Naslov
Historia Salonitana i Historia Salonitana maior – Gunjačin pristup
(Historia Salonitana and Historia Salonitana maior – Gunjača's approach)

Autori
Matijević Sokol, Mirjana

Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Poglavlja u knjigama, znanstveni

Knjiga
Stjepan Gunjača 1909.-2009. Stjepan Gunjača i hrvatska srednjovjekovna povijesno-arheološka baština

Urednik/ci
Šeparović, Tomislav

Izdavač
Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika

Grad
Split

Godina
2010

Raspon stranica
331-339

ISBN
0-000-000-000

Ključne riječi
Historia Salonitana, Historia Salonitana maior, koncept, konačna redakcija
(Historia Salonitana, Historia Salonitana maior, concept, final compilation)

Sažetak
Autorica se bavi historiografskim opusom Stjepana Gunjače koji se odnosi na dva srednjovjekovna spisa poznata pod nazivima Historia Salonitana (Salonitanska povijest) Tome Arhiđakona iz XIII. st. i Historia Salonitana maior (Veća salonitanska povijest). S obzirom na važnost tih spisa za hrvatsku srednjovjekovnu povijest, promišljanja koja je o međusobnom odnosu dvaju tekstova iznio i za koja se snažno zalagao Stjepan Gunjača obilježila su hrvatsku medievalistiku prvog dijela druge polovine XX. st. U radu se razmatraju neka rješenja koja je Gunjača predložio analizirajući dijelove Salonitanske povijesti kao i činjenice iz života Tome Arhiđakona. Također se na temelju današnjih spoznaja i stavova većeg broja autora pokušava utvrditi Gunjačin prinos navedenoj temi, ali i upozoriti na neke neodržive teze koje je zastupao.

Izvorni jezik
Hrvatski

Znanstvena područja
Filologija, Povijest

Napomena
Most of the historical works by Stjepan Gunjača refer to two medieval writings, known as Historia Salonitana written by Thomas the Archdeacon from Split dated to the 13th century and Historia Salonitana maior. With regard to the importance of the writings themselves for the Croatian medieval history, considerations which Stjepan Gunjača brought forward on the interrelationship between the two writings and which he strongly supported marked the Croatian medieval studies of the first part of the second half of the 20th century. Although most historians before Gunjača considered Historia Salonitana maior to be a later work and a compilation that contains some parts of the Historia Salonitana and the original material, respectively the conclusions of the church councils in Salonitana and Split in the 6th, 10th and 12th centuries as well as some charters from the 12th century and the epitaph of King Zvonimir, Gunjača, motivated by Baradin’s thoughts, held the opinion that Historia Salonitana maior was the original template by Thomas and that Historia Salonitana was the final compilation. He opposed N. Klaić’s view regarding the reading of the words: urborum or serborum in the records of the Split council in the 10th century and spoke up for the version of urborum. He also analyzed Thomas’s catalogue of the archbishops of Split, which contains numerous historical information and which he had great trust in. Based on historical sources and Thomas’s quotations, he solved topographic questions and proposed interventions in the genealogy of Croatian national rulers by introducing “new” kings, Trpimir and Muncimir, based on one falsified charter. Some of Gunjača’s opinions are nowadays accepted and some are entirely rejected such as e.g. the one on Historia Salonitana maior as Thomas’s template and the one on the “new” kings Trpimir and Muncimir. Regardless of the rejection of some of his thesis today, Stjepan Gunjača’s approach to the Historia Salonitana and the Historia Salonitana maior was inspiring to younger generations who later decided on Gunjača’s view or in favour of e.g. Nada Klaić’s concepts by using scientific argumentation.

POVEZANOST RADA