo since they were born soe time ater the republic was abolished, and also they weren't even born in Dubrovnik/Ragusa. Tar-Elenion 19:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We should remove the section "Born in 1800's (After the fall of the Republic) " in the article.
It is out of context; this article deals with times of Dubrovnik Republic. Kubura 19:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia?

I think some trivia should be perhaps added. Not many people actually know this but Republic of Ragusa was the first one in the world who started the practice of quarantine and was also the first country to officially recognize the United States of America when they issued their declaration of independence from Great Britain. Also it had some colonies in India (Goa I think), which later passed to Portuguese. Tar-Elenion 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Including a "trivia" section is frowned upon, though I can't find the explicit guideline for that. Recognition of the U.S. used to be in the article, but was removed. Such a statement requires a reliable source, and none has yet been provided. If that claim (and the claim about Goa) can be sourced, they ought to be worked in to the general history section of the article, not called out separately. Ditto quarantine - that could be included in a section on Ragusa's trade practices. Αργυριου (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unimportant Croat latinist?

Juraj Šižgorić unimportant? Georgius Sisgoreus from 15. century? Kubura 19:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits by Giovanni Giove

Giovanni your edits are POV and what is worse incorrect. Tar-Elenion 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WRONG. They are correct, referencied and NPOV. If you want to do some corrections you are welcome. Bu u have no right to delet them.--Giovanni Giove 22:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
What is wrong is you changing the article with no discussion. This is not your personal web page, but a Wikipedia article. And yes, your changes are POV, replacing Croatian language with chakavian dialect (later replaced by shtokavian dialect when I warned you this is not only POV but incorrect) and supposed and outdated term 'Illyric' can be nothing else.

First Dalmatic is not a term applied when referred to Dalmatian language and it's dialects. Tar-Elenion 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

ok--Giovanni Giove 22:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Second the term you impose 'Illyric' to remove the correct name 'Croatian' is at best misinterpretation but it is more than obvious that you are only doing to remove the Croatian name, that is huge POV. Tar-Elenion 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That your idea. A Croat language was devoled only in XIX cent, as well as the Croatian identity.
As was the Italian language and identity. Do you have any particular point you wanted to make? Tar-Elenion 22:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And finally, the Ragusans didn't write in Chakvian dialect, their dialect is shtokavian. --Tar-Elenion 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok--Giovanni Giove 22:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also the inclusion of the whole part about Dalmatian language is unnescessary because there already is an article about this (from where you actually copied the exactly the same text). Tar-Elenion 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not me. Best regard--Giovanni Giove 22:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I never said it was from you, copying part of the text from another article is unnescessary, you could have (if you wanted) make a small reference to it and post a link to the article about Dalmatian language. Tar-Elenion 22:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, if you want make a reply, try to avoid the "slashing" of someones previous message. Otherwise, it's hard for others to follow the discussion. You can't see who wrote what, so a reader has to "dig" through history. And we don't need that. Kubura 08:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Croats' dialects in old Dubrovnik Republic

About dialects. Dubrovnikans wrote in štokavian; still, there're are historical documents from those times that point to stronger influence/presence of čakavian dialect. Kubura 08:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Article in magazine "Vijenac" of Matica hrvatska: Dubrovnik i hrvatska tradicija, nr. 148, 1999. Author is Josip Lisac, Croatian linguist. Lisac deals with Croats' dialects (since 2004, assisting with Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts). Kubura 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Article in magazine "Vijenac" of Matica hrvatska: Dubrovnik i hrvatska tradicija (2), nr. 149, 1999. Second part of Lisac's text. Kubura 09:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Article "Jezik i književnost u Dubrovniku u 16. i 17. stoljeću (kontinuitet i promjene)" of Davor Dukić (author is from Croatistics department of Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb). Translation of the title is "Language and literature in Dubrovnik in 16th and 17th century (continuity and changes). Kubura 09:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some helpful literature

Here's a link. Žarko Muljačić, "Iz dubrovačke prošlosti". Newspaper article and the book . Kubura 11:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The nobility under the french occupation

The Ragusan nobility were disunited in their ideas and political behavior. Article 44 of the 1811 Decree abolished the centuries-old institution of fideicommissum in inheritance law, by which the French enabled younger noblemen to participate in that part of the family inheritance, which the formerlaw had deprived them of. The annulment of fideicommissum struck at the Antonnio Degl’Ivellio. According to a 1813 inventory of the Dubrovnik district, 451 land proprietors were registered, including ecclesiastical institutions and the commune. Although there is no evidence of the size of the estates, the nobles, undoubtedly, were in posses- sion of most of the land. Eleven members of the Sorgo family, 8 of Gozze, 6 of Ghetaldi, 6 of Pozza, 4 of Zamagna, and 3 members of the Saraca family were among the greatest landowners. Ragusan citizens belonging to the confraternities St. Anthony and St. Lazarus owned considerable land outside the City. Ragusa/Dubrovnik under French Ruleties dreaded any conflict between the rebels and the Austrians, who were expected to arrive at any moment. Thus, due to their incapacity to act together,the Ragusans missed the last chance of liberating the City themselves. Regardless of the events taking place in the City, Todor Milutinovic and Montrichard settled the French surrender of the City under honorable terms.Their aim being to avoid greater conflicts, the Austrians agreed to the French conditions. General Milutinovic promised that the victorious army would not marchinto the City before the last Frenchman was evacuated from the City by ship.On 27 January, the French capitulation was signed in Gruz (Gravosa) and ratified thesame day.It was then that Caboga openly sided with the Austrians, dis-missing the rebel army in Konavle. Meanwhile, Natali and his men were still waiting outside the Ploce Gates.After almost eight years of occupation, the French troops marched out of Ragusa/Dubrovnik on 27 and 28 January 1814. On the afternoon of 28 January 1814,the Austrian and English troops made their way into the City through the PileGates, denying admission to the Dubrovnik rebels. Intoxicated by success,and with Caboga’s support, MilutinoviÊ ignored the Gruz (Gravosa) agreement he hadmade with the nobility in Gruz. The events which followed can be best epito-mized in the so-called flag episode. The Flag of St. Blaise was posted along-side of the Austrian and British colors, but only for two days, because on 30 January, General Milutinovic ordered Mayor Giorgi to lower it. Overwhelmed by afeeling of deep patriotic pride, Giorgi, the last rector of the Republic and aloyal Francophile, refused to do so—“jer da ga je pripeo puk” (”for the masseshad posted it”). The oncoming events proved that Austria took every possible chance of invading the entire coast of the eastern Adriatic, from Venice to Cattaro. The allies did everything in their power to eliminate the Dubrovnik issue at the Vienna Congress of 1815. The Ragusan representative, Miho Bona, was denied participation in the Congress, while MilutinoviÊ, prior tothe final agreement of the allies, assumed complete control of the City. Inhis book Pad Dubrovnika (The Fall of Ragusa/Dubrovnik; 1908), Lujo Vojnovic makes every effort to justify the popular actions and prove the solidarity of all social groups in achieving their common goal to restore the Republic. The records, however, seem to indicate a different situation. There was in fact lit-tle understanding between the nobility, the bourgeoisie, and the peasantry, and slim chances of these groups of having any common basis for further activities. The three groups had different reasons to be dissatisfied with the French government, and the moment when they rejoiced together over their victory was not strong enough to unite all the segments of Dubrovnik society in a struggle to restore the Republic. After Dubrovnik suffered a political breakdown, was brought to the verge of economic ruin, and was foresakenby the international community, the City and its territories were handed over to the Habsburg Monarchy in 1815 by the Congress of Vienna.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.20.88.142 (talk • contribs)., 00:43, 6 March 2007


[edit] Relation between Nobility

Is peculiar that even survived when the classes were divided by internal disputes. When Marmont arrived at Dubrovnik in 1808, it was whereupon the nobility was divided in two blocks, the “Salamanquinos” and the “Sorboneses”. These names alluded to to certain controversy arisen from the wars between Charles V of Spain and Franz I of France, happened hardly two hundred fifty years back. It was that in the 1667 earthquake a great part of the noble class was annihilated, being necessary to give back his force to him with the inclusion of certain plebians. To these the salamanquinos, those in favor of Spanish absolutism, did not treat them like equal; but the inclined sorboneses, added to the frenchs, and to a certain liberalism, accepted them without reserves. Another factor that could take part in this conduct is that the sorboneses had been very decreased by the earthquake and they did not want to lose cash. In any case, both sides had he himself status and they seated together in the Council, but they did not maintain relations social and not even they were greeted by the street; an inconvenient marriage between members of both groups was of so serious consequences as if it occurred between members of different classes. This social split was also reflected in the inferior layers: “The plebians, as well, were divided in the brotherhoods of San Antony and San Lazaro, who was so unfriendly in their relations as salamnaquinos and sorboneses”. He was in the essence of the Republic, that always had to be defended of neighboring empires --“first Hungary, soon Venice, later Turkey”-- and that was structured for a reduced number of people, around the 33 original noble families of century XV.


[edit] 1783

In 1783 the Ragusan Government did not answer the proposition put forward by their diplomatic representative in Paris, Frano Favi, that they establish diplomatic relations with the USA, although the Americans agreed to allow Dubrovnik ships free passage in their ports.

[edit] Categories

I've proposed merging both Category:Maritime republics and Category:Repubbliche Marinare of Italy into Category:Maritime Republics. Discussion is at this entry in CfD. Αργυριου (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/p/Talk%7ERepublic_of_Ragusa_b9d4.html"