Abstract

U Petrićevu učenju o čuđenju kao vanjskom cilju pjesništva te njegovu stavu da novost čini osnovu čuđenja jasno se raspoznaju bitni teorijski elementi karakteristični za kasniju, baroknu poetiku E. Tesaura. Iako se Petrić i Tesauro slažu oko zadatka pjesništva – ono treba pobuditi čuđenje, začuditi – njihova se teorijska gledišta razlikuju u pogledu konačnog cilja čuđenja. Petrić poučava da ono treba svoj pravi, krajnji cilj naći u poticanju vrline, znanja i mudrosti, a u poetičkoj teoriji 17. stoljeća, u kojoj svoje reprezentativno mjesto nalazi Emanuele Tesauro sa svojim kapitalnim djelom Il cannocchiale aristotelico, čuđenje ima za cilj u prvom redu prikazati pjesnikovu virtuoznost i impresionirati recipijenta majstorstvom stvaranja jezične igre. Povlačenjem razlika u viđenju i tumačenju finalnog cilja pjesništva, u radu se nastoje istaknuti sličnosti i razlike u značenju pojma ingegno, njegovoj ulozi i zadaći koju mu pridaju Petrić i Tesauro. Unatoč tomu što je navedeni pojam u teoriji baroknog predstavnika složeniji nego kod creskog mislioca, on za obojicu predstavlja dokaz čovjekove sličnosti s Bogom, prirođenu sposobnost pronalaženja, čudesnu snagu duha kojom čovjek-umjetnik stvara poput drugog Boga. Ingegno ima ključnu ulogu u pjesničkom stvaranju, no za razliku od Tesaura, u Petrićevoj teoriji ingegno ne teži igri i zabavi, već istini, spoznaji i mudrosti.Petrić’s doctrine of the marvel as exterior purpose of poetry and his view that novelty constitutes the basis of marvel clearly demonstrate the major theoretical elements characteristic of the more mature, Baroque poetics of Emanuele Tesauro. Although Petrić and Tesauro agree on the role of poetry – to arouse marvel – their theoretical views differ concerning the ultimate purpose of marvel. In his early work Lettura sopra il sonetto del Petrarca, Petrić elaborates that poetry shoud seek its true and ultimate ideal in enhancing virtue, knowledge and wisdom, while in hid Della Poetica he most critically argues against the modern poets of his day who, guided by private interests, choose marvel as the ultimate purpose. In seventeenth-century poetics in which Emanuele Tesauro occupies a prominent place with his masterpiece Il cannocchiale aristotelico, surprise has primarily been assigned the role of demonstrating the poet’s virtuosity and impressing the recipient with his artful wording. Having drawn a parallel between Petrić’s and Tesauro’s approach to the purpose of a poetic act, this paper will consider the meaning and role of the notion ingegno as interpreted by Petrić and Tesauro. Despite the fact that Tesauro’s theoretical approach to the mentioned notion is more elaborate than that of Petrić, they both envisage it as proof of man’s resemblance to God, in inherent of invention, miraculous energy of the spirit with which man-the artist creates in a God-like manner. Ingegno plays a crucial role in poetic creativity. In Tesauro’s theory this notion is claimed to entertain the reader, whereas in that of Petrić it should teach, enrich human knowledge and wisdom