Skoči na glavni sadržaj

Izvorni znanstveni članak

My Muse Mnemosyne

Neven Jovanović

Puni tekst: hrvatski pdf 93 Kb


str. 75-92

preuzimanja: 1.296



From the catalogue of Marulić’s library we know that he possessed works by two of his younger contemporaries and countrymen: an epyllion by Jakov Bunić from Dubrovnik (the De raptu Cerberi, first edition 1500), and the only known work by Matej Andreis from Trogir (a short Epithalamium on the occasion of the wedding of King Ladislaus of Hungary in 1502).
The goal of this philological analysis is to establish if the reading of those works influenced Marulić in writing the Davidias (around 1517). Borrowing from other poets’ well–coined turns and phrases is a standard procedure in the neo–Latin poetical practice. On the other hand, poetical compositions in »father language« — which, in case of Latin also happens to be the language of prestige — are more liable to the influence of expressions confirmed by usage than are compositions in mother tongue.
In the first phase of the analysis I constructed computer concordances for each of the three works (Bunić’s De raptu Cerberi, Andreis’ Epitalmium and Marulić’s Davidias), singling out cases of lexical correspondences. Then I searched for possible similarities of contexts in which these correspondences occur. In the end I subjected the potential echoes of Bunić and Andreis in the Davidias to another test, consulting a database of Roman literary texts (Aureae Latinitatis Bibliotheca, Bologna 1991), to determine if the similarities could be reduced to a common archetype taken over from a Roman poet.
In the central part of the paper I present and interpret the most intriguing correspondences between Marulić and Bunić and/or Andreis.
I conclude that the linguistic influence of the De raptu Cerberi and Epithalmium on the Davidias exists and can be philologically proved.
Four further conclusions follow:
1. Marulić did not recoil from borrowing striking or »well–wrought« Latin ex-pressions from his contemporaries, including his younger colleagues.
2. On the level of diction and style, the Davidias is rooted in the Roman poetic tradition deeper and in a more specific way than it has been thought to date. Marulić’s intertextual resources in the Davidias include a large number of Roman authors and texts, among them some whose reception has slackened in our times and whose echoes are hardly heard today (e.g. Statius, Valerius Flaccus, Silius Italicus, the Consolatio ad Liviam).
3. The memory of the neo–Latin poets here is not just rational. Certain correspondences revealed by my analysis can be explained only as »auditory« remembrances, as sound effects of verses, words or phrases read aloud.
4. Creativity of Marulić’s Latin style differs from his creativity in Croatian, be-cause the Latin literary tradition consists of many individual authors, and the poet is obliged to respond to this tradition. Marulić’s Judita, unlike his Davidias, could hardly be matched against similar compositions in Croatian; this work apparently implied different rules of game.
This computer analysis of Marulić’s text has also shown its exegetic potential. Thanks to it I am able to offer new interpretations of certain passages in the Davidias.
A future intertextual analysis of the Davidias could concentrate on its relation to Claudian, or to Christian epic poets Sedulius, Juvencus, and Arator, the authors who have regrettably remained outside the scope of the present research.

Ključne riječi

Hrčak ID:



Datum izdavanja:


Podaci na drugim jezicima: hrvatski

Posjeta: 2.322 *