| Sažetak (hrvatski) | Tema govora i govorenja prisutna je u gotovo svim najznačajnijim Petrićevim djelima. U tim djelima nailazimo na dva tipa govora o govoru/jeziku (il parlare/lingua). Prvi nalazimo u I. i IX. dijalogu njegove Retorike te djelomično u Poetici. Taj dio njegove rasprave o govoru u kojem on prorađuje odnos između riječi, pojma i stvari, između znaka, označenog, značenja i označavanja zvuči poput neke suvremene rasprave o govoru/jeziku i na temelju te rasprave mnogi su zaključili kako Petrić razvija svoju teoriju jezika. No već u drugom dijelu I. dijaloga Retorike jasno je da se Petrićevo promišljanje govora/jezika kreće u posve drugačijem smjeru od onoga što ga zastupa većina suvremenih rasprava o jeziku. Ono do čega je Petriću stalo jest prije svega pitanje o biti i podrijetlu govora/jezika. U daljnjem tekstu dijaloga postaje očito da je njegovo raspravljanje o govoru ontoteologijski utemeljeno. To se najjasnije pokazuje u dijelu u kojem on iskon govora dovodi u svezu s Božjom Riječju, Logosom, Umom kao izvorom svega stvorenog. Na temelju kršćansko-kaldejsko- hermetičko-novoplatoničkog tumačenja te Riječi i Uma kao iskona svega, pa dakle i govora, on će postaviti tezu »Sve (stvari) govore«. Naime po toj izvornoj Riječi, Umu, »sve stvari imaju toliko značenja koliko im je to u prirodi«. To je ujedno idealan govor komu odgovara »poznavanje nutrine stvari«, koje opet omogućuje činjenje čuda.
Petrić onda kroz čitav dijalog posvećen retorici kontraponira taj idealan govor ljudskom govoru, ukazujući na manjkavost ljudskog govora u odnosu na taj prirodni, istinski govor koji ljudi zapravo više ne razumiju! Pozivajući se i opet na mit, a ujedno razvijajući i jednu specifičnu koncepciju povijesti, razmatra on odnos između idealnog govora i govora nakon »pada Zemlje« i sinkronijski i dijakronijski. Napose ekstenzivno razrađuje pitanje sveze duše i govora, posebice životinjskog, što će detaljnije elaborirati u dijelu svoje Nove sveopće filozofije, Pampsychiji.
Naznačujući neke uzroke manjkavosti ljudskog govora (prije svega nepoznavanje nutrine, biti stvari, pa stoga i nepoznavanje adekvatne i jednoznačne oznake za svaku stvar koja bi pogađala njenu bit), on se trudi naznačiti smjer u kojem bi trebalo tražiti rješenje. To njegovo rješenje iščitavamo nažalost tek indirektno i u naznakama kao nacrt jedne univerzalne znanosti o jeziku što bi bila utemeljena po uzoru na matematiku. Jer nakon »pada«, ističe Petrić, »sve u što je čovjek siguran vezano je uz broj, mjeru i težinu«. Čini se da on pritom nudi u zametku nacrt jednog idealnog govora/jezika sličnog onom što će ga u 17. stoljeću pokušati utemeljiti Leibnitz i neki drugi mislioci.
Ono što je bitno za Petrićev pristup govoru/jeziku jest prisutnost dviju tendencija u njegovoj koncepciji: s jedne je strane težnja k egzaktnosti u govoru/govorenju po uzoru na matematiku, a s druge insistiranje na stvaralačkom momentu u govoru, na invenciji i imaginaciji, što će naročito doći do izražaja u njegovoj Poetici. Zahvaljujući istovremenoj prisutnosti tih tendencija u Petrićevu mišljenju, možemo ustvrditi kako se u njegovu govoru o govoru renesansno mišljenje još jednom potvrđuje kao mišljenje na raskrižju.
Tekst predstavlja pokušaj da se prikaže razvojna linija Petrićeva promišljanja govora i govorenja kroz analizu nekih od njegovih najznačajnijih djela. |
| Sažetak (engleski) | The topic of speech/language is present in almost all of the most important works of F. Petrić. In those works we find two types of rhetoric on speech/language (il parlare/ lingua). The first type appears in the first dialogue of his Rhetoric, and partly in Della poetica. This part of his dispute on speech in which he discusses the relationship between word, notion and thing, between symbol, designated, meaning and designation resembles greatly some of the modern discussions on speech/language, and has thus led many scholars to believe that Petrić developed his own theory of language.
But in the second part of the first dialogue of Rhetoric it is quite clear that Petrić’s discussion on speech/language departs fundamentally from most of the current linguistic views. In the focus of Petrić’s attention, however, is primarily the question of the essence and origin of speech/language. Further on in the dialogue it becomes apparent that his discussion on speech is ontotheologically grounded, as evidenced by the part in which he relates the origin of speech to the Word of God, Logos, Mind as the source of all created. On the basis of the Christian-Chaldean-Hermetic interpretation of the Word and Mind as origin of all, including speech, he comes forward with a thesis: »All things speak«. Apparently, by the Word and Mind »all things have as many meanings as it is in their nature«. At the same time this is ideal speech that conveys the »knowledge of the essence of things«, which, again, enables the performance of miracles.
Throughout the dialogue on rhetoric Petrić counterpoints this ideal speech against human speech »after the fall«, emphasizing the weakness of human speech in relation to this natural, primordial speech which people actually do not understand! Referring to the myth again but also developing a specific historical concept, he discusses the relationship between ideal speech and the speech »after the fall« both synchronically and diachronically. In addition, Petrić expounds extensively his view on the relationship between soul and speech, especially that of animals, a topic that he further elaborated in Pampsychia, part of his Nova de universis philosophia. Drawing attention to some defects of human speech (primarily lack of knowledge of the essence of things and hence the ignorance of an adequate designation for each thing that would correspond to its essence), he attempts to point to the direction in which the solution should be sought. His solution, however, is merely outlined as a draft of a universal language science, the foundations of which being laid similar to those of mathematics because »after the fall«, argues Petrić, »all that man can be sure about is related to number, measure and weight«. Here seems to res an embryonic draft of a certain ideal speech/language similar to the concept attempted by Leibnitz and some other philosophers in the seventeenth century. Apparently, what is significant for Petrić’s approach to speech/language (that he fails to distinguish in the sense de Saussure did) is the presence of two tendencies in his conception of speech/language: on the one hand a tendency towards exact ness in speech as in mathematics (one symbol designating one thing; in his opinion, namely, »if each thing could be called by its own name, we would perform miracles and worthy deeds«!), on the other, insistance on the creative moment of speech (imagination in particular), best evidenced in his Della poetica. Owing to the coexistence of these tendencies in Petrić’s thought, we can conclude that in his discussion on speech Renaissance thought reconfirms itself as philosophy at the crossroads. In this article the author exposes the evolution of Petrić’s thinking about speech/language through the analysis of some of his most important works. |
