The Biemmi Shadow

Between sources Traditional The work of Italian priest Giammaria Biemmi with the title Istoria di Giorgio Castriot Scander -Bagh, published in Brescia, Italy, in 1742 and reprinted just a few years later (this work can be translated for free in this connection). In the introduction of this book, amid clarifications for the resources it had exploited, Biemmi mentioned a Latin-written Skenderbe and published in Venice in 1480 years before Barlett, and which he himself discovered. This work, which Biemmi had been injured and saw several sheets at the beginning and finally, seemed to be composed by an Albanian from Tivari whose name was nowhere (and then would be known as “Antivarino” or “Tivaras”, based on his brother's confessions, an officer of the Skenderbeke. Always according to information Biemmi had seen in that work, the book was published “under the care and under the expense of Erhard Radolt from Augsburg”. As many may know, Biemmi says he used it extensively in the book of Tivaras, but the book itself has not been found anywhere. However, of the best known and most influential historical works in Albanian culture, “The History of Skenderbeut” of Noli, published in Boston in 1921 (and freely distributed) Here.) is openly and widely based on Biemmi; and Noli even proclaims that he most highly appreciated the latter against Barlett, since he has legs on the ground and does not fly as the second, even mentioning that Falmlereyer “is the mind that Anonymous Tivarás sá tzare except Cardinal Paul Angel, chief bishop of the Dúr”, since this too was from the door of the princes of Tivar and a brother with Skenderbe.

Earlier, Marquez Grimaldi in 1906 and then, in the 1930 ' s, three historians and philologists in cooperation between them, F. Baninger, K. Ohly and F. Pal ʹ had strongly doubted that Biemmi's history relied on a peace work in the sense that the historic treatment of Tivaras had never existed. Especially Ohly, a rare book specialist (incuabuls), had verified that no such work was found in cataloged catalogs of Radolt's workshop in Venice, while Pall noticed that Tivaras' information was, in fact, a combination of names and data extracted from different sources or sources. Just fiction.

In its title dissertation George Castriot Skenderbeg Protected at Boston University in 1947, Noley took a stand against this philological discovery, which essentially depreciated his history of 1921. Unfortunately, as Christo Franz and others ( FASTER, p. 14-15; P LASARI, f. 32), he knew only one of Babinger's early work and not the most important one of Ohly's; and Babinger's arguments had not convinced him. Consequently, even the second “ ” of Noli, published several times in Albanian, does not consider the fact, at least the possibility of Biemm making up the announcement for Tivaras ' work and the data he claims to have pulled out of it.

Always according to Christo Frasher, Alex Buddha, another major XX-century scientist, he joined the Babinger's aunt, Ohly and Pal, acknowledged that Biemmi's work was based on a makeshift source and that Tivaras did not exist; and he also remembered that Biemmm was already known as a falsifist, since he had forged two medieval chronics of the city of Brescia, while a third counterfeit was found after death. “Anonymous notions Tivaras must be excluded from sources of Skenderbeu History” wrote Alex Buda in the 1980s ( FASTER, p. 16-17).

Christo Frasher himself, in his monograph Skenderbe, Life, and Work, acknowledges that in his previous works it is often based on Biemmi; but that in this later work it is possible to handle a Skenderbeu “story based solely on contemporary documentary sources, without using the two controversial biographers” (d.m.th. Barlettin and Biemmi), besides “with rare exceptions and for any second-hand details” ( FASTER, p. 18-20).

However, it is sufficient to check the index of the names of Frasher's work to verify that Biemm there is mentioned on 36 different pages, not to distance himself from or deny it. According to Schmitt, Christo Frasher “even though he is aware of this counterfeit, he still uses it because some essential elements of it have already become a loving tradition”, what “reflects the character of a large part of Albanian science ( SCHMIT, p. 481).[1] Schmit also quoted an observation by Alex Buddha (through Ghetti), that if he gave up Biemmi, Albanian society would have to give up many family elements in Skenderbe's history and that there is no readiness to date. Schmitt writes:

The fate of the fallen counterfeit shows which strange forces can exercise certain confessions when there is a political and cultural will to trust them. Although Balkan professional historians have distanced themselves from Biemmi, to wide levels of the population, but also to state memory culture (eg. In the Museums of Kruja and Lejas, the fantasies of talented London priest continue to live as historical facts. (Schmitt, pp. 482)

Aurel Plasar, at “Skender a political history” adopted a more moderate approach, stressing that even false “documents” are not said to lack the full historical and cultural value; and not only because they can contain even truth but also because they shed light on the motives of “falsificator” and, ultimately, for themselves, “the effect that the counterfeit one may have had on the history” Plasari also points out that “s all literal historical falsehoods, even HistoryThe Biemmi [...] couldn't be born from dealticicheʹ and that the Jewish priest had in his hands <x0.> historical first-hand sources” and perhaps even lost “kite” ( P LASARI, p. 35). According to Plasar, Biemmi should be calculated “as one of the most informed authors of Skenderbeu's history and simultaneously one of his most important historians.” ( P LASARI, p. 36). Then History It preserves its values as a source for Skenderbe's history, regardless of the status of Tivaras and his ghost work. Writes Plasari ( P LASARI, p. 37):

While the history of “Antivarinos” may be a fantom, the Biemmi text is a reality and reading it “on the second scale” remains inevitable.

Such an attitude can be further appreciated, predicting that the Tivaras and his work can truly be Biemmi's lies, but it doesn't. by itself. False his story of Skenderbe. In any circumstance, the authenticity of Biemmi's history should be verified through comparison with information received from other sources; and the invention of the Tivaras and “vepra” of Biemmi can be seen, at least hypothetically, even as a form of advertising that he made his work more authentic than that of Barlet, and therefore worthy of attention.

To further clarify our assumption, let us immediately point out that the selection “falsification” for Biemmi's history is not correct. Or better yet, it would be accurate, only if this historian had sat down and created a false act to present him as Tivaras; and this work toʹteia had been sold, suppose, some collector or library of the time. Otherwise, if we accept that the Tivaras story has not been seen by anyone and that, in fact, it exists only in Biemmi's imagination, then the counterfeiting is not “consumed.” Presenting this imaginary work as a source of its history, Biemmi lie! The public, but that's it.

Let us compare this to what happened some years ago when a historian, Musa Ahmeti, announced to the public that he had discovered a best - known Albanian manuscript from 1210 B.C.E. by a Theodore Shkodran; even a paragraph from the text of that manuscript (more here). The manuscript never came to light, nor did anyone see it, nor were the faxes of his pages published; so much so that today we have the right to judge that Ahmet He lied The public, giving him false information. This time again, however, there was no real falsification; as long as no manuscript was shown to the public or to field specialists.

On the contrary, if by some way a certain philologist somehow proves that The Form of Baptism, otherwise known as the first written Albanian document, is actually the product of a century later added to an authentic XV manuscript, then we would have to do with one Counterfeit; since the formula, as we know it, has real existence, material; it can be seen by the eye.[2]

Now, to get back to Biemmi and Tivaras, the debate over whether or not this one ever existed seems to have overshadowed another more acute problem related to it, but it still has to be done separately and namely, the answer to the question whether Biemmi's story says things of peace. This question calls for independent answers from the Tivaras' status; because it may happen by theory that Tirarasi is completely invented by Biemmi, but the story of this relatively accurate and consistent third-way; as it might happen again theoretically that Tivaras actually existed, but his work has had the content and lies that were then conveyed to Biem. As for the first possibility, I remember that the opportunity to present a work as based on an earlier one, found or discovered, etc., is known in European literature; I remember here Don Kissot, of which Cervantes said the first chapters were taken by “The Archive of Mancha” while the rest had been translated from Arabic by author Maur Cide Hamete Benengeli. This is an offering. metaphysics Of course, there is no place in history, but in an extreme case, it can also be taken as the maniaism of a somewhat unscrupulous historian who seeks to make a difference in his work by inventing an early source.

Therefore, it is not so much Tivaras, as a source or character, who disturbs history; that the risk of Biemmi, through Tivaras, or on the pretext of it, has brought into play fabricated things, peace, or unconfirmed by any reliable source. By comparison, Barlett is thought to have done something similar, as long as the many talks with which he has decorated the work and written letters are not usually of documentary value but are fig and rhetorical value, as Zazar and Time (historic humanistic style, with strong references to classical Greek and Latin history). However, even if made up, letters and speeches do not endanger the authenticity of a historical or chronology, as long as the corresponding texts do not bring facts “and do not deny known facts (in other words, as long as the forged letters do not Lie The reader.

Biemmi's text has been accused of invention, invention and error, which then found place in historians' works for us important such as Noley. Thus, according to Romanian historian F. The Pope who has written about it, the data on the Lezha Assembly (1444), the Battle of Torville (1444), the Drini battle with the Venetians (1447), the peace with Sultan Mehmetin (1451), the incident at the wedding of Mamica (1447), the betrayal of the Bashare Stream (1456), and more should be considered Biemmi fantasies ( FASTER, p. 14).

Now, if confirmed as Biemmi's lie given to Biemmi (through Tiváras) that shortly after Albulena Skenderbeu's victory, he sent to Alfonso, along with Hamza Kastriot captive of war, and “12 horses, 4 flamingos of Turkey and the magnificent tent of Isák Daút Pashas” ( NOL p. 222, see also P LASARI, p. 535, this does not bring any damage to “infrastructure” the historical curse, nor do we understand Skenderbe. But not all of the turtle's inventions are so innocent.

It doesn't turn out to be a show. systemic of Biemmi's influence, directly and indirectly, in the subsequent history of Skenderbe, and much less in the Skenderbean culture and mythology, as part of the national heritage and respective ideology. This show would have previously identified the things in Biemmi, but not confirmed elsewhere; and then would have valued their weight in the historic skenderbean maneuver. Below, I will try to set an example that sheds light on the problem.

Let's take Tanush Topi, known as one of our fellow fighters. Key Skenderbe, mostly because of Nolly. When talking about the siege of Kruja in 1466, Noley writes about Skenderbe, that this “Kruje left a garrison of 4,400 gega soldiers, toss and Venetians at Tanús Thupia's headage, who was his master general, who had remained, and whose trust was complete.” Then he sits down to quote, on a note, the appropriate paragraph from Biemmi: “In Creaise di gungojione quattro mila e quattro centiati; and in diede l ridno a Tanusino Topia, l ciʹera l piú accreditto Uffyali dele soe ed in cui magiorime compidava.” But that is contrary to what Barlett says, and exactly that Kruja's “culand had a Venice, debacled Balthassar Perduc.” Continues Noley: “Któ testimony may be easily agreed: Kakumandár former Tanúsh Thupía; Baltasár Perducci was a comandár of the Venetian artillerymen, whose skill in bearing Kruja.” Even Christo Frasher puts Tanus Thupine in command of Kruja garrison defenders in 1466 ( FASTER, p. 462). Schmitt, for his part, Tanush Topia does not mention it in the context of the second siege of Kruja; but notes that “Castle, Kruja, he [Skenderbeu] handed it to the Venetians Baltassare Perduzi” (SCHMITT, pp. 372). Even Plasar has no consideration for this Biemmi information.

Rather, the odds are that Skenderbeu to deliver Crewe to the VenetiansSince before the second siege of the castle. Plasari notes that “from two different Venetian sources turns out that, under the circumstances created, Skenderbeu to '%s' had left, at least its protection, Sinoria.” He quotes Vendicas Domenico Malipiero, who writes that “this year the country and the subjects of Skenderbe were so mistreated by the Turks that Skenderbeu himself lost hope, especially by seeing the archerators leave, and he handed it over to Kruja, the tower of great importance to the administrators of the Republic.” Plasari then cites Falmlereyer, who writes that “The military surrender of Kruja Venice is a fact that no one suspects” and finally Barlett, from Shkodra Circle: “And when he grew old [Skenderbeu A.V.], for fear that this city [Cruja] would once again fall under the yoke of the Turks, willingly handed it over to Venice's hands.” ( P LASARI, p. 668-669). Practically since the summer of 1466, Skenderbeu would no longer set foot in his capital city. ( P LASARI, right there.

Here also takes on new meaning an incident that relates both Schmitt and Plasari, based on a resolution of the Milane De Collis from Venice, dated July 27, 1467: When in the summer of 1467 a Nazi unit of 200 “landed in Arberi Skenderbeu was put in charge of them [...] But the Venetian Commander of Crewe did not open the gates.” (SCHMITT, p. 406, P LASARI p. 733). If it had been Tanush Topia's job, it wouldn't have happened. Of course, the Venicen refusal of Kruja to let Skenderbea into the city had little more to do with it than with the Neapolitan contingent, since Cerenissima had friction and disagreement with Naples at the same time, even the word opened, in Venice, that Naples's Ferrante had a coalition with Mehmet II and Skenderbe, appointed by the king, wanted to hand over Kruya osman. So frustrated were the relations between the two Italian allies of Skenderbeu, that “the Venetian commander of Kruja, Baldasare Pedruzi, ordered that the Napolitan mercenaries be partially killed, partly expelled.” (SCHMITT, p. 407)

The higher, it illustrates a problematic truth that has remained out today I'm not saying it's been deliberately left to the official historical narrator of Skenderbe; at a time that in school history texts still speak of Tanus Topi and his well-known portrait is presented as an illustration. But should it be included in the history texts likely, otherwise rather large, that Skenderbeu had delivered Crewe to the Venetians two years before his death? And it shall come to pass, because of this surrender, that the Venetians shall come unto it, that they shall not open the gates of the castle unto Skenderbe; with a word, Let him out in the rain As if there were any wanderers?

The answer to that question relates not only to the life span and survival of the <x0ren” historical, but also to the way it should be addressed today, in the context of new documentary data, the historical legacy of Biemmi, which is well integrated into the official historical narrator and protected by ideological means and motives. And yet, wouldn't this year be a jubilee of the 550th anniversary of Skenderbe's death, the best time to organise a symposium or conference where it would be debated as much as the traces of yet deep Biemmi's work in modern Albanian history, as much as the way that reading should be organised and performed “on the second scale of this work, according to contemporary history canon?