Talk:Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja/Archive 1

initial creation
I created this as a compromise after a troll-attack on History of Bosnia and Herzegovina and related articles. The talk page there has more details about this. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   21:51, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bosniaks
Actually, it relates to the history of the modern-day Bosniaks as much as it does on the history of the modern-day Serbs and Croats, because at that time, the predecessors to the Bosniaks were included among the same population just like the predecessors of the others. But I'll leave it be. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bar history
''Njegova istoriografska, naucna i literarna vrijednost nije ista. Naime, ima mnogo ponavljanja, zbrkanog rodoslovlja, tako da se ponegdje desava da sin zivi prije oca, da je razlika medju njima po dvjesta godina ili da, u jednom poglavlju, junak umre pa onda iznova ozivi.''

From the official site of Bar. --PaxEquilibrium 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

kingdom
The chronicles speak of a Slavic kingdom, not of a Croatian one. Then this kingdom is divided into Maritima and Surbia (Serbia) or Transmontana; Maritima again in White Croatia or Lower Dalmatia and in Red Croatia or Upper Dalmatia, Surbia or Transmontana in Bosnia and Rascia. Greetings from Vienna. -- Carski, 14:00, 16 june 2007 (UTC)

But then Bosnia was not in the borders of todays Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia was a much smaller country than today reaching just up to spring of the river Bosna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.142.234 (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

People on the Chronicle
Joannes Lucius, Dalmatian-Italian-Croatian historian/writer from the 17th century, translator of the Chronicle:


 * ..he mixes areas, genealogy and archaeology so much that it is clear that he would rather write fairy tales than history..

Croatian-Yugoslavian historian Ferdo Šišić:


 * ..The Priest's Chronicle is a part of worthless historical science...from the beginning of the 16th century numerous prominent notable and unknown self-styled writers have rewritten it.

Croatian historian Ivan Kukuljević-Sakcinski:


 * How big value both this [that is Croatian version] and the Doclean's Chronicle have will find out everyone who has a little deeper studied into the ancient history of Croats and Serbs. In both these chronicles there is very little historical truth and their authors did not keep to at least the needed systematization and historic view. In it there are so ridiculous anachronisms and so demented piling of names of all kinds of generally Croatian, as well as Narentine, Serb etc. Princes, Zhoupans and Kings, so that man must come to wonder how could anyone even take an effort to note these things.

Croatian historian Franjo Rački:


 * Historical value of the Doclean chronicle is insignificant, and of the Croatian chronicle none at all.

Slavist historian Konstantin Jireček:


 * A Latin scripture with no title or ending, as it seems written by some priest from Bar in the last years of the reign of Emperor Michael (1160 - 1180) [..] Obviously this genealogy was invented somewhere in the vicinity of Bar, to magnify the glory of these small princes [..] In the entire Latin text there is not a single date. The writer has no capability to measure the lasting of past ages [..] The genealogy lacks a great majority of rulers that are known to us from writings, edicts, Papal, Venetian or Byzantine monuments; in their place a mass of names of which we have no confirmation at all in documents emerges. [..] The Doclean's chaos of seven generations in 20 years is unacceptable.

Austrian historians Johann Christian von Engel and Friedrich Crause, German historian Ernst Ludwig Dümmler and Croatian linguist Vatroslav Jagić claimed the Chronicle is entirely worthless as a whole as a historical source. - written by User:PaxEquilibrium 14:15, 4 May 2008

Unstable source
We should add a section with unsure sources used in articles.--Zoupan (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)