Colloquia Maruliana, Vol. 8 , 1999.
Original scientific paper
Božićević and Marulić: Have we Relinquished an Important Witness too Soon?
Darko Novaković
Abstract
Marulić’s junior contemporary Frane Božićević (Franciscus Natalis, 1469 –1542) is interesting for Marulić studies in several of his roles: (1) as the poet’s biographer,
(2) as his poetic correspondent and (3) as poet in his own right, who in the nature of things must in some literary matters have made contact with Marulić, as associate or rival.
(1) As Marulić’s biographer, Natalis had the reputation of being a privileged interpreter right until the 1950s. The first doubt about his veracity was raised by Cvito Fisković in his classic discussion (Contribution to the Biography of Marko Marulić Pečenić, Repubika 6, 1950, no. 4, pp. 186-204). For Fisković, Božićević is an unreliable biographer, flattering a friend after his death, turning him into an ascetic and a saint. Contrasting Božićević’s account with archival material, Fisković concluded that Marulić lived no life of isolation, but the kind of life that was usual for a Split patrician of his time, taking care of the goods of this world and taking part in public life. In his view, it is Božićević that is responsible for having created a false impression about Marulić, because he first spread the information that the poet withdrew prematurely to a monastery, his statement having been taken uncritically over by literary historians. Nevertheless, the blame, or merit, for having created the image of Marulić as an ascetic does not lie with Božićević. In his biography, he simply transmits the communis opinio that had already become established in writing, outside Split, outside the close circle of friends and, what is most important, during Marulić’s lifetime. In the afterword to Evangelistarium in 1516, Franciscus Iulianius Venetus describes Marulić as a liv-ing saint; he contemned riches and honour (sprevit divitias, sprevit honores), lived in a tiny cell, surrounded with forest trees and animals (parvula admodum sępius inclusus cella, inter sylvestres arbores, feris tantum comitatus vitam degat); he lived in the body in spite of the body carrying out the heavenly life on earth (in carne pręter carnem vivens cęlestem vitam in terris agit). He printed the same piece three years later (1519) in the Basle edition of the Evangelistarium. Twice during Marulić’s life, then, his audience, and an international audience, must have read about him as a model of sanctity. The conclusion is unambiguous: whatever else can be set down to his disadvantage, Božićević cannot be accused of having set in motion the avalanche of unfounded biographical constructions.
(2) The Božićević-Marulić exchange of poetic epistles allows us the more easily to date precisely the poets stay on Šolta; various indications point to the 1509-1511 period. From the correspondence, we can indirectly conclude that Marulić’s translation of the Petrarchan canzone Vergine bella, printed in a supplement to the Venetian edition of Evangelistarium in 1516, was finished at least five years earlier, that is, in 1511 at the latest. Božićević’s verse unambiguously identify one of their joint friends (in Marulić: Nicoleon risu facilis) as Nikola Petraka (in Božićević’s Nicoleon Petrarcha). The beginning of Božićević’s epistle (Cultor et antistes Surdae, celeberrime, vallis, / Marule, perpetui regis amator, ave!), and also the attributes that Marulić deserves at its end, unambiguously demonstrate that Božićević experienced Marulić as a man who used his retirement for higher ends, who thanks to his lack of vice could justifiably expect the reward of eternal life. Everything goes to show that Božićević should be pronounced not guilty of at least one complaint, that he made Marulić a posthumous saint only, for he held him to be one during his lifetime.
(3) After the discovery of the Glasgow codex, we know for certain that Marulić and Božićević sometimes met in the same work, sending poems to the same dignitar-ies (for example, Domenico Malipiero, Zuan Battista de Molino: Epigrammata 29 : Božićević XXVIII-XXX; Epigrammata 1 : Božićević XVIII) or commemorating the same events in the life of the community (the epitaph to Jerolim Srića: Epigrammata
16 : Božićević LXVIII-LXIX). The former example clearly shows that Božićević attentively kept up with the work of his older friend and fellow citizen, more frequently with the aim of following in his footsteps and showing him the respect of quotation, less often with the intention of ridding himself of the anxiety of influence. An intriguing detail of this relationship is suggested by a recently found collection of poems by Marulić. In it there is an epigram that can be found, under another title, in Božićević’s collection as well (Epigrammata 137, Ad Franciscum Natalem : Božićević LXI, Ad Franciscum Martiniachum). So far, no convincing reason has been adduced for this procedure. But the fact that a composition of Marulić’s exists in Božićević’s writing, without any indication of the true authorship, but, on the contrary, with a false attribution, gives us reason for a steady review of certain other Marulić – Božićević attributions. The most essential task is a new analysis of Božićević’s Croatian version of Petrarch’s canzone Vergine bella, the first five feet of which are expressly attributed to Marulić in Petar Lucić’s Vartal.
Keywords
Hrčak ID:
8983
URI
Publication date:
22.4.1999.
Visits: 2.442 *