Naslov
Marulićev etički nauk u »Davidijadi« (»Davidias«) i u njezinu alegorijskom tumačenju (»Tropologica ‘Davidiadis’ expositio«)
(Marulić’s Ethical Doctrine in “Davidiad” (“Davidias”) and Its Allegorical Interpretation (“Tropologica ‘Davidiadis’ expositio”))

Autori
Balić, Davor

Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Sažeci sa skupova, sažetak, znanstveni

Izvornik
Mediteranski korijeni filozofije 9 / Kušan, Emil ; Matijević, Mira - Zagreb : Split : Hrvatsko filozofsko društvo ; Odsjek za filozofiju Filozofskog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Splitu, 2015, 21-24

Skup
Mediteranski korijeni filozofije 9

Mjesto i datum
Split, Hrvatska, 09.04.2015. - 11.04.2015

Vrsta sudjelovanja
Predavanje

Vrsta recenzije
Domaća recenzija

Ključne riječi
Marko Marulić; »Davidijada« (»Davidias«); »Alegorijsko tumačenje ‘Davidijade’ (»Tropologica ‘Davidiadis’ expositio«)
(Marko Marulić; “Davidiad” (“Davidias”); “Allegorical interpretation of the ‘Davidiad’” (“Tropologica ‘Davidiadis’ expositio”))

Sažetak
Pisanje svoje »Davidijade«, u kojoj je, kao što doznajemo iz posvete toga epa, prenio »u stihove djela kralja Davida držeći se povijesti njihove kako je izložena u svetim knjigama«, splitski renesansni mislilac Marko Marulić (1450-1524) završio je najvjerojatnije 1517. godine. Taj ep ostao je u rukopisu sve do 1954. godine, kada ga je Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti otisnula u 31. knjizi edicije »Stari pisci hrvatski«. Marulić je »Davidijadu« podijelio na četrnaest pjevanja, koja sadrže, što doznajemo iz studije Josipa Badalića objavljene u prvom izdanju djela, »religioznu epopeju o kralju Davidu kao praocu Kristovu.« Svojem epu Marulić je, što također ističe u posveti »Davidijade«, priložio »dodatak u prozi«, u kojem je obradio »sadržaje pojedinih knjiga«, ali i »pokazao« da je »sadržaj Staroga zavjeta slika Novoga.« Naslovio ga je »Alegorijsko tumačenje ‘Davidijade’« (»Tropologica ‘Davidiadis’ expositio«). U njemu je, kako kaže, pokušao prikazati »kakve slike novoga vremena sadržavaju u sebi djela Davidova«, pa istaknuo da, primjerice, David »gotovo u svemu predstavlja lik Kristov, a da Šaul označuje Židove koji su progonili Krista«, dok je Golijata, »najjačega među idolopoklonicima Filistejcima«, protumačio kao »đavla koji je vladao narodima.« Osim iz teoloških, književnih i filoloških perspektiva, iz kojih su dosad i bili najčešće sagledavani, »Davidijadu« i njezino alegorijsko tumačenje moguće je sagledati i iz filozofske perspektive. Naime, u epu je zastupljena i, primjerice, filozofija odgoja, što potvrđuju stihovi iz devetog pjevanja, u kojem stoji da se »skrb da mlađahna uči dječaka« povjerava onome tko je ovladao »plȅmenitim« umijećima i tko je, istodobno, »čist od svakoga grijeha« te krepostan, jer »kakve primjere vidi i pouke upije ú se izmala čovjek mlad, kad odraste takav će i bit.« U »Alegorijskom tumačenju ‘Davidijade’«, Marulić se pak iskazao kao hermeneutičar, budući da je, kao što 1989. godine ističe Branimir Glavičić, tim dodatkom »dao ustanovljiv doprinos tradicionalnom tumačenju biblijskog teksta«. No, Marulić je u »Davidijadi« i u njezinu tumačenju ipak najčešće problematizirao teme koje pripadaju području etike. Njegov odnos prema biblijskim protagonistima i događajima pritom je uočljiv na brojnim mjestima, što potvrđuju stihovi u kojima istupa, kako 1986. godine naglašava Darko Novaković, ili kao »interpretator zbivanja«, ili kao »moralni prosuditelj«, ili kao »tvorac izvanvremenskih generalizacija«, ili kao »ocjenjivač vlastita posla.« Prikazujući protagoniste i njihove osobine, Marulić je Davida opisao kao čovjeka koji je bio, primjerice, obdaren »duševnim dobrima«, koji se »kreposnim činom borio protiv sile« i koji je »blagoslòven sada zbog svojih vrlina i djêlā«, dok je Šaula opisao kao čovjeka koji je bio, primjerice, zloban, nepostojan i sklon tome da se »iz potaje« bori »lukávstvom i spletkama tajnim«. Zastupljenost etičkog nauka pruža i analiza Marulićeva odnosa prema biblijskim događajima prikazanima u »Davidijadi«. U tom epu Marulić je, kao i u, primjerice, »Instituciji« te »Evanđelistaru«, izložio svoj nauk o laži, pa je Davidovo hinjenje ludila kod filistejskog kralja Akiša opravdao time da »očitoj životnoj on pogibelji izbježe tada«, dok je Davidovo pljačkanje i ubijanje Filistejaca, pa laganje filistejskom kralju da pljačka i ubija Židove, obrazložio iskazom da »mali je bio već prijestup pretvarat se tako«, budući da »ipak nije nikakav grijeh spram ljudi neznàbožna roda okrutan biti«. Uz to, ukazao je i na razlog Davidova preljuba s Bat-Šebom: zlo dokolice (»ocii malum«). Pritom je ponudio vlastito razumijevanje pojma »dokolica«, zapisavši da je riječ o »neradu, koji snage vrline radišne lomi«. Zbog toga što se očitovao i o, primjerice, pravednosti, mudrosti, prijateljstvu, zakonu, dužnosti i kazni, nedvojbeno je da je Marulić u »Davidijadi« i u njezinu alegorijskom tumačenju izložio i svoj etički nauk.

Izvorni jezik
Hrvatski

Znanstvena područja
Filozofija

Napomena
It was most probably in 1517 that Marko Marulić (1450-1524), a Renaissance thinker from Split, completed writing his “Davidiad”, as indicated by the inscription of that epic poem in which he transferred “the deeds of king David to verse sticking to their history as outlined in sacred books”. However, that epic poem remained in handwriting until 1954, when it was printed by the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts in the 31st book of the edition “Old Croatian Writers”. Marulić divided “Davidiad” into fourteen cantos, in which he composed, as we find out from the study of Josip Badalić published in the first edition of the work, “a religious epic poem about king David as Christ’s ancestor.” In the inscription of “Davidiad” Marulić also points out that he enclosed “a supplement in prose” to his epic poem in which he elaborated on the “content of the individual books”, and “showed” that “the content of the Old testament is the picture of the New testament.” He entitled it “Allegorical interpretation of the ‘Davidiad’” (“Tropologica ‘Davidiadis’ expositio”). In it, as he stated, he attempted to depict “what kind of images of new age are contained in David’s deeds”, and he therefore emphasized that David “in almost everything represents Christ’s character, whereas Saul stands for the Jews that persecuted Christ”, and Goliath, “the strongest among the idolaters Philistines”, is interpreted as “the devil who ruled nations.” Besides from the theological, literary and philological perspectives, from which they have most frequently been observed, “Davidiad” and its allegorical interpretation can also be viewed from the perspective of philosophy. The epic poem contains, for example, elements of philosophy of education, which is confirmed by the lines from the ninth canto stating that “the care to teach a young boy” should be entrusted with those who acquired proficiency in “noble” arts, and who are also “pure from every sin” and virtuous, for “what examples are seen and what lessons learned by a young man, such a man will he become when he grows up.” In the “Allegorical interpretation of the ‘Davidiad’”, Marulić proved himself as hermeneutist, due to the fact that through that supplement, as stated by Branimir Glavičić in 1989, “he provided a substantial contribution to traditional interpretation of biblical text”. Nevertheless, in “Davidiad” and in its interpretation Marulić most frequently problematized topics that belong to the subject area of ethics. His relationship towards biblical protagonists and events is visible in numerous places, which is confirmed by the lines in which he steps out, as indicated by Darko Novaković in 1986, as a “interpreter of the events”, or as a “moral judge”, or as a “creator of timeless generalizations”, or as an “assessor of his own work.” Whilst depicting protagonists and their characteristics, Marulić described David as the man endowed with “spiritual goods”, who “fights the force through the act of virtue”, and who “was now blessed for his virtues and deeds”, whereas he described Saul as a man who was evil, unstable, and prone to “remaining hidden” whilst fighting “using trickery and secret intrigues”. The presence of ethical doctrine is also provided by the analysis of Marulić’s relationship towards biblical events depicted in “Davidiad”. In that epic poem, just like in “De institutione” and “Evangelistarium”, he presented his doctrine on lie, justifying David’s pretense of madness in front of the Philistine king Achish with the fact “that on that occasion he escaped an obvious life threat”, as well as David’s plundering and killing of the Philistines and lying to the Philistine king by the statement that “it was a minor offence to pretend in that way”, since it was not “a sin to be cruel towards the pagan people”. Furthermore, he pointed out the reason of David’s adultery with Bathsheba: the evil of idleness (“ocii malum”). In this context he offered his own understanding of the term “idleness”, noting that it implies “inaction that crushes the strength of the virtue of diligence”. Since he expressed his opinion on, for example, righteousness, wisdom, friendship, law, obligation and punishment, it is beyond doubt that in “Davidiad” and its allegorical interpretation Marulić also presented his ethical doctrine.

POVEZANOST RADA