Search

U radu se prikazuju pogledi na književnost dubrovačkoga renesansnog pjesnika Dinka Ranjine (1536. – 1607.). Pritom se književna kritika shvaća nešto šire nego što je uobičajeno, tako da obuhvati poetološka promišljanja ranonovovjekovnih autora, njihove poglede na prirodu književnosti te naročito njihova razmišljanja o vrijednosti pojedinih književnih djela ili opusa. Posebna pozornost posvećuje se proznoj posveti Ranjinine knjige Pjesni razlike (1563.), koja je djelomično prijevod platoničke rasprave Bernarda Tassa Ragionamento della poesia (1562.). Taj predgovor sadržava važne poetološke iskaze, od kojih su najpoznatiji oni u kojima se Ranjina određuje prema vlastitoj književnoj tradiciji, progovara o njezinim počecima i opravdava odluku o pisanju na narodnom jeziku pozivanjem na primjer Šiška Menčetića i Džore Držića. U radu se otkriva da je, osim rasprave Bernarda Tassa, Ranjina pišući posvetu imao najmanje još jedan predložak – latinski životopis Opijana, grčkoga pjesnika iz 2. stoljeća. Također se analizira nekoliko Ranjininih pjesama u kojima se u metalirskim, protokritičkim iskazima komentira književno stvaranje i vrednuju tuđi književni tekstovi. Među takvim pjesmama osobito se ističe ciklus od desetak nadgrobnica što ih je posvetio svojim znamenitim prethodnicima i sugrađanima Menčetiću i Držiću. U njima se iznose uopćene i najčešće prigodno pohvalne ocjene dvaju opusa, ali pojavljuju se i svojevrsne stilističke i vrstovne karakterizacije na temelju kojih postaje jasno da je Ranjina bio dobro svjestan razlika među dvjema lirskim poetikama. Jedan od ciljeva takvih Ranjininih refleksija o domaćoj književnoj tradiciji zacijelo je bio pokušaj da se uspostavi dubrovački književni kanon i sudjeluje u oblikovanju zasebnoga dubrovačkoga kulturnog identiteta., The article presents views on literature by Ragusan Renaissance poet Dinko Ranjina (1536-1607). Literary criticism is here understood more broadly than usual, to include poetic ruminations of the early modern authors, their views on the nature of literature and especially their thoughts on the value of particular literary works or oeuvres. Special attention is paid to the prose dedication in Ranjina’s book Pjesni razlike (Miscellaneous Poems) (1563) which is in part a translation of a Platonic treatise by Bernardo Tasso Ragionamento della poesia (1562). This introduction contains relevant poetic arguments, and the most famous of them show Ranjina establishing his position with regard to his own literary tradition, discussing its beginnings, and justifying his decision to write in the vernacular by appealing to the examples of Šiško Menčetić and Džore Držić. The article reveals that besides Bernardo Tasso’s treatise, Ranjina had translated from at least one other text – Latin biography of Oppian, Greek poet from the 2nd century. The article also offers an analysis of several Ranjina’s poems in which the author, using metalyric, protocritical utterances, comments on the literary creation and evaluates literary texts by other authors. Among these poems of particular prominence is a cycle of nine grave poems which Ranjina dedicates to his illustrious predecessors and co-citizens Menčetić and Držić. In them he brings forth generalized and most frequently occasional praises of the two oeuvres, but there also appear certain stylistical and generic characterizations which show that Ranjina was well aware of the differences between the two lyric poetics. One of the aims of Ranjina’s reflections on his native literary tradition must have been an attempt to establish a Ragusan literary canon and to participate in the formation of a separate Ragusan cultural identity.

Članak se bavi figuralnim pjesmama (carmina figurata) na hrvatskom i latinskom u dubrovačkom pjesništvu 16. stoljeća. Nakon uvodnog osvrta na žanr tehnopegnija i terminoloških objašnjenja rekapitulira se dosadašnje znanje o primjerima figuralne poezije kod Dinka Ranjine (Dubrovnik, 1536 – Dubrovnik, 1607) te portugalskog humanista Didaka Pira (Évora, 1517 – Dubrovnik, 1599). Analiziraju se, korigiraju i nadopunjuju studije posvećene Ranjininoj hrvatskoj pjesmi u obliku strijele (Pavličić) i krila (Kasumović) te trima Didakovim pjesmama u obliku krila (Kolendić). Također se spekulira o mogućim izvorima ovoga rijetkog intermedijalnog tehnopegnija u hrvatskoj književnosti šesnaestoga stoljeća.

Članak se bavi figuralnim pjesmama (carmina figurata) na hrvatskom i latinskom u dubrovačkom pjesništvu 16. stoljeća. Nakon uvodnog osvrta na žanr tehnopegnija i terminoloških objašnjenja rekapitulira se dosadašnje znanje o primjerima figuralne poezije kod Dinka Ranjine (Dubrovnik, 1536 – Dubrovnik, 1607) te portugalskog humanista Didaka Pira (Évora, 1517 – Dubrovnik, 1599). Analiziraju se, korigiraju i nadopunjuju studije posvećene Ranjininoj hrvatskoj pjesmi u obliku strijele (Pavličić) i krila (Kasumović) te trima Didakovim pjesmama u obliku krila (Kolendić). Također se spekulira o mogućim izvorima ovoga rijetkog intermedijalnog tehnopegnija u hrvatskoj književnosti šesnaestoga stoljeća., In the Croatian poetry of the 16th century, the carmen figuratum is a rare phenomenon. But such compositions, in which the linguistic material (letters, syllables, words, lines) is organised in such a way as to form a recognisable shape or pattern, are much more frequent in the 17th and 18th centuries. Familiar to us in poetry in Croatian are the chalice from the publication Osmanšćica (1631) by Šibenik’s Ivan Tomko Mrnavić (1579-1637) and the cross from the Saltijer slovinski (Slavic Psalter, 1729) by Ignjat Đurđević from Dubrovnik (1675-1737). In Latin there are numbers of technopaegnia in the wider sense of the word, that is, poems in which the linguistic material is manipulated in order to produce a text graphically and semantically particularly highlighted or simply to make the text auditively, visually or intellectually attractive (anagrams, chronograms, riddles, pangrammatic verses). In the 16th century anagrams or combinatory poems appeared, and two were composed by Marko Marulić: an epigram about a good and bad lawyer (Causidicus uersibus rectis bonus, retrogradis malus) and a Stoic-Epicurean epigram (Versus in directum stoici, in transuersum epicurei). In the th and 18th centuries Ladislav Simandi (1655-1715) and Pavao Ritter Vitezović (1652-1713) wrote many such compositions. The oldest pattern poems in Western literature are the axe, egg and wings of Simmias of Rhodes (late 4th and early 3rd century BC), the panpipe (Pseudo-Theocritus, late 3rd or 2nd century), the Doric altar (Dosiadas, 1st or early 2nd century) and the Ionian altar (Lucius Julius Vestinus, about 132), all to be found in the Greek Anthology. This Hellenistic collection was a model to humanist poets and authors of treatises about poetry who wrote about pattern poems or who wrote them themselves, such as Giulio Cesare Scaligero (1484-1558) in his Poetics (1561), George Puttenham (1529-1590) in his English language handbook of poetry The Arte of English Poesie (1587), Lancino Corti (Curti, Corte or Curtius, 1460-1520) in the collection Lancini Curtii epigrammaton libri decem (Milano, 1521) or François Rabelais (1483-1553) in the novel Gargantua and Pantagruel. The 16th century repertoire of visual poems in Croatian literature consists of two short lyric poems in Croatian by the Ragusan poet Dinko Ranjina (1536-1607) and several Latin epigrams by D idacus Pyrrhus (1517-1599), Portuguese humanist who spent a good deal of his life in Dubrovnik. It has been speculated (d. Higgins) that a visual poem in the shape of a Y was composed by the humanist Janus Pannonius (1434-1472), yet this is a hypothesis for which there is no evidence. The visual poem of Dinko Ranjina in the form of an arrow was printed as no. 361 in a collection Pjesni razlike [divers poems] (Florence, 1563, fol. 116-116v). Later editions of the poem (Ljudevit Gaj, 1850; Matija Valjavac, 1891) reproduce the graphic appearance of the printed original, in which the verses are arranged in such a way as to create an arrowhead pointing to the right. In the poem the forlorn male lyric subject addresses the god Eros complaining that he has pierced him with his arrow, because of which he was forced to serve him. The poem is constructed of the traditional verses of the Croatian Renaissance poetry arranged into an augmented and then diminished series (2+4+5+8+10+12 syllables and inversely). The next poem from the Ranjina collection, no. 362 (Podnošu zlu boles, nevolju i tugu / I bear sore ill, trouble and grief) gives a picture of (Cupid’s) wings. The repertoire of the versification of this poem is the same as in Arrow, but the verses are arranged in such a way that the number of syllables first of all falls, from the longest, dodecasyllabic, to the shortest, disyllabic, verse, after which comes the augmentation. Unlike Arrow, Ranjina’s Wings has previously attracted little attention. Ivan Kasumović has speculated that the poem no. 363 of the same collection also provides an image of wings, but here this proposition is rejected since in its three stanzas there is no use of verses with a rising or falling number of syllables, as there is in the previous poems. Far better known than Ranjina’s pattern poems in Croatian are three Latin technopaegnia in the form of wings by Didacus Pyrrhus (1517-1599), who lived from 1558 until his death in Dubrovnik. They were published in the collection Hieronymi Phalethi Savonensis poematum libri septem (Ferrara, 1564, fol. 134r¬134v) and reprinted by Petar Kolendić (»Nekoliko pesama humaniste Didaka Pira«, Zbornik istorije književnosti Odeljenja literature i jezika SANU, 2, Belgrade, 1961). All three poems have love as their subject in the tradition of the Roman love elegy and in all of them Cupid’s wings are mentioned. A certain deviation from the traditional rhetoric of unrequited love is found in the third poem, in which an ageing Corinthian courtesan complains to Cupid of the conduct of her younger colleague. The three sets of wings of Didacus have different lengths (the first two have ten and the third fourteen lines each), and all the verses are taken from the traditional repertoire of Roman elegiac and lyrical poetry (Horace). Croatian philology has previously discussed the possible sources of Ranjina’s Arrow: the poets of the Greek Anthology have been mentioned by Kasumović and the Italian Petrarchans by Mihovil Kombol. The relationship of the verses of Arrow and the traditional repertoire of Croatian Renaissance poetry has been investigated by Pavao Pavličić. This article proposes that Ranjina’s source might for his two pattern poems have been some contemporary Neo-Latin composition, and that the shape of the arrow was invented by the poet himself; it is also proposed that the idea for his wing-shaped poem might have been given him by the Latin wings of his fellow-citizen and friend Didacus Pyrrhus.

In this article we shall analyse the way in which the Dubrovnik poet Dinko Ranjina translated Petrarch’s sestina A qualunque animale alberga in terra while adapting it to the possibilities of Croatian versifi cation. The sestina, the highest formal achievement of Provencal poetry, is based on a multiple combination of the number 6 (six stanzas of six lines using six rhyme -words), with a strictly determined alternation of rhyme-words in each stanza (according to the retrogradatio cruciata scheme) and a predetermined manner of linking the stanzas (described by the term coblas capfi nidas). Ranjina retained the six -line stanza, and the linking of the strophes according to the coblas capfi nidas system. But the Croatian traditional line, the dodecasyllabic, which he uses instead of Petrarch’s hendecasyllabic, is handled according to its own rules. Dodecasyllabics are regularly used in pairs, and both verses are linked by rhyme. This automatically cancels out the possibility of applying the scheme of the retrogradiato cruciata, which includes a reciprocal relation of the rhyme-words of two neighbouring stanzas and is based on the division of the sestina into two three-line sections. The dodecasyllabic verse scheme is the cause of other formal deviations from the original; Ranjina’s composition is two stanzas shorter than Petrarch’s and the fi nal three-line stanza is replaced by a couplet. In addition, it also leads to a reduction of the range of the motifs of the original, simplifying and sometimes trivialising its lexical and semantic components., U članku analiziramo na koji je način dubrovački pjesnik Dinko Ranjina preveo Petrarkinu sestinu A qualunque animale alberga in terra, prilagodivši je mogućnostima hrvatske versifi kacije. Sestina, najviši formalistički domet provansalske poezije, temelji se na višestrukoj kombinatorici broja 6 (6 strofa od 6 stihova i 6 riječi-rima), uz strogo određeni raspored izmjenjivanja riječi-rima u svakoj strofi (prema shemi retrogradatio cruciata) i isto tako obvezan način povezivanja strofa (coblas capfi nidas) . Ranjina je zadržao šestostihovnu strofu, pa i povezivanje kitica sistemom coblas capfi nidas. Ali hrvatski tradicionalni stih kojim korespondira Petrakinom endecasillabu, dvanaesterac, ravna se prema sebi svojstvenim pravilima. Dvanaesterci se redovito rabe u paru a oba stiha povezana su rimom. To poništava mogućnost primjene sheme retrogradatio cruciata, koja uključuje uzajamni odnos riječi-rima dviju susjednih strofa i temelji se na podjeli sestine na dvije trostihovne cjeline. Dvanaesteračka stihovna shema uzrok je i drugih formalnih odstupanja od predloška – Ranjinin sastavak za dvije je strofe kraći od Petrarkina, trostihovni završetak zamijenjen je dvostihom – a dovodi i do redukcije motivskog raspona izvornika i pojednostavnjenja i mjestimično i banalizacije njegovih leksičko-semantičhih komponenti.