The controversy about "ethnic affiliation" of Bosnian Cyrillic started in the 19th century, then reappeared in the mid-1990s. The polemic about attribution and affiliation of Bosnian Cyrillic texts seems to rest on following arguments: • Serbian scholars claim that it is just a variant of
Serbian Cyrillic; actually, a "minuscle", or Italic (cursive) script devised at the court of
Serbian king Stefan Dragutin, and accordingly, include Bosnian Cyrillic texts into the Serbian literary corpus. Authors in
Prilozi za književnost, jezik, istoriju i folklor in 1956, go as far to state that
Bosančica was a term introduced through Austro-Hungarian propaganda, and regarded it a type of cursive Cyrillic script, without specifics that would warrant an "isolation from Cyrillic". The main Serbian authorities in the field are Jorjo Tadić,
Vladimir Ćorović, Petar Kolendić, Petar Đorđić, Vera Jerković, Irena Grickat,
Pavle Ivić and Aleksandar Mladenović. • On the Croatian side, the split exists among philologists. One group basically challenges the letters being Serbian, and claims that majority of the most important documents of Bosnian Cyrillic had been written either before any innovations devised at the Serbian royal court happened, or did not have any historical connection with it whatsoever, thus considering Serbian claims on the origin of Bosnian Cyrillic to be unfounded and that the script, since they allege belonging to the Croatian cultural sphere, should be called not Bosnian, but Croatian Cyrillic. Other group of Croatian philologists acknowledges that "Serbian connection", as exemplified in variants present at the Serbian court of king Dragutin, did influence Bosnian Cyrillic, but, they aver, it was just one strand, since scriptory innovations have been happening both before and after the mentioned one. First group insists that all Bosnian Cyrillic texts belong to the corpus of Croatian literacy, and the second school that all texts from Croatia and only a part from Bosnia and Herzegovina are to be placed into Croatian literary canon, so they exclude c. half of Bosnian Christian texts, but include all Franciscan and the majority of legal and commercial document. Also, the second school generally uses the name "Western Cyrillic" instead of "Croatian Cyrillic" (or Bosnian Cyrillic, for that matter). Both schools allege that supposedly various sources, both Croatian and other European, call this script "Croatian letters" or "Croatian script". The main Croatian authorities in the field are
Vatroslav Jagić, Mate Tentor,
Ćiro Truhelka, Vladimir Vrana, Jaroslav Šidak, Tomislav Raukar,
Eduard Hercigonja and Benedikta Zelić-Bučan. •
Herta Kuna, in her seminal book, Medieval Bosnian Literature, stated that “(The) entire literacy of medieval Bosnia was written in a somewhat specific type of Cyrillic script that has certain differences from other Cyrillic scripts in use in Slavic areas.” She points out: “(I)t is precisely the Bosnian Cyrillic script that has retained some specificities in terms of graphics that are characteristic of the Glagolitic script and derive from it.” • Ivan G. Iliev, in his "Short History of the Cyrillic Alphabet", summarizes the Cyrillic variant and acknowledges it was spread into and used in both Bosnia and Croatia, where these variants were called "bosančica" or "bosanica" in Bosnian and Croatian ('Bosnian script'), with Croats also calling it "arvatica" ('Croatian script') or "Western Cyrillic". ==Legacy==