Talk:Petar I Petrović-Njegoš

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	Petar I Petrović-Njegoš is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Saints Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article may need an appropriate infobox template.

	Petar I Petrović-Njegoš is within the scope of WikiProject Serbian Orthodox Church, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Serbian Orthodox Church on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)

Contents 1 General POV and Pretenciousness of the Current Article 1.1 Petar I 2 Let's clear the POV problems 3 Clarity about his dates of death and birth

[edit] General POV and Pretenciousness of the Current Article

• Saint Peter of Cetinje. Too much emphasis is on Peter's sainthood. While he was a cleric, he was equally importantly a ruler and a historical figure. Sole depiction on frescos doesn't reflect this and is clearly pretencious. Suggest adding a real life portret.Momisan 12:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• "Petar I Petrović Njegoš (St. Peter of Cetinje) (1747-1830) (Serbian Cyrillic: Петар I Петровић Његош) was the ruler of Montenegro, the Cetinje Episcop of the Eastern Orthodox Church (Владика in Serbian) and Exarch (claimholder) of the Serbian Orthodox throne. He was the most popular spiritual and military leader from the Petrović dynasty. During his long rule, Petar strengthened the state by uniting the often quarreling tribes, consolidating his control over Montenegrin lands, introducing the first laws in Montenegro (Законик Петра I in Serbian) and launching the first program of national liberation and unification of Serbs."

Episcop is not the term used in English, use Prince-Bishop for Vladika. Exarch (claimholder) of the Serbian Orthodox throne is totally irelevant, if true at all. Need to back this up with citation. Petar I use the term "Serbian" meaning orthodox ,only to denote the religion, as he used the term "Turks" for Muslims. You will have to back up the claim that he launched the first program of national liberation and unification of Serbs. My proposal is: "During his long rule, Petar strengthened the state by uniting the often quarreling clans. He achieved this by peaceful means; by mediation, and moral persuasion. He personally led Montenegrins to two historical victories agains the Turks, after which Turks never again managed to reach Montenegrin capital, Cetinje. Last but not least, he introduced the first written law in Montenegro (Zakonska Stega). His rule prepared Montenegro for the subsequent introduction of modern institutions of the state: taxes, schools and larger commercial enterprises."Momisan 12:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Why was this paragraph deleted: "He was made a bishop in 1784. During his trip to Russia (1785), Montenegro was attacked by Turkish forces. When Vladika Petar I returned from Russia, he began a war of liberation.Following his inspirational lead, the Montenegrins prevailed in two crucial battles: at Martinići and at Krusi.At the Krusi battle, the Turkish Army of 30,000 led by Mahmut-Pasa Busatlija and assisted with seven French officers was defeated with heavy casualties by a force of 6,000 Montenegrins led by Vladika Petar I (3 Oct. 1796). In this famous battle Mahmut-pasha was killed. His inspirational speach in front of his army, before the Martinići battle, is one of the finest examples of oratory recorded anywhere and is claimed by Montenegrin historians to be one of the definite proofs of Montenegrin ethnicity. After the victories, Petar enlarged the territory of Montenegro and became virtually independent of the Ottoman Empire."Momisan 12:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• "He was canonised as Saint Peter of Cetinje by his successor Petar II Petrović Njegos. The Serb Orthodox Church celebrates him on October 31th, Gregorian calendar, which is October 18th in the Julian calendar." You deleted that Montenegrin Orthodox Church also celebrates him. It is a fact.Momisan 12:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Why were the paragraph titles "Napoleon Years" and "Consolidation of the State" deleted? Do you opose any title or formatting or just don't like these particular versions?Momisan 12:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Why is Zakonska Stega deleted from this line: "Petar I is also known as an author of the first Montenegrin law (1798), Zakonska Stega."? It is a correct name, isn't it?Momisan 12:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

---

• Ehh, there isn't a real-time pic. We'll have to do with what we have for now.

Ok, but we will strive to get a few, correct?Momisan 06:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct.--HolyRomanEmperor 10:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Good.Momisan 04:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's weird why you oppose, since ever since Vladika Peter and all the way up to day the Metropolitans of Montenegro and the Littoral wore the titles "Exarchs of the Serbian Orthodox throne of Pec". That's because they wanted to restore the Patriarchate of Pec - but never made it (although they were close in 1912).

I personally have never heard about it, however, church politics is not my area of interest so I will try to keep an open mind. If true, it is clearly a strictly clerical matter that only clutters the introduction. Medieval rulers all had had a half-page long list of titles to make them look more important. I hope you don't suggest we should list them all. My main point is that we should add some structure to the article, separate his statemanship from his clerical life. See what is truly a legacy he left and what is ,at best, interesting trivia. I hope you agree?Momisan 06:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's hard to do, considering he's a Holy Man. :) .--HolyRomanEmperor 10:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You cannot be serious,right?Momisan 04:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that MOC celebrates it - mainly because the MOC is hardly existent. According to Wikipedia's policy, it's actually too irrelevant (and I doubt that they have formalized him as a saint).

Let's find out. The year 2000 calendar from the MOCs official website here. Same goes for the Wikipedia's policy you are refering to. Can you quote and/or give a reference? Momisan 06:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My general objection was because the MOC isn't formed (unlike the Macedonian, which only is nowhere recognized but its entire infrastructure foromed/formalized).--HolyRomanEmperor 10:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Show me the rule in Wikipedia you are referring to, otherwise, your objection is overruled. I think we established factuality of the claim. Momisan 04:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Other edits are OK. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear that, thanks. Momisan 06:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I hardly doubt that "Serbian" meant "Orthodox" - Petar clearly brings a sound voice among the Serb Catholics and calls them of his kin. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

In a serious argument, you suppose to quote the source, let's not waist our time. On the topic itself, I only conveyed that there is a school of thought in Montenegro that says that. It sounds reasonable to me, however, I do want to hear counter-arguments and ,perhaps, they will be more persuasive. There is a rigour that have to be observed, though. Momisan 04:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am very much familiar with the school, but I fail to see arguements that support it. For instance, it is clearly divided according to Danilo's Code (Serbian nation; Eastern Orthodoxy); the first free democratic population census was held in 1909, and it registered that around 95% are ethnic Serbs, but 94.38% are Eastern Orthodox (see Demographic History of Montenegro). Then there's the Geography of the Princedom of Montenegro from the late 19th century; which was studied by the students of the 3rd grade of elementary schools: Сви људи, који живе у нашој домовини, јесу Срби, већином православне вјере, а има их мало римокатоличке и мухамеданске.

This is the knowledge of Law in the Kingdom of Montenegro from 1914;

..When it comes to the people of our fatherland, we could never utilize the term ‘Montenegrin people’ in an ethnic context because the Montenegrins are ethnic Serbs and a Montenegrin ethnicity does not exist. Aside from that, within Montenegro’s borders reside citizens of non-Serb ethnicity, yet this does not prevent them from belonging to a political Montenegrin people..

..Montenegro’s borders encompass its sovereign territory. That area is but a fraction of what is denoted as the Serb Lands, which are inhabited exclusively or mostly by Serbs yet politically separated among several states. Two present-day independent Serb kingdoms sprung from those Lands: Montenegro and Serbia. The third portion is in Austria-Hungary and a part in Bulgaria.

Search for a play written by HRH Nikolaj I Petrovic-Njegos: ХУСЕИН-БЕГ ГРАДАШЧЕВИЋ. There, I quote the words of a Moslem Serb:

Нас ће Срба, кад се саставимо

бити близу седам милијуна;

He continues:

О владико, црногорски орле,

ка' ти нико од нашег племена

не зна судбу несрећних Србаља,

Then, take Србин Србима на части захваљује by Petar II Petrovic-Njegos written in 1834 in Cetinje. It was dedicated to the Catholic Serbs in Kotor.

As the topic is about Peter I, it is futile quoting books from 1914 to prove that he was a Serb. I suggest removing the quotes from after 1830 (his death).Momisan 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Petar I

In the face of the Battle at Martinici in 1796, Peter called forth the Montenegrins & Highlanders to prove that у нама неугашено србско срце куца и србска крвца врије; and in the face of the battle, he asked them to strike at the enemy 'нашег предрагог имена србског и наше дражајше вољности adding that the Turks и сад боје Црногораца, боје се србскијех витезова, који нијесу вични своју постојбину остављати.

Accuracy of this is disputed by Montenegrina. You should give both quotes, or none. Momisan 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You already know what he wrote in 1807 to the Russian General: The Russian Czar would be recognized as the Tsar of the Serbs and the Metropolitan of Montenegro would be his assistant. The leading role in the restoration of the Serbian Empire belongs to Montenegro.

Source needed for this one. Momisan 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This Empire would be consisted of a large portion of Dalmatian Catholics - whome Peter I generally considered to be Serbs, or simply will become Serbs and prefer Serbian nationality if they're converted to the Orthodox religion.

Sorce needed. This is an interesting one. It shows, I believe correctly, Montenegrins perception of what the term "Serb" meant for them. It more closely matches todays term "South-Slav" than todays term "Serb".Momisan 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The French governor of Dalmatia, ordered by Napoleon Bonaparte, offered 20,000 francs if Petar I would offer the title of the "Patriarch of the whole Serb people or the whole Illyricum". Petar refused in fear of Russina wrath and/or Pope's influence.

Source needed. This doesn't prove that Petar I was a Serb. It is ambiguous, Illyricum is how French named their balkan provinces, from Slovenia to Dubrovnik, Are you suggesting that Slovenia was also Serb? By the same logic, the whole Serb people doesn't have to mean that Montenegrins were considered Serbs.Momisan 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As the topic is about Peter I, it is futile quoting books from 1914 to prove that he was a Serb. I suggest removing the quotes from after 1830 (his death).Momisan 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I only responded to the claim Serbian=Orthodox. While I re-open my ol' Njegos Database and search up for the sources, take a look at the Short History of Montenegro written by Petar himself. There you'll find some interesting things. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Then, please respond under the claim itself. Don't tell me you are deliberately clouding the water, do you:-) I will have a look. Interestingly, Montenegrina doesn't seem to have a parallel version, so, this one might be correct, who knows. Momisan 07:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, Montenegrina doesn't seem to have a parallel version, so, this one might be correct, who knows. Uhh-what'sah, who'sah?!? --HolyRomanEmperor 15:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I errased the link *Danilo Klen i Mirjana Strejić: Petar I Petrović-Njegoš - in Montenegrin since I failed to see what kind of source this should be. It seems to be an article on Petar I by some Montenegrin nationalists. Could it be that it is the clouding of the water?

As for the quotes I add the poems of Petar I which you can read in integral versions in Project Rastko. For instance the poem "Second Montenegrin" (Druga crnogorska) starts with the verses О велики царе славни! -

Милост своју не остави

На Србију изливати,

Пробилно низаслати.

Сад је она из тавнице

Истргнула једва лице,

И витешки започела

Производит ратна дјела.

Жели турски јарам сврћи,

себ' слободу драгу стећи

Коју бјеше мати мила

На Косово изгубила,

По издаји злоковарна

Клета Вука Бранкована.

Тебе моле, силни Боже,

Сви Славјани и ја тоже!

Сакруши нам турски гордост

И утврди српску вољност,

Да Србија изобилна

В род и родов' буде силна etc. etc.

Why would Petar I name his song "Second Montenegrin" start with "O great and glorious emperor! - Don't stop to pour your grace on Serbia" if he wasn't considering Montenegro as a part of old Serbia which lost its independence to the Turk and new Serbia which is winning its independance in both 1796 Martinici and Krusi battles and in the First Serbian Rebellion? Was it only Montenegro that fought in Kosovo in 1389 or all the Serbia (see line 12)? How blind and dishonest must one be in front of himself and his forefathers, o Momisan? As the REAL Montenegrins would say "Crn ti obraz bio!".

If I was a Montenegrin nationalist I would stay away from Petar I, Njegosh, Marko Miljanov, Stjepan Mitrov Ljubisha and others cause they were the Serb nationalists to the core. Stick to Sekula Drljevic and Jevrem Brkovic for your "$" litterature and you wont find no one complaining. --Dultz 23:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's clear the POV problems

So, what are they?--Еstavisti 14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarity about his dates of death and birth

The Serbian Orthodox Church celebrates him on October 31st, Gregorian calendar, which is October 18th in the Julian calendar.

That's the case in the 20th and 21st centuries, but he died in the 19th, when there was only a 12-day gap. October 18 in the Julian calendar in 1830 equated to October 30 in the Gregorian. So when exactly did he die:

• October 18/30, or
• October 19/31?

Also, I have his date of birth as 4 May 1747. Is this the Julian date or the Gregorian date? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)