UVOD

Hrvati imaju devet inkunabula koje su otisnute na hrvatskome jeziku, na glagoljici (šest) i na latinici (tri). Prve dvije latinične inkunabule jesu dva mala molitvenika koji se u jednome uvezanom primjerku danas čuvaju u Vatikanskoj biblioteci. Ne znamo ni kada ni gdje su otisnuti, ali istraživači pretpostavljaju da je to moglo biti oko 1490. Dok ih jedni bez ikakvih dokaza poklanjaju Veneciji tvrdeći, kao i za naš Prvotisak iz 1483. da su tamo otisnuti, drugi potpuno neutemeljeno tvrde da je njihovo tiskanje gotovo sigurno obavljeno u Dubrovniku. Tako se u literaturi ustalio naziv Prvi tiskani dubrovački molitvenik koji pogrješno aludira na tiskanje u Dubrovniku te upućuje na jednu umjesto na dvije fizički različite knjige, koje su nastale u isto vrijeme i u istoj tiskari.

Cilj je ovoga rada napraviti povijesni presjek dosadašnjih istraživačkih napora oko utvrđivanja povijesnih okolnosti vezanih za ta dva latinična molitvenika te ponuditi neke druge prijedloge koji bi, na razini današnjih spoznaja, mogli biti objektivniji nego što su to Venecija ili Dubrovnik.

Oficij B. D. Marije i Oficij sv. Krsta

Već u samome nazivu tih latiničnih molitvenika postoje neujednačenosti, pa ćemo ih u ovome radu nazvati Prvotisak latiničnih molitvenika (dalje u tekstu: PLM). Kao što je uvodno rečeno, danas se čuvaju uvezani u jednu knjigu, a javnosti su dostupni u digitaliziranome obliku na internetskim stranicama Vatikanske biblioteke.¹ Prvi ih javnosti objelodanjuje Ciro Giannelli, koji o njima donosi analizu² te cjelovitu transkripciju³ u knjizi Frane Fanceva. Giannelli u svojoj analizi jasno govori da se radi o dvije, a ne o jednoj knjizi, što tumači velikim otisnutim slovima FINIS na završetku prvoga molitvenika.⁴

Slika 1. Kraj prvoga i početak drugoga molitvenika5

Slika 2. Završetak Oficija sv. Krsta i početak Oficija sv. Duha u drugome molitveniku6

Kao što na Slici 1. možemo vidjeti, Oficij B. D. Marije završava (njegov početak nažalost nije sačuvan) velikim otisnutim F I N I S, a Oficij sv. Krsta također počinje velikim otisnutim P O C I G N E (počinje, op. a.). S druge strane, na Slici 2. vidimo da Oficij sv. Krsta završava bez istaknutoga grafičkog završetka, a isto tako (malim slovima) počinje Oficij sv. Duha. To su jasni tiskarski elementi po kojima, do nekih novih saznanja, moramo te molitvenike tretirati kao dvije različite knjige, koje su vjerojatno zbog oštećenja i nepotpunosti u nekome trenutku uvezane u jednu knjigu. Tako bi prvi molitvenik trebalo naslovljavati Oficij B. D. Marije uz koji dolazi i Sedam psalama pokornih, a drugi molitvenik trebalo bi naslovljavati Oficij sv. Krsta uz koji dolazi i Oficij sv. Duha.

Vrlo je važno napomenuti kako je već Giannelli naglasio dubrovačku provenijenciju PLM-a, ne samo u jezičnome smislu,⁷ nego i kao najizglednije područje njihova korištenja.⁸ Bez obzira na to, Giannelli jasno kazuje kako nema govora o tiskanju PLM-a u Dubrovniku⁹ iako znamo za nešto kasnije postojanje tiskarske preše, punca za „lettera schiaua“ i drugoga alata u Dubrovniku u jednoj oporuci iz 1501., a provedenoj 1502.¹⁰

Slika 3. Zapis dubrovačkoga nadbiskupa Bernardina Larizza na početku PLM-a11

Poslije PLM spominju neki autori, poglavito u analizi vodenih znakova papira PLM-a,¹² a najviše se njime nakon Giannellija bavio Valentin Putanec, čije istraživanje analiziramo u sljedećim poglavljima.

Valentin Putanec i tiskanje PLM-a u Dubrovniku

Ovdje ćemo skrenuti pozornost na probleme u povijesnoj i grafičkoj interpretaciji PLM-a, koju Valentin Putanec, kao prvi koji predlaže tiskanje PLM-a u Dubrovniku, postavlja u svojemu istraživanju.¹³ Njegovu analizu poslije nekritički preuzimaju pojedini istraživači kao najvjerodostojniji znanstveni odgovor na pitanje gdje je mogao biti otisnut PLM. U Putančevu je radu cijeli niz netočnosti i pogrješnih interpretacija, za čiju bi analizu bilo potrebno napisati zaseban kritički osvrt, što ovdje nećemo činiti. Zadržat ćemo se na njegovu zaključku o tiskanju PLM-a u Dubrovniku, koji je, prema njemu, tiskao Dobrić Dobrićević oko 1470. – 1475.¹⁴ i analizi kojom je došao do toga zaključka.

Putanec dobro utvrđuje uporabu PLM-a u ženskome samostanu, gdje iz transkripcije Giannellija navodi primjere ženskoga roda u obje knjige („nisam dostojna, znam da sam velika grišnica, usliši me grišnicu“).¹⁵ Nakon toga njegova analiza poprima nekritičan i metodološki netočan smjer, zbog čega se ne može prihvatiti kao ozbiljna znanstvena raščlamba.

Putanec analizira jedan list iz Arhiva HAZU-a, signatura: D-XV-99. Radi se o indulgenciji ili oprostnici pape Siksta IV., koja je izdana 31. svibnja 1475. Putanec analizira taj jedan arak papira, formata 39 x 30 cm, čija je jedna stranica prazna, a na drugoj stranici dolazi latinska oprostnica pape Siksta IV., koja je tiskana latinicom, odnosno goticom. Ispod nje nalazi se tumačenje oprostnice na klasičnoj latinici (romani), na talijanskome jeziku i mletačkome dijalektu. Putanec donosi prijepis teksta¹⁶ te dvije nepotpune fotografije oprostnice.¹⁷

U Veneciji je radilo više desetina majstora tiskara koji su u svojim oficinama mogli otisnuti tu oprostnicu za potrebe same Venecije, ali Putanec nekritički odbacuje sve mletačke tiskare i tvrdi da je dokazao da je Dobrić Dobrićević tiskar oprostnice.¹⁸ Međutim, za to on ipak ne nudi nikakve dokaze niti je to moguće tvrditi na temelju analize nekoliko slova te eliminacije dvaju registara slova inkunabula s početka 20. st. – napomenimo kako registre samo navodi, ali ne nudi nikakvu tipografsku analizu.¹⁹

Kako Putanec dolazi do Dobrićevića? Usporedbom slova papinske oprostnice s pojedinim inkunabulama koje je tiskao Dobrić Dobrićević, pronalazi sličnosti u gotici, ali ne u cijelome tekstu, nego samo u slovima M, D, P i A. Već to po njemu „bjelodano dokazuje da je tu indulgenciju tiskao Dobrić Dobrićević“.²⁰ Nadalje, Putanec u predmetnome arku prepoznaje sličnosti između nekoliko slova fonta romana sa slovima PLM-a. Ipak, svjestan je da je takva analiza problematična jer ni tih nekoliko slova ne može pouzdano uputiti na Dobrićevićevu tiskaru. Polazeći od lošega, gotovo amaterskoga otiska PLM-a – što je svakako točno – na temelju nedostatne analize slova zaključuje da je Dobrićević ta slova možda prigodno nabavio prije, kada je kao mladić i naučnik boravio kod Paltašića. Na toj osnovi Putanec nadalje zaključuje da je Dobrićević, prije naukovanja kod Paltašića, kao rođeni Dubrovčanin, u dobi od dvadeset do dvadeset pet godina učio tiskarski zanat u Dubrovniku, oko 1470. – 1475., kada je posuđenim slovima navodno prigodno otisnuo PLM u Dubrovniku i predao ga na uporabu dubrovačkim ženskim samostanima.²¹ Prema toj pretpostavci, cijela bi tiskarska oficina potom ostala izvan uporabe do 1501., kada se spominje u oporuci Luke Radovanovića, ali ovaj put s puncama za bosančicu, a ne za latinicu. Kada pogledamo font gotice i romane u oprostnici Siksta IV. te vizualno usporedimo donji tekst (romanu) oprostnice sa slovima PLM-a, parafrazirajući Putanca, bjelodano je samo to da se ti izvori ne mogu uspoređivati na način kako on to predlaže.

Slika 4. Oprostnica pape Siksta IV., izdana 31. svibnja 1475.22

Putančeva analiza predstavlja neutemeljeno, neznanstveno i nekritičko tumačenje izvora. Zbog netočnih i neprovjerenih usporedbi te iz njih izvedenih neutemeljenih zaključaka, može se pretpostaviti da je usmjeravanje analize bilo ciljano isključivo prema unaprijed postavljenome i željenome zaključku. Jedan je od takvih primjera njegova usmjeravanja analize prepoznavanje ćiriličnoga velikog slova I u PLM-u – koje bi trebalo učvrstiti povezivanje navodne Dobrićevićeve tiskare latiničnih molitvenika iz 1475. s prešom i puncama na zapadnoj ćirilici (bosančici) koje se pojavljuju u oporuci iz 1501.²³ Pogledajmo sljedeću sliku, gdje smo iskoristili umjetnu inteligenciju za rotaciju trećega slova u riječi FINIS, uz jasan nalog da se ne mijenja izgled, kompozicija, pozicija i oblik tih pet slova, nego da se samo zrcali treće slovo.

Slika 5. Originalna riječ FINIS gore te ista riječ sa zrcaljenim trećim slovom dolje.24

Iz slike je jasno da se radi o velikome latiničnom slovu N, koje je tiskar iz nama nepoznatoga razloga zrcalno rotirao po okomici. Ovakva se rotacija velikoga slova N pojavljuje na više mjesta u PLM-u, ali kao jedini grafički primjer toga tipa u PLM-u. Prema tome, nema govora o bilo kakvome setu ćiriličnih slova, kako to pokušava usmjereno i neutemeljeno tumačiti Putanec.

Osim nedostatne i tendenciozno oblikovane analize, postoji cijeli niz drugih povijesnih problema koji, prema današnjoj razini spoznaje, isključuju mogućnost tiskanja inkunabula u Dubrovniku. Osvrnimo se na neke od njih.

Iza Kosinjske tiskare vjerojatno stoje najviši slojevi hrvatskoga plemstva, ponajprije Anž Frankapan Brinjski te kosinjski pavlini, a neposredno i knezovi Kosinjski, Lackovići od plemena Stupića.²⁵ Iza Senjske tiskare stoje Senjska biskupija, Senjski kaptol i senjski gospari na čelu s Blažom Baromićem.

Nasuprot tomu, pretpostavka o dubrovačkoj tiskari Dobrića Dobrićevića – prema kojoj je on kao mladić, s dvadesetak godina, u Dubrovniku učio tiskarski zanat tiskajući PLM – smješta takvu djelatnost u Dubrovnik i to u približno isto vrijeme kada je Venecija tek započinjala s tiskarskim radom te godinama prije Kosinja i Senja. Riječ je o vrlo neuvjerljivoj argumentaciji koja otvara cijeli niz neodgovorenih pitanja.

Tko je financirao Dobrićevića? Kako je dopremio tiskarski stroj, papir i tintu? Tko je financirao, a tko izrezao vrlo skupe i vremenski zahtjevne punce za slova? Kako je mladi Dobrićević, prije bilo kakvoga potvrđenog stupanja u tiskarski zanat, mogao svladati tako zahtjevan posao? Tko je bio slagar i tko su bili drugi pomoćnici i suradnici? Gdje su povijesni tragovi PLM-a u dubrovačkoj tiskari, njezinih drugih knjiga, izdanja, djelatnosti ili bilo kojih drugih elemenata njezina postojanja ako je prva potvrđena knjiga u prvoj dubrovačkoj tiskari otisnuta gotovo tristo godina nakon Putančeve pretpostavljene dubrovačke oficine – 1783.?²⁶

Sasvim je jasno da se osjetljiva povijesna pitanja poput definiranja mjesta tiskanja PLM-a ili ubiciranja tiskanja inkunabula u Dubrovniku ne mogu rješavati metodološki nedostatnom analizom koja počiva na ograničenome broju indicija, nedokazanim pretpostavkama i unaprijed oblikovanim interpretativnim očekivanjima. Prema današnjoj razini spoznaje, nema znanstveno utemeljene osnove za tvrdnju o tiskanju PLM-a u Dubrovniku, a Putančeva analiza oprostnice, zasnovana na podudarnosti tek ponekih njezinih slova sa slovima PLM-a te na unaprijed zadanoj pretpostavci o Dobrićeviću i njegovoj mladenačkoj tiskari u Dubrovniku, ne može se prihvatiti kao ozbiljna znanstvena interpretacija.

Danas znamo tko je otisnuo indulgenciju pape Siksta IV. zahvaljujući istraživanju Daniele Fattori te njezinoj preciznoj i dokumentiranoj usporedbi cijeloga sloga indulgencije s potvrđenim i katalogiziranim slovima mletačkih tiskara. Riječ je o mletačkome tiskaru Nicolòu Jensonu, čija je gotica katalogizirana kao 106 G, a rimsko pismo kao 112 R.²⁷ Fattorina analiza majstora tiskara atribuirana je Nicolòu Jensonu u zapisu oprostnice znanstvene digitalne baze Ius Commune Online (ICo).²⁸ Stoga pitanje tiskanja PLM-a, koje se nije ni moglo razriješiti usporedbom slova PLM-a sa slovima papinske oprostnice iz 1475., i dalje ostaje otvoreno te čeka nove izvore ili pokazatelje koji bi istraživače mogli usmjeriti prema nekome rješenju.

Pojedini hrvatski autori Putančevu su analizu u pravilu nekritički prihvaćali kao gotovo dokazanu znanstvenu činjenicu,²⁹ a ovim istraživanjem pronađen je samo jedan rad koji tiskanje PLM-a u Dubrovniku korektno prenosi kao hipotezu i precizno donosi različite znanstvene stavove.³⁰ Ipak, u literaturi se posljednja tri desetljeća ustalio termin Prvi tiskani dubrovački molitvenik, koji može upućivati i na dubrovačku tiskaru, a ne samo na očiglednu dubrovačku jezičnu provenijenciju.³¹ Osobito zabrinjava to što se ni 25 godina nakon Fattorine atribucije Nicolòa Jensona kao tiskara indulgencije Siksta IV. – koja ujedno otklanja svaku mogućnost Putančeva prijedloga Dobrićevića i Dubrovnika – i to u doba digitalne humanistike, njezino istraživanje ne uzima u obzir u hrvatskoj literaturi. Najnoviji slučaj javlja se u iznimno važnoj hrvatskoj monografiji Incunabula Croatica. Riječ je o knjizi objavljenoj 2025., nastaloj na temelju višegodišnjega projekta NSK-a u Zagrebu koji je u više navrata financiran iz državnoga proračuna Republike Hrvatske. Tu je knjigu predsjednik Vlade Republike Hrvatske Andrej Plenković nedavno darovao Svetomu Ocu, papi Lavu XIV.³² Glavna urednica Incunabule Croatice očito nije upoznata s istraživanjem Daniele Fattori te i dalje netočno navodi Dubrovnik kao najvjerojatnije mjesto tiskanja PLM-a.³³

Krištofor Dubrovčanin, biskup krbavski ili modruški

Krištofor Dubrovčanin³⁴ (lat. Christophorus de Stoycho, također de Stoicis), modernizirano u hrvatskoj literaturi kao Kristofor Stojković,³⁵ rođen je u Dubrovniku u prvoj polovini 15. stoljeća, a umro je u Novom 29. siječnja 1499.³⁶ Pretpostavlja se da je bio franjevac, ali to u literaturi još nije potvrđeno. Međutim, stariji mađarski izvori opisuju ga kao franjevca. Biskup³⁷ Mile Bogović tu je otišao najdalje predlažući povijesno prilično utemeljeno tumačenje Krištoforova mogućeg franjevaštva. Krištofor je u literaturi potvrđen kao doktor kanonskoga prava, a papa Siksto IV. imenovao ga je krbavsko-modruškim biskupom 29. svibnja 1480.³⁸

Matijaš Korvin, pozivajući se na kraljevsko patronatsko pravo, imenovao je dominikanca Antuna Zadranina biskupom Krbavske ili Modruške biskupije,³⁹ a papa Siksto IV., kako smo i rekli, za istu je biskupiju imenovao Krištofora Dubrovčanina. Neslaganje između pape i kralja oko imenovanja novoga biskupa bilo je dosta intenzivno.⁴⁰ Najizglednije je da su dvojica biskupa usporedno upravljala biskupijom, ali su i oni bili u sukobu.⁴¹ Sukob Sv. Stolice i kralja Matijaša Korvina oko imenovanja biskupa, bez obzira na smrt pape Siksta IV. i izbor novoga pape,⁴² vjerojatno je konačno razriješen tek 1489., smrću Antuna Zadranina, nakon⁴³ koje Krištofor preuzima upravljanje cijelom biskupijom.

Nadalje, Krištofor je dokumentiran pri rimskoj kuriji 12. prosinca 1491. i 3. siječnja 1492. S ameljskim biskupom Cezarom djelovao je kao papinski povjerenik u predmetu gradnje kuća na posjedima hospicija sv. Jeronima.⁴⁴ Hospicij je pripadao „Časnoj bratovštini Slavena predgrađa sv. Petra”, zajednici hrvatskoga svećenstva i laika iz sjeverne Hrvatske, Slavonije, Bosne i Dalmacije okupljenoj u Rimu.⁴⁵

Nakon osmanskoga pustošenja Modruša 1493., biskup Krištofor sa starijim se kanonicima sklonio u Novi, gdje je u crkvi sv. Filipa i Jakova uspostavio svoje prebivalište i biskupsku stolicu.⁴⁶ Umro je, kako je već rečeno, 29. siječnja 1499., a nadgrobni mu je spomenik izradio poznati dubrovački umjetnik Feliks (Brutus) Petančić.⁴⁷

DJELA KRIŠTOFORA DUBROVČANINA

Franjo Glavinić⁴⁸ u jednome svojem pismu donosi podatak o nepoznatim tiskanim djelima Krištofora Dubrovčanina. Riječ je o franjevcu koji je izravno sudjelovao u organizaciji tiskanja novih crkvenih misala i brevijara, usklađenih s Tridentskim saborom. Za tu je ulogu odabran kao vrhunski poznavatelj crkvenih tiskanih knjiga te tiskarskih dometa hrvatskih popova glagoljaša prije Tridenta. Informacije koje Franjo Glavinić donosi pišući o tiskanim knjigama i tiskarskim prilikama u Hrvatskoj vrlo su sadržajne i prilično vjerodostojne. U pismu Kongregaciji za širenje vjere, napisanomu u Rijeci 10. travnja 1626., Glavinić obrazlaže tiskarske poslove i hrvatske tiskane knjige te spominje „djela“ monsinjora Krištofora Dubrovčanina⁴⁹ – pri čemu se misli na knjige tiskane na hrvatskome jeziku.⁵⁰ Glavinić, međutim, ne daje nikakav precizniji podatak o tim djelima. Za sada je to jedini poznati trag koji biskupa Krištofora Dubrovčanina povezuje s mogućim tiskarskim aktivnostima.

Neki autori, a posebice Valentin Putanec,⁵¹ među ta su navodna tiskarska djela biskupa Krištofora Dubrovčanina odmah uvrstili Misal iz 1483. i Kosinjski brevijar iz 1491. Na današnjoj razini spoznaje, hrvatski Prvotisak, Misal iz 1483., najizglednije je otisnut u Kosinjskoj tiskari,⁵² kao što i Kosinj (Bočać) u to vrijeme potpada pod Krbavsku ili Modrušku biskupiju.⁵³ Međutim, kolofon Misala iznimno je sažet: osim datuma njegova dovršetka⁵⁴ ne donosi nikakve druge podatke. U to je doba u kolofonima rukopisnih i tiskanih glagoljskih knjiga bila uobičajena praksa navoditi tiskare i druge suradnike, a ponekad i financijere, plemstvo ili biskupe. Da su biskupi Krištofor ili Antun na bilo koji način sudjelovali u tome poslu, to bi vjerojatno na neki način bilo i naznačeno. Takvih je primjera više nego dovoljno, te ih ovdje nije potrebno posebno navoditi.

Nadalje, biskup Krištofor je 1483., po svoj prilici, bio uključen u crkvenokanonski postupak protiv biskupa Antuna Zadranina. To sigurno ne bi bio slučaj da je mogao nesmetano obavljati biskupske poslove i upravljati biskupijom. Zbog svega navedenoga, Misal iz 1483. zasigurno nije jedno od tiskanih „djela” biskupa Krištofora Dubrovčanina.

Nakon što se Prvotisak isključi iz kruga mogućih djela biskupa Krištofora, postavlja se pitanje što nam, na razini današnje spoznaje, još preostaje predložiti. Hrvati imaju devet inkunabula na hrvatskome jeziku, otisnutih od 1483. do 1496. O mogućem mjestu tiskanja prve četiri inkunabule⁵⁵ i dalje se raspravlja, a za preostalih pet⁵⁶ mjesto tiskanja danas je razriješeno: ono je utvrđeno novijim istraživanjima ili navedeno izrijekom u njihovim kolofonima. Važno je podsjetiti da je Krištofor Dubrovčanin cijelom biskupijom bez ometanja mogao upravljati tek nakon smrti biskupa Antuna Zadranina, negdje oko 1489. Iz razmatranja otpadaju i sve hrvatske tiskane knjige nastale nakon Krištoforove smrti 1499. Isključuje se i Senjska tiskara, smještena na području Senjske biskupije, nad kojom Krištofor nije imao nikakvu nadležnost. Ne treba posebno naglašavati ni to da se Krištofor ne spominje ni u jednome izdanju Senjske tiskare.

Ako se, dakle, promišlja o knjigama tiskanima na hrvatskome jeziku, nastalima u vrijeme Krištoforova biskupovanja i u čijemu je stvaranju on na bilo koji način mogao sudjelovati – zbog čega ih Franjo Glavinić naziva njegovim „djelima” – u obzir dolaze jedino PLM, dva latinična molitvenika iz 1490., te Kosinjski brevijar iz 1491. Hipotetski bi se moglo računati i s nekim danas nepoznatim hrvatskim inkunabulama, otisnutima prije njegove smrti 1499.

ZAKLJUČAK

Na temelju jedne riječi – „djela” – ne može se predlagati ništa, pa ni moguća lokacija tiskanja PLM-a. Ovdje se samo upućuje na nekoliko činjenica jasno utvrđenih u ovome radu. PLM su otisnuti za uporabu u ženskim samostanima, pisani su dubrovačkim narječjem, a ženskih samostana u tadašnjemu Dubrovniku bilo je sasvim dovoljno. Međutim, same te okolnosti, kao ni iznimno problematičan rad Valentina Putaneca, čije smo zaključke u ovome radu i novijim istraživanjem Daniele Fattori izvan svake dvojbe opovrgnuli, ne mogu biti osnova za prihvaćanje pretpostavke da su PLM tiskani u Dubrovniku. Riječ je o gradu u kojemu nema nikakvih tiskarskih tragova, osim jedne preše i punca za bosančicu u jednoj oporuci iz 1501. i u kojemu je prva tiskana knjiga otisnuta gotovo tristo godina nakon PLM-a. Takva interpretacija nije prihvatljiva u znanstvenome diskursu. Bez obzira na to, i najznačajnija hrvatska literatura danas navodi Dubrovnik kao najizglednije mjesto tiskanja PLM-a.

S druge strane, za Kosinjsku tiskaru postoje jasni tragovi. Ona raspolaže najvećim brojem posrednih i neposrednih pokazatelja koji otvaraju realnu mogućnost tiskanja Prvotiska u Kosinju, a jedina raspolaže i materijalnim tragovima u obliku slijepoga tiska, koji dolazi u Prvotisku kao autorski rad Kosinjanina Ambroza Kacitića. Kosinj, odnosno Bočać, u to je vrijeme bio sastavni dio Krbavske ili Modruške biskupije i nalazio se pod izravnom jurisdikcijom biskupa Krištofora. U Kosinju je najizglednije otisnut i Brevijar iz 1491., koji se u literaturi često naziva Kosinjskim brevijarom.⁵⁷ Iako ni u jednome od dvaju sačuvanih primjeraka nije očuvan kolofon, raspolažemo povijesnim izvorom prvoga reda – Opisom Like i Krbave iz 1695.⁵⁸ – u kojemu se izrijekom navodi da se popovi glagoljaši u tada novooslobođenoj Lici i Krbavi u svakodnevnoj molitvi služe glagoljskim brevijarima, čiji kolofoni svjedoče da su otisnuti u gradu Kosinju. Svi ostali hrvatskoglagoljski brevijari imaju očuvane kolofone, te znamo tko ih je i gdje otisnuo, osim spomenutoga prvog i najstarijeg Brevijara iz 1491. godine. Slijedom te argumentacije, na razini današnjih spoznaja treba prihvatiti da je u Opisu Like i Krbave iz 1695. riječ upravo o tome brevijaru. Primjerice, akademik Eduard Hercigonja u tome ne vidi nikakvu dvojbu.⁵⁹ Postoji i novoutvrđeni trag o mogućemu radu Kosinjanina Ambroza Kacitića i na Kosinjskome brevijaru, o čemu će uskoro biti objavljeno novo istraživanje.

Ako se jednoga dana pronađe kolofon Kosinjskoga brevijara, moći ćemo utvrditi njegov sadržaj, potvrditi ili opovrgnuti Kosinj te provjeriti tko se u njemu spominje. Do tada valja polaziti od raspoloživih povijesnih podataka analizirajući širi povijesni kontekst i sve okolnosti povezane s Kosinjem i Kosinjskom tiskarom.

Isključivo na razini pretpostavke, pri razmatranju tiskanih djela na hrvatskome jeziku koja bi se mogla povezati s biskupom Krištoforom Dubrovčaninom, kako smo rekli, u obzir bi mogli doći Kosinjski brevijar i PLM, odnosno samo PLM – jer je riječ o dvama, a ne o jednome molitveniku. S obzirom na to da je Anž Frankapan Brinjski vrlo vjerojatno do studenoga 1491.⁶⁰ boravio u gradu Kosinju te da je moguće da je Ambroz Kacitić radio i na Kosinjskome brevijaru, skloniji smo razmatrati isključivo PLM kao moguća djela Krištofora Dubrovčanina. Ako je u ovome radu Dubrovnik kao mjesto tiskanja PLM-a isključen, ako za Veneciju ne postoji nijedan pokazatelj – kao ni u slučaju tiskanja Prvotiska u Veneciji –⁶¹ te ako Giannelli Veneciju i Dobrićevića isključuje još 1934., što preostaje predložiti kao mogući lokalitet tiskanja PLM-a? Je li doista nemoguće pretpostaviti da je Krištofor iskoristio postojeću Kosinjsku tiskaru u svojoj biskupiji kako bi otisnuo latinične molitvenike za dubrovačke redovnice te da su upravo to njegova djela o kojima govori Franjo Glavinić? U samome se tisku PLM-a uočavaju nespretnost, žurnost i obilježja laičkoga tiskarskog rada; čini se da su na njemu radili neiskusni, možda – s obzirom na pismo i jezik – dubrovački majstori iz Krištoforova kruga, a ne iskusni kosinjski popovi glagoljaši.

Kako god bilo, još smo daleko od odgovora na pitanje gdje je PLM otisnut. Na razini današnjih spoznaja, Dubrovnik i Venecija zasigurno ne dolaze u obzir, a Kosinj može ostati radna pretpostavka i prijedlog za daljnje promišljanje, a ne – parafrazirajući Putanca – „bjelodana činjenica” ili najizglednija prošla stvarnost, kako se do ovoga rada neutemeljeno tvrdilo za Dubrovnik.

INTRODUCTION

The Croats have nine incunabula printed in the Croatian language, six in the Glagolitic script and three in the Latin script. The first two Latin-script incunabula are two small prayer books now held by the Vatican Library, bound together in a single volume. We know neither when nor where they were printed, but researchers assume that this may have been around 1490. While some assign them to Venice without any evidence, claiming, as they do for our First Printed Croatian Book of 1483, that they were printed there, others claim, entirely without grounds, that they were almost certainly printed in Dubrovnik. Thus, the name First Printed Dubrovnik Prayer Book has become established in the literature, incorrectly suggesting printing in Dubrovnik and referring to one rather than two physically distinct books, produced at the same time and in the same printing house.

The aim of this paper is to provide a historical overview of previous research efforts to establish the historical circumstances surrounding these two Latin-script prayer books and to offer other proposals which, in the light of current knowledge, might be more objective than those favouring Venice or Dubrovnik.

Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Office of the Holy Cross

There are inconsistencies even in the name of these Latin-script prayer books, so in this paper we shall refer to them as the First Printing of the Latin-script Prayer Books (hereafter: PLM). As stated in the introduction, they are now preserved bound together in one volume and are publicly available in digitised form on the Vatican Library website.¹ They were first brought to public attention by Ciro Giannelli, who provided an analysis² and a complete transcription³ in a book by Franjo Fancev. In his analysis, Giannelli clearly states that there are two books, not one, explaining this by the large printed letters FINIS at the end of the first prayer book.⁴

Figure 1. The end of the first and the beginning of the second prayer book5

Figure 2. The end of the Office of the Holy Cross and the beginning of the Office of the Holy Spirit in the second prayer book6

As we can see in Figure 1, the Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary ends (its beginning has unfortunately not survived) with the large printed letters F I N I S, while the Office of the Holy Cross likewise begins with the large printed letters P O C I G N E (‘begins’, author’s note). In Figure 2, on the other hand, we see that the Office of the Holy Cross ends without a prominent typographical ending, and the Office of the Holy Spirit likewise begins in small letters. These are clear features of the printing which, pending new findings, require us to treat these prayer books as two distinct books, probably bound together in one volume at some point because they were damaged and incomplete. The first prayer book should therefore be entitled Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, accompanied by the Seven Penitential Psalms, and the second should be entitled Office of the Holy Cross, accompanied by the Office of the Holy Spirit.

It is very important to note that Giannelli had already emphasised the Dubrovnik provenance of the PLM, not only in linguistic terms,⁷ but also as the most likely area in which they were used.⁸ Nevertheless, Giannelli clearly states that printing the PLM in Dubrovnik is out of the question,⁹ although a will drawn up in 1501 and opened in 1502 records the somewhat later presence in Dubrovnik of a printing press, punches for ‘lettera schiaua’ and other tools.¹⁰

Figure 3. The note by Bernardino Larizza, Archbishop of Dubrovnik, at the beginning of the PLM11

The PLM were subsequently mentioned by several authors, particularly in analyses of the watermarks in their paper,¹² but after Giannelli it was Valentin Putanec who devoted the most attention to them. His research is analysed in the following sections.

Valentin Putanec and the printing of the PLM in Dubrovnik

Here we shall draw attention to the problems in the historical and typographical interpretation of the PLM put forward in the research of Valentin Putanec, the first to propose that they were printed in Dubrovnik.¹³ His analysis was subsequently adopted uncritically by some researchers as the most credible scholarly answer to the question of where the PLM might have been printed. Putanec’s work contains a whole series of inaccuracies and erroneous interpretations which would require a separate critical review; we shall not undertake that here. We shall confine ourselves to his conclusion that the PLM were printed in Dubrovnik by Dobrić Dobrićević around 1470–1475,¹⁴ and to the analysis by which he arrived at that conclusion.

Putanec correctly establishes that the PLM were used in a convent, citing examples of feminine grammatical forms in both books from Giannelli’s transcription (‘nisam dostojna, znam da sam velika grišnica, usliši me grišnicu’—‘I am not worthy, I know that I am a great sinner, hear me, a sinner’).¹⁵ Thereafter, his analysis takes an uncritical and methodologically unsound direction, which makes it unacceptable as a serious scholarly analysis.

Putanec analyses a single leaf from the Archives of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts (HAZU), shelfmark D-XV-99. It is an indulgence issued by Pope Sixtus IV on 31 May 1475. Putanec examines this single sheet of paper, measuring 39 × 30 cm, one side of which is blank, while the other contains Pope Sixtus IV’s indulgence in Latin, printed in the Latin script, specifically in Gothic type. Beneath it is an explanation of the indulgence in the classical Latin script (Roman type), in Italian and the Venetian dialect. Putanec provides a transcription of the text¹⁶ and two incomplete photographs of the indulgence.¹⁷

Several dozen master printers were working in Venice and could have printed this indulgence in their workshops for use in Venice itself, but Putanec uncritically dismisses all Venetian printers and claims to have proved that Dobrić Dobrićević printed the indulgence.¹⁸ However, he offers no evidence for this, nor can such a claim be made on the basis of an analysis of a few letters and the elimination of two registers of incunabula types dating from the early twentieth century. It should be noted that he merely cites these registers, without offering any typographical analysis.¹⁹

How does Putanec arrive at Dobrićević? By comparing the letters of the papal indulgence with individual incunabula printed by Dobrić Dobrićević, he finds similarities in the Gothic type, not throughout the text, but only in the letters M, D, P and A. In his view, this alone ‘clearly proves that this indulgence was printed by Dobrić Dobrićević’.²⁰ Furthermore, in the sheet under discussion, Putanec identifies similarities between several letters of the Roman typeface and the letters of the PLM. He is nevertheless aware that such an analysis is problematic, since even these few letters cannot reliably point to Dobrićević’s printing house.

Figure 4. The indulgence issued by Pope Sixtus IV on 31 May 147521

Starting from the poor, almost amateurish printing of the PLM—which is certainly an accurate observation—he concludes, on the basis of an insufficient analysis of the letters, that Dobrićević may have acquired this type for a particular occasion at an earlier date, when he was a young apprentice with Paltašić. On this basis, Putanec further concludes that, before his apprenticeship with Paltašić, Dobrićević, a native of Dubrovnik, learned the printing trade there between the ages of twenty and twenty-five, around 1470–1475, when he supposedly used borrowed type to print the PLM in Dubrovnik for a particular occasion and supplied them to the city’s convents.²² According to this assumption, the entire printing workshop would then have remained unused until 1501, when it is mentioned in Luka Radovanović’s will, but this time with punches for Bosnian Cyrillic rather than the Latin script. When we examine the Gothic and Roman typefaces in Sixtus IV’s indulgence and visually compare its lower text (in Roman type) with the letters of the PLM, to paraphrase Putanec, the only thing that is clear is that these sources cannot be compared in the way he proposes.

Putanec’s analysis constitutes an unfounded, unscholarly and uncritical interpretation of the sources. Given the inaccurate and unverified comparisons and the unfounded conclusions drawn from them, it may be assumed that the analysis was directed solely towards a predetermined, desired conclusion. One such example is his identification of a Cyrillic capital I in the PLM, intended to strengthen the connection between Dobrićević’s supposed printing house for Latin-script prayer books in 1475 and the press and punches for Western Cyrillic (Bosančica) mentioned in the will of 1501.²³ Let us examine the following image, in which we used artificial intelligence to rotate the third letter in the word FINIS, with explicit instructions not to change the appearance, composition, position or shape of these five letters, but only to mirror the third letter. The image clearly shows a Latin capital N which, for a reason unknown to us, the printer mirrored across its vertical axis. This rotation of the capital N appears in several places in the PLM, but is the only typographical example of this kind in them. There can therefore be no question of any set of Cyrillic type, as Putanec attempts to suggest through a tendentious and unfounded interpretation.

Figure 5. The original word FINIS above and the same word with the third letter mirrored below.24

Besides the insufficient and tendentious analysis, there is a whole series of other historical problems which, in the light of current knowledge, rule out the possibility that incunabula were printed in Dubrovnik. Let us consider some of them.

The Kosinj Printing House was probably supported by the highest ranks of the Croatian nobility, primarily Anž Frankapan Brinjski and the Pauline monks of Kosinj, and directly by the lords of Kosinj, the Lacković family of the Stupić clan.²⁵ The Senj Printing House was supported by the Diocese of Senj, the Senj Cathedral Chapter and the gentlemen of Senj, led by Blaž Baromić.

By contrast, the assumption concerning Dobrić Dobrićević’s printing house in Dubrovnik—that, as a young man of about twenty, he learned the printing trade there by printing the PLM—places such activity in Dubrovnik at approximately the same time as printing was only beginning in Venice, and years before Kosinj and Senj. This is a highly unconvincing argument which raises a whole series of unanswered questions.

Who financed Dobrićević? How did he transport the printing press, paper and ink? Who financed the very costly and time-consuming cutting of the type punches, and who cut them? How could the young Dobrićević have mastered such a demanding task before any documented entry into the printing trade? Who was the compositor, and who were the other assistants and collaborators? Where are the historical traces of the PLM in the Dubrovnik printing house, of its other books, publications and activities, or any other evidence of its existence, if the first documented book produced in the first printing house in Dubrovnik was printed in 1783, almost three hundred years after Putanec’s hypothetical Dubrovnik workshop?²⁶

It is entirely clear that sensitive historical questions, such as identifying where the PLM were printed or locating the printing of incunabula in Dubrovnik, cannot be resolved by a methodologically insufficient analysis based on a limited number of indications, unproven assumptions and predetermined interpretative expectations. In the light of current knowledge, there is no scholarly basis for claiming that the PLM were printed in Dubrovnik. Putanec’s analysis of the indulgence, based on correspondences between only a few of its letters and those of the PLM, and on a predetermined assumption about Dobrićević and his youthful printing workshop in Dubrovnik, cannot be accepted as a serious scholarly interpretation.

Today we know who printed Pope Sixtus IV’s indulgence thanks to Daniela Fattori’s research and her precise, documented comparison of the type used throughout the indulgence with the verified and catalogued types of Venetian printers. The printer was Nicolò Jenson of Venice, whose Gothic type is catalogued as 106 G and whose Roman type is catalogued as 112 R.²⁷ The entry for the indulgence in the scholarly digital database Ius Commune Online (ICo) attributes it to the master printer Nicolò Jenson on the basis of Fattori’s analysis.²⁸ The question of where the PLM were printed, which could not have been resolved by comparing their letters with those of the papal indulgence of 1475, therefore remains open, awaiting new sources or indications that might guide researchers towards a solution.

Some Croatian authors have generally accepted Putanec’s analysis uncritically as an almost proven scholarly fact,²⁹ while the present research has identified only one paper which correctly presents printing the PLM in Dubrovnik as a hypothesis and accurately sets out the differing scholarly positions.³⁰ Nevertheless, over the past three decades the term First Printed Dubrovnik Prayer Book has become established in the literature, potentially suggesting a Dubrovnik printing house rather than merely the obvious Dubrovnik linguistic provenance.³¹ It is particularly concerning that, even twenty-five years after Fattori identified Nicolò Jenson as the printer of Sixtus IV’s indulgence—thereby also ruling out Putanec’s proposal concerning Dobrićević and Dubrovnik—and in the age of digital humanities, Croatian literature still fails to take her research into account. The latest instance occurs in the exceptionally important Croatian monograph Incunabula Croatica. Published in 2025, this book resulted from a multi-year project of the National and University Library in Zagreb (NSK), funded on several occasions from the state budget of the Republic of Croatia. The Prime Minister of the Republic of Croatia, Andrej Plenković, recently presented this book to the Holy Father, Pope Leo XIV.³² The editor-in-chief of Incunabula Croatica is evidently unfamiliar with Daniela Fattori’s research and continues to name Dubrovnik incorrectly as the most probable place where the PLM were printed.³³

Krištofor Dubrovčanin, Bishop of Krbava or Modruš

Krištofor Dubrovčanin³⁴ (Latin: Christophorus de Stoycho, also de Stoicis), whose name is modernised in Croatian literature as Kristofor Stojković,³⁵ was born in Dubrovnik in the first half of the fifteenth century and died in Novi on 29 January 1499.³⁶ He is assumed to have been a Franciscan, although this has not yet been confirmed in the literature. Older Hungarian sources, however, describe him as a Franciscan. Bishop³⁷ Mile Bogović has gone furthest in this respect, proposing a historically rather well-grounded interpretation of Krištofor’s possible membership of the Franciscan order. Krištofor is documented in the literature as a doctor of canon law, and Pope Sixtus IV appointed him Bishop of Krbava-Modruš on 29 May 1480.³⁸

Invoking the royal right of patronage, Matijaš Korvin appointed the Dominican Antun Zadranin Bishop of the Diocese of Krbava or Modruš,³⁹ while Pope Sixtus IV, as already noted, appointed Krištofor Dubrovčanin to the same diocese. The disagreement between the pope and the king over the appointment of the new bishop was quite intense.⁴⁰ Most probably, the two bishops governed the diocese concurrently, but they too were in conflict.⁴¹ Despite the death of Pope Sixtus IV and the election of a new pope,⁴² the conflict between the Holy See and King Matijaš Korvin over the appointment of the bishop was probably not finally resolved until the death of Antun Zadranin in 1489,⁴³ after which Krištofor assumed control of the entire diocese.

Furthermore, Krištofor is documented at the Roman Curia on 12 December 1491 and 3 January 1492. Together with Cezar, Bishop of Amelia, he acted as a papal commissioner in a case concerning the construction of houses on the properties of the hospice of St Jerome.⁴⁴ The hospice belonged to the ‘Venerable Confraternity of Slavs in the Suburb of St Peter’, a community of Croatian clergy and laypeople from northern Croatia, Slavonia, Bosnia and Dalmatia gathered in Rome.⁴⁵

Following the Ottoman devastation of Modruš in 1493, Bishop Krištofor took refuge in Novi with the senior canons, establishing his residence and episcopal seat in the Church of St Philip and St James.⁴⁶ As already stated, he died on 29 January 1499, and his funerary monument was made by the well-known Dubrovnik artist Feliks (Brutus) Petančić.⁴⁷

THE WORKS OF KRIŠTOFOR DUBROVČANIN

Franjo Glavinić⁴⁸ provides information in one of his letters about unknown printed works of Krištofor Dubrovčanin. Glavinić was a Franciscan directly involved in organising the printing of new liturgical missals and breviaries in accordance with the Council of Trent. He was chosen for this role as an outstanding expert on printed liturgical books and the printing achievements of Croatian Glagolitic priests before Trent. The information Franjo Glavinić provides when discussing printed books and printing conditions in Croatia is highly informative and fairly credible. In a letter to the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, written in Rijeka on 10 April 1626, Glavinić discusses printing activities and Croatian printed books, mentioning the ‘works’ of Monsignor Krištofor Dubrovčanin⁴⁹—meaning books printed in the Croatian language.⁵⁰ Glavinić, however, provides no more precise information about these works. For now, this is the only known trace linking Bishop Krištofor Dubrovčanin with possible printing activities.

Some authors, particularly Valentin Putanec,⁵¹ immediately included the Missal of 1483 and the Kosinj Breviary of 1491 among these supposed printed works of Bishop Krištofor Dubrovčanin. In the light of current knowledge, the First Printed Croatian Book, the Missal of 1483, was most probably printed in the Kosinj Printing House,⁵² while Kosinj (Bočać) belonged to the Diocese of Krbava or Modruš at that time.⁵³ However, the Missal’s colophon is exceptionally brief: apart from the date of its completion,⁵⁴ it provides no other information. At that time, it was customary for the colophons of manuscript and printed Glagolitic books to name printers and other collaborators, and sometimes financial backers, members of the nobility or bishops. Had Bishops Krištofor or Antun participated in this undertaking in any way, that would probably have been indicated in some form. There are more than enough such examples, and no need to list them individually here.

Furthermore, in 1483 Bishop Krištofor was in all likelihood involved in proceedings under canon law against Bishop Antun Zadranin. This would certainly not have been the case had he been able to carry out his episcopal duties and govern the diocese unhindered. For all these reasons, the Missal of 1483 is certainly not one of the printed ‘works’ of Bishop Krištofor Dubrovčanin.

Once the First Printed Croatian Book is excluded from Bishop Krištofor’s possible works, the question arises as to what else can be proposed in the light of current knowledge. The Croats have nine incunabula in the Croatian language, printed between 1483 and 1496. The possible place of printing of the first four incunabula⁵⁵ is still debated, while for the remaining five⁵⁶ it has now been resolved: it has either been established by recent research or is explicitly stated in their colophons. It is important to recall that Krištofor Dubrovčanin could govern the entire diocese without interference only after the death of Bishop Antun Zadranin, sometime around 1489. All Croatian printed books produced after Krištofor’s death in 1499 must also be excluded from consideration. The Senj Printing House is likewise excluded, since it was situated within the Diocese of Senj, over which Krištofor had no jurisdiction. Nor is there any need to emphasise that Krištofor is not mentioned in any publication of the Senj Printing House.

Thus, if we consider books printed in the Croatian language during Krištofor’s episcopate, in whose production he may have participated in some way—which would explain why Franjo Glavinić calls them his ‘works’—the only possibilities are the PLM, the two Latin-script prayer books from 1490, and the Kosinj Breviary of 1491. Hypothetically, one might also consider Croatian incunabula now unknown to us, printed before his death in 1499.

CONCLUSION

Nothing can be proposed on the basis of a single word—‘works’—not even a possible place of printing for the PLM. Here we merely draw attention to several facts clearly established in this paper. The PLM were printed for use in convents and written in the Dubrovnik dialect, and there were more than enough convents in Dubrovnik at the time. However, these circumstances alone, or the exceptionally problematic work of Valentin Putanec, whose conclusions we have refuted beyond any doubt in this paper through Daniela Fattori’s more recent research, cannot provide a basis for accepting the assumption that the PLM were printed in Dubrovnik. This was a city with no traces of printing activity apart from a press and punches for Bosnian Cyrillic mentioned in a will of 1501, and where the first printed book was produced almost three hundred years after the PLM. Such an interpretation is unacceptable in scholarly discourse. Nevertheless, even the most important Croatian literature today names Dubrovnik as the most likely place where the PLM were printed.

On the other hand, there are clear traces of the Kosinj Printing House. It has the greatest number of indirect and direct indications pointing to a real possibility that the First Printed Croatian Book was printed in Kosinj, and it alone has material traces in the form of blind press, present in that book as the work of Ambroz Kacitić of Kosinj. Kosinj, or Bočać, was then an integral part of the Diocese of Krbava or Modruš and under the direct jurisdiction of Bishop Krištofor. The Breviary of 1491 was also most probably printed in Kosinj and is often referred to in the literature as the Kosinj Breviary.⁵⁷ Although neither of the two surviving copies preserves its colophon, we have a historical source of primary importance—the Opis Like i Krbave of 1695⁵⁸—which explicitly states that the Glagolitic priests in the then newly liberated regions of Lika and Krbava used Glagolitic breviaries for their daily prayers, and that the colophons of these breviaries testified that they had been printed in the town of Kosinj. The colophons of all other Croatian Glagolitic breviaries survive, and we know who printed them and where, with the exception of the aforementioned first and oldest Breviary of 1491. Following this argument, in the light of current knowledge it should be accepted that the Opis Like i Krbave of 1695 refers precisely to this breviary. For example, the academician Eduard Hercigonja has no doubt about this.⁵⁹ There is also a newly identified indication that Ambroz Kacitić of Kosinj may have worked on the Kosinj Breviary, on which new research will soon be published.

If the colophon of the Kosinj Breviary is found one day, we shall be able to establish its contents, confirm or refute Kosinj as the place of printing, and determine who is mentioned in it. Until then, we must proceed from the available historical information, analysing the broader historical context and all the circumstances connected with Kosinj and the Kosinj Printing House.

Strictly at the level of hypothesis, when considering printed works in the Croatian language which might be associated with Bishop Krištofor Dubrovčanin, the possibilities, as already noted, would be the Kosinj Breviary and the PLM, or the PLM alone, since there are two prayer books rather than one. Given that Anž Frankapan Brinjski very probably remained in the town of Kosinj until November 1491,⁶⁰ and that Ambroz Kacitić may also have worked on the Kosinj Breviary, we are more inclined to consider the PLM alone as possible works of Krištofor Dubrovčanin. If Dubrovnik has been ruled out in this paper as the place where the PLM were printed, if there is no indication pointing to Venice—just as there is none for the printing of the First Printed Croatian Book in Venice—⁶¹ and if Giannelli ruled out Venice and Dobrićević as early as 1934, what remains to be proposed as a possible location for the printing of the PLM? Is it really impossible to assume that Krištofor used the existing Kosinj Printing House in his diocese to print Latin-script prayer books for the nuns of Dubrovnik, and that these are precisely the works referred to by Franjo Glavinić? The printing of the PLM itself shows awkwardness, haste and characteristics of non-professional printing; it seems to have been undertaken by inexperienced craftsmen, perhaps, given the script and language, from Dubrovnik and Krištofor’s circle, rather than by the experienced Glagolitic priests of Kosinj.

Be that as it may, we are still far from answering the question of where the PLM were printed. In the light of current knowledge, Dubrovnik and Venice are certainly out of the question, while Kosinj may remain a working assumption and a proposal for further consideration, rather than—to paraphrase Putanec—a ‘clear fact’ or the most likely historical reality, as was claimed without grounds for Dubrovnik before this paper.