Talk:Thomas the Archdeacon

Croatian historiography?

I actually read the Historia Salonitana. Its full of quite pronounced anti-Slavic sentiment, and Slavs are referred to as a people separate from the inhabitants of the city. The work was (of course) written in Latin and signed Thomas Archidiaconus, i.e. the language isn't Croatian, and there is no indication that the man himself was Croatian. The only claim of Thomas to "Croatianness" is the fact that the city became part of Croatia 700 years after his death. Its quite irresponsible to refer to him as a "Croatian historiographer". -- Director (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Director, sigh. When I was rewritting this article I was sure someone was going to put something like this, but still I wasn't in the mood to write facts about his nationality.

First, let me say what was in the first opening sentences of the article before you edited it: "Thomas ... referred to as one of the greatest figures in Croatian historiography". First, can I ask you what do you mean by the term "Croatian historiographer"? It seems to me that you are confusing this term in a silly way that is common only in some of the uneducated croatian journalists. If you mean by the term "historiographer" a historian, then what is the difference between the terms of history and historiography?

Historiography refers to the body of historical work on a particular subject. "Scholars discuss historiography topically – such as the "historiography of the British Empire" etc." Croatian historiography means the body of historical work on Croatia. Split is a part of todays Croatia, and therefore all historical writings concerning Split belong to Croatian historiography. In the 90% of his work Thomas writes on Split or medieval Croatian Kingdom. It doesn't have anything to do with nationality. Juraj Ratkaj and Baltazar Adam Krčelić wrote in Latin but they belong to Croatian historiography, because they wrote about Croatia. Term Latin historiography would mean that he wrote about Latin people or Latin language - the first never inhabited Split (there was a mixture of Slavic and Romanised people), the second he doesn't do.

Second, your views about his ethnicity (which are not discussed in this article) are on the level of 100 years old interpretations of Vjekoslav Klaić and Ferdo Šišić and older Italian historiography. If you want to get a clearer picture of the dispute about his ethnicity you should read some contemporary literature on him, in the works like Katičić's work, the works of Nada Klaić and Mirjana Matijević Sokol. If you really read carefully the work you should have noticed that he doesn't speak about Slavs in ethnical terms, but he uses them as literary topos denoting uneducated superstitious barbarians that are trying to crush the autonomy of his native town. If he were identifying Slavs with ethnicity, he wouldn't speak of them as Goths which are litterary topos for barabarians, and what is another evidence for contemporary thesis. In short, Slavs-Goths are not referred to as ethnical group (there weren't any Slavs-Goths), but as barbarious people behind the hill. King Zvonimir was a Slav, but he speaks about him with great reverence because he sided with the Catholic church (pope Gregory VII) and gave privileges to Split. Besides, he also speaks with great animosity about his citizens, when they differed from the teachings of Catholic church. Split was wery much slavicized, as other Dalmatian towns were, a fact that Thomas himself reveales when he says tha the Mongols took one Slav to speak in slavic language with the citizens of Trogir, when they besieged that town. Philosopher12 (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ugh... lot of talk to no effect. Look, its very simple: calling this person a "figure of Croatian historiography" implies he was a Croat. He was not. This ought to be made clear.

His only connection to Croats and Croatia is that the city he lived in later became Croatian. It was not a "Croatian" or "Slavic" city during his lifetime in any sense, nor did he live in any "Croat" entity under any definition. He himself clearly did not consider himself a Croat or Slav, and in fact is pretty hostile to Croats throughout his whole narrative. I mean, I have a history of defending various historical figures from being depicted with a pro-Italian bias, but to imply this person was a "figure of Croatian historiography" is really shameless appropriation to the point of being rather pathetic. -- Director (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, let's keep it simple: Croatian historiography doesn't imply that he was a Croat; Split was in 13th century slavicized town; you are not citing any secondary literature on the subject, except pushing your own views; please don't edit the page without further discussion and without citing experts in the field. Philosopher12 (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm citing him! What literature are you citing that Thomas was a Croat? And yes we certainly do imply that. -- Director (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You're not citing anyone as far as I can see, moreover you are deleting my source, leaving the heading of the article unsourced. And again am I saying that you don't know what a term "historiography" means, since you're not a trained historian, and you are interpreting medieval chronicle as you seem fit. As for the experts in the field:

On the question of his historiography I'm citing Radoslav Katičić's work "Toma Arhiđakon i njegovo djelo" ("Thomas the Archdeacon and his work"): "Povijesno djelo Arhiđakona Tome nedvojbeno je najznatnije historiografsko postignuće svega srednjovjekovlja u hrvatskome prostoru, a i preko granice historiografije ono je izraz izobražene i misaone osobnosti kakvoj iz toga razdoblja u nas nema premca. [...] Bez njega kao vrela nije se mogla utemeljiti hrvatska srednjovjekovna povijest." (p. 330), I can add here that Toma is included as an integral part of Stjepan Antoljak's book "Hrvatska historiografija" ("Croatian historiography", p. 19 - 20) and I could cite Tomislav Raukar's work "Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje" ("Croatian Middle Ages"): "U složeno društveno i misaono ustrojstvo hrvatskog srednjovjekovlja Toma Arhiđakon i Miha Madijev unose suvremene političke ideje najrazvijenijih gradskih komuna na europsko-mediteranskom prostoru, onih u srednjoj i sjevernoj Italiji. Oni se takvim gledištima ni po čemu ne izdvajaju iz cjeline hrvatskoga srednjovjekovnog društva..." (p. 373) If you could provide newer (end of 20th/beginning of 21st century) sources that are claiming he is not part of "Croatian historiography", "Croatian middle ages", but another (Italian, Latin etc.) I would be interested to see them.

As for Toma's ethnicity Katičić says: "Ne može se razmišljati o Tominu podrijetlu a da se ne postavi pitanje o etničkoj tradiciji iz koje je potekao. I o tome se izravno ne zna ništa. Po vlastitu iskazivanju, Toma je Splićanin i po tome Dalmatinac. To je sve što od njega o tome znamo. Split je pak kao dalmatinska gradska općina u 13. st. vrlo izrazito obilježen simbiozom dviju etničkih tradicija. To su starinačka i korjenita romanska , upravo spalatinska , te pridošla i doseljenička slavenska, upravo hrvatska. Još u 11. st. slavenska je etnička tradicija bila prodrla sve do u najuži krug splitskog nobiliteta, što se razabire po imenima koja su njegovi pripadnici nadijevali svojoj djeci, pa su onda u rodu ostajala nasljedna, a gradski je puk uz dalmatinski tada već uvelike govorio i hrvatski, o čem najrječitije govore hrvatski nadimci što su se tada nadijevali u samome gradu, pa i stanovnicima kula Dioklecijanove palače. Ta se simbioza u 13. stoljeću još jače učvrstila. Iz takve je sredine potekao Toma, zacijelo od djetinjstva dvojezičan. Uostalom, već je zapaženo da njegov uzorno školovan latinski ne pokazuje ona obilježja kojima je materinski jezik romanski."

I could provide even more radical views, like that of Nada Klaić, which claims Toma was an ethnic Croat. However, I'm not inclined to draw the story of his ethnicity in the article, and I'm content with writing that Toma is a part of Croatian historiography (which means he is writing almost exclusively on middle ages of Croatia). Philosopher12 (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well thank you for having mercy and sparing me the trouble of countering radical views, unsupported by any direct evidence. But note: none of the authors call him a "figure of Croatian historiography", with all the implications such a statement carries when placed by itself. What we have is "his work is the most important historiographical achievement in Croatian lands in the Middle Ages", "without him as a source we could not have based Croatian medieval history on anything", vague statements about his political ideas "not separating him" from Croatian Middle Ages, etc. That is to say, even Croatian national historians, notoriously eager to appropriate historical figures of all sorts (from Marco Polo onward), do not imply that the person is a Croat - as we do. We should not imply that. As Katicic says: "he's a citizen of Split and a Dalmatian, and that's all we know about that".

As an addendum, let me say I found Raukar's comment especially spurious and apologetic. Thomas can easily be described as being outright hostile towards Croats in his account, and continuously refers to them in the third person (as in them being something apart from the citizens of Split). Raukar employs clever wording to try and gloss over that fact, referring to such an attitude as being "political" (one is almost lead to read "ideological"), rather than descriptive of his attitude towards an ethnic group.

P.S. It should also be clear that Katicic in his "u hrvatskome prostoru" comment refers to the modern-day extent thereof. So far as we know, Zadar, Split, Dubrovnik, and Trogir were at no point incorporated into the Croatian kingdom or in the Croatian title of the Hungarian kings (while they were under their control and not that of Venice, Zadar having been so only very briefly). Hungarian kings claimed rule over them through their title of "King of Dalmatia". -- Director (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that incorporating Thomas in the book called "Croatian historiography" doesn't mean he is a part of Croatian historiography? Or that statement "greatest historiographical achievement in Croatian lands in the Middle Ages" doesn't mean he is a part of Croatian historiography? I think you are the one who is reverting the words. You are interpreting Katičić's statement (citizen of Split) on his ethnicity and interpreting it as if Katičić was talking of historiography.

As on your views on Thomas being outright hostile towards Croats, and your interpretation of Katičić's views on medieval Croatian kingdom, I'll cite a few passages from Katičić's book "Thomas the Archdeacon" that will disappoint you, and that can be curiuosly applied to your views: "Pritisak uobičajenih i stoga općeprihvaćenih shvaćaja bio je stoga vrlo jak. Javnost, pa i znanstvena, Tomu je gotovo isključivo tumačila kao Latina, mrzitelja Hrvata i Hrvatske, koji je za hrvatsku kulturnu baštinu predstavljao strano tijelo. [...] Rismondo je pak upravo tada preveo Tomino djelo prvi put na hrvatski [...] taj Rismondov prijevod s uvodnim tekstom označio (je) preokret u gledanju na velikoga splitskog povjesničara. Poduprla ga je i ugledna Nada Klaić. Valja joj biti zahvalan što je u sintezi ranosrednjovjekovne hrvatske povijesti, objavljenoj 1971., jasno i razgovjetno napisala: "Sasvim je pogrešno tvrditi da je Toma Arhiđakon koji je napisao najbolje djelo naše srednjovjekovne historiografije "Latin" samo zato što je ponekad osuđivao politiku hrvatskih knezova. [...]" Kako se gledište o Tomi kao mrzitelju Hrvata sve jasnije pokazivalo neodrživim, vrlo je sadržajno izrazio Tomislav Raukar [...]" Nema dvojbe, Toma nije Hrvat u značenju koje je to narodnosno ime imalo u njeogovo doba. On se čak tuđi od Hrvata i nije baš prijazan prema njima. Čitatelj s hrvatskim osjećajnim nabojem u prvi mah uočava samo to. No koliko god je istinito, nije to sve. [...]" And a little on Katičić's intepretation of the Thomas' words on the relation between Dalmatia and Croatia: "Na samom početku svoje povijesti, u prvoj njezinoj rečenici, sitiče da je Dalmacija s Hrvatskom bila iskonski jedna provincija. [...] Splitska je crkva, dakle, od prvoga svojeg početka po Tominu pripovijedanju obuhvatila i Hrvatsku, koja tako na osobit način s Dalmacijom tvori cjelinu. [...] Toma je nazivom regnum Dalmatia et Croatiae nedvojbeno obuhvaćao i dalmatinske gradove, te, štogod inače mislio o Hrvatima, na svoju je Dalmaciju tek skupa s Hrvatskom gledao kao a potpunu i valjano legitimnu političku cjelinu. Dalmacija u njegovim očima nikako nije bila odvojena od Hrvatske. On je, napokon, onaj naslov Dalmatia ac totius Croaciae primas što ga je nosio splitski nadbiskup shvaćao doista ozbiljno. [...] Dalmacija s Hrvatskom kao cjelina nije u Tome samo povijesna uspomena. Nije tek sastavnica splitske i po tome njegove povijesne svijesti. Ona je kao predodžba prisutna i u njegovoj aktualnoj sadašnjosti. [...] Njegova historia seu chronica legla je zapravo jedino u hrvatski globus intellectualis."

As I said, you are not citing any sources, and you are interpreting medieval chronicle on your own, as if you were an expert on that subject. As I showed you, that isn't as easy as it may seem, since your views are coming in conflict with contemporary historians and experts. Btw., and for your information, Nada Klaić and Tomislav Raukar are not just Croatian nationalist, but renowned historians not just of croatian, but european significance. As for the dispute, I think I have proven my point.

P. S. Thanks for notifying me about dispute on Marco Polo's birthplace. I have at my disposal information about 13th, 14th, 15th century and later chronicles that are claiming Polo came from Dalmatia, as well as secondary literature in English language for that matter. However, on skimming through disputes on it's discussion page, I'm getting a headache seeing various IP's statements and edit wars, so I won't for now engage in or renew those disputes. Although, as I see, the wikipedia article is wrongly attributing his birthplace as "Venice" which is dubious. Philosopher12 (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ufff... big post. Lets see..

• @"Are you trying to say that incorporating Thomas in the book called 'Croatian historiography' doesn't mean he is a part of Croatian historiography? Or that statement "greatest historiographical achievement in Croatian lands in the Middle Ages" doesn't mean he is a part of Croatian historiography?'" - Precisely. That's pretty blatant OR right there. The fact that he was listed under a book of that title can be taken to mean absolutely nothing. And I would be perfectly fine with the sourced statement - but not the OR derivation therefrom that he is therefore part of "Croatian historiography".

And I'm not interpreting anything, I am merely pointing out that Katicic states outright that the only thing that is known is that this person was a citizen of Split.

Whether or not this person was "hostile" to Croats is ultimately immaterial, lets not get sidetracked - but I would point out that you yourself sourced the legitimacy of that interpretation. What is relevant is that you sourced the fact that this person is not a "Croat" in the contemporary sense of the word ("Nema dvojbe, Toma nije Hrvat u značenju koje je to narodnosno ime imalo u njeogovo doba. On se čak tuđi od Hrvata i nije baš prijazan prema njima. Čitatelj s hrvatskim osjećajnim nabojem u prvi mah uočava samo to."). Incidentally, I noticed that as well.

Let me point out the problem again: the term "Croatian historiography" refers, first and foremost, to historiography authored by Croats. We do not know whether this person is a Croat, and no source thus far cited supports that implication. I keep pointing this out over and over again.. and I've not yet seen anything with any bearing on my basic point.

Are you willing to consider alternate phrasings? -- Director (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

First, you said that Katičić's words "greatest historiographical achievement in Croatian lands in the Middle Ages" don't mean Thomas is part of Croatian historiography, because he refers to Croatian lands in its contemporary meaning. When I showed you that Katičić (and indeed Thomas) by "Croatian lands" means its medieval extent, as including medieval Dalmatia and Croatia as an unified whole, you curiously chose to ignore it. Moreover, I cited Katičić referring to Nada Klaić's words, who said that Historia Salonitana is "the best work of our (Croatian) medieval historiography". And yet you say those are vague words.

Katičić says Thomas is not a "Croat" in medieval sense of the word ("narodnosno ime u njegovo doba"), not contemporary sense. And again am I repeating that Croatian historiography doesn't mean that an author is a Croat.

I'm always open for suggestions and "altarnate phrasings". What did you have in mind? Philosopher12 (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• #1 No matter how you interpret his words, Katicic does not state that "Thomas is a part of Croatian historiography". Whether he refers to the modern or contemporary extent of "Croatian lands". None of the authors do. Nor do they state he's a Croat. The claim in the lead is OR.
• #2 Katicic does not say Thomas is a Croat in the contemporary sense, or any sense. Concluding that he does from him not explicitly denying it - is OR.

How about simply saying what the sources actually, directly say? "Thomas is the most significant source for the history of Medieval Croatian lands"?

-- Director (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really comfortable with that definition. I don't think any of the authors said he is the most important source for medieval Croatian history. "De administrando imperio" is as much as important. However, DAI is a mess of various data that don't even stick together, some sort of compilation. In difference to those sources, Thomas' book is (in terms of literary quality, as well as significance for Croatian medieval history), as Katičić says, "greatest historiographical achievement in Croatian lands in the Middle Ages". I would put that in the heading of the article. Philosopher12 (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)