Erasmus and the Croats in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries

Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Advisory Board: Clarence H . Milkr (president), Hans Trapman (ex officio; secretary), lane E. Phillips (ex officio; editor), lréna Backus (Switzerland), Georges Chantraine,

SJ (Belgium) , Heinz M. Hokczek (Germany) , Bruce E. Mansfield (Austrdia) , Germain Marc'hadour (Frame), a d Letizia Panizza (United Kingdom) .

The Erasmus of Rotterdam Society was founded in 1980 to promote the following aims: to encourage research and writing on Erasmus, his contemporaries, and their intellectual milieu; to sponsor the publication of a Year- book containing scholarly articles and book reviews on these subjects; to sponsor and publish three annua1 lec- tures: the Birthday Lecture (near Erasmus' birthday, October 27), which focuses attention on the ideals and goals of Erasmus, who during his own Iifetime promoted unity, peace, understanding, and dispassionate inquiry, at Pallas, the Research Institute of the Faculty of Letters at Leiden University (The Netherlands); the Roland H. Bainton Lecture in commemoration of Erasmus' ordination to the priesthood (Apri1 25), at the Warburg Institute (London), and the Margaret Mann Phillips lecture, at locations in North America. commemorating the anniversary of Erasmus' death (July 12). The Society is an affiliate of the Renaissance Society of America and the Sixteenth Century Conference.

URL: http://www.sfu.ca/^pabel/ers.htm

The SocietyS executive committee consists of the Secretary, Editors, and Treasurer.

Johannes Trapman, Secretary Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Constantijn Huygens Instituut Postbus 90754 2509 LT 's-Gravenhage The Netherlands [email protected]

Dr. Bruce Holle, Treasurer Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Department of History University of Kentucky Lexington, KY, 40506-0027 [email protected]

Jane E. Phillips, Editor Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook Modern and Classica1 Languages, 1055 POT University of Kentucky Lexington, KY, USA 405064027

Hilmar Pabel, Book Review Editor Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook Department of History Simon Fraser University 8888 University Drtve Burnaby. BC V5A 1S6 Canada [email protected]

Regular membership: $50.00 Library Subscriptions: $55.00 Back issues: Vols. 1-22: $45.00. Complete sets are $900.

Payment, in US dollars drawn on a US-dollar account, should be sent to the Treasurer.

Publication of the Yearbook is supported in part by the College of Arts and Sciences, the Special Collections department of M. I. King Library, and the Gaines Center for the Humanities, al1 at the University of Kentucky.

ERASMUS OF ROTTERDAM SOCIETY

YEARBOOK TWENTY-FOUR ( 2 0 0 4 )

Preface

Abbreviations

SIXTEENTH-ANNUAL MARGARET.MANN PHILLIPS LECTURE:

Reformation Ways of Speaking: Erasmus' Rhetorical Theology in De libero arbitrio by Manfred Hoffmann

TWENTY-FOURTH ANNUAL BIRTHDAY LECTURE: Erasmus' Lucubrations and the Renaissance Life of Texts by Mark Vessey

Articles Why Did Erasmus Translate Greek Tragedy?

by Carmel McCallum-Barry

The Vernacular Paraphrases of Erasmus in Zurich by Christine Christ-von Wedel

Erasmus and the Croats in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries by Bratislav LuCin

Clavus me possidet: The Annotated Adagia of the Physician-friend of Erasmus, Damiaan van Vissenaken by W. Martin Bloomer

Rewiew Articles Roberto Torzini, I Labirinti del Libero Arbitrio:

La discussione tra Erasmo e Lutero.

By Ronald K. Delph

Erika Rummel, The Case against Johann Reuchlin:

i Religious a d Social Controversy in Sixteenth-Century G e m n y .

By Hilmar Pabel

Erasmus, Apophthegmata, trans. and annot. Heribert Philips. By Tineke L. ter Meer 148

continued on inside cover

Erasmus a d the Croats in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries

by Bratislav Luein

"C ernere non licuit facundum pectus Erasmi" (Erasmus' eloquent heart I might not see): this line by Tranquillus Andronicus Parthenius, stem-

ming from the disappointment of an unfulfilled wish, might almost be placed as a paradoxical kind of motto for a disquisition about the connections between Erasmus and the Croats in the time of Renaissance humanism.1 Few indeed of the Croats managed to get to know Erasmus personally (only Jakov BaniCevid has been reliably determined to have done so), and it would seem that he too knew but little of Croatia. Nevertheless, in the vast compass of the intellectual insights and persona1 contacts of this leader of al1 the humanists, there are records conceming connections with humanist writers and diplomats from Croatia. If details about the reception of Erasmus' works in Croatian sixteenth-century literature are added to these, we shall obtain a list of some fifteen names that will repay our attention.

However fragmentary the documentation about the acquaintanceship and the contacts might be, very valuable items of information can be found, particularly about the lasting interest of the Croatian humanists in the great Erasmus, and about those few of them who, thanks to their knowledge and capacities, were able to enter the privileged circle of his correspondents and friends. Our objective here is to bring these facts together into a single place, because they do show that Erasmus was present in the Croatian intellectual milieu as well, and that this was a milieu that gave rise to respected writers and statesmen who merited the recognition of the "prince of humanists."

'For Croatian Renaissance humanism cf. I. N. GoleniEev-Kutuzov, I1 Rinascimento italiano e k letterature slave dei secoli XV e XVI, 2 vols., ed. Sante Graciotti and Jitka KiesAlkovA (Milan: Vita e pensiero, 1973); Draien BudiSa, "Humanism in Croatia," in Renaissance Humanism: Foun- dations, F o m , and Legacy, ed. Albert Rabil, Jr. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991), 2:265-92; Branko FranoliC, "Latin as a Literary Language among the Croats," Works of Croatian Latinists Recorded in the British Library Genera1 Catalogue (Zagreb: Croatian Information Centre, 1998), 5-36 (also available online at http://www.hic.hr/books/latinists/Ollatin.htm). For a summary view on Erasmus and the Croats (to the end of the twentieth century) cf. Vjekoslav K. PranjiC "Erasmi Roterodami Echo & Receptio in Croatia," Russian Literature 37 (1995): 587-602.

90 E R A S M U S O F R O T T E R D A M S O C I E T Y Y E A R B O O K T W E N T Y - F O U R ( 2 0 0 4 ) 9 1

In his writings Erasmus mentions the lands of the Croats in passing (besides Croatia proper, these included Dalmatia and Slavonia, provinces that were then parts of various different states, as well as the Dubrovnik Republic, which was an independent city ~ t a t e ) . ~ Thus in the treatise De bello Turcis inferendo (1530), listing the military successes of Bayazet I at the end of the fourteenth century, he says, "hoc successu rerum inflammatior, Bossinam, Croatiam, et vlteriores Illyrici partes vastat" (still more inflamed with these successes, he lays waste to Bosnia, Croatia and the more distant areas of 11- lyria).3 And speaking of the immediate and current Turkish threat to Europe:

Quis enim nescit quam facilis genti Turcarum terra pateat ad nos aditus?

Quum enim vtramque teneant Mysiam, superiorem et inferiorem, ad flumen Danubium, regiones Thraciae vicinas, non difficilis per hoc flumen ad nos patet aditus. Dalmatas et Illyrios eadem vicinitate habet obnox- ios, ne quid dicam de Pannonia quam toties impetiit.

(And so who does not know how easy is the approach to us, open by

land to the Turkish race? Since they hold, that is, both the Mysias, the lower and the higher, to the Danube River, the regions close to Thrace, there is little difficulty in the approach to us that is open along that river. The same propinquity is a threat to the Dalmatians and the Illyri- ans, not to mention Pannonia, which the Turk has invaded so many times.)4

In this same account Erasmus alludes to the Battle of MohAcs,5 in which the Croats had an important role.6 Besides, Erasmus certainly knew that Tran-

ZOn the political situation of Croatia in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries cf. BudiSa, "Humanism in Croatia," 255-56.

'ASD V-344, lines 266-67; the English translation is mine. 4ASD V-3:50-51, lines 359-63; the English translation is mine. On Erasmus' concem about

the Turkish menace and the European politics of the time cf. Maria Cytowska, "Erasme et les Turcs," Eos 62:l (1974), 311-21, esp. 316-17.

SASD V-3:50, line 339 and 64, lines 691-93. 6The most significant description of the battle (an eyewitness account) is Stjepan Brodarié's

De conflictu Hungarorum cum Turcis ad Mohacz verissima historia (for the bibliographical data cf. note 20 below). Other notable Croats on the field were Bartul Jurjevié, or Durctevii (Bartholo- maeus Georgevits), who spent nine years in Turkish slavery and later published severa1 important works in Latin on the political and military affairs of the Turkish empire; Krsto Frankapan (Christophorus de Frangepanibus), who was one of the most important figures of the anti-Turkish military and diplomatic campaigns of the time; he recommended (unsuccesshlly) to Louis 11, king of Hungary-Croatia, not to offer battle before he arrived at Mohkcs with his troops.

quillus Andronicus came from Dalmatia, and Jakov BaniCevié (Jacobus Banni- sius) "from the very heart of my native Illyria" (or "from the very deepest inte-

rior of my Illyrian bay"; cf. note 13 below); Stjepan Brodarié (Stephanus Brodericus) and Matthaeus Fortunatus were Pannonii for him (although by this Erasmus probably implied only Hungary). He also learned of the Croats from his correspondents (from Peter Mosellanus about Andronicus, from Jo- hannes Caesarius about Juraj DragiSié/Georgius Benignus, from Piotr Tomicki about Brodarié).7

During his stay in Venice in 1508, Erasmus resided in the house of the printer Andrea Torresani, who also printed editions in the Croatian language and in the Glagolitic script, and it is not impossible that here the distinguished humanist saw books printed in the script that was also called littera Hieronymiana, after its alleged inventor, St. Jerome (the name would certainly have drawn Erasmus' attention!). However, for want of any traces at all, this contact, as well as the idea that in Venice he might have had in his hands the first edition of De institutione bene vivendi per exempiu sanctorum of the Split humanist Marko Marulié, printed in the city in 1507 (1506 more Veneto), has to remain a mere hypothesis.

Let us move on then to the facts that we actually have. The contacts between Erasmus and the Croatian humanists may, for easier reference, be di- vided into three kinds: 1. Erasmus was in direct contact, via correspondence or even ~ersona l l~ , with some of the Croatian writers; 2. the contact was in- direct, but nevertheless confirmed, either by mention of a name or some other way; 3. Croatian writers mention Erasmus in their works. The first two kinds can be termed from the Croatian perspective emissive and the third receptive; the rare (but as yet not investigated) data about the circulation of Erasmus' books among Croatian readers in the sixteenth century will be mentioned in type 3.

7The main source from which Erasmus received news about Hungary and Croatia was Nico- laus Olahus; cf. Marianna D. Bimbaum, Croatian and Hungarian htinity in the Sixteenth Centuy, ch. 5: "Nicolaus Olaus: Prince of Leaming, Prince of the Church." I refer to the second edition (Zagreb: P. E. N. Croatian Centre & Mostme Bridge, 1993), 155-212, esp. 168. The first edition was published as Humanism in a Shattered Worid: Croarian and Hungarian Latinity in the Six- teenth Centuy (Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, 1985). Another source of information was certainly Jacobus Piso, "one of the main channels through which Erasmian influences entered Hungary" (COE 3:94); they kept up an intermittent correspondence, but in 1526 Erasmus sent him three letters (Epp. 1297, 1662, 1754). Erasmus perhaps heard of the Croats at the Hungarian court from Girolamo Aleandro, with whom he worked and shared a room in Venice in 1508: in 1501, as secretary to the papa1 legate in Venice, Angelo Leoni, Aleandro was sent to the king of Hungary with a war subsidy (COE 1:29).

92 E R A S M U S O F R O T T E R D A M S O C I E T Y Y E A R B O O K T W E N T Y - F O U R ( 2 0 0 4 ) 93

Naturally, members of the first group, Erasmus' direct c~rres~ondents, ac- quaintances, and even friends and patrons, attract our greatest attention. Al- though the documentation is not extensive, it is worth attention precisely because of the direct contact. We are talking about two or three senior dignitaries of church and state from the Kingdom of Croatia and Hungary, diplomats of European dimension and reputation (Jakov BaniCevié and Stjepan Brodarié, perhaps Antun VranCiélAntonius Verantius as well), and about one or two young humanists who had made their reputations with literary or philological work (Tranquillus Andronicus and Matthaeus Fortunatus).

Erasmus' contacts with Jakov Banihvié and Stjepan Brodarié show a good dea1 of mutua1 respect and consideration, Erasmus valuing them not only for their repute and power but also for their humanist learning and human qualities, they in turn looking up to him as a renowned humanist, writer, and intellectual model. Jakov BaniCevié (Jacobus Bannisius, 1466-1532), Erasmus' coeval, hailing from the island of KorCula in the Adriatic Sea, was one of the most highly respected European diplomats of the beginning of the sixteenth century, secretary to Maximilian I and Charles V; he took part in the diets of Augsburg (15 10) and Worms (15 15), and was a member of the commission that in 1520 framed the anti-Luther Edict of Worms.8 Only four letters from what must have been a much more extensive correspondence are extant: three from Erasmus to BaniCeviC and one from BaniCevié to Erasmus.9 From these it can be seen that the two distinguished figures also met in person.1° The main topic of the first three letters, which derive from November 1517, is the renewed flaring up of the so-called Reuchlin Affair, and the interre- lated actions of the Jewish convert Johannes Pfefferkorn.11 Banihvié's answerl2 is first of al1 an expression of admiration and respect for the great

8 0 n BaniCevié cf. COE 1:90-91 (s.v. Bannisio, Jacopo). 9Epp. 700,709,716,970. loCf. CWE 5, Ep. 700, introduction, and the formulations in the letters themselves. Erasmus:

"Subinde mecum litigo quod Antwerpiae non auidius sim amplexus tam obuiam tuam humani- tatem" (Ep. 700, lines 1-3 Allen); BaniCeviC: "Nec est cur sibi ipsi succenseat quod me vltro ve- nientem auidius non sit complexa hic Antuuerpiae; exhibuit enim se nimis facilem erga me, et compos voti eram simulatque videram quem desyderabam" (Ep. 709, lines 4-7 Allen); Erasmus: "Sed omnia coram" (Ep. 716, lines 13-14 Allen)

l lOn that cause célèbre of the time cf. Erika Rummel, The Case Against Johannes Reuchlin: Re- ligious and Social Controuersy in Sixteenth-Century Germany (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002).

'ZEp. 709, Antwerp, 12 November 1517.

humanist, whom he had long since wished to meet. Apologizing for his im- petuous conduct on their recent meeting in Antwerp, BaniCevié mentions his own Illyria from which he set out into the world, and compares Erasmus with a deity that he has been able to revere only from a distance:

Sed id auiditati (quae me ve1 ex intimo sinu Illyrico meo traxisset)

potius quam instituto [dominatio tua] adscribat. Cupiebam enim illum quem absens veluti numen ob excellentem doctrinam colebam, ali- quando praesens (postquam fas erat) intueri; et omnis mora mihi pericu-

losa videbatur.

(But you must ascribe this to eagemess, which would have brought me from the very heart of my native Illyria, and not to principle. Here was a

man whom I venerated from afar as a hero for his supreme leaming, and I wanted one day, now that it was permitted, to behold him in person; and so al1 delay seemed to me perilous.)l3

In the fourth letter14 Erasmus writes to BaniEeviC of the success of the second edition of the Novum Testamentum, and with particular enthusiasm de- scribes the English court as a place of an almost idea1 humanist atmosphere. It is interesting that he greets BaniCevié as a patron ("Bene vale, patrone sin- gularis"), from which it can be concluded that the very influential BaniCeviC had helped Erasmus, although, alas, we do not know in what and when. The influence of BaniCevié can also be seen in Erasmus' request for a recommen- dation from him to the Elector of Saxony, Frederick the Wise (soon to be- come Luther's patron) .l5

Stjepan Brodarié, too, in his letter to Erasmus16 expressed his admiration and praise. We know this from Erasmus' extant response,l7 in which he mod- estly puts aside the "magnificent praise" (magnikas laudes) that had been sent

13Ep. 709, lines 10-14 Allen, lines 14-18 CWE. It seems to me that the more appropriate translation of BaniCeviC's words ve1 ex intimo sinu Illyrico meo would be "from the very deepest in- terior of my Illyrian bay," his native KorZula being situated in the Adriatic Sea; for the Adriatic Sea as sinus Illyricus cf. Giovanni Maria Filelfo, Amyris, 740: "Illyricosque sinus, portusque si-

( nusque Liburnos"; Naldo Naldi. Egbgae, 4.52: L'Illyricosque sinus ueniam Pontumque sonantem." '4Ep. 970, Brussels, 21 May 1519. lSFor a fuller account of this correspondence and its context, together with my Croatian

translation of the letters, cf. Bratislav LuCin, "Korespondencija Jakova BaniCeviéa i Erazma Rot- terdamskog," Godifnjak gruda Korfule 3 (KorCula: Muzej grada, 1998): 49-60.

16Mentioned in Ep. 2176, line 70 Allen, but unfortunately lost. '7Ep. 2178, Freiburg, 9 June 1529.


to him by this distinguished prelate and diplomat. Stjepan Brodarié (Stephanus Brodericus, 1490-1539) was envoy of Louis I1 and Johannes Zapolyai, royal chancellor and bishop of Sirmium, Pécs, and Vac.18 That he was also a lover of literature can be seen from his unachieved intention to publish some of the poems of Ianus Pannonius.19 His most important works are a speech held on 4 September 1522 before Pope Adrian VI and an exceptionally valuable account of the catastrophe of Mohacs field, in which he had taken part.20 He was a member of the Erasmian circle at the Hungarian court around Jacobus Piso,21 but it would seem that he had not previously been known in any de- tail to Erasmus, who refers in his letter to the high opinion of Piotr Tomicki, Bishop of Cracow, conceming Br0darié.2~ After his polite discounting of the compliments, Erasmus filled the letter with an ironica1 and irritated reference to the views of contemporary scholastic theologians, from which it can be concluded that in his letter Brodarié had touched on some theological and exegetical topic. Unluckily, nothing is known of any further contacts between them, but in the years that were to follow, Erasmus could well have been very interested in BrodariC's great involvement in the endeavour to rec- oncile Ferdinand I and Zapolyai, both of them pretending to the crown of St. S t e ~ h e n . ~ ~

Banizevié and Brodarié were both men of Erasmus' years, and in high posi- tions as well; they were influential and well known in European countries. However, Erasmus would be no less kind to younger humanists who had not yet made any name or position for themselves, but in whom he valued leaming and a desire for knowledge, making allowance for the occasiona1 impetu- osity of youth. Thus he wrote very patiently and conciliatorily to the young

180n BrodariC cf. COE 1:203-4 (s.v. Brodarics, IstvAn); Bimbaum, Croatian and Hungarian Latinity (note 7 above), ch. 4: "Man of Honor-Man of Peace: Stephanus Brodericus," 123-54.

19COE 1:204; Bimbaum, Croatian and Hungarian Latinity, 153 (with an extract from BrodariC's letter to Aldo Manuzio).

2oEditiones pnncipes: Stephanus Brodericus, Oratio ad Adrianum VI Pontificem Maximum . . . dicta pndie Nonas Septembns a. S. MDXXII, ed. Lomb. Burgia (Romae: n. p,, 1523?); id., De conflictu Hungarmm cum Turcis ad Mohacz verissima historia (Cracow: H. Wietor 1527); modem edition: Stephanus Brodericus, De conflictu Hungarmm cum Solymam Turcorum imperatore ad Mohach historia verissima - Oratio ad Adrianum VI Pontificem Maximum, ed. Petnis KulcsAr and Csaba Csapodi (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiad6, 1985).

Z'COE 1:204; Birnbaum, Croatian and Hungarian Latinity (note 7 above), 158-59. ZZBrodariC was one of the dignitaries from whom Tomicki obtained books for his private

library (COE 3:328). 23Bimbaum, Croatian and Hungarian Latinity (note 7 above), 143.

man of Trogir, Tranquillus Andronicus Parthenius ( 1490-15 7 l ) , who felt angry at not having been able to meet Erasmus in person in Louvain in June 1519. This more or less unknown young man from a peripheral region of Christendom had attacked Erasmus with a sharp and even offensive poem in which he had upbraided him as homo Batavus et a Gratiis alienus (a crass Bata- vian who has no use for the Grace~).~4 In his answer, a polite apology for the meeting that never was, Erasmus quoted Andronicus' hexameter that was then circling in Louvain like a proverb: "Cemere non licuit facundum pectus Erasmi" (Erasmus' eloquent heart I might not ~ e e ) . ~ 5 A few years later Erasmus put Andronicus, calling him Parthenius, into his Conuiuium poeticum (1523). But Parthenius' role in the dialogue is rather insignificant, and it would seem that Erasmus was motivated to include his name out of mere p0liteness.~6

It is unclear what the contacts were, if any, between Erasmus and Antun VranCiC (Antonius Verantius, 1504-73). Almost forty years younger than Erasmus, VranCiC very early on began a brilliant politica1 and ecclesiastica1 career, which brought him to the position of archbishop of Esztergom and palatine, regent of HungaryZ7 He might have been in contact with Erasmus in the latter years of the famous humanist's life, but there are no traces of this in either Erasmus' or in VranCiC's works. In spite of the various hypotheses, to date the only possible clue remains the information given by the celebrated Italian travel writer of the eighteenth century Alberto Fortis, who in the work Viaggio in Dalmazia (1774) recorded that a letter by Erasmus was care- fully preserved by the heirs of the VranCié famil~.~8 This letter too has since

24Ep. 991, lines 12-13 Allen; lines 16-17 CWE. Andronicus is alluding to Martial's aurem Batavam (Epigr. 6.82.6), but it is quite possible that he read Erasmus' adage Auris Bama (Adagia IV vi 35; cf. ASD 11-8, no. 3535). In the Aldine edition (15081, probably easily accessible to An- dronicus, this was the concluding essay; cf. The Adages of Erasmus, ed. William Barker (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001), 37 1.

25Ep. 991, line 69 Allen; lines 76-77 CWE. It is possible that Erasmus shunned (or at least did not care about) the meeting because of Mosellanus' allusion to Parthenius: "Cuius farinae impium quendam nebulonem nescio quis Aquilo in hanc scholam ex ipsa vsque Dalmatia in- uexit" (Ep. 911, lines 43-45 Allen). But the excuses that the Dutch scholar offers to the young

/ Dalmatian seem to be sincere. 260n Andronicus, who later became an important diplomatic envoy and a prolific writer, cf.

COE 1:56-57. 270n VranCiC cf. Bimbaum, Croatian and Hungarian Latinity (note 7 above), ch. 8: "Antonius

Verantius, Envoy and Bishop," 270-306. 28"Sul finire del MDXXXIV [Antonio Veranzio] passò in Francia spedito dal Signor suo al Re

Francesco I, dove vu due volte; indi in Inghilterra ad Arrigo VIII, presso di cui ritrovavasi nel


unfortunately been lost. Still, there remains an unquestionable trace of VranCiC's familiarity with Erasmus' writings. In his letter to Michael Petrinus of 20 January 1550 Antun answers his correspondent's question about the meaning of the adage Bouem ad c e r o ~ n a . ~ ~ Referring explicitly to Erasmus, the learned prelate gives fu11 explanation of the adage, and adds severa1 related sayings: "Huc pertinent: Opera et impensa periit. Oleum et operam perdidi. Et: Apud fimum vapores odorum ~pargis."~O Al1 four of them are to be found in Erasmus' collection, either as separate adages or cited in one of them.3'

Just to complete the record, one should also mention two more acquain- tances and correspondents of Erasmus who, even if only indirectly, come within the pumiew of our topic: Giulio Camillo il Delminio (ca. 1480-1544) and Pier Paolo Vergerio (Petrus Paulus Vergerius, 1498-1565). The information that Camillo was of Croat descent was provided by the celebrated philosopher Franjo PetriC (Franciscus Patricius, Francesco Patrizio or Pa- trizzi), himself from the northern Croatian island of C r e ~ . 3 ~ It was Petric who in his edition of Camillo's works (Venice 1560) added to his name the cog- nomen Delminius, which refers to an ancient city of Dalmatia, whence came Camillo's father. Erasmus met the future inventor of the famed theater of memory during his stay in Italy (1506-9).33 He mentioned him as an excel- lent orator in his dialogue Ciceronianus (1528).34 Camillo wrote his Trattato della imitazione (1530) by way of polemical riposte to this work. Erasmus

mese di Gennajo MDXXXV. E' probabile, che intorno a questo tempo egli stringesse amicizia col grand'ERASM0 ROTTERODAMO, e imparasse a stimare il MELANTONE: del primo si conserva diligentemente ancora una Lettera, preso il soprallodato Co: FRANCESCO DRA- GANICH VERANZIO, e in lode del secondo leggesi un Epigramma fra le poesie Latine mss. del nostro ANTONIO; Alberto Fortis, Viaggio in Dalma& (Venice: presso Alvise Milocco all'Apolline, 1774), 1:139.

29Cf. Bouem ad ceroma mittere, in Colkctanea adagicrrum, no. 202. Not included in the Adagio- rum Chiliades (cf. ASD 11-1455, note to line 102).

3O"Antonius Wrancius Michaeli Petrino S.," in Verancsics Antal, Osszes Munkai, ed. Szalay LAszl6 (Pest: A Magyar Tudom6nyos Akademia, 1865), 7:28-29 (letter 17).

31Cf. Mag. I iv 61 and 62 (ASD 11-1, nos. 361 and 362). 32Archival data of his native Cres indicate that PetriC (more correctly PetriS) was of Croat-

ian descent and he stated the same in his Autobiography, for which cf. A. Solerti, "Autobiografia del1 Patrizi," in Archivio storico per Trieste, 1'Isnia e il Trentina 3:3-4 (1886), 1-7 (also available online at http://www.istrians.com/isnia/illustri/patrizi/writings/autobio-ltrs.htm). On Camillo cf. COE 1:248-50.

33COE 1:248. 34ASD I-2:637.

had Camillo's theater described to him by Viglius Zuichemus; in his answer Erasmus mockingly called the inventor "tuus Daedalus."35

Vergerio came from Capodistria, which was part of the Venetian R e p ~ b l i c . ~ ~ This not-to-be bishop of ModruS in Croatia (he became bishop of Capodis- tria) was not a Croat, but did work in Croatia and collaborated with the Croatian Protestant writers about translation and printing projects at Urach, which lasted from 1559 to 1564.'7 Erasmus' only known letter to Vergerius, Ep. 2825 (dating from 1533, when Vergerio was papa1 nuncio at the court of Ferdinand), tells him that it was being said that Ferdinand had made an al- liance with the Turks in order to acquire Hungary. In a letter to Ferdinand Vergerio characterized Erasmus as a heretic and a Lutheran38 It can be concluded from this aversion that Erasmus had no effect on Vergerio's rapproche- ment with the Protestant church at the end of the thirties.

Our second group, those humanists with whom Erasmus was not in direct contact, gives evidence primarily of the striking literary and intellectual activity of the Croatian humanists who figured within his horizons mainly due to their writings.

In first place in terms of both time and importance is Ivan StojkoviC (Ioannes de Ragusio, ca. 1390-1443). This Dominican and theologian born in Dubrovnik, with which he kept up lasting connections, was ~rofessor in the universities of Paris and Bologna, secretary-genera1 of the Base1 Council,

35Ep. 2657, lines 30-60 Allen; Ep. 2682, line 20 Allen. In the latter Erasmus erroneously assumes Camillo wrote the polemica1 Oratio pro M. Tullio Cicerone (lines 21-22; COE 1:249), which was actually by Julius Caesar Scaliger.

360n Vergerio cf. COE 3:387-88; Contributions from the Scientific Meeting Peter Paul Vergerius Ir., Controversia1 Thinker of the 16th Century Europe, in Acta Histriae 7 (1992): 2 (VIII) (Koper: Science and Research Centre of the Republic of Slovenia, 1999); summaries available online at http://www.zrs-kp.si/indexe.htm.

371n his preface to the Glagolitic-script edition of the Croatian NT, Prvi del Novoga textamenta . . . Der erst halb Theil des newen Testaments . . . jetzt zum ersten mal in die Crobatische Spach verdolmetscht, vnd mit Glagolischen Buchstaben getwkt (Vtubingi [i. e. Urach]: Ulrich Morhart, 1562), addressed to Maximilian 11, the Slovenian reformer Primo? Trubar (Primus Truber), who collaborated closely with Vergerio, mentions that the Croatian translators of the NT at Urach, Antun Dalmatin and Stjepan Konzul Istranin, used as their models Erasmus' and Luther's translations. Cf. Mirko Rupel, ed., Slovenski protestantski pisci (Ljubljana: Driavna zaloiba Slovenije, 1966), l 3 1-32.

3sCOE 3:388.

98 E R A S M U S O F R O T T E R D A M S O C I E T Y

and a cardinal. He was one of the first humanists to collect the manuscripts of Greek writers even before the exodus of the Greeks from Constantinople.39 Since he belonged to an earlier generation of humanists and since none of his works appeared in print before or during Erasmus' lifetime, it is quite possible that the Dutch humanist was completely unaware that the Ragusan ever existed, but it is nonetheless the fact that Stojkovié's activity-though he himself was long dead-had a direct effect on Erasmus' own work. In fact, it was on codices from the StojkoviC collection that Erasmus based his edition of the Greek text of the New Testament, although he never mentioned Sto- jkoviC's name and perhaps did not even know to whom the manuscripts he was using had belonged. The manuscript catalogue of Stojkovié's collection was drawn up by Erasmus' friend Beatus Rhenanus and it is still in exi~tence.4~ Thanks to Erasmus the first edition of Ptolemy's Geography was printed at Basel (1533), based on the Greek text that was transcribed for StojkoviC by the Greek Doukas in Constantinople in 143617. That codex was in Erasmus' time in the possession of Johannes Camerarius of Dahlberg, bishop of Worms (1482-1503), and today is in the Vatican Library (Vat. Pal. Gr. 388).41

Also a Ragusan, and one whose name was certainly known to Erasmus, was Juraj DragiSiC (Georgius Benignus de Salviatis, 1445-1520). This Fran- ciscan theologian, close to Bessarion (who seems to have given him his Latin name of Benignus) and Lorenzo I de' Medici, and defender of Savanarola and Reuchlin, was an effective champion of toleration with respect to Jewish b0oks.4~ Erasmus obtained two copies of Dragis'ié's little book Defensio paestantissimi viri Johannis Reuchlin (Cologne 15 17) from Johannes Cae~arius.4~ Not quite a month and a half after this, on 3 November, Erasmus wrote to

390n StojkoviC cf. Bonaventura Duda, Joannis StojkooiC de Ragusio, OP (1443m): Doctrina de cognoscibilitate Eccksiae (Rome: Pontificium Athenaeum Antonianum, 1958); Aloysius KrchnAk, De vita et operibus Ioannis de Ragusio (Rome: Facultas theologica Universitatis Lateranensis, 1960); Franjo Sanjek, ed., Misao i djelo Ivana Stojkouita (1390195.-1443.): Zbomik radova s memeduo- dnog simpozija u Dubrowiiku, 26.-28. svibnja 1983 (Zagreb: KrSCanska sadahjost, 1986).

W f . Krchnik, 97; André Vemet, "Les manuscrits grecs de Jean de Raguse (t1443)," Études Médiévaks (Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1981), 537 (first published in Baskr Zeitschrift fir Geschichte und Altertumskunde, 61 [1961]).

41For this and other Greek manuscripts in StojkoviC's collection cf. Vernet, 532,538-60. 420n DragiWs role in the Reuchlin affair cf. Basilius Pandiif and Elisabeth von Erdmann-

PandZiC, Juraj DragiSiC und Johannes Reuchlin: Eine Untersuchung zum Kampf fur die judischen Bkher mit einem Nachdntck der "Defensio paestantissimi viri Joannis Reuchlin" (1 51 7) uun Georgius Benignus (Juraj DragiJiC) (Bamberg: Fach Slavische Philologie der Universitat Bamberg, 1989); Erika Rummel, The Case Against Johannes Reuchlin (note 11 above), 152, 153, 156.

43Cf. Caesarius' letter of 22 September 151 7 (Ep. 680, lines 26-28 Allen).

Y E A R B O O K T W E N T Y - F O U R ( 2 0 0 4 ) 99

BaniCeviC, probably in reply to a question of his, that he had read the book- let. It is obvious that he valued DragiSiC's tolerant attitude, because he later mounted a sharp attack on the Dominican Jacob of Hoogstraten, inquisitor of the archdioceses of Cologne, Mainz and Trier, who had countered DragiSiC's views in his Apologia published in 1518.44

The celebrated poet Ianus Pannonius (Ivan Cesmifki, Ivan Kesinafki) was a Croat by birth, but by virtue of his work belongs among the Hungarian and Italian humanists as well; according to Bimbaum, this important poetic figure belongs to two or three national cult~res.4~ Erasmus knew the edition of Pannonius' selected poems that was prepared by Beatus Rhenanus and printed by Johann Froben at Basel in 1518; from the well-known condensed laudation of the poet in a letter to Johannes Thurzo in the following year it is clear that he counted Pannonius among the Hungarians.46

Also counted a Pannonian is Matthaeus Fortunatus (after 1480-1528), by origin probably from Slavonia or Dalmatia.47 He studied the classics in Padua, thanks to Stjepan BrodariC. While still a student he edited a critica1 edition of Seneca's Quaestiones naturaks (printed by Aldo Manuzio in 1523). From a textual point of view this went considerably beyond the Erasmus edition published at Base1 in 1515. With no hesitation, Erasmus praised the young Pannonian in a letter to Haio Herman.48 In his edition of Seneca's works printed in 1529, he put Fortunatus' name as joint editor: Opera L. An- naei Senecae . . . per Des. Erasmum Roterod. et Matthaeum Fortunatum . . . (Basileae: J. Hervagius, 1529) and once again uttered his praise in a dedication of the edition to Piotr T0micki.4~

44Ep. 700, line 12 Allen; Ep. 1006, lines 49ff. Allen. 45Cf. Marianna D. Birnbaum, Janus Pannunius, Poet and Politician (Zagreb: Jugoslavenska

akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1981), 9-12. To the exhaustive review of the information in her valuable monograph an important piece of evidence can now be added in support of Pannonius' Croatian origin: in the Leipzig manuscript of Pannonius' translations from Greek (Universitats- bibliothek, Rp. I 98) an added hexameter identifies him as of the Slavonic nation: "Janus Panno- nius Sclavine gentis alumnus" (I am grateful for this information to prof. dr. Darko NovakoviC of the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb). On Pannonius cf. also COE 2:233-34.

46"Porro nouum non est apud Hungaros esse praeclara ingenia, quando Ianus ille Pannonius / tantum laudis meruit in carmine vt Italia vltro illi herbam porrigat" (Of course it is no new thing

for distinguished abilities to be found in Hungary, since the celebrated Janus Pannonius made such a narne in poetry that Italy readily yielded him the palm); Ep. 943, lines 14-16 Allen; lines 17-19 CWE.

47COE 2:45-46. 48Ep. 1479, lines 89-90 Allen. q9Ep. 2091, lines 102-8 Allen.

1 O0 E R A S M U S O F R O T T E R D A M S O C I E T Y Y E A R B O O K T W E N T Y - F O U R ( 2 0 0 4 )

Finally mention should also be made of Francesco Negro (Pescennius

Franciscus Niger Venetus Libumus, 1452-1523), whose many times reprinted

manual Opusculum scribendi litteras or Modus epistolandi (Venetiis: Hermannus

Liechtenstein, 1488) Erasmus attacked scathingly.50 Negro was, like his father,

from the Croatian town of Senj, leaving data about this in his autobiography

and in the sobriquet "Liburnus" h e attached to his name.51

T h e earliest mention of Erasmus in Croatian literature is also without

any doubt the most important. It comes from 1519 or 1520, and we owe it t o

the most important Croatian writer of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,

Marko Marulié from Split (Marcus Marulus Spalatensis, 1450-1524).52 In the

dedicatoq epistle t o his fellow citizen and friend Thomas Niger h e wrote

words that certainly deserve quoting in extenso:

Erasmi Roterodami libellos, quos misisti, accepi, pietatis eruditionisque plenos nec eloquentie minus. Magna me afficiunt uoluptate legentem. Etenim post diui Hieronymi tempora ad nostram usque etatem abfuit a theologis nostris exculte orationis lepos. Laudabamus multorum in syllo- gismis enthimematisque argutias, quorum tamen scripta nemo lectione antiquiorum uel parum delectatus absque tedio legere poterat. At nunc Erasmo autore ipsa ecclesie sancte structura, que per istorum simpliciter philosophantium negligentiam pene nuda erat, pristinis reclarescit pig- menti~ rhetoricisque coloribus linita illustratur. Gaudere igitur et ex- ultare maxime nos decet, quod iam Deo propicio res restitui in integrum

50Ep. 117, lines 26-32 Allen; cf. also De conscribendis epistolis, ASD I-2:265, line 8. 51011 Negro cf. COE 3:lO-11; his autobiography can be found in two versions in his unpub-

lished Cosmodystychia id est De mundi miseria (Cod. Vat. Lat. 3971, 697 folios) in part 4, chapter 14 (in peroration: shorter version), and book 12, chapter 8 (fina1 peroration: longer version, comprising some 60 manuscript pages). Cf. Sime JuriC, "Humanist Franjo Niger," Iz muzeja hrwatske knjige (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 2000), 73-105 (esp. 80 and 81).

5ZOn Manili6 cf. Branko JoziC and Bratislav Lutin, Bibliografja Marka MaruliCa. Prwi dio: tiskana djeia (1477-1997) (Split: Knjiievni krug Split-Marulianum, 1998); Mirko TomasoviC, Marko MaruliC Marul (munografja), (Zageb: Erasmus Naklada, 1999); Bratislav Lutin, ed., "Dossier MamliC," MostIThe Bridge (Zagreb: Dru'stvo h ~ a t s k i h knjiievnika), 1-4 1 1999, 3-89 [MaruliC's texts and studies on him in English translation]; Luciana Borsetto, ed., Italia-Siavia tra Quattro e Cinquecento: Marko MaruliC umanista croato nel contesto storico-letterario dell'ltalia e di Padova (Alessandria: Edizioni dell'orso, 2004); online at htrp://www.knjizemi-krug.hr/marulianum/ mm-index. htm

coepit. Rursum sacrarum litterarum schola suos habitura est Hieronymos, suos Ambrosios, si modo, qui Erasmum emulari uoluerint, reperientur. Cuius uenustas admodum conscriptiones cum abs Te nuper acceperim, ne omnino ingratus uidear, Herculem, Ioue quondam natum, sed iterum proxima foetura apud nos editum, ad Te destinauimus.53

(I received the books by Erasmus of Rotterdam that you sent me: they are fu11 of piety, learning and, to no lesser degree, eloquence. I greatly enjoy reading them. There has truly been no such beauty of expression among our theologians since the time of Saint Jerome. We have praised many of them for their keen syllogisms and enthymemes, but no one who ever enjoyed reading classica1 writers could read their writing without feeling bored. Now, however, thanks to Erasmus, the edifice of the Holy Church, which was almost bare because of the unconcern of those simple thinkers, shines again with ancient adomment and glows with the colors of beautiful words. It is thus fitting for us to be happy and shout for joy that, by the mercy of God, things have begun to return to their origina1 condition. Again holy literature and scholarship will have their Jeromes and Ambroses, if only others appear who will want to compete with Erasmus. And since I recently received his very fine writings from you, not to show myself extremely ungrateful, I dedicated to you my Hercules, who used to be Jupiter's son and who was recently reborn, this time among us.)

I would venture to say, with Charles Béné, that this is one of the most beautiful panegyrics o n Erasmus ever uttered (and not only in the sixteenth

~ e n t u r y ) . ~ 4 Marulié astutely noticed the basic features of Erasmus' work:

piety, learning and stylistic excellence, and the rejection of scholasticism, the

leading models for him being the Fathers and the classics. Placing the stress

o n the literary qualities of his work, Marulié, then already seventy years old,

bears witness to his own eminently humanist attitude. T h e epistle can be read

as a concise manifesto of rhetorical theology, to borrow the term of Charles

53"Marcus Marulus Thomae Nigro, episcopo Scardonensi, salutem plurimam dicit," in Marko /~aru l iC, Latinska manja djeia I, ed. and tr. Branimir GlavitiC (Split: Knjiievni krug Split, 1992),

21-22. The epistle precedes MaruliC's Dialogw & Hercule a Christicolis superato: Conìocutores The- ologw et Poeta (ibid., 103-33). For the autograph cf. figures 1 and 2.

54"Un de plus beaux éloges jamais décemés"; cf. Charles Béné, "MaruliC et Erasme, lecteurs de Saint Jérame," Colbquia Maruliana X (Split: Knjiievni krug Split-Marulianum, 2001), 32. MaruliL's encomium partly resembles the one by Guillaume Budé of May 1517 (Ep. 583, lines 252ff. Allen).

102 E R A S M U S O F R O T T E R D A M S O C I E T Y YEARBOOK T W E N T Y - F O U R ( 2 0 0 4 ) 1 03

Fig. 1. Marcus Marulus: Dedicatory epistle to Thomas Niger, autograph (Rome: Bib- lioteca Vallicelliana, F 98, l r )

Fig. 2. Marcus Marulus: Dedicatory epistle to Thomas Niger, autograph (Rome: Bib- lioteca Vallicelliana, F 98, l v )

i

1 04 E R A S M U S O F R O T T E R D A M S O C I E T Y Y E A R B O O K T W E N T Y - F O U R ( 2 0 0 4 ) 1 O5

Trinkaus.55 Erasmus himself founded his innovative theological method on exegesis and rhetoric, and not on systematic theolog~ and dialectics, aspiring to the unification of bonae litterae and sacrae litte~-ae.~~ MaruliC thus very precisely noted Erasmus' characteristics and qualities, not feeling any kind of qualms at work that was already exciting controversia1 reactions in Europe. On the contrary, the Split humanist is undoubtedly among those contemporaries who admired Erasmus; he celebrated him, like Melanchthon, as a renewer of ecclesiastical literat~re.~7

That a different opinion was soon to prevail can be seen from the destiny of this short text. Conceived as a dedication of MaruliC's Dialogus de Hercuk a Christicolis superato, MaruliC's epistle to Thomas Niger was not published with the Dialogue (Venice 1524), but actually remained unknown unti1 1976. The autograph found in Rome has clear traces of interventions by the censor on it: some phrases are crossed out, luckily not so industriously as to be un- readable today.

It is impossible to say precisely which books of Erasmus Niger sent to MaruliC from one of his many diplomatic journeys, but it would seem that they were Laus stultitiae, Enchiridion militis Christiani and the edition of the epistles of St. Jerome.58 A particular partiality for St. Jerome is another link joining the Dutch and the Croatian humanist. Both of them wrote biogra- phies of the saint: MaruliC's was composed between 1507 and 1513, Erasmus' was published in l 5 16.59 MaruliC's text was found in autograph a mere eleven years ago (in 1993); it can be assumed that the author gave up on publication, aware that his short account would not be able to compete with Eras- mus' mastenvork of humanist philology.60 There are other points of contact

T h a r l e s Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Humanist Thought, 2 vols. (London: Constable, 1970), 126-28, 141-42, 615-50; Bratislav LuCin, "Marko MaruliC i theologia rhetorica," Colloquia Maruliana X (Split: Knjiievni krug Split-Marulianum, 2001), 103-12.

56Comelis Augustijn, Erasmus: His Life, Works and Influente, tr. J. C. Grayson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 193; cf. also Manfred Hoffmann, Rhetoric and Theology: The Henneneutic of Erasmus (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994).

57Augustijn, 188. 580x1 some intertextual connections of the epistle to Niger with Lum and Enchiridion cf.

Bratislav LuCin, "Marko MaruiiC i theologiarhetorica" (note 55 above), 107. 59Darko NovakoviC, "Novi MamiiC: Vita diui Hieronymi (British Library Ms. Add. 18. 029),"

Colloquia Maruliana 111 (Split: Knjiievni krug Split-Marulianum, 1994), 5-24, 219-21 (summary in English); the editio princeps of the work, by D. NovakoviC, 25-66.

60NovakoviC,22 and 22 1.

between Erasmus and MaruliC as well, which ought to be studied in more de- tail: they have in common their criticism of the senior dignitaries of the church and of scholastic theology, and both advocate a return to the Bible and the Fathers of the church; they share the views of Christian humanism and the Devotio moderna movement; they stand up for the view that it is sometimes allowable to lie; both of them attempt to foster peace among the kings of Christendom and urge war against the Turks (MaruliC, understand- ably enough, with more determination than Erasmus); both devoted some important pages to the mythical hero Hercules; in a way too they were linked by the figures of Pope Adrian VI and the Spanish religious writer Luis de Granada. Here we have to leave such connections at the leve1 of mere mentions, but one is almost tempted (si licet parva) to repeat the words pro- nounced on the resemblance between Erasmus and St. Jerome: "Les affinites du Hollandais et du Dalmatien sont trop frappantes pour ne pas révéler une certaine f i l i a t i~n . "~~

The next reference to Erasmus in Croatian literature is once again con- nected with his edition of St. Jerome. A Dominican from the island of Hvar Vinko PribojeviC (Vincentius Priboevius, d. ca. 1530) gave a solemn speech entitled De origine successibusque Slavorum in the city of Hvar in 1525; this was published in Venice in 1532.62 Speaking of famous men of Dalmatia, he starts with St. Jerome, and says that haughty Greece, always teacher to the whole world, had out of al1 works translated only Jerome's into its own language, in order to be able to leam from this Dalmatian. These words are almost a literal quotation from Erasmus, to whom PribojeviC specifically appeals here: in the text he only says quemadmodum Erasmus Rotherodamus inquit (as Erasmus of Rotterdam says) and in the margina1 title gives, as he usually does in his work, a precise indication of the source: Erasmus de Hi- eronymo super eius epistuh (Erasmus on Jerome in the commentary on his epistles). This is in fact an excerpt from Erasmus' biography, Hieronymi Strido- nensis vita,63 and not from the commentary accompanying the epistles of Jerome, but this confusion perhaps arose because the biography is actually a

/ 61Benoit Beaulieu, Le oisage littéraire d'krasme (Québec: Les Presses de I' Université Laval, 1973), 52.

62Modem edition: Vinko Pribojevié, O podrijetlu i =odama Slavena = De origine successibusque Siuvorum, ed. and annot. Grga Novak, tr. Veljko Gortan, 2nd ed. (Split: Knjiievni krug Split, 1991).

63For PribojeviC's free quotation cf. Erasmi opuscuia, ed. and annot. Wallace K. Ferguson (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1933), 171.


foreword to the epistles. It is important to note that this Dominican mentions Erasmus without any hesitation, referring to him as a trustworthy source. We do not know whether he was ignorant of or simply did not care about the long-term bad reputation of Erasmus in Louvain, Cologne, Paris and Spain, particularly in Dominican circles, culminating in the latter part of the 1520s.64

It is understandable that a number of items for our topic should come from the area of Dubrovnik, for this city was the most important literary center in Croatia in the sixteenth century, and also a powerful trade nexus between East and West, with outstandingly ramified commercia1 and intellectual connections throughout the Mediterranean and in the whole of Europe. The Dubrovnik humanist Damjan BeneSa (Damianus Benessa, 1477-1539), the author of the still unpublished epic De morte Christi in 8,500 hexameter lines, mentioned Erasmus in a letter to Bartulinus (Bartolino Tacolleto from Cre- mona, his colleague in the Ragusan school and its rector from 15 19 to 1525). It is not known precisely when the letter was written, but in it BeneSa speaks of his intention to exercise his Latin style via a paraphrase of the verses of Battista Spagnoli; stating examples from antiquity to back up the usefulness of this kind of exercise, he mentions Erasmus' De duplici copia rerum ac verbo- rum (first published in 1512). Erasmus was for BeneSa a man "of versatile ge- nius" (uersatili ingenio), who taught "how speech can be made various and as it were richer" (quomodo &ari et ueluti locupktari possit oratio). From the examples that BeneSa quotes (Quintilian, the competition of Cicero and Roscius), which can be found in Erasmus too, it is clear that he had read the work of the Dutch humanist, and did not just know of it by r e p ~ t a t i o n . ~ ~

The lively interest in Erasmus in Dubrovnik is bome out by a commercia1 document of 1549 conceming the delivery of books to the city; among other titles, as many as six copies of Enchiridion militis Christiani are listed in it.66 But from the same year there is also preserved an attack on Erasmus, showing that there were opposed opinions about him on the Croatian coastline. The respected Hellenist from the island of KorCula, the translator and publisher of Aristotle, Nikola Petrovié (Nicolaus Petreius, Nicolaus Corcyraeus, 1486- 1568) in a letter sent to a Ragusan reader of Erasmus, states that there is a

MAugustijn, Erasmus (note 56 above), 110, 185-86. 'j5The letter is in the autograph codex in the Franciscan Library in Dubrovnik (MS no. 78,

263r: "Damianus Benessa Bartulino S. P. D.") 66Constantin Jiretek, "Beitrage zur ragusanischen Literaturgeschichte," Archiv fur siuvische

Philologie 21 (1899): 5 11-15.

widespread opinion that this learned German has written some worthy works but that there are many fallacies of faith in his writings.67 For this reason, PetroviC advises that Erasmus and other such writers be avoided more than a rabid dog and a serpent (cane peius et angue uitandos censeo).68 In Petrovié's view one can see the intolerance that began to rule in Italy and in the Catholic Church in genera1 with respect to Erasmus, the intolerance that ten years later, in 1559, resulted in al1 his books being placed on the first Roman Index of prohibited books.69

His harsh criticism of the Church and the corrupt popes brought Erasmus a particular kind of glory in the work of the Istrian Matija VlaCié Ilirik (Matthias Flacius Illyricus, 1520-75), one of the greatest theologians of Pro- testantism, founder of Protestant hermeneutics,7O professor of Hebrew and Greek, a confidant of Luther's and an exceptionally prolific writer. VlaCiC perhaps obtained his first knowledge of the works of Erasmus from Giambattista Egnazio, who maintained cordial links with Erasmus and to whom VlaCiC went to Venice to study in the very year of Erasmus' death, 1536.71 VlaCié put Erasmus in his famed Catalogus testium veritatis, but, after a certain hesitation, only in the second edition (Strasbourg 1562): here, in the Appendix, he refers to him in six places, and calls him summus vir et ingenio moderatissimo natus.72

670n PetroviC cf. Émile Louis Jean Legrand, Bibliographie heliénique ou Description raisonnée des ouwages publiés en grec et par des Grecs aux XVe et XVIe siècks (Paris 1885-1906), 1:183-87; Mario Emilio Cosenza, Biographical a d Bibliographicai Dictionary of the Italian Humanists a d of the World of Classica1 Schoiurship in Italy 1300-1800 (Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1962-67), S.V. Nico- laus Petreius. In both of these sources the humanist from Korhla is considered to be a Greek!

68PetroviC's letter is in the autograph codex in the Biblioteca comunale Augustea at Pemgia, MS G 99,63v-64r ("Nicolaus Petreius Marino Thomasio Ragusino S. P. D;" cf. figures 3 and 4).

69The formulation of the absolute prohibition went: "Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus cum vniuersis Commentarijs, Annotationibus, Scholijs, Dialogis, Epistolis, Censuris, Versionibus, Libris, & scriptis suis, etiam si nil penitus contra Religionem, ve1 de Religione contineant," Index auctorum et librorum, qui ab officio S . Rom. 63 vniuersalis inquisitionis caueri ab omnibus 63 singulis in miuersa Christiana Republica mandantur . . . (Romae: Ex officina Saluiana, 1559), [A 101); (facsimile edition published online at http://www.aloha.net/-mikesch/ILP-1559.htm).

7OHans Georg Gadamer, "Rhetorik und Hermeneutik," Gesammelte Werke (Tubingen: Mohr, i 1986), 2:281.

7101-1 Egnazio cf. COE 1424-25. On him as VlatiC's teacher see Mijo MirkoviC, Matija V&C Ilirik (Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1960), 28-29; Vjekoslav K. PranjiC, "Erasmi Roterodami Echo & Receptio in Croatia" (note 1 above), 590.

72Cf. Charles Béné, "Guillaume Budé et Erasme dans le Catalogus testium veriratis de Flacius Illyricus," in Rudolf de Smet, ed., La satire humaniste: Actes du Colloque internanonal des 31 mars, ler et 2 ah11993 (Bruxelles: Peeters Press, 1994), 244.

1 08 E R A S M U S O F R O T T E R D A M S O C I E T Y Y E A R B O O K T W E N T Y - F O U R ( 2 0 0 4 )

Fig. 3. Nicolaus Petreius: Letter to Marinus Thomasius Ragusinus, autograph (Pemgia: Biblioteca comunale Augustea, MS G 99,63v)

Fig. 4. Nicolaus Petreius: Letter to Marinus Thomasius Ragusinus, autograph (Perugia: Biblioteca comunale Augustea, MS G 99,64r)

( It is interesting to note that this assessment by VlaEiC anticipated one by Jo- hann Huizinga, who called Erasmus a "master of reserve."73 Apart from this, VlaEiC did his best to see to the improvement of Erasmus' translation of the

73Johan Huizinga, Erasmus and the Age of Reformanon, tr. F. Hopman (New York: Harper, 1957), 127; on the meaning of Huizinga's qualification cf. Augustijn, Eratmuc: His Life, Works and Influente (note 56 above), 4.


New Testament. In 1570 he published his Glossa compendaria in Novum Testa- mentum ex versione Erasmi. This is a wide-ranging commentary on the NT, which also contains VlaEiC's edition of the Greek text and a parallel Latin translation by Erasmus that VlaCiE claims to have "corrected in countless ~laces."~4

The last two mentions of Erasmus in Croatian sixteenth-century culture derive from the north of Croatia, from the area that was then ruled by the Habsburg Rudolph 11. The Zagreb canon Antun Vramec (1538-88), who had a libera1 attitude to the Protestants,75 in his Kronika (Chronick), printed in 1578, reports for the year 1536, among other things, the death on the block of Sir Thomas More and the death of Erasmus of Rotterdam. A very origina1 contribution to the Croatian reception of Erasmus was made by IvanuS PergoSiC (d. 1592), a notary of VaraZdin, known as a translator from Latin to Croatian of the lega1 compendium Decretum tripartitum of the Hungarian lawyer and politician Istvan Verboczy: in 1587 PergoSiC published in VaraZdin a collection of religious writings that included Erasmus' forewords and dedications to his Latin Paraphrases of the four gospels.76 The Erasmian part of the book contains the two prefaces to the Paraphrase on Matthew, In- victissimo Caesari Carolo, eius nominis Quinto, D. Erasmus Rotterodamus S . D. , Basikae Id. Ian. An. MDXXII and Erasmus Roderodamus <sic> pio kctori S . D . , Basileae postridie Id. Ianua. A N N O MDXXII and the dedicatory letters to Francis I, Henry VIII, and Archduke Ferdinand, recipients of the Paraphrases on Mark, Luke, and John respectively: Christianissimo Galliarum Regi Fran- cisco: eius nominis p m o Erasmus Roterodamus S . D. , Anno MDXXIII Caknd. Decemb.; Invictissimo Angliae et Franciae regi, Domino Hiberniae: Catholicae @i defensori, Henrico eius nominis Octauo: Erasmus Roterodamus S . D . , Basileae, decimo Caknd. Septemb. Anno MDXXIII; and Illustrissimo principi

74Tes tou Hyiou Theou Kaine DiathRkés hapanta. Novum Testamentum Iesu Christi Filii Dei, ex versione Erasmi, innumeris in locis ad Graecam veritatem, genuinumque sensum emendata. Glossa compendiaria M . Matthiae Flacij Illyrici Albonensis in Nouum Testamentum . . . (Basileae: Peter Pema und Theobald Dietrich, 1570); cf. figure 5.

75Marin FraniCeviC, Pouijest hrvatske renesansne knjifemsti (Zagreb: Skolska knjiga, 1983), 616.

7The title of this rare edition is Praefationes et Epistolae Dedicatoriae Doctiss. &? sanctae vitae viri, Desiderij Erasmi Roterodami, in quatuor Euangelistas, Christianis hominibw, kctu dignae. Adi- uncta est Pia Sancti Stephani Regis Hungariae, ad filium suum Emericum ducem Sclauoniae admonitio. Subsequitur adhortato Stephani Bathorei ad milita, tempore Matthiae Regis, facta. Sub finem continen- tur &uot precahones piae Opera et impensis Ioannu Pergossich Typis renouarae (Varasdini: Ioannes Manlius excudebat, 1587); cf. figure 6.

Fig. 5. Matthias Flacius Illyricus: Nouum Testamentum. . . ex uersione Erasmi and G h s a compendiaria (Basileae: Peter Pema und Theobald Dietrich, 1570); University Library of Basel, FG V 47.

E R A S M U S O F R O T T E R D A M S O C I E T Y Y E A R B O O K T W E N T Y - F O U R ( 2 0 0 4 ) 1 l3

Fig. 6. Ioannes Pergossich: Praefationes et Epistolae Dedicatoriae . . . Desiderij Erasmi Roterodami (Varasdini: Ioannes Manlius excudebat, 1587); University Library of Budapest, RMK 11.22.

D. Ferdinando , Austriae Archis tratego, Caroli Caesaris gerrnano , Erasmus Roterodamus S. D., Basileae Anno MDXXIII Non. lanurij.

Pergos'ié did not, alas, translate these texts into Croatian, which is explained in his dedicatory epistle to the Varaidin nobility by the attacks that his translation of the Tripartitum had undergone. The praise of Erasmus in the title (doctissimi et sanctae uitae viri) is very telling, particularly when one takes into consideration that it was written at a time when the Tridentine Index of 1564 was in force. Although this did, it is true, reduce the absolute ban on Erasmus to only six titles, as an interim measure his theological and religious works, primarily the Novum Testamentum and the paraphrases on the gospels, had been banned unti1 they were revised.77 What is more, Sixtus V (1585- 90) was still endeavoring to have al1 Erasmus' works returned to the first class of the Index (absolute prohibition).78 This positive attitude towards Erasmus can be explained by the tolerant attitude of Vramec and Pergos'ié to Protes- tantism, to which they were themselves inclined. It is important to state that they acted in this way within the environment of the powerful actions of Rudolf I1 and his uncle Archduke Charles I1 of Styria to eradicate any trace of the work of the Croatian Protestants. It is indicative that both these books were published by Ioannes Manlius (the Chronicle in Ljubljana and the Eras- mus in Varaidin); this was a printer who had a Slovene and German Protes- tant printing house in Ljubljana, which the reinforced Catholic inquisition drove out of the whole of Carniola, Manlius hence carrying on with his work in Varaidin.

Unluckily, it is only fragmentary items of information that have survived concerning Erasmus' presence in Croatian cultura1 history; perhaps these will

77Cf. Mario Infelise, I libri proibiti, 2nd ed. (Rome: Laterza, 2001), 37, 41; Silvana Seidel Menchi, "Whether to Remove Erasmus from the Index of Prohibited Books: Debates in the Ro- man Curia, 1570-1610," ERSY 20 (2000): 19-20. The following came under the absolute ban: the Colloquia, the Encomium Moria, the Lingua, the Institutio Christiani matrimonii, the De inter- dicto esu carnium and the Esposizione ktterak del testo di Matteo evangelista (this is the Italian

i translation of the Paraphrasis in Euangelium Matthaei). In any case, the 1564 Index did not re- place that of 1559, being rather a supplement to it, which brought about some contradictions and hesitations (Seidel Menchi, 20ff., esp. 24-25). In the first index of the Spanish Inquisition of 1584 half of the space was occupied by detailed expurgation of works by Charles du Moulin and Erasmus (Infelise, 39).

Sixtus's Index of 1590 (which was, it is true, recalled at once and never applied in prac- tice) Erasmus' works were banned as a whole; in fact pictures of him, praises of him and the very mention of his name were forbidden (Seidel Menchi, 29).

1 14 E R A S M U S O F R O T T E R D A M S O C I E T Y

be supplemented by future research. Nevertheless, even from these few pre- cious fragments it is clear that the reception of the great humanist was unin- terrupted during the whole of the sixteenth century and that the attitude towards him was quite diverse, ranging from uninhibited expressions of admiration (Marko MaruliC), via appeals to his authority (Vinko PribojeviC) to harsh criticism (Nikola Petrovié). Apart from records in chronicles, quota- tions of Erasrnus' writings, the expression of persona1 value judgernents, the forms of reception also include philological polemics and supplementation (Matija VlaCié) and the anthologizing and printing of Erasmus' works (IvanuS PergoSiC). It can be noted that the mentions of the Dutch humanist in the Dalmatian circle, in the first half of the century, remained within the context of private correspondence (only Marulif at least intended to publish his eu- logy, although he was prevented by censorship); in the second half of the century the testimonies derive from Protestant or crypto-Protestant circles, and were published in print.

Erasmus' presence was to continue in the seventeenth century, when he was read by the archbishop of Split, Marcus Antonius de Dominis (1560- 1624), Primate of Dalmatia and Croatia, the author of the famed (and noto- rious) De Republica Ecclesiastica, which was directed not only against the Papa1 See and church administration but against some of the church's teach- ings, so that he was charged with heresy and imprisoned. His almost unknown namesake Dominicus de Dominis (not related to him in any way), a poet and vicar of the island of BraC, possessed at least two of Erasmus' works. Early in the nineteenth century the Ragusan Latinist Duro FeriC (Georgius Ferrich, 1739-1820) was to provide poetic versions of a selection from Eras- mus' collection of anecdotal and sententious sayings entitled Apophthegmata in no fewer than 1015 Latin epigrams (Apophtkgmata Erasmi htinis versibus explicata, ca 1808),79 and in the twentieth century noteworthy essays were contributed by two of the most outstanding Croatian writers, Tin Ujevid (1937) and Miroslav KrleZa (written in 1942, first published in 1953). The Praise of Folly was to be translated twice into Croatian: by Ivan Esih in 1936 and Zvonimir Milanovié in 1999. That part of Erasmus' brilliant trajectory remains outside the framework of this paper, but it does show how in Croatia too the famous words of John Colet were confirmed: "Nomen Erasmi nun- quam peribit" (The name of Erasmus will never perish).

79The manuscript is in the Franciscan Library in Dubrovnik (no. 931). Only a handful of epigrams have been published: Veljko Gortan and Vladimir VratoviC, eds., Hrvarski latinisti 11: Pisci 17-1 9 stoijeka = Croatici auctures qui Latine smipserunt Il: Auctures saec. XW1-XIX (Zagreb: Zora and Matica hmatska, 1970), 690-93.

Erasmus and the Croats in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries

Documents

Transcript of Erasmus and the Croats in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries