Wikipedia

Talk:Giulio Clovio/Archive 2

< Talk:Giulio Clovio
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Luciano di Martino in topic Balkanization of the medieval Italian culture
Archive 1 Archive 2

Giulio Clovio / POV / Original research

Latest comment: 13 years ago23 comments2 people in discussion
  • Scholars from all over the world agree that Giulio Clovio was an Italian.

The 99,9% of the Sources ? " He was an Italian. "

Sources:

  • The Oxford Dictionary of Art.
  • The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists.
  • Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
  • The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.
  • Treccani, Il Portale Del Sapere.
  • Old Master Paintings and Drawings Di Roy Bolton.
  • Catholic Encyclopedia

Etc. --Davide41 (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Davide, professor of history in Rome, who apparently does not know history. It is very sad when someone who claims that part of Croatian Kingdom, Lika, was part of Venice, also claims that he was university professor. I don't think that any university professor would go to wikipedia to make nationalistic rants - very dishonoring for such a nation that gave intelectuals like Procacci in these last few decades. Unfortunately for you, I know too much of croatian history to be tricked like that, and that also means knowing relevant literature.

But, let us return to the topic subject. I don't know if it was you who wrote that Croatia was part of Venice, but it is very amusing non the less - I don't even want to discuss such an statement. When you say that authors from all over the world say that Klović was an Italian, I must point out few statements: 1.) Authors from all over the world don't say Klović was an Italian, as pointed in the sources you deleted. Beginning from his contemporary Vasari, through the newest authors like John Bradley and Maria Visani, as you can see here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=xADJ2x45iJAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Life+and+Works+of+Giorgio+Giulio+Clovio+Miniaturist+with+Notices+of+His+Contemporaries+and+of+the+Art+of+Book+Decoration+in+the+Sixteenth+Century.+Kessinger+Publishing&hl=hr&ei=2UEkTbjVNozP4ga6mJ3KCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

2.) Your sources are encyclopaedias - you don't have a single book that deals with this author only, with his life and works!

3.) Why did you even delete sources without consulting with users of wikipedia?

4.) Place of birth of Julije Klović is Kingdom of Croatia, he was nicknamed "Croata" and "Macedon" and worked in Kingdom of Hungary, as well as in Italy.

5.) Wikipedia doesn't allow POV articles, and does not support original research - first you should publish your book professor, then we can discuss your works. Since I cannot rename the article, I leave that to someone else.Philosopher12 (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources:

[...] One master remains to be mentioned, Giulio Clovio,145 who is regarded as the greatest of Italian miniature-painters, though all he did was to adapt to his purpose the style of one of the great Roman painters, Giulio Romano. [...]

" Original research "

  • Scholars from all over the world agree that Giulio Clovio was an Italian. The myth of Clovio has prompted some minds to hallucinate and some dilettantes to try to appropriate the myth for themselves. Giulio Clovio Croatian ? Then Leopold Ružička is Italian. --Davide41 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, without any proof you are ranting on and on. I'll repeat myself: 1.) Authors from all over the world don't say Klović was an Italian, as pointed in the sources you deleted. Beginning from his contemporary Vasari, through the newest authors like John Bradley and Maria Visani

2.) Your sources are encyclopaedias - you don't have a single book that deals with this author only, with his life and works!

5.) Wikipedia doesn't allow POV articles, and does not support original research.

To conclude: I have clear proofs that schoolars from all over the world say Klović was Croatian. And I didn't even mention croatian authors like Igor Žic, Slobodan Prosperov Novak, tons of croatian encyclopaedias etc. Encyclopaedias or dictionaries are NOT reliable sources, as stated numerous times. Philosopher12 (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

POV. Source: Scholars from all over the world. --Davide41 (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, so you are a vandal that will be banned in a no time. I don't have to say anything else. It's sad I've spent time on you. Philosopher12 (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  • All primary sources. You can't edit this page. I must call the moderators --Davide41 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop editing the page without consulting with other users of wikipedia.Philosopher12 (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't you understand? You are using tertiary sources and you don't have a single secondary source. You just have encyclopaedias, info from internet and dictionaries that don't back up your theory. Your sources just marginally mention Klović, therefore they are not reliable as whole books that analyse his life and work. Philosopher12 (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a reliable source ? " Last of the absurd hypotheses and comical fantasies is still circulating ".

Primary sources

  • No consensus is needed for edits that follow guidelines.
  • This is an encyclopedia is not your playground; the information must be accurate
  • Leading Historians agree Giulio Clovio was primarily Italian
  • Write an alternate history book, but please stop to harass that article with such meaningless theories.
  • This episode deserved extended coverage not only for the sake of destroying a fiction, but also to duly recognize the seriousness of Croatian historiography. --Davide41 (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Juraj Klović Called himself "Croata". He called himself "Croata" (GEORGIVS JVLIVS CLOVIVS CROATA), he was born in Kingdom of Croatia around 1498: Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski: Jure Glović prozvan Julijo Klovio hrvatski sitnoslikar

Croatia in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance: a cultural survey, p 670: "Croatia gave two big renaissance illuminators of european significance, but both of them, unfortunately, worked abroad. One of them was Feliks Petančić,... while other was...Julije Klović"

His contemporary: "Vita di don Giulio Clovio miniatore": Giorgio Vasari; con una introduzione, note e bibliografia di Antonietta Maria Bessone Aureli. Vasari said:

"Nacque egli nell'anno 1498 a Grizane in Croazia, villagio presso l'Adriatico al sud di Fiume, in un distretto allora appartenente ai Frangiapane. Il suo nome nella lingua nativa fu Iurai Glovischsich, cioe Giorgio Clovio, come ei italianamente lo transformo; suo padre fu macedone e sua madre illirica. Della sua infanzia non vi sono notizie; e probabile ch'ei vivesse in patria presso i parenti, e studiasse disegno in qualche convento di quei luoghi. Si puo pur credere che date le continue guerre l'ammiraglio Grimani passasse piu volte per la Croazia, e che in uno di questi suoi viaggi conoscesse il giovane Clovio e lo conducese con se a Venezia."

THIS IS A PRIMARY SOURCE, not your encyclopaedias: his contemporary Vasari said he was born in Croatia, and his native name was "Juraj Glovišić". He called himself "Croata". How could he possibly be italian? I have pictured the book also.

Also, don't insult croatian historiography - I have primary and secondary sources (Vasari, Bradley), you have tertiary sources like encyclopaedias.Philosopher12 (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No ? For the Croatian historians also Marco Polo was Croatian ( ! ). Are not reliable sources. Tertiary sources. --Davide41 (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  • The historian's mission is essentially that of making the past come to life, of resuscitating the fact which has been forgotten in time; but to construct studies, which are only scientific in appearance, based on second-hand third-hand hypotheses, leads not to history but rather to a more or less gratuitous fiction. --Davide41 (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Giulio Clovio was an Italian painter of Croatian descent. --Davide41 (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

He was Croatian illuminist that worked in Hungary and Italy, and maybe Zagreb.

Historian's mission is not to "resurrect the past", that is the statement of Ranke's romantic historiography in 19th century. Philosopher12 (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  • The claim for a Croat Clovio emerges every now and then from that country's dilettante historians.
  • Repeat: Leading Historians agree Giulio Clovio was primarily Italian. This must be reported --Davide41 (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Is that how university professors behave: argue on wikipedia, make statements without proof and contrary to primary and secondary sources, and insult others with words like "dilettants"? Philosopher12 (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Respect. Thirty five years of teaching. --Davide41 (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok "professor", i don't know history, you do. Now, could you show me a map where Grisane in Lika is part of the Republic of Venice? Could you show me books dealing with Klović ONLY, his life and works, that state he is an italian illuminist. I'm also happy with his contemporaries.Philosopher12 (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  • "professor" I'm offended.
  • This is an encyclopedia is not your playground; the information must be accurate
  • Leading Historians agree Giulio Clovio was primarily. This must be reported --Davide41 (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, please, do you want us to resolve our problem? Then let me repeat myself: SHOW ME YOUR SOURCES! Now, could you show me a map where Grisane in Lika is part of the Republic of Venice? Could you show me books dealing with Klović ONLY, his life and works, that state he is an italian illuminist. I'm also happy with his contemporaries. Philosopher12 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Useless chatter.

" It is not possible to follow him in all of his lucubrations. His fiery imagination pushes him into a continuous hermeneutics. "

  • Repeat: Giulio Clovio was an Italian painter of Croatian descent.
  • All Clovio scholars, both his admirers and his detractors, recognize that he was Italian.

A sterile debate. Leading Historians agree Giulio Clovio was primarily. This must be reported --Davide41 (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Klović's tomb

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is his tomb http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datoteka:Julije_Klovic_de_Croatia2.JPG Philosopher12 (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

edit warring

Latest comment: 13 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

Looks to me like both editors here are guilty of edit warring and have both violated the WP:3RR rule here at Wikipedia. You can both receive a ban for that btw. As an outsider (neither Croatian nor Italian) it seems to me that the facts are that Giulio Clovio was born in Grižane, Croatia. According to one source I found on Google Books he moved to Italy when he was 18. He is referred to as an "Italian painter" in many older sources and it is common to find this in the literature.

For a modern reference to Clovio being referred to as Croatian: "Ante Split also notes that a contemporary, Bernardo Guidoni, called him “Giulio Clovio from Croatia” (a Crovatia) and his gravestone labeled him also as being from Croatia, Julio Clovis de Croatia." from John Van Antwerp Fine, When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans, University of Michigan Press, 2006 [4]. My suggestion would be to rewrite the lede to include such information. He was a Croatian born painter, who moved to Italy and spent most of his professional career in Italy. Because of where he did his work he is often referred to as an Italian painter.

Re his name: I would suggest keeping the name as Giulio Clovio. A quick search of say Google scholar on Giulio Clovio results in a little more than 900 hits, while a search on (Juraj) Julije Klović gives about 100 or so. So retaining the Italian version makes more sense. The other spelling (Juraj Julije Klović) should be mentioned. --AnnekeBart (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I am sorry for editing :( I would add he spent time in Italy and Hungary, since his most important works were in Budapest also. So "as an illuminator and painter who was born in Croatia, but who was active in Italy and Hungary." if you all agree. Philosopher12 (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"active in Italy and Hungary" sounds fine to me :-). Is there a source for that though? I'm not questioning you, but I think that a reliable source would be good given the discussions up to this point. --AnnekeBart (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'll post it here later today so we can discuss it. Philosopher12 (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi.

  • All Clovio scholars, both his admirers and his detractors, recognize that he was Italian.
  • All the encyclopedias of the world
  • Ask your teachers

" This is the only encyclopedia that writes that Clovio was a croatian. "

The voice is POV. Absolutely. --Davide41 (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please add comments to the bottom of the discussion for clarity. The only one doing POV pushing seems to be you. Several sources have now been shown that clearly state that he was born in Croatia. Including several you added btw.
Old Master Paintings and Drawings. Di Roy Bolton. clearly states he is of Croatian descent. The encyclopedias you mention The Oxford Dictionary of Art., The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists. both clearly state he is born in Croatia. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. even mentions "Macedonian descent" (whatever that means). And the problem is that these online encyclopedias are usually not considered Reliable Sources. Similarly [5] is some online text of unknown background.
Furthermore I would add that you are in violation of the 3 revert rule (WP:3RR), you are now going against consensus WP:Consensus, and there are continued problems I see with Reliable Sources (WP:RS).
To argue your point you would need a Secondary Source (WP:SECONDARY) which would be a reliable book or journal article that states Clovio is considered Italian. Online encyclopedias and webpages do not cut it. Looking at Google Books and Scholar would be the place to find it. Or even better a citation from an article obtained through JSTOR or other academic source. So far the pages you have provided do not support your case. --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Ask your teachers
  • From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greetings --Davide41 (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


" Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum " --Davide41 (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

:-) I suggest you take your own "advice" --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

But I'm Not Wrong. I taught for thirty years. Offensive. The voice is POV. --Davide41 (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

First and second sources. All. Repeat: The voice is POV. " I wash my hands " (Pontius Pilate). --Davide41 (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing "offensive" in what I wrote. Your comment of "ask your teacher" however is condescending and rude and a violation of WP:CIVIL.
You still have not provided a reliable secondary source (WP:RS) for your statements. Online encyclopedias and websites are not sufficient. I provided a quote from a respectable book above stating very clearly that he was born in Croatia and described as a Croatian by others and more importantly on his tomb. Please stop ignoring the evidence provided in favor of cherry picked websites. --AnnekeBart (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Since this edit war still seems to be a going concern, I've protected this page for a week in lieu of blocking individual editors. Please contact me, or place a request at WP:RFPP if you resolve this dispute before then and the protection will be removed. Kuru (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


  • Ok, John Bradley (page 57 - 39) mentions his years in Budapest where Klović worked. There he created "Judgement of Paris" and "The Story of Roman Lucretia."

http://books.google.com/books?id=xADJ2x45iJAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Life+and+Works+of+Giorgio+Giulio+Clovio+Miniaturist+with+Notices+of+His+Contemporaries+and+of+the+Art+of+Book+Decoration+in+the+Sixteenth+Century.+Kessinger+Publishing&hl=hr&ei=2UEkTbjVNozP4ga6mJ3KCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

I would mention that he was maybe in Hungary for more than 2 years (up to six), I'll find more information and put it here.Philosopher12 (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if a short section preceding the one about his work would be the place to put some of this background. There may be some information on his youth (the first 18 years) and his move to Italy. An overview of where he worked might be interesting. I had looked at the page for Hans Holbein the Younger and he is another person who was born and raised in one place, but then traveled around during his working years. I do not know however if Clovio had "Italian years", "Hungarian years" etc. You may know more about that than I do Philosopher12 :) --AnnekeBart (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. I don't know too much, I only know literature about him better, since I am a student of history, and I have at my college new library about humanities and social sciences. It would be great if we added section about his youth - the only problem I have is that literature is only in italian or croatian, so it may be a problem for english speaking world to verify this details. He never worked outside of Italy, except in Hungary (in Buda) between 1520 or 1524 - 1526.Philosopher12 (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  • People need to look at the archive (link at top), where all this was gone into in still more exhaustive detail by previous wiki-generations of nationalists (not the Hungarian angle). The current lead formulation should not be tampered with. There has already been a rename discussion, which should be looked at before a further move is considered. Meanwhile of course no-one attempts to actually improve the article beyond nationalist considerations. These are the pertinent quotes from Grove Art Online, a very reliable source: "Italian painter and illuminator of Croatian birth. The most important illuminator of the 16th century,..." Educated in his native Croatia, Clovio came to Italy at the age of 18 to study art. He began his training in Venice .... During this period he visited Rome,... Around 1523 he left Venice to work at the court of the rulers of Bohemia and Hungary, ... His stay ended with the Turkish invasion and the death of King Louis in 1526." - which agrees with what we have, although the Hungarian dates can be made more precise. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Italian painter and illuminator of Croatian birth. The most important illuminator of the 16th century,..."

Exact. (4) Giulio Clovio was an Italian painter of Croatian descent. --Davide41 (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Of Croatian descent" would mean that he was born in Italy to parents or grandparents from Croatia, which is not the case; he first came to Italy as an adult who had received his initial training as an artist. Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's all ok Johnbod, but the article stayed for quite a long time untouched before Davide41 came, "italianising" Klović/Clovio. I wouldn't agree that he was Italian (Grove Art Online), he called himself "Croata" and "Macedon" to express his noble descent from Alexander the Great. It's the same story as with Ruđer Bošković who is frequently called "italian" scientist in encyclopaedias although we have proof that he explicitely said that he was "Dalmatian from Ragusa, and not Italian." It's problem with encyclopaedias who just marginally mention someone, and articles in encyclopaedias are usually written by non - experts.

All secondary and primary sources (G. Vasari, his contemporary, whom I cited, Bradley, Visani, Kukuljević etc.) point out that he called himself "Croata", that he was born in Croatia, and that he visited his native Croatia in 1526. again. To say that he was of "croatian descent" means that his father/mother, or more distant relatives were Croatians, but not him, which is not true. I really don't see how could he be Italian, for that statement you only have tertiary sources.

To be clear, I'm not a nationalist, and it won't kill me if you write that Klović was Italian/African/Mongolian etc., but every secondary and primary source points that he was referring to his croatian identity. Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't see a book yet (that deals only with him) and that claims that he was Italian. If I judge correctly, wikipedia referrs to primary and secondary sources as most accurate.

I would remain with "Clovio from Croatia who was most active in Italy, and for some time, in Hungary. I would also rename place of his birth (from "today in Croatia" to "Croatia") because it was then also in Kingdom of Croatia. Philosopher12 (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

As I say, the existing formulation should be left, except for maybe "today in". While the lead remains so short, I don't think a 3-4 year period in Hungary, out of a 60 year career, needs mentioning there, especially as hardly any works from that period survive - it seems just one possible Missal now in Zagreb. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Philosopher12 (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


Sources:

  • All Clovio scholars, both his admirers and his detractors, recognize that he was Italian of Croatian descent.

The voice is POV. --Davide41 (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If you bother to actually read the source in the Oxfort Online page Davide you would notice: "Educated in his native Croatia, Clovio came to Italy at the age of 18 to study art." Please stop this relentless POV pushing and complete unwillingness to read real sources. I am neither Italian nor Croatian, so I do not care what nationality someone turns out to be. I do however care about articles being factually correct and supported by reliable sources. Please find an actual reliable source, not this encyclopedia nonsense. This has been pointed out many times now. This is getting ridiculous. You are wasting people's time with this kind of nonsense. You continue to completely ignore the references pointed out to you (modern and in reliable secondary sources) that point out you are completely wrong. And btw what on earth do you think the sentence “of Croatian descent” means? This refers to the fact he was born there! As is pointed out in many sources.
To respond to Johnbod, I think the article can be improved by giving an overview of his life in a short section. And as I indicated by the cite reference tags, the article should have proper inline citations. I think a lot can be done to improve the article. --AnnekeBart (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at other famous people who have moved:- "Albert Einstein … was a German-born theoretical physicist…[...] He settled in the U.S., becoming a citizen in 1940."

"Kurt Friedrich Gödel … was an Austrian logician, mathematician and philosopher. […] at the age of 42, he became an American citizen."

"John von Neumann … was a Hungarian American mathematician."

THey all mention the birth place and optionally the second place. So it would be wrong to remove Croatia from the first sentence. Even if he technically became an Italian the Croatian birth should still be mentioned. Kwenchin (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible biography to be inserted right after the lede

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Giulio Clovio was born in (what is today known as) Croatia. He moved to Italy at age 18 and entered the household Cardinal Marino Grimani where he was trained as a painter. Between 1516 and ca 1523 Clovio may have lived with Marino in the residence of the latter’s uncle Cardinal Domenico Grimani in Rome. [1] Clovio studied under Giulio Romano during this early period. [2] Between 1523 and 1533 Clovio traveled to Budapest and back to Rome. After 1527 he visited several monasteries of the Canons Regular of St. Augustine. In 1534 Clovio returned to the household of Cardinal Marino Grimani. A year later Clovio may have followed Marino when the latter was appointed as a papal legate to Perugia, where Clovio is thought to have worked on illustrations for the Soane Manuscript written by Marino Grimani around that time. Clovio likely returned to Rome by the end of 1538 when he is known to have met with the writer Francisco de Hollanda. [1]

At some point Clovio became a member of the household of Alessandro Farnese with whom he would be associated until his death. It was during his time with Farnese that Clovio created one of his masterpieces, the Farnese Hours. Other well-known works from this period include the illustrations for the Towneley Lectionary. [3]

From 1551 to 1553 Clovio is known to have worked in Florence. During this time he painted a miniature of Eleanor of Toledo (England, Walbeck Abbey, Private Collection). [4]

  1. ^ a b Elena Calvillo, Romanità and Grazia: Giulio Clovio's Pauline Frontispieces for Marino Grimani, The Art Bulletin, Vol. 82, No. 2 (Jun., 2000), pp. 280-297, . JSTOR
  2. ^ Julius Schlosser, Two Portrait Miniatures from Castle Ambras, The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 41, No. 235 (Oct., 1922), pp. 194-195+197-198, JSTOR
  3. ^ Lilian Armstrong, Review of The Towneley Lectionary Illuminated for Cardinal Alessandro Farnese by Giulio Clovio: The New York Public Library Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations Manuscript 91. Described by Jonathan J.G. Alexander. The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 140, No. 1146 (Sep., 1998), p. 626, JSTOR
  4. ^ Janet Cox-Rearick and Mary Westerman Bulgarella, Public and Private Portraits of Cosimo de' Medici and Eleonora di Toledo: Bronzino's Paintings of His Ducal Patrons in Ottawa and Turin, Artibus et Historiae, Vol. 25, No. 49 (2004), pp. 101-159, JSTOR

Commentary/Suggestions

I thought I would run this by others considering the discussions we have had. I have written it rathr quickly, so feel free to improve the sentence constructions. I have included the references I have used.

Too much detail? Too little? - AnnekeBart

I agree with almost everything exceprt two things:

1.) I would remove "what is today known" as Croatia, since it was then (and was then known) as Croatia.

2.) I would add that we don't know almost anything about his childhood; he probably went to neighboring monastic school where he recieved rudiments of knowledge. (Bradley, p. 20)

That's all. Philosopher12 (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me (both suggestions). It's hard to find out much more about his youth. Most discussions I have seen start with his move to Italy. I will change the text at some point.
I think the section about his career will need to be combined with this intro a bit. Otherwise there will be some duplication. --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

AnnekeBart, you did a good job...

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

...at rewriting the article. But who is editing article again against consensus? It seems editor "Kabeta" but I can't see what he edited due to "conflicting edits".Philosopher12 (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Philosopher12. I tried to focus the article more on this man's amazing work. I think Kebata's solution may be acceptable? S/he indicated in the lede that Clovio is thought of as Croatian due to his birth, but referred to as Italian by others because that is where he lived the majority of his life and did most of his work. I hope the article explains the facts. That's why I researched his biography a bit and included the facts as I could find them in the literature. --AnnekeBart (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
It's alright, although i would remove "Croatian" or "Italian", I would leave that he was from Croatia, and was mostly active in Italy (it's a little confusing like this). Then, I would create last paragraph (like "Clovio's legacy") which would include that he is celebrated by Italy and Croatia, that he was calling himself "Croata" and "Macedo", that he was influential in Italy and was influenced by italian culture etc.
It's similar case as with Ruđer Bošković, see last paragraph "competing claims for Bošković's nationality." Anyway, you did a great job at rewriting the article, keep it up. Philosopher12 (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Balkanization of the medieval Italian culture

Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

As to the J. W. Bradley’s book, it is quite clear that he compiled Clovio’s biographical data from Kukuljevic’s book [8] page 369

A lithograph of good execution in "Slovnik umjetnikah jugoslavenskih od Ivana Kukuljevica Sakcinskoga," i.e. "Lexicon of South-Slavonic Biography, by Ivan Kukuljevic Sakcinski." Art. Klovio, p. 160. Under the portrait is Julio Klovio, sitnoslikar. (Julio Clovio, miniature-painter.)

If you go to the Kukuljevic’s book: Slovnik umjetnikah jugoslavenskih od Ivana Kukuljevica Sakcinskoga, u Zagrebu 1858 Tiskom narodne tiskarne dra Ljudevita Gaja

you’ll see this text (p 156-157)

Klovio Juraj Julio, najslavniji sitnoslikar. Rodio se g 1498 u Grizanah, neznatnom selu hrvatskoga Primorja, u kotaru vinodolskom. Sto mu biahu roditelji i kako se zvahu to se zaliboze ne zna. Neima sumnje da je njegovo prezime stoprv u Italiji, po obicaju onoga vremena, preinaceno i potalijanceno. U cielom hrvatskom Primorju neima ni jednoga pismenoga spomenika u kom bi se spominjalo ime porodice Klovia. Naprotiv dolaze u pismih onoga vremena: "Glovicic" i "Glavicic" u Grizanah i u Novom, "Glovon" i "Glavan" u Trsat, “Gobic” u Grizanah, “Glavic” u Bosni a poslije u Dalmaciji i u hrvatskome Primorju.

The only known and widely used contemporary biography of this Italian painter came from the Vasari’s book: The lives of the painters, sculptors & architects, [9]

In the Clovio’s biography Vasari wrote: “...although his elders, of the family of the Clovi, had come from Macedonia; and the name given to him at baptism was Giorgio Giulio” from where it is clear

a) Clovio’s ethnicity is unknown for Macedonia’s origin could imply Greek or Slav ethnicity
b) Clovio’s name at baptism was Giorgio Giulio

Contrary to the only valid source, ‘illuminated’ Sakcinski contemplated

a) Clovio’s name was changed and italianized (Neima sumnje da je njegovo prezime stoprv u Italiji, po obicaju onoga vremena, preinaceno i potalijanceno). As a proof, Sakcinski offers that there is no a single document (pismenoga spomenika) mentioning Clovio’s (Klovio) family name
b) He counts some Slavic names (above “Glovicic”, “Glavicic”, etc), in Bosnia and Dalmatia, as a possible ‘solution’ i.e. non-italianized Clovio’s family name
c) Failed to mention that Clovio’s elders, of the family of Clovi, came from Macedonia

If you further read the Sakcinski’s book you’ll be able to “learn” that Iustinian and Diocletian, two Roman emperors born in the Balkans were Croats. Italian painter Michelangelo was actually a Croat (Mihaljandjelo). Islamized Serb Mehmed Pasha Sokollu was a Croat and his cousin was a head of Bulgarian church (historically correct: of Serbian church). I did not have time to spent on reading much of the Skacinski’s book, but I am certain that more ‘nuggets’ of his ‘wisdom’ could entertain a reader.

Bottom line, Bradley’s book is equally inaccurate as its source, the Sakcinsiki’s book.

Looks like that there are many followers of this Croatian “historian”. On the Wikipedia’s list of (notable) Croats emerged Italians Michelangelo, da Vinci, Marco Polo then French Napoleon Bonaparte and Brigitte Bardot (see the history of changes of this article)--Luciano di Martino (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked it up and Vasari states: " He was born at Grisone in the diocese of Madrucci in Sclavonia or Croatia although his ancestors came from Macedonia and his baptismal name was Giulio Clovio"
and just a bit further down the page it says " At eighteen he came to Italy" See Vasari, The lives of the painters, sculptors & architects, Volume 8 page 205. Google Books
The Croatian background is firmly established by Vasari. It is further mentioned in several other reliable sources:
* John Van Antwerp Fine, When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans, University of Michigan Press, 2006
* Elena Calvillo, Romanità and Grazia: Giulio Clovio's Pauline Frontispieces for Marino Grimani, The Art Bulletin, Vol. 82, No. 2 (Jun., 2000), pp. 280-297 ETC
You have so far misquoted/misrepresented Vasari, or else selectively used those fragments of text that can be twisted to support you claims.
You have already been warned on your talk page that your Italian nationalist editing could result in a ban.
There is no "Croatization" here. It is merely reporting what is in the literature. --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like that you have, at least, two problems beside utter lack of any academic background in the medieval history of Italy. The first one that might be is poor understanding the English text you tried to refer to (your quote of Vasari). The second possible one, you did not read the reference you tried to use in proving the apparent nonsense (Clovio being a Croat). Van Antwerp Fine, as a serious historian, states clearly on 195th page of his book: Whether Croatia was just an identifying mark, separating him from many other Juliuses in Italy, or whether he took his place of origin as a serious or ethnic-type identity, cannot be determined from the signature alone. In addition to, I am not an Italian nationalist, rather a university professor of medieval history at a notable American university. Please, use your brain, not saliva.--Luciano di Martino (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Insulting me is not really going to solve the problem. My English is just fine. Thank you for inquiring. Considering your irrational responses I seriously doubt your claims to being a historian. Seriously misquoting Vasari as you did is not something a real professor would do, and neither is quoting from encyclopedias and then not knowing what a tertiary source is. So stop the false posturing. --AnnekeBart (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
WOW, how many notable university professors are here on wikipedia, first Davide, then Luciano. I feel privileged now being in company of such notable people. I always wanted to meet Jacques Le Goff, is he also here?
What we surely have: 1.) According to Vasari, whom i quoted:
""Nacque egli nell'anno 1498 a Grizane in Croazia, villagio presso l'Adriatico al sud di Fiume, in un distretto allora appartenente ai Frangiapane. Il suo nome nella lingua nativa fu Iurai Glovischsich, cioe Giorgio Clovio, come ei italianamente lo transformo; suo padre fu macedone e sua madre illirica. Della sua infanzia non vi sono notizie; e probabile ch'ei vivesse in patria presso i parenti, e studiasse disegno in qualche convento di quei luoghi. Si puo pur credere che date le continue guerre l'ammiraglio Grimani passasse piu volte per la Croazia, e che in uno di questi suoi viaggi conoscesse il giovane Clovio e lo conducese con se a Venezia."
2.) He called himself Croata, and "Macedo" (for unknown reasons, maybe to suggest that his predecessor was Alexander the Great).
But for those claiming contrary, for the Xth time, you don't have anything to prove he was Italian except tertiary sources (encyclopaedias, dictionaries). Did he call himself "Giulio Clovio Italiano"? No, he called himself Macedo or Croata. Was he born in Italy? No, he was born in Croatia. Are words on his tomb "Giulio Clovio Italiano" or "Giulio Clovio from Italy"? No, it says "Iulius Clovius de Croatia". Since he was in Italy for most of his life, in such tertiary sources is always stated that he was Italian.Philosopher12 (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Warning This student Philosopher12 slipped into open lying by attributing the quoted text to Vasari falsely. AnnekeBart rants the same nonsense over and over. Vasari was not concerned about (Croatian) ethnic background of Clovio. As to my academic background and status and my employer, please, find a serious lawyer, deposit 10 000 USD, I'll double the proposed sum and let loser(s) pay(s) the lawyer and the winner(s) take(s) all. (Proposal to both of them)--Luciano di Martino (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Charming, more insults. If Vasari was not concerned with nationality, then why did you bring him up? And if you are not here solely for nationalist reasons then why are most if not all of your edits concerned with this issue? Why are you not adding real content? Nothing to offer? I refuse to further deal with this nonsense. Complete waste of time. --AnnekeBart (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources

The Grove Art Online, the unsurpassed authority on all aspects of art:

Clovio, Giulio (b Grisone [Grizane], Croatia, 1498; d Rome, 3 Jan 1578). Italian painter and illuminator of Croatian birth. The most important illuminator of the 16th century, he was a 'Michelangelo of small works', according to Vasari. Many of his documented works are dispersed or untraced, and some attributions are controversial, but his secure oeuvre gives a clear idea of his stylistic influences and development. Although much of his inspiration came from Raphael and Michelangelo, he developed his own visual language, brilliantly translating their monumental forms for work on the smallest scale.


Clovio, Giulio (1498–1578). Italian illuminator and painter, born in Croatia, which at this time was part of Venetian territory. He moved to Italy in 1516 and spent most of his career in Rome, although he also worked in several other cities. Clovio was the outstanding Italian illuminator of the 16th century and enjoyed a very high contemporary reputation—his friend Vasari described him as a ‘Michelangelo of small works’. His illuminations do indeed make frequent use of motifs from the work of Michelangelo and Raphael, adapting the fashionable Mannerist style to a miniature scale. From 1540 he worked mainly for Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, to whom he recommended the young El Greco. El Greco painted Clovio's portrait (c.1570, Mus. di Capodimonte, Naples), showing him holding the Farnese Hours (c.1546, Pierpont Morgan Lib., New York), the manuscript that is generally regarded as his masterpiece. In addition to illuminations, he sometimes painted small independent pictures (Pietà, 1551, Uffizi, Florence).

Authoritative sources

  • The Encyclopædia Britannica and Treccani, il portale del sapere are reliable sources. Absolutely. (Leaving aside the ravings...)

I'm not going to change the page. I dropped the idea. However, the voice is POV. I agree with Luciano di Martino. Greetings. --Davide41 (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Both the sources you mentioned say he was of Croatian birth. That means he had the Croatian nationality. The encyclopedias are tertiary sources and secondary sources are preferred. This has been explained many many times now. Read some of the the material on WP:RS and Secondary source.
How about the supposed historians stop this bickering and actually start adding something of real consequence to the article? How about writing something more about the Farnese Hours or the Colonna Missal? There is a lot of material that might be interesting but focuses on the art. Some people here don't seem to manage to get past the lede of the article. The rest has been discussed ad nauseum --AnnekeBart (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, all proofs and sources admit his Croatian birth, and thus his heritage.--Michelle talk
As a previously uninvolved editor, I too have just been going over quite a few of the links provided in this discussion so far, and they all seem to agree he was born in Croatia and moved to Italy at 18 yrs of age. You Davide41 seem to be the one arguing against consensus and the facts contained in the vast majority of the reference material available. Why you are doing this is beyond me, and why you have spent most of the day spamming your argument across many user talkpages( I looked at your contribs, really? What University professor acts like that? Your actions definitely leave me with the impression you could not possibly be associated with any University in such a capacity) is also beyond me. I'm not Italian or Croatian or even European, so am pretty neutral in this debate. The man obviously spent the vast majority of his life living in Italy, but appears to have been born in Croatia. Why is there a problem with this? Heiro 08:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Heiro: First of all, if one man (actually two of us) is against the 'consensus', the consensus does not exist. Neither me nor Prof David denied ever that Clovio was not born in a place that is in today's Croatia. It is visible from the versions committed by Prof. David and supported by me. Here is the problem: Giulio Clovio is not Julije Klovic and that is visible from 95% of references. Then in the same 95% of references he is classified as Italian painter where the Italian adjective is used to say that this man's work belonged to the Italian medieval civilization and culture.Then, Vasari is clear: Clovio's family name was Clovi and his elders came from Macedonia. Attacking Prof. David by you the same way as it was done by other two exposes your 'uninvolvement'. --Luciano di Martino (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Two of you have a warning actually. Especially you who accused me of lying.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/263/dsc00017vf.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/708/dsc00018vp.jpg/ Philosopher12 (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Not only you lied, even worse, you've kept lying. Read, in full, Vasari's Clovio's biography here (in Italian) [10]. So, the text, quoted by you, does not belong to Vasari.--Luciano di Martino (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Giulio_Clovio/Archive_2&oldid=954492223"