SVEUČILIŠTE U ZAGREBU FILOZOFSKI FAKULTET Bratislav Lučin JEDAN MODEL HUMANISTIČKE RECEPCIJE KLASIČNE ANTIKE: IN EPIGRAMMATA PRISCORVM COMMENTARIVS MARKA MARULIĆA DOKTORSKI RAD Zagreb, 2011. UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB FACULTY OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES Bratislav Lučin ONE MODEL OF THE HUMANIST RECEPTION OF CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY: IN EPIGRAMMATA PRISCORVM COMMENTARIVS OF MARKO MARULIĆ DOCTORAL THESIS Zagreb, 2011. SVEUČILIŠTE U ZAGREBU FILOZOFSKI FAKULTET Bratislav Lučin JEDAN MODEL HUMANISTIČKE RECEPCIJE KLASIČNE ANTIKE: IN EPIGRAMMATA PRISCORVM COMMENTARIVS MARKA MARULIĆA DOKTORSKI RAD Mentor: Prof. dr. Darko Novaković Zagreb, 2011. UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB FACULTY OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES Bratislav Lučin ONE MODEL OF THE HUMANIST RECEPTION OF CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY: IN EPIGRAMMATA PRISCORVM COMMENTARIVS OF MARKO MARULIĆ DOCTORAL THESIS Supervisor: Prof. Darko Novaković, Ph.D. Zagreb, 2011. SAŽETAK Tema je ovog rada Marulićevo djelo In epigrammata priscorum commentarius (Tumač uz natpise starih). Svrha je rada dvostruka: analizirati recepciju antike u djelu te dati prvo cjelovito i kritički priređeno njegovo izdanje. U uvodnim poglavljima objašnjavaju se pojmovi recepcije i modela; prikazuje se žanrovska povijest Marulićeva djela, jedne od prvih komentiranih zbirki natpisa uopće; opisuju se rukopisi, izdanja i povijest istraživanja; razmatra se vrijeme nastanka i opća struktura djela. Potraga za izvorima pokazala je da je salonitanske natpise Marulić prepisao s kamenih spomenika u zbirci svojega prijatelja Dmine Papalića, dok je najveći dio rimskih i "vanjskih" natpisa (tj. onih koji nisu rimski) preuzeo iz jedne rukopisne siloge koja se čuva u Ambrozijanskoj knjižnici u Milanu. Iznenađujuće poznavanje antike, koje očituje u komentarima, Marulić temelji manje na antičkim piscima, a kudikamo više na djelima humanističkih auktora, čije je priručnike imao u svojoj knjižnici (Niccolò Perotti, Pomponio Leto, Giovanni Tortelli, Giuniano Maio i dr.). Analiza strukture i sadržaja samih komentara pokazala je znatnu razinu piščeve starinarske kompetencije i razmjerno afirmativan odnos prema poganskom naslijeđu. Posebno se razmatra uvod u salonitanske natpise s opisom Dioklecijanove palače (humanistička laudatio urbis). Naznake afirmativna odnosa prema antici pisac otklanja tek u Peroraciji, u kojoj odlučno potvrđuje svoj kršćanski svjetonazor. U Prilogu se daje kritičko izdanje djela, priređeno prema autografu, popraćeno kritičkim aparatom i aparatom izvora. Ključne riječi: Marko Marulić, In epigrammata priscorum commentarius, recepcija antike, humanistička epigrafija, humanistička leksikografija, komentar, laudatio urbis, kritičko izdanje. SUMMARY The topic of this dissertation is Marulić’s work in Latin In epigrammata priscorum commentarius (Commentary on inscriptions of the ancients), to date only published in small part and almost completely unstudied. The purpose of the dissertation is two-fold: to analyse the reception of antiquity in the work and to give the first complete and critical edition of the piece. By a combination of circumstances, this work of a national classic and a Humanist of world renown has never before been printed in its entirety and has thus remained outside the reach of any serious debate at home and abroad, and as a consequence has not been properly evaluated. In Chapter 1, Introductory remarks and principal concepts, the author establishes two basic models of Humanist reception, modelled on the G. A. Kennedy theory of ancient rhetoric. In the primary model the focus is upon the ancient sources (and antiquity is the substance of the reception), while in the secondary it is the work of the Humanist writer that has the dominant position (here the ancient heritage appears as principle of organisation, or model for style and genre, and we can consider it a form of reception). Writing In epigrammata Marulić resorted to the primary model of reception, but in a specific manner: he chose ancient inscriptions rather than, for example, a work of poetry (as when he comments on Catullus in the Trogir Codex of Petronius, Paris. lat. 7989) or on mythological material (as when he writes epigrams and the Dialogus de Hercule). Elsewhere Marulić either adds abstracts or emendations to the ancient text, starting off from the state as found (commentary on Catullus) or he will excerpt a large number of texts (in the Repertorium), or poetically paraphrase a selected text (Ovid’s Metamorphoses in epigrams), or will appropriate the material by Christian allegoresis (in the Dialogus de Hercule), or by translation into Croatian (Utiha nesriće – Consolation in Distress); however, here, in the In epigrammata, Marulić collects and organises "unmodified" primary ancient texts in order to enrich them (and appropriate them) with his own commentaries. Chapter 2, Collections of ancient inscriptions up to the time of Marulić, defines the generic environment in which Marulić’s work appears; it is at once an epigraphic sylloge and a commentary on an ancient text as well as part of the author’s original oeuvre. As collection of inscriptions, the work goes on with the fruitful Humanist tradition of collecting and copying ancient epigraphs, which developed on the Apennine peninsula (Cyriacus of Ancona, Giovanni Marcanova, Felice Feliciano, Fra Giovanni Giocondo and others), which also had early representatives on the eastern coast of the Adriatic. As well as those known to date, Petar Cipiko (Petrus Cepio / Cippicus) and Marin Marinčić (Marinus Marincics), perhaps also Juraj Benja (Georgius Begna) and Marin Rastić (Marinus de Restis), as well of course as Dmine Papalić (Dominicus Papalis), who was a collector of stone monuments, the author has referred to a new name, a contemporary of Marulić, Hieronymus Traguriensis (perhaps the same person as Jerolim Makarelić or Hieronymus Macarellus). After this first phase of collecting inscriptions and copying them down into larger sylloges, at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries a new epigraphic genre appeared – the collection of ancient inscriptions with commentaries. The first and in the time of Marulić as far as we know the only representatives of this new genre are Benedetto Giovio, Andrea Alciato and Girolamo Bologni. At practically the same time, Marulić’s Commentary became involved in this kind of innovative generic environment, and in this sense it can be considered one of the pioneering works of Humanist epigraphy. It is not very likely that Marulić knew of the works of Giovio or Alciato, but it is not to be ruled out that he personally knew the third of those mentioned: as the author’s research has shown, Girolamo Bologni, secretary of Archbishop of Split Lorenzo Zane, was friendly with Hieronymus Traguriensis and with Hieronymus Spalatensis (perhaps Jerolim Papalić or Hieronymus Papalis), and read the Historia Salonitana of Thomas the Archdeacon. Hence it is not without foundation to suppose that Bologni and Marulić might have been acquainted or at least might have exchanged epigraphs and other information by letters. Additional confirmation is imparted to this hypothesis by the internal similarities of Bologni’s work Antiquarius and Marulić’s In epigrammata; a study of the history of Marulić’s autograph has shown in addition that it is very likely that by the early 16th century it had come into the possession of the Bologni family in Treviso. Chapter 3, Manuscripts, editions and history of research, first of all provides a description and analysis of the autograph O (Bibliotheca Bodleiana, Oxford, MS. Add. A. 25, olim 28398 [591]) and two complete transcriptions: G (University Library, Glasgow, Hunter 334, U. 8. 2) and V (Biblioteca Marciana, Venice, Lat. XIV. 112 [=4283]). Besides these three complete manuscripts, there are five partial copies, which contain larger or smaller fragments of In epigrammata. The author reconstructs the mutual relationships of these manuscripts, drawing up a stemma codicum, as well as providing new information for the history of the reception of In epigrammata, particularly as regards its early use. For example, he shows that Bartolomeo Burchelati of Treviso had as early as 1616 quoted inscriptions from In epigrammata and referred to Marulić’s commentaries (in the book Commentariorum memorabilium multiplicis historiae Tarvicinae locuples promptuarium, libris quatuor distributum); the first fragment of a paratext (with a small selection of inscriptions) was printed by Jacob Spon in 1685 (Miscellanea eruditae antiquitatis) – which means almost a hundred years before the earliest previously noticed partial edition of Marulić’s text (G. B. Mittarelli, Bibliotheca codicum manuscriptorum monasterii S. Michaelis Venetiarum, 1779). Chapter 4, An overview of In epigrammata, firstly gives additional confirmation of the conclusion already to be found in the literature (Novaković 1997) that the work was written between 1503 and 1510 and goes on to analyse the motivation for its being written: as well as the request of his friend and fellow townsman Dmine Papalić, owner of a collection of stone inscriptions, to whom the work is dedicated, one should not rule out as motive Marulić’s personal interest in antiquity, most likely prompted by his Humanist education and his reading of the ancient writers in conjunction with local pride and the closeness of the ruins of ancient Salona. The viewpoint to be taken to the ancient heritage in this work is determined by Marulić in the dedication to Dmine Papalić. A detailed analysis, which is carried out in chapters 7.5 and 7.6