Search

The brief sojourn of St Hilarion to a setting not far from Epidaurus in Dalmatia in circa 365 CE was depicted by St Jerome in Vita Sancti Hilarionis, portraying the two notable miracles of the famous Palestinian anchorite - the slaying of the dragon Boas ravaging the area and the rescue of the city from the giant waves that threatened to devastate it. Both miracles have been interwoven into the later narratives of both medieval writers and the Renaissance chroniclers of Dubrovnik, especially Thomas the Archdeacon (of Split), Anonymous, Nicolo Ragnina and Serafino Razzi. The paper discourses these historians? interpretations (along with the accounts of later Dubrovnik chroniclers) of the glorious miracles of St Hilarion. In the Dubrovnik chronicles, the miracle of the dragon is correlated with the legend of the Theban king Cadmus, who was transformed into a serpent upon his arrival in the area, or with Asclepius, the Greek god of medicine whose most famous sanctuary was the homonymous town in the Peloponnese and whose symbol was a serpent or snake on a rod. In accordance with the local legend, the mentioned chroniclers unambiguously correlated the liberation of the city from beast with the ending of paganism and the baptising of the Dubrovnik populace. Furthermore, the paper discusses the elements related to the cult of St Hilarion in Dubrovnik and its vicinity, drawing attention to the lore preserved in oral tradition.

Medieval liturgists from the beginning and end of a long period of writing liturgical treatises Amalar of Metz (775 – 850) and William Durand (1230 – 1296) wrote so-called liturgical expositions. Amalar of Metz wrote in the early 9th-century exposition entitled De Ecclesiastico officio, in which he explains liturgical ceremonies using allegorical interpretation. In the developed Middle ages, he became a model for other theologians who followed his example in writing similar liturgical expositions. One of them is William Durand Older, bishop of Mende, who wrote liturgical exposition Rationale divinorum officiorum in the 13th century. Both liturgical expositions, the one of Amalar and the other of Durand, left a significant mark in their time, and in sequent centuries. Amalar’s exposition inspired the development of later medieval allegorical interpretations, while Durand’s exposition was in use until the recent liturgical reform in the 20th century. In this paper, the author researches the reception of the thought of St. Jerome at both abovementioned medieval writers. Medieval authors use patristic writers and sources not in the sense of theological development, but to approve doctrine or liturgical ceremonies of their time. Compiler methods of both medieval authors were important in the transmission of patristic thought to the following periods of history. In the research of St. Jerome’s thought in the works of Amalar and Durand, the author considers their use of St. Jerome’s commentary of the Holly Script, his attitude towards the unity of the Church and doctrine, relation to women, lay people, clerics, and sacred places.

U djelima naših latinista renesanse sv. Jeronim najčešće se susreće kao autoritet i učitelj (N. Modruški, D. Buća, B. Zane, M. Marulić, M. Vlačić), zatim u tvrdnjama i dokazivanjima da je Dalmatinac (I. P. Severitan, J. Šižgorić, M. Marulić, V. Pribojević), a posvećena mu je i po jedna hagiografija i elegija. Najsimpatičnija su nastojanja naših latinista dokazivanja da se sv. Jeronim rodio u Dalmaciji pa je time najznamenitiji Dalmatinac, tj. Hrvat. Naše su latiniste izazvali F. Biondo i A. Calepino svojim tvrdnjama da se sv. Jeronim rodio u Istri te da je time Talijan. Interesantno je da su na te tvrdnje Talijana reagirali samo naši latinisti šibenskoga i splitskoga kruga., In the works of our Latinists of the Renaissance period, St. Jerome is most commonly referred to as an authority and a teacher (N. Modruški, D. Buća, B. Zane M. Marulić, M. Vlačić). Further still, his name can be encountered in relation to the claims pertaining to and attempting to prove his Dalmatian origins (I. P. Severitan, J. Šižgorić, M. Marulić, V. Pribojević) and, finally, he was the subject of a hagiography and one elegy. There is much charm in the efforts of our Latinists to prove that St. Jerome was born in Dalmatia, and is thusly the most distinguished Dalmatian, i.e. Croat. In this our Latinists met their challenge in the claims of F. Biondo and A. Calepino, who asserted that St. Jerome was born in Istria, and was, consequently, Italian. It is, however, interesting that only the Latinists of the Šibenik and Split Circles saw it fit to respond to such Italian claims.

Na hrvatskom kulturnom prostoru svećenici Katoličke crkve rabili su kao liturgijski jezik osim latinskoga i crkvenoslavenskoga i književni jezik koji je bio oblikovan u skladu s govornim jezikom jednostavnoga puka. Taj je liturgijski jezik nastao u sjeni i na temelju crkvenoslavenskoga i bio je u rimokatoličkom bogoslužju u Hrvata u uporabi stoljećima prije Drugoga vatikanskoga koncila (1962.). Njegovu širenju pogodovala je legenda o sv. Jeronimu koja kaže da je Sveto pismo preveo na jezik dalmatinskih Slavena, tj. Hrvata, i da ga je zapisao glagoljicom, primarnim pismom hrvatskih glagoljaša. Pod utjecajem legende o sv. Jeronimu nastao je i prvi hrvatski tiskani rječnik Fausta Vrančića. U njemu se “dalmatinski” ubraja u najplemenitije europske jezike, prvenstveno zbog pretpostavke da je riječ o materinskom jeziku sv. Jeronima. To je bio začetak hrvatske leksikografije, u vremenu u kojem je prema nalogu Katoličke crkve za misionarske potrebe nastala prva hrvatska gramatika koju je napisao isusovac Bartol Kašić. Takve činjenice pokazuju da se je hrvatski književni jezik starijega doba izgrađivao u skladu sa strujanjima i potrebama zadanih unutar Katoličke crkve i da je hrvatski liturgijski jezik Katoličke crkve ključno obilježio i usmjerio razvoj i nastanak hrvatskoga književnoga jezika., The priests of the Croatian cultural space utilised not only Latin and Church Slavonic as liturgical languages, but also a literary language that had been formed in accordance with the spoken language of the common people. This liturgical language originated in the shadow and on the basis of Church Slavonic, and was used by Croats in Roman Catholic worship for centuries prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962). The language spread partly due to the legend of St. Jerome, who was said to have translated the Holy Scripture into the language spoken by the Dalmatian Slavs, i.e., Croats, and had written it down in Glagolitic script, the primary Croatian Glagolitic alphabet. The legend of St. Jerome also influenced the creation of the first printed Croatian dictionary by Faust Vrančić (Faustus Verantius). It classifies the “Dalmatian” language among the noblest of the European languages, primarily due to the assumption that it was St. Jerome’s mother tongue. This marks the origin of Croatian lexicography at a time when the first Croatian grammar was composed by a Jesuit, Bartol Kašić (Bartholomaeus Cassius), who, acting on the order of the Catholic Church, had created the grammar to be used for the purposes of missionary work. These facts demonstrate that the development of Croatian literary language at its earlier stages, was aligned with the strivings and needs of the Catholic Church and that Croatian liturgical language of the Catholic Church had made a crucial impact and directed the development and emergence of Croatian literary language.