Skip to the main content

Original scientific paper

CIL 190*: A Proposal for Marulić

Bratislav Lučin

Full text: croatian pdf 73 Kb

page 47-56

downloads: 672



Among humanist collections of Ancient inscriptione, from which Th. Mommsen drew material for his Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, we can also find Marulić’s In epigrammata priscorum commentarius. The collection which has not been fully pub-lished to date comprises 142 inscriptions with antiquarian (epigraphic, historic etc.) and moralistic commentaries by Marulić. For two of them (no. 48 = CIL 189*; no. 49 = CIL 190*) Mommsen advances the hypothesis that they are Marulić’s fabrications and the scope of the present article is to establish whether it is plausible.
If we viewed the critical apparatus accompanying CIL 189* in light of the fact that In epigrammata priscorum commentarius appeared around 1503–1510, we could conclude that Marulić copied these inscriptions from some older model and therefore is not its author.
The sole source in which Mommsen found text CIL 190* was Marulić’s sylloge; the text runs as follows:
»Da tumulo pia uerba, precor, quo nunc iacet is, qui
Non sentit lites iurgiaue ulla domi.«
»Macte uir ingenio, flores uer spiret ad urnam,
Dent pacem cineri numina; da precium.«
»Do precium: fuge iura thori, fuge iura mariti, 5
Non tibi erunt lites iurgiaue ulla domi.«
»Quid faciam? Ducta est. Misero succurre marito!«
»Ducta est Parthenope si tibi, uiue Senis!«
If we keep in mind the vast number of sources which the compiler of CIL consulted, it seems however probable that this inscription is Marulić’s fabrication. His authorship could be further corroborated by certain interior reasons, as well. Misogynic themes of feigned epitaph (»in grave solely you will find peace from a litigious woman«; »if you are married, your only salvation is to live far from your wife«) can be found in two epigrams (one in Epitaphium Luxe de Bilsa, other in Marcum uxori odiosum) of which we know for sure that are Marulić’s works. The mentioned epigrams contain almost identical expressions and the same final thought that is contained in CIL 190*. Thematically congenial to these is also Marulić’s commntary accompanying inscription 24 in the collection (= CIL VI, 20*). Finally, the Ovidian syntagm iura tori (in Marulić’s spelling: thori) appers in several places in his epic Dauiduias.
A further motive for fabrication could be found in the humanist need to corrobo-rate didactic contents by the authority of the Ancients; pia fraus was additionally acceptable for the humoristic and satiric tone of the whole teaching.
Why Marulić made reference to Naples (Parthenope) and Sienna (Senae) is still hard to say.
For Marulić’s poetic oeuvre this discovery means a modest gain of eight lines. Far more important is the fact that he feigned an Antique text; doubtless, this gives additional volume to his humanist profile. In the end, it is visible even from this small contribution how very important and inspiring the study of In epigrammata priscorum commentarius can be for our future knowledge of Marulić’s rich and multifaceted legacy.


Hrčak ID:



Publication date:


Article data in other languages: croatian

Visits: 1.548 *