Izvorni znanstveni članak
OZALJSKI JEZIČNO-KNJIŽEVNI KRUG (THE OZALJ LINGUISTIC-LITERARY CIRCLE) OR THE ZRINSKO-FRANKOPANSKI KNJIŽEVNI KRUG (ZRINSKI-FRANKOPAN LITERARY CIRCLE)
Franjo Pajur
; Željezno - Gradišće
Sažetak
Summary
Jagić was the first to react negatively in respect to the language of Zrinski's Sirena (Sirena Jadranskoga mora - Adriai tengernek syrenaia, 1651), describing it as being „a mixture and colorful“, and explaining that this was due to the Zrinski family moving from their southern Chakavian home to the Kajkavian north. Then it is Kostrenčić who dismisses the precept about the Zrinskis' „ill fate“, claiming that the reason for „Sirena's“ hybrid language was conscious linguistic-literary activity of a certain „Croatian literary academy“ that was formed in the Zrinski-Frankopan circle as a copy of similar Italian ones, and whose linguistic adviser, the Senj bishop-to-be Smoljanić contributed to making a distorted printed version of „Sirena“. This thesis was accepted by Pavletić, who added Glavinić with his „mixture of dialects“ as a possible predecessor, and also adding names such as Rafael Levaković, Benedikt Vinković, Gjuro Ratkay, Danilo Gvozdek and Pavao Jančić, followed by Šrepel labeling the Zrinskis as the Croatian Medicis, and ending with Pisarević. All of this was dismissed by Matić as being unfounded, but ten years later, by referring to Klanczay, Novalić once again revived the theory about the Zrinski and Frankopan „literary circle“, and added the Drašković family to the circle, as well as Pethö and Fodroczy, and Hungarians from Nikola Zrinski's vicinity. In the years to follow the mentioned thesis on the extended circle and the close circle is maintained first of all owing to Vončina's papers: the circle is named as „Ozaljski jezično-književni krug“ (The Ozalj Linguistic-Literary Circle), and Belostenec appears as the linguistic adviser instead of Smiljanić, and along with Glavinić, the Glagolitic priests, Croatian protestants from Urach, and Dešić are specified as predecessors. The circle's name, as well as its leaning towards the protestants from Urach has been recently questioned by Jembrih, and he suggests that the term should be „zrinsko-frankopanski jezično-književni krug“ (the Zrinski-Frankopan Linguistic-Literary Circle). Even a passing glance at the language's name pu forth by the individual alleged circle participants casts a doubt on their being linked in a linguistic-literary circle: Zrinski (Nikola, Petar, Katarina) called it Croatian, Belostenec called it Illyrian, and Ratkaj called it „Slovinski“. And, whereas Belostenec and Ratkaj add Chakavian and partly Shtokavian layers onto the Kajkavian base (the first in order to make it more understandable for nuns, monks and believers in Krajina, Istra and Primorje, and the latter to the Krajina public), the Zrinsko-Frankopanski language triplet has a Chakavian base with a Kajkavian and partly Shtokavian layer. Therefore, the term „zrinjsko-frankopanski jezično-književni krug“ (Zrinski-Frankopan Linguistic-Literary Circle) seems more appropriate than „Ozaljski jezično-književni krug“ (The Ozalj Linguistic-Literary Circle), because there is no direct or indirect evidence that Belostenec and Ratkaj had participated in the circle.
Ključne riječi
Ozalj; jezično-književni krug (linguistic-literary circle); Zrinski, Frankopani
Hrčak ID:
140681
URI
Datum izdavanja:
28.11.2014.
Posjeta: 9.093 *