MS gesuitico 522
and the unknown history of Marulić’s Repertorium
Neven Jovanović
April 22, 2024
What do we know
about Marulić’s Repertorium (Rome, Biblioteca nazionale centrale, MS gesuitico 522)?
It is an autograph codex of over 900 pages.
It is a private index to a private library and, at the same time, a commonplace book.
Marulić was working on Repertorium over three decades.
Repertorium is an index of special themes appearing in a
special set of books:
some 300 terms, as present in some forty titles.
The themes and terms have to do primarily
with morals and religion.
Repertorium is a document of Marulić’s Christian self-education.
Milestones in our understanding of Repertorium
- Šišić 1923 (discovery)
- Kulundžić 1975 / 1979
- Novaković 1998
- Glavičić 1998-2000 (editio princeps)
- Marulianum and Novaković 2006 (photographs)
Desiderata
Novaković 1998:
- study how Marulić transforms materials from Repertorium in his own works
- develop a typology and a morphology of such transformations
- propose a chronology of Repertorium and its development
- use the Repertorium to propose a general chronology of Marulić’s autograph works, relying also on changes in handwriting and orthography
The desiderata from 1998 remain unfulfilled today.
Issue 1: diachronic aspects of Repertorium were neglected in the editio princeps.
We cannot follow the changes or think about developments.
Issue 2: the material aspects of the codex were neglected in the editio princeps of the Repertorium.
Issue 3: of several layers of texts in the Repertorium, only the main one has been presented carefully.
Issue 4: these additional layers of texts may have been
contributed by people other than Marulić,
during his life or afterwards.
At the moment, we cannot tell.
The physical form
of the codex
How the MS gesuitico 522 looks today:
- ca. 900 pages, 450 leaves (bound together quite tightly, quite unwieldy)
- some fifty fascicles
- format: a folio sheet folded in half lengthwise
Watermarks
according to reference catalogues, they were all in use 1481–1506
The fascicle structure
Why is the fascicle structure important
- Paper of the first fascicle of a letter regularly has a crown filigran, the last fascicle has a hat, with scales in between
- For a letter, Marulić would fill out a fascicle at a time, adding new fascicles as necessary
- The fascicles probably remained unbound, grouped by letters for easier use
- Inventarium librorum, January 1524: „Ex auctoribus dicta, libelli parui, numero 4” – at the time of Marulić’s death the work was divided in four volumes?
- In fascicles, Repertorium could be consulted (for certain books) before it was finished as a whole
- Individual fascicles could have been lent (together with respective books)
Different inks (and handwriting)
Page format of the Repertorium
The vacchetta format was used in Dalmatia (and Italy)
for account books, parish and confraternity records
(„memorie”); such notebooks were written
in Glagolitic script too.
Cvito Fisković, 1975: „Some 1500 such notebooks have been preserved in Dalmatian archives.”
See Marijana Tomić’s GlagoLab
https://glagolab.unizd.hr/
Text layout of the Repertorium
Two functional models, none of them literary:
account books and book indices.
As Marulić’s excerpts progress, a certain
rebellion of content can be noticed:
the excerpts change and their form changes.
At first, the page numbers form a separate column.
In the excerpts from the Bible, the separate column gradually disappears.
After the excerpts from the New Testament, there is no separate column any more (the layout is more similar to the index in De institutione 1513).
Two special segments of the Repertorium receive additional reference systems: a list of pagan gods and a list of heretics.
In the case of heretics, there are four concurrent reference systems in two ink colors:
- (left) paragraphs marking off names
- (left margin) sigla of NT books
- (right margin) letters of the alphabet
- (right margin) marginal notes on doctrinal points
Change of form shows clearly that Marulić worked on Repertorium for a long time. It was a job requiring organization, dedication and perseverance.
Kulundžić saw in it Marulić’s „encyclopedic passion” – he did not quite understand why would Marulić take on such a task only for his private use.
We have to bear in mind that dedication and perseverance transform activities required for the Repertorium (reading, contemplating, writing) into a a spiritual and ascetic exercise, into an act of sacrifice.
Because of that spiritual and ascetic aspect, Novaković has connected Repertorium with commonplace books (rapiaria, rapularia) created in Northern Europe by members of devotio moderna.
Additional layers of Repertorium
Marginal notes were neglected in the editio princeps of Repertorium.
Glavičić 1998: „Various marginal signals (index finger, vertical serpent sign, asterisks, N(ota) etc) were in the edition, for technical reasons, replaced with an arrow sign.”
Glavičić implies that all marginal signals are the same: that there are no differences in function, time of writing, authorship. And that their importance is limited.
None of these claims have been verified.
Differences in ink and handwriting suggest that the marginal notes were not always written simultaneously with the main text.
This means that Marulić returned to his excerpts and reinterpreted them.
If all signs have the same function,
why are there different types?
A typology of marginal signs in the Repertorium
- graphics
- words
Graphic marginal signs in the Repertorium
- serpent
- asterisk
- dot
- manicula (a preliminary analysis shows at least 11 main types, two of them most frequent)
- paragraph
- underline (sometimes overline)
Lexical marginal signs in the Repertorium
- additional entries
- corrections
- instructions for orientation (f. 50r Vide inferius.; f. 120v Sequitur ad folium 11.)
- N. (= nota)
- marginal title or cross-reference (for example, pax, deus, rex, pastor, trinitas)
- repetition of a name or a term from the text
Different types of maniculae
Importance of marginal notes
Posset 2013: „author’s marginalia are important keys to better understand his or her interests and thought processes. They are always a valuable means to get closer to his or her mind as he or she is reading and annotating certain texts.”
Rep. Biblia, s. v. Felicitas: Filii Israel inuidentes felicitati gentium susceperunt ritus eorum 217
(The same formulation Rep. f. 330v, Biblia, s. v. Perfidia: Filii Israel susceperunt ritus gentium inuidentes felicitati eorum.)
Macc. 1, 1, 11-16 Et exiit ex eis radix peccati, Antiochus illustris, filius Antiochi regis, qui fuerat Romae obses: et regnavit in anno centesimo trigesimo septimo regni Graecorum. In diebus illis, exierunt ex Israël filii iniqui, et suaserunt multis, dicentes: Eamus, et disponamus testamentum cum gentibus, quae circa nos sunt: quia ex quo recessimus ab eis, invenerunt nos multa mala. Et bonus visus est sermo in oculis eorum. Et destinaverunt aliqui de populo, et abierunt ad regem: et dedit illis potestatem ut facerent justitiam gentium. Et aedificaverunt gymnasium in Jerosolymis secundum leges nationum: et fecerunt sibi praeputia, et recesserunt a testamento sancto, et juncti sunt nationibus, et venundati sunt ut facerent malum.
Marulić provides a summary interpretation
(not a paraphrasis!)
of Macc. 1, 1, 11–16.
Rep. Biblia, s. v. Peccatum: Sancta a gentibus pollui Deus permittit propter peccata populi sui Israel 226.
Macc. 2, 5, 15–20 Sed nec ista sufficiunt: ausus est etiam intrare templum universa terra sanctius, Menelao ductore, qui legum et patriae fuit proditor: et scelestis manibus sumens sancta vasa, quae ab aliis regibus et civitatibus erant posita ad ornatum loci, et gloriam, contrectabat indigne, et contaminabat.
Macc. 2, 5, 15–20 (cont.): Ita alienatus mente Antiochus non considerabat quod propter peccata habitantium civitatem modicum Deus fuerat iratus: propter quod et accidit circa locum despectio: alioquin nisi contigisset eos multis peccatis esse involutos, sicut Heliodorus, qui missus est a Seleuco rege ad expoliandum aerarium, etiam hic statim adveniens flagellatus, et repulsus utique fuisset ab audacia. Verum non propter locum, gentem: sed propter gentem, locum Deus elegit. Ideoque et ipse locus particeps factus est populi malorum: postea autem fiet socius bonorum, et qui derelictus in ira Dei omnipotentis est, iterum in magni Domini reconciliatione cum summa gloria exaltabitur.
Marulić provides a specific summary of Macc. 2, 5, 14–20 (focus on pollution of the holy because of the sins).
Conclusions
Marginal marks and notes are an important part of Repertorium. They signal what Marulić (and other readers) considered as especially important.
Interpretations should start from the especially important passages.
The distribution of marginal marks and notes is important for reconstructing chronology of the Repertorium: there seem to be more of such marginalia in the earlier fascicles.
Some marginal marks and notes may have not been made by Marko Marulić. This possibility deserves a thorough investigation. It implies that Repertorium was used by others (probably even during Marulić’s life; certainly before the fascicles were bound together).
How to interpret marginal notes in Repertorium in a correct way?
First, we need a complete catalogue of marginal notes and marks. The ideal form for such catalogue is digital, enabling reordering and filtering.
Through the catalogue the notes should be connected with passages of the Repertorium at which they point (this is sometimes ambiguous).
The catalogue is the basis for a typology of notes (what is frequent? what is rare?) and for bringing into focus important passages.
Then we can start thinking about what was important for Marulić (and other readers) in this „book about books” – to which passages Marulić returned again and again, which themes held his attention.