Doctoral defence: Ülo Siirak "Humaniste français Marc-Antoine Muret comme commentateur de Catulle et de Pierre de Ronsard"

On 29 November at 12:15, Ülo Siirak will defend his doctoral thesis "Humaniste français Marc-Antoine Muret comme commentateur de Catulle et de Pierre de Ronsard" ("French Humanist Marc-Antoine Muret as a Commentator on Catullus and Pierre de Ronsard") for obtaining the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Classical Philology.

Supervisors:
Professor Janika Päll, University of Tartu
Leading Research Fellow Kristi Viiding, Under and Tuglas Literature Centre of the Estonian Academy of Sciences

Opponents:
Professor Sabine Luciani, Aix-Marseille University (France)
Dr. Lucie Claire, University of de Picardy (France)

Summary
This articles based doctoral thesis focuses on the work of the French humanist Marc-Antoine Muret as a commentator, with a primary emphasis on his treatment of Catullus's obscenities. Since Muret also commented on his contemporary Pierre de Ronsard's poetry collection Les Amours, the thesis examines the commentary on this work and the possible motivations for writing it. 

One of the thesis' articles investigates Muret's strategies for explaining or avoiding Catullus's obscenities. To illustrate these strategies better, comparisons with earlier commentators, Antonio Partenio and Alessandro Guarino, are made. Another article compares the handling of obscenities in Catullus's poem number 28, examining the comments of the three aforementioned commentators. 

The third article addresses the commentary on Ronsard's Les Amours. It is evident that the poet's use of the new French poetic language and numerous references to antiquity required explanation for readers. Joachim du Bellay's program for creating a new French poetic language, aiming to elevate French literature to the same level as classical and Italian models, is considered a possible reason for this contemporary work's need for commentary.

The thesis includes two additional articles published in Estonian. One deals with interesting aspects of Muret's preface to his commentary on Catullus, and the other with translations of Catullus's obscene poems into Estonian. Given that these translations were made during the Soviet era, the obscenities were translated neutrally, thus failing to convey Catullus's intended effect—obscenities had a specific role and purpose.

To place Muret and his commentary in historical context, an overview of interpretations of Catullus in the 15th and 16th centuries is necessary. It is also essential to discuss commentaries in general, including those from antiquity that served as models for authors of the period.

The focus is particularly on the three mentioned commentators. Considering that Partenio and Guarino's works belong to the 15th century, while Muret's work is from the mid-16th century, their differences arising from the development of classical studies, the availability of Greek texts and sources, and changes in the historical-cultural environment are significant. In this context, Muret's handling of obscenities is markedly different from his predecessors.

The research also addresses obscenities in general: what constitutes obscenity and how it has been perceived over different periods. It is essential to examine the presence of obscenities in Roman authors and various genres and how they have been perceived since antiquity. Were texts containing obscenities used in schools? Were they excluded from school curricula, or even removed from public use? Is it true that there was a certain tolerance in dealing with obscenities in the 15th century, especially compared to subsequent centuries?