User talk:Debona.michel

Welcome!

Hello, Debona.michel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Michel, I want you to please understand why you are encountering resistance to your edits. There are 2 reasons:
1) Articles on Ragusan people and Ragusan noble families have been fought over for months on end in the past. Some Ragusans are undoubtedly more Croatian, while still others are more Romance in culture (and therefore use the Romance names). However, things are not that simple: the Ragusan noble families are agreed upon to have a dual-ethnicity, Slavic and Romance Dalmatian. Therefore the difference between who was "more Slavic" and who was "more Romance" is often quite blurred and obscure ("obscure"=no good sources), which causes veritably endless conflicts. At that time, after much debate, a "format" was agreed-upon: (Slavic/Romance), a format which you will find is used in every single noble family from Ragusa. Exceptions from this editor consensus must be very rare and very well proven.
2) You are not using proper Wikipedia procedure for the changes you wish to achieve. You are not proposing moves, and you are not using hard verifiable sources (images are not verifiable). Half the time you are not even discussing but are only edit-warring.
All in all, I suggest you put together a strong case with verifiable sources and then propose an article move. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, did you receive my message? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles or before discussions about the title have ended, as you did to Marin Bunić, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DIRECKTOR is the owner of Wikipedia, Tito of Wikipedia, he have the true!

If nothing else, at least he have the English ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on House of Bunić/Bona. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Marin Bunić has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. MatthewYeager 15:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ragusan noble families

-- Hello DeBona

I have been following the discussion on Ragusan noble families for some time.

I have included some facts and proposals regarding Ragusan noble families on the talk/discussion page of the House of Bona. I have also addressed Direktor there regarding discrepancies in his statements e.g. editor consensus and Wikipedia policies.

I would like to point out that I am not aware that there is any editor consensus regarding ragusan noble families. Somewhere in June/July 2008 the names of all families were being changed to slavic version with original forms left out or put as secondary colloquial forms ("known as") with no explanations or sources whatsoever by direktor.

In the case of Caboga family and Bernard Caboga, a slavic version was introduced by direktor that does not exist. Inspite of me initiating communication as well as warnings on his user page and article discussion pages, he never replied, never gave sources or similar, he just engaged in edit warring. So much for his second comment about edit warring.

Additionally I would like to point your attention to the following Wikipedia policy: [1]

especially

"Consensus can change" Policy shortcut:WP:CCC

Citation: Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable.

Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things.

Caboga (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Debona

It is evident that the editors consent that Direktor was constantly mentioning does not exist. We repeatedly inquired about it, never got an answer. Editors consent is not a justification for original research, Wikipedia policy clearly regulates that. Wikipedia allows editing when verifiable sources are cited, policy of no original research. So go ahead and edit, since verifiable sources are in place. Include the sources on legally inherited latin/roman surname forms and put in a note about the duality in language in Ragusa. This is not a controversial edit.

Just because somebody claims the world is flat doesn't mean it is.

Regards Caboga (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How nice, someone finally reads Wiki policy... well then, I'm looking forward to a real argumented discussion on the subject, provided of course, that you can find WP:SOURCEs. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Debona

It is evident that the editors consent that Direktor was constantly mentioning does not exist. We repeatedly inquired about it, never got an answer. Editors consent is not a justification for original research, Wikipedia policy clearly regulates that. Wikipedia encourages editing when verifiable sources are cited, policy of no original research. So go ahead and edit, since verifiable sources are in place. Include the sources on legally inherited latin/roman surname forms and put in a note about the duality in language in Ragusa. This is not a controversial edit.

Just because somebody claims the world is flat doesn't mean it is.

Regards Caboga (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Caboga (and the good example of Bernard Caboga -- all excesses become unsustainable at some point).

Direktor, you don't seem to practice what you preach. What gives you the right to change the pages that were created by Ragusino? Aren't you the one who started the edit warring?

Debona.michel (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on House of Bunić/Bona. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Practice what you preach Direktor/Alisdair/Admiral Nelson...

The sources are listed on the House of de BONA page. Who changed the original entries to begin with?

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[2] made on November 17 2008 to House of Bunić/Bona

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 12 hours.

You'll also want to carefully consider the question of conflict of interest, which has been raised.

William M. Connolley (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaking confidential data

like the real name/surname, of users otherwise using a handle as a WP username, against their will will get you indefinitely blocked really soon, and I suggest you drop that kind of practice. cf. WP:PRIVACY:

Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.

--Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Ragusan names

Dragi gosparu Bona-Bunić,

I understand what you're saying. But there is a context in which it should be said. You've opened an issue with your post that is quite important and contested among Ragusan historians today: how to write the last names of Ragusan nobles? Do we say Bunić, Bona or Bona-Bunić. I understand that, being that you are a member of this great Ragusan family, you feel that you should have the say on what's the right way of calling them. However, as I previously mentioned, this is a bigger question than just family history.

If we just used the Italian versions, we are helping Italian nationalists (who are already very vocal on the Wiki) to claim Dubrovnik and the whole of Ragusan culture as their own. In fact, we are giving it to them on a silver platter. And Italians know how to use an opportunity - just look at the success of their tourism. On the other hand, using Slavic names exclusively would look very well for the Croatian and Serbian nationalists, also to claim Ragusan culture as their own (which they have been doing for a long time - just remember the dispute about Ivan or Jovan Gundulić). You can just take a look at this discussion page and see that, for example, Croatian nationalists are trying to rename the Ragusan Republic to the "Dubrovnik Republic" for the same goal (they claim that this is the "correct" translation of Dubrovačka Republika). This is absurd. And it is done by people who have never bothered to look up any Ragusan legal document. In ALL of them, as you must know, the term Respublica Ragusina is used. In numerous dealings with the Italians, the Spanish, the French, the English etc. they always used this term. Even in the writings of Shakespeare, we find mention of a Ragusian pirate. The very name Argosy, denoting rich cargo ships, comes from the word Ragusa (Aragosa - Spanish variant). It is clear to anyone who knows Dubrovnik that the Slavic variants (names of the city and of the people, first names, last names...) were used when dealing with its Slavic neighbors and domestically, while Latin/Italian variants were used when dealing with all other (non-Slavic) foreigners, i.e. to a man from Moscow it would be Dubrovnik and Dubrovčani but to a man from France it would be Ragusa and Ragusans (sorry for not putting it in their own languages).

As Ragusan historians know (and this is in all the History books), Ragusan nobles have been using the Italian versions of their last names since time immemorial, but to a different end than most outsiders would believe. It was not because they considered themselves Italian and then used it as naturally as any Italian would. What it really was is a way to distinguish themselves from all the commoners, to show their difference - they were the nobility. It is for a similar reason that they so emphasized their Slavic background and culture in their works - to show (to the world) that they were not Italians. The fact that Ragusans spoke a Slavic language as their own is obvious by just looking at their works or by the fact that non-Slavic speakers assimilated so quicky when residing in Dubrovnik. Marko Bruerović is a perfect example: his father was a Frenchman, the ambassador of France in Dubrovnik, but Marc chose to be a Ragusan - he changed his name from Marc Bruere Desriveaux to Marko Bruerović because he was under such a strong Ragusan (Slavic-speaking) influence from his felow writers (nobles, I might add). When they wrote in their own language, they all signed their works with the Slavic variants of their names:

 Suſe sina raſmetnoga Gospodina Giva Frana Gundulichia, vlastelina dubrovackoga
 Mandaliena pokorniza Gospodina Giva Vucichia Bunichia, vlastelina dubrovachoga

When they wrote in Latin or Italian, they would put their names in the Latin or Italian variants. But in letters to their fellow countrymen, Ragusans always wrote in Slavic and used Slavic (not Italian) versions of their name. At least during the Republic, because after the abolishment of the Republic things got very messy. And here we are, having these problems today, while our (and certainly your) ancestors would probably have no problems at all.

I understand why you would object to using the last name Bunić. After all, that name also exists in Zagorje, so why should you be associated with a peasant family that farmed and had pigs and chickens during the time your family was creating masterpieces or saving the Republic, visiting and talking with kings, emperors and popes. You should however keep in mind that the respect the name brings with it, and the legacy, is associated to the Bunić name, not the name Bona (which is, incidentally, the fault of your ancestors, who used that name in literature). A great man in Ragusan history, even though he is Nicholas Bona to the English (for example), for Ragusans he will always be Nikolica Bunić. We link our deepest respect, admiration and patriotism with this name, with what it represents: a man who died for his country and his people (regardless of how poetic the truth might be). Do not rob us of this, of this feeling of community, that he, that you, are a part of our people, because we are of the same genes, the same blood runs in our veins. Every time you (the descendants of the Ragusan nobility) insist on the Italian version, it is like you're saying: "We are not one of you, we are different." And saying that you fail to see you created us, without you there wouldn't be a Ragusan people (regardless of the genes).

  Gospar Lukša (govori dalje, gledajući u mirno nebo): "Da smo bili baš veliki kako Nikolica i Marojica i Pracat i svi naši pomorci
  i vlastela, bili bismo u sužanjstvu iskali da u puku sačuvamo dušu koju smo mi na ovijem hridinama usadili bili."
  (Ivo Vojnović, Dubrovačka trilogija)

So you see, you should not try to difference yourselves, you should be a part of the Ragusan people. You can see what's going on with us now. Why don't you act as you did in the past? If for nothing else, then let it be a great end to a majestic family history.

What I was trying to do in the article "List of Ragusans" (which was reverted) was to try to correct the Slavic versions of Ragusan names (like Junije Palmotić or Ivan Bunić Vučić), which are often just translations from Italian or Latin. I tried to write the names of those Ragusans in the way that they used themselves, the original version (in this case, Džono Palmotić and Đivo Vučić Bunić) because the incorrect translations I mentioned often involved nationalistic ideas in their making and were simply, not correct.

On another note, your great-grandfather, that was known as Maro, when was he born, was it perhaps in the first half of the 19th century? The fact that he was "known as Maro" would agree with that, because that's what the nobles did during the Republic: they officialy used Italian names but really called themselves in proper Ragusan names (Maro, Vlaho, Baro...). His son probably wasn't known as Marino because they wanted to distinguish him from his father (because then he would be known as Marin, Maroje or Marojica), but very likely because they stopped the practice of using two version of their names and decided to use the "official" one.

In the end I'd like to express my deep respect for your family, and ask you to contact me, if you wish. I would like to hear an opinion of an informed noble about certain things from Ragusan history and culture, to better understand the unique perspective of the nobility. So, if you would like to talk or you know someone to direct me to, send me an e-mail to nemo_2085@yahoo.com (I would appreciate it if other Wiki users refrained from sending me anything to this mail)

A Ragusan Historian

Rag. Historian (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rag. Historian, I can only apologize that I got you all wrong earlier. I completely agree with you, and I hope we will be able to cooperate on various issues, particularly the proper spelling of ancient Ragusan names. If I may inquire, is your involvement on Wikipedia temporary or will you be assisting us further?

Debona.michel, I hope you can understand my earlier reservations towards your claim of descendance from the Bunić/Bonas. One of the main reasons I was upset by this was the fact that I myself descend from a Split (previously Venetian) family with a long tradition and heritage (you may not believe me, of course :) ). This is the internet, after all, and I do not have any opportunity to verify one way or the other (I can't say I lean one way or the other), but in the case that you are, in fact, telling the truth, I apologize for my earlier behavior. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ragusan historian,

you wrote: "But in letters to their fellow countrymen, Ragusans always wrote in Slavic and used Slavic (not Italian) versions of their name. At least during the Republic (...)". Are you really sure? We have 202 letters between Roger Joseph Boscovich and his brother Bartolomeo (Baro). Maybe do you know if they always wrote in Slavic and used Slavic (not Italian) version of their name? I've seen that letters... Another example: in the archiv of Dubrovnik we have two letters from Ivan Gundulić to the "Rettori" of the Republic (26-27 June 1619). They are - I think - the only surviving Gundulić's manuscripts. Do you know the language used by Gundulić? Have you seen his subscription? Thank you for your answer.--151.48.61.210 (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it, Luigi, its a matter of pure logic more than anything else: by the year 1800, the common language in Ragusa was Slavic for more than 400 years, more specifically, the Ragusan dialect of early Croatian (or Serbo-Croatian) known then as the "Illyrian language". People spoke Illyrian in the street, in the market and on the Stradun. Italian (Venetian, mostly) had to be learned by anyone of import, of course, as it was the lingua franca. However, it is impossible to imagine a family that lived in a Slavic city for almost half a millennium that has a foreign language as a mother tongue. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is very simple: we have 202 letters between Roger Joseph Boscovich and his brother Bartolomeo/Baro. This letters were published in the "Edizione Nazionale delle Opere e della Corrispondenza di Ruggiero Giuseppe Boscovich" here in Italy some years ago. Among the editors we had also some Croatian historians. Mr 'Ragusan historian' stated that "in letters to their fellow countrymen, Ragusans always wrote in Slavic and used Slavic (not Italian) versions of their name". Always. So, wich kind of language used Roger and his brother? The same question for the only two surviving Gundulic's manuscripts to the "Rettori" (Rectors) of the Republic. Wich kind of language used Gundulic? Attention: I do not want to say absolutely that the Ragusans were Italians. It's a nonsense. But I want to prove that it's untrue what 'Ragusan historian' said: we have many evidences about it! In addition, I have in my collection of postcards a postcard sent from an American military from Ragusa in 1920. He writes he hears many Italians in the city, but in the countryside only Slavic people. I also have another card (1904) with the insignia of a shop in Ragusa in Italian. How can you explain these facts?--151.48.61.210 (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi, the Dalmatian coast was occupied by Italian forces in the aftermath of WWI to bolster Italy's claim at Versailles. Italian can often be heard in cities under Italian occupation. During the early 20th century, Dubrovnik and Split were completely Slavic (unlike Zadar and Pula).

I ask you: can you imagine a family that lives in a Slavic city for 500 years and has a foreign language for a mother tongue? Remember, we're talking about a time well before the advent of nationalism. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan, maybe you don't know that after the WWI the Italian forces occupied only the Dalmatian cost considered in the London Pact of 1915 (do you know the London Pact?). They don't occupied Ragusa (and also Spalato, so you can learn something new about your town). Pola doesn't belong to Dalmatian coast. I repeat for the third time my question: what kind of language used Roger Boscovich and his brother in their letters? You don't know it, so I'll wait for "Ragusan historian".--151.48.61.210 (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...another thing, about the complete slavization of Spalato in the early 20th century. You have to read something more. I suggest two books: L.Monzali, Antonio Tacconi e la comunità italiana di Spalato, SDSP 2008 (about the Italian community of Spalato in the 20th/30th) and E.Bettiza, Esilio, Mondadori 1998. Enzo Bettiza is a Dalmatian-born Italian journalist. He left his hometown only in 1946. Also today (today!) in Spalato we can find an Italian Community. His president is Mladen Culic Dalbello. Here you can see his face.--151.48.61.210 (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi, don't be an idiot as well as banned. Italian troops did indeed occupy Split for a short period before the Americans and British arrived, simply because they were the closest Allied forces, I've heard eyewitness testimonies and it was even on film. I do not ramble. I admit I assumed the same took place in Dubrovnik, i.e. a short period of Italian occupation prior to the arrival of other allied forces.
Further, Split was vastly Slavic by the 20th century. A small Italian minority did exist, of course, I should know: my family was considered a part of it (at least my great-grandfather did). However, these are insignificant portions of the population, I've heard the figure "9%" used (though I'm not sure if its accurate). We were talking about language, I was illustrating the linguistic side of the matter when I said "completely Slavic".
Please remember you are talking about my home town. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do you heard some eyewitness testimonies about the Italian occupation of Split in 1918? People born in 1900 or so on?

2. "Completely" vs. "9%".

Who is the idiot, here?--151.48.61.210 (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You, Luigi. I did not actually go around interviewing people from 1919. You'd have to be an IDIOT to assume that is what I meant (or you'd have to have a poor grasp of the English language). Further, you'd have to be an IDIOT not to understand me when I carefully explain that "I was illustrating the linguistic side of the matter when I said 'completely Slavic'." What I meant, obviously, is that the city spoke Croatian as a whole.
For the record, now I am "nervous". Even though that expression actually means "mildly afraid" in English, rather than "angry" (but hey, only an IDIOT would use an expression he does not comprehend, right?). I am "nervous" because I once again find myself engaged in a pointless discussion with a wise-ass moron. byby PIO --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, but now, please, let me speak with mr "Ragusan historian". This is enough for you.--151.48.61.210 (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signore IP 151.48.61.210,

You asked for me, and here I am. First let me comment on something. You are evidently Italian. In your research you are restricted to sources written in Italian and it is obvious, according to your posts, that you cannot speak any Slavic language. This is a problem of many of your countrymen that are nationalistically-inclined - lack of information (but that's a trademark of any nationalism). This means you can only see one side of the medal that is Ragusan history and culture. The evidence of this is your mentioning of Đivo Frana Gundulić. If you could speak the language he was writing in and if you could read his works, descibed by Robin Harris, an English historian, as the most beautiful poetry ever written in any Slavic language, you would probably quiet down immediately and leave this discussion promptly, with your tail between your legs.

But now let's talk about Roger Joseph Boscovich. It is excellent that you chose him of all people and I will explain why. His grandfather from his mother's side was a wealthy and influential noble Bartolomeo (Baro) Bettera, who decided to settle in Dubrovnik, an Italian. (Incidentally, some of my family ancestors served as serfs to that family). His daughter Pavle (Pavica) was already assimilated into Ragusan society (similar to Marko Bruerović in my previous post) and wrote short essays in Slavic. She married Roger's father Nikola, a Hercegovian (a region east to northeast of Dubrovnik), therefore a Slav (The scientific jury is still out on whether he was a Croat or a Serb, but this is irrelevant to our discussion, although I personally consider such questions to be inappropriate for that time, when nationality didn't exist in today's sense). The duality (Italian-Slavic) is obvious.

Roger was one of nine children in the Boscovich family. His brother Baro is remembered as a skilled latinist, but he also wrote in Italian and Slavic. His sister Anica, a pious, educated and intelligent woman, wrote exclusively in Slavic, although she was well versed in several languages. Roger translated one of her poems into Italian. A lot of what we know about these two siblings of Roger is precisely because of his regular correspondence with both. Although he also wrote correspondence in French, to his brother Baro Roger mostly wrote in Italian (to answer you question, IP 151.48.61.210), however, he wrote the delicate, confidential information within his letters to him in Slavic, which you can see by simply browsing though them. To his sister, however, Roger wrote only in the language that he calls:

  "slovinski, ilirski, naški" (Slavic, Illyrian, our language)

Furthermore, in one of his works, "Diary of a trip", Roger mentions a conversation with a fellow priest about his journey from Istanbul to Poland (I believe) and he says:

  "Jezik te zemlje narječje je slavenskog jezika, a kako je taj također moj prirodni jezik dubrovački, mogli su me oni razumjeti,
   a i ja nešto od onoga što su oni govorili."
  "The language of that country is a dialect of the Slavic language, and since that is also my natural Ragusan language, they  
   were able to understand me and I could understand some of what they were saying."

Roger also writes that he uses this language in his home and in one of his works states that "in Dubrovnik all exact sciences are studied with fervor but good literature is even more appreciated, whether written in Latin, or in Illyrian, the language that we speak."

Finally, when the famous French mathematician D'Alembert mentioned him in a discussion as an "Italian geometrist", Roger responded that he "wasn't Italian, but a Dalmatian from Dubrovnik." He added: "I am not considered Italian in Italy, so they haven't put me in any of their works."

Relevant to all of this, because it shows a lot about Ragusan mentality is the fact that Baro Boscovich, Roger's brother, who mostly wrote in Latin, once also wrote the poem "U pohvalu jezika slovinskog" ("In praise to the Slavic language"), which he then translated into Italian. This clearly shows that Ragusans didn't consider Italian their own language but used it a great deal because it was the lingua franca of that time, as Latin was before it, and French and English after it. Before the Renaissance, when Latin was still the lingua franca, Ragusans wrote in Latin and didn't even speak Italian and from the end of the 18th century Ragusans started using French for the same purpose (can you see a pattern here?). Such flexibility and versatility was neccessary for a people and a country in their delicate geopolitical situation. This is similar to the famous sentence of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V: "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse."

And as an answer to Ivan Štambuk, I didn't use Croatian because it wasn't neccessary and historically most accurate. Ragusans mostly called their language the way that I wrote it - slovinski (Slavic) - the biggest number of references. The second in number of references is the name ilirski (Illyrian - corresponds roughly with the territory of former Yugoslavia, although sometimes used to denote only Catholic areas within that territory, used until the mid 19th century, when it was forbidden by the Austrian court), after it dubrovački (Ragusan) and finally hrvatski (Croatian).

A note for Italian and Serbian nationalists: no Ragusan EVER, in the history of time, called his language Serbian or Italian.

As you can see, Boscovich used the names Slavic, Illyrian and Ragusan. His sentence that the language of Poland is a dialect of the Slavic language shows without question that Ragusans thought that all Slavs spoke a single language and that Croatian, Serbian, Polish, Russian etc. were only dialects (there are other examples of this). Also, to use Croatian in this discussion would be pointless, because we are discussing the opposition Italian-Slavic, not Croatian-Serbian. One of the first rules a historian is taught (ask any historian) is that it is wrong to project present political or national views to a time in the past. Precisely this projecting created nationalistic regimes such as fascism, nacism, or any of the "Greater" ideas in the Balkans, such as "Greater Serbia".

I got the material for the Boscovich family from these two articles (one scientific, one newspaper):

http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/24875 http://www.vjesnik.com/Pdf/2004%5C01%5C20%5C17A17.PDF They're in Croatian, so I don't belive you'll be able to understand them, IP 151.48.61.210, but you can use the option Find to search for the exact quotes.

In the end, I'd like to make a conclusion based on the facts I've presented in this post. It is clear that there was a duality Italian-Slavic in the Boscovich family and in Ragusan culture in general, simply because of the constant contact with the Italian city-states to the west and the Slavic states to the north and the east. However, as it is shown by their own words, Ragusans always opted for the Slavic identity and considered it their own, so the duality is similar to the Ragusan language used during the Republic and sometime after, not 50-50 Slavic and Italian words in the vocabulary, but closer to 70-30 in favor of words of Slavic origin.

A Ragusan historian

P.S. Here are some photos of the Bettera family summer-house (villa): http://www.zupa-dubrovacka.hr/media/images/album/beterina/beterina11990.html

Rag. Historian (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]