L’Humaniste français Marc-Antoine Muret comme commentateur de Catulle et de Pierre de Ronsard
Failid
Kuupäev
2024-11-15
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Abstrakt
Käesolev artiklipõhine doktoritöö keskendub prantsuse humanisti Marc-Antoine Muret’ tööle kommentaatorina, rõhutades peamiselt tema käsitlust Catulluse obstsöönsustest. Kuna Muret kommenteeris ka oma kaasaegse Pierre de Ronsard’i luulekogu Les Amours, uurib väitekiri ka seda kommentaari ja selle kirjutamise võimalikke motiive.
Üks artikleid uurib Muret’ strateegiaid Catulluse obstsöönsuste selgitamiseks või hoopis nende
vältimiseks. Nende strateegiate paremaks illustreerimiseks tehakse võrdlusi varasemate kommentaatorite, Antonio Partenio ja Alessandro Guarinoga. Teine artikkel võrdleb obstsöönsuste käsitlemist Catulluse luuletuses number 28, uurides kolme eelmainitud kommentaatori märkusi. Kolmas artikkel käsitleb, nagu juba mainitud, kommentaare Ronsard’i luulekogule Les Amours. On ilmne, et luuletaja kasutatud uus prantsuse luulekeel ja arvukad viited antiikkultuurile vajasid lugejatele seletamist. Joachim du Bellay’ programmis ära toodud eesmärk luua uus prantsuse luulekeel ja tõsta prantsuse kirjandus klassikaliste ja itaalia eeskujude tasemele, võib olla üheks võimalikuks põhjuseks, miks seda kaasaegset teost tuli kommenteerida.
Doktoritöö sisaldab kahte täiendavat artiklit, mis on avaldatud eesti keeles. Üks neist käsitleb huvitavaid aspekte Muret’ Catulluse kommentaaride eessõnas, teine aga Catulluse obstsöönsuste tõlkimisest eesti keelde. Kuna need eestindused on tehtud nõukogude ajal, tõlgiti obstsöönsused neutraalselt, mistõttu ei edastatud Catulluse soovitud mõju – obstsöönsustel oli konkreetne roll ja eesmärk.
Muret’d ja tema kommentaaride ajaloolisse konteksti paigutamiseks on vajalik ülevaade Catulluse tõlgendustest 15. ja 16. sajandil. Samuti on oluline rääkida kommentaaridest üldiselt, sealhulgas antiikajast pärinevatest kommentaaridest, mis olid humanistidele eeskujuks.
Keskmes on kolm juba eespool mainitud kommentaatorit. Arvestades, et Partenio ja Guarino tööd kuuluvad 15. sajandisse, samas kui Muret’ töö pärineb 16. sajandi keskelt, on nende erinevused vägagi olulised, mis tulenevad antiiktekstide ja allikate uurimise edenemisest, kreeka keeles kirjutatu kättesaadavusest ja ajaloolis-kultuurilistest oludest. Selles kontekstis on Muret’ reaktsioon obstsöönsuste suhtes märkimisväärselt erinev tema eelkäijatest.
Uuring käsitleb ka obstsöönsuste mõistet üldiselt: mida obstsöönsus endast kujutab ja kuidas seda on erinevatel aegadel tajutud. Samuti leiab kajastust obstsöönsuste esinemine Rooma autorite juures erinevates žanrites ning kuidas neisse on antiikajast alates suhtutud? Kas obstsöönsusi sisaldavaid tekste kasutati koolides? Kas need jäeti koolikavast välja või isegi eemaldati avalikust kasutusest? Kas on tõsi, et 15. sajandil oli obstsöönsuste käsitlemisel teatud tolerantsus, eriti võrreldes järgnevate sajanditega?
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?
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?
Kirjeldus
Väitekirja elektrooniline versioon ei sisalda publikatsioone