APA 6th Edition Jozić, B. (2011). Marulićeva demonologija. Colloquia Maruliana ..., 20 (20), 227-236. Preuzeto s https://hrcak.srce.hr/67374
MLA 8th Edition Jozić, Branko. "Marulićeva demonologija." Colloquia Maruliana ..., vol. 20, br. 20, 2011, str. 227-236. https://hrcak.srce.hr/67374. Citirano 24.10.2020.
Chicago 17th Edition Jozić, Branko. "Marulićeva demonologija." Colloquia Maruliana ... 20, br. 20 (2011): 227-236. https://hrcak.srce.hr/67374
Harvard Jozić, B. (2011). 'Marulićeva demonologija', Colloquia Maruliana ..., 20(20), str. 227-236. Preuzeto s: https://hrcak.srce.hr/67374 (Datum pristupa: 24.10.2020.)
Vancouver Jozić B. Marulićeva demonologija. Colloquia Maruliana ... [Internet]. 2011 [pristupljeno 24.10.2020.];20(20):227-236. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/67374
IEEE B. Jozić, "Marulićeva demonologija", Colloquia Maruliana ..., vol.20, br. 20, str. 227-236, 2011. [Online]. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/67374. [Citirano: 24.10.2020.]
Sažetak While naturally he aspires at happiness, the experience of evil, which has become associated with an evil being (demon, Satan, the devil) drives man to find an answer to this problem. In ancient times, and then in the Middle Ages, and later, the devil, his works and snares were seen everywhere. As moral and didactic writer, Marulić could not possibly have avoided the issue of evil and of Satan.
That he considered the topic important is confirmed among other things by a fairly long disquisition on the devil in the Evangelistarium (as many as eleven chapters of Book Three), in which, of course, the Christian worldview is mirrored. Here he replies to the main questions about the nature of the devil, his origin, power and action, and his final fate. In the development of his thinking, Marulić’s point of departure and resource are the Scriptures, but understandably he also makes use of works of later writers, following them with respect to content, and sometimes with respect to the structure of the exposition. He first of all says that demons are »spirits that wish to do harm, in which there is no righteousness, that are moved by arrogance, shrouded in cunning, that dwell between heaven and earth until at the end they shall be cast down into hell...«. Then he organises a more detailed analysis around the various names of the devil that are met with in the Scriptures, and via an allegorical treatment refers to their properties, vices, action and effects. Although his formulations are similar to the traditional expressions, in both the structure of the exposition and in the allegorical application of the etymological meanings of individual names, an original Marulić contribution can be discerned (amplifications and reductions) and it cannot be said that he followed one single model.
Particular attention is attracted by Marulić’s answer to the question why the devil was created. Marulić locates his existence in the economy of salvation: »for the righteous it is useful to have an adversary whose vexation will exercise them for the struggle«, so that in victory they shall be worthy to be crowned in eternal glory. However, it would seem that he over-emphasised the need for such oppositions, and crossed the line into heresy, for he writes that the »providence of the divine creator of the world, having created many good things, commanded that some evils opposing them come into being so that the good things should seem more desirable when compared with the evil«. In spite of this functional explanation of the existence of evil and of the devil, the claim that evil is the work of god is surprising, and the question must arise as to how this escaped censorship. A possible explanation is the general acceptance of Origen’s answer to the criticism of Celsus according to which god did not create evil in the true sense, evil being merely the consequence of his main works, just as a carpenter, in making some objects, cannot avoid producing shavings and sawdust. If it is physical and external evils that are considered, then god might have created some of them so as to convert some people and heal those who need such suffering, who would not be trained by sound tenets and lessons. Origen’s thinking is met with in other patristic writers, and the possible influence on Marulić is shown not only by the fact that the Split Humanist possessed the work of Origen’s stated, but by the similar way he laid stress on the educational function of evil and the devil.
Marulić, then, transmits traditional Christian learning, making use of the formulations of previous church writers; however, in his choice of material and the way in which he organised his complex argument, he placed his own original stamp upon them.