THE PRICE OF ANTON FRANKI’S BOOK

This work consists of a critique publication of a colophon text in verse form, which was written in the 18 th century cursive Glagolitic script at the end of a book (kvadirnica) of Invocations, compiled by the priest Anton Franki from Omišalj, along with the remaining paratexts from the same book. Special consideration is given to the discourse characteristics, as determined by the author’s claim to the right of remuneration for his scribal work.


Introduction
The book, maintained as part of Kukuljević's collection within the HAZU (The Croatian National Academy of Arts and Sciences) Archive, under call number III a 5, had previously been described by Štefanić (1969) as "The book of Anton Franki's exorcisms" ("Kvadirnica egzorcizama Antona Frankija", ff. 26 form. 14,4x10,8 cm, Štefanić 1969: 167). It largely consists of prayers and various Invocations and/or incantations against the "evil cloud", taken predominantly from religious ritual (cf. Kašić 1993). It has been indirectly dated to the first half of the 18 th century (with respect to records signed by Anton Franki, the priest from Omišalj: "The Holy Council of Trent" from 1712, a confirming document in Italian language https://doi.org/10.31820/f. 32.2.2 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Ovaj rad dostupan je za upotrebu pod međunarodnom licencom Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. from 1741, and taking into account the mention of his name in one other written record from 1711, cf. Štefanić 1969: 171). The book has also been described by Milčetić (1911), while Strohal (1910) published it in its entirety within a non-critique publication.
Štefanić notes the use of a single-hand writing style, utilising the newer form of cursive Glagolitic script and likewise the scribe's habitual use of for /j/, and ê before a; he also uses ê for the /ja/ set of sounds (Štefanić 1969: 170). Štefanić, moreover, observes the scribe's tendency to write the set of sounds /je/ according to the traditional norm, thus ee, as well as that he uses the simplified miniscule u (Štefanić 1969: 170). The observable differences are thought to be due to the diversity of sources that served as templates, which is also evident in the language of the book itself. Vis-à-vis the language of the book, Štefanić underscores the fact it is "predominantly of Chakavian dialect with Ikavian-Ekavian reflexives" and that the presence of Church Slavonic forms is more frequent in psalmrelated paragraphs (Štefanić 1969: 170).
Among the paratexts 1 , titles, signatures and "an afterword in poetic form" can be found (Štefanić 1969: 171). Along with the Glagolitic notations, there are also two in Latin and one in Croatian language, both of which are in Latin script (the latter of which was possibly added subsequently, as noted by Štefanić, most likely in the 19 th century). The distinctiveness of what Štefanić calls "an afterword in poetic form" is in that it transforms Glagolitic marginalia (which are often of instructive character, but it is not unusual for them to also be jocular in nature) into a type of a ceremonial colophon, creating thereby a form abounding with parody 2 . In this kind of form, the functional role of the author/scribe is examined, whilst such a thematic discussion is contrasted with frequent labels containing the scribe's name. The attempted establishment of an author where in fact there is none (compare Foucault's distinction between the functional role of an author and an anonymous text lacking one, Foucault 2015: 47) is, among other things, demonstrated in the example under discussion using an element of writer/scribe's own conception, but concurrently also by a component dealing with a critical consideration of authorship status regression. 3 The ritual-derived Invocation texts are rendered by transcription or unrestricted compilation, supplemented with various paragraphs that deal with folk magic and formulae (recipes) as well as other types of prayer and narrative sections such that the form in question is of folk character, frequently of oral form and carried over from the Middle Ages not only without declared authorship, but also without the possibility of establishing an interpretation of it as a coherent, meaningful whole (cf. Čupković 2010). The attempted laying of claim of authorship over the text, dealing with material appropriation as a parodied and fictional process of transfer of the book's ownership between the scripter as a manual labourer and the reader as a consumer (and user), is a concomitant attempt at terminating the literary discourse within the book as a whole. Shown hereafter, the discourse analysis thereby makes a contribution to the general (re)construction of the Glagolitic author per se. [The price for these booklets is listed here, let those who wish to read them do so and leave in return the amount indicated.

Paratexts
Look at these booklets written by hand and the price indicated for them. Do look, my brother monk and post here the amount indicated. My quill pen should earn 4 libras 4 and while we can squarely bargain to a slightly lesser price, it cannot be much less, so make it 3.5 libras in the least. Because you know, my beloved brother, every effort deserves a just compensation and every labourer merits remuneration for their manual work. For seven days I have been using my hands without rest, at your volition, so do accept this work neatly drawn up for you, may it prove pleasant and useful to you until death. Do not begrudge me any potential errors that could be encountered in the book. I salute you and bid to you to avoid any affairs with bad people. With these books, you will always have the comfort of divine protection. Do not forget me and you will attain glory in the eyes of God. The end.] 12 Pop anton to pisa od omišla grada | 13 na volu kogagod redovnika mlada | 14 od franki kol[e]na imenom se piše | 15 stari ih pridivka neĉe da presiže 16 Idem qui supra manu propria [Priest Anton of Omišalj wrote this at the request of any young monk. From the Franki family tree, the name is undersigned, adopting no older attributes.]

Notes accompanying the transliteration
Cursive script marks parts of the text that are written in Latin script in the source text. Given the booklet's front and back cover pages are extremely damaged, it was impossible to reconstruct the text in particular places (marked with dots in editing brackets). Inconsistency concerning orthographic arrangements, typical for the latter centuries of Glagolitic literacy, is particularly manifest in the notation for the phoneme /j/; progressively, it is noted with the Glagolitic letter erv (osta , zač e moe), traditionally it is omitted from notation altogether (moe, vazmi e) or it is noted as part of the digraph /ja/, using the grapheme jat (priêtelu). A particular breach to the norms of tradition is evident in the notation of /j/ using graphemes jat and jus without denoting the sound combinations /ja/ and /ju/ (êa, ûur). There is no specific notation for the palatal character of the phoneme /ļ/ and /ń/: priêtelu, s ludi, polubleni, knižice. Another orthographic feature is the twofold notation for the syllabic r (uderži, smerti, obterženi -svarha) whereby the change in notation in the lexeme svarha could also be interpreted as an additional metatextual label. The language is Croatian Chakavian (features of the Chakavian dialect being : ča, zač, ki, zaklinal, vse, va, vazmi, prošti). The reflex of jat is Ikavian-Ekavian, with somewhat larger number of instances of Ikavian word roots (lipe, riči, vridnoga, sriĉu, ovdi, tribi, vidit, zamiri, pridivka -verno, cena, prediče, pred, presiže). The older non-palatal suffix of the a-declension for Genitive case, such as in: od ruki, is preserved, which is a spoken feature of northwestern Chakavian. There is no use of forms of the verbal stem imêti, not even where they would be expected due to rhyming rules (pozabiti -imati).

How many (of the) authors?
The book's purpose is declared in the incipit: many splendid words 'against the clouds' to be used by any diligent and pious monk for the purposes of Invocation. 5 Concurrently, three descriptive designations of book's scribe are introduced: on first page (the cover) -from myself, the undersigned, in 'Slovinic' language 6 ; on second page -myself, priest Anton Franki, the son of late Ivan Franki; on third page in Latin script -priest Antun Franki son of Ivan wrote this in Omišalj. The cited descriptors more closely define the author (writer) who, at the same time, is not an auctor (in the sense of the author's invention of the content concerning Invocations) so it is a case of sequential historicistic annotations: the scribe's language, his patronymic and the location where the scribing took place. The identical references are encountered at the very end of the book in combined form: the scribe's name (priest Anton), location (from the town of Omišalj), and the specified patronymic (of the Franki family tree, without adoption of older attributes). The expected user of the book, who is also the reader of the paratext, is likewise specified: at the volition of any young monk. The text concludes with the administrative Latin phrase denoting a signature: "same as is above by own hand" (idem qui supra manu propria). The same phrase, denoting signature, is also present inside the booklet following the text of the first Invocation, on the tenth blank page (ie. the fifth counter/verso page).
The writing out of the author/scribe's name, other than a referential, also plays a declaratory role, while its frequent repetition emphasises appropriation as a basis upon which authorship is built up; these phrases take on a further guise as expressions of individuality, this reaching its distinctive manifestation in the versed colophon. Extracted in tabulated form below are the nominal and pronominal terms and phrases used to present and describe the author/scribe:  Beyond the cited references to the scribe, the very process of scribing is a theme brought forward within the versed colophon, which is titled as the material value of the book and in which the faculty of reader and user of the book is stressed (the price for these booklets is listed here, let those who wish to read them do so and leave in return the amount indicated).
The versed colophon is made up of 28 dodecasyllables 7 while in terms of its composition, it is structured partly according to the conventions of formal document writing, which can be traced back to the medieval craft of ars dictandi (cf. Stamać 1987). Absent from the colophon is the signature formula introduced at the beginning of the book ("I, priest Anton Franki... wrote this"), which is otherwise common in various inscriptions (e.g. "I, abbot Držiha wrote this" from Baška tablet, text in: Damjanović 2004: 214; "I priest Martinac of the Lapac tribe completed these books" from the colophon (account) of priest Martinac, text in : Damjanović 2004: 265), as well as the convention of author's modesty ("do not begrudge me any mistakes you may encounter"; similar in the colophon of priest Martinac: "Curse me not for the errors") and the invitation to pray for the donor ("Pray to God for them", Baška tablet), who is the very author in the case of bestowment of spiritual goods ("you shall always have God above you"; analogous to that: "In reading, blessed be the Lord", from the colophon of priest Martinac). Along with the aforementioned, in this written account, the central theme presented is the price of the book instead of a local account of some relevant historical events. In so doing, the sale price of the book is not dealt with as a theme (in the sense of regulating the affairs between the book's institutional owner and the book's end users) 8 but instead, the theme set forth is the value of scribe's work and the resulting scribal fee. 9 It is apparent from the content and intention of the record that it is not solely the question of real remuneration that is due to the Glagolitic scribe for their work (cf. on this matter, Runje 7 The dodecasyllable draws its origins from medieval versification and is equally characteristic of the folk and literary poetic traditions (cf. Slamnig 1981: 22-23). 8 From such testaments, it is evident that a significant proportion of books belonged to the priests that were using them (but were not themselves the books'scribes) and they then most commonly left such books by bequest to other priests, especially younger colleagues, or to churches, confraternities or family (Runje 1998: 36), while a portion of the books belonged to churches-parishes. There exist archival records dealing with disputes filed by parishes against individuals who had stolen a book (court proceedings from 1492 on the litigation matter concerning a Slavonic (old-Slavic) Breviary; cf. Runje 1998: 41). Books were, moreover, owned by confraternities, local dignitaries and noblemen (cf. Runje 1998). From the records dealing with trading of books we can see that a Breviary could be purchased for the price of 80 to 200 libras in the 14 th and 15 th century, or for 20 to 80 golden ducats in the 15 th century (cf. Runje 1998). 9 The theme of scribal work is also present in the colophon of priest Martinac, but in it we find no critical digression in the sense of an expressed stance regarding either the scribal work or the brethren monks as the users of the book. 1998), but rather amatter of a symbolic fee. The discourse concerning monetary value of scribe/copyist's work transcends the legal framework of regulation, not only by means of versification, but also by virtue of ironic digression. Such a process of paratextual defamiliarisation is not unusual in Glagolitic literacy and occurs in instances ranging from written account embellishment (as is the case with the sacral style seen in the colophon of priest Martinac, emerging at the time of the flourishing of Glagolitic literacy) to various profane excesses encountered in the readers' marginalia of sacred books. The paratexts of liturgy books that include scores of jocular remarks made by deacons and priests, limited for the most part to discourse concerning everyday life, also often include written contributions made by broader readership as general participants in Glagolitic literacy (such as the parody rich combination of highbrow/historical events-related and low brow/wine-fuelled mundane day-to-day in the famous writings by the readership within the Second Breviary of Ljubljana/Beram 10 ). Writings concerning pecuniary donations also mark various Glagolitic graffiti (e.g. in the graffiti from Hum dealing with paid Mass of "Martin the blacksmith" or the paintbrush inscription on master Blaž Jurjev's polyptych in St. Lawrence Church in Trogir, concerning livestock trade ("80 libras and 6 soldins to the butchers", Fučić 1982: 349).
Aside from the typical introductory definition of the booklet's purpose with emphasis on who the implied or default reader is (such a person being both the user and the performer in the case of reference sacred texts), the referring to the young monk also assumes the character of in-group solidarity, which is particularly expressed in the poetic colophon that is the subject of the current study. Repetitive emphasis on who the reader is (mister brother monk, beloved brother, my dear precious brother, my dear 10 Second Breviary of Ljubljana/Beram cf. Drugi beramski 2018 and Drugi beramski 2019. The mentioned 15 th century Breviary contains a range of annotations made by readers, priests from Beram and priests-in-training (transitional deacons) from the 16 th and 17 th centuries; among them are two sets of notes in cursive script at the bottom of pages 228v and 229r: a note from the year 1600 about the unrest involving the commoners and the Venetian gentry, written by priest Martin Milohanić "while drinking good wine"; along with the latter note, a second note was subsequently added containing names of priests "who drank that same wine while under a great deal of concern". Text transliteration: The Readers of the Second Breviary of Ljubljana/Beram, https://sites.google.com/site/knjizevnijeziku16stoljecu/ hrvatska-protestantica-u-nuk/citatelji-drugoga-beramskoga-ljubljanskoga-brevijara (Accessed on December 29, 2019). friend) introduces an additional element of deformalised style of expression (cf. Čupković 2013, with respect to jocular expressions of solidarity among Glagolitic disciples).
The table below details the nominal phrases used in addressing the reader and, to the same effect, the emphatic references by use of pronoun you/thou (sing.): Stylistic deformalisation, which also represents a parodic distortion of the colophon, is likewise evident from the comparison of writing to the physical work of a labourer: has been using hands for seven days without rest. A special element of attempting to solidarise in a humorous way is evident in the theme dealing with bargaining with the reader in the present tense, by means of which the lines between conserved writing, ad hoc communication with a specific reader and ongoing communication with readership in any tense are effectively blurred: the scribe seeks to have the fee of four libras paid to him, it can be three and a half, but no less than that. The indefinite addressing of a young monk is not aimed at reaching a particular agreement with a specific, immediate user of the book, but instead, any reader, future user of the book is targeted therewith, becoming in such a way a participant as well as a patron/sponsor of the literary activity. It meanwhile remains unclear how the actual payment would be carried out, nor how could it ever be secured that such a payment be made, especially in the amount specified. Therefore, we can say that it is a case of a fictional payment and a symbolic amount. When speaking to a brother using words "do not forget me", conventionally, such a reference entails the seeking of certain material goods in return (typically food and drink) or words of acknowledgement and prayer directed at his contemporaries, but also the demand that the author's name be remembered, as much among his contemporaries as among the future indirect successors. Consequent to the failure to precisely define the imagined user and/or sponsor of the book, the multiple, recurrent evidence of communication with the reader, as well as the signs of authorial "I", Anton Franki effectively cancels out as an actual person performing a distinct physical task on an indeterminate anonymous text, thereby enlisting within the body of the text as a function and an element of literary cohesion: the repetitive "I" ceases to be a component of referencing and becomes instead a label of the discourse. Such an establishment of the function of an author, one that imposes through critical discourse concerning devalued physical task of scribing, is also an expression not only of the inability to claim ownership of the book as a material object, but also of the text as a product of the intellect. By requesting fictional monetary payment in the 18 th century, the period of general decline in Glagolitic literacy (in the absence of "our Prince" Frankopan, Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić, King Zvonimir or Emperor Maximilian) 11 and a time when, in the context of publishing, authorship status was beginning to be legally regulated in Europe, Anton Franki is in fact explicitly seeking sponsorship and implicitly also offering his own functional role to the patron reader.

Conclusion
Utilising a particular example, the status of the Glagolitic scribe at the time of material and aesthetic demise of Glagolitic literacy was examined by virtue of analysis of scribal paratextual notes within an 18 th century Glagolitic booklet of Invocations. The scribe attempts to overcome orthographic, linguistic and content-related inconsistencies as well as incoherence among the primary, transcribed and translated texts by establishing overall integrity via his claim to ownership of the book itself and the text within it. He thereby introduces himself in a traditional sense, all the while also registering himself as the author by means of idiosyncratic attitude and paratext defamiliarisation. The traditional institution of patronage by a ruler, aristocrat or the church is substituted with the frivolous and parodic act of seeking sponsorship from the poor user of the book (one from the ranks of brethren monks) and ultimately also from an even poorer unknown reader. All this provides evidence that Glagolitic paratexts often served as avenues for expression of critical thought, and even to an extent, for manifesting subversion, but also as places for establishing authorship function. It would be of value for future investigations to reassess traditional structuralist hypotheses regarding the plausibility of claims to authorship status by Glagolitic scribes and translators. This could be accomplished by analysing in isolation the linguistic style variants present in intertextual relations of a translation and its template (source text), or same language transcription and its template, and then shifting the paradigm toward a historicistic approach to examining the theme of material rights with the due considerations paid also to the discourse analysis.

Source
Archives of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Manuscript III a 5.