**FUP**

Civilization in the Slavic World (15th-17th Century)

45

Giovanna Siedina

Essays on the Spread of Humanistic and Renaissance Literary

**Essays on the Spread of Humanistic and Renaissance Literary Civilization in the Slavic World (15th-17th Century)** 

*edited by* Giovanna Siedina

#### BIBLIOTECA DI STUDI SLAVISTICI

ISSN 2612-7687 (PRINT) - ISSN 2612-7679 (ONLINE)

– 45 –

#### BIBLIOTECA DI STUDI SLAVISTICI

Editor-in-Chief Laura Salmon, University of Genoa, Italy

Associate editor Maria Bidovec, University of Naples L'Orientale, Italy

#### Scientific Board

Rosanna Benacchio, University of Padua, Italy Maria Cristina Bragone, University of Pavia, Italy Claudia Olivieri, University of Catania, Italy Francesca Romoli, University of Pisa, Italy Laura Rossi, University of Milan, Italy Marco Sabbatini, University of Pisa, Italy

International Scientific Board

Giovanna Brogi Bercoff, University of Milan, Italy Maria Giovanna Di Salvo, University of Milan, Italy Alexander Etkind, European University Institute, Italy Lazar Fleishman, Stanford University, United States Marcello Garzaniti, University of Florence, Italy Harvey Goldblatt, Yale University, United States Mark Lipoveckij, University of Colorado-Boulder , United States Jordan Ljuckanov, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria Roland Marti, Saarland University, Germany Michael Moser, University of Vienna, Austria Ivo Pospíšil, Masaryk University, Czech Republic

> Editorial Board Giuseppe Dell'Agata, University of Pisa, Italy

# Essays on the Spread of Humanistic and Renaissance Literary Civilization in the Slavic World (15th-17th Century)

edited by Giovanna Siedina

FIRENZE UNIVERSITY PRESS 2020

Essays on the Spread of Humanistic and Renaissance Literary Civilization in the Slavic World (15th-17th Century) / edited by Giovanna Siedina. – Firenze : Firenze University Press, 2020. (Biblioteca di Studi Slavistici; 45)

https://www.fupress.com/isbn/9788855181983

ISSN 2612-7687 (print) ISSN 2612-7679 (online) ISBN 978-88-5518-198-3 (PDF) ISBN 978-88-5518-199-0 (ePUB) ISBN 978-88-5518-200-3 (XML) DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-198-3

Graphic design: Alberto Pizarro Fernández, Lettera Meccanica SRLs Front cover: Drawing by Sofia Gamba, inspired by the Basilica della Santissima Annunziata in Florence

*FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing* (DOI https://doi.org/10.36253/fup\_best\_practice) All publications are submitted to an external refereeing process under the responsibility of the FUP Editorial Board and the Scientific Boards of the series. The works published are evaluated and approved by the Editorial Board of the publishing house, and must be compliant with the Peer review policy, the Open Access, Copyright and Licensing policy and the Publication Ethics and Complaint policy.

*Firenze University Press Editorial Board*

M. Garzaniti (Editor-in-Chief), M.E. Alberti, F. Arrigoni, M. Boddi, R. Casalbuoni, F. Ciampi, A. Dolfi, R. Ferrise, P. Guarnieri, A. Lambertini, R. Lanfredini, P. Lo Nostro, G. Mari, A. Mariani, P.M. Mariano, S. Marinai, R. Minuti, P. Nanni, A. Novelli, A. Orlandi, A. Perulli, G. Pratesi, O. Roselli.

The online digital edition is published in Open Access on www.fupress.com.

Content license: the present work is released under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). This license allows you to share any part of the work by any means and format, modify it for any purpose, including commercial, as long as appropriate credit is given to the author, any changes made to the work are indicated and a URL link is provided to the license.

Metadata license: all the metadata are released under the Public Domain Dedication license (CC0 1.0 Universal: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode).

© 2020 Author(s)

Published by Firenze University Press Firenze University Press Università degli Studi di Firenze via Cittadella, 7, 50144 Firenze, Italy www.fupress.com

*This book is printed on acid-free paper Printed in Italy*

## Contents


FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Giovanna Siedina (edited by), *Essays on the Spread of Humanistic and Renaissance Literary Civilization in the Slavic World (15th-17th Century)*, © 2020 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress.com), ISSN 2612-7679 (online), ISBN 978-88-5518-198-3 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-198-3

Humanism and the Renaissance in Recent Histories of Ukrainian Literature 137 *Giovanna Siedina*

## Essays on the Spread of Humanistic and Renaissance Literary Civilization in the Slavic World (15th-17th Century). An Introduction

Giovanna Siedina

The topic *The Spread of Humanistic and Renaissance Literary Civilization in the Slavic World* is too vast to approach it within the confines of a brief contribution essay or of a single monograph. Therefore, after a few preliminary observations, I will move on to outline my intent in publishing the contributions gathered in this volume as well as the elements which unite the essays.

The Renaissance age, whose impact manifested in various forms and levels of intensity throughout the Slavic world, has been the subject of study over two centuries. The bibliography on this topic, starting from the works of J. Burckhardt, G. Voigt and J. Michelet, is immense. Despite this long history of inquiry, the discussion on a whole series of issues is still open, first of all with regard to the chronological context of the European Renaissance. In fact, according to some scholars, who consider the Renaissance as a repeatable phenomenon and typologically similar to other phenomena which occurred before and after it, the Renaissance proper was preceded in the West by three different "Renaissance" or rather "renovations": the Carolingian revival of the 8th and 9th centuries and those of the 10th and 11th and 11th and 12th centuries. Some scholars place the beginning of the European Renaissance in the 12th century; while others characterize the 13th and 14th centuries as a proto-Renaissance, that is, only a

Giovanna Siedina, University of Florence, Italy, giovanna.siedina@unifi.it, 0000-0002-3336-552X FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Giovanna Siedina, *Essays on the Spread of Humanistic and Renaissance Literary Civilization in the Slavic World (15th-17th Century). An Introduction*, pp. 7-15, © 2020 Author(s), CC BY 4.0 International, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-198-3.01, in Giovanna Siedina (edited by), *Essays on the Spread of Humanistic and Renaissance Literary Civilization in the Slavic World (15th-17th Century)*, © 2020 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress. com), ISSN 2612-7679 (online), ISBN 978-88-5518-198-3 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-198-3

preparation for the true Renaissance1 . However, the great majority of specialists share the opinion that the Renaissance was an era that sought a synthesis of values that began in the mid-14th century and ended at the end of the 16th century, even if some extend it to the mid-17th century, taking into account the 'chronological lag' of the countries of the Eastern Europe.

In the literature on the subject, historical interpretation and the question of how to properly define the Renaissance has long been and is still under discussion. The Renaissance is generally regarded as an era of extraordinary cultural flowering, as a radical change in culture or as a transition stage, and sometimes in the most literal meaning of the word, as a recovery (re-establishment) of classical antiquity. Scholars are increasingly inclined to consider it as a historicalcultural era, but to this day there is no full consensus in the academic community either on the criteria of 'determination' of the Renaissance, or on its definition.

Some scholars consider the Renaissance as a typological phenomenon, which occurred in different areas at different times, but in the presence of similar socioeconomic conditions and with similar characteristics, a sort of necessary stage in the history of world culture marking a renewal of the activity of a people or group of peoples defined in the context of spiritual culture after a long period of stagnation or decay. Among them N.I. Konrad sees it as a universal phenomenon, an "obligatory stage in the passage from the Middle Ages (every Middle Ages) to the Modern Age (every Modern Age), from feudalism to capitalism"2 .

Those who reject this theory emphasize the uniqueness of the Renaissance era in Italy and Western Europe, and deny the use of this word to characterize similar or precursory phenomena of the Renaissance, or even development models that claim to be universally valid, but "abstract from the historical detail", as Graciotti writes3 . Therefore, this current of thought considers the Renaissance as a non-repeatable historical-cultural phenomenon, with its specific tasks, which took place in a defined time and place.

The coexistence of two different conceptions of the Renaissance, already starting from the end of the 19th century, gave rise to the aforementioned discordance of opinions.

The study of Renaissance culture is further complicated by the very nature of the transition period from the Middle Ages to modern times. It was a

<sup>1</sup> For a detailed and insightful examination of the difference between the Middle Ages and Humanism-Renaissance in the reception and interpretation of the classical world and the novelty of Renaissance thought, see Garin 1987: 85-100.

<sup>2</sup> Graciotti 1988: 225; Konrad 1965, in particular 274-280. I will briefly recall here N.I. Konrad's conception of a "world Renaissance", contained in the collection of essays *Zapad i Vostok* (1966) and well exposed by Graciotti (1988). Konrad considers the Renaissance as a typological phenomenon, as a natural stage in the history of world culture, which begins in China in the 8th-9th centuries, continues in Asia Minor, Iran and India in the 9th-15th centuries and reaches its fulfillment in Europe in the 14th-15th centuries. 3 Graciotti 1988: 227.

period riddled with contradiction4 . As Graciotti points out, the Renaissance is an era that sought to synthesize the values of the medieval world with those that already belonged to the new world. Its task was "to reconcile the old theological culture with the new anthropological culture", and for this reason, the scholar emphasizes, "that civilization was so changeable and so fragile" (Graciotti 1988: 240). He identifies three constitutive elements of the Renaissance: the rebirth of classical culture; the cult of art and *humanae litterae*; and the centrality of the creator man (*homo faber*) in the perspective of Renaissance philosophy. Distinctive features of the Renaissance, alongside the birth of individualism and intellectual emancipation, are the discovery of the value of man as an individual and the secularization of human thought. As noted by Graciotti, as regards Slavic languages and literatures, the confusion between the Renaissance and other types of 'rebirth' or 'awakening', typologically different, could be avoided by using the Slavic term exclusively to name the different historical-social-cultural 'awakenings'. Instead, to characterize to characterize the Italian Renaissance and the cultural phenomena (literary, artistic, philosophical) that participate in it or inherit some elements, it would be preferable to use the loanword derived from the term *Renaissance* (e.g. in Russian *Renesans* and the adjective *renesansnyj*).

A similar terminological confusion has occurred with the term "humanism". This term, as Graciotti points out (1988: 218), characterized by a marked etymological polysemy, and which in current usage has the meaning of 'cult of man', is also widely used in the meaning of 'philanthropy', of 'humanitarianism', that is, in a timeless and non-spatial sense. However, one should keep in mind, when talking about the Renaissance, that the term Humanism characterizes one of its phases or components, in particular linked to the relationship with the ancient world and to the cult of classical letters (cf. Graciotti 1988: 218-222). Already Goleniščev-Kutuzov in 1963 warned against the use of the term "humanistic" (in Russian *gumanističeskij*) next to the term "progressive" to define phenomena that have nothing in common with Humanism-Renaissance (Goleniščev-Kutuzov 1963b: 5).

It is therefore important to consider Humanism and the Renaissance as "two facts of the same historical process, […] which between the 14th and 16th centuries spiritually renewed the face of Europe" (cf. Graciotti 1988: 222).

The works by Goleniščev-Kutuzov (1963a and 1963b) constitute a milestone in the study of the spread of Humanism and the Renaissance in the Slavic, especially East Slavic, world. For what concerns this area, the scholar reconstructed the penetration of humanistic concepts and ideas that beginning with the 15th century were spread in the Ruthenian area thanks to young men who had studied in Western European universities and academies. He also illustrated the

<sup>4</sup> As I have already said in footnote 1, for a careful examination of some constants of the relationship between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance see the chapter *Interpretazioni del Rinascimento* in Garin 1987, in particular pp. 95-100.

ways of dissemination of humanistic ideas and practices in Russian culture, apparently more impervious to them, among which was the Greek influence. Goleniščev-Kutuzov stressed that a good number of intellectuals of Greek origin who subsequently taught in Galicia, Lithuania and Moscow, came from islands dominated by Venice. Therefore, these intellectuals had come into direct contact with centers and representatives of Italian Humanism and had absorbed the new currents of thought and artistic experience.

As for the Slavic countries, in past decades scholars have developed various conceptions of national 'Renaissance'. The idea was gradually established that the Renaissance was not exclusively a Western European phenomenon, but that it also characterized the Western Slavs, some of the Southern Slavs, and partially the Eastern Slavs. Critics generally recognize that the Renaissance took on different forms, importance and 'intensity' in the various Slavic cultures5 .

However, it seems to me that the limitation of such a large and diversified phenomenon to the national horizon has not, up to now, allowed to fully grasp its various 'declinations' and its overall scope; in my opinion, an areal type approach would be more profitable. In this regard, it seems to me important to recall here the discussion on the pre-Renaissance *Predvozroždenie* by D.S. Lichačev (1958) and the Slavic-Orthodox Revival by R. Picchio (1958: 197) about the Hesychast movement and the recovery of the Cyril-Methodian heritage connected to it. Despite the different approaches, scholars have found in this case that it was a unitary and supranational movement, "within which the various souls of the Slavonic civilization actively interacted" (Alberti 2010: 160)6 .

The need to introduce new perspectives to evaluate the relationship of the Eastern Slavic world, in particular Muscovy/Russia, with Humanism and the Renaissance is argued by Garzaniti. Generally, the shared opinion was that in Muscovy medieval culture maintained its dominant position until the Baroque period. Recent research provides a different perspective on that relationship. In the first place, Garzaniti stresses the need to step away from crystallized interpretative schemes and free ourselves from established axioms characterizing Humanist and Renaissance scholarship, which generally influence research on Eastern Slavic culture. As the scholar states, "the most evident of these avenues is the national-driven interpretation, which views all cultural manifestations as part of a separate linguistic, literary and artistic canon, following the dominant paradigm of the 19th century". Another interpretative approach that needs revision is the separation between secular and religious culture, a separation which was not as clear-cut as one might imagine. Notwithstanding the quest of philosophical research and political science for greater autonomy respectively from

<sup>5</sup> See, among others, the seminal works of Goleniščev-Kutuzov (1963a and 1963b) and the es-

says collected in Graciotti, Sgambati 1986. 6 "Al cui interno le varie anime della civiltà slavoecclesiastica hanno interagito attivamente". Already N.I. Goleniščev-Kutuzov (1973) had spoken of the pre-Renaissance regarding South Slavs in connection with Byzantium.

theology and moral precepts, in early modernity the "intertwining between a recovery of antiquity and the renewal of Christianity remained inextricable": what they both shared was a new concept of the individual. Garzaniti illustrates the importance of re-evaluating the activity of expatriate Greek intellectuals coming from the Byzantine world. Indeed, their contribution not only in the rediscovery of classical culture, through their research on the Greek and Hellenistic heritage and on the translation from Greek into Latin, but also in the preservation of the patristic, theological and philosophical legacy is not negligible. Finally, another aspect that needs re-evaluation is the role that Humanistic and Renaissance ideas played in the development of the cultural identity of Russia, when the latter grew not only in accordance with, but also in opposition to them.

Tatiana Matasova's essay is devoted to Russian culture and to its reception of elements of Renaissance culture. One of the paths to understanding the nature and degree of the changes brought about by Renaissance influences on Russian culture is the analysis of the reception of the most significant Renaissance texts. The scholar does such an analysis of some copies of the Old Russian translation of the First book of Pomponius Mela's *Cosmographia, sive De Situ Orbis*, known also as *De Chorographia* – *Geografija* in Russian scholarship. Pomponius Mela's *Cosmographia* was one of the most appreciated ancient texts by Renaissance humanists and scholars and considered an example of outstanding ancient Latin. The text of the First book of *Cosmographia* is a vivid compilation of known facts about Europe, Asia, and Africa in the ancient world. It provides information about the topography, nature and important places of the described lands, as well as the habits and customs of native peoples. The comparison of the five extant Russian copies of the Old Russian translations of *Cosmographia* suggests to Matasova the existence of at least ten copies of the Old Russian translation of the First book of *Cosmographia*. Moreover, the author draws the conclusion that the translation was made not from an incunable, but from a manuscript. As to the possible translator, Matasova speculates that he may have been a member of the influential Tarchaniota family (of aristocratic Greek origin, with ties to the Palaeologus). As to the central issue, how could such a markedly pagan work be perceived by Russian scribes, the author analyses the translation and comments on a few passages. These passages clearly demonstrate that in Muscovy the information provided by *Cosmographia* was not considered 'objective', but was rather interpreted through the prism of biblical analogy.

Ties to the Tarchaniota family also characterize the 'protagonist' of V. Stojanović's essay, dedicated to Michael Marullus Tarchaniota's poem *De laudibus Rhacusae*. The first part of the article reconstructs a tentative biography using the scarce information available for this poet; the second part provides an analysis of Marullus' aforementioned poem. Quite interestingly, Stojanović demonstrates that Marullus' description greatly departs from reality, in that his praise of Dubrovnik's wealth far exceeds that of the antique cities of Syracuse and Corinth. However, as the author states, Marullus' real goal is to praise freedom, especially *libertatem avorum*, since freedom in the Renaissance political thought represents a possibility for man to master his own destiny.

Žanna Nekraševič-Karotkaja's essay is devoted to the spread of the motif of *translatio imperii*. The scholar reconstructs the history of this concept that originated in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. It is a political stereotype of transfer of metaphysical world domination from country to country. The concept of *translatio imperii* accounts for the belief of the Byzantine kings in their exceptional right over emperorship as legal successors of the old Rome. After the fall of Constantinople (1453), the concept of *translatio imperii* gradually lost its universal character and was interpreted within the confines of a nation. In the epic poetry of the Renaissance, the theme of *translatio imperii* can manifest itself in describing the history of a concrete dynasty that is fighting with another dynasty, albeit within the borders of the same country. Francesco Filelfo (1398-1481) mused on the concept of *translatio imperii* in the epic poem *Sphortias* dedicated to Francesco Sforza, an Italian condottiero. At the end of the 15th century, a new legend appeared that claimed the Byzantine origin of the Monomach's Cap. That, in turn, explains the religious and political idea of Moscow being the third Rome. Alternative theories emerged in the epic poetry of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

The epic poem *The Prussian War* (Lat. *Bellum Prutenum*, 1516) by Ioannes Visliciensis depicts the events of the Great War with the Teutonic knights and the battle of Grunwald in 1410. The events became the symbol of political might of the Jagiellonian dynasty, Nekraševič-Karotkaja explains, and the poem provided a literary formulation of the concept 'Jagiellonian' patriotism for the first time. The author also explains how the German poet Johannes Mylius endeavoured to find commonalities between the Jagiellonian concept and the concept of *Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicae* in his epic poem *Ιερόνικων* in two books.

The goal of explicating the concept of *translatio imperii* in literature was to uncover the fundamental factor which laid the basis for another concept – *idea universalissima herois absolutissimi* (the universal idea of the most perfect hero, Sarbievius, *De perfecta poesi*, II, 7), which, in its turn, was thoroughly developed in the literature of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Nekraševič-Karotkaja demonstrates how the artistic expression of both the 'Jagiellonian' and Lithuanian (i.e., Grand Duchy of Lithuania) patriotism, with the insights of the concept of the transfer of power, had an enormous impact on the formation of the national identity of the Belarusian, Lithuanian, and Polish peoples.

The Czech area is represented by L. Kysučan's essay with the ambitious title *Classical Tradition in the Czech Renaissance and Baroque Literature*. The scholar's aim is to map the key influences of the culture of classical antiquity in the literature of the Czech Renaissance and Baroque, covering the era from the first decades of the 16th century to the early 18th century. Since the stated theme is too broad to be satisfactorily dealt with within the limits of an article, the author decided to carry out his analysis in the form of case studies concerning examples of selected works of literature and selected motifs from ancient history.

Interestingly enough, Kysučan realized that the historical motifs coming from the classical world are present practically in all typical genres of Czech literature. The homiletic production, spreading at an extraordinary pace in the Baroque period, was greatly inspired by classical rhetoric. The same can be said of the Baroque theatre. Motifs from ancient history are not only enumerated and mentioned as pure facts by authors, but they are exploited with sophisticated intention as a medium of allegory, satire, irony or, in contrast, with emphasis upon highly praised virtues.

At the same time, studying texts of ancient historians (Herodotus, Thucydides, Sallust, Caesar, Livy, Tacitus) formed an inseparable part of the curriculum of both classical languages at that time. The author then concludes that the classical tradition is not only an accompanying ornament, but also an apparent constitutive element of Czech Renaissance literature.

Jakub Niedwiedz's paper is devoted to the question of imitation of maps in late Renaissance Polish poetry (between 1580 and 1630), a time of an incredible growth in Polish lyric poetry. The interest in cartography and the contact with maps, direct or indirect, changed the contemporary Polish poets' way of thinking. This was reflected in the need to translate maps into literary texts.

The main thesis of the paper is that poets widely used map-based techniques in constructing their poems. Imitation (Latin *imitatio*) played a crucial role in this process. The works of five poets were chosen to illustrate the ways of map imitation: S.F. Klonowic, K. Miaskowski, S. Petrycy, M.K. Sarbiewski and Sz. Szymonowic. The paper consists of three parts. In the first, the author aims at answering the question of whether in Polish poetry there are references to cartography at that time. He shows the existing similarity between cartographical representation of a river in poetry and on a map. In this example, the author shows the *topoi* used both in poems and maps. In the second part, the concept of map imitation is discussed. Niedwiedz analyses the rhetorical tools which helped to forge poetical maps. In the third part of the paper, the author shows how the late Renaissance poets described the territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and thus he reveals the purposes to which map imitation was utilized by Polish writers of the time. Indeed, the author convincingly demonstrates that maps were one of the powerful ways with which the authors from Central-Eastern Europe dealt with the problem of defining their place in Europe and the world.

Finally, my article deals with the treatment of the broad theme of the reception of Humanism and Renaissance in two important histories of Ukrainian literature, respectively *Muza Roksolans'ka. Ukrajins'ka literatura XVI-XVIII stolit'* by Valerij Ševčuk (Kyiv, "Lybid'", 2004-2005), in two volumes, and *Istorija ukrajins'koji literatury* in twelve volumes (2014-) published by the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine Naukova Dumka. I remark that the disappearance of Soviet ideological constraints has brought about the possibility of analysing various aspects of this theme: multilingualism, the partaking of different cultures of the writers of the so-called *Pohranyččja*, and literature written in Latin, are just a few of the possible points of reference. However, some aspects still need to be studied more thoroughly. Among them, the supranational approach should be adequately considered when dealing with the spread of Humanism-Renaissance. At the same time the emphasis on the secular character of the 'new' literature should be properly considered. In the reality of the texts of the time, religion continues to be an integral part of mental, intellectual, political and cultural discourse.

The articles in this volume do not even remotely aspire to cover the spread of Humanism and the Renaissance in the Slavic world. They should rather be seen as the beginning of a dialogue among scholars on some aspects of the reception of Humanism and the Renaissance in the areas of their specialization. The goal of this dialogue is a deepening of the knowledge of this reception and its re-evaluation. I hope that this dialogue will yield more fruits in the future.



### Abstract

In this article the author, after briefly recollecting different interpretations of the Renaissance, shortly outlines some modes that have characterized the reception of Humanism and the Renaissance in the Slavic countries and its study. She then illustrates the content of the essays gathered in the book, with a special focus on the novelty of their interpretative approach. The author argues the importance of abandoning the old national-driven interpretation, in favor of the adoption of an areal and supranational point of view which allows to analyze related cultural phenomena in a wider perspective.

*Keywords:* Humanism, the Renaissance, Slavic cultures and literatures.

## Humanism, the Renaissance and Russian Culture between the 15th and 17th Centuries: Preliminary Thoughts

Marcello Garzaniti

### 1. Premise

This topic is vast to the point of making it impossible to approach it within the confines of a brief contribution essay. Therefore, we restrain ourselves to summarizing a few preliminary observations by offering practical examples while we wait for future research developments. We find this approach useful to map out a few ideas and suggestions for study, especially in view of the creation, in the future, of an atlas mapping the relevance of Humanism and the Renaissance in the Slavic world.

When it comes to this topic, studies generally focus on Central-Eastern Europe, on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and its eastern territories in particular, or on the relationships between the Western world and Muscovy where medieval culture would have been maintained its dominant position until the Baroque period. Based on the most current research, we will try rather to introduce new perspectives in interpretation showing how the entire East Slavic world – albeit in different ways – participated in European cultural transformations from the very start, and not just by sharing some of this new trend's characteristics, but by building a new identity in tune with the changes of the times.

The following reconstruction sheds light on a fundamental phase in the process of assimilation of the Mediterranean culture within the Slavic world, and at the same time tries to define more consistently the very dynamics within European

Marcello Garzaniti, University of Florence, Italy, marcello.garzaniti@unifi.it, 0000-0002-4630-5374 FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Marcello Garzaniti, *Humanism, the Renaissance and Russian Culture between the 15th and 17th Centuries: Preliminary Thoughts*, pp. 17-35, © 2020 Author(s), CC BY 4.0 International, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518- 198-3.02, in Giovanna Siedina (edited by), *Essays on the Spread of Humanistic and Renaissance Literary Civilization in the Slavic World (15th-17th Century)*, © 2020 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress.com), ISSN 2612-7679 (online), ISBN 978-88-5518-198-3 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-198-3

Humanism and the Renaissance. A unified panorama of these historical processes will emerge, within which the participation of the Slavic world will be re-evaluated1 .

## 2. Main approaches and prejudices in Humanism and Renaissance studies

To better address this complex topic, we believe we need to step away from dominant interpretative avenues and free ourselves from those prejudices (in the etymological sense of the word) that characterize Humanist and Renaissance scholarship, generally influencing research on Eastern Slavic culture. The most evident of these avenues is the national-driven interpretation, which views all cultural manifestations as part of a separate linguistic, literary and artistic canon, following the dominant paradigm of the 19th century2 .

We need to realize that, just by taking the Italian peninsula into consideration, the new social models, from the figure of the Humanist intellectual down to that of the Renaissance artist, are models that stemmed in very different forms from the Renaissance courts between the 15th and the 16th century. It does not seem enough to highlight the unity of Italian culture and emphasize the adoption of vulgar Florentine promoted by Pietro Bembo in his *Prose della Vulgar Lingua*. It is extremely limiting to interpret all of these complex realities under the umbrella of a national, unified expression, most of all if we think of the invaluable contribution from the Roman curia – from its 'exile' in Avignon to its return to Rome – and the subsequent transformation of the capital of medieval Christendom into a brand-new Caput Mundi, following classical paradigms. During this time of *renovatio*, aimed at uniting the renewal of the arts and the universal mission of the Roman Church (symbolically represented by the building of the basilica of St. Peter), the fact that individuals might belong to a state, a nation or an ethnic group did not really matter. Indeed, what truly mattered was their ability to be active members of this process of rebirth while Europe had been deprived of 'an eye' by the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople3 .

There is an important key factor we need to re-examine in the context of the Turkish menace in the Balkans and in the Eastern Mediterranean regions: the presence and action of Greek intellectuals in preserving and perpetuating the legacy of the Eastern Roman Empire, starting from the central place held by

<sup>2</sup> For a radical criticism of the dominant national approach in literary studies, see Guillén 1993.

<sup>3</sup> In his letter to Cardinal Juan Carvajal (6 April 1453), Enea Silvio Piccolomini writes "Alterum Europe oculum in manu infidelium devenire" (Wolkan 1909-1919, IV: 129).

<sup>1</sup> For an overall account of this topic, see our introduction to the cultural history of the Slavic world in the volume *Gli slavi* (Garzaniti 2019f: 296-330). For a reflection on terminology and interpretation vis-à-vis Humanism and the Renaissance in the Slavic area in literature about Russia and other Slavic countries, see the illuminating study by S. Graciotti, although he seems to focus mainly on the typological and analogical character of such definitions (Graciotti, 1988). For a recap of the state of scholarship on the Middle Ages and Humanism in the Muscovite area, especially in Germany, see the vast study by V. Tomelleri (Tomelleri 2013).

Cardinal Bessarion4 . Unfortunately, when it comes to these intellectuals' crucial role, studies tend to focus mainly on retracing the Greek refugees' or expatriates' contribution to the rediscovery of the classical culture, focusing their research on the Greek and Hellenistic heritage and on the translation from Greek into Latin. The aim is to rebuild the contribution of emigration to the broadening of Western Middle Age knowledge which was taught in the universities5 . This way, the Patristic, theological and philosophical legacy continues to be left aside, if not forgotten altogether, a legacy promoted by those scholars of the Byzantine world, which preserved not only the classical heritage.

Today we can retrace the dissemination and fruition during Humanism and the Renaissance of this legacy coming from Romània, a legacy that should be observed not only from the perspective of re-discovering its classical roots, but also in relation to the Church Fathers' thought, which had been the subject of discussions at the Council of Ferrara and Florence (1437-1439). For many, the unity achieved in the Tuscan city should have opened the door to a renovation within the medieval Christian Church. Greek exiles believed that this unification would have its first manifestation in a Crusade against the Turks aimed at freeing Constantinople and at reinstating the Eastern Roman Empire6 .

Because of this complex cultural and political context of the rediscovery of antiquity, it seems difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between a "secular" and a "religious" culture, following an idealized separation still alive in contemporary scholarship7 . A number of critiques to this approach have already appeared, and we want to remember the fundamental contribution of V. Zabugin, a major Russian scholar of Italian Humanism8 . Moreover, the most recent publications clearly show the reality of the facts that emerge above all in studies on the Patristic legacy during Humanism and the Renaissance9 .

We do not mean to deny the existence in that time of philosophical research that tended towards greater autonomy from theology10, determining the defini-


tive separation between the two fields of study. We also do not mean to deny the development of a political science that frees itself from moral precepts11. These tendencies, though, were confined to an elite of scholars, developed strictly in confessional societies. Albeit at alternating phases both of a historical-social nature and on a personal level, in these societies the intertwining between a recovery of antiquity and the renewal of Christianity remained inextricable. The one constant, above and beyond the different philosophical and theological approaches, is a new concept of the individual.

Only the Protestant Reform will bring forth truly different aesthetic ideas that will oppose a new iconoclastic approach to the rebirth of classical mythology. In any case, both instances are expressions of a new cultural paradigm of modern times, taking a step away from the Middle Ages. It is thus possible to leave behind the interpretation that reads the theological contributions, especially of evangelical descent, as a mere continuation of the Middle Ages, while only the renewal of antiquity (through his aesthetic trends) would have been a budding new culture12. This juxtaposition crystalizes progressively around the creation of the myth of Rome, Pagan and Christian, met by the violent anti-Roman response of the Protestant world. In modern times the Protestant cultural paradigm deeply influenced Russian cultural history, especially during and after the times of Peter the Great, favoring the process of secularization13.

Modernity, beginning with its very pre-humanistic roots, not only shares a passion for pagan antiquity juxtaposed to the heritage of the medieval and Byzantine Christian world, nor is characterized by the re-discovery of the classical Greek language and of Cicero's Latin as opposed to scholastic Latin. More than that, though, it is characterized by a new approach to written culture and to art production, determining in effect the beginning of both modern philology and the history of art. By concentrating on the former, but with an eye on the latter, we can recognize the very heart of Humanism in a study of sources aimed at retracing their actual origins, above and beyond the crystallizations left by the passing of time, identifying styles and themes from classical and Christian antiquity, and in doing so, laying the foundations for classical and biblical philology (or, better yet, biblical-liturgical philology). Aldo Manutius's work is a prominent example of this approach to sources. Thanks to his academy and his press he not only rediscovered the classical pagan world and perfected the art of printing, he also contributed, together with his Greek and philhellene col-

<sup>11</sup> At Five Hundred Years from the publication of Machiavelli's *The Prince*, there is a renewed attention to the political thought of the Florentine Humanist. See the rich catalogue of the exhibition *Machiavelli, il Principe e il suo tempo* (Machiavelli 2013).

<sup>12</sup> Graciotti 1988: 242 and following.

<sup>13</sup> A great promoter can be found in Teofan Prokopovyč, juxtaposed to another ecclesiastic personality, Ruthenian as well, albeit of Catholic orientation, Stefan Javors'kyj (Shevelov 1985).

laborators, to the dissemination of the biblical and Eastern liturgical tradition while at the same time supporting Savonarola's Reform trends14.

It was precisely this critical approach to sources, an approach obviously still far from 19th century philology, that allowed for not only a renewal in the arts, but also, a renewal in scientific and technological knowledge. This overview approach is one our contemporary times seem to have lost. A clear example can be found in a recent study reconstructing Leonardo's library, with its volume ranging from classical poetry to the Patristic to architecture and military art treatises15.

We should not interpret the very use of language – classical Greek and Latin or the vulgar idioms – with adaptations from different works or in originals, not just through the prism of aesthetic juxtaposition in contemporary terms between the original and the imitation. We feel that these categories are not useful to the interpretation of the literary (and artistic) production at that time since imitation of ancient and modern authors does not prevent the readers from perceiving those works as original16.

Additionally, we should not focus our analysis only on poetry, painting and sculpture as fundamental manifestations of the Humanist and Renaissance spirit. Above and beyond these categories, more often than not a product of 19th century aesthetics elaborated after philosophical idealism, it is important to reflect on artistic and literary works investigating the ways in which, starting in the Italian peninsula, this cultural paradigm took shape. This new approach manifested itself in the rediscovering of the sources via a philological method well in use in the Italian courts, but also in universities and schools, and expresses itself in Latin and Greek languages as well as in vulgar idioms. This gave life to perpetually novel hybrid phenomena and linguistic contaminations contributing to the establishment of a multifaceted European culture.

In the Western world, this happened thanks to common medieval Latin and to a web of universities and schools that helped in shaping an intellectual class tied to the courts – where the papal curia had a very special role. A *Respublica litterarum* was born, that is a community of learned individuals with a common cultural background based on the pagan and Christian classics regardless of their national, ethnic and even religious origins. This community centered their

<sup>14</sup> Of all his works, for example, we should take into consideration not only his precious editions of classic literature, the ones scholarship usually refers to, but also important publications of religious and liturgical character (Flogaus 2005-2007).

<sup>15</sup> See Vecce 2017.

<sup>16</sup> We should return to reflect, as specialists are doing, on the debate on imitation between Pietro Bembo and Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola at the beginning of the 16th century (McLaughlin 1996). It is worth remembering that Maximus the Greek, the most important Russian writer of the 16th century, was for some time the secretary of Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola (see below).

research on human beings, their yearning for happiness, their freedom, thus determining a radical shift in European culture17.

Starting from these essential bases we will now describe the progressive involvement of the Eastern Slavic world in the development of Humanism and the Renaissance, not only through the mediation of Ukrainian culture (where the Polish language and culture served as a model) within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but also in Muscovy and in the young Russian Empire, to this day considered altogether marginal to these processes at the dawn of the Modern era. The constitution of an image of Russia in the Western world is outside of the scope of this research, as well as the idea of Humanism and the Renaissance in contemporary Russia18.

3. The Eastern Slavic world and its cultural dynamics between the 15th and 17th centuries

When it comes to the Eastern Slavs, it seems necessary to take a similar step back from interpretations that force events and main actors within the constraints of strictly national cultural, artistic and literary canons. This seems all the more true for the eastern Slavic regions that, especially in recent decades, thanks to the formation of an independent Ukraine, have witnessed a lively debate concerning Kyivan Rus's legacy and the continuity of the medieval tradition in Kyiv, as opposed to the idea of a separation caused by the medieval translation of its prerogatives in northern Russia19.

Aside from this controversy, and keeping in mind the totality of the European cultural development, we deem necessary to focus our investigation first and foremost on the role played by the Balkan-Slavic world, with its strong links to Byzantium, in the religious, cultural and literary process encompassing the entire eastern Slavic region between the 14th and 15th centuries, known as the "Second southern Slavic influence". The debate originated in the 1950s by D.S. Lichačev on the idea of a "pre-Renaissance" remains essentially open. We have an extensive illustration of this concept in his vast investigation about late medieval literary productions and artistic traditions 20.

<sup>17</sup> See the reflections of V. Branca who considers the *Respublica litterarum* as a continuation of *Respublica christiana* and traces its origins to the Venetian Humanism and in the special place held by Venice in between East and West (Branca 1998: 141).

<sup>18</sup> Both issues deserve a more in-depth analysis, especially in light of more recent publications (Tonini 2012, Kudrjavcev 2013). This is a relevant issue, since in general historiography scholars of Humanism and the Renaissance focus primarily on German and American historiography – as we read in the introduction to *Il Rinascimento italiano e l'Europa* (Fantoni 2005).

<sup>19</sup> For a study on the historiographic debate on Kyiv's legacy in the 19th century see Toločko 2012.

<sup>20</sup> For an introduction to this debate see Garzaniti 2019a.

Without discussing the details of this complex debate, we can say that contemporary scholarship now accepts the fact that this religious renewal within the monastic Hesycast movement – developing well beyond the philosophical and theological instances of Palamism – wanted to turn back to the sources of eastern monastic tradition and, at the same time, reclaimed the most ancient Byzantine and Slavic-Byzantine expressive forms with very close attention to words and style. In the Balkan-Slavic tradition this tendency resulted in a renewal of the art of translation, advocating for the revision of old translations and the production of new ones, responsible for a significant growth in the writing tradition of the *Slavia Orthodoxa* while, at the same time, starting an important reflection on the concept of "correction" (*pravka*).

The interest in a continuity of the most ancient monastic traditions, inscribed within the renewal of classical Byzantine culture (defined today as Palaiologan Renaissance21), carved its place in the re-discovery of the central position of the human being and of his psychology, albeit expressed in different ways compared to western individualism. The fundamental idea of a deification of the human being emerges clearly from ascetic literature to the highest theological thought of Palamism, which develops Neoplatonism reflections.

These are, obviously, very different backgrounds from those of the Western world deeply influenced by the development of the courts and of the figure of the courtesan poet. In Byzantine and Byzantine-Slavic culture there are indeed western influences that can be retraced to that world, although they remained alien to the concept of courtly and chivalric love so crucial for the development of Humanism and the Renaissance. In the Slavic orthodox world one can recognize both in the southern and, later on, in the eastern Slavic writing tradition an implicitly polemic reaction to influences from the Western culture, believed to be as dangerous as Islamic expansions. We can see this response in action in the eastern Slavic world between the 14th and 15th centuries within the context of the time-changing transformation at the root of the progressive geopolitical shift of the Lithuanian grand duchy to the Western world after the establishment of the Jagellonian dynasty. At the time, the process of centralization of the grand principality of Moscow was taking place, whose welcoming of Kyiv's metropolitans determined transfer of the ecclesiastical seat to the capital. In the field of historical narrative, it is important to consider from this point of view the Kulikovo literary cycle. The most mature works focusing on this battle against the Tartars (1380) cannot be considered simply the first Russian epic narration, although they represent the progressive affirmation of a renewed monastic culture in competition with western influences. These are the origins of the idea of an orthodox Christianity able to oppose the Islamic world, a battle built on the bases of an iconographic and celebratory representation with clear influences from the Balkan Byzantine-Slavic world, and, lastly, the figure of the

<sup>21</sup> In reference to this Renaissance, P. Lemerle referred also to a "Byzantine Humanism", already present during Photius's time in the 9th century (Lemerle 1971).

warrior-martyr, a figure that would then generate the figure of the monk-knight, which is understandable only in the perspective of a dialogue, albeit a polemic one, with the Western world22.

These were times marked by the presence of metropolitans of southern Slavic origin, such as Kiprian Camblak (1330ca-1406), and characterized by the assimilation of the southern Slavic writing tradition, by the recovery of Kyivan heritage, and by the production of revised and new translations. Even when considered through the prism of different interpretations, such as R. Picchio's idea of an "orthodox Slavic renaissance (rinascita slava ortodossa)" or Lichačev's "monumentalism"23, we have to recognize that the 15th century represents a fundamental junction both for the Western world and the Italian peninsula as well as for Eastern Europe marked by a progressive shifting of its gravitational center to Moscow24.

The intellectual Western world's energies, as we know, were devoted to internal struggles concerning Conciliarism and the papacy, while the reformist, schismatic and heretical tensions were gaining ground and gave way to the constitution of the first nations. The Italian peninsula was transformed by the return of the papal seat to Rome, which contributed decisively to the discovery and the *renovatio* of antiquity, but also by the menace of expansion in the eastern Mediterranean of Ottoman power that permanently changed the equilibrium established during the Middle Ages and pushed towards new routes to the Orient.

The Grand Principality of Moscow had to confront these transformations, but took part in the process, maintaining its main orientations defined in the Byzantine-Slavic areas during the 14th century. If, on the one hand, the grand Prince strongly opposed the Florentine union proclaimed in Moscow by the metropolitan Isidore right after the Council of Florence (1439), on the other he had a clear perception of the economic and technological divide separating Russia from the Western world25. A key role in this Muscovite orientation was certainly played by the fear that the grand duchy of Lithuania – with its vast domains in the Eastern Slavic area, up to Kyiv and now with its own Metropolitan seat – could become even larger on the basis of the Ecclesiastic union.

In the following years the marriage between Ivan III and Sophia (Zoe) Palaiologina (1472), descendant of the Byzantine imperial house, was promoted by cardinal Bessarion in preparation for the ecclesiastic reconciliation and a new crusade against the Turks. But for the above reasons, this marriage couldn't be successful in this respect, except in making the now autocephalous Moscow

<sup>22</sup> For an interpretation of this literary cycle, especially in regard to its most important text from an ideological and religious point of view, *The Tale of the Rout of Mamai*, see Garzaniti 2016.

<sup>23</sup> See Garzaniti 2019a.

<sup>24</sup> Our reflection on the division into periods of "ancient Russian literature" follows this very perspective, with a review of the canon of the Eastern Slavic and Russian literature (Garzaniti 2012, 2019d).

<sup>25</sup> See our contribution on the anonymous tale *The Journey to the Florentine Council*, Garzaniti 2003.

Church even more rigid. Important concrete results nonetheless took place: the arrival of architects and engineers from the Italian peninsula offered a decisive contribution to the modernization of the grand principality, and not just in its religious architecture, but especially on the technological and military level26.

It is very difficult to overestimate the importance of the arrival of the Byzantine princess on the political and diplomatic level as well. The effects of this marriage went beyond establishing a new relationship with the Italian peninsula during Humanism and the Renaissance and determined the consolidation of the Byzantine legacy in Moscow. With Palaiologina's arrival, Moscow no longer based her legacy solely on the liturgical religious and cultural tradition, but also attained a dynastic basis. This opened the doors to the creation of a central state modeled after the Byzantine empire, a state where, inevitably, the budding court and diplomacy played a central role, just like the ones Sophia had the opportunity to see while growing up in the papal curia, a diplomacy that had a decisive contribution from Greek-origin ambassadors27.

Those were the years of the first coronation in the Kremlin for the grand principality modeled after the coronations held in Constantinople (1498). Among the insignia of the grand prince there was also the crown with the characteristic hat, which according to tradition, the Byzantine emperor Constantine Monomachos donated to Vladimir, the prince of Kyiv, therefore called Monomach (1053-1125). This precious crown not only formalized the Kyivan heritage, but more importantly illustrated from where the reigning house took inspiration: the universal Eastern Roman horizon28.

During the 15th century Muscovy, in fact, was still characterized by multiple administrative centers and powers, more or less autonomous, making them look more like the Western world than the Byzantine imperial model. Among them, the city of Novgorod and its vast northern territories had a particular characteristic. The so-called Novgorod Republic played a fundamental role because of its prosperity and its strong connections with the west, since it was part of the Hanseatic league. The city, with its mercantile aristocracy led by the archbishop, saw its autonomy gradually fade till it became the Muscovite outpost of Slavic-Orthodox Christianity opposed to the western world. The grand principality of Moscow, notwithstanding all of its modern technologies – like the very artillery that cost Novgorod its independence – still lacked cultural resources, indispensable to oppose the fierce western influence. The problem was not just the influence of Latin Christianity or the

<sup>26</sup> For a first approach to Italian architects who worked in Russia at that time, see Karpova Fasce 2004 and Batalov 2013. To the more notable personality of Fioravanti, see the proceedings of a conference held many years ago, Aristotele Fioravanti 1976.

<sup>27</sup> See a recent biography of Sofia curated by T. Matasova (Matasova 2016). On the role of Greek-origin diplomats see Garzaniti 2019e.

<sup>28</sup> A narration of this legend can be found in the *The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir* and in the *Letter of Spiridon of Savva* which inspired the bas reliefs around the so-called "Monomach's throne" (*carskoe mesto*) completed at the time of Ivan the Terrible and on which the tsar sat during the liturgy at the Dormition Cathedral (Garzaniti 2013: 134).

actions of the opposing metropolitan of Kyiv, bound to Rome, but it was also the rampant heretical currents within merchants and artisans who were averse to ecclesiastical and monastic hierarchies. Hussite Bohemia was not that far away, and it was linguistically and ethnically close to the Eastern Slavic world29.

We can frame within this context the activities of Archbishop Gennady (†1505) and of his entourage in Novgorod, including the mysterious Croatian Dominican friar (?), Benjamin. The Archbishop's notable social and cultural action, recently the subject of monographic studies, did not just concentrate on fighting heretical factions. He also strived to acquire a series of resources from the Latin tradition, spanning from grammatical analysis to exegesis. Most importantly, he was the promoter of the first complete codex of the Bible in Slavic language, known today as the *Gennady Bible* (1499). The work on this Bible was the prelude to the introduction of the printing press in Muscovy. This text, based on searching for the best manuscripts in Slavic language and, whenever not available, on new translations from Latin30, was – on the one hand – the continuation of the revisions and corrections dating back to the era of the second Southern Slavic influence – and on the other – the embodiment of a new sensitivity able to re-evaluate external sources, like the Latin ones, well known and widespread in the West also because of the printing press31.

This newfound awareness, however, would meet resistance from the conservative monastic world, suspicious of any innovation – especially when coming from the West – and the Athonite monk Maximus the Greek, the greatest writer of Muscovy at the time, was one of its victims at the beginning of the 16th century. His birthname, Michael Trivolis, evokes the Greek origins of a figure deeply linked to Italian Humanism. In fact, his Florentine education and his participation in the Humanist circles, especially the grecophile ones and those who leaned towards the new thought promoted by Savonarola is well known. Of particular importance were his relationships with notable figures such as Gianfrancesco Pico, nephew of the more famous philosopher Giovanni, and Aldo Manutius, with whom Trivolis collaborated in Venice for a few years32.


The works of Maximus the Greek constitute one of the main cultural intersections that can help us better understand the cultural relations between Muscovy and the West. Moreover, his opus allows us to reconsider the penetration of Humanism and the Renaissance in Russia. After spending ten years on Mount Athos, Maximus the Greek arrived in Moscow (1518) carrying with him the philological and classical knowledge he gained during his time in Italy. At the same time, he was influenced by Savonarola's religious preaching advocating for Ecclesiastic reform. All this was, in fact, far from the Eastern Slavic cultural tradition. His short writings, brief treatises and letters, together with his translations, allowed him to leave a significant mark on orthodox Slavic culture and bring it into the new era with the rediscovery of its most ancient roots, notwithstanding persecution from the most conservative religious authorities.

Starting anew from the most ancient Eastern Byzantine and Christian roots, Maximus strived to gather the most appropriate resources on the basis of the sacred scriptures and of the Patristic tradition in order to give Russia weapons to confront the neo-pagan movements from the West, the Lutheran Reform with all its iconoclastic tendencies, and the Islamic expansion. All of this could have been accomplished, in his mind, by retracing the strength coming from the monachism of the origins.

Within our own reflections on Humanism and the Renaissance, Maximus's thoughts on freewill are of great consequence, especially those inscribed in the controversy against the ever-growing circulation of astrology coming from the West to Moscow33, and those on religious and social life in the West, connected to the issue of poverty and usury34. His constant criticism of the excesses of the rationalist western thought, generally interpreted within the frame of the traditional Byzantine polemic against Latin culture, should more appropriately be studied within the frame of Savonarola's and Gianfrancesco Pico's critical approach against rationalism in the context of the debate on the role of ancient philosophy35.

Even though his disciples were repressed and exiled, from Vassian Patrikeev (1470-after 1531) to Prince Andrej Kurbskij (1528-1583)36, Maximus and his work became a recognized authority. Thanks especially to the foresight of the metropolitan Makarius (†1562), he became a champion of orthodoxy. It was during Makarius's time, the first years of the reign of Ivan the Terrible, that the canon of an orthodox Slavic culture took shape, with Moscow at its catalyst center. This was not only because of the appointment of a special synod in order

<sup>33</sup> On the topic of astrology, see Akopjan 2013, Romoli 2015. 34 On the topic of poverty and usury, see Garzaniti 2021. For the relationships between Savonarola and the Dominicans, see Garzaniti 2019c.

<sup>35</sup> We plan to work in the future on the very relationships between the philosophical positions of Savonarola and Gianfrancesco Pico with those of Maximus, trying to go beyond the schematic juxtaposition between the Medieval theological reflection and the recovery of ancient authors in the time of Humanism and the Renaissance.

<sup>36</sup> See again Tomelleri's essay and bibliography (Tomelleri 2013).

to tackle the most pressing issues – the so-called Hundred Chapter Synod37 – but also due to the creation of works that were supposed to concentrate all the traditional knowledge, like the *Great Menaion Reader* (ca 1530-1560), based on unprecedented research and gathering of sources38.

The awareness of being part of the Eastern Roman tradition finds a specific evolution during the 16th century through the development of the idea of Moscow as the third Rome, a concept that has galvanized the attention of historians and jurists, but it must be placed in a primarily religious and theological context, in the widest sense of the term39. In the *Letter of the Monk Philotheus of Pskov, from the Eleazar monastery, to Dyak Mikhail Grigorievich Misyur-Munekhin* the author used Patristic commentaries to elaborate his own interpretation that took into consideration the first *translatio* from Rome to Constantinople to propose a second one, from Constantinople to Moscow, in the frame of a providential view of history avoiding any reference to astrology. The idea of Rome, so central in 16th century Europe, was used by Philotheus to illustrate this providential design in an eschatological key, where the center of authentic Christianity moved from the river of the Mediterranean, under Ottoman occupation, to the forests of Northern Russia40. This idea, imposing a final judgement on Constantinople itself, already contested by Maximus the Greek, determined the social and cultural development of the Russian empire. We can see its consolidation in the constitution of the Moscow patriarchate (1589) and its clear manifestation in the Russian protection of Eastern Christianity.

During Philotheus's times, classical heritage remained strictly mediated through the Byzantine culture of monastic tradition as the historical narrative shows, starting with the *Greek and Roman Annalist*41 and the persistent imitation of the patristic school models. At the same time, a real court culture did not truly develop, and the printing press was slow to flourish, publishing primarily liturgical books.

During the 16th century, the Russian empire remained completely removed from the figurative Western culture and from recovery of ancient art forms and styles that characterize Renaissance art, just like in the previous century. Already at the time of the Council of Florence, the short travel accounts we mentioned above, did not display any real inclination towards the movement for the renova-

<sup>37</sup> For his canonical positions, see the recent edition curated by E. Emčenko (2016). There, in defense of Ecclesiastical power, we can find a reference to the *Donatio Constantini*, revamped in Russia at the time (Garzaniti 2013: 137).

<sup>38</sup> The publishing of this work has a very troubled history and it is still underway. For the most recent publications, see VMČ 1997-2009.

<sup>39</sup> We are referring to the scientific project "Roma-Costantinopoli-Mosca: tradizione e innovazione nella storia e nel diritto" (Roma "La Sapienza" and Institut Istorii SSSR) that delivered a rich anthology of original texts and translations on the idea of Rome in Moscow

<sup>(15</sup>th-16th century) (Catalano, Pašuto 1993). 40 On the interpretation of this *Letter*, see Garzaniti 2014: 121-158.

<sup>41</sup> See the recent edition with ample comments LER 1999-2001.

tion of ancient art spreading from Florence to the rest of Italy. The same happened in architecture, where Italian architects in Russia created works substantially alien to the rediscovery of ancient forms and styles, limited to the recovery of a few elements from the Western tradition, overall faithfully following the Byzantine tradition. In all probability, the new iconographic regulations imposed by the Hundred Chapter Synod really pointed towards the safeguarding of the traditional Byzantine-Slavic heritage opposing any and all external influences42.

During the crisis of the ruling dynasty, and especially after the Time of Troubles (1598-1613), a series of transformations took place via the mediation of Kyiv, where the new cultural European trends were deeply rooted. After the foundation of Kyivan College, later Kyivan Academy, during Peter Mohyla's time (1596-1647), the cultural tendencies, tying Kyiv to the Humanism and Renaissance tradition, albeit in Baroque form, became stronger. The knowledge of the classics and the use of rhetoric testify to it. This helped in creating the orthodox cultural tradition, in turn able to limit the expansion of the Counter-Reformation43.

At the time of the first representatives of the Romanov dynasty, this model entrenched itself in Moscow thanks to the Ruthenian tradition, determining the reunification of the Eastern Slavic culture and, at the same time, the development of a new synthesis of the orthodox culture, capable of giving way to classical styles and subjects. This hybrid cultural product, in philosophical and theological circles referred to as orthodox "pseudomorphism"44, extended its influence on the Ottoman controlled Balkans thanks to Moscow and its empire. At this time, though, the Counter-Reformation had already tamed or expunged all Humanism and Renaissance tendencies more alien to Christian traditions, in effect making easier, although still somewhat traumatic, the definitive inclusion of Moscow and her empire in the cultural dynamics taking place in the West.

#### 4. Conclusions

This synthetic overview of the relations of the Eastern Slavic – and especially the Russian – world with Humanism and the Renaissance, allows us to step away from the interpretative paradigm of cultural influences to open the way for new research avenues on the construction of Muscovy and Russian empire identity.

<sup>42</sup> The rejection of figurative art of pagan origins was present in the Humanism and Renaissance tradition as well, as we can see from the critical approach of Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola. From here later on, especially on the wave of the Protestant Reform, Counter-Reformation positions would develop. The Jesuit Possevino had similar positions as regards the strict approach of the Russian embassy in Rome vis-à-vis pagan art and its display of naked bodies (Rusakovskij 2013).

<sup>43</sup> As regards the field of *studia humanitatis* see the recent works by G. Siedina, in particular Siedina 2011, 2012.

<sup>44</sup> See Florovsky 1987. For a critical reflection on this concept, see Garzaniti 2008.

If, from a certain perspective, it is evident we cannot really talk of an organic presence of this historical process in the Eastern Slavic area, like in other European areas, we cannot deny the presence of a series of fundamental traits that originate in the culture of Humanism and the Renaissance. The cultural identity of Russia indeed developed in relation to or in some cases in opposition to them. Always taking into consideration the structures and specific manifestations in which these traits were realized, this process highlights firm European bonds based on shared origins. These common roots gave way to interesting typological analogies manifesting themselves in dialectical relations we should not underestimate.

Overall, these characteristics are not just mere glacial erratics devoid of any particular meaning, but new trends revealing how much the grand principality, and later the Russian empire, built their identity in relation to and by opposing the new cultural paradigm that was establishing itself in the West, acquiring and transforming their interests and competencies in order to highlight the differences from the Western world, even though they were well aware of the same cultural roots. In other words, our path should not be limited to pointing out and identifying the influences and the dissemination of individual aspects or characters, but it should understand that in Russia the same phenomenon of breaking with the past occurred and a new identity developed, alternative to the Western world, generated by transformations of modern European culture.

Bibliography







#### Abstract

This study offers a synthetic view of the relationship of the Eastern Slavic world, in particular Russia, with Humanism and the Renaissance, indicating new paths of research on the identity formation of Muscovy and the Russian Empire in the European context. In particular, we focus on the arrival of Sophia Palaiologina in Moscow, on the activities of Maximus the Greek in Russia, and on the idea of Rome and Moscow in the 16th century.

*Keywords:* History of Russian culture, the European Renaissance, Maximus the Greek, Idea of Rome in Moscow.

## Old Russian Translation of *Cosmographia, sive De Situ Orbis* by Pomponius Mela: Reception of Renaissance Culture in Muscovy (15th-17th Centuries)

Tatiana Matasova

## 1. Introduction and main purpose of the paper

For a long time the question of contacts between Muscovy and Western Europe during the reign of Ivan III (1462-1505) and his successors has attracted attention of different researchers. It has been noted that during the last quarter of the 15th to the first third of the 16th century Muscovite culture was developing under a strong Renaissance influence. A variety of elements of Renaissance culture were assimilated by Russia and found vivid reflection in Russian architecture, literature, and fine arts. Renaissance traces are evident in the exterior of the architectural ensemble of the Kremlin. One of the most important questions related to the Renaissance influence on Russian culture is the issue of the degree and nature of these changes: whether they were integral and fundamental, affecting the sole basics of Muscovite culture, or whether they only touched the surface of Russian way of life, not altering traditions and ideas1 . In order to solve this matter one might find it helpful to turn to the history of the

<sup>1</sup> Chreptovič-Butenev 1909; Beltrami 1912; Filippini 1925; Lo Gatto 1934; Shmurlo 1937; Barbieri 1957; Gukowsky 1967; Sinicyna 1977; Choroškevič 1980; Baracchi 1983; Zemcov, Glazyčev 1985; Pod"japol'skij 1986; Chreptovič-Butenev 1993; Sinicyna 1993; Mil'čik 1997; Panova 1998; Pod"japol'skij 2000; Višnevskaja 2004; Mel'nikova 2006;

Tatiana Matasova, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russian Federation, matasova.tatiana@gmail.com, 0000-0002-9433-5068

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Tatiana Matasova, *Old Russian Translation of* Cosmographia, sive De Situ Orbis *by Pomponius Mela: Reception of Renaissance Culture in Muscovy (15th-17th Centuries)*, pp. 37-52, © 2020 Author(s), CC BY 4.0 International, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-198-3.03, in Giovanna Siedina (edited by), *Essays on the Spread of Humanistic and Renaissance Literary Civilization in the Slavic World (15th-17th Century)*, © 2020 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress.com), ISSN 2612-7679 (online), ISBN 978-88-5518-198-3 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-198-3

most significant Renaissance texts – the ways in which they appeared in Moscow, who and how made use of them, and how these texts were perceived by Muscovite intellectuals.

The studies on the distribution of Renaissance texts through the territory of the Grand Duchy of Moscow are at the center of attention in Russia during the last years. This especially relates to the studies of V.A. Romodanovskaja on fragments from Latin Vulgata, translated for the Gennadij's Bible of 1499. Her editions of Old Russian translations of the treaty *Rationale divinorum officiorum*…, written by Wilhelm Durand, and quotations from Lactantius2 should also be mentioned. Among others, the studies of E.V. Bodnarčuk3 and E.R. Skvairs4 on the Old-Russian translation of *Dyaloghus de Vite et Mortis* (*Prenie života so smert' ju*) occupy an important place. Nowadays N.A. Ziablincyna studies the translation of the anti-heretic treatise *Rationes breves magni rabi Samuelis iudaei nati* (*Učitelya Samuila oblichetiye*)5 . E.S. Fedorova analyzed the translation of *Contra perfideam judeorum* (*Protiv kovarstva iudeyev*) by Nicholas de Lyra. The translation of antiheretical treatise *Contra haereticos et gentiles*… (*Prenie Afanasija s Ariem*) is less studied.

The main purpose of this paper is to present the most relevant results of my complex study about the obtained copies of the Old Russian translation of the First book of Pomponius Mela's *Cosmographia, sive De Situ Orbis*, known also as *De Chorographia* – *Geografija* in Russian scientific tradition. This text was also translated into Old-Russian at the same epoque. All preserved and detected copies of this translation have been carefully studied by me both from an archaeographic and from a substantive point of view6 .

## 2. Pomponius Mela's *Cosmographia* in the 15th century Europe and in Russia

The text of the First book of *Cosmographia* is a brilliant compilation of known facts about Europe, Asia, and Africa in the Ancient world. It provides information about the topography, nature and important places of the described lands, as well as the habits and customs of native peoples. In his work, Mela mentions ancient gods (Zeus, Diana, Apollo, Neptune) and heroes (Anaximander, Alexander the Great among others) and retells some of the myths of antiquity.

Garzaniti 2008; Matasova 2014; Gardzaniti 2015; Matasova 2015; Pljuchanova 2017; Garzaniti 2019; and others.


Pomponius Mela's *Cosmographia* was one the most cherished ancient texts by Renaissance humanists and scholars. The first time the text was published in 1471 in Milan by the famous typographer Panfilo Castaldi. It was the first among many printed editions of this work on the Apennine Peninsula. During the second half of the 15th century there were at least nine other editions of *Cosmographia*. Seven of them were published in Venice (twice in 1477, twice in 1478, in 1482, in 1495, and in 1498), and two in Spain (Valencia 1982, Salamanca 1498). A beautiful map of the world was attached in the Venetian edition of 1482, and the 1498 edition was prefaced by a dedication to Pope Alexander VI, written by the humanist Hermolaus Barbarus.

Until the beginning of the 16thcentury humanists considered the text of Pomponius Mela to be the most complete and accurate description of oecumene. Even after the discoveries of Columbus and the realization that the ancient information about the world order had become invalid, Mela's text was still republished as an example of the excellent ancient Latin, the ideal with which the humanists sought to comply. During the first half of the 16th century this work was published at least 14 times (in Paris, Basel, Florence, and Venice). Among the publishers we can identify some of the most prominent typographers, distinguished innovators, and 'masters of the art of printing' of that time – Erhard Ratdolt, Simeon Bevilacqua, Joachim Vadianus, and Gilles de Gourmont.

At the same time Mela's wonderful text became known in Russia. Two copies of the Old Russian translation of the First book of Mela's *Cosmographia* were discovered at the end of 19th century by the famous Russian philologist professor A.I. Sobolevskij7 . The first copy – *M* – was made at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries and it probably comes from *Posolskij prikaz* – the predecessor of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs8 . The second copy – *C* – was composed in the 17th century and was originally kept in the library of the Monastery of the Miracle of Archangel Michael at Chonae (*Čudov monastyr'*) in the Moscow Kremlin9 .

In 2014-2015 three more copies of this book were discovered. One of them – *S* – was found by O.L. Novikova10. It comes from the library of the Solovetsky Monastery and dates back to the late 15th century. It is kept now in the Russian National library in St. Perersburg11. Two others – discovered by K.V. Veršinin12 – can be referred to the second half of the 16th century. These originated from

<sup>8</sup> Russian State Archive of the Ancient Acts in Moscow (*Rossijskij gosudarstvennyj arxiv drevnix aktov*, RGADA), Fund 181 *Manuscript collection of the archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire* (*Rukopisnyj otdel Moskovskogo glavnogo axiva Ministerstva inostrannyx del*, RO MGAMID). Reg. 1. Part 6. N. 514. Ff. 10v-40v.

<sup>9</sup> Manuscript section of the State Historical Museum in Moscow (*Otdel rukopisej Gosudarstvennogo istoričeskogo muzeja*, OR GIM), *Čudovskoe sobranie* 347. Ff. 1v-16.


<sup>7</sup> Sobolevskij 1903: 52-53.

<sup>10</sup> Novikova 2015.

the private collections of ancient manuscripts of the late 19th century – that of Еgor Еgorov13 (*E*) and the other of Timofey Bolšakov14 (*B*). Now these manuscripts are kept in the Russian State Library. At present it is unknown where these manuscripts come from and how they appeared in these private collections. It can be mentioned only that the marginal notes in *E* give evidence of the fact that earlier the codex was used in the Northern parts of Russia (*Ust-Sysolsk* – modern Syktyvkar – is mentioned on the margins of the manuscript15).

## 3. Comparative reading of the obtained copies of Pomponius Mela's translation

My profound comparison of all five copies of the Old Russian translations of Pomponius Mela's *Cosmographia* revealed only insignificant differences between them. These differences are due to spelling variability16 and punctuation and substitution of single words by synonyms17. Sometimes Russian copyists did not understand some details and consequently made mistakes in spelling18.

It could be possible that there were more copies than we have obtained thus far. The following discrepancies (variants of the text) are proof of this fact. There are the words *Лимерикъ град по берегу ж* in copies *E* (f. 282), *B* (f. 379), and *C* (f. 15v). These words are omitted in *M*. Copy *M* in its turn contains several phrases, which are absent in *C*19. Therefore copy *C* was made not from *M*. Copies *E* and *B* can't be prototypes of *C* because a number of small fragments (lines) of the text which are present in *C* (lines of prototype(s) *E* and *B*?) can't be found in copies *E* and *B*20. The comparison of *C* and *S* revealed minimal discrepancies between them, which might have occurred during

<sup>14</sup> Manuscript section of Russian State Library (*Naučno-issledovatel'skij otdel rukopisej Rossijskoj gosudarstvennoj biblioteki*, NIOR RGB), Fund 37 (*Sobranie S.T. Bolšakova*) 16. Ff. 371-379v.

<sup>13</sup> Manuscript section of Russian State Library (*Naučno-issledovatel'skij otdel rukopisej Rossijskoj gosudarstvennoj biblioteki*, NIOR RGB), Fund 98 (*Sobranie E.E. Egorova*) 843. Ff. 265-282v.

<sup>15</sup> F. 82v E.

<sup>16</sup> E.g. *паки-пакы, пръво-перво, розливается-разливатца*, etc.

<sup>17</sup> For example, *похораниваютъ* (f. 27v *М*) – *хоронят* (f. 10 *С*); *деля* (f. 13v *M*) – *ради* (f. 3 *C*); *зело* (f. 20v *M*) – *добре* (f. 6 *C*), etc.

<sup>18</sup> E.g. *скотовъ* (f. 27v *M*) – *скотвов* (f. 10 *C*); *Меoтида* (f.13, 39v *M*) – *Меoдита* (f. 2v, 15v *C*); *Чермному морю* (Red sea) (f. 28v *M*) – *Черному* (f. 10v *C*); *почитаются* (f. 38v *M*) – *починаются* (f. 15 *C*); *Дономъ* (f. 12v *M*) – *Доломъ* (f. 266v *Е*); *Лаoдикиа* (f. 377 *B*) - *Лаодикия* (f. 11v *C*) – *Ладиoкиа* (f. 30v *M*); *Фитори* (f. 39v *M*) – *Фотори* (f. 379v *B*) – *Фотири* (f. 15v *C*), *Европиа* (f. 17v *M*) – *Еропиа* (f. 4 *S*), etc.

<sup>19</sup> For example, in *M* there are words *оттоле море пакы шире чинится* (f. 36v), *изгыбаяся* 

*потомъ великим лъбомъ* (f. 13v – 14), *Оутика и Карфагенъ, oба славныа грады* (f. 21). 20 In *Е* there are words which are lost in *M* and *C*: *роубежь. въ предних же было царем* (f. 271), *знають а иные и не знають женъ* (f. 273), *по городeКорытeскыи зракъ* (f. 277v). There are words added to the main text of *E* as marginal notes: *а инде глаголются. Таурикы а инде Москы* (f. 282) *и мужи же пешую брань сътворяют* (f. 282v). In *B* there are no words *а инде Москы. А инде. Амазоникы*, which are present in other copies: f. 39 *M*, 282 *Е*, 15 *C*.

copying21. It means that probably copy *S* in full (or another copy similar to it) could have been the prototype of *C*.

Copies *E* and *B* despite being read in codexes of similar content22, apparently have different prototypes*.* Thus there are phrases in *B*, which are not present in *E*23. And in *E*, in turn, there is a phrase which is omitted in *B*24. Nevertheless it shouldn't be excluded that they could have been made from the same copy, taking into consideration that each copyist made the same mistakes.

Despite these discrepancies it is easy to notice that copies *S*, *B*, *E*, and *C* were made from similar copies: a number of words and proper names are similarly or closely conveyed in *S*, *E*, *B*, and sometimes in *C*, while in *M* they look different25. Particularly noteworthy are discrepancies in constructions with demonstrative pronoun *оно*, pointed out by Dr. O.L. Novikova on the basis of comparison of copies *M* and *S*. According to our observations these inconsistencies are present not only in *S*, but in *E*, *B*, and sometimes in *C*. This is important as readings in copies *S*, *E*, *B*, and *C* are closer to the Latin original, where adverbs *quondam, olim*, and *aliquando* are used26. However, there are differences in the spelling of proper names in *S*, *E*, *B*, and *C*, which can't be explained only by the variability of spelling27.

Copy *M* contains Cyrillic semi-uncial marginal notes of the middle (second half?) of the 16th century28 and shorthand in the 17th century29 (marginal notes are not written in the same handwriting as in *C*). In *E* there are marginal notes in the handwriting of the 15th and 17th centuries30. This indicates that some-


<sup>29</sup> F. 28 M.

<sup>30</sup> Ff. 279, 282, 282v E.

one looked through the manuscripts in the 16th and 17th centuries. It was not an accidental reading: as stated below there was profound thought involved.

We can now assert that copy *S* is not the oldest version in existence prior to 1490. This becomes evident from the fact that on page 10 of this copy the words *и инаа чюднаа дeла* are written and crossed out with cinnabar. The same words can be found in their proper place in copy *S* and in all other copies31. In other words, the copyist of *S* accidently glanced at the wrong fragment of the prototypes and mistakenly included it in his work. The error was noticed later and unnecessary words were crossed out. There are more similar examples in copy *S*.

Copy *M* was not the oldest as well. It becomes evident from the already mentioned absence of the line (which is present in copies *E*, *B*, and *C*) that the copyist of the beginning of the 16th century had overlooked it. This gives additional evidence that the Old Russian translation was composed at the end of the 15th century (the dating of copy *S* is proof of that). Moreover some obvious slips of the pen in manuscript *M* can be considered as typical of the process of copying and not of translation32. More likely the prototypes of *E*, *B*, and *C* were not the oldest copies: as already mentioned above, some phrases, which are present in *M*, are absent in these copies.

Hence, minor but existing differences between all the copies allow to conclude that each of them might have had its own prototype. The oldest copy might have been the unpreserved prototype *S*, but it is hard to say for sure because of the defective nature of *S*33.

Consequently, it may be suspected the existence of not less than ten copies of the Old Russian translation of the First book of *Cosmographia* by Pomponius Mela in the 16th-17th centuries. Five of these copies have survived. The oldest copies date back to the last decade, or even the last quarter of the 15th century.

### 4. The problem of the Latin original and a hypothesis about the author

Thus, Mela's text appeared in Russia almost immediately after it became known among the humanists. A number of obtained and probable copies indicate that Mela's text was popular among Russian scribes of that time. They, just as the humanists had also become involved in the process of the comprehension of ancient manuscripts.

It is tempting to assume that Mela's text was translated from one of the incunables34. At first glance this seems very likely as researchers have a great variety of evidence at their disposal, which testifies that foreigners brought incunables to Russia. Both the treatise by W. Durand and *Rationes breves magni rabi Samu-*

<sup>31</sup> F. 26v M; f. 10 S; f. 274 E; f. 376 B; f. 9 v C.

<sup>32</sup> E.g. *И бе въ брани падение много от обеих от обоих странъ* (f. 22 *M*).

<sup>33</sup> Novikova 2015: 37.

<sup>34</sup> Romodanovskaja 2005: 594.

*elis iudaei nati*, as well as *Dyaloghus de Vite e Mortis* and *Historia destructionis Troiae (Troyanskaya istoriya)*, and some other texts were translated from incunables35. However, the situation with the First book of Mela's *Cosmographia* is different. The comparison of the Old Russian translation with the texts of incunables reveals that in the former there are omissions of fragments, which are present in incunables. It should be noted that we have the translation into Old Russian *only* of the First book of *Cosmographia,* whereas in all editions Mela's works are published in full.

This may indicate that the Old Russian translation was made not from any incunable, but from a manuscript. An important argument in favour of my hypothesis is the peculiarity of the transmission of proper names noticed by me. For instance, the city of Sida is translated *Сикла* – "Sicla"; as it is well known, in the Latin manuscript *d* resembled *cl*. This is one of the most frequent mistakes of Latin copyists, while in incunables letters are distinct and it is impossible to make such a mistake. This confirms the hypothesis that the translation was made from a manuscript. There is a similar situation with the name of the city Ocstros, which is translated as *Дестрос* – "Destros" and in some cases *Дествос* – "Destvos". Here *oc* is read as *de*, and in the second case *r* as *v*. This too is a typical mistake. The name of "gamphasantes" is translated *ганифасаде* – "ganifasade" (*m* turned into *ni*), and the people called "antibarani" has been translated by a scribe as *антибазане* – "antibazani" (*r* resembles *z*, this too is a frequent mistake).

What manuscript was it? Currently it has not been found and it is possible to assume that the manuscript was lost. Apparently, it was a copy of the 15th century made from an ancient manuscript. How could it find its way to Moscow? With high probability it may be assumed that it came with the books which Zoe Palaiologina might have brought to Moscow in 1472. It is important to specify that these books *were not* a part of the library of Byzantine emperors36 (the lost or mythological collection of Greek and Latin books widely known later as the "ancient library of Ivan the Terrible"37). These books could be a small collection of 15th century copies of ancient manuscripts made by Greek scribes or merchants: Cardinal Bessarion could have given it to Zoe as a dowry. Bessarion was an experienced bibliophile who devoted all his energy to the preservation and distribution of Ancient Greek culture in the Renaissance world38. What is more important – he was almost the only authoritative person in the West, who worried about the fate of the Greek world after 1453 and Zoe's destiny in particular.

Who was the translator of the manuscript? There is an abundance of Grecisms (*аравес, вактри, вретанииского, Камвиск царь, Кимон, Кизик, Селевкия, Олимпос, Омирос, Трацыус,* etc.). There is also an "Italian accent" in translation of some proper names. For example, *Certasor* is translated as *Чрътасор* (*ce*

<sup>35</sup> *Ibid*: 593-594.

<sup>36</sup> Fonkič 1977: 221-222.

<sup>37</sup> Tichomirov 1968: 287.

<sup>38</sup> Vast 1878; Bianca 2004; Mioni 2004; Ronchey 2006.

was read as *че*, not as *це*)*,* and *Damascena* is translated as *Дарамшена* (*sce* was read as *ше*, not as *сце*). All these particularities make it possible to assume that the Greeks who spoke Italian could be involved in the process of translation. Members of the Tarchaniota family are widely known in Russia (brothers Giorgio – *Yuri* and Dmitriy and Dmitriy's sons – Manuel39 and *Yuri Maloy* – Giorgio Minor40) as translators. They translated many texts from Latin in Novgorod. They spoke Italian and they were also directly related to the connections of the Russian state with Milan, Venice, and Rome. The Tarchaniotas also participated in the close circle (*dvor*) of Grand Duchess Zoe Palaiologina. Unfortunately, we don't know the precise name of the translator.

## 5. Perception of Mela's information in Russia

Pomponius Mela was a pagan author; he provided vivid and detailed description of pagan rites of the Ancient world, sanctuaries of gods, some fact of the deification of nature, etc. How did Russian scribes perceive this "aggressively pagan" information?

The perception of Mela's information in Russia and in the West was drastically different. In Muscovy the information of the ancient geographer was conceived not as 'objective' information about the world, but in the traditional manner of pursuit of biblical analogy.

Mela's text in Old-Russian codexes adjoins theological works and extracts from the Bible. But more importantly the infrequent marginal notes in the copies indicate that intellectuals tried to correlate the facts about pagan culture, about pagan way of mind, provided by Mela with the Bible. It was a traditional providential manner of understanding of the world order and of history, characteristic of Russian medieval intellectuals.

It is important to examine a notable marginal note "Psalm" in *M* made by a 16th century reader beside the description of pagan Egypt. This description is one of the most colorful fragments of the text. Here is the Latin variant of the fragment:

Terra expers imbrium mire tamen fertilis et hominum aliorumque animalium perfecunda generatrix. Nilus efficit, amnium in Nostrum mare permeantium maximus. […] non pererrat autem tantum eam, sed aestivo sidere exundans etiam irrigat, adeo efficacibus aquis ad generandum alendumque, ut praeter id quod scatet piscibus, quod hippopotamos crocodilosque vastas beluas gignit, glaebis etiam infundat animas ex ipsaque humo vitalia effingat. hoc eo manifestum est, quod, ubi sedavit diluvia ac se sibi reddidit, per umentes campos

<sup>39</sup> For a long time, this Manuel was unknown by the researchers. But now we can affirm that he surely existed. Cf.: Vorob'jev, Matasova 2017; Matasova 2018.

<sup>40</sup> Florja 1982.

quaedam nondum perfecta animalia, sed tum primum accipientia spiritum et ex parte iam formata, ex parte adhuc terrena visuntur41.

And here is its Old Russian translation:

Земля Египта велми родима и на человеческий род, и на скотъ: Нилъ еа поливаеть. Нилъ же река […] есть боле всех рекъ, иже в Наше Море вливается […] Имееть ж водоу родимоу не токмо на всякоую рыбоу, но и потами ражаеть, иже тлъкоутьс речнии кони, и коркодили ражаеть, иные многые скоты. Еще вода его въ земленую кромоу дыхание сътваряеть. И сътваряеть от земли живоущаа, то же явно есть, егда бо оубывая сливается с поль и въ своа берегы вълиется. Находять по полемъ некыа скоты еще не свръшена, но почати образитися, иная ж часть образна телесна, а инаа еще земля42.

In a number of Psalms we can find fragments that possess an extremely close resemblance to Mela's description of Egypt. Mela talks of the fertile soil of Egypt and about the very good life of all the animals there. And in Psalm 104 we can see a similar idea. Our Lord blesses water and soil and every animal is happy: our Lord "makes springs gush forth in the valleys; they flow between the hills; they give drink to every beast of the field…" (Ps. 104: 10-11). Then the psalmist exclaims:

O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. Here is the sea, great and wide, which teems with creatures innumerable, living things both small and great (Ps. 104, 24-25)

Surprisingly close to Mela's narrative on Egypt is a fragment of the biblical text; the Third book of Ezra, translated into Old Russian at the turn of 15th-16th centuries – at the same time with Mela43. Ezra writes:

Upon the fifth day thou said unto the seventh part, where the waters were gathered that it should bring forth living creatures, fowls and fishes: and so it came to pass. For the dumb water and without life brought forth living things at the commandment of God, that all people might praise thy wondrous works. Then did thou ordain two living creatures… (Ezra 3, 6: 47-49).

Thus, Mela describes how the water of the Nile gives life to the soil and it revives the animals. The Third book of Ezra tells how Our Lord blesses the water and this water gives life to animals as well!

Interestingly enough, in the first third of the 16th century, the Russian scribe Fedor Karpov asked Maksim the Greek about the meaning of these exact words of Ezra. The question arises – was Fedor Karpov one of the first readers of the Old Russian translation of Pomponius Mela's *Cosmographia*?

<sup>41</sup> Parroni, 1984: 119-120.

<sup>42</sup> Ff. 24v-25 *M*.

<sup>43</sup> Romodanovskaya 2000: 6.

#### TATIANA MATASOVA

Another remarkable fragment in the description of Egypt in the Old Russian translation of Mela is dedicated to Apis – a holy bull for the Egyptians: "Apis populorum omnium numen est"44. Surely, this Apis was unknown in Russia. The translator didn't understand that in this particular case "apis" was a proper name and decided to translate "Apis" from Latin into Old Russian. In this way Apis suddenly became a bee (*пчела*): "Все же родове Египетьскыа чтят пчелоу акы божественоу"45. This example discovers that the Old Russian translator understood far from everything in the text. But later in the translation a providential interpretation is again revealed. After this phrase in Latin, Apis is marked only as "bos" ("вол"): "*bos* niger certis maculis insignis et cauda linguaque dissimilis aliorum. raro nascitur nec coitu pecudis, ut aiunt, sed divinitus et *caelesti* igne conceptus"46.

Here is this fragment in Old Russian:

Когда рождается волъ чернъ з белыми пестринами языкъ же оу него и хвостъ рознымъ подобиемъ, иже оу них редко ражаются, и глаголютъ тако: не от скотьска естьства зачать, но от божественаго огня47.

In Psalm 104 it is told that Our Lord "makes winds his messengers, and flames of fire his servants" (Ps. 104:4). It means that Our Lord makes fire to serve Him, and He can present Himself to people as fire. The medieval Russian intellectual – the reader of the translation of *Cosmographia* – as if accepting Egyptian perception of the divine nature of the fire, by which the bull might be conceived, implied a providential meaning of these words.

Mela also tells about the springheads of the Nile: the river

… crescit porro, sive quod solutae magnis aestibus nives ex immanibus Aethiopiae iugis largius quam ripis accipi queant defluunt, sive quod sol, hieme terris propior et ob id fontem eius minuens, tunc altius abit sinitque integrum…

In Old Russian this fragment looks like this:

Прибываеть же Нилъ и выливается или снегы тают иже на великых горах Ефиопьскых или о тоу пороу на веръховия его дожди великыя бывають. Инии же глаголютъ пескомъ оустья своя заносить. и от того прибываеть или пакы собою прибываеть оубываеть48.

Thus, Russian medieval intellectuals had a considerable knowledge about Egypt and – as we can suggest – wanted to know more about Egyptian nature. The comments of Maksim the Greek (in his *Skazaniya otčasti nedoumennyh nekiih rečenii v Slove Grigoria Bogoslova***-**Maksim the Greek's *Comments on St. Gregory the Theolo-*

<sup>44</sup> Parroni, 1984: 121.

<sup>45</sup> F. 27v *M*.

<sup>46</sup> Parroni 1984: 121.

<sup>47</sup> Ff. 27v-28 *M* It is interesting that in the Old Russian translation the word "divine" ("божественный") is used, while in the Latin original is used "heavenly" ("caelesti").

<sup>48</sup> Ff. 25 об.-26 *M*.

*gian*) about the Nile and the fertility of the soil of the Nile banks are widely known49. Thus, these ideas exclusively relate to theology: Maximus the Greek tells about it in his exclusively theological work. The salvation of the soul and providential way of understanding the world order was the only interest of Orthodox intellectuals. It is time to mention, that in the middle of the 16th century there was a famous discussion between G.B. Ramusio and G. Fracastoro about the springheads of the Nile50. But it can be supposed that the Russian interest in the Nile and the comments of Maximus the Greek were not connected with this humanistic discussion51.

#### 6. Conclusions

The theological interpretation of Mela's text in Muscovy is vivid evidence that the Russian culture of those times was still (as it had been for a long time prior) focused on Orthodox doctrine and tried to dwell even on Renaissance subjects using the Bible.

Thus, rigorous scrutiny of the remaining copies of the Old Russian translation of the First book of Pomponius Mela's *Cosmographia* reveals that those texts which were important to the culture and thought of the Renaissance made their way into Russia and aroused a vibrant interest among scribes. However, the history of the appearance and treatment of Mela's text in Muscovy gives evidence of the fact that the perception of Renaissance traditions in the Russian world was imbued with a superficial quality. Nevertheless, the encounter and interaction with Renaissance traditions gave the Russian scribes a powerful impulse to examine and ponder the outside world and played its part in the development of the fundamental pillar of Russian culture-Orthodox theology. Nevertheless, the analyzed material reveals that the acquaintance of Russian scribes with the intellectual traditions of the Renaissance played a significant role in the formation of Russian culture at the time in question.

In conclusion, I would like to draw the attention of the field to my recent publication of a scientifically annotated Old Russian translation of the First Book of Pomponius Mela's *Cosmographia*52*.* It is my conviction and hope that increased interest in this important text on the part of European scholars will lead to new and exciting discoveries.



*degli Slavi: Incontri e dialoghi tra culture: Studi in onore di Giovanna Brogi Bercoff,* Firenze 2008, pp. 173-183.


Matasova 2016b T.A. Matasova, *Sof ' ja Paleolog,* Moskva 2016.

Matasova 2018 T.A. Matasova, *Nil Grek (Trachaniot), ep. Tverskoj*, in: *Pravoslavnaja enciklopedija, LI,* M. 2018, pp. 164-166.

Mel'nikova 2006 A.S. Mel'nikova, *Moskovija i Italija. (Russko-italjanskie svjazi v epoсhu srednevekov' ja po numizmatičeskim dannym)*, in: *Srednevekovaja numizmatika vostočnoj Evropy. Numizmatičeskij sbornik*, Moskva 2006, Vyp. 1, pp. 114-125.

Mil'čik 1997 M.Mil'čik, *Istorija Ivangoroda v konce XV-XVI vv. i krepostnoe stroitel'stvo na Rusi s učastiem ital' janskiсh masterov*, in: *Krepost' Ivangorod: Novye otkrytija*, SPb 1997, pp. 13-63.




## Abstract

The article deals with the results of the analysis of the Old Russian translation of the First book of *Cosmographia* by Pompons Mela. Mela's *Cosmographia* was admired and praised by humanists. The research of the way the text was comprehended and interpreted in Muscovy demonstrates the original features of the perception of the Renaissance traditions, ideas and values by Russian intellectuals. The study reveals that the comprehension of Mela's information was characterized by traditional manner of pursuit of biblical analogy. Thus, even the close acquaintance with the Renaissance culture did not change the essence of the Russian Medieval Orthodox culture.

*Keywords:* Pomponius Mela, Old-Russian translation, Muscovy, Renaissance, Orthodox theology.

## Michael Marullus Tarchaniota's *De laudibus Rhacusae* and His Early Years

Vedran Stojanović

## Introduction

This paper is divided into two parts, the first of which provides an analysis of the historical and biographical sources related to Michael Marullus Tarchaniota, while the second casts light on his poetic work. A structure such as this suggests that attempts to reconstruct a poet's biography call for a clear-cut distinction between the poet's real personality and his poetic persona (Nichols 1997, cited in Haskell 1999: 111). In the present case one may easily be led astray due to very sparse reliable information and because previous scientific papers mainly underlined the autobiographic features of Marullus' production. The fact that Croatian literary scholarship (not only contemporary)1 has completely neglected Marullus comes as an additional drawback to this study.

The earliest years of Michael Marullus (?-Volterra, 1500)2 , a prolific Humanist poet of Greek origin, remain rather obscure. The place and the year of his


Vedran Stojanović, University of Dubrovnik, Croatia, vedranstojanovic44@gmail.com, 0000-0002-9469-3738 FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Vedran Stojanović, *Michael Marullus Tarchaniota's* De laudibus Rhacusae *and His Early Years*, pp. 53-73, © 2020 Author(s), CC BY 4.0 International, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-198-3.04, in Giovanna Siedina (edited by), *Essays on the Spread of Humanistic and Renaissance Literary Civilization in the Slavic World (15th-17th Century)*, © 2020 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress.com), ISSN 2612-7679 (online), ISBN 978-88-5518- 198-3 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-198-3

birth are uncertain, which, as proved later on, was essential for the interpretation and evaluation of his poetical work. His early childhood years are marked by exile from the recently fallen Byzantine Empire, a short and unconfirmed stay in Dubrovnik and, finally, by his arrival in Naples. Having examined an array of sources, we aim to elucidate, at least partly, Marullus' life before his arrival in Naples, and also determine the period he spent in Dubrovnik.

The second part of this paper deals with Marullus' praise of Dubrovnik (*De laudibus Rhacusae*), the purpose of which surpasses a mere description of the city he had probably visited but also portrays the political context of that time. Misinterpretation of this work has given a fresh impetus for its rereading in order to demonstrate that it speaks more about the relations on the eastern Mediterranean than about Dubrovnik itself.

I

## 1. Where and when?

As Michael Marullus admitted, he was not more than an embryo in his mother's womb at the time when his homeland was conquered (Marullus 2012: 80):

Vix bene ad huc fueram matris rude semen in alvo, Cum grave servitium patria victa subit3 .

This apparently clear testimony conceals two details which have offered grounds for further discussions about his biography, namely about the place and the date of his birth. According to the established works of reference, Marullus was born in Constantinople, at the very end of 1453, although both the date and place of his birth are still surrounded with controversy. In this introduction, it is necessary to point out that Marullus signed the first edition of his *Epigrammata*<sup>4</sup> as *Costantinopolitanus*, and that the same gentilic (demonym) was used in *De Greacis illustribus* collection, while Paolo Cortesi referred to him as *Bizantinus* in his treatise *De Cardinalatu* (Coppini 2008)*.* This identification with Constantinople led many scientists to the conclusion that Marullus was indeed born there. Therefore, *patria* should stand for Constantinople in his poetry, on the basis of which we might assume that he was born either at the end of 1453 or at the beginning of 1454. A lucid conclusion of M.J. McGann is that the major uncertainty of this kind of interpretation is whether *patria* and Constantinople represent the same location (McGann 1986: 145). If so, Marullus must have been conceived before 29 May 1453 and the Ottoman conquest of the city. If not, he might not necessarily have been born in 1453. The question is why Marullus calls himself a citizen of Constantinople, which according to M.J. McGann

<sup>3</sup> *Epigrammaton*, *Liber secundus, XXXIII Ad Neaeram*; 65-66.

<sup>4</sup> The first printed edition is without date, while the first dated edition was printed in Florence in 1497 together with *Hymni naturales* collection.

is not unusual for a Greek of that period (McGann 1986: 147). Yasmin Haskell gives a rather convincing explanation by arguing that the purpose of Marullus' intention to present himself as a refugee was the creation of a 'different' identity (Haskell 1999: 122), which represents a rather convincing conclusion based on his activity in the context of Italian Humanism. Therefore, *patria* is not and does not need to be a physical location but a symbol of a very recurrent and occasionally painful nostalgia Marullus' poetry is permeated with. For example, in the aforementioned collection entitled *De Graecis illustribus*, Leontius Pilatus, a translator of Homer, born in Calabria, is mentioned as *Thesalonicensis* (Hody 1742: 337) because, according to a Petrarca's letter to Boccaccio, being a Greek was considered more virtuous than being an Italian (Pertusi 1979: 37). In the same collection, Manillus Cabacius Rhallus, Marullus' friend, contemporary and colleague from the same Academia Pontiniana of Naples, is correctly mentioned as *Spartanus* because he indeed was born in the city of Mistra in the Morea. The differences between these two examples lead us to the conclusion that gentilics were rather arbitrary, and hence *Constantinopolitanus* does not necessarily mean that Marullus was really born in Constantinople.

The lines that immediately follow (Marullus 2012: 80):

Ipse pater, Dymae regnis eiectus avitis, Cogitur Iliadae quarerere tecta Remi5 .

suggest that Marullus' father drew his origins from the ancient city of Dyme in Achaea, in the north of Peloponnese, which belonged to the Despotate of Morea6 since 1430 and from where he fled to Italy. Marullus' family probably traces its descent from that area, which further adds to our speculation about *patria victa* actually standing for Morea (McGann 1986: 145). If this is the case, Marullus could not have been born in 1453 but probably in 1461, as proposed by McGann (1986: 145), considering that the Ottomans conquered the Despotate of Morea in May 1460.

Morean origin of Marullus' mother, Euphrosyne Tarchaneiotissa, is not to be doubted. Multiple ties between the renowned Tarchaniota aristocratic family7 and the Palaeologus had existed since the era of Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus, who founded the Palaeologan dynasty8 . These ties continued well after


1380, the year in which the Palaeologus took power in the Despotate of Morea and remained particularly pronounced in the period of Thomas Palaeologus9 , the despot who ruled the western part of the Morea at that time10. Marullus' nephew, historian Giovanni Tarcagnota, describes his family's destiny by reporting that his great-grandfather, Michele Tarcagnota, died while defending Morea in a battle against the Ottomans11. Although Giovanni Tarcagnota does not make any reference to the time of these events, the aforementioned clearly implies that they took place in 1460. He provides yet another important detail: after Michele Tarcagnota had perished, his family fled from the city of Mistra to Corfu12. According to him, the family lived in the capital of the Despotate of Morea (Mistra), which makes the assumption about the Constantinopolitan origin of our poet even less plausible. His description of the family's exile after the Ottoman conquest through intricate family ties takes us as far as Dubrovnik, where a part of Marullo and Tarchaniota families found their temporary residence. Marullus' verse contrasts sharply with the facts that shed a completely new light on a somewhat hazy episode of his birth13, and undermine the generally accepted opinion concerning an extensively autobiographic nature of his poetry. The possibility that some of Marullus' ancestors were originally from Constantinople may not be ruled out, yet their exile after 1453 is beyond question14. Marullus' work makes reference to geographical locations on the Peloponnese as many as nine times, rarely mentioning those in Thrace, which would have been expected had that region been his homeland. A cursory and non-critical analysis of the two verses resulted in an almost fatalistic construction regarding the poet's birth in the crucial year for global history and in the city deemed its paragon. On the basis of his comprehensive work,

brother-in-law, Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus, in assuming the power and introducing the rule of the Palaeologan dynasty. For his merits he received the title of *megas domestikos*, i.e. commander-in-chief. For more details, see *The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium* (ODB) 1991: *sub voce*, Macrides 2007 and Nicol 1993.


it is quite clear that Marullus failed to make an explicit statement of this kind, but left enough signs to show the path.

## 2. *Delle Historie del Mondo*

Since the information at our disposal is rather scarce, the analysis of the Dubrovnik episode will not start with Marullus' famous praise *De laudibus Rhacusae* but with a testimony of his already mentioned nephew, historian Giovanni Tarcagnota. After the fall of the Morea, his father Paolo (a boy at the time) and his family found shelter on Corfu, then in the city of Coron, and finally, he was sent to Dubrovnik from where Manilio Marullus (Michael Marullus' father) took him to Calabria, where Marullus' mother already lived15. The journey to Calabria most likely led via the Ionian island of Leucas. Although Giovanni Tarcagnota does not specify the time of the events, he reveals a precious detail: at that time a certain Despota d'Arta also stayed in Calabria, i.e. Melissa d'Arta, wife of Leonard III Tocco, Count of Cephalonia, Ithaca and Zakynthos, Duke of Leucas and ruler of Epirus. She was better known as Milica Branković, daughter of despot Lazar Branković and granddaughter of Thomas Palaeologus. *Terminus post quem* of the Calabrian episode is mid-1463, while *terminus ante quem* is the end of 1464, when Milica died at childbirth (Zečević 2006: 171). This conclusion is based on the fact that the wedding of Milica Branković and Leonard III Tocco took place in Dubrovnik on 1 May 146316. It is possible that some members of Marullo and Tarchaniota families, who were in Dubrovnik at the time, set out for Leucas together with Milica and her mother, Jelena Palaeologus17. Due to the family ties between the Tocco, Branković, Tarchaniota and the Palaeologus, this course of events is not impossible, especially taking into account the fact that Leucas and the rest of Epirus were conquered by the Ottomans only in 1497. For example, it is well known that Thomas Palaeologus was entertained on Leucas by Leonardo III Tocco in the summer of 1460, before his journey to Rome via Dubrovnik and Venice. Therefore, if despot Thomas travelled from Leucas to Italy via Dubrovnik, a journey back along the same route may also have taken place, i.e. from Dubrovnik to Leucas and then to Naples via Calabria. The already abandoned

<sup>15</sup> "Ne so', se una sorella di Dimitrio, che essendo in Coro vedova, ne venne tosto in Corfu a prendere di questi pupilli cura […] Il terzo, che era Paolo mio padre, à Ragugia il mandò da Manoli Marulo, che Eufrosine Tarcagnota sorella di Dimitrio moglie haveva. Egli ne venne Paolo in Ragugia; e fu da Manoli raccolto, e menato seco poco appresso in Italia […]" in Tarcagnota 1598: 797.

<sup>16</sup> For more details see Zečević 2006.

<sup>17</sup> Jelena and Milica's sojourn in Dubrovnik is briefly described by chronicler Junius Resti: "Elena, moglie di quondam Lazzaro despot, arrivò con una nave anconitana a Lacroma. Si terminò mandarle tre nobili, per domandarla della causa della sua ventua. Fu ricevuta a Ragusa con 25 persone e regalata dalla repubblica. Dove si trattenne insino all'anno seguente, fino che facesse feste per la maritatione di Miliza, sua figliola, sposata a Leonardo, despot di Santa Maura. Questa festa si fece nella sala del maggiore conseglio, concessa dalla repubblica a richiesta d'essa Elena" (Resti 1893: 361).

assumption about the arrival of Marullus' family in Italy via Ancona is additionally weakened by the fact that the estates of the Toccos were *de facto* part of the Kingdom of Sicily, so taking the Ionian route to Italy is absolutely logical, as well as the arrival in Naples, a cultural and economic centre of the Italian South. Lively trade relations between Dubrovnik and the Byzantine Empire, and later with the Despotate of Morea, should not be ignored, nor the strong cultural influence of Byzantium in Dubrovnik18, which contributed to the development of this Adriatic communication route. There is no doubt that the immediate Ottoman threat after 1453 helped consolidate the network of the "semi-noble" families in Morea, which is clearly visible in the Palaeologus – Toccos – Tarchaniotas triangle. If Giovanni Tarcagnota's claims are trustworthy, Marullus could not have stayed in Dubrovnik after 1464 – that is, until the age of four at the latest.

## 3. Ragusan sources

By mentioning Bariša Krekić's discovery of the records of the State Archives in Dubrovnik testifying that a certain Emanuel Marulla Grecus, for whom Apostolos Vacalopoulos claims to be Marullus' father (Vacalopoulos 1970: 245, cited in McGann 1986, p. 146), practised medical profession in Dubrovnik from 1465 to 1470 (McGann 1986: 146), M.J. McGann gives more solid grounds for his assumption about the poet's Morean origin. Moreover, he does not see any significant discrepancy between Krekić's discovery and Giovanni Tarcagnota's story. Namely, he assumes that Giovanni's father, Paolo, arrived in Dubrovnik in 1465 at the earliest (1986: 146), which is possible if one takes into account Giovanni's statement that Paolo initially stayed with his father's other sister in the town of Koroni conquered by the Ottomans only in 1500. How does then the Calabrian episode fit into the whole story? According to Krekić, among Greek refugees in Dubrovnik, there is no trace of the Marullos before 1460. Hence, they could have arrived in Dubrovnik in 1461 at the earliest, which is probably true. Considering Marullus' statement that his father went to Italy after leaving the Morea, it is clear that the journey could not have lasted nine years, five of which the father would have spent working as a doctor. For that reason it is hardly possible that Emanuel Marulla Grecus is Marullus' father. All the refugees that Krekić identified after the fall of Constantinople stayed in Dubrovnik temporarily (Krekić 1956: 133) and, most likely, very shortly19. This also applies to the Marullus because, based on what we know today, apart from the records

<sup>18</sup> For more details see Janeković Römer 2007.

<sup>19</sup> A good example is that of despot Thomas Palaeologus for whom Krekić claims to have stayed in Dubrovnik in 1461. It is certain that his stay there was extremely short if one considers that since the spring of the same year he was in Rome where he arrived via Venice. Junius Resti mentions that Thomas stayed for a very short time not in Dubrovnik, but in the port of Gruž, where Ragusan ambassadors were sent to meet him. See: Resti 1893: 358.

of Giacomo di Pietro Luccari, there is no direct or solid evidence of their stay in Dubrovnik (Luccari 1605: 100):

I suoi cittadini, che poterono salvar la vita si sparsero per tutt'il mondo; et alcuni nati dell'illustrissime famiglie de' Lascari, Comneni, Paleologi, Catacusini, Rali, e Boccali, capitarono a Rausa; et fatto lor dalla Republica mutar i panni de Schifo, ne' qual erano involti, e rivestendogli d'altri nuovi, et di preggio, gli mandarono, in Italia, facendoli provisione di danari per viaggio. Alcuni altri huomini dati alle lettere, derivati però dal nobil sangue, e in particolare Giovanni Lascari, Demetrio Calcondila, Manoili Marulo, Paolo Tarcagnota, padre di Gioanni Historico, e Marrulo Taracagnota et Teodoro Spandugino, che scrisse l'Historia de' Turchi, i magistrati intendendo la loro necessità, senza esser richiesti, li sovennero d'albergo, di robba et di danari.

This testimony does confirm Marullus' sojourn in Dubrovnik yet fails to provide any accurate details on his arrival and the time he spent in the city20. It is possible that the first group of the families, mentioned by Luccari, arrived in Dubrovnik immediately after the fall of Constantinople, but this certainly cannot be said for the rest. Giovanni Lascari (Giano Lascaris) was the only one born in Constantinople, though his chances of being there in 1453 were fairly poor (Ceresa 2004). Demetrio Calcondila, however, was born in Athens, and by 1449 left for Italy (Petrucci 1973), while Theodore Spandoneus was born in Venice (Spandounes 1997: IX). Luccari himself provides no clue as to whether the second group of families arrived in Dubrovnik from Constantinople because he identifies as citizens only the most prominent families (*i suoi cittadini*). The other persons (*alcuni altri huomini*) are mentioned only because they happened to be in Dubrovnik at some point after or before the fall of the Byzantine Empire. The only link between them is their Greek origin, and not the status of refugee from Constantinople, nor the same time of sojourn in Dubrovnik. Luccari identifies all members of the Marullus-Tarchaniota family whose stay in Dubrovnik was also mentioned by Giovanni Tarcagnota, yet he, too, failed to specify the date of these events.

There is another Ragusan source testifying to Marullus' stay in Dubrovnik. *Bibiliotheca Ragusina*, written relatively late (1744) by Seraphinus Maria Cerva, brings biographies of 435 Ragusan writers and, in comparison to all of the aforementioned, offers quite a "radical" interpretation of Marullus' Ragusan episode. In the introduction, Cerva does not have any doubt concerning Marullus' origin (1977: 410): "origine procul dubio Bizantinus". This is followed by a short description of the fall of Constantinople, of the attempts of Pope Nicolas V to provide assistance to the exiled population, and, finally, the most important part of Cerva's story about our poet (1977: 410):

<sup>20</sup> Luccari's testimony has been also used by Jorjo Tadić, who stated that by the time he wrote his work (1939) there had not been found any records in the Dubrovnik Archive regarding Marullus' stay in Dubrovnik but those of Luccari. See Tadić 1939: 291.

Hos inter Marullus Tarchaniota, quo de agimus, vel admodum puer a parentibus delatus est, ut ipse deinde ignoto sibi patrio solo se Ragusinum et crederet et praedicaret, vel potius parentes eius eum caeteris exulibus Ragusium commigrarunt ibique Marullum in lucem ediderunt, quot facile luculento ipsiusmet testimonio mox confirmabimus; sed primum placuit, quae Iacobus Luccari de Graecorum optimatum in Ragusinam urbem adventu litteris mandavit, describere.

Cerva sees two possibilities: Marullus was either (*vel*) taken to Dubrovnik by his parents as a boy, which might explain why he considered Dubrovnik to be his homeland, or (*vel*) Marullus was born in Dubrovnik, which Cerva finds more likely (*potius*). This can be proven by a clear testimony (*luculento testimonio*) presented in the poet's praise of Dubrovnik, whose first four stanzas Cerva quotes in the text that follows21. Before that point he quoted a part of the already mentioned Luccari's work about the arrival of refugees from the Byzantine Empire, but this is only to prove that Luccari erroneously concluded that Marullus arrived in Dubrovnik at an advanced age (*aetate iam integra*). Like many contemporary scholars, who fell victim to biographical fallacy and thus misinterpreted the first part of *De laudibus Rhacusae*, Cerva's approach is also void of criticism, prompting him to assert that Marullus must have been born in Dubrovnik (1977: 412):

Iam vero primas querelas et lamenta miseri exilii, quasi recens tunc deprehensi, non potuit puer Ragusii emittere, nisi natus Ragusii, quod Luccarus, rem summatim narrans, nec ullam adiunctorum habens rationem, minime expressit. Vide igitur, qua ratione Marullus Ragusinorum scriptorum numero est ascribendus.

Cerva objected to Luccari's assertions by criticising his succinctness, and also failure to mention that Marullus was born in Dubrovnik. However, Cerva draws an erroneous conclusion about Luccari's belief that Marullus reached Dubrovnik as an elderly person, simply because Luccari makes no mention of it. While referring to Marullus among the Byzantine writers who lived in Dubrovnik, Luccari does not consider him as an already accomplished writer by that time, this being viewed one hundred years after the poet's death. As demonstrated earlier, Luccari's work should be approached with reserve due to the vagueness in terms of date, a step that Cerva certainly failed to take. With the rich library of the Dominican Monastery in Dubrovnik at his disposal, it is obvious that he did not trace any documents in support of Marullus' sojourn in Dubrovnik. For that reason, he used the only Ragusan source, i.e. *Copioso ristretto degli annali di Rausa*.

<sup>21</sup> This proves that in Dubrovnik there was a copy of the *Epigrammata* at the time when Cerva wrote his work, as confirmed by Stjepan Krasić. In note 2 of the text about Michael Marullus Tarchaniota from the second and third volume, Krasić states that it was an edition from 1503. See Cerva 1977: 577.

Cerva continues the account about Marullus' departure for Italy, military service, stay in Florence and marriage with the daughter of Bartolomeo Scala, however, without mentioning his stay in Naples. He also reports on his drowning in the Cecina in 1500. At the end of the text he quotes a completely unconfirmed and wrong assertion (1977: 412): "At Ragusinam urbem non secus ac patrium solum semper suspexit […]".

By informing that Marullus was praised by many, Cerva obviously made an attempt to justify Marullus' presence among Ragusan writers, mentioning the praises of Giampietro Valeriani (*De infelicitate litteratorum*), Lodovico Moreri (*Magno dictionario*) and Paolo Giovio as example.

However, given the fact that Cerva neglects some crucial events in Marullus' life, and fails to provide any solid grounds for his story, his argumentation should not be considered relevant.

In conclusion, the family (or at least Marullus and his father) arrived in Dubrovnik in 1461 and left for Italy by the end of 1464, according to Giovanni Tarcagnota. Their brief stay in Dubrovnik may be accounted by the Ottoman menace in the hinterland of Dubrovnik22 as well as a plague epidemic that broke out in that period (Ravančić 2009: *sub voce* "kuga").

## 4. The poet about himself

Having sifted through biographical sources, we shall shift our focus to the famous praise of Dubrovnik itself (Marullus 2012: 80).

Amica quondam dulcis, ubi puer Primas querelas et miseri exili Lamenta de tristi profudi Pectore non inimicus hospes23.

By the poet's testimony, during his sojourn in Dubrovnik "his sinking heart gave away the first distress and lamentations about the unhappy exile". This might suggest that it was in Dubrovnik that he wrote his first poems, which does not correspond to any of the assumptions about the first years of his life. It is almost certain that these verses are only a metaphoric presentation of the first words he spoke at the age of one and a half and later, and not a testimony that his education started in Dubrovnik, as Nichols considered (1997). There is little probability that Marullus clearly remembered his stay in Dubrovnik, as Carol Kidwell (1989: 1, 12) supposes, but it goes without any doubt that at the time of his praise to the city he was acquainted with Dubrovnik's landscape and position and with its political circumstances. He pointed out its freedom and

<sup>22</sup> Bosnia surrendered to the Ottomans in 1463, and it was feared that the city could be attacked, therefore Ragusan authorities ordered destruction of a number of small churches close to the city walls. See Beritić 1960: 72.

<sup>23</sup> *Epigrammaton, Liber quartus, XVII De laudibus Rhacusae*; 9-12.

rule of law, and its art of surviving between Venice and the Ottomans, which he opposed to the turbulent situation in Naples where he spent most of his life. Apparently autobiographic, this praise shows how convincingly Marullus uses an almost marginal episode of his life to describe the situation of that time. The verses (Marullus: 2012: 80)

Quo te merentem carmine prosequar Non falsus aut somno petita Materia, sine teste, inani24?

convey a justification of the mistakes he was going to make while describing the city, which might imply that Marullus did not clearly remember his sojourn in Dubrovnik. In the second part of this paper, we will show that the descriptions of the city's physical landscape are to a great extent credible, whereas those of a wider geographical and historical context remain disputable.

Such interpretation of the earliest years of the poet's life is contrary to the claims of Carol Kidwell and many others taking 1453 as the year of his birth, which is most likely to be wrong, as well as many other arguments based on the presumed highly autobiographical note of his poetry. It is believed that after his departure for Naples and beginning of education, at the age of sixteen Marullus served as a mercenary (*stratiot*)25 in the region called Skitia, i.e. an area to the east of today's Romania which comprised most of today's Ukraine, its coast and Transcaucasia (Haskell 1997: 117). Marullus left many 'testimonials' about his visit to faraway countries in the Black Sea area26, quite difficult to locate because he often attributed anachronistic or mythical names to them. He also mentioned his service for a mighty ruler (Kidwell 1989: 31-41), which led many to conclude it was one of the rulers who had fought the Ottomans in Eastern Europe (Vlad III the Impaler or Stephen the Great of Moldavia)27. An unconfirmed but probable assumption is that in 1480 he took part in the battle of Otranto and in its liberation in 1481. The link between all of the aforementioned events is the name of Mehmed the Conqueror, i.e. his defeats. Sultan's army, headed by Hadim Suleiman Pasha, was defeated in 1475, in the Battle of Vaslui, and in 1481, after Mehmed's death, Gedik Ahmet Pasha was forced to withdraw from Otranto. We consider it likely that Marullus did not suspend his schooling to

<sup>24</sup> *Epigrammaton*, *Liber quartus, XVII De laudibus Rhacusae*; 6-8l.

<sup>25</sup> For more information about stratioti see Paolo 1996 and Nadin 2008.

<sup>26</sup> "Inter quae memorant mutua dum invicem/Quaeruntque, admonitae forsitan et mei, Narrant nunc Boreae sedibus intimis/Visum, qua vagus alluit//Rhodo Mesta suos, nunc Byce lintea/ Dantem plena, modo littora Dacica/Scrutantem et veterum saepe etiam patrum/Cirae impervia plurima", (Neniarum, Liber Primus, II. Nenia, 29-36.) in Marullus 2012: 316.

<sup>27</sup> Indeed, Italian Humanists were familiar with the Ottoman expansion throughout Europe, which is proven by the works of Theodore Spandounes and Andrea Cambini. For more information see Masi 2005. Both works were published after Marullus' death, which, however, does not eliminate the possibility that he was aware of the Ottoman battles in the eastern part of Europe.

leave for Skitia, but that he uninterruptedly remained in Naples in the circle of his colleagues and friends from Accademia Pontiniana even though we cannot exclude the possibility of his participation in some of the wars of the second half of the 15th century in Italy. Genuine grief with which he described the fall of Constantinople, where he had never been, as well as vividly depicted remote and hostile eastern lands convey Marullus' desire to compose an impressive piece.

### 5. *Homo Costantinopolitanus* or *homo cosmopolitanus*

## *Homo adriaticus* or *homo mediterraneus*

Since the 8th century BC the Italian Mezzogiorno was marked by a strong Greek influence, which gradually lost in its intensity with the decline of the Western Roman Empire. Greek culture was reintroduced during Justinian's reconquest, in the middle of the 6th century, but despite previous circumstances, the dissemination of the Greek language was fairly slow (Setton 1956: 3). In fact, it was not until the 15th century that the Greek heritage began to flourish in Renaissance Italy, thanks primarily to Greek refugees. On their arrival in Italy, many Greeks became most prominent intellectuals of the time, such as Constantine Lascaris, Demetrios Chalkokondyles, John Argyropoulos, Michael Apostolius, Theodorus Gaza and many others. They should be credited with a strong development of the Renaissance spirit, in terms of acquainting Italy and Europe with another, older culture of the Antiquity, of which little was known until that time. Within this context, the name of George Gemistus Plethon should be emphasised. Upon the prompting of this Byzantine philosopher, Cosimo de' Medici founded the famous Platonic Academy (1462-1523) in Florence, which was to become one of the symbols of the Florentine Renaissance. The Academy gathered outstanding figures, such as Marsilio Ficino, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Angelo Ambrogini (Poliziano), Leon Battista Alberti and many others, including Bartolomeo Scala, Marullus' father-in-law. Considering that from 1489 on Marullus lived in Florence, where he married Alessandra Scala, it remains unclear why his name is not linked to the activities of the Platonic Academy28, especially taking into account the Neoplatonic background29 of his collection *Hymnes naturales.* His poetic work, fully immersed in Humanist poetics, vividly reflecting Ovid's *Tristia* and interwoven by love poems dedicated to the beloved Neaera, is always clearly and strongly detached from reality (Nichols 1997, cited in Haskell 1999: 111). However, nostalgia and sorrow caused by the fall of his Greek homeland and belief in its liberation, as well as Constantinople as a distinct identity marker, did not suffice to finally marginalise Marullus as an exclusively Greek poet in search of sympathy for the lost homeland. Margin-

<sup>28</sup> The reason might lie in his very bad relations with Poliziano.

<sup>29</sup> On Marullus' friendship with Pico e Ficino, and on the Neoplatonic reading of *Hymens naturales* see Alessandro Perosa 2000: 255.

alisation of this kind was not even possible because, according to Haskell, his development (Haskell 1997: 112) was not influenced by the Greek but by the Italian culture. In sum, Marullus writes in a highly pure Latin, not in Greek, and he finds his own way to use that as an advantage, i.e. to tell the story about "double exile": from his homeland and from his language (Nichols 1997: 158), neither of which he could have been influenced by. It seems that Marullus did everything to present himself as "homo Costantinopolitanus", contrary to the Humanist idea of "homo cosmopolitanus" (Haskell 1997: 122).

Humanism being almost completely a Mediterranean 'product', hence a Humanist poet is *homo mediterraneus per se.* This is understandable, since Humanist culture is embedded in the heritage (first Roman, and then Greek) of the classical times. Marullus' poetry mentions over eighty geographical locations in the Mediterranean, either mythological or real, without including those on the Black Sea. Most of them are in the territory of the former Byzantine Empire and Italy, but he also mentions Spain, France and North African coast. He mentions the Adriatic Sea three times, and Adriatic locations seven times. Three geographical names (Dubrovnik, Epidaurus and Mount Srđ) are referred to in *De laudibus Rhacusae*, the analysis of which will be separately presented, while the others are: Illyria, Venice, Brač and Budva. Apart from being mentioned in the praise of Dubrovnik, the Adriatic Sea also appears in *Ad Manilium Rhallum*<sup>30</sup> and in *Mercurio*31. It is worth mentioning that, except for his arrival and departure from Dubrovnik at an early age, Marullus never again navigated the Adriatic, which might account for the implicit nature of his images. His perception and representation of the Adriatic Sea, for example, ranges from the rough and navigation hostile32 as in *Ad Manilium Rhallum*, across stormy33 in *Mercurio*, to neutral as in the praise of Dubrovnik. Notwithstanding the presence of Adriatic geographical locations in Marullus' poetic work, he cannot be regarded as *homo adriaticus*. Apart from his Dubrovnik episode, he never lived on any of its shores, nor took part in any form of transadriatic communication. Although Marullus spent much of his life on the Neapolitan shore of the Tyrrhenian Sea, the sea theme does not play a significant role in his opus. There is no information whether he had any relations with the persons from the eastern coast of the Adriatic in the way his contemporaries did through intense cultural exchange. We know that Marullus was in contact with the members of Accademia Pontiniana, first and foremost with Giovanni Pontano, Jacopo Sannazaro, Zanobi Acciaiuoli and with Manilio Rallo, his senior compatriot from Peloponnese peninsula. He was also present in the Florentine Humanist circles of the day, yet his participation in

<sup>30</sup> "Nec vagus Adria/Secura patitur currere navitam/Pinu perpetua fide" (*Epigrammaton*, Liber tertius, XLVII *Ad Manilium Rhallum*; 2-4) in Marullus 2012: 140.

<sup>31</sup> "Tu procellosa vagus hospes alno/Adria curris freta" (*Hymnes naturales*, II, VIII *Mercurio*; 42-43) in Marullus 2012: 227.

<sup>32</sup> See Nichols 1997: 158.

<sup>33</sup> See Haskell 1997: 122.

the cultural contacts with the eastern coast of the Adriatic was rather passive. Similar inactivity may be ascribed to his role in the dissemination of the Greek culture in Italy, especially with regard to his use of the language, for Marullus was a Latin poet *par excellence*. Throughout his poetic art he sought to present himself as homecomer which he could not attain for he had no place to return to, making his nostalgia groundless. The poet's true homeland can only be Naples, not Morea or Constantinople, where he practically had never set foot in.

### II

### 1. *De laudibus Rhacusae*

The 'praise of cities' is not easy to define in terms of genre. According to Andrea Pellizzari, it falls somewhere between rhetoric, literature and epigraphy (Pellizzari 2011), and it should be noted that it is a valuable source for current historiography, despite many scholarly efforts to come forward with its accurate genre status. The praises stem from ceremonial speeches (*genos epideiktikon*) of the ancient Greek rhetoric. Known as *laudatio*, they are present in the works of Latin authors, such as Ovid, Marcialus and Statius. In the late Antiquity and early Middle Ages classical rhetoric was a much-debated topic34 whereupon Menander Rhetor set the frame of this written form. Thus, they were to contain information about the city's location, origin, undertakings and actions (Garcia Gavilan 2009: 82), and, according to a damaged Lombard manuscript from the eighth century, description of the city walls, fertile land plots, water resources and local customs (Romagnoli 2014: 61). Praises surviving from the early Middle Ages are those of the Italian cities, such as Milan, Rome, Verona and Aquileia, as well as of the English cities of London, Durham and York. As a most important Italian economic center of that period, Milan earned a notable place in both poetry and fiction, followed by Rome, greatly admired by medieval minds despite its sudden fall after the Gothic Wars.

Most of the praises of that period are strongly imbued with religious contents, providing biographies of bishops and saints, accounts of the transfer of the holy relics, and the construction of churches. It was not until the development of the communes that by the end of the eleventh century in Italy and Flanders, and later on in France, Spain and on the eastern coast of the Adriatic, the praises gained in popularity, tending to lean on the late classical models. Apart from their dedication to urban community, 15th-century praises also present clear political objectives, such as Leonardo Bruni's *Laudatio Florentinae Urbis,* which celebrates the victory of Florence over Milan, or Pietro Candido Decembrio's *De laudibus Mediolanensium urbis panegyricus,* which describes Milan's superiority over Florence.

The descendants of the Marullus and Tarchaniota families have left three praises of cities. The mentioned Giovanni Tarcagnota describes Naples in *Del sito, et lodi della città di Napoli*, while Marullus wrote a praise of Siena (*De laudibus Senae*) and the previously mentioned praise of Dubrovnik. In Marullus' days, the need to prove one's belonging to an urban community was less pronounced, and the praises tended to express a personal perception of a city, but always with clearly outlined, often political, objectives35.

The purpose of *De laudibus Rhacusae,* written before 1490, is not to flatter the authorities of Dubrovnik, which, however, does not mean that it is devoid of any political elements. Although containing descriptions of the power relations between the Sublime Porte and Venice and the position of Naples, it seems that the praise is primarily concerned with Dubrovnik, which is described according to the mentioned pattern. As it was not written during his stay in Dubrovnik, nor immediately afterwards, and since it was not intended for Ragusan audience, this praise might be read exclusively as a description of the city. However, a meticulous analysis shows that Dubrovnik represents a mere setting for the poet's description of the current political moment in the eastern Mediterranean.

Similar to most praises, Marullus' description starts with a story about the origins of Dubrovnik. At the very beginning, he mentions its double origin, yet not its Epidaurian and Roman or double Roman origin, but Epidaurian and Sicilian. Strongly promoted by the Dubrovnik Church authorities throughout the Middle Ages, and thus generally accepted, it is not surprising that the myth of the Epidaurian origin of Dubrovnik was incorporated into this praise. Most likely due to its complexity, Marullus does not even touch upon the story about the Roman origin of the city, which was given a new interpretation at the turn from the Middle Ages to Renaissance (Kunčević 2015: 31). It is obvious that such constructions did not strike a responsive chord outside the narrow circles of Dubrovnik, the reason for which Marullus was not even informed about them by the members of his family who stayed in Dubrovnik as refugees. This praise presents the Sicilian origin, which is probably an allusion to the homonymic link with the Sicilian Ragusa. It is interesting to note that the first Ragusan historian, Ludovik Crijević Tuberon (1459-1527), mentioned in his work *De origine et incremento urbis Rhacusanae* that according to some sources the name of the city derives from the Sicilian Ragusa36, but it is difficult to conclude whether Tuberon really made reference to Marullus, even though the assumption about the Sicilian origin of that name is very scarcely represented.

Starting with a remark about Dubrovnik's shores being washed by the sea in the invocation, Marullus then embarks upon a description of his personal life experience in Dubrovnik. An indirect function of this description is to emphasise the author's Constantinopolitan identity, because Marullus repeatedly mentions

<sup>35</sup> Cf. Diversis 2004.

<sup>36</sup> "Nomen urbis quidam a Rhausa Siciliae oppido, eius insulae putantes coloniam, deducunt" (Rezar 2013: 100).

the hardship of the exile and the lamentations he composed. This could also be interpreted in the light of the growing Humanist individualism that exceeded the limits of communal collectivism in which it developed.

What follows is an authentic description of the city's appearance and location. The description itself contains virtually none of the features of the detailed medieval scrutiny, it is extremely concise and hermetic at some points. This difference can be interpreted as a shift in poetics, in that the medieval utilitarianism gave way to the *licentia poetica*. The author's parallel between Dubrovnik's wider geographical location and the mythological Scheria, the land of the Phaeacians, i.e. the last Odyssey's residence before return to Ithaca, is ill-founded. His intention was probably to assign to Dubrovnik's outskirts the characteristics of the Scheria in Homer's epic poem. The author then zooms in on the slopes of the Mount Srđ, which protects the city from northern winds, and the nearby coast laced with bays and harbours. The description of the city starts with a realistic image of its double walls. He also mentions the steep cliffs streaming down into the abyss and up again towards the sky. The final part is dedicated to the city harbour. He admires its Cyclopean layout, noting that it is a source of Dubrovnik's prosperity, which suggests that the size and importance of Dubrovnik's merchant navy may have reached his ears. Marullus' description greatly departs from reality. In true fact, the city harbour often proved too small to host all the ships and passengers, and the vessels frequently had to seek anchorage off the coast of the island of Lokrum (Ničetić 1996: 158-159). According to the praise, Dubrovnik's wealth by far exceeds that of the antique cities of Syracuse and Corinth. Since Syracuse was one of the most important cities of the Magna Graecia, and by referring to it as mother (*Mater Syracusae*), the author most likely reiterates the statement about his Greek identity. The five stanzas of Marullus' description of the city make no explicit reference to any urban landmark or building inside the city walls, not even to those symbolising its secular or religious authorities (for example, the Cathedral or the Rector's Palace). This can all speak in favour of the conclusion that Marullus lived in Dubrovnik at a very early age, which might explain the arbitrary nature of his personal memories, yet on the other hand, the view of the bustling city harbour and especially of the imposing city walls may have left a deep impression on him as a child. With the development of Dubrovnik as a commune and the diminishing role of the city walls as defensive barrier, the stone walls tended to become a symbol of the demarcation between the urban and the rural, between untamed nature and man's ability to shape the landscape. It is highly likely that the city walls found their place in Marullus' praise thanks to their symbolic significance. Notwithstanding the laconic and selective approach, this description of the city can be included among the fairly authentic representations of Dubrovnik, at least among those in verse, for it certainly cannot compare with the praises written in prose, such as De Diversi's paradigmatic and programmatic work *Situs aedificiorum, politiae et laudabilium consuetudinum inclytae civitatis Ragusii*. The remarkable linguistic perfection of Marullus' praise contributes to its harmony and unobtrusiveness, as if mirroring the *modus vivendi* of the Dubrovnik Republic itself.

This is even more noticeable at points where he depicts his own position in the contemporary political context. The author states that Dubrovnik brilliantly defends its ancient laws and the freedom of ancestors, balancing between the Serenissima and the Sublime Porte, to draw attention to a completely different situation in Naples. In all likelihood, he refers to the so-called Conspiracy of the Barons *(Congiura dei Baroni)* in 1485, which considerably jeopardised the reign of Ferdinand I of Naples, known as Ferrante37. Marullus' acquaintance with the ringleaders of the conspiracy, Antonello Petrucci and Antonello Sanseverino, spurred him to flee for Florence soon after the conspiracy's frustration. His stay in Florence was confirmed in 1489, adding a reminiscent tone of his days in Naples to this praise. The political situation on the Apennine peninsula at the close of the 15th century was marked by extreme turbulence. It all started with the so-called First Italian War in 1494 and continued intermittently until 1559. For Marullus, this First Italian War proved of particular importance, as the French emperor Charles VIII intended to conquer Naples, expel the Aragons and finally occupy Istanbul. Since Marullus was personally affected by the turmoil in Naples, it seems that these very events inspired his praise. Dubrovnik acts as a mere backdrop for what follows after its description: it represents a counterpoint to Naples. In our opinion, Marullus dedicated three substantial stanzas to Naples, which immediately precede the grand finale of the praise (Marullus 2012: 80):

Heu, quae suetum nec patitur iugum Nec, si carendum sit, ferat otium, Incerta votorum suisque Exitio totiens futura! Nam quae remotis usque adeo iacet Gens ulla terris, quod mare tam procul Ignotum acerbis Appulorum Exiliis Calabrumque cladi? Non his beati quaeritur artibus Quies honesti, non bona strenuae Virtutis et frugi parata Regna domi populique pace38!

Naples cannot bear peace; by ignoring its own ambitions, it brings ruin upon its own people, and is therefore unable to attain moral virtue. This is the key difference in relation to Dubrovnik, which leads us to the real object of the poet's admiration: *libertatem avorum.* By abandoning medieval con-

<sup>37</sup> It was a conspiracy organised by Campanian noblemen, among whom were Antonello Petrucci and Antonello Sanseverino, in order to reclaim the Anjouvian estates and rise against the Aragon centralisation of power in Naples. The conspirators were supported by the Papal States and Venice, but King Ferrante, assisted by his allies Milan and Florence, crushed the conspiracy and banished its ringleaders.

<sup>38</sup> *Epigrammaton,* Liber quartus, XVII *De laudibus Rhacusae*; 45-56.

cept of freedom, seen as a possibility of accepting or refusing God's project, in the Renaissance political thought freedom represents a possibility for man to master his own destiny. Freedom is seen as one of the perfect consequences of man's actions. A famous work by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola *Oratio de hominis dignitate* follows that thread. Being a close friend of Pico della Mirandola39, Marullus was certainly aware of the new concept of freedom that his "fictional" homeland could not enjoy, and neither could Naples, according to the author. Notwithstanding its great cultural flourishing under the rule of the Aragonese, Marullus condemned Naples as a city without freedom due to the fact that he himself belonged to the defeated pro-Anjouvian party. Although it might sound like a paradox, he obviously believed that the freedom of Naples laid in an action aimed at the restoration of the ancient Anjouvian reign in response to the tax reform and Ferrante's attempt to undermine feudalism. Or, on the other hand, he might have deemed that it was a way of stopping the conflicts and establishing peace (*pace*), since he regarded it as one of the main features of freedom. In Marullus' view, it was Dubrovnik that brought to perfection the myth of enjoying freedom since the city's foundation (Kunčević 2015: 80) and served as an example of a Renaissance community that used its own forces to create and safeguard peace. In the political context of that time, marked by the swift Ottoman progress towards the centre of Europe, by Venetian and Genoese actions on the Levant, by turmoil on the Apennine peninsula, Marullus certainly could not find a better example than the flourishing Dubrovnik Republic, best epitomised in the closing verse of his praise (Marullus 2012: 80):

Sed haec silenti non patiens amor, Tu vero coeptis artibus, optima, Rem auge decusque et nationum, Ut merita es, caput usque vive40.

A tiny State at the very edge of the Catholic Europe should therefore be a leader in safeguarding and establishing peace, however, the author was not completely aware of the fact to which extent the prosperity of Dubrovnik was backed by the stability and power of the Ottoman Empire, against which Marullus' opus mostly speaks. It may come as odd, though highly possible, that the author did not have access to any direct or up-to-date information about Dubrovnik during his stay in Naples and Florence, which is evident not only in the physical description of the city, but also in the poor knowledge of Dubrovnik's political situation. Apart from minor quibbles and the fact that the praise was to serve another purpose, this Marullus' work offers a reduced image of Dubrovnik, that of the Italian Humanists, far from the cultural and trade connections in the Adriatic. Marullus' example shows that the ties between the two coasts of the Adri-

<sup>39</sup> For more details see Perosa 2000: 254.

<sup>40</sup> *Epigrammaton,* Liber quartus, XVII *De laudibus Rhacusae*; 57-60.

atic in the period of Humanism and Renaissance should be neither questioned nor overly idealised, nor taken for granted nor attributed too much importance without any credit.

## Conclusion

Supporting the assumption of M.J. McGann, who put into question the place and year of Michael Marullus Tarchaniota's birth (and remained quite isolated in this belief), we have offered and analysed several groups of sources which prove, quite convincingly, that Marullus was not born in 1453 in Constantinople, but in the Despotate of Morea in the year of its fall under the Ottoman rule (1461). The turmoil that the Morea witnessed at the time, the multiple ties between many seminoble families and the Palaeologus family as a common link, as well as the pro-Western orientation of despot Thomas Palaeologus, triggered a wave of refugees towards the Apennine Peninsula, where among the Italian intellectuals they propagated the knowledge about classical Greek writers. En route to Naples, Marullus' family almost certainly spent some time in Dubrovnik, but due to the scanty and vaguely dated sources, the scholars have speculated on the date and duration of that sojourn. They are additionally puzzled by the very verses of Marullus' praise of Dubrovnik and the assumption about the pronounced autobiographic character of his poetry, which needs to be rejected. By analysing historical sources and the poet's opus, we have reached quite convincing answers to the questions concerning Marullus' Ragusan episode, which was so often misinterpreted.

Bibliography





## Abstract

This paper deals with Michael Marullus Tarchaniota's early childhood years marked by exile from the recently fallen Despotate of Morea, a short and unconfirmed stay in Dubrovnik and, finally, by his arrival in Naples. A vast array of heterogeneous sources have been sifted in order to elucidate Marullus' life before his arrival in Naples, i.e. in the turbulent period marked with Ottoman advance into the heart of Europe. The second part of this paper deals with Marullus' *De laudibus Rhacusae*, which speaks more about the broader political context than about Dubrovnik itself since inspired by the turmoil that affected entire Apennine peninsula of that time.

*Keywords:* Michele Marullo Tarcaniota, Dubrovnik (Ragusa), *De laudibus Rhacusae*, 15th Century, Greek scholars in the Renaissance.

## Artistic Expression of the *Translatio imperii* Concept in the Latin Epic Poetry of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th Century and the European Literary Context1

Žanna Nekraševič-Karotkaja

*Translatio imperii* (transfer of the empire or transfer of power) is a political stereotype of transfer of metaphysical world domination from country to country. Having originated in late Antiquity in the realm of political ideology, this idea preserved its relevance and expressed itself in the literature of many countries all throughout the Middle Ages as well as during the Renaissance and Baroque period. The concept of *translatio imperii* explains the belief of the Byzantine emperors in their exceptional right over emperorship as legal successors of the old Rome. The emergence of the empire in the West in the times of Charles the Great (742-814) and then Otto I (912-973) did not destroy that stereotype and even added a new meaning to it.

After the fall of Constantinople (1453), "the history of the *translatio imperii* myth in the Latin West was over" (Paškin 2012: 117). This concept gradually lost its universal character and was interpreted within the confines of a nation. In that sense, the title *Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicae* is quite indicative. Maximilian I first used this title officially in his address to the Reichstag (Winkler 2006: 9-10).

<sup>1</sup> I am sincerely grateful to Yuri Pavlov for translating this manuscript into English. I also thank Stephanie Richards for her careful critical reading of the manuscript and her invaluable linguistic and substantive advice.

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Žanna Nekraševič-Karotkaja, *Artistic Expression of the* Translatio imperii *Concept in the Latin Epic Poetry of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th Century and the European Literary Context*, pp. 75-96, © 2020 Author(s), CC BY 4.0 International, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-198-3.05, in Giovanna Siedina (edited by), *Essays on the Spread of Humanistic and Renaissance Literary Civilization in the Slavic World (15th-17th Century)*, © 2020 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress.com), ISSN 2612-7679 (online), ISBN 978-88-5518- 198-3 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-198-3

Žanna Nekraševič-Karotkaja, Belarusian State University, Belarus, zhanna.nekrashevich-karotkaja@unioldenburg.de, 0000-0001-9544-2159

Two major sources of the idea in the European culture are as follows:


Transfer of power as a topic became an additional artistic means of formation of the governmental patriotic concept in Renaissance literature, which eventually impacted the processes of forming the national conscience of various nations of Central and Eastern Europe. If we speak about the so-called Republic of both peoples2 or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of both states (Korotkij 2009:194-195), then the historical narrative of the etiology and evolution of power, significant for the lifetime of this country, preserved its imperative power even after the country disappeared from the European political map (Kuolys 2007: 25; Kraŭcevič 2008: 9).

The historically and legally complicated geopolitical situation in this region creates cultural and political tension even today. This is evidenced, for example, by the current events in Belarus and Ukraine in the 21st century (the annexation of Crimea, the long preservation of dictatorship in Belarus). The specificity of this historical and cultural situation also requires special approaches when studying the history of literature in this region. The monuments of Latin epic poetry created here contain relevant historical concepts and political ideas that influenced (and often still influence) the identification strategies of subjects belonging to this cultural space. These are primarily concepts and ideas related to the recognition of the legitimacy of power in the lands of Central and Eastern Europe.

The transition of power has always been accompanied by the task of redefining a certain territory and reinterpreting its political status. Discussion of these problems reveals the so-called condensed spaces (the term of Jürgen Joachimsthaler), various combinations of which are represented in the history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Study of the artistic embodiment of the idea of the transfer of power makes it possible to identify different cultural landscapes that complement each other or compete with each other (Joachimsthaler 2002: 18).

This research places a particular methodological relevance on the statement formulated by Pierre Bourdieu that the process of literary production happens in the frame of social spaces, which he calls fields of cultural production. These fields are subordinate to the field of power (Bourdieu 1997: 38), creating a social context in which ideology often plays the role of initiator of public aspirations. The social context itself, therefore, inevitably influences how any aesthetic idea, including the idea of *translatio imperii*, is implemented. However, the role of aesthetic experience (*ästhetische Erfahrung*), which Hans Robert Jauss considered a special kind of cognition, should not be underestimated.

<sup>2</sup> The term *Rzeczpospolita obojga narodów* was introduced into the literary discourse in 1967 by a Polish writer Paweł Jasienica. Gradually, the term pervaded scholarly research.

Thus, our research focuses not only on the sociological theory of Pierre Bourdieu, but also on the basic principles of literary hermeneutics as interpreted by Hans Robert Jauss. This methodological combination seems expedient because when the theme of state power is artistically embodied, "the refractoriness of aesthetic experience" (Jauss 1982:4) and its astonishing ambivalence; transgressive realization of this practice "in a reversal of direction, its transgressive function may also serve to transfigure social conditions by idealizing them" (Jauss 1982: 4)3 . The transfer of power, presented in terms of aesthetic experience, has become a particularly powerful means of creating symbolic capital as the cultural memory of the nation, when important historical events have not only become of great topical interest but have also been sacralized. The mnemotechnic activity in the process of aesthetic experience very often acts as a driving force of mimesis.

In other words, memory can be more important than comprehension of reality in the practice of aesthetic cognition. Political and/or cultural-historical illusions at a certain stage of cultural development may become more important than political realities and established social hierarchies. Among such illusions I would include the Sarmatian myth, the ancient Lithuanian myth (the legend of Palemon) and the idea of Moscow as the third Rome. In contemporary humanistic studies a number of works devoted to comparing these theories and concepts and their interaction in the sphere of secular and religious politics have appeared (Vasilyauskas 2006; Kuolis 2007; Guzevičiūtė 20064 ). Therefore, this article does not compare different ideological conceptions and political myths.

The concept of cultural memory is of special interest to us in connection with the embodiment of the idea of power transfer in literature. The Renaissance era, oriented towards the revival – both of pagan antiquity and early Christianity – can in a sense be called a period of cultural recollection, a return to the best spiritual traditions. But this memory was clearly projected into the sphere of public life. Jan Assmann has made a most interesting observation regarding how memory becomes pivotal in the field of power. The researcher emphasizes:

Die Allianz zwischen Herrschaft und Erinnerung hat auch eine prospektive Seite. Die Herrscher usurpieren nicht nur die Vergangenheit, sondern auch die Zukunft, sie wollen erinnert werden, setzen sich in ihren Taten Denkmäler, sorgen, daß diese Taten erzählt, besungen, in Monumenten verewigt oder zumindest archivarisch dokumentiert werden, Herrschaft "legitimiert sich retrospektiv und verewigt sich prospektiv" (Assmann 2007: 71).

The alliance between domination and memory also has a prospective side. Rulers usurp not only the past but also the future, they want to be remembered,

<sup>3</sup> "The refractoriness of aesthetic experience as characterized here is marked by a curious ambivalence: in a revesrsal of direction, its transgressive function may also serve to transfigure social conditionns by idealizing them" (Jauss 1982:4).

<sup>4</sup> I am grateful to Sigitas Narbutas for his bibliographical advice in this area of research.

through their deeds they memorialize themselves, ensure that these deeds are told, sung about, immortalized in monuments or at least documented in archives, rule "legitimizes itself retrospectively and immortalizes itself prospectively"5 .

This concept is well illustrated by expressions of power transfer found in poetry. The diffuse use of various onyms linguistically reveals a shift in power, and in this connection, different ethnonyms and politonyms (Sarmata – Sarmatia, Polonus – Polonia, Lithuanus – Lithuania) are used in this study. At the same time, it is impossible to organize and even minimally systematize their use in one study (see: Nekraševič 2020). For this reason many researchers note the difficulty in establishing an unambiguous 'status' of various cultural phenomena, which cannot be attributed to the history of only one national literature. For example, Giovanna Brogi Bercoff (Bercoff 2014: 335) and Marion Rutz (Rutz 2017: 81-83) illustrate this difficulty with Nicolaus Hussovianus's monument of Latin poetry from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, *Carmen de statura, feritate ac venatione bisontis* (*A song about the guise, wildness and hunting of the bison*) (1523). It belongs to the history of at least four national literatures (Belarusian, Lithuanian, Polish, and Ukrainian), not because of the author's birthplace or the place of publication, but because of the symbolic capital that was created in the field of cultural production through Hussovianus's poem.

This article prioritizes epic poetry of the 16th century, as the *carmen heroicum* are certainly the most illustrative examples of the artistic realization of the transfer of power in this period. The possibility of creating an axiological paradigm of the transfer of power often intensifies the aesthetic effect of "the fascination an imaginary heroic universe exerts"6 and allows the "seductive power of aesthetic identification"7 to become visible. All this fostered the nascence of new plot contexts for various poetic genres and primarily for epic poetry.

In the 15th and 16th centuries, the role of dynasties in the system of state power becomes more prominent. Representatives of various European dynasties claim imperial ambitions; one of the brightest examples is the Italian *condottiero* Francesco Sforza (1401-1466). The founder of the new dynasty of Polish kings is Lithuanian Grand Duke Jogaila (later Władysław II Jagiełło, c. 1352 or 1362- 1434). A little later, in the second half of the 15th century, the dynastic factor influences the strengthening of the Tsarist autocracy in Muscovy. As Dvornik writes, "the marriage of Ivan III with Zoe-Sophia Palaeologus, the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, Constantine XI, gave in the eyes of many a kind of juridical sanction to the idea of Muscovite Russia as the political and religious heir

<sup>5</sup> Here and elsewhere, translations are mine unless otherwise indicated (ŽNK).

<sup>6</sup> "A publication that could only escape the closed horizons of a world that was saddled with illiteracy and ordered by immutable doctrine if it listened to poetry or music or gazed at the illustrations of the "picture Bible of the cathedrals" must have felt with special intensity the fascination an imaginary heroic universe exerts" (Jauss 1982: 5).

<sup>7</sup> "The seductive power of aesthetic identification was criticized by both the orthodox and the enlightened critics of the secular Trostbüchlein (book of consolation)" (Jauss 1982: 8).

of Byzantium" (Dvornik 1962: 372). The existing trends in the field of power influences the corresponding changes in the field of literature.

In the epic poetry of the Renaissance, the theme of *translatio imperii* can manifest itself in describing the history of a concrete dynasty that is fighting with another dynasty, albeit within the borders of the same country. Francesco Filelfo (1398-1481) muses on the concept of *translatio imperii* in the epic poem *Sphortias* dedicated to Francesco Sforza. The task of introducing the topic of the transfer (or continuity) of power requires a special emphasis on the traditional image of the protagonist in the introduction to the epic. So, it is noteworthy that the poet intentionally applies the motif of literary polemic in the introduction to *Sphortias*:

Prisca vocent alios, qui nil nisi ficta referre Et simulata velint vanique simillima somni. At nos vera iuvant, quae nostro maxima saeclo, Nemine posterior meritis ne laude priorum, Sphortiadum lux clara ducum columenque ruentis Italiae, gessit Franciscus, solus in omnes Idem animo ingenioque vices infractus et hacer. (*Sphortias* I, 1-7; Keyser 2015: 3)

Let the past call for others – those who did not wish to speak of anything but the fictitious and the imaginary which resemble delusional dreams. We love the truth – all that which comprises the grandeur of our time. Francesco, the bright light of the Sphortias dynasty and the pillar of the crumbling Italy, a descendant whom not one ancestor surpassed neither in dignity nor in glory, determined, alone lived through all [the vicissitudes, ŽNK] in his soul and mind*.*

The narrator's intentional distancing from the past events (*prisca*) which are proclaimed to be something "fictitious" and "imaginary" (*ficta et simulata*) allows him to focus the reader's attention on the current history, thus, increasing its axiological status. The author's own positioning is related in this case with contrasting himself to others (*alios*) – poets who sang of other empires and other rulers. Further, the recognition of the protagonist's uniqueness is intensified with an even more specific contrast:

Hinc coepisse libet totumque heroa futuris promere temporibus. Non hic mihi fingitur ullus Aeacides Ithacusve sagax nec Troius error. (*Sphortias* I, 23–25; Keyser 2015)

From here I should start and tell everything about the hero for future times. Since I don't simply picture here an Aeacides [=Achilles, ŽNK], or an Ithacus [=Ulysses, ŽNK], or Troy's defeat.

The heroic context of Antiquity is clearly separated from the history that relates to the acts of Francesco Sforza. In doing so, Francesco Filelfo enables his hero to take the prestigious symbolic position which once belonged to Achilles, Ulysses, and Aeneas in the previous poetic tradition. In this way, Filelfo creates a new situation of the game (*illusio* by Bourdieu) in the field of cultural production.

At the end of the 15th century, a new legend appears that claims the Byzantine origin of the Monomach's Cap. That, in turn, explains the religious and political idea of Moscow being the third Rome. Around the same period, with the rise of the Habsburg royal house, the idea of deification (*consecratio*) of the Holy Roman Emperor is formed. Maximilian I Habsburg, himself a man of literary talent, hired numerous poets, painters and engravers, demanding that in the course of his creative work they embody all the necessary motifs for political argumentation: they had to emphasize the claims of the Habsburg House to superiority over the rest of the world's rulers. This version of *translatio imperii* is based on the narrative of the supposedly continuous succession of emperors, beginning with Julius Caesar.

It was no accident that Maximilian І decided in 1499 to dictate the events of his reign to a secretary after the manner of Caesar's *Commentaries on the Gallic Wars* (Silver 2008: 87-103). In the cultural context of the Holy Roman Empire, the motif for the transfer of power is equipped with various rituals with symbolic meaning, primarily the coronation and recognition of the Emperor as the anointed God. Maximilian I minimized the role of the Pope in the coronation process, declaring himself "chosen Roman Emperor"8 in 1508. The iconography of Emperor Charles V embodied the motifs of *defensor ecclesiae, miles Christi*, designed to present the Emperor as "the new Messiah" (Philipp 2010: 89-90).

To glorify the Habsburg dynasty, the poets of the 16th century naturally chose the model of Virgil's *Aeneid*. It is of note that in the course of a hundred years a total of four poems were written and dedicated to this family, three of which had *Austrias* in their title: *De Bello Norico, Ad Divum Maximilianum, Austriados Libri Duodecim* (*About the war in Noricum*<sup>9</sup> , *to the divine Maximilian*, *Austrias in twelve books*) by Riccardo Bartolini (1516), *Austrias* by Joachim Mynsinger (1540), *Austriados Libri Duo* (*Austrias in two books*) by Rocco Boni (1559), and *Austrias* by Andreas Gravinus (1602).

In the 15th and 16th centuries the process of spiritual development of the majority of Slavic peoples was influenced by the humanistic culture of the West. The European Renaissance played a key role here and overall changed the intellectual life of these peoples. Hans Rothe called the Hussite movement in the Czech lands "the first historic movement of universal importance that came from the Slavs" and added:

Doch erst die innige Verbindung des italienischen Humanismus mit der Reformation aus Deutschland bewirkte, daß nun zum zweiten Mal aus slavischen Ländern welt- und kulturhistorische Anstöße ausgingen. Vor allem ist hier Polen

<sup>8</sup> "Erst Maximilian I. [ließ sich] 1508 im Dom zu Trient mit Zustimmung des Papstes zum 'erwählten römischen Kaiser' proklamieren" (Dopsch 2010: 213).

<sup>9</sup> Noricum is the Latin name for the Celtic kingdom or federation of tribes that included most of modern Austria and part of Slovenia.

zu nennen, wo das eindrucksvolle Beispiel osteuropäischer Kultur entstand, das wir kennen. […] Wichtiger aber scheint für den Kulturhistoriker zu sein, daß wieder, wie zuvor in Böhmen, die Literatur vielsprachig lebt (Rothe 1982: 15).

But it was only the close connection of Italian Humanism with the Reformation from Germany that caused cultural historical impulses to emanate throughout the world from Slavic countries for the second time. First and foremost, Poland should be mentioned here, where an impressive example of Eastern European culture we know was born. […] But it seems to be more important for the cultural historian that again, as before in Bohemia, literature was bilingual.

The German scholar suggests that the term "Polonia" becomes not only a political but also a cultural concept during this very period, and its semiotic meaning can be understood in light of the dynastic history. At the same time, as Rothe notes, the literary context of the Renaissance is important for the historian of Poland (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). In light of this comment, the epic poem *Bellum Prutenum* (*The Prussian War*) written in Latin by Joannes Visliciensis (about 1485-between 1516 and 1520) is of particular interest.

*Bellum Prutenum* was published in the same year (1516) as *Austrias* by Riccardo Bartolini (died 1529). Although the poems are similar in their main artistic task (praising the ruling dynasty), they differ in the way the authors use the plot embodiment to fulfill this task. The difference is clear to the reader as early as the introduction. The beginning of the *Austrias* follows the tradition of epic narrative: like Homer and Virgil, after a brief formulation of the theme ("argumentum totius epopoeiae"), the cosmography of sea and earth ("cosmographia maris et terrae") appears (Sarbievius 2009: 258). The argumentum is traditional enough for a heroic epic; it concerns the king's battles and noble leaders.

Caesareis acies, Arctöaque regna, Ducesque Magnanimos canimus, fontemque binominis Istri, Et vastum, Helvetio spumantem vertice Rhenum Strage hominum, atque atro maculantia aequora fluctu. (Bartolinus 1531: 1)

We sing of the king's battles and of the Northern country, of noble leaders, and of the Istra with two names, and also of the broad Rhine that springs from the Helvetian mountaintop, and of [its, ŽNK] banks marked by the dark stream [of blood, ŽNK] in the battle between people.

Recall that Horatius defined the theme for *carmen heroicum* as "res gestae regumque ducumque et tristia bella" ("the feats of kings and chiefs, and the deprivation of war") (*Ars poetica*, 73).

Joannes Visliciensis generally does not violate the epic canon, but he begins the introduction in accordance with his own literary goals. Because the main idea of the poem is the war with the Teutons (the Prussian War), his *argumentum totius epopoeiae* is related to emphasizing the image-symbol of *fama felix*

(happy news). Thus, it is not the historical reality (the Battle of Tannenberg in 1410, which the writers of that time called the Prussian War) that is important for the work's ideological concept, but a happy memory (the happy news of the victory in this war).

Felix astrigeri veniens de cardine mundi Fama trucis nimium, Rex invictissime, belli Sanguineo reboat multum madefacta triumpho Fortis avi tollendo tui ad fastigia caeli Gesta… (*Bellum Prutenum*, 1-5; Vislicki 2005)

The happy news of the extraordinarily severe war, oh invincible King, having come from the star pole of the world and being filled with the battle triumph, had a forceful resonance and raised to the skies your mighty ancestor's heroic deeds.

*Fama felix* symbolizes the memory of the ancestors and continuity of the heroic traditions. The continuity concerns, first and foremost, king Sigismund I ("invincible King") and his grandfather ("mighty ancestor"), king Władysław Jagiełło, founder of the Jagiellonian dynasty. In this respect, Polish scholars St. Łempicki and B. Nadolski noted that the author of the *The Prussian War* "intended to produce a kind of *Jagiellonid*" (Łempicki 1952: 225; Nadolski 1956: 177). The theme of the continuity of power rises in several plot lines of the poem.

In *The Prussian War*'s first book, the author poetically presents the land that the "uninformed neighbor" ("accola rudis") called Sarmatia, even though, as the poet underlines, the indigenous name is *Polonia*. Having enumerated the peoples of Polonia (among which we find "triple Ruthenians" – "triplices Rutheni"), the author briefly writes about its first rulers: Lech I, Krakus, and Princess Wanda. After noting that the death of Wanda signified the fall of the Krakus's clan, Joannes Visliciensis cries for help in order to continue his story of the rulers of Polonia. All of a sudden, Apollo arrives and advises that the poet stop the poetic narrative (I, 234-235). Apollo spares *alterum ego* of the narrator from writing about the poetic genealogy:

Sed sileas reges, quos cana obliterat aestas, Fama quia illorum et probitas et bellica virtus Nota satis nituit pelago tellureque vasta, Haud secus illorum, genuit quos Ilia mater Aut Priami tellus aut nobilis ora Choaspis. Ipse tuam, moneo, quare lassare Minervam Noli; sunt et erunt vates qui postea reges Deproment, coluit quos durus Sarmatha, sed tu Sideream stirpem regis modulare Poloni, Nec non fortis avi praestantia facta sui, quae Prussia sanguineis sensit tenuata duellis. (*Bellum Prutenum* I, 246–256)

But don't say anything about those kings, who have been covered by the grey past, because their fame, dignity, and martial arts have already been praised sufficiently among the range of sea and land – in the same way as the fame of those, who have been born by the mother from Ilion, or from the country of Priamos, or from the shore of Choaspes. This is why I beg you not to trouble your Minerva: there will other poets come, later on they will pull out of neglect those kings, that a harsh Sarmatian venerates, and you sing of the heavenly heir of the Polish king and his mighty ancestor's heroic deeds, whom Prussia felt coming upon herself in bloody battles.

So, Apollo says, other poets should tell of the kings, which were revered by the ancient Sarmatians, but now we must sing the exploits of the ancestor of the modern king (i.e. King Jagiello, grandfather of King Sigismund I). Joannes Visliciensis clearly juxtaposes the names *Sarmata* and *Polonus* in these lines to separate the Jagiellons who ruled Polonia at the time from their predecessors, the Piast dynasty who ruled semi-legendary Sarmatia. Apollo leaves praising the Sarmatian kings to the Sarmatian poets, whereas the narrator of *The Prussian War* has to take on the role of *vates* (singer, prophet) of the new dynasty, the Jagiellons. Joannes Visliciensis unexpectedly transitions from Princess Wanda to king Władysław Jagiełło in order to underscore his patriotic stance. According to him, the crucial milestones in the history of Polonia (the defeat of the Teutons in the Battle of Grunwald in 1410 and the defeat of the Muscovites near Orša in 1514) are related to the rule of the Jagiellons. It was the Jagiellons who transformed an initially monoethnic country into a mighty political power which started to become a major political influence in Europe starting in the 16th century. Already at the time of King Casimir Jagiellon it was a *de facto* federative union of the Polish Crown and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and this very federation is what the poet calls *Polonia*. Sarmatia was simply a distant "barbaric" land in the minds of Western Europeans – hence, the poet uses the epithet *durus* (stern, crude) to describe a Sarmatian – while Polonia was one of the European monarchies.

King Władysław Jagiełło was the legal successor to the highest power in Polonia, and to articulate that, the poem contrasts him to the great duke Vytautas as *dux pacis* (chief of peace) versus *dux belli* (chief of war) (Daraškevič 1975: 58; Ulčinaitė 1995: 30). Addressing Jogaila, the narrator calls him *rex divus* (divine king); indeed, the king functions as a thought leader of the army in the poem. The epithet *divus* is justified in the narrative by the fact that Jogaila acts as a *rex pius* (pious king): even in the face of the imminent threat after Vytautas's army has been vanquished, he thinks it morally right to first conclude liturgy and only then commands his own army to go into battle (although great duke Vytautas expresses his protest and condemns the king for his delay). As a result, it is Jogaila who gets the prophetic vision predicting his victory. In the heat of the Battle of Grunwald, Krakow's bishop Saint Stanislaus appears in the sky with the message that the victory has already been preordained in heaven – precisely for him and not for his cousin Vytautas: "Father Almighty […] will reward you and your [warriors] with a blissful omen; His mighty Hand will set everything up so that the victors who overcame the army of your cousin will be conquered"10. Therefore, the king is depicted as God's chosen one.

The "divine nature" of Jogaila is even more emphasized in the third part of *The Prussian War*. It opens with the Council of the Gods on Olympus (as in the 8th Song of *TheIliad*). According to the plans of the Olympic gods, princess Sophia of the Halshany family becomes queen and bears Jogaila three sons, two of whom – Władysław and Casimir – become heirs to the throne. Hence, the problem of the dynasty is solved on the celestial level.

At the end of the poem, king Sigismund I is praised as the *victor celebris patriae pater atque Polonae* (renowned victor and father of Polonia) (III, 256). Among the wishes for the king, we read the following:

Threiciusque sinu applaudet tibi Bosporus arcto, Per facilem tribuens Byzantia jugera Martem Vincere, Turcaicis longum possessa ministris. (*Bellum* III, 268-270)

Let the Thracian Bosphorus splash before you in a narrow bay, allowing you in an easy war to conquer the Byzantine land which has long been ruled by the Turkish ministers.

One should abstain from interpreting these lines as a poetic justification of the imperial conquering politics. Uladzimir Karotki writes that this is a "mythological and historical justification of the right of the Jagiellons not only to the lands of Eastern Slavic people but also to the rule of Byzantium" (Karotki 2013: 76). Looking at it this way, King Sigismund I acts in his military policy as a general Christian political leader, i.e. defender of the Christian faith (*defensor fidei Christianæ*).

Therefore, it would be erroneous to assume that *The Prussian War* is a poem dedicated to the Battle of Grunwald. The events of the Great War with the Teutonic knights and the Battle of Grunwald in 1410 became the symbol of political might of the Jagiellonian dynasty. The poem provided a literary formulation of the concept "Jagiellonian" patriotism for the first time (see: Nekraševič 2011: 217-218).

As far as the cultural transfer of the *translatio imperii* idea is concerned, the works of Johannes Mylius von Liebenrode (about 1535-3.7.1575) are of particular interest. He obtained a solid education in classical philology in the convent school of Ilfeld where he was taught by Michael Neander. In 1560-1561, Johannes Mylius worked in Cracow, published poetic paraphrases of the Christian canonic texts, and then moved to Zabłudów (today part of the Białystok

<sup>10</sup> "Jam pater omnipotens […]//Teque tuosque hodie solabitur omine fausto//Et forti tribuet victos succumbere dextra//Victores, qui fraternas vicere phalangas" (*Bellum Prutenum* II, 281, 283-285).

province in Poland) and obtained the position of court teacher with nobleman Hrehory Chodkiewicz.

In his epic poem *Ιερόνικων* (*Holy Victories*) in two books published in Vienna in 1565-1566, Johannes Mylius endeavored to find common points between the Jagiellonian concept and the concept of *Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicae* (Holy Roman Empire of the German nation). Here the idea of *translatio imperii* is linked to the anti-Turkish issues and combined with the Biblical context.

The first part of this poem is dedicated to emperor Maximilian II, the second part to king Sigismund II Augustus. In the first part, the narrator tells about the kings of ancient Israel (from Abraham to Hezekiah) who were praised in history as the defenders of the Fatherland and of faith and who became prominent figures in the Old Testament. The second part of the *Ieronicon* tells about the heroes and rulers of the modern period. Mylius first mentions emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and in the end praises the Jagiellons (Ioannes Albertus and Sigismund I) and the Habsburgs (emperors Charles V and Ferdinand I). Lastly, he praises the Knights of the Maltese Cross under the leadership of Jean de la Valette (Iehanus Valettanus) (Mylius 1568, A4 r. – G3 r.). Therefore, the handover of power (in this case, from the kings of Israel to the Christian rulers) is directed to two ruling dynasties, the Habsburgs and the Jagiellons. Such intersections within the field of power spoke well to the thencurrent political situation: in the middle of the 16th century king Sigismund II Augustus (in his third marriage to Catherine of Austria) did not have an heir, and the Habsburgs hoped that it would be precisely them who would ascend the throne of the Kingdom of Poland.

Transfer of empire gets even more attention in the Latin language poetry of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the second half of the 16th century. After Sigismund II Augustus, the last ruler of the Jagiellons, died, there arose a new political leader-king and great duke Stephen Báthory. Well before his triumphant march on Pskov in 1581, literature had portrayed him as a liberator from the tyranny of Muscovy. Basilius Hyacinthius (second half of the 16th century)11, the poet from Vilnius and alumnus of the University of Padua (where he was possibly taught by Francesco Robortello), published his *Panegyricus in excidium Polocense* (*Panegyric on the Seizure of Polotsk*) in 1580. In it, Stephen Báthory is portrayed as a warrior king. Appealing to the highest dignitaries, he reproaches them for inaction.

Reddere sollicitos si uos haec intima nolunt, Me mea sollicitant, nec enim quod temnor ab hoste Ferre queo patiens, ibo atque celerrimus ibo, Regalique meum caput hoc diademate cinctum Obiectabo libens morti, si regius iste

<sup>11</sup> Darius Antanavičius claims that this nickname was used by Vasilij Jackevič (or Jackovič) (Antanavičius 2019).

Legitimus sit honos, uelut est, uictoria certe Nostra manet, stabit Rex, corruet ille Tyrannus. (*Hyacinthius* 1580: 13 n.n.12)

If your hidden feelings don't make you worry, then my (feelings) worry me. I cannot tolerate the fact that the enemy humiliates me, and I will go as soon as possible and willingly put my crowned head to death. If only the regal honor is indeed legitimate, then, beyond a shadow of a doubt, victory will be ours; the king will stand and the tyrant will perish.

This and other fragments of the *Panegyric* suggest the motif of the tyranny of Muscovy which became one of the recognizable literary *topoi* of the late 16th century and can be found in an array of literary works. For example, a poetic volume dedicated to the tragic events of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in Paris was published in Vilnius in 1573. One of the poems says, "So, celebrate now, Muscovy, celebrate: Gaul surpassed you in disgraceful barbarity"13. Basilius Hyacinthius also accentuates the problem of the legitimacy of power: this specific issue became a political stumbling block in the reign of Stephen Báthory. According to Nikolaj Karamzin, at the siege of Pskov, king Stephen expelled Muscovy's envoys "and, in mockery, sent Ioannes the books about the Russian princes and his own reign published in Latin in Germany, in proof of the fact (as he would explain) that the old rulers of Muscovy were not Augustus's kindred but the payers of tributes imposed by the Perekop's khans"14.

The aristocrats of the Polish-Lithuanian Сommonwealth placed their hopes on King Stefan Báthory for getting rid of the Moscow threat and saw him as a kind of messiah. It was during his reign that interest in different interpretations of the concept of *translatio imperii* intensified in the cultural space of the Commonwealth. In 1586 Theodor Skumin Tyszkiewicz (about 1538-1618) received the title of the great Lithuanian Scarbian. On this occasion statesman, military leader and poet Helias Pilgrimovius (about 1550-about 1604) sent him a congratulatory letter. Anastasia Davydava revealed the textual dependence of this letter on the work of the German humanist Agrippa von Nettesheim *De incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum* (*About the inaccuracy and mortality of sciences*), published in Cologne in 1527 (Davydava 2019: 82). After congratulating Skumin Tyszkiewicz on his new position, the narrator moves on to discussions

<sup>13</sup> "Barbara nunc igitur gaude, Moscouia gaude,//Te superat turpi Gallia barbarie" (*Illustrium* 1573: 3 n.n.).

<sup>12</sup> The initials "n.n." mean "unnumbered page". In this and similar cases, where possible, the page number has been inferred by me.

<sup>14</sup> "и с насмешкою прислал к Иоанну изданные в Германии на латинском языке книги о российских князьях и собственном его царствовании, в доказательаство (как он изъяснялся), что древние государи Московские были не Августовы родственники, а данники ханов Перекопских" (Karamzin 1989: 190).

about the evolution of monarchies in world history. The most important world monarchies are listed here: the first is the Assyrian monarchy founded by King Ninus and Queen Semiramis; the second is the Persian Empire, led by Cyrus and then his son Cambyses (Cambyses the Elder); the third – the monarchy of Alexander the Great. At last, he writes, "the fourth monarchy of Romans, and there was not in the history of mankind a more formidable, powerful and authoritative [monarchy]"15. Further the narrative deductively focuses on the history of the Rzeczpospolita of both states, which makes it possible to mention King Stephen I in the corresponding historical row:

[…] post […] longissima seculorum serie ad Boleslaum, inde ad Praemislum, mox ad Piastum, postea ad Iagellonem eiusque nobilissimam stirpem, & ab eo ad hunc Serenissimum Regem Staphanum Monarchiae potestas peruenit, non haereditario tamen, sed electionis iure… (Pilgrimovius 1586: 6 n.n.).

After many centuries [the monarchy passed on, ŽNK] to Bolesław, from him to Przemysl [the Ploughman, ŽNK], then to the Piast, then to Jagello and his noblest descendants, and from them the power of the monarch passed to the present king Stephen, not by right of succession but by right of election.

The richest and most diverse material pertinent to the artistic expression of the *translatio imperii* idea can be found in Ioannes Radvanus's (died after 1591) epic poem *Radivilias, sive De vita et rebus* […] *principis Nicolai Radivili* (*Radivilias, or On the Life and Deeds […] of Prince Mikołaj Radziwiłł*) (1592). The poem is dedicated to Mikołaj "the Red" Radziwiłł (1512–1584), Hetman of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Prince of the Holy Roman Empire in Biržai-Dubingiai.

Much in the same way as in the poem *Sphortias* by Francesco Filelfo, the argument of *Radivilias* is presented in a polemic way: Ioannes Radvanus is not interested in "omnia vulgata" ("all popular things") (*Radivilias* I, 14; Radvanas 2009) such as "Semiramias arces" ("palaces of Semiramis") or "Trojae labores" ("hardships of Troy") (*Radivilias* I, 11). On the other hand, a Roman patrician Palaemo Libo is mentioned right at the beginning of the poem (Maciej Stryjkowski calls him Publius Palaemo Libo in his *Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Samogitia, and All of Ruthenia* published in 1582). According to a legend, Palaemo Libo arrived at the shores of Lithuania together with 500 families of Roman patricians in the early 1st century (in other sources in the 5th century) (Chronika 1975: 15). It was the legend about Palemon that became the basis of the Roman theory of origin of the grand princes and aristocrats of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This is why Ioannes Radvanus asks rhetorically: "who doesn't know these days of Libo's exile, of the great and audacious early endeavors of Palemon?"16.

<sup>15</sup> "Quarta Monarchia Romanorum qua nulla in rebus humanis formidolosior, potentior & augustior fuit" (Pilgrimovius 1586: 5 n.n.).

<sup>16</sup> "Quis nunc aut forte Libonis//Exsilium nescit, magnosque Palaemonis ausus?" (*Radivilias* I, 35–36).

Prince Mikołaj Radziwiłł is a descendant of Palemon as well because the *Chronicle of Lithuania and Samogitia* tells of Erdvilas (or, Radivil), the greatgrandson of Palemon, in the year 1258 (Chronika 1975: 18). Accordingly, in *Radivilias* the genealogy of the Lithuanian dukes begins with Erdvilas:

Haec eadem Litauos tellus, acresque Sudinos, […] Extulit, haec Erdiuilum, Troydenaque fortem, Mingallumque Ducem, Scirmontumque armipotentem, […] […] quin ista Iagellona tellus, Sarmatiaeque dedit Reges, Hunnoque potenti Imposuit dominos, et Cechi a stripe Bohemis, Totque duces genuit praestantia nomina, nec non Quem canimus Magnum Radivilum, nomen et omen Nicolei cui mens dederat praesaga parentum. (*Radivilias* I, 80, 84-85, 91-96)

Right from this land originated Lithuanians and courageous Sudovians [=Samogitians, ŽNK], [from this land originated, ŽNK] Erdvilas and warlike Skirmantas; […] moreover, this same land provided the Jagiellons, kings for Sarmatia, provided sovereigns for the mighty Hunns as well as for the Czechs from the family of Bohemians; here all princes were born who are famous for [their, ŽNK] names, and here also one man was born of whom we sing – great Radziwiłł, to whom the prophetic wisdom of ancestors gave the name Nikolaus.

Therefore, the narrator weaves both king Sigismund II Augustus and hetman Mikołaj Radziwiłł into a unified "Palemonic" dynastic context, and both sovereigns are shown as legitimate representatives of the ruling dynasty.

At the same time, the Grand Prince of Muscovy Ivan Vasil'evič (the Terrible) is exposed in *Radivilias* not only as a tyrant but also an illegitimate ruler (perhaps even a bastard). It is no coincidence that the first part of the poem mentions ferocious (*ferox*) Muscovy's boyar Ivan Ovchina-Obolensky when describing the siege of the city Starodub (the siege was laid by Jerzy Radziwiłł, father of Mikołaj Radziwiłł). Ivan Ovčina-Obolenskij entered into an "illicit marriage" ("furtivis hymenaeis") (*Radivilias* I, 154-156) with grand princess Elena Vasil'evna (Glinskaja), and so a rumor spread fast in the times of Ioannes Radvanus that prince Ivan Vasil'evič was born exactly as a result of this unlawful love affair.

The poem contrasts a liberal form of government (typical of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) and the tyranny of Muscovy (exemplified in the figure of Ivan the Terrible). The symbolism of the Monomach's Cap acts in the poem as a distorting mirror for the concept of *translatio imperii*: the tyranny of Muscovy perverted the idea of empire succession, as discussed below. The true successors of the Roman empire are patricians led by Palemon, the founders of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In that sense, *Radivilias* disproves the theory presented in the *Skazanie o knjaz' jach Vladimirskich* (*Tale of the Princes of Vladimir*), according to which the Muscovite princes were descendants of Octavianus Augustus.

Describing Ivan the Terrible, Ioannes Radvanus frequently uses chthonic deities. For example, the second book of *Radivilias* tells that the Furies were the future tyrant's wet nurses. In minute detail, the narrator pictures Alecto, one of the Erinyes, at the end of the second book. In the artistic context of the poem, Alecto serves as an overall metaphor of nefarious forces. A corresponding gloss confirms it: "Satan incites Ivan to war; a poetic description of Satan" ("Ivanum Satanas in bellum incitat et descriptio Satanae poetica"). It is noteworthy in this context that it is precisely the "direful bitch" ("dira canis") from Hell that first flies over the lands of Muscovy "like a quick ominous bird" ("spinturnix veluti cita") (*Radivilias* II: 716) and then turns into a snake. The snake crawls up the body of the grand prince and, reaching his head, morphs into a crown of gold "which Vladimir tore off the head of his enemy as a war trophy: the kings of Muscovy wear this as a symbol of supreme power and put it on as a sign of royal dignity"17. A corresponding gloss gives a comment as to where the Monomach's Cap came from: "The crown of Vladimir Monomach which he perfidiously tore off [the head] of the Greek man after attacking him"18. Therefore, Ioannes Radvanus makes a broader generalization: the supreme power of Muscovy is tyrannical at its roots because even the symbol of this power was obtained in a cunning and violent way. Thus, the Monomach's Cap is not, to use Basilius Hyacinthius's expression, a "legitimate sign of royal dignity" ("regius legitimus honos") for grand princes of Muscovy, including Ivan the Terrible.

The power that was established by the uprooted Roman patricians is recognized as legitimate. The shield of hetman Radziwiłł described in the third part of the poem serves as a symbol of the legitimacy (*Radivilias* III, 87-195). The shield of Achilles in the *Iliad* and the shield of Aeneas in the *Aeneid* were the literary models for Ioannes Radvanus. The arrival of the Italics headed by Palemon is one of the central scenes in the whole description of the shield of Radziwiłł (*Radivilias* III, 90-98). It is highlighted in a special way that Palemon and his supporters "aedificant Novam Romam, solatia Veteris Romae" ("built New Rome, a compensation for Old Rome"). The idea of 'reward, compensation for loss' (*solatia*) in relation to Rome clearly places *translatio imperii* as one of the ideological priorities of the poem.

Much like king Jogaila in *The Prussian War*, hetman Radziwiłł is portrayed as a *dux pius* (pious prince) in *Radivilias*. Mikołaj Radziwiłł's death in the fourth part of the poem is described as a mournful event of national significance. The poet has no doubt that the Grand Hetman will smoothly enter the gates of heaven; he lists a whole catalog of the prince's virtues and merits in front of *Elysia puella* (the maiden of Elysium, i.e., Proserpina):

Numinis aetherei vix hoc metuentior ullus, Aut Evangelii cultor reverentior, ex quo

<sup>17</sup> "Quem Volodimirus ab hoste//Detraxit spolium: primos hoc tollere fasces//Omen habent Moschi Reges, hoc sceptra сapessunt" (*Radivilias* II, 729–731).

<sup>18</sup> "Torquis Vladimiri Monomachi, quem Graeco provocanti detraxit, duello congressus" (*ibidem*).

Prisca Fides iterum dignata invisere terras. (*Radivilias* IV, 224-226)

Hardly anyone was more pious, hardly anyone was a more devoted worshipper of the Gospel, from which previous faith saw the world in previous dignity.

Mikołaj Radziwiłł, the devotee of the 'previous faith' (Calvinism), and Władysław Jagiełło, who is Catholic, are portrayed as God's chosen ones by virtue of their peculiar missions in government affairs. To give a more vivid context of denigrating Ivan the Terrible, Ioannes Radvanus weaves a religious motif into the text which is important to the East Slavs: in the second half of *Radivilias*, he describes how the prince of Muscovy strikes the icon of Saint Nicholas with his notorious scepter (with which he killed his son Ivan) (*Radivilias* II, 544–554). The poet considered it necessary to write in a gloss that this was "Saint Nicholas, one of the heavenly patrons of the Muscovites" ("D. Nicolaus quidam patronus Moschorum").

The upbringing and education of the main character (who is involved in the transfer of power) are crucial pieces of information in Ioannes Radvanus's poem. The first part of the poem describes a journey to the Castalian Spring with legendary musician Musaeus, and the scene starts as follows:

Ergo dum florens aetas, dum mollior est mens, Traditur ingenii sacris cultoribus: illi Edoceant claras foecundi pectoris artes. (*Radivilias* I, 220-222)

Thus, when he [Mikołaj Radziwiłł, ŽNK] was at the age when the mind is most malleable, he was given [for education, ŽNK] to the holy worshippers of talent: they taught him celebrated subjects to enrich his soul.

It should be noted that starting from the late Renaissance (to which *Radivilias* pertains), a proclivity for scholarship becomes one of the most essential elements of the main character's virtue (*virtus*) in an epic poem. Such an interpretation of a *heros perfectus* (perfect hero) is fully represented in Baroque poetry. For instance, Giovanna Siedina writes of a peculiar interpretation of the heroic as the supremacy of scholarship, intellect, and spiritual growth over military achievements in the late 17th-early 18th centuries' epic and panegyric poetry of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and confirms "the expansion of the subject matter in epic poetry" ("l'espansione dei temi della poesia epica") (Siedina 2012: 245).

The literary works that we provided in this article as examples of the artistic realization of the *translatio imperii* idea enable us to draw the following conclusions. The motif of the transfer of empire, when integrated into the space of a literary work (in the heroic epic poems of the Renaissance), was never understood and interpreted narrowly as a problem of dynastic succession. Most often the narrators intended to express and discuss only certain aspects and facets of this motif, in keeping with its aesthetic experience. Moreover, each narrator expands the theme of the transfer of power within their current historical and ideological context, one way or another tying this theme with the most important events in the political history of their countries. For many poets of the Renaissance who wrote in Latin (in particular, for Joannes Visliciensis, Johannes Mylius, Ioannes Radvanus), a political theme directly correlates with a religious theme, which results in a true successor of the political power being portrayed as both *dux pacis* and *defensor fidei Christianae*.

In the cultural region of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the artistic narrative often interacted with historiographical narrative, forming diffuse forms of stories (the most striking example is the *Chronicle* by Maciej Stryjkowski). The heroic epic was the most appropriate artistic form for such narratives; in particular, *Radivilias* of Ioannes Radvanus grew out of the plot frame of Stryjkowski's *Chronicle*. At the same time, historical reality was comprehended through the aesthetic experience, closely connected with various paradigms of cultural memory: the Sarmatian, Jagiellonian, or Roman concept, or the idea of a single Christian Europe (as in the poem by Johannes Mylius). These paradigms changed their content but kept following a common scheme. It was important to link the current political context with legendary or mythological notions of the past and to show the new ruler as the successor of the glorious deeds of previous rulers. This is how King Stefan Báthory is represented in Basilius Hyacinthius's *Panegyricus in excidium Polocense*.

The structures of the national mentality among Belarusians, Lithuanians, and Poles were formed depending on these symbolic notions, which is reflected in the monuments of the epic poetry of the Renaissance epoch. The balance of power in the field of power was often perceived by readers from this cultural region through the prism of such perceptions. In addition, cultural memory played a huge role. The new political leader had to conform not to European democratic standards, but to traditional notions of an ideal ruler that had developed in a particular cultural space.

The explication of the *translatio imperii* idea in 16th century literature was the most prominent factor that allowed the "the most universal idea of a perfect hero" ("idea universalissima herois absolutissimi", according to Mathias Casimirus Sarbievius) to be thoroughly analyzed and developed in the literature of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Political at its core, this idea enabled the poets who wrote in Latin to create an impressive symbolic capital in the genre of heroic epic poems. With insight into the concept of the transfer of empire, the artistic expression of both the 'Jagiellonian' and Lithuanian (i.e., Grand Duchy of Lithuania) patriotism had an enormous impact on the formation of the national identity of the Belarusian, Lithuanian, and Polish peoples.

#### Bibliography

Antanavičius 2019 D. Antanavičius, *Kas buvo* Basilius Hyacinthius Vilnensis*, parašęs* Panegyricus in excidium Polocense *(1580)? Tapatybės atribucijos bandymas,* "Senoji Lietuvos literatūra", 47, 2019, pp. 101-122.


*ex potentissimo Moschorum Principe III. Cal. Septemb. MDLXXIX reportatem,* […] Patavii, Apud Laurentium Pasquatum, 1580.




#### Abstract

*Translatio imperii* is a concept and political stereotype of transfer of metaphysical world domination from country to country. The concept of *translatio imperii* accounts for the belief of the Byzantine emperors in their exceptional right over emperorship as legal successors of the old Rome. After the fall of Constantinople (1453), the concept of *translatio imperii* gradually lost its universal character and was interpreted in the confines of a nation. In the epic poetry of the Renaissance, the theme of *translatio imperii* can manifest itself in describing the history of a concrete dynasty that is fighting with another dynasty, albeit within the borders of the same country. Francesco Filelfo (1398–1481) mused on the concept of *translatio imperii* in the epic poem *Sphortias* dedicated to Francesco Sforza, an Italian *condottiero*. At the end of the 15th century, a new legend appeared that claimed the Byzantine origin of the Monomach's Cap. That, in turn, explains the religious and political idea of Moscow being the third Rome. Alternative theories emerged in the epic poetry of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

The epic poem *The Prussian War* (Lat. *Bellum Prutenum*, 1516) by Ioannes Visliciensis depicts the events of the Great War with the Teutonic knights and the battle of Grunwald in 1410. The events became the symbol of political might of the Jagiellonian dynasty. The poem provided a literary formulation of the concept "Jagiellonian" patriotism for the first time.

In his epic poem *Radivilias* (1592), Ioannes Radvanus incorporates the idea of *translatio imperii* when he shares a 'Roman' legend according to which the kings of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania trace their origin from patrician Palemon (Publius Palemo Libo) who founded the city of Nova Roma. The true successors of the Roman empire are patricians led by Palemon – the founders of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

The artistic expression of both the "Jagiellonian" and Lithuanian (i.e., Grand Duchy of Lithuania) patriotism which incorporated the concept of *translatio imperii* had an enormous impact on the formation of the national identity of the Belarusian, Lithuanian, and Polish peoples.

*Keywords:* Translatio imperii, Latin epic poetry, Renaissance, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, literary production, aesthetic experience.

## Classical Tradition in Czech Renaissance and Baroque Literature1

Lubor Kysučan

1. The classical scholarship and its role in the course of Czech medieval and early modern history

The first contacts of Czech people with classical culture were established through Irish, Italian and German missionaries, who came to the Czech lands from 8th century AD to spread Christianity among the pagan population, worshipping traditional Slavic gods. In the Early Middle Ages, Central Europe, including the Czech lands, was a crossroads of Western and Eastern culture, influenced both by the Latin West and the Greek, i.e. Byzantine East. Therefore, both Latin and Old Slavonic scholarship (initiated and still supported in Great Moravia, the first medieval state in Central European territory, by the mission of *St. Constantine* and *St. Methodius* from Byzantium) flourished in Bohemia and Moravia.

But after the schism in Christianity in the 11th century and hand in hand with the subsequent isolation of Byzantium, it was Latin culture that became predominant. Almost all literature, including chronicles, Christian legends,

<sup>1</sup> The author would like to express his thanks to Mr. Martin Váňa for translating this text into English. The author would also like to thank his Italian colleagues for supporting his participation in conference *Towards an Atlas of Humanistic and Renaissance Literary Civilization and Its Spread in the Slavic World (15th-17th century)*, which was held in Verona on October 13th-14th, 2016. This study is based on his paper delivered at the conference.

Lubor Kysučan, University of Ostrava, Czech Republic, lubor.kysucan@osu.cz, 0000-0003-0351-195X FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Lubor Kysučan, *Classical Tradition in Czech Renaissance and Baroque Literature*, pp. 97-116, © 2020 Author(s), CC BY 4.0 International, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-198-3.06, in Giovanna Siedina (edited by), *Essays on the Spread of Humanistic and Renaissance Literary Civilization in the Slavic World (15th-17th Century)*, © 2020 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress.com), ISSN 2612-7679 (online), ISBN 978-88-5518-198-3 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-198-3

works in the field of law and theology, were written in Latin. Some of these Latin works, including the Chronicle of *Kosmas Pragensis* from the 12th century, are true masterpieces of Latin style, reflecting the strong influence of Western European schools and – with regard to cultural development in the Early Middle Ages – a very good and deep knowledge of European classical tradition2 . Step by step the new vernacular languages began to be used in the literature3 , in law and administration of the Czech kingdom. Practically from this period till the middle of the 20th century a multicultural and multilingual society existed in the Czech lands, and Latin was one of the most important tools linking different nationalities, beliefs and promoting a sense of cultural unity4 .

The reign of Bohemian king and Roman emperor Charles IV represents the key era of culture development, when Bohemia, namely Prague with its royal court and newly established university, the first in Central Europe, became one of the crucial European political and spiritual centres. In the literature and thinking of this era we can find signs of pre-Humanism5 , also the first ideas of reformation emerged in the tolerant Bohemian society of that time.

The attempts of reformation resulted in the Hussite uprising and subsequent wars that drove the Czech lands towards isolation, religious intolerance and cutting links with European Western culture. The beginning of the Renaissance and humanism, though adumbrated by the fascinating personality of Charles IV*,* was delayed until 16th century6 .

 Once again in the 16th century and in the early 17th century Bohemia under the rule of Habsburg kings, who were also Roman emperors, became one of the leading European centres7 . Science, Czech, German and Latin literature flourished. However, the tragic conflict between Catholics and Protestants during the Thirty Years' War brought religious tolerance to an end. Bohemia was re-


Catholicised in a brutal way and many leading intellectuals, including the great European humanist Comenius were forced to leave the country and live in exile. But both the Protestant culture in exile and domestic Catholic Baroque culture were linked through the common heritage of Latin and Greek humanism and a similar perception of classical tradition. The knowledge of Latin and Greek was supported through a well-developed system of education, namely gymnasiums administrated by members of the Piarist and Jesuit order. The annual presentations of Latin drama were an indivisible part of curriculum at these gymnasiums, many of these plays are still waiting in Czech archives to be explored and published. Regardless of the lack of religious freedom the Baroque era represents one of the peaks of Czech culture in terms of science, fine arts and architecture, contributing essentially to the identity of the Czech society.

Our study aims to map the key influences of the culture of classical antiquity in the literature of the Czech Renaissance and Baroque, covering the era from the first decades of the 16th century to the early 18th century. Since the scale of ancient influence is remarkably wide, we will carry out our research in the form of case studies concerning examples of selected works of literature and selected motifs from ancient history.

## 2. The classical tradition in Renaissance and Baroque literature of the Czech lands

The Czech lands are indisputably one of the regions of the transalpine part of Europe, which were most profoundly influenced by Renaissance and Baroque culture. The Baroque, in particular, has become an inseparable feature of Czech architecture, painting, literature, music, landscape, even religiosity and mentality. The pronounced relation to classical tradition, which began in humanism and was further developed in Baroque scholarship and culture8 , is one of the meaningful attributes of Renaissance and Baroque art throughout Europe including the Czech lands. In our study we aim to answer the question, how motifs from classical Greek and Roman history and the influence of ancient historiography were used in Czech and Latin literature during the Renaissance and Baroque era in the territory of the Czech lands.

In the key study concerning our topic, *Antické prvky v české poezii 17. a 18. století*, Zdeňka Tichá (1974: 11) says: "The ancient elements in Baroque poetry can be divided into three groups: they partly exist in the form of theoretical guidelines in poetry textbooks, in stories of historical ancient figures and partly in the mythological ancient stories (figures). The last two groups are usually not divided: historical and mythological figures (stories) most often exist together"9 .

This statement can be considered as the methodological base, which we can apply to the whole stream of Renaissance and Baroque literature. Hence we will

<sup>8</sup> Cf. Villari 1991 and Reynolds, Marshall 1983.

<sup>9</sup> Unless explicitly stated, all translations from Czech and Latin sources into English are by the author of the study.

begin our analysis of selected literary texts. The influence of the ancient tradition on the early literature of the Early Modern Period in the Czech lands is essentially more broad and more stratified, since it is connected with more levels of literary works including the areas of literature – philosophy, philosophy of history etc. It is on the basis of these assumptions that we have determined our proper model10 of classical influences on Renaissance and Baroque literature can be determined:


3. The adoption of classical historical motifs in Czech Renaissance and Baroque literature

## 3.1. The attitude towards ancient history in the Early Modern Period

In her already quoted study *Antické prvky v české poezii 17. a 18. století* Zdeňka Tichá (1974:102) put the question of principle: "At first sight it would appear that the existence of ancient 'pagan' elements in Baroque Catholic poetry is somewhat absurd". But she contradicts her objection referring to the long tradition of the synthesis of ancient and Christian culture, which already existed in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. This synthesis was continued and developed by Renaissance humanism to such an extent that we could speak of universal European culture built on ancient and Jewish-Christian foundations, which are inseparable within its scope, therefore classical antiquity was not just an obvious part of the inventory of Renaissance but also Baroque culture. We meet it in practically all genres of literature. The same understanding holds true for motifs adopted from ancient history.

In the adoption of ancient tradition in the literature of early modern times in the Czech lands we meet two tendencies, which complement each other. On the one side, this tradition took over in the conservative form, as it was created by Renaissance Humanism and it was absorbed by the Jesuit scholarship and maintained without greater changes. Aside from this, we see a new perception

<sup>10</sup> Kysučan analyses this question in more detail in his study *Antika v latinské barokní literatuře českých zemí* (2011: 178).

of classical antiquity, which was born in the 17th century and is characterized by a certain shift, or as the case may be by the spread of interest to other periods and other regions of the classical world11.

The crucial figure initiating and at the same time representing these developments is the Dutch humanist, Justus Lipsius (1547-1606), who began to focus his attention on stoic philosophy in contrast to the still prevalent Platonic and Aristotelian philosophical tradition. He became famous as a careful philologist – editor of Tacitus and Seneca – and also played a principal part in humanist historiography placing emphasis on the critical attitude to history and sources. These cultural changes in the perception of classical antiquity have naturally affected the most important stratum of Latin literature in Czech culture. The mentioned changes of approach to classical antiquity are reflected in the literary work of Czech writers and scholars, such as Comenius (Jan Amos Komenský) and Bohuslav Balbín, who maintained the connection with the cultural development of their time – Comenius through correspondence and personal relations with prominent European humanists, Balbín through the transnational community of the Jesuit order, of which he was a member. Comenius drew lots of ideas from antiquity for his monumental pansophic synthesis, in which he accepted classical antiquity as one of the most important and key cultural periods contributing to the universality and harmony of human culture. So in essence he referred to Hellenistic culture and its ideal of cosmopolitanism. We can say, without exaggeration, that *Diogenes* in his drama *Diogenes Cynicus redivivus*, who calls himself *civis terrarum* (the cosmopolitan citizen of the world), also declares the ideas and conviction of Comenius presenting the Greek society of the Hellenistic era as a positive example deserving to be followed by contemporaries, especially in the turmoil of the Thirty Years' War12. Then Balbín, in accordance with the traditions of classical culture, creates his textbooks of rhetoric and poetry as well as his historical-political works, inspired by the philosophy of the


history of Justus Lipsius. Balbín is also considered as one of the last defenders of literary classicism inherited from humanism (Varcl 1978: 232; Hejnic 1974: 233), which he promoted theoretically in his textbooks and practically applied to his own literary work.

While Comenius, Balbín and their followers, who were in touch with European intellectuals and cultural developments, accepted and exploited the recent impulses in the changing perception of classical culture and approach to classical tradition, in other streams of Czech literature only static elements of classical culture and scholar stereotypes were adopted.

### 3.2 The ancient historical motifs in religious literature (homiletic and legends)

The historical motifs coming from the classical world are present practically in all typical genres of Czech literature. The homiletic production, spreading at an extraordinary pace in the Baroque period, was greatly inspired by classical rhetoric. The majority of preachers underwent excellent training obtained at Jesuit, later then also Piarist schools, where they not only became familiar with the principles of ancient rhetoric both on a theoretical and practical level, which they later applied to their own preaching practice, but also studied the ancient culture as a whole, including the history. Studying texts of ancient historians (Herodotus, Thucydides, Sallust, Caesar, Livy, Tacitus) formed an inseparable part of the curriculum of both classical languages at that time. This classical influence then contributed to the adoption of motifs taken from ancient history and realia. On the basis of her detailed analysis of Baroque homiletic production, Horáková (1995: 416) documents references to Plutarch and Pliny the Younger, as well as the use and creative development of different classical symbols, for example a reference to the well-known Latin abbreviation S.P.Q.R. and its 'classical' and 'Baroque' interpretation (Horáková 1993: 25).

We also consider the description of different supernatural omens in legends to be certain evidence of classical influence in the field of historiography. The Baroque legend has obvious links to a long tradition of the legend genre as it developed in early Christian and medieval literature, but in a certain sense we can consider it an "ancient biography in the Christian manner". The Christian legend has many common features of ancient biography, namely topics. The supernatural signs play an important role in these topics. So-called *omina* were very popular in antiquity and were an inseparable part of classical biographies (Suetonius, *Historia Augusta*). They also influenced medieval literature, as we can see in the example of Einhard's biography of Charles the Great, imitating Suetonius' *Life of Augustus*13. In

<sup>13</sup> The special interest in these omens came partly from natural belief, partly from a greater pleasure in the occult phenomena in the specific spiritual atmosphere of Late Antiquity. At the same time these omens developed into special literary *topoi*, inevitable decoration of the genre of biography. Christianity strictly rejected any belief in the occult phenomena of course, only with the exception of miracles connected with Jesus Christ, other figures of religious tradition and the saints. We can find expressive examples of such rejection in the works of Augustinus and

this context we cannot leave out well-known supernatural signs in connection with the most popular Baroque Czech saint, Jan Nepomucký (John of Nepomuk). The miraculous phenomena connected with him have become a part of the symbolism not only of the Baroque preachers, who addressed the personality of this saint, but also of the sacred architecture dedicated to his memory (Saint John's Church on Zelená hora near Žďár in Moravia – now a UNESCO World Heritage site). Similar signs are mentioned in the Baroque texts connected with Saint Jan Nepomucký – the radiance that appeared over Nepomuk on the day of his birth, and stars, shining over the Vltava River in Prague in the place where he was thrown from Charles Bridge. For example, Eligius of Saint George, a member of the Order of Barefoot Augustinians, in his ceremonial preaching *Vox Christi vicaria*, delivered on 22th May 1729, in the year of his canonization, says in his speech14:

Blessed John was brought into the world by parents of Catholic belief, noble in their piety, living in an honest marriage. Their devotion to the Mother of God helped in the childbirth. So it was that the holy source of the Prague diocese, Jan Nepomucký, the brightest light of the Czech lands was born. The lights that were born first lit up the sky. They drove back the dusk from the clear Aurora […]

But the perpetration of crime disappointed its perpetrators, since the triumphant perseverance did not set the stage of punishment, but the stage of victory, the palm of martyrdom has been made wet with waters, with the laurel15 of entrusted reticence, the trumpet sounded out glory, the night changed into day and John was flooded with waters and stars16.

also Isidor of Sevilla. Isidor in his Etymologies emphatically dismisses astrology (*Etymologiae* VIII, 9), as well as any other occult practices and paranormal phenomena, linked – as he says – to the influence of demons, which have to be avoided by any pious Christian. Taking this into account, it is even more remarkable the way that for example Frankish writer Einhard in his famous biography of Charles the Great *Vita Caroli Magni* mentions the traditional signs of vaticination announcing the death of Charles the Great (eclipse of the Sun and Moon, fall of the emperor from a horse, tremors and mysterious sounds, spoiling letters mentioning the king's name). Although Einhard was a zealous Christian, his desire for the literary imitation of ancient genres including all of their features was strong enough to prevail over the so far unacceptable omens and Einhard without any hesitation incorporated them in his literary work. Typologically accurately, the same kind of *omina* mentioned by Einhard, are present in ancient biographies that in Carolingian times were well-known and read (for example the already mentioned Suetonius). Beginning with Einhard, the use of these supernatural signs became an inseparable part of topics also in Christian literature not only in the Middle Ages, but also later in the period of humanism and Baroque.


 Similar topics, including supernatural signs, can already be found in the literature of Renaissance Humanism17. The similarity of all of these signs to the topics of Saint John's biographies and legends is evident and gives us testimony about universal topics, established in ancient historiography, namely in its later period, when consumers of literature enjoyed a growing pleasure in irrationality and supernatural signs became more attractive and sensational to them.

## 3.3 Theatre of World and Theatre of History

The motifs from ancient history to a great extent occurred in Renaissance and Baroque drama. Ancient dramas or dramas dealing with classical topics already appeared on Czech stages in the 16th century. Italian influence in the second half of the 16th century brought strong inspiration to the Czech theatre and court, and town festivities (for example carnival) began to be organized in a festive manner. As well as mythological figures so figures from ancient history appeared at these celebrations that took place in prominent locations, as witnessed in the following description of a festivity at Prague Castle (Varcl 1978: 281):

And also at the scenic masquerade ballet organized at Prague castle in February 1617 for emperor Mathias, the stage, symbolizing Elysium, was occupied by figures from ancient history, starting with Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great and their female counterparts representing Camilla (Queen of Volsci from Virgil's *Aeneid*) and Penthesilea. The entire performance ended with fabulous singers and poets: Linus, Orpheus, Homer, Hesiod, Virgil, Horace, Catullus and Ovid. Finally, the emperor's wife was addressed with Italian verses by gods Mercury and Amor.

The ancient topics in Jesuit theatre appear both in school plays and public performances, for example in connection with royal and imperial coronation ceremonies (so-called *ludi caesarei*). The Latin coronation play *Constantinus victor, hilaris tragoedia acta Pragae*… 1627 (Varcl 1978: 281) commemorating the personality of Roman emperor Constantine the Great, was performed in 1627. In the course of the 17th century less well-known ancient topics were also ex-

<sup>17</sup> For example, Gianfrancesco Pico in biography of his uncle Pico della Mirandola (*Ioannis Pici Mirandulae viri omni disciplinam genere consumatissimi vita per Ioannem Franciscum illustris principis Galeotti Pici filium conscripta,* a cura di T. Sorbelli*,* Modena 1963) mentions a supernatural sign announcing his famous uncle's birth: "Before his birth a small sign appeared. At the moment of the child's birth a round flame appeared above the mother's bedroom, but it soon disappeared. Maybe its circular form announced the excellence of the intellect of a man, who was born at this time among mortals, who would in honour of his name be glorified throughout the Earth. […] Namely not once can we read that the birth of the most educated and holiest of people is sometimes announced or followed by unusual signs, so that these people already from the cradle can by God's direction be singled out from the crowd of other ordinary people and be predestined to perform famous acts".

ploited. Such a development provides us with a clear testimony of the profound knowledge of ancient culture and history among educated people in Bohemian society. For example, in the year 1677 the drama *Aemilius Paulus Papinianus* was performed in St. Clement College (Clementinum) in Prague. It describes the fate of brave Roman lawyer Papinianus, who was killed by Caracalla in the 3rd century, since he had criticised the murder of the emperor's brother, Geta (Varcl 1978: 283). The Christian and ancient motifs are interconnected in Jesuit theatre. The typical Christian virtues – for example Papinianus' protest and spiritual rebellion against injury and wrong-doing – are demonstrated on ancient figures.

The already mentioned drama of Comenius *Diogenes cynicus redivivus*, performed as a school play in Lešno in 1640 and then published in 1658 in Amsterdam, represented a source of inspiration for Jesuit theatre. This play in certain measure exceeded the usual educational and sometimes naive moral dimension of school plays. Diogenes is depicted as a hero, opposing the cruelty and absurdity of human society with a mature philosophical overview and fresh humour. Comenius makes use of original ancient texts, namely those of Seneca and Diogenes Laertios, so his hero pronounces authentic classical sentences and statements. He works with classical quotations in a very intelligent manner, so his plays contain vivid dialogues and jokes. Together with his second school drama – *Abrahamas patriarcha* – this play delimited the thematic circle of later Baroque plays, exploiting both classical and biblical/Christian motifs. Therefore, we must disagree with the statement of Varcl (1978: 282), that "the development of Czech Baroque era theatre didn't make use of Comenius' genial inspiration and the quantitatively prevailing production of Jesuit and other order schools, and Catholic brotherhoods exploited classical topics in very superficial way".

On the contrary we can say that Jesuit theatre is fully linked to Comenius' pedagogical ideas placing emphasis on teaching history and Latin through the active participation of students in the theatre play and its dramaturgy. Members of the Jesuit order were quite familiar with the heritage of his creative intellect and just further developed the tradition of humanist schools, which flourished in parallel both in Protestant and Catholic territories. Comenius' works were not only studied, but also published by Jesuit scholars. For example, his famous philological textbook *Janua linguarum reserata* was published in St. Clement's printing house18 twice, in 1694 and then later 1716 (Čornejová 1995: 155). Jesuit Bohuslav Balbín highly admires and praises Comenius' beautiful style of the Czech language and also the qualities of his character. In his *Miscellanea*19 he writes:

He published too many works, but nothing that resisted Catholic belief. Reading his works, I find out that he never had any intention of injuring Catholic religion. His brilliant eloquence, remarkable wealth of words, profound thinking and description of secular vanity giving clear testimony of his excellent

<sup>18</sup> This printing house was affiliated to St. Clement College, headquarters of the Prague Jesuit University.

<sup>19</sup> Quoted form *Rozmanitosti* as translated by Helena Businská (in: Čornejová 1995: 155).

character. He deserves the highest praise and a great community of readers for his extraordinary education.

It is evident that just as in the period of humanism, reformation and religious wars, as well in Baroque times the classical tradition represented some kind of bond, which connected people of different faiths and educated them in the spirit of tolerance and respect for each other.

The importance of ancient topics for Baroque theatre is apparent also in the text-book of theatre *De actione scenica*<sup>20</sup> (full title *Dissertatio de actione scenica cum figuris eandem explicantibus, et observationibus quibusdam de arte comica*) published by theatre theorist Jesuit Franciscus Lang21. The author was strongly influenced by Aristotle and his concept of theatre. In his review of symbols and emblems, representing an appendix of some kind to his theoretical treatise, the classical, biblical, alchemist and cabalist motifs are presented and highlighted together in a syncretic way. For example, the History is described as:

The History: The Angel turning his face and at the same time without hesitation looks at some book, sits on Saturn's back. Or another angel places his feet on a stone cube. Or he has purple-green clothes and bears a tablet hanging from a lance, where the famous words of Cicero are visible: Witness of times, light of truth, living memory, teacher of life, messenger of old times.

The author of the treatise again reveals his deep knowledge of classical culture in the tiniest details. The detailed quotation of Cicero's sentence concerning history (Cic. *De orat*. 2,36) is truly remarkable, since this sentence is usually used in its abbreviated form of *Historia magistra vitae*.

The school drama *Lacrimae Alexandri Magni*22, performed on 18th January 1764, could serve as a typical example of classical influence on Czech theatre of the Baroque period. The text is anonymous as its author still remains unknown. He worked probably as professor of the Piarist gymnasium in the little Moravian town of Lipník nad Bečvou. It is a traditional declamation school drama and plays of such kind are mentioned also by Franciscus Lang23. The plot was taken from a small episode mentioned in Plutarch's biography of Alexander the Great. He becomes jealous of his father Philip, who is leading the military campaign in remote Illyria. As a consequence of the prophecy foreseeing danger for Macedonia and his father's army, Alexander decides to build his own army with the help of friends. But before Alexander is ready to launch his own cam-

<sup>20</sup> In our study we quote from Ingolstadt edition published by Andreas de la Hay in the year 1717. The Czech translation of this work was published by Markéta Jacková, but we quote from so far unpublished translation of K. Harvánek, J. Herufek and L. Kysučan.

<sup>21</sup> Franz Lang (1654-1727) was a Jesuit monk, professor at Jesuit gymnasiums and theatre theorist, who came from Bavaria. He also spent some time in North Bohemia.

<sup>22</sup> In our study we work with the edition and translation by L. Kysučan (*Slzy Alexandra Velikého*, Praha 2007).

<sup>23</sup> *De actione scaenica* XIV.

paign, a messenger from Philip arrives with information of a glorious victory. But Alexander falls into a deep depression, since he thinks his father has taken all the laurels of victory from him and he suffers from the thought that there is no other act of glory he can still perform.

The purpose of this drama is purely educational, firstly with the intention to educate and shape the character of young students through classical examples perceived as a positive inspiration, secondly to familiarise them with classical topics and Latin language. Alexander is described as sometimes an unbalanced ambitious young man, but on the other hand as an example of self-sacrificing patriotism. Ancient figures used to be depicted with this educational intention already from the very beginning of humanism and the educational role of classical antiquity was highlighted again and again until the period of German neo-humanism with its conception of a classical gymnasium, where ancient history and literature were perceived as an educational tool contributing to the upbringing and cultivation of decent and honest citizens. At the same time, school theatre was perceived as a tool supporting theoretical knowledge primarily that based upon classical culture. Thanks to active participation in performance, students were trained in the active use of Latin, in classical metrics, poetics and rhetoric and also ancient history.

The personality and adventures of Alexander the Great became a very popular source of inspiration for literary works of different genres since classical antiquity24. The figure was very popular in the Middle Ages, when – similarly as Virgil's Aeneas – was perceived as an example of heroic knighthood. This idea of Alexander as a perfect knight, so close to medieval culture, depicted in the figure of Alexander gained even greater popularity in the period of humanism and Baroque, when he became the subject of more than two hundred operas. Some of them were performed also in the Czech lands. Alexander the Great also plays a distinctive part in the literary work of Comenius25.

The anonymous author of the drama is proof of the excellent knowledge of the topography of the classical world, the plot of the play is situated in an accurately delimited environment and corresponding geographical reality. At the same time, the author is also an excellent connoisseur of ancient history as his text is rich in countless historical allusions and accurate use of realia. He is able


to share with his audience the already cosmopolitan atmosphere of Alexander's transnational and multicultural Hellenistic empire. The supreme ancient deity Zeus/Jupiter is always mentioned with the epithet Ammon26.

There are also complete scenes and images directly inspired by classical works present in this drama. For example, the picture of the city of Olynthus, razed to the ground by the Macedonian army compared with winds emitted from an open cave is without any doubt an imitation of the well-known passage from Virgil's *Aeneid* (1, 82-88), where the king of winds asked by the goddess Juno sends a wind storm on the fleet of Aeneas27.

Non secus, ac venti, quos antro emisit aperto Hippotades, laxisque viam patefecit habenis, ut sternant messes, vertantque a culmine tecta, et fracta trepidas perturbent arbore silvas.

The figures of soldier Tranio and physician Aristippus reflect certain inspiration by Plautus and his famous comedy *Miles gloriosus*. But the epilogue of the drama takes on a serious tone again. The narrator in form of a panegyric foretells the future glory of Alexander:

[…] in the future only Alexander shall be the hero, who acquires immortal glory, somebody, to whom all of Greeks will be grateful for being their King. Persians and European nations will be afraid of him and the whole world will admire him28*.*

## 3.4. Didactic literature

Not only belles-lettres, but also professional and didactic literature gives us examples of the use of classical topics. One of the most illustrative is the book *Magia posthuma per iuridicum illud pro et contra suspenso nonnullibi iudicio inves-*

<sup>26</sup> Such author's strategy commemorates the fact that after the conquest of Egypt, seen by Egyptians themselves as liberation from Persian rule, Alexander was proclaimed by Egyptian

priests as the supreme ruler – pharaoh of Egypt at the Siwa Oasis. 27 But the author makes creative use of Virgil's text. He did not use his verses literally, but only borrowed a picture and was able to articulate it with his own words and verses. For comparison, here we present the original Virgil's text (*Aeneid* 1, 82-88): Haec ubi dicta, cavum conversa cuspide montem impulit in latus ac venti, velut agmine facto, qua data porta ruunt et terras turbine perflunt. Incubitere mari, totumque a sedibus imis una Eurus Notusque ruunt creberque procellis Africus, et vastos volvunt ad litora fluctus.

<sup>28</sup> The vividness of the text is proved by the fact that contemporary Czech music composer Tomáš Hanzlík composed the opera *Slzy Alexandra Velikého* (premiered on 25th January 2007 at the National Theatre in Prague). The performance mixed the elements of Baroque theatre with contemporary concepts.

*tigata*, published by Karl Ferdinand von Schertz, a church lawyer coming from the historical Moravian capital, the city of Olomouc. This treatise has so far in the Czech Republic been underestimated and is almost a forgotten work29, but acquired unprecedented popularity abroad, namely in the community of people interested in the history of vampirism, magic and related occult phenomena. The author does his best to address the question of how to deal with cases of vampirism in accordance with law, ethics and Catholic belief. Many cases of vampirism are documented here from older literature and based on alleged personal testimonies of his contemporaries.

Although Schertz's work is remarkably interesting also from the point of view of general cultural history, we must place emphasis especially on the classical motifs. We can divide them into several groups. The first group contains quotations from ancient, mainly Roman authors. Quite common are quotations from Justinian's Codex *Corpus iuris civilis*, which are of a truly professional nature and serve as an argument in controversial and questionable cases30. A great number of other quotations from Roman literature also appears in the text (Cicero, Horace, Juvenal, Ovid, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Virgil). Some quotations are adapted in accordance with the author's intention and context of the work, for example the form of Ovid's well-known verse from the Metamorphoses is adapted as follows: "Adeone terras iam rurales Astraea reliquit?"31 ("What virgin Astraea herself abandoned the rural districts?") The famous story about the house of ghosts in Athens known from the letter of Pliny the Younger (Plin., *Epist*. VII, 27) is also mentioned.

The author has profound knowledge of ancient history and realia. Some of them are mentioned directly (e.g. the person of the last Roman king Tarquinius Superbus), some through metaphoric references linked to ancient culture (e.g. *ostentaque Thessala* – "Thessalic apparitions"32 or *testis atticus* "witness of Attica"33). This epithet is used to praise the personality of Bohuslav Balbín, whom the author considers to be "the most educated historian in our lands".

The abundance of classical references that is also so apparent in the book, written not by a sophisticated academician and scholar, but a lawyer, i.e. man performing a purely practical job, is testimony for us to the intensity of the classical influence on Czech Baroque culture.


<sup>29</sup> This situation changed for the better in recent years thanks to the key groundbreaking monograph of the Italian researcher G. Maiello, *Vampýrismus a Magia posthuma*, Praha 2014.

<sup>30</sup> The author was a lawyer, so Roman law, including *Corpus iuris civilis,* represented the es-

## 3.5 The ancient history as a medium of satire

The Latin work of Bohuslav Balbín *Trophaeum sepulchrale in Bernardum Bořitam de Martinic supremum bugravium*, holds a significant position in Baroque literature of the Czech lands. The satirical poem written probably in the early 1670s was considered lost for a long time and eventually the manuscript was found and was edited and translated brilliantly by the excellent Czech classical philologist, Josef Hejnic34. The aim of Trophaeum is to present a satirical criticism of Supreme Prague Burgrave Bernhard Ignaz Martinitz, whom Balbín accuses of impoverishing the Czech lands, plundered by the army and suffering from common injury and political oppression. The poem is written in the form of four fictional epigraphs, dedicated to the Prague burgrave by four estates – clergy, nobility, town people and intellectuals. The poem bears the features of quite sharp satire going beyond the limits of intellectual political disputation. The classical influence is evident both in the form and content. The ancient motifs could be divided in the following groups:

1. The first group of ancient motifs represents direct quotations from ancient authors – Seneca, Suetonius, Tacitus, Horace etc. In some cases, these quotations are directly and explicitly indicated with the name of their author, but in other cases are incorporated in the text without any mention of the author. Such practice of exploiting classical quotations is usual in Czech literature and goes back to the early Middle Ages, including the first Czech chronicles, e.g. the oldest Czech chronicle *Chronica Boemorum* written by canon Kosmas of Prague.

Sometimes the author even develops these quotations in creative manner to underline the irony of his verses:

Leaving the assembly he could say together with Tiberius: What a nation of people born to be slaves, even suiciders! (III, 119-122)35

In this case the sentence originally quoted by Tacitus, ascribed to Tiberius, about the nation of citizens born to be slaves, is upgraded by the word *exitium* (destruction).

2. Balbín's satire itself is written in classical form. The title itself refers to antiquity. The Greek word *tropaion* in Greece and later in Rome (in Latin form *trophaeum)* marked state monuments, mostly built in memory of victory, where the plundered war armour was hanged, later decorated with reliefs.

<sup>34</sup> Hejnic 1988.

<sup>35</sup> O gentem ad servitium (immo exitium) natam, ex comitiis cum Tiberio dicere posset!

Balbín's text is written in the form of a eulogy36, i. e. a commemorative epigraph that in antiquity was placed at the plinth of statues or tombstones of prominent persons. The classical nature of Balbín's poem is underlined with ancient formulas, e.g. invocation *Piis Manibus* (1,1), i.e. to Divine Manes, Roman spirits of deceased. This formula was widely used on Roman tombstones in the form *Dis Manibus*, mostly abbreviated to DM37. The text also bears another typical formula of Roman epitaphs, namely addressed to travellers. Since ancient tombstones were placed near roads, their epitaphs were intended to inspire people passing nearby to commemorate the deceased or to stop for a while for some philosophical meditation about the transient nature of life. But Balbín uses this address to travellers in the satirical38 sense:

Repose, pilgrim, stop here! Also Bernhard Ignaz, count of Martinitz, sacrifice of preoccupations, useless to him, but destructive to all people, will repose here. (II, 1-4)39

3. Most classical references in Balbín's poem are connected with ancient history. These references concern not only the character of the text (political satire), but at the same time Balbín's profound interest in history. He not only published his own historical works, but also carefully studied the works of humanist and ancient historians. Thanks to his excellent knowledge of languages he read most of them in the original. As we have already mentioned above, he was an enthusiastic follower of Dutch humanist, classical philologist and historian Justus Lipsius, he mentioned him in his monumental work *Epitome historica rerum Bohemicarum* and also in his poetry – he even dedicated one of his Latin poems to Lipsius. But contrary to Lipsius' favour of historiography of the Silver Age of Roman literature (Tacitus), he gave his literary preference to Livy. Balbín's interest in Livy is explained partly by the development of Livian studies in Europe at that time, partly by a patriotic perception of the historiography by Livy (Kučera, Rak 1983: 118) that was very close to Balbín and his own concept of historiography. But we dare to offer our own hypothesis to explain this choice for stylistic reasons. Livy belongs in the canon of classic authors of the Golden Age of Roman literature and Balbín as dedicated classicist and teacher at Jesuit gymnasiums of course insisted on his stylistic


<sup>36</sup> As a literarary genre the eulogy developed in the 16th century in Italy (Balbín 1988: 131).

superiority, whereas Tacitus as an author of the Silver Age had not yet been acknowledged as a key school author. On the other hand, regarding the number of ancient quotations, the most quoted ancient authors in Trophaeum are Tacitus and Sallustius. This means that although Balbín did not appreciate the style of Tacitus, he still accepted his philosophy of history and exploited lots of his ideas and historical facts. Hejnic (1992: 182) affirms that the way Tacitus presents the reign of Tiberius40 directly served Balbín as a model for the description of Martinitz's operation in the Czech lands. Balbín demonstrates a truly excellent knowledge of historical sources and facts not only from classical antiquity. For example, his surprising reference to *praefectus praetorio* Rufinus, operating during the reign of Western Roman Emperors Arcadius (II, 121-124), also provides us – just as in the case of theatre (cf. Chapter 3.3 of our study) – a testimony of detailed knowledge about Late Antiquity, that usually was not a favourite subject of even well-educated classicists in the 17th century. The only historical inaccuracy is the reference to Syracusan tyrant Dionysius, whom he introduces as the ruler of Corinth41.

Oh, how cruel a tyrant Dionysius was, after he lost his rule in Syracuse42. But Bernard was even worse, he treated the kingdom like a school, where as a cruel teacher he tortured poor people with sweat, tears and blood. (IV, 168-173)43

Most of the historical references concerns the emperors of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, mostly Tiberius, Caligula, Nero or cruel *praefectus praetorio* Seianus, operating under the reign of Tiberius. Here Balbín demonstrates blistering irony, but also – to some extent – personal courage, if he compares a top politician of the country with the darkest figures of ancient Rome, who in historical tradition became symbols of despotism, perfidy, cruelty and perversion. Especially Balbín's comparison of Martinitz with Nero, the first and probably the most known persecutor of Christians seems to be really courageous, even more in the context of


<sup>40</sup> But Balbín in his presentation of Martinitz's operation in Bohemia refers not only to Tacitus, but also to other emperors of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, whose oppressive reign and perpetrated atrocities are described in detail by Tacitus in his *Annales* and *Historiae.*

Catholic Baroque culture, where Nero, of course, was perceived as an absolutely negative figure. The gallery of ignominious ancient historical figures, who are compared with Martinitz, is concluded with Roman dictator Lucius Cornelius Sulla.

## 3. Conclusion

Regarding our text analysis of selected authors, we can conclude, that classical tradition is not only an accompanying ornament, but also an apparent constitutive element of Czech Renaissance literature, whether written in Czech, Latin or German. Classical influence is surprisingly even more extensive in the Baroque period. Such a statement casts a significantly different light on the Baroque that in Czech historiography is due to the trauma of the Counter-Reformation traditionally perceived in a simplistic manner as "times of darkness", a period of cultural decline and religious fanaticism and intolerance. The strong influence of classical tradition is a testimony to us not only of the high standard of scholarship and culture, but also the profound education of the middle and higher classes. The plentiful occurrence of motifs taken from ancient history in humanist and Baroque literature is evidence of a highly developed intellectual life. Motifs from ancient history are not only enumerated and mentioned as pure facts by authors, but they are exploited with sophisticated intention as a medium of allegory, satire, irony or, in contrast, with emphasis upon highly praised virtues. Leading authors of that era (Balbín, Comenius) exhibit not only a thorough scholastic knowledge of a factual account of history, but with profound insight they also accept the philosophy of ancient historians, they are strongly influenced by their ideas or the ideas of their later interpreters and commentators, e.g. Justus Lipsius. The acceptance of classical tradition in the Czech cultural milieu, witnessed by the evident use of ancient motifs in all genres of literature is testimony to the Czech Lands being a part of Europe, its common history and national culture, based on the classical and Jewish-Christian tradition, again interpreted by Renaissance Humanism. There are hardly better words to conclude our study than those of Czech historian Josef Pekař: "The autonomy of Czech development is substantially determined by the spiritual influence and tradition of Europe".

## Bibliography





## Abstract

The study deals with the influence of the classical tradition on Czech literature of the Early Modern Period (Renaissance, Baroque). The article demonstrates this influence through examples of the use of selected motifs from ancient history in all of the main genres of the literature of that era: homily, legend, school drama, poetry and educational literature. The study also analyses the educational background of the authors and readers of the era and their attitude to ancient history; the ways of mediation and making use of ancient motifs in the literature; and the influence of ancient historiography on Renaissance and Baroque culture and interpretation of history.

*Keywords:* Humanism, Renaissance, Baroque, Latin literature, Czech literature.

## Poetic Mapping of the Polish Crown at the Turn of the 16th and 17th Centuries and Its Relation to Cartographic Imitation in Renaissance Poetry

Jakub Niedźwiedź

I like maps, because they lie. Because they give no access to the vicious truth. Because great-heartedly, good-naturedly they spread before me a world not of this world. (Wisława Szymborska, *Map*, 2012 Translated from Polish by Clare Cavanagh)

## Introduction1

In the second half of the 16th century the untrammelled growth of Polish literature began. It was especially visible in lyric poetry. In late Renaissance Poland (ca. 1570-1630) no less than a hundred printed and manuscript lyric books, both in Polish and Latin, were issued. This development of Polish poetry coincided with the growth of using maps among the Polish elites of that time, and probably all members of the highest class were carto-literate (Buczek 1966, Alexandrowicz 2012, Łopatecki 2017). As a result, poets, who were the members of the political and social elite, started to use new methods of writing about space. They were clearly inspired by the map and ways of using cartography (cf. Conley 1997; Padrón 2004; Kivelson 2006; Cachey 2007; Conley 2007; Conley 2011; Piechocki 2015; Putten 2017). In my paper I am going to examine this question.

The described marriage of two arts, poetry and cartography, is a very interesting and not yet well-researched phenomenon that appeared in the culture of the

<sup>1</sup> This work was supported by the National Science Centre (Poland) under the Grant, *The Relationship Between Polish Literature and Cartography in the 16th and the First Half of the 17th Centuries* (*Związki literatury polskiej i kartografii w XVI i I poł. XVII w.*) UMO-2014/15/B/ HS2/01104 (K/PBO/000337), DEC-2014/2015/B/HS2/01104.

Jakub Niedźwiedź, Jagiellonian University, Poland, jakub.niedzwiedz@uj.edu.pl, 0000-0003-4472-8151 FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Jakub Niedźwiedź, *Poetic Mapping of the Polish Crown at the Turn of the 16th and 17th Centuries and Its Relation to Cartographic Imitation in Renaissance Poetry*, pp. 117-136, © 2020 Author(s), CC BY 4.0 International, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-198-3.07, in Giovanna Siedina (edited by), *Essays on the Spread of Humanistic and Renaissance Literary Civilization in the Slavic World (15th-17th Century)*, © 2020 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress.com), ISSN 2612-7679 (online), ISBN 978-88-5518-198-3 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-198-3

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the subsequent parts of my paper, I would like to take a look at it from the perspective of the history of literature. I shall attempt to answer the two following questions: how did the cartographic impulse influence Polish literature in the years 1580-1620 and how did contemporary poets map the Kingdom of Poland. To this end, I analysed the output of six Polish poets whose works were popular at that time. They include Jan Kochanowski (1530- 1584), Sebastian Fabian Klonowic (1545-1602), Kasper Miaskowski (1549-1622), Sebastian Petrycy of Pilzno (1554-1626), Szymon Szymonowic (1558-1629) and Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski (1595-1640). The poems under analysis were all printed within 41 years, between 1584 and 1625.

The paper consists of three parts. First, I analyse the poem *Flis* by Klonowic (1595) about the Vistula River which I compare with a map of the Dnieper River drawn in the 1590s. In this part, I demonstrate how the authors of each of the text apply tools and *topoi* common for literature and cartography and how the written word corresponds with visual representation typical for cartography. In the second part, I argue that Polish poets created poetical maps using the rules of *imitatio* and *mimesis*. For early modern poets, the act of literary creation was a process of imitation, inspired by the Ancient literary criticism (cf. Sarnowska-Temeriusz 1982: XXXVII-XLIV; Michałowska 1999: 29-30; Fulińska 2000). As a result, poets writing about space could imitate nature (this type of imitation I call *mimesis*) or a map (this mode I call *imitatio*). At the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, the second model of imitation (*imitatio*) is clearly visible in Polish poetry. In the third part of the paper, I show how Polish poets rendered the polycentric character of their vast country.

The first part of the paper answers the question if in Polish poetry of the time there are references to cartography. In the second part, I answer the question about rhetorical tools which helped to forge poetical maps. Finally, the third part reveals the purposes to which imitation of maps was useful for Polish writers of the time.

Research about the impact of cartography on early modern poetry has been carried out since the 1980s. The methodology of my paper is partially based on methodology established by American and Western-European researchers (Padrón 2004; Conley 2007: 401-411; Cachey 2007: 450-460; Roberts 2010: 145- 160; Veneri 2012: 29-48; Italiano 2016: 32-50; Engberg-Pedersen 2017; Piechocki 2019). However, I propose some new elements which can enrich previous analysis related to early modern relationships of literature and cartography. First of all, my paper is based on Polish poetry which is not known to Western researchers of Renaissance culture. Secondly, most of the researchers, who investigate the mapliterature relationships are focused on prose, drama, emblems or epic poetry (cf. Doroszlaï 1998: 45-72; Bouzrara, Conley 2007: 427-437; Reitinger 2007: 438-449; Safier, Mendes dos Santos 2007: 461-468). Only a few of them are focused on lyric poetry, while this study is based almost entirely on lyric poems (cf. Niayesh 2006; Piechocki 2019)2 . Thirdly, using these poems I try to show how the authors from

<sup>2</sup> It is worth mentioning that in English lyric poetry at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, references to maps are extremely rare. Cf. "Many of the major Elizabethan poets, however,

Central-Eastern Europe dealt with the problem of defining their place in Europe and the world. They attempted to describe their country: the polycentric Commonwealth, one of the biggest countries in Europe and simultaneously a non-colonial imperium. Fourthly, I turn my attention to the concept of imitation (*mimesis* and *imitatio*). This is a crucial aesthetic category used in the literary production in the 15th-18th centuries. Thus far it has not played a part in the discussion about the relationship between literature and cartography in early modern Europe.

### 1. Two maps of two rivers: a case study

In 1613, the first known edition of a wall map of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was published in the printing house of Willem Jansz Blaeu. It was engraved by a well-known map engraver, Hessel Gerritsz (cf. Alexandrowicz 2012: 78; Schilder 2013: 195). Today, it is commonly referred to as the Radziwiłł map of Lithuania because its initiator and patron was a Lithuanian magnate, Prince Nicholas Christopher Radziwiłł "the Orphan" (1547-1616). This remarkable work of Polish and Lithuanian cartography was developed in the 1580s and 1590s by a team led probably by Maciej Strubicz (cf. Buczek 1966: 58-60; Kempa 2006-2007: 425-428).

The Hessel Gerritsz wall map consists of two maps, a big one and a small one (Fig. 1). The main map represents the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, but it also covers those regions that had belonged to the Duchy in the past. Therefore, it depicts the area between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea, that is the territories of today's Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, part of Poland and Russia, and several other countries.

The other map placed on the Hessel Gerritsz wall map is a representation of the lower course of the Dnieper River, from Czerkasy to its mouth in the Black Sea. This hydrographic map is put into two narrow strips on the right side of the bigger map. This smaller map is indeed very interesting (Alexandrowicz 2012: 83, 86-87; Schilder 2013: 214). It meticulously depicts the reaches of the river, the location of the famous Dnieper Rapids and river islands, cities and military objects along its banks, and the river delta. It might seem that this map is aimed at people who would like to sail on the Dnieper's waters. Apparently, however, this map of the river was not only designed for practical purposes. It is possible practicality was not its primary purpose at all. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the Dnieper was a transport and military route for the Zaporozhian Cossacks, who needed no maps to lead their attacks on the Tartar and Ottoman settlements on the shores of the Black Sea; certainly not such a map as this. Along the banks of the river, the author placed several dozen longer and shorter comments

rarely or never refer to maps, a fact that once again underscores the novelty of elaborate geographical and cartographic conceits in a Jacobean poet such as John Donne: neither Thomas Wyatt nor Henry Howard, the Earl of Surrey, nor George Herbert, for instance, ever employs the map conceit". Turner 2007: 413.

in Latin that described cities and castles, the life of Cossacks, and the Rapids. The following comment placed next to the Cherkasy town, on the right bank of Dnieper, serves as an example:

## Czyrkassy

Tradunt plerique Czyrkassos esse reliquias veterum illorum Cymbrorum quia Homero Cymerii vocantur; feruntque eos magna ex parte Machometana religione uti quod ego affirmare non audeo cum ominibus constet eos Ruthenos esse Graecamque religionem profiteri (*Dnieper Map* 1613).

Cherkasy. Many authors write that Cherkasy is a relic of the ancient people of Cimbri because Homer called them Cimmerians. Some also write that most of them are Muslims, which I cannot confirm because everything suggests that all of them are Ruthenians of the Greek faith3 .

The map also contains references to historical events; mainly wars and battles. This is why the map of the lower Dnieper should be treated as a detailed geographical-cultural study.

In 1595, at about the same time as the Radziwiłł Map was being prepared, a poem entitled *Flis* (*Rafting*)4 , by Sebastian Fabian Klonowic, was published in Cracow (Karpiński 1984: 16). Klonowic was a burgher from Lublin who lived in L'viv and Zamość. He was one of the leading Polish poets of his time. His *Rafting* describes a journey on a ship called *komięga*<sup>5</sup> floating down the Vistula River from Warsaw to Gdańsk. Between the 16th and the 18th centuries the Vistula was the main communication route in the Western part of the Kingdom of Poland. It was used to transport grain to Gdańsk, and from there the grain was exported to West-European countries. In the preface, Klonowic revealed the motives for this poem:

Iżem tedy dla szyprów naszych polskich i dla uciechy pływającej po Wiśle napisła tego *Flisa*, pływając też sam po tejże rzece do Gdańska, żeby sobie uczciwy człowiek na szkucie nie tesknił i nie melankolizował (…) (Klonowic 1984: 31).

Having sailed on this very river to Gdańsk myself, I wrote this *Rafting* for our Polish skippers and for the joy of those who sail on the waters of Vistula, so that an honest man on a punt would not yearn or become melancholy (…).


The poem consists of three main parts (Karpiński 1984: 11-13). The first one is about the inconveniences of sailing, the second concerns the necessity of trading all over the world (with all its advantages and disadvantages), while the last one contains a list of municipalities that rafters floating down on the Vistula pass by on their way from Warsaw to Gdańsk. It is not, however, a mechanical enumeration of places. The poet provided elaborate comments, quoted curiosities and generally showed off his erudition, which is specially noted at the beginning of the third part of his poem:

Ukazęć dorgę do Motławy prostą, Będę u ciebie wodzem i starostą, Od Warszawskiego aż do Zielonego Mostu gdańskiego. Mianujęć miasta, wsi, kępy, ostrowy I o rzekach ci dam rozsądek zdrowy, Gdzie która wpada, gdzie w którą się dzika Wisła połyka. (Klonowic 1984: 68-69)

I will show you a straight way to the Motława River, I will be your leader and guide from the Warsaw Bridge to the Green Bridge in Gdańsk. I will name towns, villages, islets and isles, and I will give you wise explanations about rivers: where they flow into the Vistula river and where the wild Vistula swallows each of them.

Like the author of the Radziwiłł Map of Dnieper, Klonowic listed successive localities and river mouths, providing some of them with elaborate comments. For instance, at the bifurcation of the Vistula into the Nogat (one of the delta branches of the Vistula river) he related the legend about the latter's origin (Klonowic 1984: 77-78).

Although at the end of the poem he wrote that "totus ergo libellus nihil docet aliud quam securitatem navigandi et mercaturam utiliter exercendi in Vistula fluvio" ("the whole book teaches nothing else than safe sailing and beneficial trade on the Vistula River") (Klonowic 1984: 88), it seems that his chief aim was to provide his readers with intellectual entertainment. Two reissues of the poem indicate that readers appreciated his efforts (Estreicher 1903: 303-304).

Presumably, there is no direct connection between Klonowic's poem and the Dnieper Map included in the Radziwiłł Map. However, the similarity between the two texts is striking: both of them were created in the same period; both speak of the two biggest rivers in the Kingdom of Poland that flow to two main seas between which the country lies (which will be discussed below); and both works are primarily studies of geographical and cultural character and only secondarily should they be treated as texts designed for practical purposes (namely travelling). Even the physical layout of these texts is alike: there are comments and marginal notes placed along the main course (of the river or the text) (Fig. 2a, 2b). And finally, a close relationship between cartography and literature can be observed in both works. The cartographer feels the urge to annotate his graphic representation, although there is nothing surprising about that since even the medieval *mappae mundi* contained extensive glosses (Woodward 1987: 286-287; Jacob 2006: 189, 238, 249-251). However, the poet's need to map in a poetic work was a relatively new phenomenon in poetry. Klonowic clearly felt the need to compile a sort of topographic representation of what he saw.

Several other Polish poets of this time designed poetical maps similar to that of Klonowic. They belong to the group of many other European poets who did so in the second half of the 16th century and the first half of the 17th century.

## 2. Cartographic imitatio and mimesis in late Renaissance Polish poetry

The literary output of the six aforementioned poets drew my attention to this context because of the ubiquitous presence of geographical references in their works. They are simply littered with geographical names. Works often contain antique toponyms, although until the end of the 16th century contemporary names were prevalent. They comprise names of cities, rivers and geographical regions, mostly from the territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. There is such an abundance of place and waterway names that the reader may be under the impression that the poets of that age drew enormous pleasure from using toponyms, as if suddenly a new dictionary appeared before them, one that contained hundreds of words that were previously unknown and that brought new possibilities for poetic language. In this respect, Polish poetry is not alone. A similar delight in using names, particularly oriental ones, can be observed in Christopher Marlow's *Tamburlaine the Great* (Bate, Smith 2005: 13':56''-15':57''). In contrast, Polish poets were mostly attracted by their native geographical names.

It is easy to imagine that the main source for this new dictionary was cartography. To date, no extensive research into the knowledge of maps among the intellectual elites of the 16th and 17th-century Commonwealth has been conducted because scholars have focused on the production of maps rather than on their distribution and use (cf. Buczek 1966, Alexandrowicz 2012). However, based on the fragmentary data we have, it is possible to say that, as in other European countries, the use of maps was becoming ever more common.

This process was particularly intense between the 1570s and 1580s, partly thanks to King Stephen Báthory, who displayed great interest in cartography. In 1580, one of the correspondents of Abraham Ortelius reported to him that he knew "presently the Polish King Stephen often looks at *Theatrum orbis terrarum*" (Ortelius 1883: 233; Alexandrowicz 2012: 59). Maps and atlases were noted in inventories of contemporary book collections. In 1541 and 1551 the professors of Cracow University ordered a terrestrial and a celestial globe from Gerardus Mercator to be used as teaching aids. A couple of decades later (1599 and 1603) they purchased two other globes made by Willem Blaeu in Amsterdam (Waltoś 1999: 86-87). In the university library there was a collection of atlases, among them a portolan by Battista Agnese (Agnese 1540)6 .

Contact with maps, direct or indirect, changed the contemporary Polish poets' way of thinking. This was reflected in the need to translate maps into literary texts. A cartographic translation could have been analysed with the application of several categories available to the humanists of the second half of the 16th century. The most important ones are imitation and mimesis.

The question of imitating was widely discussed in 16th century literary theory. It was a fundamental category in literature, painting, sculpture, music, and so forth. This is why the notions of imitation and mimesis can also refer to cartographic creation and to those literary texts in which a relationship with cartography can be discerned. A broader discussion of cartographic imitation requires an independent study. In this paper, I would like to present a differentiation proposed by a Polish scholar, Barbara Otwinowska (Otwinowska 1998: 344; Fulińska 2000: 21).

In Renaissance literary theory, the terms *imitatio* and *mimesis* were often used interchangeably. Otwinowska notes that the terms could mean both imitating nature and imitating the artefacts of culture (*imitatio auctorum*). Therefore, she suggests that today the term *mimesis* refers to the imitation of nature, and the term *imitatio* to the renaissance authors' imitation of antique texts. This model is, of course, a simplification, since imitating nature always takes place within a certain literary genre. This implies that imitating nature requires the application of illustrative figures of thought, such as description or hypotyposis, and established genres, such as isolario, hodoeporicon, sonnet etc.). The use of rhetorical figures means that an imitation of nature is also an imitation of already existing texts. Nevertheless, it is possible to differentiate between such literary-cartographic works in which the emphasis is placed on the creation of the effect of reality (*l'effet de réel*), and other works of the same kind, in which intertextuality is more important.

Let us take a look at two examples of a lyrical representation of the world: a mimetic one by Kasper Miaskowski and an imitative one by Jan Kochanowski. The poem *Urania* by Kasper Miaskowski (published in 1612) describes regions that pay tribute to newly born Jesus. Here, the mapping can be compared to photographic zooming. Depicting the same piece of land from different perspectives on one map became possible due to the reception of Ptolemy in the 15th century and the development of cartography in the next. Humanist poets began to imitate this solution in literature, and Miaskowski was one of them. The poet begins with a large-scale map of the world on which only whole continents are recognizable (Africa, Asia and Europe).

O Nim się dowie Murzyn, Indowie I Atlas z Maury

<sup>6</sup> The book belonged earlier to the royal library of king Sigismund II Augustus. It is worth to mention that the image of the globe is represented on one of the arrases from his famous collection of tapestries. Cf. Hennel-Bernasikowa, Piwocka 2017: 424-431.

Przyjmie Go z gaury, I Tagus złoty Przyjmie z ochoty. (Miaskowski 1995: 58, 17-22)

A Negro and Hindu | Will learn about him | And Atlas from Mauritania | Will receive him together with the giaour, | And the golden Tagus | Will receive him gladly.

In the subsequent stanzas the poet focused chiefly on four regional maps. They covered Poland, the Balkans, Byzantium conquered by Turks, and Rome. Describing Europe, Miaskowski uses metonymy: the names of European regions were replaced with rivers and seas: the Tag, Vistula, Danube and Tiber, and the Black Sea (Miaskowski 1995: 59, 29-46).

A different means was employed by Jan Kochanowski, who in song II 24 (published in 1585), drew a more precise map of Europe:

O mnie Moskwa i będą wiedzieć Tatarowie, I róznego mieszkańcy świata Anglikowie, Mnie Niemiec i waleczny Hiszpan, mnie poznają, Którzy głęboki strumień Tybrowy pijają. (Kochanowski 2008: 102-103, 17-20)

Moscow and the Tartars will find out about me And the English who live in a far-off country, Germans, brave Spaniards will hold me in high esteem, And those who drink water from the Tiber's deep stream. (Kochanowski 2018: 142, 17-20)

At first glance, it appears that the poetic maps of Miaskowski and Kochanowski are mimetic in a similar way: they repeat a finger's journey on a map. Seemingly, both of them are a reflection of the 'real' Europe. But it is not the case in Kochanowski's map. The stanza quoted above comes from a poem that is a faithful imitation of the famous ode II 20 by Horace (*Non usitata nec tenui ferar*), in which Kochanowski replaced the names of ancient regions (cf. Ziomek 1989: 103-105; Niedźwiedź 2016: 253-260):

me Colchus et qui dissimulat metum Marsae cohortis Dacus et ultimi noscent Geloni, me peritus discet Hiber Rhodanique potor. (Horatius 2008: 66, 17-20)

The Colchian shall know me, the Dacian too, Who hides in dread of Marsian cohorts, and Remote Geloni; learned Spaniards, Rhone-drinkers likewise, will be my scholars. (Horatius 1983: 208, 17-20)

Therefore, I would like to treat Miaskowski's poem as a model of mimetic literary mapping and Kochanowski's poem as imitative literary mapping.

When I distinguish these two ways of mapping (*mimesis* and *imitatio*) I do not only intend to classify poetic cartographical representations because I am convinced that these two terms refer to two different strategies of speaking of space. The first one may be termed exploration, and the other one – countermapping. In both cases we deal with cartographic persuasion. The authors of these poetic maps strive to make the reader warm to a particular view of the world. Scale, order and hierarchy are used here. Some elements were enlarged, some reduced, some completely omitted. These poetic maps have their own hidden assumptions and their own rhetoric, which was described by J.B. Harley with reference to 'realistic' maps (Harley 1991a: 65-71; 1991b: 57-76). The main function of the other type, namely imitation, is polemic. Here, counter-mapping consists in rebelling against notions of the shape of the continent commonly used in Western and Southern Europe. Kochanowski's counter-mapping is directed not against Horace, but against 16th-century European metageography (cf. Niedźwiedź 2016: 269-272).

The new representation has the form of a palimpsest. The poet redraws an already existing map. Remembering the old map is essential to understand the new one. Song II 24 gains full meaning if the reader knows Horace's ode II 20. In Kochanowski's case, the most important thing is not the result: the opus, the map, but this gesture of drawing the map anew. It is a gesture of opposition to existing cartographic representations as well as the hierarchy of European states and literatures. This gesture has a more significant effect, that is, the highlighting and self-fashioning of the poet-cartographer (cf. Greenblatt 1984: 8-9; Conley 1997: 2). Kochanowski thus says: look, I and my poetry, written in Polish, also exist on the map of Europe. At the same time, a new map is being created, one on which the centre and the outskirts are located in a new way.

## 3. Centres and peripheries of the Polish Crown

In poetic cartography practiced in 1580-1625, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is often depicted as the centre of Europe. This is most evident in Kochanowski's poem, but such shifts are also discernible in the poetic output of Maciej Stryjkowski, Miaskowski, Petrycy, Klonowic and Sarbiewski. They did not necessarily intend to show that the Polish-Lithuanian state was the most important of European countries, but rather to accentuate its presence on the continent. Polish poets knew that to be on a map, especially in a central place, means simply to exist. To some extent, in their eyes, the map gained the function of a fetish, which political maps retain even today, together with hierarchisation.

Hierarchy is also visible in the mapping of the Commonwealth. Usually, poets shaped its territory using a binary opposition: centre–outskirts. The representations of the latter are not particularly surprising. The peripheries were determined mostly by references to wars on the frontiers of the Commonwealth. Cartographic metonymy was frequently used in such cases. The names of rivers replaced the names of regions where military action had taken place. Therefore, the Daugava River is in the north, the Dnieper River is in the west and the Dniester River is in the south, effectively mapping the respective conflicts with Sweden, Muscovy and Turkey. This is how Szymonowic, Petrycy and Miaskowski, among others, defined the outskirts.

Representing space in such a way, based mainly on references to the river system, is a procedure typical of early modern cartography and chorography (Niedźwiedź 2019: 69-73). In Polish literature, it was initiated as early as in the 15th century by a chronicler, Jan Długosz (1415-1480). At the beginning of *Annales* (1480) the historian included an extensive chorography of the Kingdom of Poland, in which, interestingly, he was the first Pole to refer to Claudius Ptolemy's treatise on drawing maps. Długosz's main point of reference was rivers (Niedźwiedź 2019: 71). His chronicle was very popular and through numerous adaptations, influenced the manner in which later authors wrote about Polish history and geography. It is possible, then, that apart from ancient authors, it was Długosz who contributed to such a hydrographic way of mapping the territory of Poland in the poetry of the 16th and 17th centuries. However, such mapping was applied not only to Poland.

In his Ode IV 1 *Ad equites Polonos cum montem Carpatum redux ex Italia inviseret* (*To Polish knights, when the poet looked out from the Carpathians during his return journey from Italy*) written around 1625, a famous neo-Latin poet, Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski presented himself as a prophet looking on both sides of the Carpathians (Sarbiewski 1980: 298). It is a work concerning the contemporary political situation. On the south side of the mountains, Sarbiewski sees Hungary and Transylvania devastated by the constant attacks of the Ottoman Empire:

Hic inde laevos despice Carpato, Polone, campos, quos pecorum ferax Dravusque Savusque et bicornis Frugifero secat Ister amni. (Sarbiewski 1980: 300, 29-33)

Take a look, Pole, from the Carpathians | Onto the vast fields cut by | The wild Drava and Sava and by the fertile stream | Of the double-branched Ister7 .

On the northern side lies the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. According to the poet, if it only remains united in the one Catholic faith and not divided in terms of creed like Hungary, it will defeat the Muslim Turks charging from the South and the Protestant Swedes attacking from the North:

Noster nivoso Vistula Carpato, Nosterque ab ipso fonte Borysthenes, Labentur in Pontum, nec Austrum Aut Gothicum metuemus Arcton. (Sarbiewski 1980: 300, 57-60)

<sup>7</sup> Ister – the Danube river.

Ours is Vistula from the snowy Carpathians, | Ours is Borysthenes8 flowing from its spring | To Pontus. We shall fear | Neither Auster9 nor Arctos10.

The geographical (or cartographic) symbols of the Kingdom of Poland here are the Carpathian Mountains and two huge rivers, mentioned at the beginning of this paper11.

The centres, however, are more interesting than the outskirts. In 1612, Sebastian Petrycy of Pilzno, a philosopher and physician, published a volume of over 130 poems in which he patterned his poetry after Kochanowski's method of imitation (as in Song II 24). All of Petrycy's works were translations or paraphrases of odes and epodes of Horace's. In his paraphrase of Ode III 30 (*Exegi monumentum*), the poet polonized all the toponyms and realities from Horace's poem:

Dotąd u ludzi potomnych ma chwała W wymownych uściech będzie stała, Póki na Wawel w trzechset osób radny Wstępuje lachów dządźca wielowładny. Chwalić mnie będą: kędy Wisła bieży, Kędy zaczętych Lachów Gniezdo leży, Gdzie Dniepr, gdzie Odra, gdzie Don dna niemiany, Nie będę w uściech lackich zapomniany. (Petrycy 2006: 164, 7-14)

My fame shall last among the future generations, | Until the mighty ruler of the Lachs12 enters the Wawel Castle | Together with three hundred senators. | I will be praised: where the Vistula runs, | Where Gniezno, the primary Nest of the Lechs lies, | Where the Dnieper, the Oder, and the bottomless Don, | In the Lachs' mouth I won't be forgotten.

Although in this, and in other poems by Petrycy, a special place is given to his beloved Cracow and its University, he did not strive to emphasise this city as the only central point. He mentioned Gniezno, the oldest capital of Poland, which he linked with the origins of the Polish nation; and he did make an allusion to the biggest city of the Commonwealth, located at the Vistula outlet in Gdańsk. In other authors' poems this polycentrality is even more evident.


Kasper Miaskowski came from Greater Poland and maybe this is why in his poetry there is virtually no mention of Cracow (the capital of Poland), but he does mention the capitals of voivodeships and bishoprics: Poznań, Włocławek and Sandomierz. Sebastian Fabian Klonowic devoted most of his (already quoted) poem, *Rafting*, to Warsaw and Gdańsk. Another famous geographical poem by Klonowic is even more telling. Here, I refer to *Roxolania* written in Latin and published in Cracow in 1584. In this poem, Klonowic mapped the Eastern parts of the Crown, most of which is in modern-day Ukraine. For him, the main city of this region was L'viv, but he also remembered the former capital of Ruthenia, that is, Kyiv (Klonowic 1996: 96-98), just as in the piece quoted above, Petrycy had remembered Gniezno. Additionally, Klonowic presented a detailed description of his home-city, Lublin and Zamość. For Szymon Szymonowic, another poet from that region, who like Klonowic, was a professor of the Zamojski Academy, there were several centres and they included L'viv and Zamość.

Reading the poems of these poets *en bloc*, one can see the multitude of centres. There is no single point on the map that would be evidently indicated as the main one. There are several places important from the authors' point of view. This considerably weakens the tension between the centre and the periphery and creates a different type of relation: the interior and the outskirts. In the following epochs from the 19th century onwards, these outskirts are referred to as *Kresy*, that is borderlands. The most important issue, however, is that this polycentric character of poetic maps reflects the federal system of the Commonwealth. This 'federality' concerned not only the Polish-Lithuanian union, but also the structure of the Polish Crown.

It was a vast country, one of the largest in Europe. Internally, it was deeply diverse in respect to politics, law, ethnicities, religions, languages and histories. Many regions (e.g. Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, Royal Prussia or Vohlyn) had their own political and juridical autonomy and their local centres. The national and ethnic composition of these regions was also complex. These places were populated by Poles and Ruthenians (ancestors of contemporary Ukrainians), Jews, Germans and Armenians who all used their own languages. The geographical landscape of the Polish-Lithuanian state was no less diverse than the social or political landscape. The scale of differences is rendered by contemporary maps, especially the Radziwiłł map and the most notable map of Renaissance Poland by Wacław Grodecki (Grodecki 1561; cf. Buczek 1966: 41-44)13. The written maps of each of the poets reflect this feeling of the federal and polycentric character of the Polish Crown.

<sup>13</sup> However, it is impossible to point out any particular maps the poets consulted while writing their poems. This lack of the evidence of referring to particular cartographic sources is also visible in other literatures, e.g. Spanish, cf. Pinet 2007: 475. There are only a few instances when Polish early modern writers point out their sources, e.g. Lubomirski who consulted atlases by Ptolemy and Ortelius when he wrote his poem about Tobias in 1683 (cf. Lubormirski 1995).

## Conclusion: a self-made map

The literary output of the poets discussed reflects well the phenomenon that Tom Conley termed as a self-made map (cf. Conley 1997: 1-22). Not every educated man in the 16th century had the proper tools to draw his own twodimensional maps. But almost every humanist had the skills necessary to create literature and it was in literature that the wide-ranging experiments with cartography took place. For it turned out that cartography provided humanists with a new way of imagining space and their place within it. What is more, it enabled them to express or to shape their identity not only through history but also through geography. So, when Kochanowski, Petrycy and Klonowic talk about space, that is, create a poetic map of Poland, this map is their own in a twofold sense. Firstly, they use it to define the territory of the community to which they belong; so, they are Poles or Ruthenians. Secondly, and more importantly, they fashion themselves as poets who control the space. This is the position assumed by Sarbiewski in the poem cited above. He examines Europe from a Carpathian summit and maps its Northern and Southern parts. However, Sarbiewski was not only a poet, but also an author of numerous poetic treatises, e.g. *De perfecta poesi sive Vergilius et Homerus*, 1626 (*About the Perfect Poetry, or Vergil and Homer*, cf. Sarbiewski 1954). This is why his mapping, together with other gestures applied by the poets discussed here, may be related to Renaissance poetics. A wellknown 16th-century theoretician of poetry, Julius Caesar Scaliger wrote in his *Poetices libri septem* (often referred to by Sarbiewski), that to create poetry is to imitate the divine act of creation; hence a poet is "like a second god" (Scaliger 1561: 3). And this is how it works in cartographic poems. The poet sees with the eyes of a cartographer, but at the same time looks at the world from God's perspective: a God's-eye view (Pickles 2004: 80).

## Illustrations

Figure 1. The Radziwiłł Map. *Magni Ducatus Lithuaniae caeterarumque regionum illi adiacen-tium exacta description*, ed. Hendrik Hondius II, Amsterdam 1636, <http://www. lithuanianmaps.com/Maps1624-51.html> (access: 30.11.2020; Creative Common). On the left side a map of the Dnieper River is depicted.

Figures 2a and 2b. A fragment of a map of the Dnieper River on the Radziwiłł Map and a fragment of the first edition of Klonowic's *Flis* (*Rafting*; Klonowic 1595: Hr1). Both prints represent two *descriptiones* (Lat. 'descriptions' or 'representations') of rivers from the upper reaches to the mouth. Both 'rivers' (expressed by cartographical and poetic means) are accompanied by meticulous comments on the margins.






## Abstract

The paper is devoted to the problem of imitation of maps in the late Renaissance Polish poetry (between 1580 and 1630). At the beginning of the paper, the author writes about the unprecedented growth of Polish lyric poetry at the time. He reminds that in that period the Polish elite – among the poets – was especially interested in cartography. In the next paragraphs, he reveals his sources and methodological approach. The main thesis of the paper is that the poets widely used map-based technics in constructing their poems. Imitation (Latin: *imitatio*) played a crucial role in this process. To illustrate the ways of map imitation, works of six poets were chosen: S.F. Klonowic, J. Kochanowski, K. Miaskowski, S. Petrycy, M.K. Sarbiewski and Sz. Szymonowic. The paper consists of three parts. In the first, a similarity between cartographical representation of a river in poetry and on a map is shown. On this example, the author shows the *topoi* used both in poems and maps. In the second part, the concept of imitation of a map is discussed. In the third part of the paper, the author shows how the late Renaissance poets described the territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The author argues they tried to render the polycentric character of their vast country. In conclusion, he draws a similarity between controlling space in poetry and maps. He suggests that the idea of ruling over space might be related to the 16th-century idea of a God-like poet.

*Keywords:* Renaissance Polish poetry, cartography, maps, imitation, mimesis.

## Humanism and the Renaissance in Recent Histories of Ukrainian Literature

Giovanna Siedina

1. Two Major post-Soviet Histories of Ukrainian Literature

The goal of the present article is to try and give an assessment as to how the reception of Humanism and the Renaissance is reflected in the history of Ukrainian literature of the post-Soviet period. As is well known, and as I briefly summarized in a previous article (Siedina 2018), in the last decades the study of the influence of Humanism and the Renaissance in Ukrainian literature has significantly increased. This is due in large part to political changes that have made a thorough reevaluation of the cultural past of Ukraine more possible.

In order to analyze how the new approach to Ukrainian cultural heritage is reflected in literature manuals, I examined two major histories of Ukrainian literature that were published after 2000, namely *Muza Roksolans'ka*<sup>1</sup> *. Ukrajins'ka literatura XVI-XVIII stolit'* by Valerij Ševčuk (Kyiv, "Lybid'", 2004-2005), in two volumes, and *Istorija ukrajins'koji literatury. U 12 tomach* (2014-) published by the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine Naukova Dumka. Thus far, only volumes 1-4 of the latter have been completed.

The two histories of Ukrainian literature differ in several respects. In the first place, the former is the work of only one author, and is devoted solely to early-

<sup>1</sup> The name *Muza Roksolans'ka* is taken from a book by the poet Ivan Ornovs'kyj.

Giovanna Siedina, University of Florence, Italy, giovanna.siedina@unifi.it, 0000-0002-3336-552X FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

Giovanna Siedina, *Humanism and the Renaissance in Recent Histories of Ukrainian Literature*, pp. 137-166, © 2020 Author(s), CC BY 4.0 International, DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-198-3.08, in Giovanna Siedina (edited by), *Essays on the Spread of Humanistic and Renaissance Literary Civilization in the Slavic World (15th-17th Century)*, © 2020 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress.com), ISSN 2612-7679 (online), ISBN 978- 88-5518-198-3 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-198-3

modern Ukrainian literature, from the 16th to the 18th century. The latter on the other hand, has been conceived as a collective work that should embrace the entire history of Ukrainian literature, from its beginnings in the 10th century to today. Moreover, there is a ten-year gap between the two histories. However, as studies in this area have not made much progress from 2004 to 2014, the gap does not constitute an obstacle to comparing their approaches.

## 2. Muza Roksolans'ka

The first volume of *Muza Roksolans'ka* bears the title *Renesans. Rannje Baroko*; the title is not followed by an indication of the time frame. Therefore, the whole of the examined period is characterized as Renaissance and subsequently Early Baroque. In order to verify this and to understand the chronological division of the examined period, let us turn to the *Introduction* (*Vstup*) (Ševčuk 2004- 2005, 1: 8-19). In it, nowhere does Ševčuk define his work a history of literature. On the contrary, he states that he does not consider his work to be a history of Ukrainian literature of the academic type. He rather views his work as a history-reflection on a period in which he did extensive research on his own, in the form of retrieving manuscripts and publishing (at times after translating them), writing articles and essays on single authors and/or works. Nonetheless, he links *Muza Roksolans'ka* to previous histories of Ukrainian literature and expresses his critical opinion of the works of several of his predecessors.

As is to be expected, the space devoted to the Renaissance is very little, as Ševčuk himself notes ("the Renaissance captured us less and entered our mentality less"2 ), while the Baroque period occupies most of the introduction. The author then turns to the history of early-modern Ukrainian literature, particularly the Baroque period, and reconstructs the main stages of its 'rediscovery' and study. In the first place he provides a brief outline of Dmytro Čyževs'kyj's *History of Ukrainian literature*. I will only focus on a few points here. As is known, Čyževs'kyj viewed the history of art as a history of styles, that is, of the changes that each epoch has brought about in the systems of artistic ideals, tastes and creations. The alternation of styles reminded him of the waves of the sea, and on this basis, he elaborated the theory of cultural waves, since the nature of styles changes, fluctuating between two different types that oppose each other3 . Čyževs'kyj himself recognized that such a scheme could not be applied without correctives, taking into account the historical material and the existence of transitional forms and styles that do not fit this mechanical schematization. This is especially true in the case of Ukrainian literature.

<sup>2</sup> "Ренесанс менше захопив нас і менше ввійшов у нашу ментальність" (Ševčuk 2004- 2005, 1: 8). Here and elsewhere, translations are mine unless otherwise indicated (GS).

<sup>3</sup> Therefore, the Middle Ages are opposed to the Renaissance, the Renaissance is opposed to the Baroque, the Baroque to Classicism, Classicism to Romanticism, the latter to Realism, and Realism to Neo-Realism, that is Modernism.

Acknowledging various stylistic and formal characteristics of literary production, Čyževs'kyj calls the literature of Kyivan Rus' to the end of the 11th century the age of the 'monumental style', while the 12th-13th century is defined as the age of the 'ornamental style'. Ševčuk partly agrees with this division, but stresses the need to consider the literature of the Kyivan state as a whole. Therefore, he makes some corrections to Čyževs'kyj's periodization of Ukrainian literature into cultural-stylistic epochs. According to Ševčuk, the literature of Kyivan Rus' should be divided into three phases: the early period (11th century), the period of developed literature (12th century-beginning of the 13th century), and the period of attenuation (13th century) (ucr. *zahasannja*). And since Čyževs'kyj calls Ukrainian literature up to the 15th century medieval, Ševčuk proposes to divide it into three periods: early medieval (9th-11th century), developed medieval literature (12th-13th century), and the period of attenuation (14th-15th century).

Ševčuk correctly observes that little attention has been devoted to the Renaissance and the Reformation also due to the fact that Čyževs'kyj did not consider that in the 16th and first half of the 17th century, when Ukrainian literature opens to Renaissance influences and the ideas of the Reformation, it is no longer mono-confessional, and, as Ševčuk states "it was its multi-confessional nature that stimulated both multilingualism and multidimensionality"4 . Čyževs'kyj refuses the definition of "Cossack baroque". Ševčuk, instead, stresses that the authors of 17th-18th century Ukrainian literature were not only clerics, but also Cossacks, burghers, representatives of the nobility, and they wrote in high Ukrainian (literally in bookish Ukrainian language), in Latin, in Polish, in a low language near to Russian and in Russian5 . The author does not define or specify further what literary variety he means when speaking of 'bookish Ukrainian language' and 'close to Russian language'. However, he devotes attention to the linguistic situation in a chapter titled *Mova i vytvorennja kul'turnych ta duchovnych cinnostej (XVI-XVIII st.)* (*Language and the creation of cultural and spiritual values (XVI-XVIII centuries)*). Here he tries to give an assessment of the linguistic situation in the mentioned period, and states that it was precisely in the 16th century that bookish Ukrainian language formed on the basis of Ruthenian (Ukrainian and Belarusian) chancery language, with admixtures of Church-Slavonic and Ukrainian spoken language. This language is known as *prosta mova*, and it has been the object of various scholarly analyses6 : though Ševčuk does not mention it, Polish elements played an important role *in prosta mova* (see Mozer 2002).

<sup>4</sup> "Саме її різноконфесійність стимулювала й неодномовність, і неодновимірність" (Ševčuk 2004-2005, 1: 11).

<sup>5</sup> "Ця література творилася и козаками, й духовними, і міщанами, і шляхтою; вона творилася книжно-українською, латинською, польською, народною укаїнською і наближеною до російської, чи й російською (в другій половині ХVIII) мовами" (Ševčuk 2004-2005, 1: 11).

<sup>6</sup> Cf., among others Mozer 2002, Danylenko 2006. Ševel'ov's seminal study on Ukrainian phonology, published in 1979, also contains important information on *prosta mova*.

Leaving aside the multifaceted relationship between religious confession and language use in early-modern Ukrainian literature, I deem worthy of note the fact that Ševčuk stresses the need to take into account Ukraine's belonging to this or that state structure in the study of its cultural and literary development (the Halyč-Volyn' principality, the Kyivan principality, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and subsequently the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Different subliteratures, as Ševčuk calls them, originated from this diversity, and precisely, the Lithuanian-Belarusian-Ukrainian, Polish-Ukrainian, Russian-Ukrainian literatures. Moreover, the author underlines the importance of studying the literary centers of Ukraine (L'viv, Ostroh, Kyjiv, Černihiv, Charkiv, Novhorod-Sivers'kyj), which, as he states, Čyževs'kyj did not do, while Mychajlo Voznjak had begun to do.

As to the Soviet period, Ševčuk briefly analyzes the treatment of ancient and early-modern Ukrainian literature in the 1967 *Istorija ukrajins'koj literatury. U 8 tomach*, Kyiv 1967 (*History of Ukrainian literature. In 8 volumes*). Taking into account the ideological framework within which the authors had to set their narration, which defined the language and concepts and set the parameters of their discourse, a scholarly dispassionate and unbiased look at Ukraine's literary history was inevitably impossible. Furthermore, one should also bear in mind that many literary texts from the 16th to 18th centuries were unknown, inaccessible and, in any case, mostly unpublishable for ideological reasons.

A watershed occurred in the 1980s when, as Ševčuk records, hundreds of new texts were published either in the original or in translations into modern Ukrainian in several anthologies. And thus, the 1980s and 1990s were characterized by a noticeable interest in the early modern period of Ukrainian culture, which manifested itself in the publication of articles, monographs, collections of essays, and new editions of literary and philosophical works. They testify to the relevance accorded to the relationship of Ukrainian literature with its past (especially the literature of Kyivan Rus'), as well as with Western European and other Slavic literatures7 . In the 1990s the Baroque was at the center of scholarly attention. Among the research dedicated to this artistic current, Ševčuk devotes some attention to A. Makarov's *Svitlo ukraijns'koho Baroko* (1994). Indeed, he is particularly attuned to Makarov's culturological approach to the Baroque, since

<sup>7</sup> It is worth mentioning a few of them: *Literaturna spadšyna Kyjivs'koji Rusi ta ukrajins'ka literatura XVI-XVIII st.*, Kyiv 1981; *Ukrajins'ka literatura XVI-XVIII st. ta inši slov' jans'ki literatury*, Kyiv 1981; *Ukrajins'ke literaturne baroko*, Kyiv 1987; *Pisemnist' Kyjivs'koji Rusi i stanovlennja ukrajins'koji literatury*, Kyiv 1988; *Jevropejs'ke Vidrodžennja ta ukrajins'ka literatura XVI-XVIII st.*, Kyiv 1993. The numerous anthologies published in the 1980s reveal a heightened desire to spread Ukraine's rich literary production of the 16th and 17th centuries, largely still unknown at that time. I will mention among them: *Apollonova ljutnja: Kyjivs'ki poety XVII-XVIII st.* (Kyiv 1982), *Ukrajins'ka literatura XVIII stolittja* (1983), *Antolohija ukrajins'koji poeziji*, t. I (1984), *Ukrajins'ka literatura XVII st.* (1987), *Ukrajins'ka poezija XVI stolittja* (1987); *Marsove pole. Herojična poezija na Ukrajini X – peršoji polovyny XVII stolit'* (two books, 1988 and 1989), *Ukrajins'ka poezija XVI-XVII st.*, *Ukrajins'ka poezija XVII st. Seredyna* (1992).

the latter is considered not only as a stylistic-literary phenomenon, but also as a system of arts and as a social and psychological phenomenon.

As we have seen, Ševčuk adopts Čyževs'kyj's division of the literary process into historical-aesthetic periods, but without renouncing historicism, that is, considering every work within its time context. Distancing himself from the 1967 *Istorija ukrajins'koj literatury*, in which literary genres seemingly existed apart from the creative personality of their authors, Ševčuk stresses that the literature of the Renaissance and the Baroque, especially the latter, was particularly inserted into the life and historical processes of its time, to which it actively reacted.

Ševčuk divides Ukrainian literature of the 16th through 18th centuries into three periods: the early Baroque, the developed Baroque, and the late (attenuated) Baroque. The early Baroque period goes from Ivan Vyšens'kyj to the 1640s, that is, up to shortly after the foundation of the Kyiv Mohyla College (from 1701 Academy); Ševčuk states that Baroque was also cultivated in Western Ukraine and that it often 'combined' with the Renaissance. The developed Baroque, according to Ševčuk, began at the Kyiv Mohyla College, absorbed in itself the so-called Baroque classicism, and lasted until the fall of the Hetman Mazepa or even later until the fall of Hetman Skoropads'kyj and the writing of *Litopys Samijla Velyčka* in 1725. As to the late Baroque, Ševčuk rightly affirms that its European dimension, such as Rococo, did not develop in Ukrainian literature (which, as he states, was already noted by D. Čyževs'kyj), and acquired different characteristics associated with the Enlightenment and with elements of pseudo-classicism.

In the final part of his introduction, Ševčuk expounds the criteria that guided his work: they quite clearly demonstrate the progress of his approach as compared to previous literary histories. He broaches early-modern Ukrainian literature taking into account its specificities, in the first place its language(s), both literally and figuratively. As for the figurative sense, the author underlines that regarding high poetry, the language of feeling was mostly extraneous to it, while the language of intellect prevailed. In fact, literary creation was considered as a science which could be taught and learned: hence, its creative expression was the language of the intellect, and not that of 'feelings'. As for the literal sense, Ukrainian literature of the examined period was multilingual, and if one does not consider this fact, it is difficult to comprehend its literary process in depth.

Ševčuk lists two other principles that guided his exposition: the first is related to the fact that literary production took place in definite centers (either near a patron or at an institution of higher learning, where poetics and rhetoric were studied) and from there it spread to the rest of Ukraine or to a definite region. The following and most important principle is constituted by the criteria which guided the author in his choice of works (including anonymous ones) and authors. What unites these criteria is that they are the expression of an aesthetic approach: the author declares he has selected authors and works for: 1. their being inscribed in the living life; 2. their being characteristic of the literary process; 3. the aesthetic relevance of the literary works. In this regard, the author is keen to stress that his position is not an academic one, but rather that of an artist, i.e. he chose those works which awakened an aesthetic impression in him, and can be of interest to the contemporary reader, without aspiring to completeness in his treatment of the literary periods. Quite interesting, in this respect, is his claim that he preferred to illustrate those works which lend themselves to a double, sub-textual reading, and that he tried to provide his own version of this reading. For this reason, he also wrote short compendia with a concise overview of all the literary works of the examined periods.

Let us now turn to Ševčuk's characterization of the Renaissance mainly contained in the first volume, in the chapter *Vidrodžennja i Reformacija v ukrajins'kij kul'turi (XV-XVII st.)*. In the first place, the author gives an assessment of the past approach to the topic: the fact that only Cyrillic works were considered to be part of Ukrainian literature led to the conclusion that the Renaissance as such did not concern Ukrainian literature.

Ševčuk honestly declares that he cannot take upon himself the duty to comprehensively illustrate the issue, but that his intention is to indicate some lines of development that need to be pursued further in order to obtain a deeper knowledge of the penetration of Renaissance ideas in Ukraine. The author tries to give an assessment of all the elements at stake in this process. He reconstructs the travels of the Ruthenian youth to western European countries in order to pursue their education and their subsequent return home or to nearby countries with new ideas and concepts acquired abroad. Such travels became so frequent that in 1457 the great prince Kazimierz Jagailowicz gave freedom of travel to foreign countries to the noble youth. Ševčuk also sketchily reconstructs the relationship of Roman-Catholics and Orthodox between the 14th and 16th centuries, and in doing this he underlines that 'Ukrainian' (Ruthenian or *rus'ki*, i.e. Rusian)8 Catholic humanists generally tried to have peaceful relationships with Orthodox. However, he does not fail to mention Polish-Catholic expansion.

Ševčuk distinguishes between Ruthenian writers who were Catholic, on one side, and representatives of Polish-Ukrainian poetry, on the other. Among the former, he lists Pavlo Rusyn iz Krosna, Mykola Husovs'kyj, Hryhorij Čuj Rusyn iz Sambora, Heorhij Tyčyns'kyj Rutenec', Ivan Turobins'kyj Rutenec', Sebast'jan Fabian Klenovyč, Stanislav Orichovs'kyj, Ivan Dombrov'skyj, and with some doubt Symon Pekalid9 . Among the representatives of Polish-Ukrainian poetry he names S. Symonid, the brothers Zymorovyč, M. Paškovs'kyj, J. Vereščyns'kyj, A. Čahrovs'kyj, S. Okol's'kyj, V. Kic'kyj, and Jan Ščasnyj-Herburt. Ševčuk then comments both on these writers' love for Rus', as manifested in their poetry, comments and statements, and on their religious tolerance, a fruit of their humanism. It is exactly this part of the Catholic world in Ukraine that tried to

<sup>8</sup> For a scholarly reconstruction of the name Rus' and related ethnonyms, see Danylenko 2004.

<sup>9</sup> As for Catholic Ruthenian writers, Ševčuk correctly states that in spite of their religious confession, they did not forget their 'sweet Rus' homeland,' and they without fail stressed their Rusian, that is Ukrainian, belonging.

maintain peaceful relationships with Orthodoxy, despite the problem of Polish-Catholic expansion.

As regards at least some of the mentioned writers, which could be defined as having a 'multiple identity' (e.g. Sebast'jan Fabian Klenovyč/Sebastian Fabian Klonowic), it seems to me that Ševčuk's approach is too simplistic and straightforward. Some of them certainly identified as Ukrainian as well, but the issue of their 'ethnic' belonging should be approached in a more sophisticated way, taking into account the multinational environment in which they developed10.

Ševčuk's characterization of the Italian Renaissance is short and schematic: he divides it into three periods, early-Renaissance, high Renaissance and the last period, which is characterized by the violation of harmony and the gradual combination of ancient motifs and bizarre forms which characterized the Baroque style. In the first place, the terminological coexistence of the terms *Renesans* and its Ukrainian correspondent *Vidrodžennja*, which seem to be used interchangeably, should be noted. Indeed, the author uses *Renesans* to indicate the wider phenomenon, and *Vidrodžennja* to indicate the three periods into which it is divided. Moreover, he uses the term *Renesans* at times with a capital letter, other times with the lowercase, thus creating a potential confusion between the proper noun and the common noun11. Ševčuk notes that the Renaissance in Ukraine did not embrace all artistic spheres and existed only as one of the aesthetic currents: this statement, however, remains somewhat unclear since he does not specify which other currents he has in mind. Be that as it may, Ševčuk explains that the reason for this was Ukraine's close relation to the Byzantine cultural sphere and its rejection of Western culture which reached Ukraine through Poland. For this reason, he adds, the representatives of Renaissance forms in Ukrainian literature were in the first place not Orthodox, but Catholic, belonging to the so-called Catholic Rus'. The term, which appeared in the 16th and first half of the 17th century, indicated those young men who at the end of the 15th and in the 16th century went to Western Europe to study in universities and often became Catholic. Their ethnic identity is specified by the appellation which they usually added to their name, such as *rusyn*, *rutenec'*, *roksoljanyn*. However, their confessional identity did not 'coincide' with their 'ethnic' patriotism, i.e. they could and often did support the Ukrainian (Rus') cultural development and renewal although often being Catholic. The literature that some of these young men created, as Ševčuk indicates, is in the Renaissance poetics, built on Classical models and Humanistic ideas. This literature, Ševčuk recalls, evoked the reaction of the representatives of the traditional 'Byzantine' current of Ukrainian letters, in the first place Ivan

<sup>10</sup> To understand the complexity of the national attribution of some of these poets suffice it to say that in his essay in this volume Niedźwiedź defines Sebastian Klonowic as "one of the leading Polish poets of his time".

<sup>11</sup> On p. 19 Ševčuk specifies that he uses the capital initial in the words "Ренесанс" and "Бароко" when they indicate the epochs, and the lowercase initial when they mean an artistic method.

Vyšens'kyj. The polemical works of the latter, the author notes, marked the transition to the Baroque, which, in the Ukrainian conditions meant the combination of what he calls Byzantinism with the Renaissance, and the assimilation of Reformation ideas. He correctly indicates the main characteristic of the Ukrainian reception of Renaissance poetics: it is rarely found in a 'pure' form, being frequently combined with Baroque elements.

Ševčuk then treats in some detail the works of the aforementioned authors. I will highlight here only a few points of his analysis, which will help us to understand his approach. As to Neo-Latin poetry, through which Humanistic and Renaissance poetics mainly passed, the author mentions that the most ancient work of Ukrainian Neo-Latin poetry is considered to be the poetic introduction to the book *Prohnostyna ocinka 1483 roku* by Heorhij (Jurij) Drohobyč-Kotermak, which was published in Rome. Ševčuk recalls only a few lines, which contain a sort of poetic declaration of the author. They are devoted to his books and the poet expresses the wish that they may be useful since they are Minerva's offspring, and not written for laughter.

This distinction between high and low registers also characterizes the poetics of Pavlo Rusyn iz Krosna, whose biography receives great attention by Ševčuk. The author shows how the different hypotheses about Pavlo's national origin, whether German, Polish or Hungarian are unfounded, and that he can only be considered Ukrainian (*rusyn*). As to his *oeuvre*, Ševčuk states that it belongs to the early Renaissance, when art had not yet experienced a break with Medieval traditions and still remained in the range of religious topics, but at the same time was expanding its repertoire to secular themes based on the imitation of ancient patterns and poetics. Indeed, one type of poetry Pavlo devotes himself to is that of spiritual poetry, concerning saints, Biblical characters and the like. Another type consists of panegyric works devoted to various important persons, written in the form of odes or elegies. And finally, the third type is constituted by meditative-didactic lyrics, in which Pavlo Rusyn expressed his attitude towards books, art, poetry, war, his homeland, the world, and life. This type, in Ševčuk's opinion, represents the most valuable part of his *oeuvre*, and I agree. Thus, the author lingers to analyze this part of Pavlo Rusyn's works; I will dwell on a few moments. They constitute, in my opinion, key motifs which are a stable legacy of Humanism and the Renaissance in Ukrainian Neo-Latin poetry. In the first place, we find the idea that poetry is a gift of the gods. In the second, the conviction that the world in general is uncertain and fragile, and that all earthly values are short-lived: states, cities, powerful rulers, ancient heroes, and material goods, such as jewelry. Only poetry is capable of maintaining the memory of these persons, events, and facts. Clearly, this thought has a long history starting from Classical antiquity, and in later Neo-Latin Ukrainian poetry it is often associated with the poetic legacy of Horace, especially in his ode to Censorinus (*Carm*. IV, 8)12. Another theme noted by Ševčuk, which

<sup>12</sup> See Siedina 2017: 150-153.

will be developed by poets of later generations, such as S. Klenovyč, S. Pekalid, and S. Počas'kyj, is the invitation to Apollo and the muses to settle in the poet's country. However, the first author to speak of a Ukrainian national Parnassus on the hills of L'viv, as Ševčuk remarks, will be S. Klenovyč in his poem *Roksolania* (1584). This theme, in relation to Kyiv, will be later developed by poets connected to the Kyiv-Mohylian cultural elite.

Ševčuk devotes much attention to S. Klenovyč and his enigmatic poem *Roksolania*, published in 1584 in Cracow. This work, as he stresses, is indeed intriguing: it is the first poem devoted to Ukraine, a land that evidently fascinated the author for its nature, its cities, and its history. Although much remains unknown (how its plan came about, how long he had been writing it, who supported its publication), the dedication to the most eminent senate of the L'viv community testifies to a probable support by the latter. Klenovyč expresses the conviction that the hills of L'viv can worthily replace the Greek Parnassus, since Apollo has already settled there. This land, in fact, is not poor; in it, agriculture and herding are well developed. If Clio was the first muse to settle in Rus' (and indeed the author makes her narrate the history of Rus'), the others soon followed. As Ševčuk remarks, however, the muses brought here by Klenovyč are learned and devout, and they came to Rus' to inspire high poetry, not lower forms of verbal expression. This is the typical Renaissance opposition of high and low, learned and popular poetry. Klenovyč's goal, as he states it, is to make this land known to the whole of Europe. This is the reason he writes in Latin. Ševčuk stresses the fact that, although being ethnically Polish, Klenovyč does not deem Rus' (Ukraine) to be a part of Poland, but recognizes its ethnic self-sufficiency, since he calls it *krajina* (but he does not specify whether the poet uses exactly this word or a Latin one). In my opinion, however, one cannot know with certainty Klenovyč's thought just by the use of a single word. Although Klenovyč writes that the land of Rus' extends to the Lithuanian borders, its woods up to the Muscovite land, includes Pskov and Novgorod, and in the north the Rus' borders reach the eternal snows and ice, he celebrates a territory which is much smaller. It is, in fact constituted by Halyč, Podillja, Volyn' and the Kyiv region, that is by the 'Ukrainian' territory of the former Principality of Halyč-Volyn'.

Although sometimes in Klenovyč lyric feeling prevails over objective observation, and he celebrates the land that fascinates him so much, the poet has indeed provided us with a unique 'encyclopedia' of Rus' life. Indeed, as Ševčuk remarks, a wealth of extremely valuable data is scattered throughout the poem about how the Rus' people live, which are their customs, how they raise children, how they farm, how they work wood, how they make carts, wheels, plows, how they graze the cattle, their folk legends and traditions, the flora and fauna surrounding them, and much more. Ševčuk's allegorical reading of the goddess Galatea, who, having arrived in Rus', fills the udder of cows with milk when they drink from a noisy river, as the arrival to Rus' of the cultural foundations of the Renaissance originated in a maritime country, maybe Italy, seems somewhat unjustified.

Ševčuk rightly observes that Klenovyč was probably the first writer to provide a poetical description of Ukrainian cities. He observes that the cities described by Klenovyč, with the exception of Kyiv, all belong to one region, and that the city of Ostroh, although it belonged to the same region, is not included, and this exclusion is hardly accidental. The main reason, according to the author, is the fact that Ostroh at that time was a lively cultural center, led by the prince Kostjantyn Ostroz'kyj, whose cultural orientation was rather towards Kyivan Rus' and Byzantium than towards Western Europe and entailed a rejection of 'Latin' cultural influence. Although there was not much antagonism between the two factions (in Ostroh, a little later, another Neo-Latin poet, Symon Pekalid will appear, and he will be a protégé of prince Kostjantyn Ostroz'kyj), Klenovyč prefers not to mention the city. Further on, Ševčuk devotes a great deal of attention to the religious issue and debunks the vision of Klenovyč as a supporter of Catholic expansion. On the contrary, as his work demonstrates, he felt a deep affinity with Rus'. He called L'viv 'glory of the people', the honor and purpose of his work. He furthermore praised the Rus' people for their fostering of the Orthodox faith, while he judged the dissolute life of the Protestants.

This attitude not only of religious tolerance, but of open support of the Rus' faith, affirms Ševčuk, is shared also by another Polish-Ukrainian writer of that time, namely Stanislav Orichovs'kyj, and later on also by Jan Ščasnyj-Herbut. However, both these authors had or felt Ukrainian 'blood' in their veins, while very little is known about Klenovyč's origins, studies, or personal life, except that he came from a bourgeois family, spent some years of his youth in L'viv, received a solid education (judging from his poem), and moved to Lublin in 1574, where he married and worked in different posts of the city administration. Because of his interest in Ukrainian history, of his referring to the mores and the faith of the fathers', Ševčuk puts forward the hypothesis that he had some Ukrainian blood, or maybe that he was of Armenian or Armenian-Ukrainian origin, descending from those Armenians who had settled in Ukrainian lands before the establishment of the Polish domination and who always remembered that those lands were Ukrainian. Among the facts that might indicate Klenovyč's Armenian or mixed Armenian-Ukrainian origin are: in his poem he celebrates L'viv, Kamjanec'-Podil's'kyj ans Zamost'; when he speaks about L'viv as the first city of Rus', the poet underlines its Ukrainian character and says nothing about the Poles; about the city's minorities, he expresses negativity about Jews while separately noting the Armenians in a positive way. Another possible indication of Klenovyč's Armenian origin is the fact that three Roman Catholic writers of Armenian origin, namely S. Symonid (Szymonovyc) and the brothers Zymorovyč, imitated Klenovyč. At that time ties between the Armenian and Ukrainian populations were close and it was often impossible to distinguish Armenians from Ukrainians since the former often had Ukrainian family names, says Ševčuk, quoting Ja. Daškevyč, author of a work on Ukrainian-Armenian relations. Klenovyč's Armenian origin would certainly explain some facts, first of all his open demarcation from the Poles. But, what is more important, in my opinion, is Klenovyč's complaint that Renaissance ideas reached Ukraine in a weak way, reported by Ševčuk. This lament is contained in an allegorical way in a couple of lines of the poem *Roksolania*, quoted by Ševčuk unfortunately only in Ukrainian translation: "Піснею я Пієріди спровадив сюди, щоб влекшити/Жаль свій, що в нас тут нема вкритої лавром гори"13 (Ševčuk 2004-2005, 1: 156).

Quite interestingly, Ševčuk observes that differently from those men of letters who belonged to the Ostroh circle, Klenovyč wished to secularize poetry, i.e. to separate it as much as possible from the Church, but that this aspiration was 'too bold' for his time. Other young Renaissance poets like him, who had studied in Western European universities, could not find a way to apply their knowledge in their motherland. Ševčuk names Jurij Drohobyč, Pavlo Rusyn iz Krosna, H. Tyčyns'kyj, and S. Orichovs'kyj, all of whom felt themselves sons of Rus', but lived most of their lives away from it. On the contrary, Klenovyč 'returned' to it, singing Rus' in his poem. His depiction of L'viv and Kyiv is quite interesting: while the former was then considered the capital of Ukraine, the latter is not compared to ancient Troy, despite the fact that it was in ruins. On the contrary, he compares Kyiv to ancient Rome, and states it has the same importance that the eternal city had for ancient Christians, probably also because in it, in the Caves Monastery, the imperishable relics of Orthodox clerics and believers were preserved. This way, Klenovyč establishes a link between L'viv and Kyiv. Indeed, as Ševčuk remarks, at the beginning of the 17th century it is to Kyiv that intellectuals from Halyč such as Jov Borec'kyj, Z. Kopystens'kyj, J. Pletenec'kyj, and P. Berynda directed themselves, pressed by Catholic reaction. They will establish in Kyiv a significant cultural center, a printing house and a type of college that shortly after will become the Kyiv Mohyla College.

It needs to be stressed that Ševčuk tries to objectively analyze the contribution of those representatives of the so-called "Catholic Rus'", who, in Soviet times were collectively marked as men who only wanted evil for their people, who betrayed the Rus' and moved away from their roots. In reality, as Ševčuk asserts, the picture was more variegated, especially for what concerns the 16th century, which was generally characterized by religious tolerance. This picture will change sharply in the 17th century as a consequence of the Catholic Counter-Reformation when the 'voices of dissent' will become increasingly rare. One of them in the 17th century, who espoused Humanistic and Renaissance ideas was Ivan Dombrovs'kyj, author of the poem *Camoenae Borysthenides* (published ca. 1619)14. Ševčuk aptly defines Dombrovs'kyj as continuing the literary tradition of Catholic Rus', however "Kyiv-based", so to say, since the main thought of his work was the revival of the Ukrainian

<sup>13</sup> "I brought the Muses here with a song to ease/my sorrow, we do not have a laurel-covered mountain here".

<sup>14</sup> That Dombrovs'kyj's patriotism did not fit into the narrow Soviet schemes, which identified national and confessional belonging, was demonstrated already by Jaremenko in his introduction to the 1988 anthology *Ukrajins'ka poezija XVII stolittja* (Jaremenko 1988: 14).

state building15. For this reason, he provides a long historical description of his homeland from the time of Kyivan Rus', and underlines that despite having been the object of foreign invasions, it did not succumb. In his analysis of Dombrovs'kyj's *Camoenae Borysthenides* and Klenovyč's *Roksolania*, Ševčuk highlights similarities and differences. Just like Klenovyč, Dombrovs'kyj does not include in the history of Rus' the people of *moschy*, the ancestors of Russians, considering them a northern tribe which Rus' kept in submission. However, for what concerns the borders of Rus', they differ in that Dombrovs'kyj makes them coincide with those of ancient Scythia. Therefore, for him, Rus' is bordered by the river Dnister, the northern coast of the Black Sea, further on by Colchis, that is Caucasus, and by the Caspian Sea. The northern border was constituted by the Ural Mountains and by the 'Persians'; the western border was constituted by the river Wisłok, a tributary of Vistula (Wisła). The interest of these borders, as it is noted by Ševčuk, resides in the fact that they coincide with those of ancient Scythia. Thus, the successor of the latter is deemed by Dombrovs'kyj Rus'-Ukraine, and not Muscovy, and this opinion is shared by the Ukrainian chroniclers of Cossack tradition.

Similarly to what Klenovyč did in his *Roksolania*, Dombrovs'kyj includes inhabitants of Novgorod and Pskov among the Rus' people. The poem is devoted to Bohuslav Radoševs'kyj, abbot of the Holy Cross church on the *lysa hora*  in Kyiv, and Roman-Catholic bishop of Kyiv, and its goal, besides manifesting the glory of Rus', is to remind the addressee that in spite of his religious confession, he is called to serve the homeland of his ancestors. Therefore, in his reconstruction of the history of Rus' through legendary and historical personages, Dombrovs'kyj also inserts the Somykovs'kyj family, from whom Radoševs'kyj descended, among the Halycian-Volhynian princes. That the latter did not consider his being Roman-Catholic an obstacle to serving his people is manifested, among other things, by his tolerant attitude towards the Orthodox confession, its representatives (such as Petro Mohyla, with whom the bishop had good relations), its adherents and its shrines. Ševčuk states that the poem is written mostly in Renaissance poetics, that is, 'secularized'; it does not speak of spiritual and ecclesiastical matters. Moreover, differently from the majority of the literature of the first half of the 16th century, which is characterized by a mixture of Renaissance and Baroque elements, in *Camoenae Borysthenides* the only feature that can be attributed to the Baroque style is the word play. For the rest, according to Ševčuk, it begins with a traditional preface with numerous Classical similarities and with the declaration of the main goal of the work: to manifest the glory of Rus'. Despite the plural in the title, Dombrovs'kyj 'brings' to Ukraine only

<sup>15</sup> Ševčuk considers Dombrovs'kyj a continuer of Josyp Vereščyns'kyj, the Catholic bishop of Kyiv (1592-1598). Vereščyns'kyj cherished projects of organizing public life in Ukraine through the creation of a military force able to repel armed attacks; he also dreamt of renewing the importance of Kyiv as the capital of Ukrainian lands. It is for his focus on the restoration of the Ukrainian state-building, which he shared with Vereščyns'kyj, that Ševčuk deems Dombrovs'kyj his continuer.

one muse, Clio, the muse of history. She is made to speak after the long account of the history of Rus', to glorify Radoševs'kyj also by narrating the deeds of his ancestors and family members.

Unfortunately, Ševčuk does not provide references as to the extant printed copies of the poem or to existing manuscripts, if any. All quotations are provided only in Ukrainian translation and this, as already noted, does not allow for the appreciation of poetical reminiscences and literary *topoi*, as well as the verbal richness and metaphorical ornamentation. Another drawback of Ševčuk's narration is that he does not always argue his claims. For instance, as already mentioned, he does not provide support for his statement that *Camoenae Borysthenides* is written mostly in Renaissance poetics; the only hint is his assertion that the poem is secularized. However, a deeper analysis reveals much more. As Jaremenko had outlined in 1988, it is Dombrovs'kyj's approach to history, his rejection of divine providence as history's driving force, as well as of the vision of history as the implementation of the divine plan of salvation foreseen in advance that aligns it with Renaissance poetics. On the contrary, in Dombrovs'kyj's poem man is presented as an active subject of the historical process, whose actions are historically determined, and are not caused by God's providence. It is for this reason, according to Jaremenko, that in his poem God is mentioned very rarely, while princes, kings and generals are much more present and Biblical characters are virtually absent. Similarly, for Dombrovs'kyj, dignity, talent, intellect, virtue, and valor are characteristics that can raise an individual above others to occupy a higher place in the social hierarchy, while a person's noble origin should serve as a stimulus to serve his homeland and not as a right to rule. These and other important observations of Jaremenko's concerning Dombrovs'kyj's poem are not mentioned in Ševčuk's exposition.

Another drawback of Ševčuk's work is his approach to bibliographical sources: indeed, he mentions only Ukrainian, Russian and very seldom Polish sources. This statement concerns the last work, on whose treatment by Ševčuk I will briefly linger, that is, the poem *Evcharystyrion albo Vdjačnost'* by Sofronij Počas'kyj (1632). In his analysis of this poem Ševčuk, seems particularly interested in investigating how the author succeeds in establishing a literary Mount Parnassus and Helicon in Kyiv through his learned poetry. The interesting and important issue of the genre of the poem is not touched upon at all; nor does Ševčuk speak about how Sofronij Počas'kyj treats the addressee of the poem, that is Petro Mohyla. Instead, the author distinguishes in the poem elements that can be attributed to the Renaissance and the Baroque and lists them. Among the former he enumerates: the glorification of the sciences, Apollo, the Greek muses, the arts, the creation of Parnassus and Helicon, ancient similes, a clear style without verbal figures and subtexts, that is, double reading, the knowledge of the world, and an apology of reason and education. However, Ševčuk notes that the author, through the glorification of the one Christian God, His Church's shepherds and the Virgin Mary, denies the Renaissance, and instead adheres to a Baroque poetics. To the latter he ascribes the poet's interest in matters of faith, а vision of God as the creator of the world cycle, the one who determines time and the changes of the year's seasons, and the contradictory character of the figures he glorifies (Apollo and the Muses on one side, and Christian figures and the Virgin Mary on the other). For all of these reasons, Ševčuk says that the poem *Evcharystyrion albo Vdjačnost'* seems to be ending early Baroque in Ukraine, which originated in a combination of Renaissance and medieval poetics, because Renaissance poetics is both used and denied in the work.

## 3. Istorija ukrajins'koji literatury (2014-)

The new history of Ukrainian literature, *Istorija ukrajins'koji literatury. U 12 tomach*, the first volume of which came out in 2014, is a very different literary history from Ševčuk's. In the first place, according to the project, it should be a collective work in twelve volumes, of which only four have been published. It is an academic work, originated by the Institute of Literature of the National Academy of Science of Ukraine and published by the publishing house "Naukova Dumka".

The history of literature proper in the first volume is preceded by a Preface (*Peredmova*, pp. 5-22) by Mykola Žulyns'kyj, the director of the Institute of Literature of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. In this preface the author broadly traces the millennial literary history of Ukraine, especially concentrating on the modern period. However, the volume lacks an introduction that may set this unprecedented collective work in the framework of Ukrainian literary historiography. Such an introduction is found instead at the beginning of the second volume.

The last part of the first volume and the second volume are devoted to the period which interests us. The first volume, titled *Davnja literatura (X – perša polovyna XVI st.)*, is divided into two major sections: *Literatura Kyjivs'koji Rusi. Rannje ta zrile Seredn'oviččja (X – perša polovyna XIII st.)* and *Literatura pizn'noho seredn'oviččja (druha polovyna XIII – perša polovyna XVI st.)*. This second section at its end contains a chapter on Latin language literature (*Latynomovna literatura*), and this is a welcome novelty compared to previous histories of Ukrainian literature. Let us now turn to the characterization of Humanism and the Renaissance in Ukrainian literature. The literary development of the Late Middle Ages, described in the chapter *Literaturnyj proces*, is characterized as the one possessing the most 'white spots' in the history of Ukrainian literature, a sort of 'pause in the literary development', following Dmytro Čyževs'kyj's words. After a description of the literary genres which continue those of the previous epoch, in the penultimate paragraph we read: "At the end of the 15th, first half of the 16th century, poets appear in Ukraine who write in Latin and are in one way or another connected with Western European Renaissance culture"16.

<sup>16</sup> "Наприкінці ХV-у першій половині ХVІ ст. в Україні з'являються поети, що творять латинською мовою і так чи інакше пов'язані із західноєвропейською ренесансною культурою" (Dončyk *et al.* 2014-, 1: 571).

## 3.1. On Literature written in Latin

3.1. The chapter *Latynomovna literatura* by M. Trofymuk, occupies pages 709- 728. The author states that Neo-Latin Renaissance poetry spread mainly in Halyčyna (Galicia) at the Polish-Ukrainian cultural cross-border, which represented the border between Western and Eastern Christianity. The author divides Neo-Latin Ukrainian literature into two periods, the first, so called "rusyns'kyj" (last quarter of the 15th century, and through the 16th century), from the name 'rusyn', which most authors attributed to themselves, and the second "roksolans'kyj", from the name that appears in many works and documents of the period 1632-1730, which saw the greatest flourishing of Ukrainian Neo-Latin literature. As to the long-debated and still relevant issue of the 'national' belonging of the cultural legacy of Neo-Latin writers who spent most of their lives outside Ukraine, and who are often called 'cross-border writers'17, the author offers a peculiar 'ukrainocentric solution'. He distinguishes Ukrainian Neo-Latin literature and the Neo-Latin literature of Ukraine. The former comprises authors of Ukrainian origin or ukrainized authors, whose activity took place in the territory of Ukraine and whose themes concerned Ukraine and expressed the interests of Ukrainian society. The latter embraces all works in Latin concerning Ukrainian ethnic territories, that is, works of Ukrainian Neo-Latin literature, works of foreign authors about Ukraine, and works of those authors who came from Ukraine, but whose activity was connected with non-Ukrainian cultural centers and whose works touched contemporary European issues. Two other factors to be considered for the selection and the attribution of the material are the self-identification of the authors (which can be inferred by the names they used: *rusyn*, *rutenec'*, *roskolan*) and the dedication of these works to Ukrainian rulers, princes, church dignitaries, as well as to cities, regions and the like.

However, it seems to me that the second category is too wide and has been devised to include into the 'literature of Ukraine' even authors (and their works) whose belonging to that literature is at best only partial, and whose manifold identity is mainly or partly shaped also by other ethnic and cultural contexts.

The author then names five authors, who identified themselves as *rusyn*, *rutenec'*, or *roskolan*. They are: Jurij Drohobyč-Kotermak, Stanislav Orichovs'kyj, Heorhij Tyčyns'kyj-Rutenec', Hryhorij Čuj-Rusyn iz Sambora, and Pavlo Rusyn iz Krosna. Before broaching their literary production, the author briefly summarizes the stylistic and thematic characteristics of the literature of the Renaissance, first and foremost the imitation of the genres and thematic peculiarities of Classical literature, especially Latin. Other characteristics he highlights are the rebirth of the Classical ideal of a harmonious personality, which coexists with the surrounding environment in an agreeable way. Actually, states the author, this ideal in the Renaissance was everybody's duty, and art and literature could help men achieve it. This ideal is linked to the concept of *altera natura*, an ideal,

<sup>17</sup> Ukrainian-Polish, Ukrainian-Belarusian, Lithuanian-Polish.

spiritual world without the negative sides of the real world which, according to the humanists, should bring humankind closer to the mentioned ideal. Other important features of the Renaissance outlined by the author in a few lines are: the artistic celebration of the beauty of nature and of native places; a specific patriotism, both national and universal (humanists as inhabitants of a specific *orbis terrarum humanistici*); the stress on education (the system of the seven liberal arts, elaborated in the late Middle Ages); the emancipation of literary creation as an independent sphere of art; and the publishing of works of Classical authors. In general, the author stresses how the Renaissance became a turning point of the spiritual life of Europe. At the same time, he recalls that it is hard to separate tradition and innovation when speaking of the work of concrete authors, since their legacy shows their being rooted in the previous literary process while simultaneously incorporating new and contemporary tendencies. And thus, the synthesis of forms and means of expression which characterizes two epochs, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, according to the author, marks the future synthesis of their worldview, artistic forms and means of expression which was realized by the Baroque style. The author attributes to this synthesis another peculiarity of the "mentioned periods" (evidently the Renaissance and the Baroque): multilingualism and macaronic word usage. The author does not illustrate this issue in detail, as would have been fit, he only exposes in short the peculiar situation of Ukraine, stressing that the "regional consciousness" of Ruthenians was manifold, depending upon their belonging to different social, confessional, and ethnic groups. Language also was a key factor, in that it was linked with a specific system and means of expression and topics. If on the territory of the Rzecz Pospolita the main means of communication was Polish, Latin had a key role as the language of the church, science, and political relations. As to Ukrainian authors, if they had received primary instruction in Ukrainian lands, they also used Church Slavonic and Ukrainian (*rus'ka, prosta*) language18.

The author then goes on to illustrate the work of the five mentioned authors to which he adds a sixth, less known, Ivan Turobins'kyj Rutenec'. He also provides the Latin name of each author. They are respectively: Georgius Drohobicz de Russia, Paulus Crosnensis Ruthenus, Georgius Ticzensis Ruthenus, Ioannes Turobinius Ruthenus, Czuj Vigilantius Samboritanus Ruthenus, Orichovius Stanislaus (in Polish Orzechowski Stanisław). Greater attention and space are devoted to Pavlo Rusyn iz Krosna and Stanislav Orichovs'kyj because of the breadth and depth of the issues dealt with in their poetry, a direct effect, besides their natural talent, of the high level of the education they received in the best European universities of the time.

<sup>18</sup> The author broaches the theme of the linguistic situation of Ukraine in quite a superficial way. For the sake of clarity, we will recall that Moser thus defined *prosta(ja) mova*: "The *prosta(ja) mova* was based on the Ruthenian (Ukrainian or Belorussian) chancery language and developed into a literary language because of its growing polyfunctionality, its increasingly superregional character, and its stylistic variability" (Mozer 2002: 221). See also Shevelov 1979: 576 ff. and footnote n. 6 above.

The treatment devoted to the works of Pavlo Rusyn iz Krosna seems somewhat scanty compared to Ševčuk's, and contains some contradictory statements, which are not further explained or clarified. The presentation of Pavlo Rusyn's work is more an enumeration of features than an active interpretation by the author. He states that Pavlo Rusyn's poetry is a phenomenon of a period of transition: in spite of the fact that his works fully express all the themes, genres and motifs of the Renaissance, "much of his literary heritage belongs to the previous epoch in terms of genre and theme, where spiritual poetry, works of the Mariological cycle, panegyrics to saints, descriptions of church matchmakers, peculiar poetic motifs imbued with subtle sadness predominate"19. Earlier, however, the author had stated that "the poet actively uses the ancient tools of poetry, typical of post-Renaissance poetry"20*.* And thus, Pavlo Rusyn's poetry belongs to the Renaissance; however, a significant part of his poetic legacy 'belongs to the previous epoch', while he uses 'Classical tools' ("античний інструментарій") typical of post-Renaissance poetry. Indeed, from such a presentation, it is quite a puzzle to try to understand how one should comprehend and interpret the poetry of Pavlo Rusyn.

The author adds that the legacy of Pavlo Rusyn is also constituted by panegyrics devoted to ecclesiastical and lay persons, to his friends and pupils, and moral-didactic poetry. His use of Classical authors and Classical *topoi* is noted, as well as addressing his books as living creatures, as little children very dear to him. The motif of the power of poetry to give eternal life and glory to states and cities, which of course has a long history, is remarked in Pavlo Rusyn's poetry. However, the author here too does not say anything about the long history of this *topos* in ancient and more modern poetry.

As to Orichovs'kyj's literary and cultural legacy, it is illustrated in greater detail, since it is said to be the manifestation of his belonging to European culture and at the same time his being rooted in the Polish-Ukrainian reality of his time. His coming from a two-confessional family (his father was catholic, his mother orthodox) certainly made him a participant of two worlds; his wide education, acquired in the best European universities, allowed him to interpret the surrounding reality in a wider perspective. His multifaceted writer's talent found expression in literary works of different genres: epistles (*Epistola de coelibatu*)21, *Baptismus Ruthenorum* (1544), speeches (*De bello adversus Turcas suscipiendo ad equites polonos oratio*, 1543; *Ad Sigismundum Polo-*

<sup>19</sup> "значна частина його літературної спадщини жанрово й тематично належить попередній епосі, де переважає духовна поезія, твори маріологічного циклу, панегірики святим, описи церковних сват, свозєрідні віршовані мотиви, просякнуті витонченим сумом" (Dončyk *et al.* 2014-, 1: 716).

<sup>20</sup> "Поет активно використовує антични інструментарій віршописання, властивий для постренесансної поезії" (*ibidem)*.

<sup>21</sup> To this theme, dear to him, Orichovs'kyj also dedicated the work *Pro Ecclesia Christi*  (1546), and the brochure *De lege coelibatus* (1551), addressed to the participants in the Council of Trent.

*niae Turcica Secunda*, 1544), tracts (*Repudium Romae*, which was not printed; *Policja królewstwa polskiego*, 1565), a biography, and several pamphlets. For his oratorical skills Orichovs'kyj was variously named 'Latin/Rus' Demosthenes' and 'contemporary Cicero'. It is not clear, however, why the author states that if one compares Orichovs'kyj's works with Classical texts, the former seem fairly adequate, despite the fact that Latin texts of the 16th to 18th century are always marked by the thinking of a particular author, and thus Classical and Neo-Latin works are quite different.

Be that as it may, the author concludes by stating that the significance of Neo-Latin literature for the development of Ukrainian culture in the mentioned period lays mainly in that it brought to Ukrainian ground the Classical-Renaissance acquisitions of European literature, and it enriched Ukrainian literature with new themes and poetic means, "paving the way for such a unique phenomenon as the culture of Ukrainian Baroque"22.

## 3.2 The second volume of Istorija ukrajins'koji literatury

In the second volume, in the section *Oryhinal'na literatura*, among the chapters on the different literary genres, two chapters are devoted respectively to poetry in Polish (*Pol's'komovna poezija*) and poetry and literature in Latin (*Latynomovna poezija* and *Latynomovna ukrajins'ka literatura*).

At the beginning of the second volume one finds an introduction with the title *Davnja literatura (druha polovyna XVI-XVIII st.)* by Mykola Sulyma. The period is divided into three chronological sections, titled respectively: *Literatura nacional'noho vidrodžennja ta rann'oho Baroko (druha polovyna XVI-perša polovyna XVII st.)*, *Literatura zriloho Baroko (druha polovyna XVII-perša polovyna XVII st.)*, *Literatura pizn'oho Baroko (druha polovyna XVIII st.)*. Each of these sections is divided into five subsections: *Istoryko-kul'turni obstavyny*, *Usna slovenist'*, *Literaturnyj proces*, *Oryhinal'na literatura*, *Perekladna literatura* (this latter subsection is absent in the third section). This uniform organization of the literary material exemplifies the fact that the editors consider the literary process of the period as possessing similar characteristics.

As is customary for literary histories, the introduction is devoted to the analysis of histories of Ukrainian literature, starting from the scholarly beginnings in the 19th century and ending with *Muza Roksolans'ka* by Valerij Ševčuk. A good deal of attention is devoted to the literary histories by Mychajlo Hruševs'kyj (first volumes 1923-27; the sixth volume remained manuscript; the whole work was republished in 1993) and Mychajlo Voznjak (1920-24). Among the merits of the latter are listed the analysis of Ukrainian elements in Polish literature and of the literary output of Polish writers of Ukrainian origin, as well as the attention devoted to the publication of Ukrainian songs in Polish and Russian edi-

<sup>22</sup> "Торуючи шлях до такого унікального явища, як культура українського бароко" (Dončyk *et al.* 2014-, 1: 728).

tions. Voznjak is also praised, among other things, for having investigated the awakening of Ukrainians' interest in their past and culture in the 18th century. Voznjak's greatest merit, however, and the goal he set himself, is that of having revealed the texts of ancient literary works and having presented them to the wide academic community.

Further on in the introduction it is asserted that a new stage in the understanding of the early modern period starts with the creation of the Taras Ševčenko Institute of Literature of the Academy of Sciences in 1926. In the first place, this was reflected in the appearance of new methods. In addition to the philological approach, we see the development of historical, sociological, stylistic, and Marxist approaches. The work of the *Commission of ancient Ukrainian literature* was quite important. Created in 1927, the members published important works and texts of the literature in question. However, the onset of the darkest period of the Soviet regime put an end to the free development of literary studies (as happened in all branches of human sciences, and not only). Nonetheless, even during the Soviet period, useful studies continued to be carried out in this field. For instance, Oleksandr Bilec'kyj, director of the Institute of Ukrainian literature from 1939 to 1941 and from 1944 to 1961, while on the one hand adhering to Soviet parameters for Ukrainian literature23, continued fruitful research activity in the field.

Sulyma then goes on to illustrate the development of Ukrainian literary history in emigration. After briefly describing the work of M. Hnatyšak24, who published his *Istorija ukrajins'koji literatury* in 1941 in Prague, he lingers on illustrating the work of D. Čyževs'kyj, who declared to share Hnatyšak's approach, especially for what concerns the formal analysis of literary works. I will dwell here only on a few points. Sulyma synthesizes Čyževs'kyj's theory on the constant succession of opposite tendencies (styles) in the history of literature, that are defined by their opposed characteristics: clarity vs. depth, simplicity vs. pomp, calm vs. movement, completeness in itself vs. boundless prospects, concentration vs. diversity, traditional canonicity vs. novelty, and others. As to the Renaissance proper, as the author recalls, Čyževs'kyj characterized it as a 'discovery' and 'liberation' of the individual, as a rebirth of the ancient ideal of harmony, of balanced beauty. Sulyma does not agree with Čyževs'kyj's statement that Renaissance ideas barely and marginally reached Ukraine at the end of the 16th century from Poland, without having a significant influence. Indeed, he notes that Čyževs'kyj does not consider such representatives of Ukrainian culture as Jurij Drohobyč and Pavlo Rusyn iz Krosna. In Čyževs'kyj's opinion, the

<sup>23</sup> They were: the treatment of the literature of Kyivan Rus' as the 'cradle' of the three East Slavic peoples, the denial of the supposedly nationalistic conceptions of Ukrainian literary process, the denial of the continuity of its development, the application of sociological parameters to literary history, and so on.

<sup>24</sup> Of the ten epochs (that he called "styles") of his periodization of Ukrainian literature, he could illustrate only three: 1. Old Ukrainian style; 2. Byzantine style; 3. Late Byzantine transitional style.

16th century in Ukrainian culture, characterized by religious strife, represented a sort of regression, as compared to the period between the 11th and 13th centuries and to the flourishing of Baroque in the 17th and 18th centuries. Sulyma notes how, in his characterization of the Baroque, Čyževs'kyj differs from his predecessors, for example Hruševs'kyj, in that he lists the Baroque among the dynamic styles, and states that it first approached the people's culture, was looked at with sympathy among the people and had a significant influence on popular culture and art. The author goes on to illustrate in some detail Čyževs'kyj's treatment of the Ukrainian Baroque, its literary genres, poetry (learned and popular), short prose, historical chronicles, as well as the aspects which need further research (e.g., the union of old Christian traditions with Classical elements, and the constant cultivating of the form of works, also of those in which the main attention is given to content, such as sermons, chronicles, and treatises). Sulyma then briefly discusses the other two histories of Ukrainian literature written in the Soviet period. The former actually never saw the light because of a negative review in 1947, probably because of the high level and the completeness of the analyzed literary production, i.e. because of its positive qualities. Finally, the author lingers on the 1967-1971 history of Ukrainian literature in 8 volumes and lists as its merits "the complete representation of the literary process, coverage of the history of Ukrainian literature as the original literature of a great nation, and the literature of Kyivan Rus – as a fundamental component of Ukrainian literature"25. The ideological constraints which authors encountered in their work are not openly discussed, as Ševčuk had done when describing this history of Ukrainian literature. They are only hinted at in the authors' statement, reported by Sulyma, that they had to renounce a periodization by styles, that the theme of Russian-Ukrainian relations had to be 'adjusted', and so had the evaluation of the ideology of the Cossack *staršyna*, the treatment of 17th century literary works in which Ivan Mazepa was spoken of, and so on.

The last 'Soviet' history of Ukrainian literature of 1987 in two volumes is only mentioned. The author then turns to the post-Soviet period, and particularly devotes his attention to Ševčuk's *Muza Roksolans'ka*, which is praised as a welcomed new reading of ancient and early-modern Ukrainian literature, especially for its attention to the multilingual dimension of Ukrainian literature and to the relationship between literary works and the "living life".

As to their own work, about two pages (28, 29, and six lines on page 30) are devoted by the editors (*Vid redaktoriv*) to their own history of Ukrainian literature. In the first place, they stress its novelty and its own merits. In analyzing the literature of the 17th and 18th centuries, it is asserted that the authors look at Ukrainian-Russian relations in a new way, and at the aspirations to the national liberation of Ukrainians. The chapters devoted to literature written in Polish and

<sup>25</sup> "Повнота представлення літературного процесу, висвітлення історії ураїнської літератури як самобутньої літератури великого народу, а література Київської Руси – як основоположного складника української словесности" (Dončyk *et al.* 2014-, 2: 26).

Latin are also a welcomed novelty; the Polish and Latin texts are rightfully reinserted into Ukrainian literature. We read that the elements of the European Renaissance and the "full development of the universal baroque style in Ukraine"26 are illustrated in a series of chapters. It is evident that the editors lay stress on the purported objectivity of their analysis, which, it is said, is free from Soviet ideological strictures. Thus, it looks in a new way at the many aspects involved in the development of Ukrainian literature, first and foremost at the literary and cultural relations with Russia. The new approach stated in this sort of 'declaration of intent' was also made possible by a long 'preparatory' work of study and publication of literary works of early modern Ukrainian literature. A long list of such publications (both dedicated to single literary genres and anthologies), divided into volumes of literary works published in the original language and books of literary works originally written in Church Slavonic, old Ukrainian, Polish or Latin, translated into modern Ukrainian is given (chronologically, the earliest mentioned edition is a 1959 book edited by L. Machnovec', *Davnij ukrajins'kyj humor i satyra*). The list contains only works by Ukrainian scholars, which is quite understandable since they are the ones who did most of the editorial and publication work for the edition of old texts. However, scrolling the index of names at the end of the book, one is struck by the almost complete absence of the names of Western European scholars, who made an important contribution to Ukrainian literary scholarship of the early modern period.

The literature of the second half of the 16th and first half of the 17th century is characterized in the chapter *Literaturnyj proces*. The period is called one of profound renewal and marked development in all cultural fields, including literature. In order to characterize this phenomenon, which the author defines as commensurate with the cultural shifts of the European Renaissance, she uses the definition of "the first national Revival" ("перше національне Відродження") (Dončyk *et al.* 2014-, 2: 80)27. However, as the author hastens to add, they were not so much Renaissance ideas that influenced this development, as the ideas of the Reformation. Indeed, it is in this period that Ukrainian culture begins its transformation from a closed culture into a 'modern', secularized one. This process is reflected in the gradual secularization of literature, in the growing 'multifunctionality' of the *prosta mova* and the decreasing use of Church-Slavonic (in this the author sees the influence of the Reformation), the gradual emergence of the author's personality, and finally in the development of the social function of literary styles. Regarding Ukrainian society, the author refers to the opinion of V. Lytvynov28, who has identified four groups in late 16th and early 17th century Ukrainian society: the first were conservative orthodox; then came the

<sup>26</sup> "повноцінний розвиток універсального стилю бароко в Україні" (Dončyk *et al.* 2014-, 2: 28).

<sup>27</sup> The adjective *peršyj* is used to distinguish this renewal from the one that took place in Ukrainian culture at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.

<sup>28</sup> The quoted source is: V. Lytvynov, *Ukrajina v pošukach svojeji identyčnosti. XVI-počatok XVII stolittja. Istoryko-filosofs'kyj narys*, Kyiv 2008, p. 515.

utraquists29, among which "both Renaissance-humanistic and Reformation ideas were formed"30; the third group was in favor of the church union with Rome; the fourth group is defined as "Renaissance-humanistic" ("ренесансногуманістичне"), however its representatives are said to have almost all subsequently dissolved in the 'Polish sea'. This expression, which the author probably took from Lytvynov, since it is in quotation marks, is not further explained. What does it mean to dissolve in the Polish sea? Does it refer to ethnic Ukrainians (Ukrainian-Polish, Ukrainian-Belarusian, Ukrainian-Belarusian-Lithuanian-Polish), authors of the so-called *porubižžja*, who in one way or another identified themselves as Ruthenians and wrote (also) in Latin and/or Polish? The author does not specify, and the following exposition is rather organized according to the different literary genres, starting with the different varieties of prose. The author observes that while the latter remain more or less the same of the previous period (epistles, tracts, sermons, saints' lives, annals, pilgrimage accounts) and preserve an established ideal-thematic religious discourse, their content and genre forms experience a radical renewal under the influence of the new challenges of the *nacional'ne vidrodžennja* epoch. Polemical prose is defined as the most vital prose genre of the period for the lively interconfessional debate that characterized it. About this the author quotes the Ukrainian scholars D. Nalyvajko and V. Krekoten'; they state that this literature "echoing the actual Renaissance Humanism, 'in its typology, in its functions and in its genre composition is very close to the literature generated by the Western European Reformation'"31. Unfortunately, in the subsequent synthetic but circumstantial overview of Ukrainian polemical literature the author does not indicate in which aspects and in which ways such literature echoed Renaissance Humanism. Here, as elsewhere, the lack of more in-depth studies on the reception of Humanism and the Renaissance is felt. Until this gap is filled, it will be difficult to have a clear picture of those elements which harken back to the Renaissance and those components that pertain more specifically to the new Baroque taste.

## 3.3 Polish language poetry and Latin-language poetry

Evidence of the discrepancy of approach can be found in the chapters on Polishlanguage poetry and Latin-language poetry respectively on pages 260-280 (by R. Radyševs'kyj) and 281-295 (by M. Trofymuk). In the former, Polish-Latin cultural bilingualism is set on the background of Ukrainian Baroque, which is

<sup>29</sup> The utraquists (from the Latin expression *sub utraque specie*, "under two kinds") were a moderate faction of the Hussites, who supported the laity's right to receive communion of both bread and wine during the Eucharist.

<sup>30</sup> "Були сформовані і ренесансно-гуманістичні, і реформаційні ідеї" (Dončyk *et al.* 2014-, 2: 81).

<sup>31</sup> "Перегукуючсь із власне ренесансним гуманізмом, 'за своєю типологією, за своїми функціами і за своїм жанровим складом дуже близька саме до літератури, породженої західноєвропейською Реформацією'" (Dončyk *et al.* 2014-, 2: 82).

characterized, among other things, by the tendency to "to harmonize the national content of culture with linguistic means of expression"32, a phenomenon which in most European countries, took place during the Renaissance. The author underlines that the Ukrainian Baroque took upon itself the functions of the Renaissance, besides devoting particular attention to Medieval themes and motifs, theocentrism, genre normativity, the spiritual element, and the union of Christianity with antiquity. The author then mentions a series of issues generated by the Polish-Ukrainian coexistence, first and foremost the encounter of the two traditions of Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Catholic) Christianity. However, the treatment of these issues is set only on the background of the Baroque. For instance, it is said that it was the Sarmatian ideology, "on the basis of the baroque cult of respect for antiquity"33, that had the important function of spurring the Ukrainian elite to search for their ancestors in Kyivan Rus'.

However, no mention is made of the role that the rediscovery of Classical antiquity during the Renaissance may have had. The author does not elaborate on the issue of multilingualism, noting only that the existence of two literary languages (Latin and Polish) slowed down the development of the 'national' language, and that the use of the Polish language by the cultural elite of the time was then explained with the need to expand the circle of readers. It is not very clear what the author has in mind when he states that multilingualism, i.e. an author's freedom to choose the language that best suited his genre and thematic needs, complicates the criteria of attribution of authors and texts to more than one literature, Ukrainian, Polish, Belarusian. It is certainly true, however, that the historical condition in which Ukrainian literature developed requires special criteria to be adequately and correctly framed.

Further on the author analyses prose and poetic genres written in Polish: polemical poetry by Ipatij Potij and Meletij Smotryc'kyj and various examples of epicedia. In the latter the author underlines the baroque characteristics of the genre. Subsequently, the discourse shifts to the revival of Kyiv and the role of the Mohyla College/Academy is highlighted in the formation of a new generation of men of letters and representatives of the cultural elite. Through the Polish language, the new writers could assimilate the best models of the Polish Renaissance and early-Baroque culture, the author asserts. However, in the subsequent analysis of the most interesting Polish language works, only the elements pertaining to the Baroque are mentioned and they are all analyzed against the background of Baroque aesthetics. If the author's claim is correct, the picture would be more complete if the Renaissance roots of ideas, themes and motifs were highlighted. For instance, when analyzing the love for the past of Ukraine and especially of Kyiv in Tomasz Jewlewicz's *Labirynt, albo droga zawikłana* and in other poetic and prose works, one should bear in mind that the rediscovery of one's own past had its roots in the

<sup>32</sup> "Узгодити й націопнальний зміст культури з мовними засобами вираження" (Dončyk *et al.* 2014-, 2: 261).

<sup>33</sup> "на ґрунті барокового культу пошани до старовини" (Dončyk *et al.* 2014-, 2: 263).

Renaissance period. The same can be said about different poetic genres, such as epicedia, which certainly harken back to their rediscovery by Humanism in the Renaissance period. Also, the images of a reborn Kyiv, whose hills are likened to mount Helicon and Parnassus and whose river Dnipro is said to recall the Castalian springs of inspiration, so frequent in the poetry of this period, undoubtedly have their roots in the migration of the muses *topos* of Renaissance poetry.

This said, it is certainly true that Ukrainian literature of this time span is under the influence of the Baroque, since its main tenets, love for contrasts, striking contradictions, refined ornamentation, studied visual and intellectual complexity and many other features of this cultural mode, were certainly congenial to the 16th and 17th century Ukrainian elite's frame of mind.

Other poetic works analyzed are devoted to the figure of the metropolitan Petro Mohyla, whose role in the development of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and Ukrainian culture can hardly be overestimated34. Also, the insistence on the importance of culture, which characterizes various Polish-language literary works devoted to Petro Mohyla analyzed in the text, certainly has its roots in the Humanistic movement. One cannot but recall the repudiation of all Classical pagan authors and contemporary European scholarship, together with the rhetorical devices and embellishments that they used, by the Athos monk Ivan Vyšens'kyj (ca. 1550-after 1621) of just a few decades earlier. A clear break with Vyšens'kyj's attitude can be seen in two works of religious content, the *Paterikon* (1635) edited by Silvestr Kosov at the request of Petro Mohyla, and *Tερατουργημα, lubo cuda…* (1638) by Afanasij Kal'nofojs'kyj, in which were gathered legends and accounts related to the Monastery of the Kyivan Caves and the miracles that happened there. Its goal was to contribute to the reinforcement of the Kyivan Church and its supporters, past and present. As is underlined by the author, in *Tερατουργημα*, *lubo cuda…* particular attention was devoted to the panegyric glorification of learning, which was in line with the concept shared by the circle of Petro Mohyla's supporters on the usefulness of education and the light of science. Kal'nofojs'kyj goes so far as to affirm that the eternal gates of glory will be opened to the people who devoted themselves to these noble deeds. Although the praise of learning and science certainly harkens back to the Renaissance, for its fascination with medieval mysticism and its exquisite and aphoristic writing, the author stresses this work's connection with the Baroque style.

Further on, in the last four pages of his essay, the author analyzes Polishlanguage emblematic poems written to praise the local nobility which continue to develop the traditions of Baroque panegyric poetry of the Kyivan circle. They are all linked to the Mohyla Collegium, which proves the centrality of

<sup>34</sup> Some of these works are: the collection of panegyric verses *Mnemosyne sławy* (1633), whose author was probably Oleksandr Tyškevyč, the poetic and prose Polish-Latin panegyric "Sancti Petri Metropolitae Kijoviensis thaumaturgi Rossiae… Petrus Mohila" (1645) by Teodosij Bajevs'kyj, and *Żal ponowiony* by Josyp Kalimon, a mourning response to the death of Mohyla.

this institution for the formation of the Ukrainian cultural elite. Of particular interest is an anonymous work, probably written by students of the college under the supervision of their teachers, addressed to Jeremija Vyšnevec'kyj with the aim to praise the noble Korybut-Vyšnevec'kyj family. It is a dramatized poem in four acts, divided into scenes, probably recited by students of the college, and it reflects the characteristic features of Kyivan Baroque versification of the mid-17th century. The author calls attention to the year of its composition, 1648, and underlines that at that time Bohdan Chmel'nyc'kyj had already engaged in a few battles against the Polish Crown. In the poem, however, these events are not reflected upon: learned poetry remains removed from current events. If this is true, it is to be noted, as does the author, that Petro Mohyla and the Kyivan elite, also after his death, did not share the pro-Russian orientation of Ukrainian Cossacks. On the contrary, they considered Cossack insurrections as a rebellion that troubled the peaceful development of the state. Indeed, the prince Jeremija Vyšnevec'kyj in the Cossack wars passed over to the Polish-Catholic camp and thus against Ukraine. The author concludes by stating that the literary activity of the Kyiv-Mohyla college in the first half of the 16th century offers bright poetic examples of an original Kyivan school of emblematic-panegyric Baroque versification, strictly tied to the European and particularly Polish Baroque.

Finally, the chapter on Latin-language poetry, on pages 281 to 295. The author starts out by saying that from the 14th through 16th centuries about 60 authors of Ukrainian origin created Renaissance literature in Central and Eastern Europe. He bases his statement on the list found in Z. Florczak's work *Udział regionów w ksztaltowaniu siȩ polskiego piśmiennictwa XVI wieku*, Warszawa, Wrocław, Kraków 1967, although he adds that the scholar uses the words "Ziemie Ruskie Rzeczypospolitej" without differentiating White, Red and Black Rus'. In this chapter he analyzes the work of three poets: Sebast'jan Fabian Klenovyč, Symon Pekalid, and Ivan Dombrov'skyj. He does not stress the distinction, as Ševčuk does (see above), between Ruthenian writers who were Catholic, on one side, and representatives of Polish-Ukrainian poetry. Moreover, if Klenovyč was certainly Catholic, from the biographical information we have about him, we cannot affirm that he was Ruthenian.

Indeed, from the available biographical information, we know that Sebast'jan Fabian Klenovyč (1545-1602) was born in the region of Poznan to Polish parents and lived most of his adult life in Lublin, where he held various administrative positions. His link with Ukraine consists of his stay in L'viv from about 1570 to about 1573 and especially of his long and fascinating poem *Roksolania*, the first printed Neo-Latin poem about Ukraine, as the author of the essay remarks. In the author's opinion, it is exactly for this poem that Klenovyč's work is considered part of Ukrainian literature.

The poem is quite accurately illustrated. The author of the essay, quoting Mychajlo Bilyk's previous study of the text, states that *Roksolania* had no analogue in Classical antiquity. He correctly lists the quotations from Classical authors, although the most probable antecedent for Klenovyč's descriptions of forests and pasture lands are Virgil's *Georgics* and *Eclogues*, also called *Bucolics*, which were quite popular during the Renaissance. However, the author, again citing Bilyk, notes that in *Roksolania* "so vividly reflected the creative individuality of the poet, which goes beyond the Renaissance imitation"35. This statement, indeed, betrays quite a narrow comprehension of Renaissance poets as slavish imitators of Classical antiquities, without their own individuality.

The term Renaissance is also used to define the way the poem 'sings' Ukraine, that is, according to the author, in a form characteristic of a Renaissance literary work. However, he does not specify of which characteristics he is speaking, or define what characterizes a Renaissance literary work in a more general sense and how *Roksolania* exemplifies this. It would also have been proper to investigate the contemporary European antecedents of *Roksolania*. One would expect a bibliography on these earlier works and other Neo-Latin literature produced by Ukrainians or about Ukraine.

Trofymuk also discusses Symon Pekalid, an interesting Neo-Latin Polish poet who, for reasons we do not know, became very close to the prince Kostjantyn Ostroz'kyj. So close that in the record of Cracow University graduates, the note "ruthenus factus" ("he became a Rusyn") appears next to his name. He became so Rusyn, in fact, that at the beginning of the 1590s he took part in the campaign against the lower Cossacks. A witness to this, as well as to his closeness to prince Kostjantyn Ostroz'kyj and to the Ostroh Academy founded by him, is Pekalid's poem *De bello Ostrogiano ad Piantcos cum Nizoviis libri quattuor* (Cracow 1600). The author provides a description of each of the books, underlining that Pekalid's point of view is that of the noble elite, and thus he provides an idealized image of the princely clan and their manifold deeds for the defense and the cultural development of their land. The poem is quite interesting also as a historical source, in that, among others things, it provides an accurate description of the city of Ostroh, of its trilingual lyceum, and of the genealogical tree of the Ostroz'kyj family, starting from the *Rus patriarcha* up to his own time. The victorious deeds on the battlefield of the latest descendants of the Ostroh family are described as well. In the second book, Pekalid describes the Zaporoz'ka Sič, and from the note on the margin ("Insula in Boristhene, ubi Nisovii delitescunt") ("an island on the Boristhenes, where the *Nisovii* lurk") one understands the position of the author. The description of the prince's army is also worthy of mention, which was composed of different ethnic groups, among which Tatars settled in Ostroh; their customs, manners and armament are described in detail.

Only books 3 and 4 illustrate the military events hinted at in the title, i.e. the clash of the Ostroz'kyj army with twenty thousand lower Cossacks. In the third book the preparation of the battle in the Cossacks' camp is described as well as the manifold tactic they plan to use to disorientate the enemy; the description of the battle near P'jatka is the culminating point. As to the fourth book, it con-

<sup>35</sup> "Настільки яскраво відбилася творча індивідуакльність поета, що переходить рамки ренесансного наслідування" (Dončyk *et al.* 2014-, 2: 286).

tains the description of the preparation for the new battle as well as the speech of prince Janusz. The preparation is interrupted by the arrival of the Cossacks' envoys who ask prince Kostjantyn for a truce, and indeed the new battle will never take place, since, as the author of the essay states, Kosyns'kyj appears and in a short repentant speech expresses his desire for reconciliation and obedience.

Trofymuk observes that the whole poem is built on the paraphrasis of Virgil's *Aeneid*, starting from the incipit, and that three hundred verses out of 1400 are borrowed from various works by Virgil, especially his famous epic poem. He also notes that along with various reminiscences from Latin poets, such as Ovid, Statius, Lucanus, Horace, and Catullus, the poem contains allusions to Biblical motifs taken from the books of Jeremiah, Isiah, Deuteronomy and the Psalms. Except for the mentioned sources of inspiration, no other mention is made of the possible Humanistic or Renaissance sources of this long and original poem. Indeed, it is beyond doubt that Pekalid's poem is also a fruit of the Renaissance, in many respects. On one side, it reflects the Renaissance approach to the *heroicum carmen* – designed to surpass the celebration of *res gestae regumque ducumque et tristia bella*, as Horace defined the topic of the heroic poem. This approach goes hand in hand with the loose boundary between epic and encomiastic poetry that has its roots in the Renaissance didactic theory of art36. Finally, the celebration of prince Janusz Ostroz'kyj and of his clan, of their good administration of the subject territory, as well as of their caring for the development of culture and science certainly reflect the humanistic "transformation of wisdom from contemplation to action, from a body of knowledge to a collection of ethical precepts, from a virtue of the intellect to a perfection of the will"37. Not long ago, this poem was the object of a scholarly article by Natalia Jakovenko, but her scholarly insights into this first Neo-Latin poem, tied to Volyn' for its appearance and context, do not seem to be reflected in this analysis of the poem.

## 4. Conclusions

The analysis of the most relevant aspects of how two recent histories of Ukrainian literature approach the influence of Humanism and the Renaissance in earlymodern Ukrainian literature allows me to draw some preliminary conclusions. Notwithstanding the differences in their conception, in the type of analysis, and notwithstanding the differences between their tastes and sensitivity in their approach to the study of literature, the authors of the two histories have the shared goal of reevaluating the material outside of the ideological strictures of the Soviet period. However, some aspects touched upon in their analyses still need to be examined thoroughly and dispassionately. Among them the supranational character of Humanism and the Renaissance and of their reception, and the multiple identity of many men of letters in Ukraine in the examined period. At the

<sup>37</sup> Rice 1958: 149.

<sup>36</sup> See Hardison 1962: 43-67 and 71-72.

same time the emphasis on the secular character of the 'new' literature should be properly considered. In the reality of the texts of the time, religion continues to be an integral part of mental, intellectual, political and cultural discourse.

Another advantage which has characterized the work of the two authors considered here has been the publication of many texts of early-modern Ukrainian literature that had formerly been only in manuscript form. Many previously unpublished texts appeared in print in the last decades of the 20th century and in the first years of the 21st century. This is still an ongoing process and it will probably last for a few more decades to come. Many manuscripts are still scattered in libraries and archives or in private collections across Ukraine, Belarus' and Russia. However, a drawback that has often characterized the publication of these texts is the poor quality of the editions: whether they were written in Latin, in Polish, in Old-Ukrainian or in Church Slavonic, they have almost always been translated into modern Ukrainian. This is not in itself a flaw, but the lack of the original text next to its translation into modern Ukrainian is an inconvenience that should be avoided in future editions, since it does not allow one to appreciate the language in which the texts were written, and the language is an integral part of the work, which cannot and should not be separated from the content it carries. Moreover, the lack of the original language does not allow one to reconstruct the poetics of reminiscences, which is paramount to the literature of this epoch.

Hopefully, the reconstruction, as much as possible, of the full picture of the literary texts produced in Ukraine from the 15th to the 18th century will facilitate the analysis of their features in and of themselves, including the influence of Humanism and the Renaissance on their composition. Rather than merely viewing their language, metrics and various modes of expression as a preparatory way for subsequent currents, such as the Baroque, we might appreciate this period's literary production on its own terms and for its own characteristics.





## Abstract

In this article, the author analyzes how the broad theme of the reception of Humanism and Renaissance is treated in two important histories of Ukrainian literature, respectively *Muza Roksolans'ka. Ukrajins'ka literatura XVI-XVIII stolit'* by Valerij Ševčuk (Kyiv, "Lybid'", 2004-2005), in two volumes, and *Istorija ukrajins'koji literatury* in twelve volumes (2014-) published by the publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine Naukova Dumka. The disappearance of Soviet ideological constraints has brought about the emergence of various aspects of this theme: the multilingualism (especially as regards literature written in Latin), the multiple identity of writers of the so-called *Pohranyččja*, the literature written in Latin, are just a few. However, some aspects still need to be addressed: among then the supranational approach should be adequately considered when dealing with the spread of Humanism-Renaissance.

*Keywords:* Reception of Humanism-Renaissance; Early-modern Ukrainian literature; Neo-Latin literature, multilingualism; multiple identity.

## **Biblioteca di Studi Slavistici**


The essays gathered in this volume are devoted to different aspects of the reception of Humanism and the Renaissance in Slavic countries. They mark the beginning of a dialogue among scholars of different Slavic languages and literatures, in search of the ways in which the entire Slavic world – albeit to varying degrees – has participated from the very beginning in European cultural transformations, and not simply by sharing some characteristics of the new currents, but by building a new identity in harmony with the changes of the time. By overcoming the dominant paradigm, which sees all cultural manifestations as part of a separate 'national' linguistic, literary and artistic canon, this volume is intended to be the first step in outlining some ideas and suggestions in view of the creation, in the future, of an atlas that maps the relevance of Humanism and the Renaissance in the Slavic world.

Giovanna Siedina is professor of Russian at the University of Florence. She has done research in the fields of 18th century Russian lexicography and of earlymodern and 18th-19th century Ukrainian Literature. Her interests mainly lie in the reception of classical authors, especially Horace, in Ukrainian and Russian literature, and 16th-18th century Ukrainian Neo-Latin literature. Giovanna Siedina is also involved in the Russian language portion of the multilingual research project "Lessico dei Beni Culturali" and she does research in this field.

> ISSN 2612-7687 (print) ISSN 2612-7679 (online) ISBN 978-88-5518-198-3 (PDF) ISBN 978-88-5518-199-0 (ePUB) ISBN 978-88-5518-200-3 (XML) DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-198-3

> > www.fupress.com

**FUP**

Civilization in the Slavic World (15th-17th Century)

Essays on the Spread of Humanistic and Renaissance Literary Giovanna Siedina