Dubrovnik - Verona - Basel: Three Contributions to the Evidence of the Literary Response to the De institutione

Since it was found out that Marulić’s De institutione, because of its problematic teaching on lie, was subject to the Inquisition, the fourth chapter of the book De veritate colenda mendacioque fugiendo has not ceased to attract attention of the specialists of Marulić (Leo Košuta, Mirko Tomasović, Josip Talanga, Branimir Glavičić). However, to the rich dossier of interpretations we can now add another important evidence: the caput famosum was not only read but also recast by one of the most outstanding Croatian humanist, pupil of Pomponius Laetus and Roman poeta laureatus, Ilija Crijević from Dubrovnik (Aelius Lampridius Cervinus /Cerva/, 1463-1520). The fact that the traditional literary history shows Crijević as a kind of an antipode of Marulić, in both biographic and bibliographic senses, makes the discovery even more thrilling. Unlike the reserved Marulić, the poet from Dubrovnik showed conspicuous understanding for different worldly temptations over the better part of his life. Also, contrary to the Split humanist, author of the first epic in Croatian (Judita) and various other compositions and translations, Crijević was an exclusive Latinist, who, true to his conviction, showed an aversion to writing in the mother tongue. That Ilija Crijević read Marko Marulić has remained unknown to the present day, primarily owing to the fact that his elegiac paraphrase De veritate et mendacio officioso was in that part of his poetic legacy kept in the Vatican Library that Giuseppe Nicolò Sola did not manage to edit. Of the greatest importance for the ties linking Crijević and Marulić are also two manuscripts from the Franciscan Archives in Dubrovnik: MS. 409 (Čulić 285) and MS. 195 of a slightly later date (Čulić 280). Both are important documents of the literary response in the strictest sense; also, both re-veal that as early as the beginning of the 19th century Fra Antun Marija Agić (1753-1830) knew that Crijević’s elegy was a recast of Marulić’s chapter on lie. In the MS. 409 AMB, completed in 1808, which is Agić’s autograph, Crijević’s poems have been arranged in 9 books. In the note referring to the seventh elegy of the eighth book (De veritate et mendacio officioso, pp. 346-350) Agić writes: ... hujus /sc. opusculi/ normam, exempla, sententias omnes desumpsit Aelius ex cap. 4. Libri IV. operis, quod Marcus Marulus Spalatensis concinnavit sub titulo ‘De ratione bene ac beate vivendi’. At this moment it is hard to say whether Agić himself noticed the precious link or relied on the conclusions or conjectures of some other author. Yet, there is no doubt that he could not use Marulić’s text in continuo, most probably because neither the original nor the translations had been on the market for over a century. This may be easily inferred from the unsuccessful emendation of the line 53 of Crijević’s elegy, an endeavor which Agić probably would not have entered into had Marulić’s text been available. The elegy De veritate et mendacia officioso embraces 110 verses. Already a superficial glance at it shows that Agić did not exaggerate in his annotation, for Crijević really took Marulić’s argumentative concept and narrative structure, even complete ready-made expressions. This first impression will be confirmed, in several ways, by a comparative reading of both texts given in the supplement to the article. It must be stressed that this is the first time ever that Crijević’s elegy appears in printed form. The manuscripts from the Franciscan Archives show that in Dubrovnik, at the start of the 19th century, there were scholars aware of the ties linking the two great-est Croatian humanists (even if the De institutione itself was not read too often). Besides, the fact that Marulić’s most popular work, while he was still alive, served as a model to another renowned Croatian Latinist is of inestimable value for the national literary history. Also it has been found out that, contrary to the traditional belief, Crijević followed the literary output of his compatriots, including those born and living outside Dubrovnik. The last but not the least, Crijević’s paraphrase, which preceded for half a century the reaction of the Inquisition, represents the earliest testimony of the topicality of Marulić’s teaching on lie. Particularly noteworthy in Crijević’s paraphrase is the passage on the stratagem of Judith motivated by patriotic reasons (53-74). The episode occupies exactly one fifth of Crijević’s elegy, which is in sharp disproportion with its much briefer treat-ment in the De institutione. The language Crijević uses in this passage is unusually elaborate, while his verses teem with integral or adapted quotations from Classical texts. Also noteworthy is the fact that the well-knit description of Holophernes’ death in Crijević’s elegy, absent in the De institutione and the Biblical Book of Judith, clearly echoes the identical moment in Marulić’s Croatian epic (vv. 59-60: Judita 1569-1571). Regardless of whether Crijević, contrary to his own in several ways declared principle, read Marulić’s Croatian epic or knew it only by hearsay, it is beyond doubt that the hypertrophied episode on Judith is his hommage presented to the au-thor of the first epic in the Croatian language. 2. The Codex of Verona Capitular Library CCXXVII (P.O. Kristeller, Iter Italicum II, London & Leiden 1967, p. 295 b) contains two Marulić’s folios (fol. 54-55v), with excerpts from two chapters of the De institutione: On consorting with and on avoiding consorting with (De consortio habendo fugiendoque; 3,7) and the congenial chapter On conserving chastity - examples involving men: (De castitate servanda — exempla virorum; 4,7). From the former two passages have been taken (54,1-17), while from the latter, which was excerpted more copiously, six examples have been used: on the prophet Joel (54v,3-9); on Joseph and Potiphar (54v,10-19); on the British king Edward (54v,20-55,7); on St Augustine (55,8-13); on the monk Paphnutius (55,14-16); on the priest Ursinus (55,17-55v,7). Despite numerous deviations from the standard text of the De institutione, Verona Codex had no special meaning for the subsequent constitution of Marulić’s text for, doubtless, it was only a reference transcript of some earlier edition. Its significance is primarily symbolic: it puts Marulić into such an illustrious company that every humanist would be honored to join, that of Petrach and Erasmus. Namely, the passages from the De institutione are preceded by excerpts from Petrarch’s extensive two-volume collection of fortunate and unfortunate examples De remediis utriusque fortunae and is followed by passages from Erasmus’ Praise of Folly. In what capacity did Marulić appear in such an illustrious surrounding may be inferred, at least partly, from the nature of the chapters excerpted from his De institutione. Namely, in both cases Marulić deals with examles of chaste conduct of men in grave carnal temptations. That the task of the anthology was the one of warning against consorting with women is clear already from the roughest indication of its contents. The compiler of the manuscript obviously endeavoured to gather in one place the most authoritative testimonies in behalf of celibate, from the late antique retor Libanius to his most immediate contemporaries. 3. The fact that in the Basle edition of 1555 Marulić’s text was printed as part of a large genre chrestomathy, sets it apart from other 16th century editions of the De institutione. The eleven texts of the book endeavour to illustrate the history of exempla in European literature. They are as follows: (1) Nicolai Hanapi, Patriarchae Hierosolymitani, Virtutum et vitiorum ad vitam Christianam recte instituendam liber (1-174); (2) Valerii Maximi Factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri (175-348); (3) Ailianou Poikiles historias biblion (sic) proton (349-480); (4) Marci Antonii Coccii Sabellici Exemplorum liber I (481-657); (5) Aristotelis Philosophi Maximi Oeconomicarum dispensationum exempla (658-666); (6) Baptistae Campofulgosi Dictorum factorumque memorabilium libri IX (667-1075); (7) Parthenii Nicaensis De amatoriis affectionibus liber (1076-1100); (8) Gvidonis de Fonte Nayo Bituricensis De rebus humanis variorum exemplorum liber (1101-1176); (9) M. Maruli Spalatensis De vita religiose per exempla instituenda (1176-1442); (10) Ek ton Herakleidou peri politeion /Ex Heraclide de politiis Atheniensium (1443-1452); (11) Sex. Iulii Frontini V.C. Exempla sive strategemata (1453-1499). As it may be well seen, besides six classical authors, one medieval author and three humanists, the Basle edition presents Marulić, only thirty years after his death, as an indisputable classic of the genre. In the 1555 edition, apart from this valuable evidence testifying to the response to Marulić’s work, we may find also some less conspicuous yet equally noteworthy details: Marulić’s text is the second longest in the book, inferior in length only to that by Battista Campofulgosi. The first five books, judging at least from the numbers and titles of the chapters, were printed unabridged, while of the last, sixth book only two chapters were taken: on the revelations of infernal punishments and of celestial beatitude (XIV: De revelationibus infernalium poenarum and XVI: De revelationibus coelestis beatitudinis). As it is well known, the sixth book treats of the “ultimate destiny of mankind and the world” and is dominated by the Last Judgement. However, it remains unclear why the ending part of Marulić’s text was subjected to such drastic cuts. Did it happen accidentally? Was it done for commercial reasons by the editor or the printer who wanted to keep the expenses within reasonable limits? Was it motivated by serious doctrinal disagreement resulting in brutal censorial intervention? The question gains in interest when we learn that the four key figures engaged on the making of the book had intimate ties with the Reformed Church: the editor of the book Johannes Herold/t/ (1514-1567) published, among other things, Vlačić’s treatise De translatione imperii Romani; the addressee of the book, Pfalzgraf Richard / Reichard/, duke of Pfalz-Simmerna (1521-1598) defended fiercely the Evangelical teaching even against his own brother; of the editor of Marulić’s text, Peter Morwen (Morwent, Morwing, 1530?-1573?) The Dictionary of National Biography says that was a rigid protestant. Finally, the printer of the book Heinrich /Henric/ Petri (1508-1579) was son of the well known Adam Petri (1454?-1527), printer of the De institutione (Basle, 1513) and the Evangelistarium (Basle, 1519), but also of Luther, Melanchthon and Bugenhagen. The Basle edition raises a series of questions. The most qualified answers to them could be given by theologians: What is it that makes Marulić so interesting for the protestant milieu? What is the link between his popularity and the fact that his name was put on the Inquisition Index? Was it a pure coincidence that the Basle edition appeared in the year of the Augsburg religious peace