Miroslav Krleža’s assessment of Marko Marulić and his opus

O splitskom renesansnom misliocu Marku Maruliću (1450–1524) i obilježjima njegova stvaralaštva očitovao se i Miroslav Krleža (1893–1981). Prosudbe o Maruliću i njegovu opusu iznosio je tijekom pedeset pet godina: od 1926. do 1981. godine. Marulića i njegove zapise Krleža je nerijetko kritizirao, o čemu svjedoče i sljedeći iskazi: u Marulićevoj Instituciji nema »nikakve visoke vrijednosti«; utjecaj humanističkog obrazovanja i »poznavanje klasika i renesansnih pisaca« nisu ostavili u »Marulićevom djelu dubljih tragova«; o Maruliću treba govoriti »kao o kontrareformatoru«. Međutim, Krleža je izrekao i brojne prosudbe koje ukazuju na prevažnu ulogu Marulićeva opusa, posebice u povijesti hrvatske književnosti, kao i u prepoznavanju, a potom i iskazivanju hrvatske nacionalne svijesti te određenju hrvatskog identiteta. Neke od tih prosudaba jesu i ove: Marulić je spomenik »naše knjige«; on je jedan od pisaca koji su zaslužni za utemeljenje književnosti napisane »čistim narodnim govorom«; on je pisac koji spada u »deset-petnaest« najblistavijih imena »naše književne historije«; on je jedan od važnijih predstavnika »naše vlastite humanističke književnosti«; on je u svojim djelima poticao na »borbu protivu osmanlijskog polumjeseca«, čime je upozorio na opasnosti koje prijete »hrvatskoj narodnoj supstanci«; on je jedan od pisaca koji su zaslužili da u Zagrebu imaju spomenik ili spomen-ploču. Ovaj popis glavnih Krležinih iskaza o Marku Maruliću oblikuje sasvim drugačiju predodžbu od one koja o Krležinu odnosu prema Maruliću i njegovu stvaralaštvu prevladava do danas. Taj popis naime svjedoči da je Krleža izrekao i brojne prosudbe koje ukazuju na prevažnu ulogu Marulićeva stvaralaštva: 1. u povijesti hrvatske knji- ževnosti, pjesništva i hrvatskog jezika; 2. u iskazivanju hrvatske nacionalne svijesti; 3. u određenju hrvatskoga identiteta.The critical observations and remarks that Miroslav Krleža (1893‒1981) made on the Renaissance thinker Marko Marulić (1450–1524) may be traced throughout Krleža’s work, from 1926 to his last days in 1981. Marulić and his writings were often subject to Krleža’s sharp criticism, as evidenced by the following statements: in Marulić’s De institutione bene vivendi per exempla sanctorum there is “no high value;” the influence of Humanist education and “the knowledge of the classics and Renaissance writers” failed to make any “deeper mark in Marulić’s work;” Marulić should be viewed “as a Counter-Reformist.” By contrast, Krleža’s assessment of Marulić also includes numerous remarks on the great significance of Marulić’s work, notably with regard to the Croatian literary history, as well as the recognition and later shaping of the Croatian national consciuousness and the definition of the Croatian identity. Among these remarks are also the following: Marulić is a monument of “our book;” he is one of the writers who should be credited with the founding of literature written “in the genuine vernacular;” he is among the “ten-fifteen” most brilliant names of “our literary history;” he is among the more important exponents of “our own Humanist literature;” in his works he promoted “the struggle against the Ottoman crescent,” and thus warned about the menace to “the Croatian national substance;” he is one of the writers who deserves to have a monument erected or a plaque posted in his honour in Zagreb. The abovementioned list of Krleža’s main remarks on Marko Marulić shapes a profoundly different perception of Krleža’s attitude towards Marulić from that generally prevailing among the scholars. Apparently, this list testifies that Krleža made numerous remarks which underline an invaluable role of Marulić’s work: 1. in the history of Croatian literature, poetry and Croatian language; 2. in the expression of Croatian national consciousness; 3. in the shaping of Croatian identity