131
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS CAROLINAE – HISTORIA UNIVERSITATIS CAROLINAE PRAGENSIS
2015	 Tomus LV. Fasc. 1 Pag. 131–140
JOHN OF MARIGNOLLI AND THE HISTORIOGRAPHICAL
PROJECT OF CHARLES IV
IRENE MALFATTO
ABSTRACT
In 1355 an Italian Franciscan, John of Marignolli, was asked by Charles IV to compose a chronicle of Bohemia.
His Chronicon Bohemorum is conserved into three manuscripts, two of which are now in Prague’s National Library.
Marignolli’s work followed a project of historiographical renovation: Charles aimed to rewrite Bohemian
historiography in order to celebrate his election as Emperor. It was Marignolli’s task to collect all the previous
chronicles, revise them and bring about a brand new universal narrative leading to contemporary Bohemian history.
Shortly after Marignolli’s death, Charles IV gave the Bohemian writer Přibík Pulkava of Radenín the same
appointment: in 1374 he wrote an alternative Chronica Bohemiae, copied beside Marignolli’s one in both of the
Prague manuscripts. These two chronicles are very different from one another: it’s likely that Charles didn’t appreciate
Marignolli’s work and asked Pulkava to write a text more suitable for his purposes.
Keywords: John of Marignolli – Charles IV – Prague – historiography – manuscripts – Přibík Pulkava of Radenín –
Bohemian chronicles
The foundation of Prague’s University in 1348 took place during a great wave of cultural
and political renovation that characterized Bohemia in the middle of the 14th century. In
1344 Prague became an Archbishop’s seat, with Ernest of Pardubice as the first Archibishop;
in 1355, it became the capital city of the Holy Roman Empire, after the coronation of
Charles IV. Charles, ‘king of the Romans’ since 1346, was eager to celebrate Bohemian
history if it had reached its peak during his reign. Therefore, besides his project of renovatio
studiorum, connected with the academic foundation, there was a project of what could be
called a ‘historiographical renovation’, aimed to reconsider Bohemian history in a celebrative
fashion. In other words, Charles’ program exemplifies the need of the new power for
a new narrative to legitimate itself.1 During his reign there was a wide production of chronicles
connected in some way with the imperial court: all these works tried to re-elaborate
past chronicles in order to convert Bohemian history into a path of celebration of Charles
IV’s deeds.2
In twenty years, between 1353 and 1374, five chronicles of Bohemia commissioned
by Emperor Charles had been written. All these works were based on previous Bohemian
1	 Marie Bláhová, Die Hofgeschichtsschreibung am Böhmischen Herrscherhof im Mittelalter, in: Rudolf Schief-
fer – Jaroslaw Wenta (eds.), Die Hofgeschichtsschreibung im Mittelalterlichen Europa, Torún 2006.
2	 Marie Bláhová, Kroniky doby Karla IV, Praha 1987; Bernd-Ulrich Hergemöller, Cogor adversum te. Drei
Studien zum literarisch-theologischen Profil Karls IV. und seiner Kanzlei, Warendorf 1999, pp. 385–387; Jana
Nechutová, Die lateinische Literatur des Mittelalters in Böhmen, Köln – Weimar – Wien 2007, pp.162–167.
132
chronicles, combined and rearranged into a new structure oscillating between world and
local history.
Francis of Prague, in 1353, wrote a second recensio of his chronicle (Chronicae Pragensis
libri III),3 adding a prologue dedicated to Charles IV and some information about the
emperor’s activities, like a paragraph on the university foundation. The chronicle, a combination
of world and local history, is a continuation of Cosmas’ one and is widely based on
Peter of Zittau’s Königsaal chronicle;4
John of Marignolli, between 1355 and 1358, wrote a universal chronicle starting with
the world’s creation entitled Chronicon Bohemorum,5 whose last section – the one about
Bohemian history – is based on Cosmas’ and Dalimil’s chronicles;6
Neplach of Opatovice, around 1362, wrote a Summula chronicae tam Romanae quam
Bohemicae,7 in which he connected Bohemian and world history by collecting excerpts
from previous chronicles (Cosmas and his continuators for Bohemian history, Martin of
Troppau for world history);8
Beneš Krabice of Weitmile, between 1372 and 1374, wrote a Cronica ecclesiae Pragensis9
which is widely based on Francis of Prague and Peter of Zittau, and that culminates
with the parallel biographies of Charles IV and Ernest of Pardubice;10
Přibík Pulkava of Radenín, in 1374, wrote the last chronicle commissioned by Charles IV,
known simply as Chronica Bohemiae (it does not have an official title).11 The narration starts
with the building of the Tower of Babel, but the chronicle does not have a proper universal
structure since it deals from its beginning with the mythical origins of the Czech people and
with Bohemian history. Pulkava’s work is based on Cosmas and his continuators and it has
been enriched with sources and information directly provided and supervised by Emperor
Charles.12
Among all these chronicles, John of Marignolli’s is the only one preceded by a prologue
written apparently by the Emperor himself. Although it is quite certain that the pro-
logue’s author wasn’t Charles but Marignolli, the text seems to express Charles’ ideas on
history and politics and is full of literary quotations reflecting the Emperor’s readings.13
3	 Franciscus Pragensis, Chronicon, ed. Jana Zachová, Praha 1997 (Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum. Series nova, I).
The chronicle’s ‘recensio prima’ was written in the early 1340’s on demand of the bishop John IV of Dražice.
4	 M. Bláhová, Kroniky doby Karla IV., pp. 564–567; B.-U. Hergemöller, Cogor adversum te, pp. 385–386;
J. Nechutová, Die lateinische Literatur, pp. 162–163.
5	 Johannis de Marignola, Chronicon, ed. Josef Emler, Praha 1882 (Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum, III),
pp. 485–604.
6	 M. Bláhová, Kroniky doby Karla IV., pp. 580–583; B.-U. Hergemöller, Cogor adversum te, p. 386; J. Nechutová,
Die lateinische Literatur, pp. 165–166.
7	 Johannis Neplachonis abbatis Opatovicensis, Chronicon, ed. Josef Emler, Praha 1882 (Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum,
III), pp. 443–484.
8	 M. Bláhová, Kroniky doby Karla IV., pp. 583–585; B.-U. Hergemöller, Cogor adversum te, p. 386; J. Nechutová,
Die lateinische Literatur, pp. 164–165.
9	 Benessius de Weitmil, Chronicon, ed. Josef Emler, Praha 1884 (Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum, IV), pp. 457–548.
10	 M. Bláhová, Kroniky doby Karla IV., pp. 567–571; B.-U. Hergemöller, Cogor adversum te, pp. 386–387;
J. Nechutová, Die lateinische Literatur, pp. 163–164.
11	 Przibico de Radenin dictus Pulkava, Chronicon Bohemiae, ed. Josef Emler, Praha 1893 (Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum,
V), pp. 1–326.
12	 M. Bláhová, Kroniky doby Karla IV., pp. 572–580; B.-U. Hergemöller, Cogor adversum te, p. 387; J. Nechutová,
Die lateinische Literatur, pp. 166–167.
13	 For a complete analysis of Charles’ prologue to Marignolli’s chronicle B.-U. Hergemöller, Cogor adversum
te, pp. 374–380.
133
A paragraph of this prologue is crystal clear about Charles’ aims regarding historiography:
“Cronicarum antiquas et novas hystorias maxime Boemorum obscure conscriptas per venerabilem
patrem, fratrem Johannem dictum de Marignolis de Florentia ordinis Minorum,
Bysinianensem episcopum, nostre imperialis aule commensalem, transcurri mandavimus,
amputatis obscuris verborum ambagibus et superfluis resecatis ac interpositis quibusdam
utilibus.”14 (“I gave the venerable father, friar John of Marignolli from Florence, from the
Franciscan Order, bishop of Bisignano and our imperial court’s chaplain, the order to search
for all the ancient chronicles and the latest historiographical works, mostly the Bohemian
ones, written in such an obscure fashion, in order to remove from them the convoluted
language, cut off the superfluous information and add something useful.”)
After Charles’ prologue there is the author’s response. Marignolli explains: “Ego frater
Johannes dictus de Marignolis de Florentia […] cronicarum boemicalium ystorias obscure
quidem pristine conscriptas in unum magis lucide compendium […] duxi regulandas, ut, que
prius obscura clausit umbrositas, concepti operis sententia reddat manifesta.”15 (“I, friar John
of Marignolli from Florence, […] decided to summarize the narratives of all these obscure
Bohemian chronicles written in the past, in order to write a clearer compendium […] and in
order to shine more light on things that were before shrouded by an intense obscurity.”)
John of Marignolli was a Franciscan friar from Florence. It seems that Charles met him
in 1355, when he went to Italy for his imperial coronation, and he asked him to join his
imperial court in Prague.16 Marignolli was a man of learning (he taught at Bologna Studium
around 1332)17 and had been also the protagonist of an extraordinary travel experience: in
1338 he had been sent to the Far East by the Pope for diplomatic reasons, and he had travelled
around Asia for fifteen years.18
We don’t know the true reasons of Charles’ choice for Marignolli: probably the Italian
friar showed some literary competence in other works, but the attribution of these works to
Marignolli is nowadays uncertain.19 Definitely he was a great intellectual: this is evident
due to the large amount of quotations we can find in his Chronicon Bohemorum. Those
14	 Johannis de Marignola, Chronicon, p. 492.
15	 Johannis de Marignola, Chronicon, p. 493.
16	 Girolamo Golubovich, Biblioteca bio-bibliografica della Terra Santa e dell’Oriente francescano, IV, Firenze
1923, p. 268. It seems however that Marignolli had already been in Prague in 1353, because of his
description of a miracle that occurred in St. Agnes’ church during this year (Johannis de Marignola, Chronicon,
pp. 521–522), but there is no evidence of that. Marie Bláhová, ‘… ad probos mores exemplis delectabilibus
provocemus …’. Funkce oficiální historiografie v představách Karla IV., in: Tomáš Bo­rovský – Libor
Jan – Martin Wihoda (eds.), Ad vitam et honorem. Profesoru Jaroslavu Mezníkovi přátelé a žáci k pětasedmdesátým
narozeninám, Brno 2003, p. 112.
17	 Marignolli’s name is written in the Chartularium Studii Bononiensis Sancti Francisci relating to the year 1332.
Analecta Franciscana sive chronica aliaque varia documenta ad historiam fratrum minorum spectantia, XI,
Firenze 1970, pp. 13–14.
18	 For further information on Marignolli’s life and travels: Anastaas Van den Wyngaert, Sinica Franciscana, I,
Firenze 1929, pp. 515–518; Girolamo Golubovich, Biblioteca, pp. 257–271; Irene Malfatto, ‘Plus curiosus
quam virtuosus’: Giovanni de’ Marignolli e il suo resoconto di viaggio (1338–1353), Itineraria 12, 2013,
pp. 55–81; Kateřina Kubínová, Jan Marignola a jeho ‘cestopis’, in: Petr Sommer – Vladimír Liščák (eds.),
Odorik z Pordenone: z Benátek do Pekingu a zpět. Setkávání na cestách Starého světa ve 13.–14. století, Plzeň
2006, pp. 95–106.
19	 Igiovanni Giacinto Sbaraglia, Supplementum et castigatio ad scriptores trium ordinum S. Francisci a Waddingo
aliisve descriptos, Roma 1806, pp. 436–437; G. Golubovich, Biblioteca, p. 308.
134
references show an impressive knowledge of the Bible, exegesis, theology and philosophy.20
Marignolli’s writing style, moreover, was highly rhetorical, well finished and somewhat
‘baroque’.
Maybe John of Marignolli raised the interest of Charles IV because of his Asiatic experience
as well. 14th-century Bohemia, after all, was characterized by an interest towards
the East: one of the most common versions of one of the most famous medieval travel
books, Odoric of Pordenone’s Relatio,21 was actually Bohemian (it was written by Henry
of Glatz around 1340). Furthermore, the first manuscript circulation of another well-known
travel account also happened in Bohemia, with William of Boldensele’s Liber de quibusdam
ultramarinis partibus,22 written in 1336. Moreover, since the beginning of the 15th
century there were Czech translations of Marco Polo’s Divisament dou monde and Man-
deville’s Travels,23 it is probable that these works, in their Latin versions, were already
known and read by Bohemian people in the previous century.
Charles IV himself, as we can read in Marignolli’s Chronicon, was personally interested
in the ‘marvels of the East’. It seems he created at his imperial residence in Prague a sort
of enclosure full of exotic beasts: Marignolli, when describing his trip to southern China,
finds out that “sunt etiam monstruosi serpentes et fere, sicut habet in clausura sua Pragensi
dominus imperator Carolus”24 (“there are also monstrous snakes and beasts, like the ones
Emperor Charles keeps in his enclosure in Prague”).
John of Marignolli proposes a partition of his Chronicon Bohemorum into three books.
The first book, entitled Thearcos, narrates the history of the world from Adam to the
building of the Tower of Babel; the second and the third book are set to show sacred
and mundane histories in parallel, tales of Kings and Emperors (the second book, entitled
Monarchos) and bishops and popes (the third book, entitled Ierarchos) from the
world’s beginning up to the present. In the second and third book the author focuses more
and more on Bohemian history: the real ‘Bohemian chronicle’, in fact, is limited to the
second part of books II and III.25
An important model to Marignolli is Godfrey of Viterbo’s Pantheon (12th century),26
which is often quoted as a source. The Pantheon represents an example of an encyclopaedic
chronicle, a kind of text usually written by Franciscan and Dominican authors in late Middle
Ages. Marignolli, like them, inserts lots of digressions in his chronicle. Concerning the
choice to narrate in parallel religious and mundane rulers’ deeds, another important model
20	 For further information on Marignolli’s cultural background: Anna-Dorothee von den Brincken, Die universalhistorischen
Vorstellungen des Johann von Marignola OFM, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 49/3, Köln – Graz
1967, pp. 297–339.
21	 Odoricus de Portu Naonis, Relatio, ed. Anastaas Van den Wyngaert, Firenze 1929 (Sinica Franciscana I),
pp. 379–495.
22	 Henricus Canisius, Antiquae Lectionis. Antiqua monumenta nunc primum edita et notis illustrata, V, Ingolstadt
1601–1604, pp. 95–142.
23	 J. Nechutová, Die lateinische Literatur, pp. 167–168.
24	 Iohannis de Marignollis, Chronicon Bohemorum. Excerpta de rebus orientalibus, ed. Irene Malfatto, 2013
<http://ecodicibus.sismelfirenze.it> (April 15, 2016), p. 22.
25	 For further information on Chronicon Bohemorum structure M. Bláhová, Kroniky doby Karla IV., pp. 581–582;
Kateřina Engstová, Marignolova kronika jako obraz představ o moci a postavení českého krále, Mediaevalia
Historica Bohemica 6, Praha 1999, pp.79–80.
26	 Gotifredus Viterbiensis, Pantheon, ed. Georg Waitz, Hannover 1872 (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores,
22), pp. 107–307.
135
is Martin of Troppau’s Chronicon Pontificum and imperatorum (13th century).27 However,
John of Marignolli does not always seem to respect his intention to clarify Bohemian historiography,
betraying in some way the Emperor’s will. He interprets Charles’ invitation to
‘superfluis resecare’ (‘cut off superfluous information’) and ‘quaedam utilia interponere’
(‘add something useful’) in a very personal way. In the first and second book he inserts a lot
of long digressions not exactly pertaining to the matter, but strictly related to his personal
experience: his travel to the Far East. These digressions, when recollected together, can be
read as a complete travel account: a very important document about diplomatic relations
between Popes and Mongolian Emperors in the 14th century. Moreover, Marignolli’s narrative
can be seen as an important source on Oriental world geography and habits.28
Marignolli justifies his unusual digressions by insisting on their supposed ‘necessity’. We
can read, for example, a passage in which he reports his trip to Ceylon, insisting on the usefulness
of his account: “Verum quia materia requirit, et credo delectabile et aliquibus proficuum,
hystoriam de Seyllano duximus presentibus inserendam, dummodo placeat Cesaree
maiestati; si vero non placeat obelus citius emendabit.”29 (“As a matter of fact, because the
subject requires it, and because I think it would be pleasant and useful to somebody, I decided
to insert here this information about Ceylon. I will continue as long as His Majesty likes; if it
does not please him, I will immediately emend it with a mark.”)
Marignolli was extremely proud of his trip to Asia. He used the opportunity as collaborator
to this important literary work to incorporate his personal feats into the narrative.
Nevertheless, the Bohemian section of Marignolli’s chronicle is not particularly original:
the author, showing a quite superficial knowledge of Bohemian history, reports the narration
of Cosmas and his continuators without inserting anything new.30 Although reading
Marignolli’s chronicle is interesting even to analyse its reuse of the sources and its particular
representation of Charles IV’s power,31 it is clear that the Italian friar’s authorial idea
was mostly to fill the history of the world with the account of his trip to Asia rather than to
focus on Bohemian history. Therefore, the sections of the chronicle recounting his travels
are undoubtedly the most interesting and original ones. But as this was not in accordance
with the design of the Chronicon Bohemorum, John of Marignolli as historiographer seems
to have disappointed his patron.
Let’s now focus on the Chronicon Bohemorum’s manuscript transmission.32 Marignol-
li’s work is copied completely into only one manuscript, conserved in Prague’s National
27	 Martinus Oppaviensis, Chronicon pontificum et imperatorum, ed. Anna-Dorothee von den Brincken, 2014,
<http://www.mgh.de/ext/epub/mt/index.htm> (January 18, 2016).
28	 Iohannis de Marignollis, Chronicon Bohemorum; I. Malfatto, ‘Plus curiosus quam virtuosus’; K. Kubínová,
Jan Marignola a jeho ‘cestopis’.
29	 Iohannis de Marignollis, Chronicon Bohemorum, p. 8.
30	 The only subject that was quite new in Bohemian historiography is Marignolli’s consideration on Charles’dynasty,
that he made come from the pagan gods Jupiter and Saturn. M. Bláhová, “... ad probos mores”; K. Engstová,
Marignolova kronika.
31	 Marignolli’s attempt to legitimate Charles’ power as Roman emperor is highly researched in Czech literature.
Marie Bláhová, Odraz státní ideologie v oficiální historiografii doby předhusitské, Folia Historica Bohemica
12, Praha 1988; M. Bláhová, “... ad probos mores”; K. Engstová, Marignolova kronika.
32	 Marie Bláhová, Poznámka k recepci České kroniky Jana Marignoly z Florencie ve středověkých Čechách, in:
Helena Krmíčková – Anna Pumprová – Dana Růžičková – Libor Švanda (eds.), Querite primum regnum Dei,
Brno 2006.
136
Library (shelfmark I D 10).33 Another manuscript in the same library (shelf mark I C 24)34
contains only a few excerpts of the text and a third manuscript, now at the Marciana Library
in Venice (shelfmark lat. X 188 [3628]),35 contains only the first book and the beginning
of the second. All these manuscripts belong to the 15th century and they are collections
of heterogeneous texts, mostly focused on historical works and documents pertaining to
Bohemia, especially to the period of Charles IV.
The two Prague manuscripts are very similar in the outlook as well as in the content.
Most of the texts included are from the 14th century and are related to Charles IV and
his reign. The only main difference between the two is the way they deal with Marignol-
li’s Chronicon. Manuscript I D 10 is a composite book, in which the texts copied in the
15th century are placed side by side with interpolated documentary materials of the 17th
century. Among the other contents,36 the presence of Marignolli’s and Pulkava’s chronicles
(ff. 1r–102v; ff. 109r–215r) is significant because both are products of Charles IV’s guidelines
on historiography. We will focus later on the connection between these two works.
Manuscript I C 24 dates from the second half of the 15th century. Its content is partially
similar to the other manuscript, but it contains more texts related to Charles IV, his court and
his intellectual entourage. The manuscript actually seems to be a copy of a miscellaneous
book produced in Prague during the second half of the 14th century. In this manuscript we
find Pulkava’s chronicle (ff. 1r–82r), a list of Bohemian kings and bishops (ff. 83r–87v),
the Vita of Charles IV (ff. 90r–112v), the text of the Bulla Aurea (ff. 171v–185v) and some
excerpts from Marignolli’s chronicle (f. 202r/v). The presence of excerpts from Marsilius of
Padua’s Tractatus de translatione imperii (ff. 190v–198r) and from Petrarch’s De sui ipsius
et multorum ignorantia (ff. 203r–205v) is interesting as well, because of the links of both
authors with the imperial court. Significant also is the presence of excerpts from Godfrey
of Viterbo’s Pantheon (ff. 206v–315r) and of Martin of Troppau’s Chronicon Pontificum et
Imperatorum (ff. 198v–201v): these works were important sources to Marignolli’s Chronicon
Bohemorum, so they were probably significant within Prague’s culture of the time.37
At f. 205v an 18th century lector steps in remarking his removal of some sheets because,
as he states, they contain useless materials, not pertaining to the principal subject of the
manuscript, which is history.38 So the manuscript, after this intrusion, lost some material:
perhaps, we lost some texts that we could imagine similar to the ones of Petrarch and Marsilius,
the only texts not following historiographical topics. This is a great loss, because
this manuscript – or better its antigraph – seems to have been an interesting outcome of
Prague’s cultural milieu during Charles’ reign.
33	 Josef Truhlář, Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum latinorum qui in C. R. bibliotheca publica atque Universitatis
Pragensis asservantur, I, Praha 1905, pp. 54–55.
34	 J. Truhlář, Catalogus, pp. 39–41.
35	 Giuseppe Valentinelli, Bibliotheca manuscripta ad S. Marci Venetiarum. Codices mss. Latini, VI, Venezia
1873, pp. 99–101.
36	 Remarkable too is the presence of the Vita of Charles IV (ff. 216r–238v). For a full description of the manu-
script’s contents J. Truhlář, Catalogus, pp. 54–55.
37	 For a full description of the manuscript’s contents J. Truhlář, Catalogus, pp. 39–41. See also: M. Bláhová,
Poznámka k recepci, pp. 337–340.
38	 The text of the gloss is: “Hic sequebantur miscellanea quaedam theologica partim etiam philosopica et poetica,
ad historiam parum aut nihil facientia. Ut autem in hoc volumine uberioris historiae locus esset, omnia illa folia
inutilia eieci, et chartam puram, in qua conformia credentibus scriberentur, substituendam esse putavi.”
137
In both manuscripts Marignolli’s Chronicon Bohemorum is placed side by side to Pulka-
va’s Chronica Bohemiae. The latter was composed in 1374, about twenty years after the former
(which was composed between 1355 and 1358). Both works, as we said, are chronicles
of Bohemia written on Charles IV’s demand. We have already seen the programmatic declaration
included in Marignolli’s Chronicon’s prologue; let’s now inspect Pulkava’s work
more closely.39
This author, like Marignolli, came from an academic background: we know that he was
‘doctor artium’ and teacher at St. Egidius’ school in Prague, similar to Marignolli who had
been teacher as well at the franciscan Studium of Bologna. As we said, Pulkava’s work
starts off as an universal chronicle, like Marignolli’s, but is strictly focused on Bohemian
history from its beginning.
Its conclusion, in particular, is very interesting when compared with Marignolli’s prologue.
Pulkava’s Chronica Bohemiae’s explicit reads: “Explicit cronica Boemorum, quam
[…] Przibico de Tradenina, arcium liberalium doctor, congregavit ac composuit ab origine
terre Boemie omnium ducum et regum, qui suis temporibus ipsam gubernaverunt et
in ea regnaverunt, ex omnibus cronicis omnium monasteriorum et quorundam baronum,
ubicunque potuit conquirere. Scitoque tamen istud, quod omnes res fabulose et non vere
ac fidei dissimiles sunt obmisse et reiecte, sed quod verum et certum est, de eis excerptum,
hoc est in hac cronica mandato predicti imperatoris positum. Nam illas omnes res
certas et veras ac gesta seu facta sue terre Boemie idem imperator, quam pervalide super
omnes alias suas terras dilexit, solus omnibus cronicis monasteriorum et baronum visis et
cum summa diligencia perlectis memorato Przibiconi demandavit ex eis unam cronicam
veram et rectam conscribere et in unum volumen redigere.”40 (“Here ends the Bohemian
Chronicle that […] Pribik of Radenin, doctor in Arts, collected and composed on Charles
IV’s invitation. He composed this chronicle by collecting all the chronicles that he could
find at monasteries and at some secular lords’libraries, wherever he could trace them. And
you have to know that all things that are imaginary, not true and opposite to our faith, have
been left out and refused. Only what is true and certain, selected from those works, has
been included in this new chronicle, according to the emperor’s will. The emperor himself,
indeed, after having looked at all those chronicles from monasteries and lords, and after
having read them carefully, asked the above-mentioned Pribik to collect and put together
all these certain and true information, like Bohemian facts and deeds, in a fair and true
chronicle, in one book.”)
The emperor’s guidelines given to Pulkava seem to be similar to the ones expressed
in Marignolli’s Chronicon Bohemorum. We can compare Marignolli’s prologue and
Pulkava’s conclusion:
39	 For further information on the comparison of Marignolli’s and Pulkava’s works M. Bláhová, Odraz státní
ideologie; M. Bláhová, “... ad probos mores”.
40	 Przibico de Radenin dictus Pulkava, Chronicon Bohemiae, ed. Josef Emler, Praha 1893 (Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum,
V), p. 207.
138
Marignolli:
Cronicarum antiquas et novas hystorias maxime
Boemorum obscure conscriptas […] transcurri
mandavimus.
Pulkava:
Congregavit ac composuit […] ex omnibus
cronicis omnium monasteriorum et quorundam
baronum, ubicunque potuit conquirere.
Marignolli:
Amputatis obscuris verborum ambagibus et superfluis
resecatis ac interpositis quibusdam utilibus.
Pulkava:
Omnes res fabulose et non vere ac fidei dissimiles
sunt obmisse et reiecte, sed quod verum et certum
est, de eis excerptum, hoc est in hac cronica
mandato predicti imperatoris positum.
Marignolli:
Cronicarum boemicalium ystorias obscure
quidem pristine conscriptas in unum magis lucide
compendium […] duxi regulandas.
Pulkava:
Ex eis unam cronicam veram et rectam
conscribere et in unum volumen redigere.
In both circumstances Charles explicitly invited the authors to collect all existing Bohemian
chronicles checking and revising them in order to write a unique historiographical
book, which would have been free from useless and superfluous material.41
Yet it’s clear to notice that between the two books’ programmatic declarations there are
some slight but significant differences: in Marignolli’s prologue the intention of ‘superflua
resecare’was joined to the one of ‘quaedam utilia interponere’. Moreover, it seemed that he
especially wanted to remove useless rhetorical affectations (‘obscurae verborum ambages’)
that made the contents less clear. Pulkava’s chronicle explicit, on the other hand, clearly
expresses the intention of cutting out from previous chronicles all the information that
seemed ‘fabulose et non vere ac fidei dissimiles’, in order to put first only things that were
specifically ‘certe’ et ‘vere’ (the word ‘verum’ is often repeated).
In the end, comparing these two texts we can assume that Marignolli interpreted
Charles’ guidelines in his own way and took advantage of his chronicle’s universal and
encyclopaedic structure to enrich the contents with the narration of his own experience.
The topics of the long digressions placed in the first part of Chronicon Bohemorum actually
seem to match perfectly with Pulkava’s definition of ‘fabulose, non vere ac fidei dissimiles’:
Marignolli consistently spices up his account with curious oriental legends and
fictitious experiences (for example, his meeting with the queen of Sheba or the location
of the Garden of Eden). Furthermore, he writes several paragraphs about costumes and
rituals of Buddhists and Hinduists, telling the reader how much he admires their authentic
and sincere faith.42
It’s really probable that Charles didn’t appreciate Marignolli’s work, which seems also
incomplete. After the Italian’s death the Emperor reformulated his request to another writer:
yet this time he chose a real Bohemian, not a foreigner, to whom he asked for a chronicle
that would have been a true ‘Bohemian chronicle’, despite of the universal structure. Above
all, he wanted him to restrict his narrative to real historical facts, without legends, curiosities
or oddities.
41	 For a comparison of Marignolli’s prologue and Pulkava’s explicit M. Bláhová, “... ad probos mores”,
pp. 115–117.
42	 Iohannis de Marignollis, Chronicon Bohemorum. Excerpta de rebus orientalibus.
139
This hypothesis could be confirmed by the way in which Marignolli’s text is treated in
manuscript I C 24: the manuscript contains only three paragraphs extracted from the whole
work, which fit into only one folio (folio 202 recto and verso). Furthermore, under the
copied text there is an annotation made by a later reader of the manuscript, which shows
a great lack of interest towards Marignolli’s work: the reader addresses the copyist directly,
in German: “Hastu nit mehr gwüsst oder khönet, so hettest diss auch wol bleiben lassen.”
In English, it could sound like this: “Were you not able to find anything better in this text?
Then you should have better avoided copying it at all!”43
In conclusion, some words on the Venice manuscript: it’s a 15th century manuscript
composed in Slesia in connection with the work of Nicholas Tempelfeld and shows a completely
opposite reception of the text.44 The Chronicon Bohemorum, in fact, is copied there
concerning only his more ‘universal’ section, the one that contains the digressions about
Marignolli’s journey. The narration of Bohemian history is totally omitted. Therefore
it’s clear that the manuscript was produced in a different context (it indeed belongs to a different
branch of the tradition).45 We can assume it also by paying attention to its contents:
it is less focused on Charles IV and more heterogeneous.46
The treatment of Marignolli’s text in the Venetian manuscript exemplifies another way
the text had been understood: a collection of exotic curiosities about Asia rather than
a chronicle of Bohemia with celebratory purposes.
IRENE MALFATTO
Jan Marignola a historiografický projekt Karla IV.
RESUMÉ
Ze všech českých kronik napsaných během vlády Karla IV. (celkem pět textů vzniklých mezi lety 1353 až
1374) je pouze kronika Jana Marignoly uvozena významným prologem. Podle něho prý císař požádal v roce 1355
tohoto italského mnicha, aby shromáždil všechny dřívější kroniky zachycující českou historii, zhodnotil je a přišel
s novým všeobecným narativem. Marignolova práce měla sledovat projekt historiografické renovace: Karel si přál
přepsat českou historii za účelem oslavy svého zvolení císařem. Univerzální vyprávění mělo sahat od počátku
světa až do tehdejší současnosti. Františkán měl však vlastní plány. Pochyboval o císařově výslovném vybídnutí
„superflua resecare“ z dřívějších kronik a „quaedam utilia interponere“, namísto toho protkal své dílo mnohými
odbočkami, které se nevztahovaly k české historii, vycházely však z jeho osobní zkušenosti. V roce 1338 byl
totiž Marignola vyslán na Dálný východ jako papežský legát a během své dobrodružné cesty navštívil centrální
Asii, Čínu, Indii, Blízký východ a Svatou zemi. V jeho Chronicon Bohemorum, jak je výsledné dílo nazýváno,
proto v první části hovoří například o budhistických rituálech, uvádí legendy o pozemském ráji a popisuje různá
mirabilia.
Marignolovo dílo, které je zachováno ve třech rukopisech, z nichž dva jsou uloženy v Národní knihovně
v Praze, zřejmě Karla neuspokojilo. Proto v roce 1374 požádal Přibíka Pulkavu z Radenína, aby napsal další alternativní
českou kroniku. Pulkavova Chronica Bohemiae, která je dochována ve dvou rukopisech uchovávaných
43	 M. Bláhová, Poznámka k recepci, p. 337.
44	 M. Bláhová, Poznámka k recepci, p. 335.
45	 For further information on the Chronicon Bohemorum’s stemma codicum Heribert A. Hilgers, Zum Text der
‘Cronica Boemorum’des Johannes de Marignolis, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 15, 1980, pp. 143–154; Iohannis
de Marignollis, Chronicon Bohemorum. Excerpta de rebus orientalibus, pp. V–VII.
46	 For a full description of the manuscript’s contents G. Valentinelli, Bibliotheca manuscripta, pp. 99–101.
140
Národní knihovnou v Praze (I D 10, I C 24), je velmi odlišným dílem. Její autor se zaměřil výhradně na českou
historii, a co více, zdůraznil, že „omnes res fabulose et non vere ac fidei dissimiles sunt obmisse et reiecte“, čímž
pravděpodobně odkazoval na neobvyklý obsah Marignolův. Nedostatečné ocenění díla italského mnicha se odráží
i v jeho rukopisném dochování.
Český překlad: Jan Odstrčilík
Irene Malfatto
International Society for the Study of Medieval Latin Culture (S.I.S.M.E.L.)
Firenze, Italy
irene.malfatto@gmail.com