Dubrovnik old serbian city

[The Serb]

Čak je i jedan papa, Lav DžIII, javno i pismeno priznao Dubrovčanima da su Srbi

UVEK SRPSKI PONEKAD LATINSKI NIKAD HRVATSKI

"U Dubrovniku, od pamtiveka, govorilo se srpski, govorilo - kako od pučana, tako od vlastele, kako kod kuće tako i u općini", pisao je hrvatski istoričar Natko Nodilo.


Natko Nodilo je, uz Franju Račkog, utemeljivač hrvatske istorije. Krasila ga je privr-ženost istini. Zaključke je donosio samo na osnovu pouzdanih izvora i nije podlegao pritiscima hrvatskih državotvoraca 19. veka, koji su od naučnika tražili da svoje radove prilagođavaju "istorijskim dokazima" o prisustvu hrvatskog naroda i hrvatskog jezika "diljem" Dalma-cije, Slavonije, Srema, Like, Korduna, Banije, Hercegovine, Bosne, Baranje i Dubrovnika.

Doslednost istini Natko Nodilo je dokazao i svojim delom "Prvi ljetopisci i davna historiografija dubrovačka" (JAZU, Zagreb, 1883. sveska 65, strane od 92. do 128), gde je, o jeziku Dubrovnika, napisao ovako:

"U Dubrovniku, ako i ne od prvog početka, a ono od pamtivjeka, govorilo se srpski: govorilo - kako od pučana, tako od vlastele; kako kod kuće, tako u javnom životu i u općini, a srpski je bio i raspravni jezik."

Nodilo je bio potpuno u pravu, mada se, danas, ne bi našao niko u Hrvatskoj, ko bi se usudio da podrži ovaj njegov naučni sud. Priznavanjem Dubrovčana katolika za Srbe, bilo bi srušeno sve u temelju zvanične hrvatske istorije, pa i tvrdnja o "povjesnom pravu" hrvatske države na ovaj grad sa srpskim stanovništvom i srpskom civilizacijskom baštinom.

Dubrovački dokumenti otkrivaju da je zvanični jezik Republike bio latinski, ali se, pored njega, pominje i domaći jezik; nekad kao srpski, nekad kao ilirski, nekad kao slavinski, nekad kao vlaški, ali nikad kao hrvatski.

To što su Dubrovčani ispovedali katoličku veru, kao i Hrvati, ne govo-ri ništa o srodnosti Dubrovčana i Hrvata. U pitanju je priroda širenja katolicizma u srpskim zemljama; na jadranskoj obali i zaleđu. To je činjeno zahvaljujući dominaciji Vatikana, Venecije, Mađarske i Austrije u ovom delu Balkanskog poluostrva. Ne znamo da li se iko, temeljno, bavio istorijskim fenomenom da je jedino Srbima zabranjeno da ispovedaju katoličku veru!?

Da bi ovo bilo primamljivo i značajno istraživanje, opominje nas i činjenica da su katolici Dalmacije, Slavonije, Hercegovine, Bosne, Dubrovnika i drugih srpskih krajeva, sve do prvih decenija 20. veka, sebe smatrali Srbima. Vremenom su svi oni postali "Hrvati" i među njima nema više onih koji se osećaju Srbima.

Institucije Katoličke crkve ne bi same uspele da prevedu Srbe, sa velikog područja, na katoličanstvo, pa onda da ih pohrvate, da im nisu pomagale navedene katoličke države: pritiscima i privilegijama, a i kroz prosvetnu, kulturnu i informativnu delatnost. Ove države su, radi preobraćanja Srba katolika i Srba pravoslavaca u Hrvate, posezale i za golom vojnom i policijskom silom, što je dostiglo vrhunac u oba svetska rata, kad je ovo pomagala i Nemačka. Dubrovčani su se dugo opirali uknjiženju u hrvatsku rubriku, jer nisu pristajali na tako nešto, samo zbog toga što ispovedaju kato-ličanstvo. Na kraju, tu veru ispovedaju Nemci, Italijani, Španci, Francuzi i drugi narodi i nikom ne pada na pamet da ih zbog toga, smatra Hrvatima!

Dubrovčani nisu dozvoljavali da ih religija sputava u narodnom osećanju. Za srpstvo su se borili javno, književnošću, prosvetom, štampom, kao i delatnošću u različitim društvenim organizacijama. Činili su to iako su protiv sebe imali i Vatikan, i mletačku, i mađarsku, i austrijsku, i nemačku, i hrvatsku vlast; u svakom periodu neku od njih, ili više njih - odjednom.

Zanimljiv je primer pokušaja pohrvaćenja Dubrovčana katolika u ne tako davnom vremenu - 1901. godine. Hrvatski državotvorci su i godinama pre toga svojski radili na tom poslu. Između ostalog, bacili su oko i na "Zavod Svetog Jeronima" u Rimu, kojeg su osnovali i izdržavali Srbi Dubrovčani. Papa Lav Trinaesti je bio uveren da su Dubrovčani, početkom 20. veka, već bili pripremljeni za prevođenje u hrvatstvo, pa je, svojom bulom, ovaj zavod preimenovao u "Hrvatski zavod Svetog Jeronima".

Dubrovčani katolici su žestoko protestvovali protiv ove odluke pape Lava Trinaestog. Papa je ustuknuo. Bojao se, tada, duže polemike o suštini srpstva i hrvatstva, a i rasprave o pravoslavlju i katoličanstvu. Poslao je pismo Dubrovčanima katolicima, obaveštavajući ih da se iz imena ovog zavoda briše dodata reč "hrvatski". No, i posle ovog izvinjenja, papa je i dalje strahovao od pokretanja javne rasprave o narodnosti i jeziku Dubrovčana, pa im se obraća, kao Srbima katolicima, telegramom i 1903. godine.

Pismo i telegram pape Lava Trinaestog Dubrovčanima objavljeni su u srpskom listu "Dubrovnik", ali su ti brojevi godinama traženi i uništavani od strane budnih graditelja hrvatske države i nacije, pa je pitanje da li su, pored onih u arhivi Vatikana, ovi a tekstovi Lava Trinaestog igde još sačuvani.

Pohrvaćenje Srba Dubrovnika i Srba drugih srpskih krajeva činjeno je krađama, između ostalog, lirskih i junačkih narodnih pesama, koje su skupljali Srbi katolici, pa čak i katolički sveštenici. Te pesme je Matica hrvatska objavljivala kao "hrvatske narodne pjesme". Ovakav postupak Matice hrvatske podstakao je Dubrovčanina katolika (Srbina) Luju Vojinovića, brata pesnika Ive Vojinovića, da u srpskom listu "Dubrovnik" (1897, u broju 35) napiše oštru kritiku Matičnog postupka, proročki nagoveštavajući iščezavanje Srba katolika, uz genocid Hrvata nad Srbima. On svoj članak zaključuje ovim rečima:

"Srbe preko Drine! I ta se lozinka slijepo sluša i slušaće se do onog usudnog dana koji mora da dođe, kad će jedan veliki katakli-zam oboriti sve te umjetne ograde, ili... ili, jaoh, porušiti i posljednje bedeme narodne srpske zgrade i tada će - Hrvati biti zadovoljni!

Herostrata (potpaljivač Artemidinog hrama u Efesu) će pomenuti Kliomuza zaštitnica istorije."

Slobodan Jarčević

Izvor: SRPSKO NASLEĐE

[The Serb]

Text translated by Racial Socialist.


Even one Pope, Leo XIII, publicly (and in writing) admitted to the inhabitants of Dubrovnik that they are Serbs

Always Serbian, sometimes Latin, never Croatian

"In Dubrovnik, the main language ever since the olden days was Serbian which was spoken by commoners, as well as by nobles - in the households, as well as in the municipal administration", wrote the Croatian historian Natko Nodilo.

Natko Nodilo was, along with Franjo Rački, the founder of Croatian history. He was characterized by his loyalty to truth. Nodilo made conclusions only when he knew that the sources were trustworthy and he did not give in to pressures of Croatian statesmen of 19th century who wanted the academics to adapt their works to "historical proofs" of Croatian presence (linguistically and nationally) in the various regions. These regions included Dalmatia, Slavonia, Srem (a region just north-west of Belgrade), Lika, Kordun, Banija, Herzegovina, Bosnia, Baranja and Dubrovnik.

Natko Nodilo proved his loyalty to the truth in his work "Prvi ljetopisci i davna historiografija dubrovačka" (The First Chroniclers and Early Historiography of Dubrovnik - JAZU, Zagreb, 1883. notebook 65, pages 92-128) where he stated the next: "In Dubrovnik, the main language ever since the olden days was Serbian which was spoken by commoners, as well as by nobles - in the households, as well as in the municipal administration and Serbian was a language used in judicial matters as well."

Nodilo was correct, although we cannot find anyone in Croatia today who would dare support this statement of his. If it was admitted that the inhabitants of Dubrovnik were Serbian Catholics, all foundations of official Croatian history would be destroyed, and with that the claim of "historical right" of Croatian state to rule this city inhabited by Serbs and their cultural patrimony.

Dubrovnik's documents reveal that the official language of the Republic was Latin, but besides Latin, there is also a domestic language sometimes mentioned as Serbian, sometimes Illyrian, sometimes Slavic and Vlach but never Croatian.

The fact that the inhabitants of Dubrovnik were Roman Catholics, like Croats, does not tell us anything about how related they were. The issue is the nature of expanding Catholicism in Serbian lands; on the Adriatic coast, as well as in its background. For that, we can be thankful to the domination of Vatican, Venice, Hungary, and Austria in this part of Balkan Peninsula. We do not know whether anyone thoroughly studied the historical phenomenon that only Serbs were forbidden from practicing Catholicism!

This would be an attractive and important study due to the fact that the Catholics of Dalmatia, Slavonia, Herzegovina, Bosnia, Dubrovnik and other Serbian regions, saw themselves as Serbs up until the first decades of 20th century. They all became "Croats" over time and now there are not any among them who identify with Serbian nation.

The Institutions of Catholic Church would not have succeeded in converting the Serbian populations to Catholicism, and then to Croatianize them if they did not have the help of the above mentioned Catholic states: with pressure and privileges, and also through educational, cultural and informational activities. These states would, in order to turn the Catholic and Orthodox Serbs into Croats, use raw military and police power which reached its peak during both world wars when these efforts were helped even by Germany. The populace of Dubrovnik resisted being labeled as Croats for a long time because they simply did not want to conform to such a conversion only because they were Catholics. After all, many Germans, Italians, Spaniards, French and other nations are also Catholics but nobody would dare to call them Croats!

The populace of Dubrovnik did not allow itself to lose its national identity just because of religion. They fought for Serbdom publicly – with literature, education, printing press, as well as by activities with various societal organizations. They did that even though they had Vatican against them, as well as Venetian, Hungarian, Austrian, German and Croatian governments; in each period they resisted one or more of these mentioned governments – sometimes many at once.

There is an interesting example of an attempt to Croatianize the populace of Dubrovnik not so long ago – in 1901. The Croatian statesmen worked for that goal years before this attempt. Among others, they had their eyes on the “Institute of Saint Geronimo“ in Rome, which was established and financed by Dubrovnik’s Serbs. Pope Leo XIII was convinced that the inhabitants of Dubrovnik were (in the beginning of 20th century) ready to be initiated into Croatdom, and so by his order the above mentioned Institute was renamed into “Croatian Institute of Saint Geronimo“.

The Catholics of Dubrovnik intensely protested against this decision of Pope Leo XIII. The Pope backed off. At the time, he feared the longer-lasting controversy in further discussion about the essence of Serbdom and Croatdom, as well as Orthodoxy and Catholicism. He sent a letter of apology to Dubrovnik’s Catholics informing them that the word “Croatian“ would be taken out of the name of the Institute. Even after the apology, Pope feared that a public discussion about the nationality and language of Dubrovnik’s inhabitants might develop and so he addressed them as “Catholic Serbs“ in a telegram sent to them in 1903.

The letter and telegram of Pope Leo XIII sent to the city of Dubrovnik was published in the Serbian publication “Dubrovnik“, but those publications were sought out and destroyed by Croatian government, and so there is a question whether there are any other copies of this publication left besides those in the Vatican’s archives.

The Croatianization of Dubrovnik’s Serbs and Serbs from other regions was often done by theft of, among other things, lyric and heroic national songs which were gathered by Catholic Serbs, and even by Catholic priests. Those songs were published by “Croatian Motherland“ as “Croatian National Songs“. This behavior of “Croatian Motherland“ editors inspired a Dubrovnik Catholic (Serb) Lujo Vojinovic, the brother of poet Ivo Vojinovic, to respond in Serbian publication “Dubrovnik“ (1897, number 35) with sharp criticism of “Motherland’s“ actions, prophetically claiming the disapperance of Catholic Serbs, because of Croatian genocide to be committed against them. He ends his article with these words:

“Serbs over the Drina River! And that codeword is blindly listened to and it will be listened to until the final day which must come, a final day when a great cataclysm will destroy all the artistic fences, or... or, ohh, destroy the final bastions of Serbian national culture and that is when the Croats will be satisfied!

Herostrates (the one who set fire to Artemis’ temple in Ephes) will mention Cliomuses the protector of history.“

Slobodan Jarčević

Source: SRPSKO NASLEĐE publication

[The Serb]

http://www.dubrovnik.com/slike/dubrovnik.jpg


http://www.caingram.info/Croatia/Pix/Dubrovnik_1.jpg


http://www.bourlingueurs.com/dubrovnik-croatie/fotos_dubrovnik/dubrovnik_60.jpg

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I have said this many times before - even if the people of Dubrovnik are ethnic Serbs (which they are not and which I won't argue because that point is irrelevant), who cares, as the people of Dubrovnik today have absolutely no interest - non whatsoever to belong to Serbia, Belgrade or the Serbian Corpus.

Similar arguments have been presented befoore about Croats from where my ancestors come from (hercegovina) being Catholicized Serbs. Let me tell you even if it was prooven beyond reasonable doubt that I was an ethnic Serb I would have no interest - non whatsoever in belonging or identifying with the Serb nation. My preference (one and only) is that I belong to the viewpoints and values that the Croatian national conscious incorporates and which the Serb corpus cannot deliver. So really your attempt (as false as it is) does not do anything for anyone except brainwash more Serbs into believing something which even if it was true once will never be true again.

[Jimbo Gomez]

This will degenerate in flames if it stays open.