From Croatian renaissance to Yugoslav socialism: Essays 9783111393964, 9783111031446

Citation preview

F R O M C R O A T I A N RENAISSANCE TO YUGOSLAV SOCIALISM

SL AVI STIC PRINTINGS AND REPRINTINGS

edited by

C. H. VAN SCHOONEVELD Indiana University

90

1969

MOUTON THE H A G U E • PARIS

FROM CROATIAN RENAISSANCE TO YUGOSLAV SOCIALISM Essays by

ANTE KADIC Indiana

University

1969

MOUTON THE H A G U E • PARIS

© Copyright 1969 in The Netherlands. Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 69-17825

Printed in The Netherlands by Mouton & Co., Printers, The Hague.

NOTICE

With the exception of Literary Currents in Socialist Yugoslavia, a part of a symposium on Yugoslavia held at Stanford University, all other studies were previously published in various scholarly periodicals and miscellanies. Thus "The Croatian Renaissance" and "Vladimir Solov'ev and Bishop Strossmayer" appeared in Slavic Review, "St. Francis Xavier and Marko Marulic" and "The Importance of Kacic-Miosic" in Slavic and East European Journal, "Slavko Kolar" and "Krleza's Tormented Visionaries" in The Slavonic and East European Review. "Krizanic's Formative Years" was included in the miscellany American Contributions to the Fifth International Congress of Slavists, Sofia 1963 (published by Mouton) and "Krizanic's Memorandum" in Jahrbiicher fur Geschichte Osteuropas. "Surrealists versus Modernists in Serbian literature" is included in the miscellany American Contributions to the Sixth International Congress of Slavists, Prague 1968, volume II, published by Mouton. My article on Andric's "The Chronicle of Travnik" appeared in the first volume of California Slavic Studies. I have asked the publishers for permission to include the above-mentioned studies in this book and they kindly granted my request.

CONTENTS

Notice

5

I. The Croatian Renaissance

9

II. St. Francis Xavier and Marko Marulic

37

III. Krizanic's Formative Years

41

IV. Krizanic's Memorandum (1641)

74

V. The Importance of Kacic-Miosic

93

VI. Vladimir Solov'ev and Bishop Strossmayer .

.

.

.

98

VII. SlavkoKolar (1891-1963)

126

VIII. Krleza's Tormented Visionaries IX. The French in The Chronicle of Travnik

133 .

X. Surrealists versus Modernists in Serbian Literature XI. Literary Currents in Socialist Yugoslavia Index of Names

.

.

.

.

.

154

.

.

192

.

228 298

I T H E CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

It was along the eastern shore of the Adriatic, in Dalmatian coastal towns and on neighboring islands, in the narrow belt of territory that had escaped Turkish conquest, that the Croatian Renaissance developed. The literature of this period is considered the beginning of Croatian creative writing and the foundation of the Croatian revival, known also as the Illyrian movement, that occurred three centuries later. Why did this Slavic literature develop in this small territory, which had been taken away from the Hungaro-Croatian kingdom and annexed to the Venetian Republic (1409-20) and whose high administrative, military, and often ecclesiastical officials were imported from Venice? A brief survey of what took place during several centuries on this Dalmatian coastland - rocky and barren, but surprisingly rich in events of political and cultural importance - may provide some explanation. When the Croats reached the Adriatic shores during the seventh century, they found old or newly fortified Latin towns. The inhabitants of Salona, for example, which was destroyed by Avars and Slavs in 614, had taken refuge inside the magnificent palace of Diocletian, which later became Split; the citizens of the Greek, later Romanized, colony of Epidaurus (Cavtat) had rapidly built a new city called Ragusium, which they protected with high walls. Inside these strongholds lived civilized but trembling Latins, while outside on the meadows (dubrava, hence Dubrovnik) camped numerous militant newcomers, eager for a more decent and sheltered existence. It is obvious that at least for economic and social reasons these two opposing groups could not live permanently as foes. When the Croatian people, following their princes, accepted the Catholic faith, the religious differences were removed. Latins and Slavs believed in the same God of love and brotherhood; they worshiped him in the same temples, often constructed with the common efforts

10

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

and funds of the two peoples. They accepted the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, who tried his best to bring them closer together. Even in this religious domain, however, not everything proceeded smoothly. The Latin settlements continued to use Latin in their liturgy, but the Croatian clergy, like the disciples of Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius, fought for their right to pray to God in their own tongue. Reluctantly the Roman pontiffs acceded (1248) and gave the Croats the privilege of celebrating Mass (of the Roman rite) in Church Slavonic, written in Glagolitic characters. The Slavic liturgy became, in the course of time, the strongest defense of the Croats against the Latins and the basis on which medieval Croatian literature developed.1 The Croats enjoyed political independence for more than two centuries (ninth-eleventh) and enlarged the national territory to the borders that they claim even today. Then as a result of a dispute between two factions, each trying to impose its candidate as king,2 the Croats became an easy prey for strong neighbors, and were forced to join with the Hungarians in 1102. The Dalmatian towns fought for old privileges and obtained many new ones from the Hungarian kings, thus becoming more or less autonomous communities.3 They entered upon an era of commercial activity and economic prosperity, which gave impetus to the extraordinary vitality shown in their architecture, sculpture, and painting.4 Croats were active in the cultural and artistic life of medieval Dalmatia. At the beginning of the thirteenth century the Croatian sculptors Buvina and Radovan created two masterpieces: the carved wooden door of Split cathedral (1214) and the portal of the Trogir cathedral (1240).5 1

V. Jagic, "Hrvatska glagolska knjizevnost", in Vodnik's Povijest hrvatske knjizevnosti (Zagreb, 1913), 9-60. F. SiSic, Povijest Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara (Zagreb, 1925). About King Zvonimir (1076-89) and his violent death, see the recent study by Stipe Gunjaca, "Kako i gdje je svrsio hrvatski kralj Dimitrije Zvonimir", Rad, 288 (1952), 205-324. 3 G. Novak, Proslost Dalmacije, I (Zagreb, 1944), 115-16; M. Kostrencic, "Postanak dalmatinskih sredovjeSnih gradova", in Sisicev Zbornik (Zagreb, 1929), 113-19; id., "Slobode dalmatinskih gradova po tipu trogirskom", Rad, 239 (1930), 56-150. 4 Lj. Karaman, Eseji i clanci (Zagreb, 1939), 40-49. Cvito Fiskovic, "Nasi primorski umjetnici od 9 do 19 stoljeca", Hrvatsko Kolo, No. 2, 1948, 241-65. 5 The well-known architect T. G. Jackson writes that this portal is "a work which in simplicity of conception, combined with richness of detail, and marvelous finish of execution, has never been surpassed in romanesque or Gothic art", in his book Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria, II (Oxford, 1887), 111. Radovan's carvings reflect the abundant joy of life; cf. Fiskovic, "Nasi primorski umjetnici . . . " , 248. 2

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

11

In France and Spain the invaders were assimilated by the indigenous element, but here the opposite occurred. The Latin urban element, already quite small and now cut off from the Italian peninsula and surrounded by the Slavic hinterland, was decreasing. Realizing that they could no longer ignore or keep apart from the Slavs, the Latin men began to marry Croatian girls. Intermarriage was the first peaceful Slavic victory. Mothers, speaking only Croatian, taught their children the language they knew. The Dalmatian cities gradually became bilingual: although Latin (and later the Venetian dialect) remained the official medium of communication, Croatian became more and more common in private life.6 There are clear indications that Zadar had already become Slavicized in the twelfth century. Pope Alexander III, when traveling to Venice via Zadar to meet Frederick Barbarossa (1177), was greeted by citizens in the cathedral of Saint Stosija (Anastasia) "immensis laudibus et canticis altissime resonantibus in eorum Sclavica lingua". 7 When the Crusaders, serving as mercenaries of the Venetian doge Enrico Dandolo, attacked this flourishing city in 1202, Zadar was considered a Slavic settlement. 8 Some of these autonomous Dalmatian communities were Slavicized earlier than others; all of them acquired the Slavic imprint no later than the fourteenth century. 9 Venetian sources reveal that during the Renaissance it was chiefly merchants and noblemen, those who traveled and studied abroad, who knew Italian; at home even these bilingual persons spoke their native tongue. 10 The Pope was urged to appoint in Dalmatia only bishops who 6

Cf. Petar Skok's numerous studies, especially his article "O simbiozi i nestanku starih Romana u Dalmaciji i na Primorju u svijetlu onomastike", Razprave, IV (Ljubljana, 1928), 1-42, and his book, Slavenstvo i romanstvo na Jadranskim otocima: T oponomasticka ispitivanja (Zagreb, 1950), Vol. I-II. 7 Cf. Viktor Novak, "The Slavonic-Latin Symbiosis in Dalmatia During the Middle Ages", Slavonic and East European Review, XXXII, No. 78 (December, 1953), 17. 8 According to the chronicle of one of the participants in this crusade, Geoffrey de Villehardouin, the Doge himself called Zadar "ladres en Esclavonie"; cf. P. Skok, Tri starofrancuske hronike o Zad.ru u godini 1202 (Zagreb, 1951), 84. • For almost every Dalmatian town, simply from evidence based on personal and family names, it is possible to reconstruct a picture of Croatian penetration. Cf. Grga Novak, Proslost Dalmacije, I (Zagreb, 1944), 175-80 (chap, viii: "Pohrvacivanje dalmatinskih romanskih gradova"). 111 Benedetto Ramberti, secretary to the Venetian Senate, passing through Dubrovnik on his way to Turkey in 1534, noticed that all the women in Dubrovnik spoke Croatian and their husbands Croatian and Italian; cf. V. Novak, "The Slavonic-Latin Symbiosis in Dalmatia . . .", 19; about Ramberti see lorjo Tadic, Promet putnika u starom Dubrovniku (Dubrovnik, 1939), 212-13, and P. Matkovic in Rad, 56 (1881), 203-32. The Venetian Giovanni B. Giustiniano

12

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

spoke Croatian, since otherwise there could be no fruitful contact between the hierarchy and its flock.11 The Neapolitan King Ladislas, a pretender to the Hungaro-Croatian crown against King Sigismund, sold his claim to some Dalmatian cities to Venice in 1409. Thereafter, Venice, in a decade of successful maneuvering, conquered the whole of Dalmatia (with the exception of the Dubrovnik Republic and the peasant republic of Poljica) in 1420 and exploited this Slavic avant-poste until her fall in 1797. Almost a century after the defeat of Serbia (1389), and a decade after Byzantium was subdued (1453), Bosnia surrendered to the Turkish conqueror (1463), followed in 1482 by Herzegovina. The Croatian lands were soon reduced to the "reliquiae reliquiarum olim inclyti regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae". Zagreb and its immediate surroundings courageously resisted the Turkish attacks, but with heavy sacrifices in lives and property. When the Hungarians were defeated by the Turks at Mohacs (1526), the Croats and the Hungarians elected Ferdinand of Austria as their common ruler (1527). Dalmatia was reduced to a few coastal cities and islands. The famous fortress of Klis, only a few miles from Split, was finally taken by the Turks in 1537.12 From their city walls the inhabitants of the fortified coastal towns could see the Turkish hordes devastating their property. The peasants often worked their fields with their guns beside them. Economic development was greatly hampered in Venetian Dalmatia; commodities were scarce because Venice was mostly interested in destroying the commerce of these cities which had formerly competed with her. Various epidemics occurred, and existence became precarious. Split, renowned at the beginning of the sixteenth century as a cultural center, was followed or emulated by Dubrovnik, Hvar, Sibenik, informed his government in 1553 that in Split, Trogir, Sibenik, Zadar, and Dubrovnik all the common people spoke Croatian; see Commissiones et relationes Venetae, II, ed. §. Ljubic (Zagreb, 1877), 190-271. About Split he said that all its customs are Slavic and that the language of the people "is so sweet and gentle that it is the first among all the Dalmatian dialects, as the language of Tuscany is the fine flower of Italian speech" (215). 11 In an appeal, sent to the Pope from Dalmatia in 1604, probably by P. Katie, it is stated that only a small number of Croats know Italian, and they are mostly merchants and noblemen, "but the common people, the young people, nuns, noble women, and monks cannot utter one word in Italian", in Lj. Karaman's Dalmacija kroz vjekove u historiji umjetnosti (Split, 1934), 132, n. 2; M. Vanino, "Dalmacija zahtijeva biskupe vjeSte hrv. jeziku", Croatia sacra, III (Zagreb, 1933), 94. 12 M. Perojevic, Petar Kruzic, kapetan i knez grada Klisa (Zagreb, 1931), 180209.

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

13

and Zadar. Though cultural life did not stop entirely, it was steadily diminishing. By the middle of that century all these Dalmatian cities (with the exception of Dubrovnik) were devoting most of their energies to military purposes. Venice needed only soldiers and galley slaves.13 As for writers and artists, merchants and agents, she had enough of her own. What is more, to assure a ready supply of Dalmatian fighting men, the spread of education among the people was discouraged. Dubrovnik, which gradually gained its political independence and preserved it until Napoleonic times (1808), was the only bright spot in this Slavic slaughterhouse. Thanks to its enviable location and its territories outside the city, and thanks to the ability of its patrician ruling class, which knew how to "navigate" among the opposing powers - bribing 14 and bowing in all four directions when necessary - the Republic of Dubrovnik grew more and more prosperous. It became the South Slavic cultural center, the only spiritual oasis, the city rightly called the Croatian Athens or the crown of all Croatian cities.15 The Adriatic Sea was not a barrier between the Slavic people and the Italians but a connecting bridge between them. Whatever took place on the Apennine peninsula, in this highly civilized world which could be compared favorably with ancient Greece,16 was sooner or later echoed on the opposite Slavic shores.17 Many Italians came to Dalmatia 13

A national poet commented on the daily reality: S krvi ruiak, a s krvi vecera svak krvave zvaie zalogaje, krvavim se rukama umivamo ("Blood with our dinner, blood with our supper; all the food we eat is soaked in blood. When we wash our faces, our hands are covered with blood"), Fiskovic, "NaSi primorski umjetnici . . . " , 259. 14 Dubrovnik paid the tribute first to the Venetians (1205-1358), then to the Hungaro-Croatian kings (until 1526), and finally to the Turkish sultans. 15 "Hrvatskih ter kruna gradov se svih zove", wrote Ivan Vidali from Korcula, in 1564; Stari pisci hrvatski, V, 352. Lodovico Beccadelli (1501-72), leaving Dubrovnik where he functioned as the archbishop for a decade, calls Dubrovnik "specchio d'llliria e suo pregio maggiore"; see Josip Torbarina, Italian Influence on the Poets of the Ragusan Republic (London, 1931), 51. 16 I do not intend to enter here into a discussion of the significance of the Italian Renaissance in the history of Western Europe; I prefer to refer to the two last chapters in W. K. Ferguson's The Renaissance in Historical Thought (Boston, 1948), 290-385. The Dalmatian Latin poets, at least from the religious point of view, should be considered as the continuators of the Middle Ages. 17 Cf. an exhaustive, interesting but very controversial article by Giovanni Maver, "La letteratura croata in rapporto alia letteratura italiana", Italia e Croazia (Rome, 1942-XX), 455-522. Also M. Deanovic, "Les influences italiennes sur l'ancienne littérature Yougoslave du littoral adriatique", Revue de littérature comparée, XIV (1934), 30-52.

14

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

to function as clergymen, teachers, doctors, notaries, or chancellors.18 Some of the most gifted Croats studied in Italy at theological seminaries or universities, mostly in Padua 19 and Bologna. When not writing in Latin, which was a common means of communication among the European intelligentsia,20 Dalmatians usually wrote in Croatian. Nor did they consider themselves part of the Latin world; 21 on the contrary, the Italians themselves spoke about them, greeted them, and praised them as a prominent branch of the Slavic world.22 Among the most representative Croatian writers the Latinists are first to be mentioned.23 In addition to the great Marulic, they included such noteworthy persons as the Dominican friar Vinko Pribojevic (early sixteenth century, from Hvar) whose De origine successibusque Slavorum was first printed at Venice in 1532.24 This small book, originally a lecture delivered by Pribojevic in his native town in 1525, gave impetus to the Pan-Slavic movement and influenced such later PanSlavists as Mavro Orbini ill regno degli Slavi, Pesaro, 1601) and Juraj Krizanic. Pribojevic's main concern was to demonstrate the unity and greatness of Slavdom: "Verum quia Dalmata et proinde Illyrius ac demum Slavus coram Slavis de Slavorum fortunis sermonem habere statui." 23 Jakov Bunic (Jacobus de Bona, 1469-1534), one of the great18

losip Torbarina, Italian Influence on the Poets of the Ragusan Republic, Part I: "Relations between Dubrovnik and Italy", 19-87; Jorjo Tadic, Promet putnika u starom Dubrovniku, 207. 19 A. Cronia, Storia della letteratura serbo-croata (Milan, 1956), rightly says: "Sopra tutto a Padova, dove intere generazioni di Dalmati si temprarono e si immortalarono passando dal banco dello scolaro alla cattedra del maestro" (34). 20 B. Croce, Poesia popolare e poesia d'arte, in the chapter "La poesia Latina", states: "La lingua latina fu, tra l'altro, per secoli, un modo di scambio nella repubblica letterario-scientifica, e anche nel mondo della politica" (3rd ed., Bari, 1952), 439. 21 "Nessuno infatti di questi autori negò la propria nazionalità croata . . . " , Franjo Trograniic, Storia della letteratura croata (Rome, 1953), 119-20. 22 Cf. J. Torbarina, Italian Influence . .., passim, especially p. 50, where the archbishop Beccadelli is quoted: "Questo è un paese da Schiavoni cioè da robusti, e non da par nostri deboli." 23 Cf. M. Kombol, Poviest hrv. knjizevnosti (Zagreb, 1945), 58-74 ("Humanizam i njegovi odjeci"); Ante Kadié, "Croatian Renaissance", Studies in the Renaissance, VI (1959), 29-33. 24 Grga Novak, its modem editor (Zagreb, 1951), gives a first-class account of Dalmatia and Hvar during the first half of the sixteenth century. Novak's study is followed by Pribojevic's Latin text and a translation into Croatian by Veljko Gortan. 25 De origine successibusque Slavorum (Zagreb, 1951), 58.

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

15

est but least known Christian poets of the Renaissance, 26 anticipated Girolamo Vida in writing, on the basis of the four Gospels mixed with mythological elements, a "Christias" (De vita et gestis Christi, Rome, 1526). In another poem, De raptu Cerberi (Rome, ca. 1500), Bunic's style and language are completely those of Vergil, but his main character, Hercules, by descending to the underworld, is a préfiguration of Christ (in the preface to the second edition, 1526, Bunic asserts that his verses "Christum Herculea canunt figura")- 27 Ilija Crijevic (Aelius Lampridius Cerva, 1463-1520), the outstanding Latin poet from Dubrovnik, a member of the Academy of Pomponius Laetus (in Rome) and a poet laureate, wrote in his youth verses in which the beauties of the feminine body are suggestively presented, but he later turned to religious meditations. 28 Crijevic stands out as a representative of an extreme humanist position: scorning the vernacular, he contended that Latin was the only language befitting a man of letters. 29 Juraj Sisgoric (Georgius Sisgoreus, fifteenth century, from Sibenik) wrote some very touching elegies in his book of poems (Elegiarum et carminum libri très, Venice, 1477), especially those about the death of his own brothers and the devastation of the surroundings of Sibenik by the Turks. Though he wrote exclusively in Latin and followed classical models, Sisgoric appreciated the folk poems of his native region and extolled them for their literary merit. 30 He also considered the native proverbs so full of wisdom that he translated many of them into Latin. 31 Sisgoric 26

V. Zabughin, Storia del Rinascimento cristiano in Italia (Milan, 1924), 236-38. This poem enjoyed a third edition at Basel in 1538. Cf. Dj. Korbler, "Jakov Bunic DubrovCanin: Latinski pjesnik", Rad, 180 (1910), 58-134. 28 F. Racki, "Iz djela E. L. Crijevica dubrovianina", Starine, IV (1872), 155200; G. N. Sola, "Aelii Lampridii Cervini Operum latinorum pars prior", Archivio storico per la Dalmazia, XVI-XIX (1934). 29 Among the humanists Crijevic was not an exception. Croatian poetical language was still rudimentary ("nostra tempestate scythica lingua utimur", Crijevic) if compared with the Italian of Dante and Petrarch; nevertheless, Francesco F. Sabino, in 1536, called the Italian language "linguam non vulgarem, sed immundam, non barbaram, sed ipsam barbariem" (cf. Kombol, op. cit., p. 67). Many humanists were of the same opinion; cf. W. K. Ferguson, The Renaissance in Historical Thought, 21. 30 SiSgoric's De situ lllyriae et civitate Sibenici a. 1487 was published by M. Srepel in Gradja za povijest knjizevnosti hrv., II (1899), 1-12. In his extremely interesting last chapter, 17 ("De moribus quibusdam Sibenici"), appears this sentence concerning folk love poems: "Petulans deinde iuventus, cupidinibusque capta, voce valens amatorium carmen tale noctu décantant quale vix cultus Tibullus aut blandus Propertius aut lascivus Licoridis Gallus aut Lesbia Sappho decantaret" (in Gradja, II, 11). 31 In the same chapter about popular customs, Sisgoric declares: "Siquidem proverbiis Illyricis utuntur, quae nos dicteria diximus, et ex lingua vernacula in

27

16

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

served as an example to writers in the vernacular, mostly those from northern Dalmatia, 3 2 w h o had such an enthusiasm for folk poetry that in their own works they quoted poems that they particularly admired. In northern Croatia cultural life did not disappear completely. A t the court of the Hungarian king Matthias Corvinus ( 1 4 5 8 - 9 0 ) numerous Croats from Dalmatia were employed (intellectual "proletarians" with no homeland). A m o n g them was the renowned poet and translator, Ivan Cesmicki ( 1 4 3 4 - 7 2 , from Cesmica, Slavonia), better known to the world as Janus Pannonius, w h o had sojourned in Italy for eleven years, first at Guarino's famous school in Ferrara and then in Padua. Though his models were the classical masters, Pannonius was an original lyricist w h o often included his o w n experiences in his beautiful elegies and epigrams. 33 Yugoslav historians use his elegia VI, describing the battle of Jajce (1463), which he himself witnessed, as an authoritative account of a crucial event that might otherwise have remained unreported by any contemporary. 34

latinum vertimus." It is a pity that this unique translation is lost. 32 Branko Vodnik, Povijest hrvatske knjizevnosti (Zagreb, 1913), 77. 33 An incomplete selection of Pannonius' elegies and epigrams (Pjesme i epigrami, Zagreb, 1951) was edited by the Yugoslav Academy in a series entitled Hrvatski Latinisti (Croatian Latinists). The text of Pannonius' elegies and epigrams is printed together with facing translations of all the poems into Croatian by the poet Nikola Sop. An excellent preface by the late Mihovil Kombol describes the poet's political services to the court of King Matthias, and gives an evaluation of his place among Neo-Latin poets. Kombol considers Pannonius' highest poetic achievement his third, tenth, and fourteenth elegies (Pjesme i epigrami, xvi). Today, in Yugoslavia the verses are much quoted in which Pannonius ridiculed those who went to Rome during the jubilee year of 1450 ("Deridet euntes Romam ad Jubilaeum"): Nescio, credulitas haec si sua proderit ipsis, Hoc scio, Pontifici proderit ilia satis. Cf. Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, IV (Zagreb, 1960), 462; it is to be found translated into Croatian, Arttologija svjetske lirike (Zagreb, 1956), 136. 34 Typical of Cesmiiki are his compact and very picturesque verses about the Bosnian landscape: Pars fuit Illyrici, quam nunc vocat incola Bosnam, Dura, sed argenti munere dives humus. Non illic virides spacioso margine campi, Nec sata qui multo foenore reddat ager. Sed rigidi montes, sed saxa minantia coelo, Castella et summis imposita alta jugis . . . Cf. Pjesme i epigrami, 36 and 322. This same text was translated into English and published in the magazine Yugoslavia, in the issue devoted to Bosnia and Herzegovina (No. 7, 1953, 3).

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

17

Besides humanistic classicism and Italian literature, Croatian writers had another source of inspiration: medieval Croatian literature and the beautiful South Slavic folk poetry, which preserved better than anything else the national combative spirit and the purity of the South Slavic languages. 35 Three outstanding Dalmatian writers, Marko Marulic, Marin Drzic, and Ivan Gundulic, are generally considered the best representatives of the remarkable period of literary activity that lasted from the late fifteenth through the entire seventeenth century. Marulic and Drzic belong to the Renaissance period and will be discussed here. Gundulic, the outstanding figure of the Croatian Counter Reformation (baroque in literature), will be the subject of another study. Among the poets of this new literature, Marko Marulic-Pecenic (1450-1524), from Split, takes the first place. 36 He has been called the "founder of modern Croatian literature", not because of reasons of chronology (other vernacular poets wrote before he did), but because of the importance of his literary work. Marulic studied in his native city, in the school of the famous teacher Tideo Acciarini, and then in Padua. It is not known whether he traveled elsewhere. He was well versed in theology, philosophy, and literature, and seems to have busied himself also with painting. In his rich library one could find, besides theological books, works by many classical and some contemporary Italian humanists (Leonardo Bruni, Poggio Bracciolini, Marcantonio Sabellicus, Lorenzo Valla, etc.),37 but no volumes concerned with love or other "contemptible" pleasures. 38 Marulic was surrounded by a group of learned friends who respected him as their leader. We do not know if he, like Savonarola, had experienced in his youth some disappointment with women, but when the great reformer was burned in Florence (1498), his contemporary Marulic was leading "innocuam, 35

Ante Kadic, "Croatian Renaissance", Studies in the Renaissance, VI (1959), 34-35. 36 See Zbornik Marka Marulica 1450-1950 (Zagreb, 1950); M. Kombol's Introduction to Judita, ed. V. Stefanic (Zagreb, 1950), 9-22; Cvito Fiskovic, "Prilog zivotopisu Marka Marulica Pecenica", in Republika, VI (1950), 186-204. The name of Marko Marulic is to be found in very few encyclopedias, either European or American. Therefore, one welcomes the article by Mirko Usmiani, in Harvard Slavic Studies, III (1957), 1-48, which is devoted entirely to the biography of Marulic. 37 Mirko Deanovic rightly observes that none of these Italian humanists left significant traces in Marulic's works (in Revue de lit. comparée, 1934, 40). 38 Petar Kolendic, Maruliceva oporuka (Split, 1934). It is obvious from his testament that Marulic's interest in literature in Italian was extremely limited; he translated into Latin Petrarch's poem "Vergine bella".

18

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

simplicem et sine crimine vitam".39 As an old man he went to the island of Solta and lived there as a hermit for two years before returning home. Marulic's life was entirely dedicated to restoring declining moral values 40 and to protecting his homeland against foreigners and their claims.41 His noble figure is alive even today in the minds of his countrymen. Although his classical education and his interest in the Roman monuments of Split and ancient Salona stamp him as a humanist, Marulic was deeply rooted in medieval Catholic theology. His writings breathe the spirit of Thomas a Kempis, whom he translated into Croatian. He studied the past in a thoroughly Christian spirit. Marulic tried to combine classical form with medieval content. Like Jacopo Sannazaro, Girolamo Vida, and many others in Italy, and like Jakov Bunic and to some extent Crijevic in Dubrovnik, Marulic thought this alliance quite natural. Like so many humanists, he did not see any incongruity in glorifying the Redeemer and extolling strict morality in Ciceronian prose or Vergilian verses. He did his best to put the new artistic perception of formal beauty into the service of his completely Catholic Weltanschauung. Marulic was first of all a Latin author. His moralistic and didactic books, written clearly and convincingly and showing their author's extensive reading, attracted many readers and admirers throughout Europe.42 His most famous book, De institutione bene beateque vivendi (Venice, 1506), was frequently reprinted and translated into many languages. The main reason for its popularity was that during the whole of the Counter Reformation it was considered the most useful book for Catholics in the defense of their faith.43 Marulic also wrote lyric and epic poems in Latin. Some of his shorter "

Marulic's words in his famous poem "In somnium diurnum"; cf. Zbornik, 8. Ksenija Atanasijevic, Penseurs Yougoslaves (Belgrade, 1937), 19-43. 41 Animadversio in eos qui beatum Hieronymum Italum esse contendunf, see I. Lucic, De regno Dalmatiae (Amstelodami, 1666), which also includes Marulic's translation into Latin Regum Dalmatiae et Croatiae gesta. 42 Some of his Latin books, listed in order of their importance, are the following: Evangelistarium (Venice, 1516); Quinquaginta parabolae (Venice, 1510); De humilitate et gloria Christi (Venice, 1519). These Latin works were the reason for his glory as "fidei propugnator acerrimus, princeps suae aetatis philosophus, sacrarum literarum scientia nemini secundus" or "post divum Hieronymum Dalmatiae secunda gloria"; cf. Jezic, Hrvatska knjizevnost, 71. Some of Marulic's Latin poems were published by M. Srepel in Gradja, 2 (1899), 13-42. 43 Ante Kadi£, "St. Francis Xavier and Marko Marulic", Slavic and East European Journal, Spring, 1961, 12-15; Franjo Galinec, "Marulic kao teoloSki ugled i knjizevni izvor", Vrela i prinosi, V (Zagreb, 1935), 79-92.

40

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

19

lyric poems, which contain a certain personal touch, are among his best work. We see in them the man, with his physical weakness, with his almost jocular readiness to recognize the unpleasant facts of human existence,44 but we also see Marulic's tremendous will power and his overwhelming kindness and restrained gaiety. His most extensive work in Latin, Davidias, though highly praised by his compatriots, remained unpublished. During the nineteenth and twentieh centuries Croatian scholars searched for the manuscript of this work. When the Davideidos liber primus was published in 1904,45 it was greeted as Marulic's finest literary achievement. The entire epos finally came to light in 1952, when an Italian scholar, Carlo Dionisotti, found a copy of it in the National Library of Turin (Codex G VI 40). The Yugoslav Academy's edition, with Josip Badalic's substantial and valuable Introduction, was published in the series Stari pisci hrvatski (Vol. XXXI, Zagreb, 1954). Miroslav Markovic has also published an edition of Davidias (University of Mérida, Venezuela, 1957), which does not repeat the inaccurate readings of the Zagreb edition; this second edition, strangely enough, claims to be an editio princeps and does not contain, much to the disappointment of readers, any evaluation of the work itself. The Davidias is an epic in fourteen books, treating the life of King David as a préfiguration of the life of Christ.46 Although it was dedicated to the powerful Cardinal Grimani, the censor would not allow the poem to be printed. Several explanations have been advanced, the most plausible of which is that Marulic's messianic interpretation of the events of David's life often did not accord fully with orthodox teaching.47 In the Preface to his Inscriptiones Salonitanae Antiquae, which later were published by the historian Ivan Lucic, Marulic tells of the pitiful 44

Here is one of his shorter Latin poems (Zbornik, p. 10): Quaeris cur conjunx quae te dilexerat olim Nunc fugit et duris litibus exagitat. Verius haud quicquam possum tibi dicere, Marce: Dilexit iuvenem, nunc fugit ilia senem. Omnibus hoc vitium est miseros odere maritos, Aetas longa quibus languida membra facit. Vis tu pace frui, cum sit tibi Candida barba, I procul, atque alio vivere disce loco.

«

By M. Srepel, in Gradja, 4 (1904), 189-215. Usmiani states that "Marulic was the first humanist to compose a poem of such size and scope, and the only one who chose his hero from the Old Testament", in Harvard Slavic Studies, III, 1. " Badalic, in Davidias, 9, 278.

4e

20

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

conditions of his native land and how he mourned, repeating Vergil's verses: "Fuimus Troes, fuit Ilium . . .". Prompted by the same love for his country, he sent Hadrian VI an epistle begging the Pope to exhort all Christian rulers to join in the common enterprise against the Turks. But it is not for these Latin works, their world-wide reputation notwithstanding, that Marulic is still remembered by his countrymen. He is dear to the Croats because he wrote in their native language. The most touching of Marulic's shorter Croatian poems, "Molitva suprotiva Turkom" (Prayer against the Turks), presents a realistic picture of the atrocities caused by the Turks in the Balkan regions. In this poem Marulic opened his heart to the Almighty, asking mercy for his Croatian people. Marulic wrote (in 1501) the epic poem Judith in Croatian ("u versih hrvacki slozena") to encourage his countrymen in their struggle against the Turks and to give them a message of hope: that finally, with God's help, they would overcome all difficulties. Marulic followed, he admits in the Preface, the older Croatian religious poetry ("po obicaju nasih zacinjavac"), 48 as far as the subject was concerned, and the classics in regard to its treatment ("i po zakonu onih starih poet"). In following the classics he did not mechanically transplant Latin forms into his native language but depended upon his own skill in poetic invention. Thus Marulic depicted concrete and, at times, very realistic scenes, with many striking comparisons taken from his own experience, in a language that often abounded in picturesque speech. 49 Judith was written for those who did not know Latin. Their response was immediate: this first Croatian printed literary work (Venice, 1521) enjoyed three editions within two years.50 Marulic's example was contagious. A whole galaxy of poets arose who were aware that Marulic's Croatian work opened for them new and wider horizons; many of them paid a tribute of indebtedness to him and extolled him in the dedications of their Croatian works. We see then in Marulic a man who treated native Croatian subject matter effectively and movingly within the classical literary forms revived under the inspiration of Italian humanism. 48

Franjo Fancev, Gradja za pjesnicki leksikon hrv. jezika, in Gradja, 15 (1940), 182-200. 48 Cf. Kombol, Poviest hrv. knjizevnosti, 82-87, and especially Petar Skok, "O stilu Maruliceve Judite", in Zbornik, 165-241, where he affirms that Marulic's originality is to be found mostly in his style. 59 Marulic, Judita, ed. Marcel Kusar with Introduction by P. Kasandric (Zagreb, 1901); id., Judita, ed. V. Stefanic with Introduction by M. Kombol (Zagreb, 1951).

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

21

The first two known Croatian poets from Dubrovnik, Sisko Mencetic (1457-1527) and Dzore Drzic (1461-1501), 51 are important because they developed, or perhaps adopted and passed on, a poetic style which became characteristic of the subsequent literature of Dubrovnik and the rest of Dalmatia. Although their lyrics are closely related to Petrarchism (with its typical pattern of courtship, passionate enchantment, and eventual disappointment), 52 certain national peculiarities are to be found in them. Drzic especially, being more sensitive and spontaneous than the conventional and cerebral Mencetic, can be called an original lyric poet. In his poems are many elements taken from the love poetry of the peasants; some of his poems are entirely the people's creation. 53 Much more significant is the work of two noblemen from Hvar, Hanibal Lucic (1485-1553) and Petar Hektorovic (1487-1572). Though troubled by popular discontent and sporadic Turkish incursions, Hvar was a prosperous commercial port. In its privileged class were a number of learned men who kept in contact with Italian humanistic literature and assiduously corresponded with writers from Split and Dubrovnik. Hvar was at that time the most important literary center in Venetian Dalmatia. 54 Lucic translated Ovid (Paris Helenae) and was well acquainted with Petrarch, Bembo and Ariosto. These poets particularly influenced him when he was writing a small collection of love poems (Pisni ljuvene). The finest among them, a real pearl, "Jur nijedna na svit vila", shows the influence of folk poetry. In this poem there is the usual description of the feminine body (especially the fingers), but Lucic expressed this theme in original and charming verses. Lucic's outstanding work and the first Croatian secular play is Robinja (The Slave Girl, Venice, 1556), which shows both the influence of Petrarchism and the unmistakable marks of folk poetry; it deals with bloody reality and mentions 51

Milan Resetar, ed., Pjesme Siska Mencetica, Dzore Drzica i ostale pjesme Ranjinina zbornika (Zagreb, 1937), with a magnificent introduction. 52 Torbarina, Italian Influence on the Poets of the Ragusan Republic, 91-137; it should be pointed out, nevertheless, that an old theory of Jagic ("Trubaduri i najstariji hrvatski lirici", Rad, 9, 1869, 203-33) was taken over by M. Murko, "Nekoliko rijeci o prvim dubrovackim pjesnicima", in Resetarov zhornik (Dubrovnik, 1931), 233-43, who claims that the first Dubrovnik poets were influenced by troubadours through the intermediary of Naples. 53 Cf. Dragoljub Pavlovic, Dubrovacka poezija (2nd ed., Belgrade, 1956), 60-62, 193-98. 54 Grga Novak, Hvar (Belgrade, 1924), passim; B. Vodnik, Povijest hrvatske knjizevnosti, 113-16.

22

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

personages celebrated by Croatian peasants and shepherds (e.g., Ban Derencin, who died at Krbava, 1493).55 The central part of this play in which the young Derencin, disguised in merchant's attire, converses with the slave who recognizes that she has loved him from her early girlhood - is well done; Lucic had a feeling for style and for dramatic action. The action takes place in Dubrovnik, which Lucic celebrates also in his epistle "U pohvalu grada Dubrovnika". Hektorovic was born in Stari Grad, on the island Hvar; he devoted much of his time and energy to constructing the fortress Tvrdalj (which still exists today), by which he hoped to protect himself and his townsmen from sudden Turkish attacks. He exchanged many poetic epistles, especially with two writers from Dubrovnik, one of them being a hermetic monk, Vetranovic, and the other a licentious nobleman, Naljeskovic. Hektorovic's main epistle, Ribanje i ribarsko prigovaranje (Fishing and Fishermen's Talk, Venice, 1568),56 addressed to the Hvar nobleman, rector scholarum, and poet, Jeronim Brtucevic, is a delightful and realistic poetic account of three days spent at sea with two fishermen, though sometimes he idealizes these fishermen.57 The oldest extant texts of oral poetry are two heroic and two lyric poems, included in Hektorovic's "Fishing", which the author states that he heard from the fishermen and then reproduced verbatim.58 More popular even than the epic was the tender lyric poetry that flourished on the Dalmatian soil. Hektorovic was emotionally attached to this soil. In 1555, when approaching his seventieth birthday, he revisited the neighboring islands. Since the poet considered himself a member of the Croatian Renaissance literary movement and had kept warm relations with Dubrovnik writers, he was deeply moved as the ship neared Necujam on the island of Solta, for it was there that Marulic, whom he held in reverent memory, had lived for two years in complete seclusion. 55

Giovanni Maver, Letteratura serbo-croata (Milan, 1960), 117. The Ribanje, which was published by 5. Ljubic in 1874, in the collection Stari pisci hrvatski, has appeared again (Zagreb, 1953) in the series of old Croatian authors, photostatically reproduced by the Yugoslav Academy from the early edition. Cf. also Ribanje i ribarsko prigovaranje, ed. Ramiro Bujas (Zagreb, 1951). 57 The fishermen are not real; they are "completely distorted", according to Marin Franicevic, because they are portrayed obedient and faithful to their master. What about the "class struggle"? Cf. Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, s.v. Hektorovic, III (1958), 667. 58 Cf. Dragutin Subotic, Yugoslav Popular Ballads (Cambridge, 1932), 147; H. Munro and N. Kershaw Chadwick, The Growth of Literature (Cambridge, 56

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

23

Although patterned after the Piscatory Eclogues of Jacopo Sannazaro (1458-1530) and other Italians, these verses of Hektorovic show again that the best writers of the Croatian Renaissance did not merely imitate but transformed the classical and humanistic heritage to suit the conditions of their time and place. A third nobleman and poet of Hvar, Misa Pelegrinovic (died 1563), has recently acquired a certain reputation. Some critics, in opposition to the traditional view, try to demonstrate that Pelegrinovic was the first to write on "The Gypsy" and only after him did Andrija Cubranovic use the theme.59 Leaving aside the question of priority, one can affirm with certitude that Cubranovic's "Gypsy" (Jedjupka, Venice, 1599) is much superior to Pelegrinovic's. Cubranovic's Jedjupka is a delightful love poem, in a troubadour manner; in its cheerfulness, personal touches, and naturalness, in the musicality and fluidity of its octosyllabic verse, it is very close to the popular idiom. Its prestige was enormous, especially during the sixteenth century, and it was often copied or imitated.60 A very active writer was Mavro Vetranovic (1482-1576, from Dubrovnik), a deeply religious Benedictine monk and a great patriot. In his satires he castigated the relaxation of Christian morals and the selfishness of European rulers, who did not even try to stop the advancing Turkish army; he deplored the devastation of Croatian regions and the occupation of Dalmatia by the Venetians; in view of this difficult situation, he praised the political wisdom of his native city. Though most of his poems leave an impression of excessive verbosity and have an annoyingly plaintive tone, some of his lyrics are excellent (e.g., Pjesanca sturku, a poem to the cricket). His allegorical poem Piligrin (peregrinus, the pilgrim), written under the influence of the Divina Commedia, remained unfinished. As a playwright, Vetranovic prolonged the tradition of Croatian medieval representations, but with somewhat more conciseness and forcefulness (especially, in his Posvetiliste Abramovo, Abraham's Sacrifice). One should mention also Nikola Naljeskovic (ca. 1510-87), who wrote lyric poems, epistles, four pastoral plays, and three comedies. His comedies are read by historians less for their literary value than for 1936), II, 300; Matija Murko, Tragom srpskohrvatske narodne epike (Zagreb, 1951), I-n, passim. 59 M. A. Petkovic, Dubrovacke maskerate (Belgrade, 1950), 29-94; Cronia, Storia della letteratura serbo-croata, 46. " Trograniic, Letteratura croata, 74-77.

24

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

their description of social conditions of the Dubrovnik Republic during the Renaissance. There are to be found certain passages of extreme vulgarity (comparable to those written by Pietro Aretino and Andrea Calmo). Naljeskovic preceded Marin Drzic, who took from him two names (Radat and Ljubmir) but assigned to them different roles.61 The Renaissance is not a uniform phenomenon. It presents various aspects, often contradictory. One should never focus on only one aspect and endeavor through it to explain the rest. The whole is much more complex, profound, and fascinating. Marulic, for example, wrote in the classical manner but retained a medieval outlook. Quite unlike him was his countryman Marin Drzic, a Catholic priest, born in Dubrovnik (ca. 1508) when Marulic was in his most creative period. Living in Dubrovnik, which paid the Turks a yearly tribute and consequently enjoyed freedom, Drzic was not particularly worried about the Turkish advance; nor was he alarmed by symptoms of moral and religious decay or by the worldliness of the clergy.62 He avoided quiet places where one might meditate about the transience of human life; he loved to eat well; he drank, sang, entertained others, traveled and was always short of money; "he was an excellent musician and played all kinds of instruments" (Drzic's Genealogy);63 he was of a jovial rather than a studious disposition; he read little but had his eyes wide open; he was interested strictly in the problems of this world and even tried to overthrow the government of the only free city, Dubrovnik, because he thought that its ruling class did not give its citizens enough liberty or opportunities for a decent life. Marulic and Drzic present a striking contrast: the ascetic layman to whom religion was the most sacred thing in life, and the Epicurean clergyman who sought only personal benefit. Nevertheless, they are both sons of the Renaissance, two of its most typical representatives. Since Drzic's clerical income was small, he was obliged to perform 61

Cf. Resetar, Djela Marina Drzica, lxxxiv-lxxxvii. Before the Council of Trent the general situation among the lower Catholic clergy in Dubrovnik was a rather dubious one from a moral point of view. See A. Theiner, Vetera monumento Slavorum meridionalium historiam illustrantia, II (Zagreb, 1875), 330-36. Visitator apostolicus exponit statum reipublicae ragusinae rationemque reformationis: "II clero ha molti preti di mala vita, per il piü ignoranti, concubinari o al men con donne suspetosissime in casa, poverissimi per il piü servono alii nobili nelle cose profane e vile"; Tomo Matic, "Vjera i crkva", Rad, 231 (1925), 250-83; Ivan Vitezic, La prima visita apostólica postridentina in Dalmazia (Rome, 1957), 29-34. ' 3 In Djela Marina Drzica, Stari pisci hrvatski, VII, ed. Milan Resetar (Zagreb, 1930), cxxvii; Marin Drzic, ed. Miroslav Pantic (Belgrade, 1958), 60. 62

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

25

many other duties. Not only was he an organist in the cathedral, but he also served as a valet and dragoman to an Austrian adventurer, Count Christof Rogendorf, with whom he traveled to Vienna and Constantinople (1546); 6 4 for two years he was a clerk at a saltworks (1554-56). The important date in Drzic's life was his departure to Siena (1538), probably to study canon law. He became the rector of Domus sapientiae, a kind of international house, for one year (1541-42) and by the same token a vice-rector of the University ("rector Sapientiae et vice-rector Universitatis studii senensis"). 66 During this year he was often in conflict with the administrative authorities and with the student body. 66 What was he doing in these years? Did he travel through Italy? Did he live for a certain period in Florence? We know with certainty only that during his rectorship he took part as the main actor (amasius, the lover) in the presentation of a forbidden play and was reprimanded by the police authorities ("si citi e si riprenda in collegio"). 67 After spending in all probability seven years in Siena, and without securing any degree, 68 Drzic returned home (1545). Siena was then an important cultural center. Drzic, who before his sojourn in Siena wrote mediocre verses in an artificial Petrarchan style (published in Venice, 1551), 69 upon his return started to write pastoral plays and comedies, which even today attract the public no less than the works of the most renowned contemporary Yugoslav playwrights. •4 C. JireCek, "Beiträge zur ragusanischen Literaturgeschichte", Archiv für slavische Philologie, XXI (1899), 483-93; Jorjo Tadic, Promet putnika u starom Dubrovniku, 292. •5 Resetar, in Djela Marina Drzica, Iii, n. 1. 66 Ibid., lv-lix. 67 "Messer Marino Raugeo rectore di Sapientia che intervenne ala comedia si citi e si riprenda in collegio", the National Archives of Sienna, Balia, 123 (formerly 99), carta 39b-40b. P. Skok was the first who wrote (Razprave, 1930, pp. 39-41) about Drzic's presence at a performance of a comedy prohibited by the censor. We now know that on February 9, 1542, Drzic was not a simple spectator at all, but acted the role of the lover ("Magnificus Rector Sapientie qui amasium in ea comedia egit", Fondo del Capitano di Giustizia [Capitaneus iustice Senarum], registro 58, 69). 68 The notarial protocols for the years 1541-45 related to the University of Siena, now kept in the archives of the "Curia arcivescovile", have been examined by Dr. Ubaldo Morandi (an archivist in Siena), but there he found no indication that Drzic obtained a laurea. " Torbarina, Italian Influence on the Poets of the Ragusan Republic, 138-39; Arturo Cronia, "II petrarchismo nel Cinquecento serbo-croato", Studi Petrarcheschi, I (1948), 242-45 ("Ben poco resta, comunque, di suo, di sentito e di spontaneo nel Darsa").

26

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

There cannot be any doubt that Siena was the turning point in his literary career. Drzic spent about fifteen years in Dubrovnik, during which he wrote eleven plays (from 1547 to 1555 or 1557) and was also pursued by many creditors for not having returned borrowed money.70 Then he moved to Venice (December, 1562) and, in 1566, took the most decisive step in his life: he went to Florence, where he wrote three letters to Cosimo I de' Medici and another to his son Francesco, seeking the duke's support for the overthrow of the aristocratic government in Dubrovnik.71 How did Drzic come to this idea of addressing himself to a man like Cosimo I? Jorjo Tadic believes that the writer of these letters (which remained unanswered) was no longer in full possession of his intellectual faculties; the handwriting seems that of a man who has suffered a complete nervous breakdown.72 Milan Resetar suspects that, always short of money, Drzic was perhaps ready to betray his native country.73 But Jean Dayre cautiously asks whether this desperate move was not after all the logical step for Drzic to take in view of the depravity and stupidity of the Dubrovnik patricians.74 The discovery of the letters to Cosimo has had an important effect on recent Drzic criticism in Yugoslavia. Some critics see in Drzic a great fighter for the equality of all men. Zivko Jelicic, for example, has published a pamphlet on Marin Drzic entitled Pjesnik dubrovacke sirotinje (The Poet of Dubrovnik Underdogs).75 Drzic spent his last years (1562-67) mostly in Venice as a chaplain in the service of the Venetian patriarch.76 His brother Vlaho, married to 70 Jorjo Tadic, Dubrovacki portreti (Belgrade, 1948), 101-11; ReSetar, Djela Marina Drzica, lxi-lxvi. 71 These letters were discovered by the late Professor Jean Dayre ("Marin Drzic conspirant à Florence", Revue des études slaves, X, 76-80; Dubrovacke studije, 19-23) and published by Resetar in Djela Marina Drzica, lxvi-lxxiv, cxxxi-cxlvii. The first letter (dated July 2, 1566) is now catalogued in Miscellanea Medicea, filza 54 (formerly 77), fase. 65 ("Lettera di Marino Darsa Raguseo del 1566 lunga, e molto singolare e originale al Granduca Cosimo primo nella quale gli propone la maniera di impradonirsi della República di Ragusa, e nella quale spiega le cose del governo presente"); the second (July 3), the third (July 23), and the fourth (August 28) are kept in Mediceo, filza 522 (formerly Carteggio universale, filza 192). 72 Jorjo Tadic, Dubrovacki portreti, 124-25. 7S Stari pisci hrvatski, VII, lxxiv. 74 Revue des études slaves, X, 30; Dubrovacke studije, 22-23. 75 Marin Drzic pjesnik dubrovacke sirotinje (Zagreb, 1950); also in Hrvatsko Kolo, Nos. 2-3, 1949, 312-43. 76 Dragoljub Pavlovic, "Novi podaci za biografiju Marina Drzica", in lz knjizevne i kulturne istorije Dubrovnika (Sarajevo, 1955), now reprinted in Marin

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

27

a Venetian girl, lived there for many years and became friendly with Pietro Aretino. Drzic kept in close contact with some of his countrymen who were successful Venetian businessmen (e.g., Pero Primovic). Of the remainder of his life little is known. The necrologies of the church in which Drzic was buried (SS. Giovanni e Paolo) have not been preserved, and the death certificates for the year 1567 are missing in the National Archives of Venice. The patriarchal archives of Venice, which probably contain precious information, are for the moment "rudis indigestaque moles", and it is to be hoped that they will be in the near future organized and opened to the public. Because Drzic treated themes later used by Shakespeare and Molière, the Yugoslav critics compare him eulogistically with these famous writers.77 Though Drzic does not gain from this comparison, it should be stressed immediately that he too never blindly followed his sources, which were part of the cultural heritage of Renaissance literature, the stock in trade of the writers of Plautine comedy. Italian scholars overemphasize the fact that Drzic studied in Siena, that he became acquainted there with Italian comedies and was influenced in some of his plays by Boccaccio, Ariosto, and other Italian writers. From these premises they readily jump to the false conclusion that Drzic was a mere adaptor of Italian comedies into Croatian.78 A born writer, Drzic cultivated a kind of pastoral play (dramma rusticate) into which he introduced - in addition to Arcadian and mythological shepherds, nymphs, and satyrs - characters modeled on the peasant herdsmen from the country around Dubrovnik, with their characteristic mentality and speech. His earliest extant pastoral play, Tirena, enjoyed three editions (1551, 1607, 1630). The special charm of this play in verse lies not in the conventional shepherds and in its ending to the satisfaction of all concerned but in the poor peasants who one after another fall in love with the water nymph, either of their own will or because they are wounded by Cupid. The wise and sober peasant Radat, who deplores Miljenko's passionate love and believes Drzic, ed. Pantic, 120 ("Padre Marino Darsa, capellano del rev. mo patriarca di questa città di Venezia"). 77 Ante Kadic, "Marin Drzic, Croatian Renaissance Playwright", Comparative Literature, 1959, 349-50. 78 This view is so common in Italy that even a scholar like Arturo Cronia, in his survey of Serbo-Croatian literature, writes about Drzic: "Scarsa la originalità, ché quasi tutto, dalla tipologia alla fraseologia, è desunto dall' italiano", Letteratura serbo-croata (Milan, 1956), 57-58; cf. also his article, "Per una retta interpretazione di Marino Darsa", Rivista di letterature moderne, IV (1956), 203.

28

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

in cheerful and reasonable affection, is powerless when Tirena appears; his son Dragic, who does not understand what happened to his father, when wounded himself by Cupid, expresses naively his admiration for the nymph. Love is shown as an emotion beyond the control of reason ("S ljubavi mudrovat, ma bratjo, ni ga moc; ja, makar ludovat, za vilom hocu poc", 79 Radat answers in embarrassment to three horrified peasants). A passage from Drzic's most original pastoral play, Plakir (Pleasure), sometimes called Grizula, shows how skillfully he could blend fantasy with reality. 80 Through the bitter complaint of the servant Omakala we learn about the feelings of the servants of the patricians or the rich merchants: I cannot have worse memories than the life that my lady caused me. I shall not be able to tell you the hundredth part of what I suffered with her . . . She calls me in the morning, holding a handful of pins: "Pin here, pin there, pin here," until I get dizzy pinning so much. And if do something wrong (and I could never do anything right to her) she slaps me on the nose with her dainty hand so that the whole room swims round me. . . . What torture I suffered! If I have not suffered enough to pay for all my sins, no one will ever be able to get out of purgatory. . . . When they go to church or to a wedding our ladies carry a burden of clothes that even a strong stallion could hardly b e a r . . . . My master shouts: "You ass, you donkey, when are you going to the butcher's?" - When I come from the butcher's it is time to prepare dinner. I prepare it - mistress is back from the church; I unfasten her - the soup simmers; I undress my lady - the soup boils; I hand her a smock to change the pot boils over. The master comes in to dinner and the meat is still underdone. He shouts: "Go and buy wine, lay the table, first give the children their meal and go fetch water out of the cistern." All at once! And my mistress throws her shoes at me: "You donkey, what have you got to talk about so long to the m a s t e r ? " . . . And God help me, I do not know why I have not gone crazy with so many troubles. I made a vow, I crossed myself, I ran away into this wilderness. A t the end, she returns to Dubrovnik with Grizula, who is more interested in her appearance than in her services. One should recognize the courage of Drzic, who in Dubrovnik, where the strict censorship of 79

Djela Marina Drzica, ed. Resetar, 105. Because Creizenach made some ambiguous statements about Drzic's Plakir (in Geschichte des neueren Drama, II, 479-90), many Yugoslavs assume that there was a real similarity between Drzic's Plakir and Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. Some critics believe that Shakespeare in writing this play used an unknown Italian source. Did Drzic use the same source? Perhaps an Italian original could be discovered. 80

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

29

the Senate prevailed,81 so sharply criticized the existing social conditions.82 As Drzic adapted his pastoral plays to the Dubrovnik milieu, so in his comedies, no matter how much he resorted to traditional themes, he always remained independent and original, bringing to the stage characters from the life around him.83 The only comedy by Drzic that has come to us in its complete form is Novela od Stanca (Facetiae at the Expense of Stanac, Venice, 1551). The scene of this short but well-balanced farce is Dubrovnik on a carnival night. Three young Ragusan noblemen are wandering about and bitterly complaining against their fathers, who have forgotten that they were once young too and wanted to take advantage of the pleasures which this life offers, especially in feminine society. ("Ne ce im se njekad da su i oni bili svi lovci kako i mi sad.") 84 Then the young Ragusans notice dozing by the fountain a Herzegovinian peasant, who has come to the city to sell his farm produce. One of them, the witty Dzivo Pesica, convinces Stanac that he used to be an old man but thanks to the nymphs he has been rejuvenated. Stanac is extremely interested in his story because he has left at home a "demanding" young wife. Then the three youths, with Stanac's permission, paint his face, shave his beard, bind his arms, and go away with his belongings, leaving money instead. It seems probable that Drzic wrote his main work Dundo Maroje (Uncle Maroje) after returning from his pilgrimage to Rome in 1550.85 Drzic knows many details about Rome and is well informed about certain popular Roman characters. The hero and some other Ragusans go to Rome for the pilgrimage during the jubilee year. This work, often 81

Dragoljub Pavlovic, "Komedija u nasoj renesansnoj knjizevnosti", in Marin Drzic, ed. Pantic, 211. 82 Pavle Popovic found Omakala a "comic character"; he nevertheless observed that her criticism of Ragusan ladies is serious, though it may have provoked laughter ("Jedna pastorala Marina Drzica", Godisnjica Nikole Cupica, XLIV, 219-33, reprinted in Marin Drzic, ed. Pantic, 169-71). 83 "Il ne copie pas ses modèles, il les adapte, au contraire, afin que ce cadre puisse répondre aux exigences locales de Raguse et c'est ainsi qu'il crée ses pièces originales, des tableaux riches et vivants, chroniques dramatisées de sa ville natale," Mirko Deanovic, "Les influences italiennes sur l'ancienne littérature Yougoslave du littoral adriatique", Revue de lit. comparée, XIV (1934), 46. 84 ReSetar, Djela Marina Drzica, 47. The dissoluteness of the young Ragusans is considered by some critics as implied social criticism; cf. Kombol, Novela od Stanca (Zagreb, 1949), 42-43, and F. Svelec, "Neke misli o Drzicevoj Noveli od Stanca", Republika, 1954, 638. 85 See Petar Kolendic, "Premijera Drziceva Dunda Maroja", Glas, 1951, 53.

30

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

performed on Yugoslav stages and constantly included in the Dubrovnik festivals to the delight of the public, has been the subject of many erudite analyses. Some of these studies are of a rather dubious nature. Certain Yugoslav critics go so far as to assert that Drzic had communism in mind 86 when he wrote in the first prologue (spoken by Long Nose [Dugi nos], a sorcerer) to Uncle Maroje of a land of the future where m i n e and thine are u n k n o w n , for all belongs to all, and each is master of all. A n d the people enjoying these lands are gentle p e o p l e - quiet, wise, reasonable people. A n d just as nature has e n d o w e d t h e m with w i s d o m , it has also given them exquisite beauty. T h e y are not governed by g r e e d . . . . Their eyes look straight ahead, and they d o n o t mask their hearts. T h e y have their hearts in their eyes, so that everyone c a n see their g o o d thoughts. A n d n o w - to cut a long story short - these p e o p l e are called good people. 8 7

They have to struggle and coexist with the evil bourgeois class. Even in Yugoslavia some critics laugh at this partisan interpretation of a common theme found everywhere throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.88 In spite of its complicated plot, Dundo Maroje does not betray any particular Italian source. How is this possible, some Italians ask, being convinced that every Croatian Renaissance work derives directly from an Italian source? Miss Jolanda Marchiori, following in the footsteps of Professor Cronia,88 entered into an almost microscopic examination of Dundo Maroje.m Both Cronia and Miss Marchiori try to persuade us that if an Italian author speaks, for example, about a tavern where good food and wine are served and Drzic happens to mention that some of his characters relish the same things - no matter how much the context differs - Drzic is copying the Italian original; or if Drzic writes that a young man has fallen madly in love with a beautiful but not 8i

Milan Bogdanovic, Stari i novi, IV, 188; Eli Finci, "Marin Drzic: Dundo Maroje", Knjizevnost, Nos. 7-8, 1949, 112-17; Vise manje od zivota (Belgrade, 1955), 21-30; Zivko Jelicic, "Ljudi nazbilj i ljudi nahvao u Drzicevoj komediji", reprinted from Mogucnosti, Nos. 8-9, 1957. 87 Djela Marina Drzica, ed. Resetar, 256-58; Dundo Maroje (Belgrade, 1951), 20-22. 88

Dragoljub Pavlovic, Iz knjizevne i kulturne istorije Dubrovnika, 18; Kombol, Poviest hrv. knjizevnosti, 104. 89 In Rivista di letterature moderne, 1953, 203: "Cambiate la vernice a tale scena, cambiate il nome a tale personaggio raguseo, cambiate la forma a tale allusione alla società ragusea, e avrete il corrispondente italiano." 90 "Riflessi del teatro italiano nel Dundo Maroje di Marino Darsa", Rivista Dalmatica, Nos. 2-3, 1958.

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

31

virtuous girl, that his miserly father tries to save his money ("vece ljubi dinar nego sina") and bring him back to reason, all Italian plays with a similar plot are cited.91 Unquestionably, Drzic did see or at least had read Italian pastoral plays and comedies (commedia erudita).92 From the Italians he learned the basic technique. Without his stay in Siena he would not have become an outstanding writer - in some of his plays greater than certain of his Italian models. Even when he expressly affirms, as in the Prologue to Skup (The Miser), that this comedy "was stolen from Plautus" 93 he not only sets the comedy in Dubrovnik but also introduces into the plot a group of new characters. The central theme is the genuine love between a young man, Kamilo, and a miser's daughter, Andrijana. Drzic emphasizes their right to love and condemns mismatched marriages, a canker of commercial society in Dubrovnik in those days. In 1890 M. Srepel wrote a long study on Drzic's Skup in which he pointed out the similarities between Skup and G. B. Gelli's La Sporta and Lorenzino de' Medici's L'Aridosia.94 The Italians quote Srepel's study and conclude that Drzic was successful in adapting these two Italian comedies to the Ragusan setting. But, as Vatroslav Jagic has pointed out, Skup is partly dependent on Plautus' A ulularía-, where he departs from A ulularía, Drzic has nothing in common with either La Sporta or Aridosia,95 Recently Franjo Svelec, who devoted some penetrating studies to Drzic, re-examined Skup in relation to its possible sources and demonstrated that Drzic had created an original work.98 91

Cf. Franjo Svelec in his recent and most detailed study, "Dundo Maroje u raspravi Jolande Marchiori", Zadarska revija, Nos. 3-4, 1960. 92 Besides Calandria (which was printed in Siena in 1521) Drzic could have seen Gl'ingannati, the best Sienese play; an interesting comparative study could be written on external similarities between Drzic's work and Gl'ingannati. Cf. Ireneo Sanesi, Comedie del Cinquecento, I (Bari, 1912), 409; Mario Apollonio, Storia del teatro italiano, II (Firenze, 1951), 158-63. Luigi Russo writes about Calandria: "La leggerezza gioiosa che percorre la Calandria è testimonianza di ispirazione genuina, ma non di ispirazione profonda", Commedie Fiorentine del '500 (Firenze, 1939), 193. 93 "Sva je ukradena iz njekoga libra starijeg neg je staros - iz Plauta", Djela Marina Drzica, ed. ReSetar, 200. 94 "Skup Marina Drzica prema Plautovoj Aululariji", Rad, 99 (1890), 185-237. 95 "Die Aulularia des Plautus in einer südslavischen Umarbeitung aus der Mittel des XVI. lahrhunderts", in Festschrift Johannes Vahlen (Berlin, 1900), 637; translated into Croatian by M. Kombol, Izabrani kraci spisi Vatroslava Jagica (Zagreb, 1948), 352. 96 "Problem odnosa Drziceva teatra prema talijanskoj knjizevnosti", Zadarska revija, No. 1, 1958, 10-28 ("The author concludes that Drzic's Skup, based on

32

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

The comparison with the two Italian comedies is to his advantage. Drzic's comedies give a complete picture of Dubrovnik in the period of its prosperity and decadence. Most of his characters seek pleasure and entertainment; they live and dream only about women, good food, and a life of leisure. Adultery and love intrigues are not considered sins. To deceive a stupid husband, to replace a poor lover with a rich one or one from a noble family, are signs of adroitness and wisdom. In this respect there is no difference between the clergyman and the layman, the nobleman and the peasant, the rich and the poor, the young and the old. But Drzic was not content to be merely a painter of society; he wished to be a critic as well. He seems to be asking how these senile, selfish, stingy patricians succeeded in obtaining the right to rule the common people of the Dubrovnik Republic. The plots of his plays are interesting but sometimes not well interwoven; the introduction of numerous subordinate characters and a multiciplicity of episodes more or less related to the main theme are rather annoying. His characters are there to entertain the audience; some of them, nevertheless, serve as arbiters, commenting on the others: this is especially true of the servant Pomet, in whom we rightly suspect the author embodied himself. Drzic's style is luxuriant and brilliant. His monologues and dialogues are full of wit ("non sine sale et lepore"). He still delights audiences with his effervescent humor, skillful dialogue, vivid speech, so well suited to his characters and to their social status, and with his ability to bring these characters to life with only a few words and gestures.97 His ear was so perfectly attuned that he was able to depict the various strata of human society simply by the way his characters converse; he knew so well the variations of the Croatian language as used in Dalmatia that his characters from various cities and islands can be recognized by their speech. On the basis merely of these evidences of his expressive capacity, one may justly assign to Drzic the leading position among the Croatian Renaissance writers and bring him to the attention of the world. Drzic had followers in Dubrovnik and elsewhere. The most imporPlautus' theme, is an independently constructed play, linked with the Italian playwrights only by use of the same technique - at that time generally used in European drama - and by the common source for the basic plot taken from Plautus", 29). Milan Resetar, "Jezik Marina Drzica", Rad, 248 (1933), 99-100; Vera Javarek rightly says: "Every one of the many and diverse minor characters has his appropriate style of speech", Slavonic and East European Review, No. 88, 1958, 155-56.

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

33

tant among them was Martin Benetevic (died 1607) from Hvar, who wrote Hvarkinja and perhaps another comedy Rasko, in which there are passages taken from Ruzzante (1502-42). Benetevic's Hvarkinja has the same basic features as Drzic's comedies: an interesting and entertaining plot but too many characters and episodes; compared with his brilliant predecessor, Benetevic was less gifted and a minor craftsman. We have already seen that Zadar was the first Slavicized city on the Dalmatian coast. In spite of being repeatedly conquered by the Venetians, Zadar remained the most Croatian of the Dalmatian cities. Toward the middle of the sixteenth century, when it developed into a literary center, Zadar with its poets became linked soul and body with the Croatian hinterland, where the political center had shifted from Dalmatia. Except for the comedies, Croatian Renaissance literature consisted almost exclusively of verse. The first important specimen of prose fiction in Croatian, Planine (The Mountains, Venice, 1569),98 was written by Zoranic (1508-ca. 1569) of Zadar. We do not know anything about Zoranic's schooling; probably he was a layman. He followed many models, both national and foreign (Ovid's Metamorphoses, Sannazaro's Arcadia), but transformed them into something distinctly his own, for the subject matter is really the peasant life of the Croats, who led a primitive, fearsome, and troubled existence in the face of the constant Turkish threat. Planine contains many separate stories, and its characters are weakly motivated. Zoranic's style is rather heavy and his sentences are often poorly elaborated." The main reason that Zoranid undertook to write Planine was his strong patriotism. He asked himself why every Greek river and mountain had its poet, while the delightful Croatian landscape remained unnoticed. The Croatian nymph (vila Hrvatica) reproached Croatian writers who preferred to write in foreign languages instead of their own. A touching lamentation is put into the mouths of shepherds because of the Turkish ravages in the Croatian border regions; one of these shepherds, Marul, is none other than Marko Marulic, whose poem "Prayer against Turks" Zoranic changed but little. Planine is the glorification of the natural beauties of the Croatian homeland, but it also expresses the poet's sorrow over its

98

The Planine were photostatically reproduced by the Yugoslav Academy (Zagreb, 1952). - V. Stefanic, Planine (Zagreb, 1942), 10-19; Gojko Ruzi£ic, "Jezik Petra Zoranica", Juznoslovenski filolog, X-XI.

34

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

miserable condition ("rasuta bascina"); this work is rightly considered the most patriotic piece of old Croatian literature. The second writer from Zadar is Brne Krnarutic (1520-72). Abandoning the usual borrowed themes, Krnarutic dealt in his epic Vazetje Sigeta grada (The Capture of Siget, Venice, 1584) with the heroic figure of the Croatian ban Nikola Subie Zrinski, who preferred to die rather than surrender to the powerful Turkish army in 1566. Krnarutic's work is more a chronicle of events than a poetic vision. By his warm description of the defenders of Siget ("gospoda i knezovi hrvatski") and his personal involvement in the fight against the Turks, Krnarutic gains a certain literary merit. He showed his understanding of contemporary history when he affirmed that thanks to German Protestantism and French intrigues the weakening of the Hapsburg Empire and consequently the Turkish advance were effected.100 More significant than Krnarutic is a third writer from Zadar, Juraj Barakovic (1548-1628). Barakovic spent a great deal of his life as a canon in Sibenik and died in Rome. In his main work Vila Slovinka (The Slavic Nymph, Venice, 1613) Barakovic described characteristic episodes in the history of Zadar. The work as a whole is badly composed, for it includes in the second part items which have nothing in common with the main theme. Like Zoranic, Barakovic is a patriot who blames his countrymen for not showing a greater pride in their native tongue; he considers the reintroduction of Latin in the schools ("zac jazik slovinski vas nauk od skula promini u rimski") as the main reason for the decline of Croatian literature from the glorious times of Marulic and his immediate followers. Barakovic included in his poem one of the most beautiful folk ballads, Majka Margarita (Mother Margaret).101 Two renowned poets of the second half of the sixteenth century, Dinko Ranjina (1536-1607) and Dinko Zlataric (1556-1609), were both born in Dubrovnik. Ranjina traveled, mostly for business reasons, through southern and central Italy. He wrote and published his poems (some in Italian) when he was still young (Pjesni razlike, Firenze, 1563). Ranjina tried to bring some innovation into Croatian versification, using various shorter verses instead of monotonous dodecasyllabic form. Because of this he was highly esteemed, but now, after it has been demonstrated 100

Cf. Stephen Fischer-Galati, Ottoman Imperialism and German Protestantism {Cambridge, 1959). 101 Cf. Josip Horvat, Kultura Hrvata kroz 1000 godina, I (Zagreb, 1939), 338.

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

35

that he plagiarized some Italian poems,102 his reputation has declined; he imitated some of the weakest Petrarchists of the Quattrocento (e.g., Serafino d'Aquila). In their poems one can safely predict which detail of the catalogue of feminine beauties will be described next and with which adjective. Even where he is under the impact of native oral poetry, Ranjina is scarcely original or stimulating, because his personal feelings seldom break through. His language lacks poetic flexibility and his metaphors are heavily decorative. Zlataric, who studied in Padua and distinguished himself there,103 was a cultivated man and a versatile translator from Greek (Sophocles' Electro), Latin, and Italian (Tasso's Aminta, Venice, 1580); all these remarkable translations were published together (Venice, 1597) and dedicated to Juraj Zrinski. Zlataric's name was linked romantically with that of the famous beauty, Cvijeta Zuzoric, in whose honor even Torquato Tasso wrote sonnets and madrigals.104 Though a Petrarchist like Ranjina,105 Zlataric has many respectable poetic qualities: his language is pliant, his taste is refined, and his feelings are serious. Zlataric's verse is often carefully constructed, and he avoids the usual platitudes. Some of Zlataric's poems, either from his Pjesni razlike or U smrt od razlicieh, are among the best specimens of Croatian Renaissance lyric poetry.106 The majority of these writers (from Zadar, Split, Hvar, and Dubrovnik), in close contact with the soil on which they were born and with the people to whom they belonged, were creating a literature of their own, which corresponded to their national needs and aspirations.107 Their contemporaries who blindly imitated Italian writers may be of some interest to students of cultural history or linguistics, but other102

M. Kombol, "Dinko Ranjina i talijanski petrarkisti", in Gradja, 11 (1932), 64-94; Torbarina, Italian Influence . .., 142-97. 105 Jean Dayre, Dubrovacke studije (Zagreb, 1938), 73-88. 104 Jorjo Tadic, Dubrovacki portreti (Belgrade, 1948), 316-48; Torbarina, "Tassovi soneti i madrigali u cast Cvijete Zuzoric", in Hrvatsko Kolo, XXI (1940), 69-96; Ante Kadic, "Cvijeta Zuzoric, legenda i stvarnost", in Hrvatska Revija, V, No. 3 (1955), 285-90. 105 M. Kombol, "Talijanski utjecaji u Zlataricevoj lirici", Rad, 247 (1933), 21251; cf. also André Vaillant, La langue de Dominko Zlataric (Paris, 1928). Torbarina, Italian Influence . . . , 202-25. 107 In 1942, in the notorious collection of articles Italia e Croazia, which celebrated the annexation of Dalmatia, Giovanni Maver wrote: "La letteratura dalmato-ragusea in lingua croata non ha, di fronte all'italiana, che una sola differenza essenziale - la lingua" (485; cf. also 481). In his recent book, Letteratura serbo-croata (Milan, 1960), he is more subtle, circumspect, and less biased (cf. 115-16).

36

THE CROATIAN RENAISSANCE

wise they communicate very little that is new or valid. It is proper, in scholarly studies, to stress not only the undeniable influence of such Italians as Petrarch and his followers on certain of these writers,108 but also the damaging effects of Petrarchism. It should be pointed out that the best pages in the literature of the Croatian Renaissance are just those where native diction and spirit are present. (1962)

108 A. Cronia, La fortuna del Petrarca fra gli Slavi meridionali, in Annali della Cattedra Petrarchesca, Vol. IV, 1932, and also in a separate book (Arezzo, 1933).

II ST. FRANCIS XAVIER AND MARKO MARULIC

I read recently with great pleasure what is, to my knowledge, the best biography of St. Francis Xavier, by James Brodrick, S. J. Great was my surprise to find that the author considered it unimportant even to mention, if indeed he was aware of, the name of Marko Marulic (14501524), the great philosopher whose book De institutione bene vivendi was very popular during the Counter Reformation period. Witness the following passage: The only book, besides his Breviary and a species of catechism, which Francis is known for certain to have taken (leaving Rome, 1540), still exists, a thick little volume, published at Cologne in 1531, containing excerpts f r o m the Scriptures, St. Jerome, St. Gregory the Great, Eusebius, Cassian, and other ecclesiastical writers. Possibly, it was St. Jerome's contribution which attracted Francis to the anthology. H e is known to have carried the book about with him in India, but . . . he made no mark of any kind on the pages. 1

Not only Father Brodrick, but also others seem ignorant of the name of the author of this important book.2 There are, on the other hand, some writers who do mention Marulic's name, but one feels that they are a little bit embarrassed at not knowing exactly who he was or where he came from. Thus in the well-written biography of St. Francis by Margaret Yeo, we read: Francis had twenty-four hours to make his preparations. They were soon finished. H e mended his torn soutane and put together the few possessions he was to take with him - crucifix, breviary and Marcus Marulus' Institution of the Religious Life. All three are still extant, the breviary at Nantes, the other two at Madrid. 3 1

James Brodrick, S. J., Saint Francis Xavier (1506-1552) (New York, 1952), 96. See Edith Ann Stewart, The Life of St. Francis Xavier (London, 1917), 118. 3 Margaret Yeo, St. Francis Xavier (London, 1932), 69. See also Theodore Maynard, The Odyssey of Francis Xavier (London, 1936), 68; Georg Schurhammer, S. J., Franz Xaver, Erster Band: Europa (1506-1541) (Freiburg, 1955), 534. 2

38

ST. FRANCIS XAVIER AND MARKO MARULIC

The purpose of this short article is to show, with my conclusions based chiefly on the recent scholarly publications of the Jesuit Order (Documenta Histórica Societatis Jesu), how significant was the role played by Marulic's book in the spiritual life of St. Francis. At the beginning of April 1549, St. Francis wrote an Instruction for F. Gaspar Barzaeus (Berze), who was leaving Goa for Ormuz, just eight days before Xavier left the same city bound for Japan. In this famous Instruction, Francis encouraged Barzaeus to mix with sinners, telling him that he would learn more from them than from printed books: And if you wish to bring forth much fruit, both for yourselves and for your neighbors, and to live consoled, converse with sinners, making them unburden themselves to you. These are the living books by which you are to study, both for your preaching and for your own consolation. I do not say that you should not on occasion read written books . . . to support what you say against vices with authorities from the Holy Scriptures and examples from the lives of the saints.4

Fathers G. Schurhammer and I. Wicki, who edited this Instruction among Epistolae S. Francisci Xaverii, add the following comment to the passage quoted: Xaverius on his journeys continually used, besides his Breviary, one other book which contained excerpts taken from Holy Writ and the lives of the saints, a very rich source of ideas and thoughts for use in preaching and instructing. The title of this book was: Marci Maruli Opus de religiose vivendi institutione per exempla, ex veteri novoque testamento collecta: ex autoribus quoque divo Hieronymo presbytero, beato Gregorio Pont. Max., Eusebio Caesariensi episcopo, Iohanne Cassiano eremita, nonnullisque aliis qui vitas conscripsere sanctorum. Apud Sanctam Coloniam. Anno 1531; mense Ianuario.5

A few months later, in the middle of October 1549, F. Balthasar Gago sent from Goa to his religious brothers in Europe a very detailed letter, in which, among other things, he informed his coreligionists that they had not received in Goa any news from St. Francis since his departure for Japan, and he gave then names of those who went with him. Further, he mentioned that Xavier took with him "all things necessary for the celebration of the Mass, and books if they should be necessary (although Father Francisco neither reads nor studies but in his own book)". 6 Father Wicki, who edited Documenta Indica, in 4

G. Schurhammer and I. Wicki, eds., Epistolae S. Francisci Xaverii, II (Romae, 1945), 99. Cf. A. Brou, S. J., Saint François Xavier, II (Paris, 1922), 98-99. Epistolae, II, 99, n. 22. 6 Ioseph Wicki, S. J., éd., Documenta Indica, I (Romae, 1948), 554. 5

ST. FRANCIS XAVIER AND MARKO MARULIC

39

which Gago's letter is found, adds a very brief note to this extremely characteristic passage: The title of this book is: Marci Maruli Opus de religiose vivendi institutione (Coloniae, 1531). The author, a patrician from Split, was considered by his contemporaries as the luminary of Dalmatia - a coaevis velut luminare Dalmatiae habebatur.7 H e then gives as the only source for his information about Marulic the comment to the Epistolae (II, 99), already quoted, and H. Hurter's Nomenclátor. Hurter knew a little more about Marulic because his short notice about Marulic was taken from a provincial Italian periodical, published in 1 8 4 4 ! 8 After the death of St. Francis (December 3, 1552), much was written about him, especially by his religious brothers. F. Antonius de Quadros wrote a long letter (from Goa, on December 6, 1555) to F. Mirón. In this missive are to be found these lines: Master Francis was always extremely poor in everything and he was delighted by this poverty. Here, in our monastery, when he asked for something to eat, he did it as beggars do, in the name of God. When he was going away, his only belongings were the cloth he was wearing, the breviary and one other book. 9 Again the only reference given is the comment to the Epistolae (II, 99). What happened to this "one other book?" Did the Fathers keep it as a precious relic? Fr. Cros saw it, in 1894, in a convent in Madrid and gave the following details: On the second page is written: I received this Marco Marulo from Fr. Jerome Xavier, Superior of the monastery in Goa. He gave it to me so that I might give it to Father de Benavides, saying that he held it in great esteem, because it was the spiritual book which was used by Father and Master Francisco Xavier, of holy memory. This book I carried with me from Goa, and gave it to the said Father de Benavides, in the month of October 1594, in this college in Madrid. Gil de Mata. Father Cros continued the description of the external appearance of this relic: 7

Documenta Indica, I, 554, n. 18. Hugo Hurter, S. J., Nomenclátor literarius Theologiae Catholicae (Oeniponte, J 899), II, 1152. 9 Ioseph Wicki, S. J., ed., Documenta Indica, III (Romae, 1954), 335. See also Monumento Xaveriana, II (Madrid, 1912), 952. Jos.-Marie Cros, S. J., Saint François de Xavier: Documents nouveaux (Paris, 1903), 446.

8

40

ST. FRANCIS XAVIER AND MARKO MARULIC

All the pages are absolutely clean; there are no marginal notes, which spoil so many other books, but which would have made of this book an even more precious treasure. Francis was already observing the rule, which the Society was soon to impose upon all of its sons, that they should not write nor mark anything on books.10 Father Cros wrote in 1894. Nobody checked later to see if this book was still in Madrid, but all biographers, on the basis of his information, repeated not only the place of its custody, but made various comments about the clean appearance of the book. Unfortunately, this important copy probably no longer exists. How long has it been missing? According to F. Raspudic - since 1931. From his article, which was published in Croatian Almanac in 1954, I quote: What happened to this book, I could not discover. It is most probable that it was destroyed in the burning of the Jesuit monastery in Madrid in 1931, but the possibility is not excluded that this valuable relic was saved from destruction and perhaps is being kept in some safe place. The Jesuit Fathers could not give me any details about it.11 (1961)

10 11

Jos.-Marie Cros, 351-352. Prof. F. Bruno Raspudic, "Marko Marulic i sv. Franjo Ksaverski", in

Hrvatski

Kalendar,

1954, 121.

Ill

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

Many Slavic scholars continue to believe that Juraj Krizanic (16181683) "could not reconcile the contradiction which he bore within his own nature, that of being a Slavic patriot and a Catholic".1 One could have expected that, after the penetrating works of Val'denberg and particularly Jagic,2 this imaginary contradiction would not be considered a cardinal issue, but the majority of the Slavic specialists on Krizanic are still generally divided into two opposing groups: those who consider that Krizanic was a much greater Slav than a Catholic and those who stress that he was, first of all, a Catholic missionary. There are certain writers who proclaim that they understand well how Krizanic, in the seventeenth century (but not today), could have been a fervent Catholic and a good Slavic patriot, but in their arguments they strongly lean toward one or the other direction. Although between the two wars many articles were written about Krizanic 3 (one of the most interesting being that by Miroslav Krleza), there were no original studies and no new documents were produced. The interest in Krizanic seemed somewhat diminished. After the Second 1

S. M. Solov'ev, lstorija Rossii, VII, t. 13-14 (Moscow, 1962), 162. That this incompatibility was not necessarily in Krizanic's mind but in the minds of the Slavophiles no one has demonstrated better than Solov'ev's son Vladimir, who devoted an illuminating article to Krizanic (Sobranie socinenij, 2nd ed., SPb., 1901-07, IV, 191-92). 2 V. Val'denberg, Gosudarstvennye idei Ju. Krizanica (St. Petersburg, 1912); V. Jagic, Zivot i rad Jurja Krizanica (Zagreb, 1917). 3 M. Krleza, "O Patru dominikancu Jurju Krizanicu", Knjizevnik, II, 1929, 1-13 (republished many times); E. Smurlo, "From Krizanic to the Slavophiles", Slavonic and East European Review, VI, 1927-28, 320-35; H. Schaeder, Moskau das Dritte Rom, 2nd ed. (Darmstadt, 1957), 129-66; V. Val'denberg, "Znakomstvo Krizaniia s Grekami", Byzantinoslavica, VII, 1937-38, 1-24; D. Strémooukhoff, "J. Krizanic, Philippe de Commynes et la royauté française", Annales de l'Institut Français de Zagreb, Nos. 14-15, 1940, 125-38; C. Bryner, "The Political Philosophy of Yuri Krizhanich", The New Scholasticism, XIII, 1939, 133-68.

42

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

World War the great Croat again became popular, and this time not only in the Slavic world, but also abroad. In 1947 Michael Petrovich wrote a balanced article about Krizanic, and P. G. Scolardi published a book on him.4 While Petrovich in his concise article viewed Krizanic mostly as a precursor of the nineteenth century Pan-Slavists, Scolardi, as a true novelist, had good vision but often produced grandiloquence with faulty documentation. They both grasped Krizanic's double preoccupation: his unfailing zeal to help his Slavic brethren toward their cultural and political liberation and his priestly interest in spreading the Catholic faith; to this double goal, which became gradually undifferentiated in his mind, Krizanic dedicated his entire life. In his remarkable collection, Hrvatska svjedocanstva o Rusiji (1945), Josip Badalic translated into Croatian certain fragments from Krizanic's Politica and from his famous travelogue from Lvov to Moscow, namely those passage where Krizanic's pro-Russian tendency was most obvious. Two years later, on the basis of Bezsonov's incomplete edition (185960), Krizanic's Politica was for the first time translated into his native tongue. Vaso Bogdanov wrote a lengthy introduction, in which Soviet scholarship was excessively praised and Krizanic's formative years were completely neglected. With his opening statement Bogdanov leads us to believe that Krizanic became whatever he became after he crossed the Russian border.5 However, in this enthusiastic appraisal of Krizanic's political and economic ideas one finds a superb rebuke to the most virulent pamphlet ever written against Krizanic, namely the one by Nikola Skerovic.6 In this monograph, which was sponsored by the Serbian Royal Academy, Krizanic was presented as a mediocre intellect, a shameful liar and dangerous hypocrite, exclusively in the service of the papal Curia, which assigned him the duty of helping in its aim of subjugating spiritually the Orthodox "schismatics". The first Russian post-war study on Krizanic, a small book by B. D. Dacjuk,7 was a hymn to Krizanic's Slavic ideology. In three lively essays Krizanic was presented as a pure Slav, who had nothing to do, at least 4

M. B. Petrovich, "Juraj Krizanic: A Precursor of Pan-Slavism", American Slavic and East European Review, VI, 1947, 75-92; P. G. Scolardi, Krijanich, Messager de l'Unité des Chrétiens et Père du Panslavisme (Paris, 1947). 5 "Na torn putovanju u Veliku Slavensku Domovinu zaiela se je u Krizanicu ideja o jedinstvu svih slavenskih naroda i o stvaranju jedne slavenske drzavne zajednice na celu s Rusijom", Politika ili Razgovori o vladalastvu (1947), 5. 8 £>uro Krizanic, njegov zivot, rad i ideje (Belgrade, 1936), ix. 7 Jurij Krizanic, ocerk politileskix i istoriceskix vzgljadov (Moscow, 1946).

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

43

during his Russian stay, with the Catholic Church: his interest in Christian unity was a long forgotten dream; the contact with Russia taught him a more worthy cause to which he should dedicate his brilliant mind and his amazing will-power. Such an exaggerated interpretation was immediately opposed in the Soviet Union by Piceta and Gol'dberg and in Yugoslavia by Kombol and Sidak.8 Kombol's review is one of the most accurate analyses written on Krizanic. He had the tremendous advantage of knowing better than anyone else Krizanic's predecessors in Croatia and the social, cultural, and political environment into which he was born. Sidak and Kombol rightly stressed the Catholic aspect of Krizanic's mentality, his missionary zeal, and his perseverance in his ancestral faith in the midst of a hostile Orthodox environment. There appeared in the Voprosy istorii, October, 1953, an article by Epifanov 9 which had the effect of a bombshell. Krizanic's name suddenly disappeared from the new edition of the Soviet Encyclopedia; and subsequently in Czechoslovakia a violent campaign was launched against him.10 Epifanov declared that Krizanic had been a disguised spy, a tool in sinister Vatican machinations. Three years after Epifanov's vitriolic attack, Krizanic was valiantly defended by Puskarev in a speech that he delivered to his colleagues.11 Puskarev's solid scholarship left such an impression upon them that they unanimously sided with him, and Dacjuk humbly recognized his faults.12 One should recognize that the Soviet scholars in general are more favorably inclined toward Krizanic than their Orthodox predecessors were. But, as Druzinina had pointed out during the same meeting, Puskarev and other Soviet historians are still unaware of or negect to examine what the situation in Croatia was in the middle of the seventeenth century; she rightly stressed that Krizanic was an outstanding exponent of the feelings of his countrymen.13 Morduxovic's articles, particularly his recent translation into Russian 8

V. I. Piceta, "Jurij Krizanic i ego otnosenie k russkomu gosudarstvu", Slavjanskij sbornik (1947), 202-40; A. Gol'dberg, in Voprosy istorii, No. 4, 1947, 124-26; M. Kombol, in Historijski Zbornik, II, 1949, 307-12; J. Sidak, in Djelo, I, 1948, 376-79; id., in Historijski Zbornik, I, 1948, 295. 9 P. P. Epifanov, "Proiski Vatikana v Rossii i Jurij Krizanii", 18-36. 10 Cf. M. Kvapil, in Slavia, XXVI (Prague, 1957), 540-51. 11 L. N. PuSkarev, "Ob ocenke dejatelnosti Jurija Krizanica", Voprosy istorii, No. 1, 1957, 77-86. 12 "Obsuzdenie voprosa o dejatelnosti Jurija Krizanica", Voprosy istorii, No. 2, 1957, 202-06. 13 Ibid., 204.

44

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

of the unpublished Latin fragments from Política,1* cast an additional light on Krizanic's pre-Russian travels. We may now suppose that Krizanic, in the most critical years of his upbringing, his thirties, visited Paris, London, and Amsterdam. Yugoslav writings also reflect the date of their publication. Thus in the general Encyclopedia of the Leksikografski Zavod (IV, 1960) Krizanic is presented as a man who insisted that the Russians should help the Slavic nations achieve their liberation, but then leave them independent and not mix in their national affairs. There is no doubt that the two best specialists on Krizanic's writings among Croats are Badalic and Sidak. I am convinced that Sidak is right when he rejects Badalic's hypothesis that Krizanic viewed religious issues as being of secondary importance.15 But, on the other hand, one is surprised to find that Sidak, who in 1948 so convincingly insisted that Krizanic had many predecessors among his countrymen,16 in his most recent article (Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, V, 1962), fails to see any link between Krizanic and those who preceded him.17 In this paper I shall deal with Krizanic's formative years (up to 1658). First of all, Soviet studies are much better known in the West than those written in Yugoslavia and, as we have seen, the Russians have a tendency to neglect taking Krizanic's native milieu into consideration. Furthermore, we are told that very soon Krizanic's works will at last be completely and critically edited in the Soviet Union. After this publication it will be easier to work on Krizanic's Russian period (after 1659). Finally, during my prolonged stay in Rome, I had an opportunity to examine in de Propaganda fide and other ecclesiastical archives the original documents relating to this earlier period. Krizanic was born in the heart of Croatia, near Karlovac, in 1618, when his homeland was in a precarious position, and only heroic souls and prophetic visionaries could see a gleam of hope. After the collapse of Serbia and Byzantium, of Bosnia and Hercegovina, of a greater part of Croatia and Hungary, and after the valiant attempt of Nikola Subic-Zrinski to stop the advancing Turkish army at Siget (1566), panic seized the population. Some inhabitants embraced 14

L. M. Morduxovic, "Iz rukopisnogo nasledstva Jurija Krizanica", lstoriceskij arxiv, N o . 1, 1958, 154-89. 15 Badalic, "Juraj Krizanic - pjesnik Ilirije", Radovi Slavenskoga Instituía, II, 1958, 20, 22. Djelo, I, 1948, 377. " Cf. also Historija naroda Jugoslavije, II (1960), 1009-11, 1116-17. - Krleza wrote about Krizanic in Forum, I, 1962, 663-715.

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

45

Islam, some escaped to the Dalmatian coastland, to Italy, or Austria (Burgenland); and those who courageously remained never knew who would be the next in taxing their devastated property: the merciless collectors from Vienna or from Istanbul. The Croatian poets, from Marko Marulic to Ivan Gundulic, from 1501 to 1638, addressed their prayers to the Almighty and sent incessant supplications to the popes and various princes, begging them to unite the divided Christendom in its last effort, before everything should be lost. A poet from Dubrovnik, Vladislav Mencetic, who glorified the heroic deeds of Petar Zrinski (in his poem Trublja slovinska, 1665), concisely stated: Italy would long have been conquered if the Ottoman onslaught had not been dispersed at the Croatian shores.18 Some leading Croatian intellectuals, mostly clergymen, realized then that the political, religious, and cultural division of the Slavs was the basic cause of their disaster; consequently, they concluded that they could eventually survive only by closing the Slavic ranks. It became customary among the Croats to call themselves Illyrians because they believed they were autochthonous in their homeland.19 Juraj Sisgoric, a poet who wrote some very touching elegies in Latin, but who also appreciated the folk poems of his native region, identified Croatia with Illyria (1487).20 A Dominican friar, Vinko Pribojevic, who spent three years in Poland,21 delivered in his native town of Hvar, in 1525, a public lecture in which his main concern was to demonstrate the unity and greatness of Slavdom. "I have resolved", he said, "as a Dalmatian, and therefore as an Illyrian (Croat), and finally as a Slav to deliver a speech before Slavs regarding the destiny of the Slavs. I shall speak first of the origin and the glory of the Slavic race and of the meaning of its name; then I shall narrate the history of Dalmatia, which is not a negligible part of the Slavic world." 22 There are many legends in this small book (De origine successibusque Slavorum, published in Venice, 1532), but often myths were more instrumental in moving 18

"Od robstva bi davno u valih / potonula Italija, o hrvatskieh da se zalih / more otmansko ne razbija!" 19 Cf. Franjo Fancev, "Ilirstvo u hrvatskom preporodu", Ljetopis, XLIX, 1937, 133. 20 Veljko Gortan, "Sizgoric i Pribojevic", Filologija, II, 1959, 149-52; cf. M. Pantic in Prilozi, 26, 1960, 355. 21 Cf. Alois Schmaus, "Vincentius Priboevius, ein Vorläufer des Panslavismus", Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteurpas, N.F., I (1953), 243-54. 22 "Verum quia Dalmata et proinde Illyrius ac demum Slavus coram Slavis de Slavorum fortunis sermonem habere statui", O podrijetlu Slavena, ed. Grga Novak (Zagreb, 1951), 58.

46

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

mountains than the real facts. Pribojevic claimed that Alexander the Great, St. Jerome, over twenty-five Roman emperors, and several popes were Slavs. But what are his proofs that Alexander the Great, for example, was a Slav? In an apostrophe to Alexander, Pribojevic wrote that Alexander's desire of glorifying his name "sufficiently shows that he stems from that race which by its brilliant deeds has deservingly derived its name from glory".23 Pribojevic's vision of the Slavic world, its vastness, might, and glory impressed his contemporaries.24 Like Pribojevic, Mavro Orbini, a Benedictine abbot, in his famous book II regno degli Slavi (Pesaro, 1601), saw Slavs everywhere. On the principle that anyone who once lived in lands then inhabited by the Slavs must also have been a Slav, Orbini included the most varied people in the Slavic family. But, as Nikola Radojcic stated, Orbini was one of those authors who, despite all their weaknesses, possessed the skill of finding the way to their readers' souls.25 In the struggle of the South Slavs against Ottomans, Orbini saw the fight between good and evil, between St. George and the dragon. His book, which was translated into Russian (1722) by the order of Peter the Great, had a strong impact upon many Serbian and Bulgarian historians. They quoted particularly those passages in which Orbini glorified freedom and Slavic courage.26 Father Paisij, the founder of modern Bulgarian literature, though he admired Orbini the Slav, distrusted him as a Catholic.27 The Roman Curia, on the other hand, placed Orbini's book on the Index, simple because it contained many quotations from Orthodox authors.28 In spite of this ban, the work of this humble monk but fiery Slav remained very popular among his countrymen, and inspired Croatian historians such as Juraj Ratkaj and Pavle Vitezovic, as well as Andrija Kacic-Miosic in his Razgovor ugodni naroda slovinskoga 23

(1756). 29

"Abunde produnt ea te ex gente oriundum esse, quae rebus praeclare gestis nomen ex gloria derivatum est adepta" (Ibid., 71). 24 Cf. Michael Petrovich, "Dalmatian Historiography in the Age of Humanism", Medievalia et Humanistica, XII, 1958, 87-90. 25 Srpska [sic!] istorija Mavra Orbinija (Belgrade, 1950), 68-69. 28 Radojiic, Ibid., 35. 27 "Orbini was a Latin and did not admit the Bulgarian and Serbian saints who lived after the Latins separated themselves from the Greeks", cited by Boian Penev, Istoria na novata belgarska literatura, II (Sofia, 1932), 270. 28 Badalic, "luraj Krizanic - pjesnik Ilirije", Radovi Slavenskoga lnstituta, II, 18; Petrovich comments: "This was the penalty the hapless Benedictine friar had to pay for dealing sympathetically with the Orthodox Slavs and for using Byzantine authors as his authorities" ("Dalmatian historiography", Medievalia et Humanistica, XII, 95). 29 Ferdo SiSic, Prirucnik izvora hrvatske historije (Zagreb, 1911), 43.

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

47

Pribojevic, Orbini, and their like glorified the past and preached the ethnic unity of the Slavs, but did not propose any concrete steps for bringing them into meaningful and fruitful cooperation. Already during the Reformation, Primoz Trubar, along with various other reformers had hoped, by publishing religious books or theological treatises in their native tongues, to bring the South Slavic Christians and perhaps the Moslems of Slavic background into the same church.30 They used, however, kaj- and ca-dialects, which had limited audiences. The endeavor of the Counter-Reformation was more successful in this sense. The Catholics had suffered a tremendous loss to their numerical strength and prestige from the fact that the greater part of the northern and western European states had turned to Protestantism. Obvious signs of the Turkish decline and hope that they could reach an easy compromise with the Orthodox, still in distress, made the Vatican authorities listen carefully to the advice of certain Croatian clergymen then stationed in Rome. They had important positions in the newly founded Congregatici de Propaganda fide (1622).31 In their ranks could be discerned two distinctive schools, both of them trying to encompass large masses. The first school, led by the Jesuit Bartol Kasic,32 espoused the central Bosnian sto-dialect (already largely used by the Renaissance Dubrovnik writers) because it was spoken by the largest segment of either Christian or Moslem population.33 With his Rimski ritual istomacen slovinski (Rome, 1640) Kasic introduced the sto-dialect into a liturgical text. Kasic, moreover, modernized the orthography of the Latin alphabet by insisting that every sound should have, under every circumstance, only one identical sign. Kasic also translated the Bible, but his opponents prevented its publication.34 Kasic's most fervent disciple was an 34

Matija Murko, Die Bedeutung der Reformation utid Gegenreformation fiir das geistige Leben der Siidslaven (Prague and Heidelberg, 1927); Mijo Mirkovic, Matija Vlacic lìirik, Djela J A, No. 50 (Zagreb, 1960); Anton Slodnjak, "Novi pogledi na vznik slovenske in hrvaske reformacijske knjizevnosti 16. stoletja", Slavistilna revija, V-VII (1954), 109-20; cf. Josip Hamm, in Slavo, 1960, 9-10. 31 Nicola Kowalsky, Pontificio Collegio Urbano de Propaganda fide (Rome, 1956); A. Castelucci, "Il risveglio dell' attività missionaria e le prime origini della S.C. de Propaganda fide", Le Conferenze al Laterano (March-April, 1923), 177222 (bibl. 118-22). 32 Miroslav Vanino, "Le P. Barthélémy Kasic S.J., écrivain croate (1575-1650)", Archivium Historicum Societatis Jesu, VI (1937), 216-58, and XI (1942), 83-97. 33 One should not forget that KaSic, two centuries before Ljudevit Gaj and Vuk Karadzic, instinctively saw in which direction the future literary development would proceed. 34 Vj. Stefanic, Enciklopedija Jugoslavie, V (1962), 222-23.

48

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

Italian Jesuit Jakov Mikalja, who as a missionary in Bosnia learned Croatian. In the preface to his very good Croatian-Latin-Italian dictionary 35 he compared the Bosnian language in Yugoslavia to Tuscan in Italy. The Franciscan Rafael Levakovic, although he followed a quite different path, was also in the service of the Propaganda.36 His aim was not to unite the Southern Slavs by way of one identical language; rather he aspired to bring all Slavic Orthodox and Catholics together by introducing into his native Croatian elements borrowed from Church Slavonic and Russian. Levakovic was very much under the influence of the Ukrainian Uniates, particularly of Methodius Terleckyj. They believed that this mixture of idioms could become an appropriate vehicle for union. Many Croatian linguistic reformers followed Levakovic's direction. One of his most renowned and direct continuators was Juraj Krizanic. 37 The first group was more realistic and progressive. It gave a solid basis on which Croatian literature was able to develop and gradually embrace all national strata. The second group was traditionalist and Utopian, preoccupied mostly with religious considerations. It did not take into account the fact that language is not a laboratory creation but a product of slow and logical growth. 38 Levakovic and Krizanic were born in that part of Croatia (near Zagreb) which was still partly free and to which the Orthodox raia had escaped due to the constant Turkish invasions and heavy taxation. The question of how to bring these dissident Christians into unity with Catholics was then much debated. The Viennese government looked favorably upon this attempt, but its hesitant policy was often rather damaging. 39 35

Thesaurus linguae Illyricae (Loreto-Ancona, 1649-51) ("sumptibus Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda fide"); cf. Murko, op. cit., 83-85. 36 Levakovic wrote from Rome (August 1642) to his friend bishop Benko Vinkovic: "Siquidem si non in patria, alibi certe etiam vitam proposuerim amittere pro salute Schismaticorum, praesertim qui nostri sunt idiomatis", Arhiv za povjesnicu jugoslavensku, X (1869), 216. About Levakovic cf. Ivan DujCev, II cattolicesimo in Bulgaria nel sec. XVII, in Orientalia Christiana Analecta, CXI (Rome, 1937), 47-50; J. Radonic, Stamparije i skole rimske kurije u Italiji i juinoslovenskim zemljama u XVII veku (Belgrade, 1949); id., Rimska kurija i juznoslovenske zemlje (Belgrade, 1950), passim; Ed. Winter, Russland und das Papstum, I (Berlin, 1960), 337-38. 37 Vj. Stefanic, Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, V (1962), 521-22. 38 Buro Danific, in Rad, XIV, 1871, 197. 39 Janko Simrak, De relationibus Slavorum meridionalium cum sancta Romana sede apostolica saeculis XVII et XVIII (Zagreb, 1926); Levakovic's letters were

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

49

Everyone knew what kind of books the Orthodox used: they were all printed in Russia. From these texts the Orthodox masses learned that a Catholic, when embracing the Orthodox faith, should be rebaptized; that the Pope is the incarnate Antichrist; that the marriage between a Catholic and Orthodox is invalid, and so on. What was more normal than to think that the trouble did not lie with these innocent and uneducated refugees? If one really wanted to eliminate misunderstanding one should proceed to the roots, and come into close contact with the teachers of the third Rome in order to convince them of their errors; then perhaps the Vlachs would follow. The Croatian clergy, moreover, was convinced that schismatic Byzantium quarrelled with Rome only for political prerogatives. They hoped that if they could persuade the Russians that the Slavic Christians were the ones who suffered most because of this Christian dissension, the Slavs could be united, and then they could initiate attacks against the Turks and create their own independent states. Krizanic was not the first Croatian clergyman who traveled to Russia. A citizen of Split, Alexander Komulovic, went there as an emissary of the Roman Curia and left precious memoranda about his mission. Komulovic's activity has been thoroughly studied by Pierling and Halecki. 40 In the instructions which Komulovic received (and perhaps dictated himself) in 1594, it was stressed that the Balkan Slavic nations that suffered from the Turkish oppression "were of the same Muscovite language or a slightly different one" and would be glad to receive assistance "from their relatives". Halecki rightly points out that Komulovic was not in favor of the separate union with the Ruthenians (Brest, 1596), because he saw in it an additional obstacle to fruitful cooperation with Russia. 41 In spite of his willingness to please the Russians (he also introduced Russicisms into his Croatian writing), Komulovic's two trips to Moscow remained unsuccessful because Muscovy, at that moment, was not ready to join in the struggle against the Turks.

published by E. Fermendzin in Starine, XX, 1886, 22-32 ("O. Rafo Levakovic i Vlasi u Hrvatskoj g. 1641"); cf. G. Markovic, Gli Slavi ed i Papi, II (Zagreb, 1897), 413-15; Ladisias Hadrovics, L'Église serbe sous la domination turque (Paris, 1947), ch. 1. 40 P. Pierling, Papes et Tsars, 1547-1597 (Paris, 1890), 443-75 ("Les deux missions de Komulovic"); Oscar Halecki, "The Renaissance Origin of PanSlavism", The Polish Review, III, 1958, 13-19; id., From Florence to Brest (Rome, 1958; vol. V of the Sacrum Poloniae Milennium), 253-67. 41 The Polish Review, III, 18.

50

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

At the beginnings of the seventeenth century Russia was passing through the Time of Troubles, and was deeply humiliated and irritated by the Polish Invasion. In the space of two decades, during Krizanic's student years, Russia succeeded in establishing order, repelling her enemies, and increasing her territory. These events, without any doubt, impressed the young Croatian patriot and raised his hopes that eventually liberation could come thanks to the Russian tsar, who was himself a Slav. Once his interest was aroused in Russia, Krizanic was able to find much information about this distant and mysterious world. It is true that Krizanic was fascinated during his stay in Bologna by the missionary zeal of Antonio Possevino, who instilled in him hope that where Posse vino had failed he could succeed; but he also read many other authors with interest and benefit.42 While in Possevino's reports he found many details about theological discrepancies and useless skirmishes between East and West, in Herberstein's renowned comments on Muscovy (Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarii, Vienna, 1549), he sensed a deep sympathy for the Slavs. Herberstein went on his mission with a good knowledge of Slovenian and the conviction that the Slavs were a linguistic unity.43 Paulus Jovius (Paolo Giovo) wrote a paragraph about the diffusion of the Illyrian language that sounds as if it were written by Pribojevic, Peter Cedulini,44 Orbini, or any other early Pan-Slavist.45 The Croats, as Christians, were appreciative of what the Austrians were doing to repel the Turks (though in their opinion they could have

42

A. Gol'dberg, "Socinenija Jurija Krizanica i ix istofiniki", Vestnik istorii mirovoj kultury, Nov.-Dec., 1960, 117-30. 43 "And having the advantage of knowing the Slavic [Slovene] language, which is identical with the Russian and Muscovite; no one who did not pay particular attention to their pronunciation would be able either conveniently to ask them a question or to gain any intelligible reply", tr. by R. H. Major, Herberstein's Notes upon Russia, I (London, 1851), 1; cf. also the Slovene translation by L. M. Golia, S. Herberstein's Moskovski zapiski (Ljubljana, 1951), 7. 44 Halecki, "The Renaissance Origin of Panslavism", The Polish Review, 1958, 9-13. 45 "Moschovitae Ulyrica lingua, Illyricisque litteris utuntur, sicuti et Sciavi, Dalmatae, Bohemi, Poloni, et Lithuani. Ea lingua omnium longe latissima esse perhibetur, nam Constantinopoli Ottomanorum in Aula familiaris est, et nuper in Aegypto apud Memphiticum Sulthanum et équités Mamaluchos haud ingratis auribus audiebatur. In hanc linguam ingens multitudo sacrorum librorum industria maxime divi Hieronymi et Cyrilli, translata est." Libellus de legatione Basilìi magni Principis Moschoviae ad dementem VII Pont. Max. (Rome, 1525), 28.

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

51

done much more), 46 but as patriots they did not expect any good from the Austrian side. How could they? They saw the German noblemen and soldiers in action behaving as masters in their colony and using the most unspeakable words about the Slavic inhabitants. The anti-German animosity that Krizanic so abundantly shows in his Politica was not of his own creation. He carried it from his native land. He was born on the estate of the princes Zrinski and grew up with the same bitter feeling they had toward the Germans. Later the Zrinskis tried to persuade him to come back as their private chaplain. Petar Zrinski was particularly irritated when an Austrian Colonel, Johann Herberstein, was appointed instead of him as the Commandant of the military Croatian border (Krajina). Petar was the poet who so concisely expressed the common belief: one should trust the German the same way as he trusts the winter sun (Viruj Nimcu, da znas, kako suncu zimsku). 47 He and his brother-in-law, Fran Krsto Frankopan, were executed on the order of Leopold I in 1671. And as one contemporary noted, the Germans could not stand them (Nisu ih mogli Nemci videti).48 It is absurd to think that Krizanic disliked the Germans only because they were Protestants. Most of the Austrians were Catholics. This anti-German hostility was shared by the Hungarians. In the Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy, the Hungarian noblemen Wesselenyi, Lippay, and Nadasdy played a decisive role.49 In connection with Zrinski and Frankopan, one should stress the fact that these princes, who lived in the same environment as Krizanic, were well acquainted with the Croatian literature written in the Dalmatian cities, particularly Dubrovnik, and they also were influenced by native folk poetry. 50 In a few poems which he wrote, Krizanic betrays the same heritage. He intones his "Duma" nevertheless in the manner of classical metre: It was believed that there were ministers in Vienna who held that only a continuation of the Turkish peril could keep Croatia and Hungary under Habsburg rule (Oscar Jaszi, The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy [Chicago, 1929], 51-55). 47 Adrianskoga mora Sirena (Venice, 1660); new ed. by T. Matic (Zagreb, 1957). 48 Sidak, in Djelo, 1948, 376. Vatroslav Jagic wrote: "Ako igda, to je u ono doba medu Hrvatima strasna mrznja vladala na Nijemce" (Rad, XVIII, 1872, 203). 49 Nada Klaic and Bogo Grafenauer, in Historija Jugoslavije, II (1959), 736-50, 58-60; cf. also Vaso Bogdanov, Likovi i pokreti (Zagreb, 1957), 7-47. 50 I think that E. Angyal is correct when he points out that these links existed not only among national but also multinational segments of the Danubian and Balkan area ("Madarski i slavenski barok", Prilozi, XXVII, Nos. 3-4, 1961, 163-172).

52

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

Vile, gorske kneginje, ke u kolo sastavse spivate divne pisni. 51

We could say, in summing up this brief introduction, that the Croats reasoned somewhat like this: If we are Slavs, ethnically and linguistically, if our greatest tragedy is our religious and consequently political dissension, if we cannot find any help from the Germans in our effort to be free from the Turks and other aggressive neighbors, then why not look toward Russia, namely, in the same direction in which the Holy See has been looking for the last hundred years, since the Council of Trent? After having secured an excellent education at the Jesuit schools in Zagreb, Graz, and Bologna, Krizanic at the age of twenty-two (in 1640), aspiring to become a Catholic priest, went to Rome in order to complete his theological studies. Soon after his arrival, Krizanic submitted a request to the Propaganda to be admitted to the Greek college. He asked this privilege, usually not accorded to a Latin cleric, so that he could learn the Greek language and read in it about the controversial theological issues. Why? He said explicitly that he would like to work among the schismatics at the Muscovite court.52 His petition was granted by the Propaganda, which insisted that, once his theological studies were completed, he should proceed to Moscow and there fulfill his duties as the missionary of the Congregation.53 In a letter to his bishop Vinkovic, dated April 3, 1641, Krizanic lamented the inadequacy of the Croatian language when one tried to express in it more abstract concepts, and commented on how much his mother tongue was influenced by foreign languages. That is the reason why so many Croats were ashamed to speak it. He undertook therefore the task of writing a Croatian grammar, of forming hundreds of new words that everyone could easily understand, and collecting folk proverbs.54 51

He translated this into Latin: "Nymphae, montanae principes, quae in chorum sistentes concinitis geniales hymnos." Ed. Fermendzin, in Starine, XVIII, 1886, 227. 52 "Havendo desiderio di andar fra i schismatici, alla corte del Duca di Moscovia, ad honor di Dio, ed in servitio della Santa Sede Apostolica" (S. Belokurov, / . Krizanic v Rossii, Vypusk tretij, Nos. 1-2 [Moscow, 1909]). 55 V. Jagic, ed., Archiv fur slavische Philologie, VI (1882), 120; Belokurov, III, No. 3. M Arhiv za povjesrticu jugoslavensku, X (1869), 192-94.

KRI^ANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

53

The situation was not as bad as Krizanic believed, because the Croatian poets from Dalmatia had been writing for more than a hundred fifty years in a language definitely much above a rudimentary stage.55 Krizanic was perhaps not well informed about the Croatian writers outside of northern Croatia (around Zagreb), but these documents immediately reveal his religious and patriotic ambitions. There is a document in the Propaganda archives which Paul Pierling discovered in 1896 and later published in Belokurov's book on Krizanic.36 The transcription was based on a copy and contains dozens of faulty readings. I have had the opportunity of studying the original (Polonia, Russia and Moravia,

vol. 338, folio 533-542v).

Though there is no indication of the author, Pierling is correct when he says that it was written by Krizanic in the middle of 1641, probably after he was accepted at the Greek college and asked by his superiors to state his future plans.37 Pierling wrongly supposed it was addressed to Cardinal Antonio Barberini, for it is indicated on the original that its addressee was Francesco Ingoli, the secretary of the Propaganda. The title is "Delia Missione in Moscovia", and it is preceded by customary symbols, IHS and MRA. In its introductory sentence we immediately recognize Krizanic, who is delighted to emphasize the vastness of the Tsar's territories and the noble efforts of the Holy See, constantly reminding the simple Russian people that they are misled by devious Greek lies. Krizanic begins the first part of his outline by quoting Possevino, who wrote that the Russians had received the Christian faith from the Greeks, the worst teachers of falsehood (a pessimis praeceptoribus falsitatis).58 From them the Russians had learned to dislike the Latins, and when they wished to offend someone they uttered: I would like to see you as a Latin (utinam te latinae fidei viderem). Their prince, after receiving Latin delegates, washed his hands as he did when receiving Moslems. Krizanic explains this hostile attitude as a consequence of the Russian commerce with the Greeks. Recently, he says, the Russians have 55

One should remember that Ivan Gundulic wrote his Osmart before 1638, and that another missionary, B. Kasic, had already prepared a Croatian grammar (Institutiones linguae illyricae [Rome, 1604]). 56 S. A. Belokurov, Jurij Krizanic v Rossii po novym dokumentam (Moscow, 1901), Prilozenie, 87-106. 57 Ibid., 86. 58 f. 533v; Pierling wrongly read receptoribus, B. 89.

54

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

also come into contact with the heretics (Protestants) from England and Holland, who speak so many indecencies about the Pontiff. Krizanic then describes, quoting Possevino and Herberstein, the supreme power of the Muscovite Prince. There is no monarch like him: he owns everything and whatever his subjects possess, they have received from him; he is not obliged to listen to the advice of anyone and he disposes of the lives of everyone; he behaves as if he were the executor of divine will and the Russians humbly and willingly accept him as such. The Muscovites are very cunning. They are not quick-tempered; when "they start to swear, watch! (Herberstein had warned), they plan to deceive".59 In spite of this and some other faults, they are extremely religious people: they are very devoted to their saints and their icons; they do not touch sacred books or relics without making the sign of the cross and bowing low; they are tenacious in preserving their rites; they fast often; they go to confession around Easter "with great contrition", and when they swear, they avoid using God's name.60 How does it happen that such good and religious people are fanatically opposed to Catholicism? If we want to discover the remedy, Krizanic continues, we must first learn the cause of the Russian schism. Here Krizanic no longer quotes Possevino, Olaus Magnus, or Herberstein, but gives his own original interpretation: "The Russian schism did not spring from the same cause that brought about the separation of either the vainglorious Greeks, who have tried to compete with the Roman splendour, or of the modern heretics, who were motivated by desire for libertinage; the Russians by nature do not seek power. This is apparent from the small number of revolutions in their history, though they had enough reason to revolt against the tyranny of their rulers. . . . The natural cause of their perseverance in error could be their suspicion or fear that they might be misguided by foreigners in matters as important as religion; their fear is increased by their crude ignorance." They are somehow confirmed in their faith by religious zeal and the saintly lives of certain monks. These divine favors, Krizanic believes, are not found either among Greeks or Protestants. The Russian masses can be saved because of their simplicity and humility.61 59

f. 534; B. 91-92. f. 535; B. 92-93. 61 "Che il loro Schisma non provenga da quella radice, dalla quale nacque quello de' Greci: cioè che non proceda dalla superbia emulatrice della maestà Romana: ne meno dall'appetito d'una dissoluta libertà, donde ebbero origine alcune moderne eresie. Perche la natura loro più tosto sfugge che appetisce l'imperio: 60

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

55

In the second part, in which he tries to convince his superiors to send him, though still young and inexperienced, as a missionary to Moscow, Krizanic insists that his task will not be very difficult, because "the Muscovites are neither heretics nor schismatics" but poor people misled by the Greeks. He will not go there to preach to them; his job will consist mainly of encouraging them to lead virtuous lives and to become more interested in the arts; once this is done, it will be easy to show them their error.62 Krizanic does not plan to argue with the Russians who believed that their saints, Boris and Gleb, Metropolitan Peter, Alexej, and the monk Sergej had done miraculous deeds. He thinks that Possevino was wrong when he declared their miracles were pure fables.93 The Uniates themselves, Krizanic argues, have constructed churches in honor of these Russian saints. In writing this Program, Krizanic had not yet formed a definite opinion, but nevertheless insinuated that those who would eventually accept the Catholic faith should not be required to abandon their Greek rite or Slavonic language for Latin.64 In the third part, in which he describes his plan of operation, Krizanic views as the most important step that of reaching the Muscovite Prince's court and then gradually gaining his favor by publishing useful books. He will not do anything to displease the Orthodox bishops; moreover, he will submit his writing for their approval.65 He, a Catholic priest, will humbly request their "imprimatur"; they are for him the representatives of the legitimate church. Krizanic thinks that the most appropriate beginning will be if he writes, while now in Rome, a general history in which particular attention will be paid to the circumstances under which "all our nations" il che appare chiaramente dalla rarità, o totalmente mancanza delle ribellioni, avendo essi pur tanti ragioni di scottere da se quella grave tirannia delti Duchi, e pure li sopportano con la quiete" (f. 536; B. 94-95). 62 "Et io tengo li Moschi non per Heretici o per Schismatici (poiché il loro Schisma non procede dalla superbia, vera radice dello Schisma, ma della ignoranza). . . . E cosi penso di esortarli alle virtù, alle scienze et arti liberali: le quali introdotte, sarebbe poi più facil cosa il mostrar loro la falsità e l'inganno" (f. 537v; B. 97). 63 "Ma io direi, ch'egli s'ingannò nel dire, che queste siano favole, essendo che le opere non possono mentire" (f. 538; B. 99). 64 "Poiché dalla S. Chiesa sono già concedute queste diversità de' riti e delle lingue" (f. 539v; B. 99). 65 "Ma prima lasciarle rivedere da i Vescovi, per non lasciare in esse veruna sospitione" (f. 539v; Pierling incorrectly read: veruna sospensione, B. 101).

56

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

such as Poles, Bohemians, Moscovites, Bulgarians, Ukranians, Croats, Bosnians, and others, have received the Christian faith; then he will also attempt to show their progress or failure in this domain. Once this book is written, he will be ready to carry it personally to the Prince. He thinks of prefacing it with a dedication that will be phrased somewhat like this: "Looking at all personalities of our above-mentioned nations, I did not find anyone comparable to the Prince in dignity (that is true); only to him, the greatest person of our nation, should be offered the book which deals with the history of our nation. This is the reason why I have decided to serve no one but him, the most respected among our national princes. . . . I will be at his disposal, if he wants, as an interpreter, ambassador, instructor to his children, or in any other service."66 This is the way in which Krizanic planned to enter the Russian Court. He plans to write many other books. He considers a grammatical treatise very important. He had already written one on the Croatian language and he can later adapt it to the Russian. Having enumerated many secular and religious books which he intends to write or translate for the benefit of the Prince, Krizanic says in his concluding paragraph, entitled "The Final Move" {dell' ultima impresa), that after completing this careful preparatory work, which could last four or five years, he will come openly to the Prince and exhort him to declare war on the Turks, the common enemy of the Christians. The Turks will soon be expelled from Europe, as is obvious from prophecies. The Prince should not let someone else perform this historical task. He could easily defeat the Turks, because the Greeks, who are of the same faith as he, will support him; to his aid will come the Bulgarians, Serbs, Bosnians, and Moldavians, because they consider him their prince.67 Since his subjects are not well equipped in military weapons, he will need the help of Western Catholic princes. It is clear that they will not co-operate with him if he does not accept religious union.68 Krizanic perhaps sensed the Utopian aspect of his plan; therefore he concluded: Let our Lord accomplish this to His glory. My understanding of this important memorandum is almost identical with that of Jagic, who saw in Krizanic a Catholic and a Slav, a man who equally cherished the Catholic faith and Slavic solidarity.6" 66

f. 539v-540; B. 101-102. "Per amor d'un Prencipe di commune loro lingua e natione" (f. 542v; B. 106). «« f. 542v; B. 106. e * "U Krizanicevoj dusi, kako se vidi, vec tada je bilo mjesta za dvije ideje: za katoliiku vjeru i slovensku narodnost" (/. Krizanic, 25). 67

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

57

I agree also with Pierling, who considered this document to be Krizanic's life-long program, to which he remained faithful until his death. 70 It is strange that Belokurov misunderstood it and presented Krizanic as an agent of the Catholic Church. 71 Nikola Skerovic and Radonic readily accepted Belokurov's interpretation: in their minds a fervent Catholic could only be a traitor to the Slavic cause. 72 How much was Krizanic indebted to Possevino in writing this remarkable document? Krizanic confessed, in his lengthy letter to Father Levakovic in 1647, that his first ambition had been to improve the deplorable status of the Croatian language; only when he read Possevino's book, De rebus Moscoviticis, had he realized how many of "our nations" were poisoned by the schism. He then decided to improve not only "our language", but also to work toward the removal of the schism. 73 Pierling rightly insisted that Krizanic was much indebted to Possevino, but he also pointed out their different means of approach. Jagic wrote that Krizanic, who found in Possevino the idea of addressing himself directly to the Tsar, nevertheless had chosen his own way of action, because his Slavic soul had dictated it to him. 74 Smurlo claimed that there was little, if anything, that Krizanic could have taken from Possevino, because Smurlo viewed them as the representatives of two diametrically opposed ethnic groups by their mentalities. 75 Resuming this old discussion, Scolardi correctly said that Possevino was a potent stimulus to Krizanic but that Krizanic, nevertheless, did not hesitate to disagree with or criticize Possevino in many instances. 74 Their discrepancies are evident on these basic points: Krizanic did not consider the Russian Orthodox to be schismatics; he revered the Russian saints; he held their bishops in high esteem (he would not have refused, as Possevino did, to kiss their hands); and he did not 70

La Russie et le Saint-Siège, IV (Paris, 1907), 5-11. Jurij Krizanic, 60. 72 Skerovic, £>uro Krizanic, 11-16; J. Radonic, Rimska kurija, 132-36. 73 "Inde cognovi ingentem nostrarum gentium multitudinem schismate esse invenenatam: simul intentionem converti ad laborandum, non solum circa linguam, sed simul etiam fructuosius in destructionem schismatis" (f. 543; B. 144). 74 "Tu je, ja bih rekao, kod Krizanica progovorila slovenska dusa, koja je njemu pokazivala drugi put, kojim valja osvojiti srca ruskoga naroda" (J. Krizanic, 25). 75 "Nous voyons d'un côté l'intelligence latine, sévère, intransigeante, où la raison prédomine; nous avons de l'autre l'intelligence slave, abhorrant le système, laissant une large part à la voix du cœur, toujours prête aux engouements" {Le Saint-Siège et l'orient orthodoxe russe, 1609-1654 [Prague, 1928], 340). 78 Krijanich, 181-87. "

58

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

think it necessary that they accept the Latin rite. Finally, wheras Krizanic was lenient and indulgent toward the Russian Orthodox, Possevino was an admirer of the Greeks because of their great cultural tradition. Polcin enumerates many erroneous accusations of Possevino against the Russian faith,77 none of which could be found in Krizanic. Halecki writes that Possevino was pro-Polish,78 while Krizanic bluntly stated that the Poles and Italians should be kept away when dealing with Russia: the first on account of their aggressive war, and the second because they were suspected in advance by the Russians.79 In September, 1641, Krizanic asked to be ordained to the priesthood, at an earlier date than was planned. Francesco Ingoli, the secretary of the Congregation and a remarkable clergyman, who was always favorably disposed to Krizanic, recommended him by saying that the superiors of the Greek college were extremely satisfied with him. He also remarked that Krizanic had written certain things that were full of good sense.80 From every side superlative comments were bestowed upon Krizanic. It is no surprise that he had become a priest by the beginning of February, 1642. Krizanic soon submitted his third request: he would appreciate the privilege of celebrating the Mass in Church Slavonic and the Eastern rite. He repeated this request several times, stressing that he, as a future missionary among Orthodox, should learn and use the language and rite to which the Orthodox were accustomed.81 Though Ingoli again warmly supported Krizanic, the Holy Office never gave him this permission. Is it necessary to stress how brave and farsighted Krizanic was when asking for something which today is so readily given to all those who busy themselves in missionary work? How could the Roman Curia have expected the conversion of large masses without any real concession, without understanding people's attachment to their traditions, which they valued more than fine theological discussions? 77

"Nous y trouvons, hélas, aussi des erreurs et même des calomnies grossières qui n'auraient dû jamais etre publiées." Stanislas Polôin S.I., La Mission religieuse du Père Antoine Possevin en Moscovie, in Orientalia Christiana Analecta, CL (Rome, 1957), 75. 78 "Possevino strongly advised to concentrate on the reestablishment of religious union with the Ruthenians under the King of Poland" (From Florence to Brest, 210-211). 79 f. 547; B. 181. 80 Belokurov, Vypusk tretij, Nos. 5-6. 81 Ibid., Nos. 8-9; Athanasius Velykyj, ed., Acta S. C. de Propaganda fide Ecclesiam Catholicam Ucrainae spectantia, I, 1622-67 (Rome, 1953), 182.

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

59

Krizanic was sent for three years, not to the court of the Moscovite Prince, but to his native country. The plans were changed on the grounds that he would be better prepared after having worked among the Orthodox living in Croatia.82 It is hard to say whether this decision was taken at the insistence of his bishop, who appreciated him highly and wanted him back, or because the Congregation was somewhat apprehensive about this young priest who was so full of new and unusual ideas. Before his departure from Rome at the end of September, 1642, Krizanic obtained his doctorate in theology and received letters in which his Jesuit superiors and Greek colleagues expressed their esteem for his exceptional intellectual and moral qualities.83 They wished him all the best, convinced as they were that such a man would make his mark in history. Unfortuantely, a few days after his arrival in Zagreb, his bishop Vinkovic died (December 1, 1642); 84 and the new bishop, Martin Bogdan, did not show the same benevolent attitude toward Krizanic. Otherwise, he was appreciated by his countrymen: the Zagreb canons offered him a professorship in the seminary, the Zrinski family asked him to be their chaplain, and the Draskovic family begged him to be instructor of their children. But he turned down all these tempting offers and went to Nedelisce as a parish priest. He thought that only in this way could he prepare himself for the Muscovite work.85 Krizanic then encountered Methodius Terleckyj, the Bishop of Chelm, who was passing through Croatia on his way to Rome. Krizanic told about all his preoccupations and worries to this prominent Uniate dignitary, and a great friendship eventually developed between them. Terleckyj, on his arrival in Rome, submitted a memorandum (August, 1643) on how to convert the Vlachs of Zumberak to Catholicism. In the fourth point of the memorandum he reiterated Krizanic's request to celebrate the Mass in the Greek rite.86 Terleckyj hoped to take Krizanic with him on his way home, but Krizanic could not depart because he was encumbered by heavy debts that he had contracted as a student.87 In May of 1645 Krizanic moved to Varazdin. Remembering the 82

Belokurov, Prilozenie, 129. f. 561; B. 218-19. 8" Starine, XVIII, 1886, 216. 85 "Sed haec omnia ego ideo tantum declinavi: quia timebam, ne inter aularum delicias conceptam moscoviticam intentionem deperderem" (f. 546v; B. 178). 86 Acta Ecclesiam Catholicam Ucrainae spectantia, I, 191. 87 Starine, XVIII, 218-19. 83

60

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

words of Terleckyj, who had said to him: "Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee" (Gen. 12:1), he became totally impatient. He began to write one long missive after another to his protector Ingoli, begging him to allow and facilitate his departure from Varazdin. The Jesuits and Franciscans, he wrote, would replace him in performing his parish duties. Krizanic became convinced he was no exception to the saying that a prophet is without honor in his own country and that he was therefore wasting his time and talent; his mind was forever settled on Russia. 88 Ingoli somewhat cooled toward Krizanic and even reproached him for his self-interest. It could be that the secretary misunderstood Krizanic's insistent requests for help in solving his financial problems. Krizanic almost exploded and wrote two marvelous self-defenses, saying that his impatience was motivated solely by his burning desire to spread the glory of God and be useful to his own people. 89 Having received the requested letters of recommendation, he left in June of 1646 for Vienna. Once in the Austrian capital, Krizanic stayed at the Croatian College and waited there for the Latin Bishop of Smolensk, Peter Parczewski, with whom Krizanic was supposed to work as a missionary. Parczewski was extremely slow in arriving from Rome and negligent in answering Krizanic's letters. After two months of waiting, Krizanic was informed by Ingoli that Parczewski was still in Rome and that he would take with him another missionary, Leo Flegen, with whom Krizanic was to be trained in Smolensk for their future missionary work. Not having heard from Parczewski, Krizanic decided to proceed alone and await the bishop in Warsaw. He felt obliged to leave Vienna, for he did not want people to wonder what he was doing there for so long; he did not wish to reveal his secret to anyone. When finally in December, 1646, Krizanic and Parczewski met in Warsaw, they knew at first sight that they would never get along. Parczewski could not understand why Krizanic, being a Latin priest, was so eager to use the Greek rite.90 Krizanic was shocked that the Propaganda had not instructed this "proud and stubborn Polish prelate" about its plans concerning him. The bishop and Krizanic had many unpleasant quarrels. Jagic's perplexity about why Krzanic was not sent to his friend the 88 89

Ibid., 219-24.

Belokurov, Prilozenie, 131-37. "Scitote praeterea, quod ego sim latini ritus episcopus et vos eiusdem ritus sacerdos. . . . Quid enim mihi cum Rutenis?" (f. 543v; B. 151). 90

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

61

Bishop of Chefan91 can be easily explained: After it had become clear that Krizanic was obliged to remain in Nedelisce on account of his debts, Peter Saraceno, an expert on the early Greek Fathers and Krizanic's colleague from the Greek College, was sent to the Bishop of Chelm instead.02 Krizanic at first was glad to be sent to Smolensk, which was so close to Moscow. Krizanic was very critical of his German companion Leo Flegen, who was "an ignoramus, boastful and indiscreet". Anyone who wanted to listen could learn that he and Krizanic were being sent as missionaries to Muscovy. This is the real reason why people started to call them "the Italian missionaries". Krizanic thought it wiser to keep silent about their mission. He was afraid that the Orthodox who lived mixed among the Poles would immediately denounce the two of them to the Russian authorities.93 Furthermore, if he was looked upon as an Italian missionary, Krizanic was sure he had less chance for success. He was convinced that he, as a Slav, could succeed where members of other nationalities had failed. Krizanic did not waste his time. He learned that a Russian diplomat, Gerasim Doxturov, had come to Warsaw. He asked for an audience twice but was refused. Then he bribed one of the assistants and Doxturov received him. Krizanic presented himself with this elaborate speech: "Sir, I am by nationality a Croat from Illyria and a Catholic priest.94 The Illyrians, being subjugated by the Turks, Germans, and Italians, have not only borrowed many words from these nations, but they have almost lost their own language. Feeling upset about this, I have always tried to ameliorate this situation. To accomplish this and to learn all the properties of the Illyrian language, I thought I should learn its main dialects. I already speak Croatian, Serbian, and Slovenian and came here in order to learn Polish and Russian. But above all I wish to learn Russian, since it among all our languages is the most important; you are the only Slavic nation that has its own prince, and you perform all state and church business in your language. But there are two obstacles in my way: First, I am not of your faith; and second, being a foreigner, I cannot easily enter your country. (If allowed to 91

"Odgovor na o v o pitanje ostaje za nas taman" ( K r i z a n i c , 48). Acta Ecclesiam Catholicam Ucrainae spectantia, I, 222, and passim; Smurlo, Le Saint-Siège, 275-76. 93 "Quia sunt hie ubique Schismatici mixti catholicis, qui Moscoviticis perscribunt o m n i a quae hic fiunt" (f. 545v; B. 166). M "Ego de natione Illyrius Croatus sum, religionis Romanae sacerdos" (f. 548; B. 191). 82

62

KRIZANIC'S FORMATIVE YEARS

enter) I would be glad to serve your prince, because he is of our blood and language. I shall be delighted if nobody annoys me on account of my religion, because if forced to speak, I would never deny but always defend my own." 93 When the audience was over, Doxturov's assistants complimented Krizanic for his intention of visiting their homeland. When one of them suggested to him that if he embraced Orthodoxy (much superior to his constantly changing faith) their prince would satisfy all his wishes, Krizanic answered: "I know that my faith is true and do not want to discuss it with you."9