Marin Držić’s Hecuba between Performance and the Book

Glavni je predmet našeg rada takozvani šibenski rukopis Držićeve Hekube, koji se danas čuva u Arhivu HAZU u Zagrebu (signatura VII. 33) i koji jedini od preživjelih rukopisa ovog djela donosi na naslovnoj stranici ime Marina Držića, a ne Mavra Vetranovića. Nedovoljno proučen i dosad neupotrijebljen pri izdavanju teksta Hekube, ovaj je rukopis dodatno zanimljiv zbog navodnih znakova koji se u velikom broju pojavljuju na njegovim marginama. Iako zamijećeni, ostali su ovi znakovi do danas nepotpuno i netočno protumačeni. Naš je cilj saznati što se točno događa na marginama ove rukopisne knjige i kakve bi to posljedice moglo imati za čitanja Držića, kako u renesansnom Dubrovniku tako i danas. Pokazat ćemo da je praksa isticanja sentencioznih iskaza navodnim znakovima prisutna posvuda u renesansnoj rukopisnoj i tiskanoj kulturi te da je s jedne strane povezana s onodobnim čitateljskim i spisateljskim praksama, s druge pak s recepcijom grčkih i rimskih klasika te s oblikovanjem književnih kanona na narodnim jezicima po uzoru na klasičnu kulturu. Promatranjem šibenskog rukopisa unutar dubrovačke rukopisne tradicije te Držićeve Hekube u svjetlu šire recepcije Euripida u Europi otkriva se problematičnost u nas još uvijek dominantnih političkih interpretacija ove dramske adaptacije. Takve interpretacije ne nalaze uporište ni u arhivskim dokumentima vezanima za izvedbe stare dubrovačke drame, koji se ovdje iznova analiziraju te upotpunjuju dosad nezamijećenim arhivskim podacima.The subject of our article is the so-called Šibenik manuscript of Marin Držić’s Hecuba, today held in the Archives of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb (shelf-mark VII. 33). This is the only surviving manuscript of this work that mentions on its title leaf the name of Marin Držić and not Mavro Vetranović as the play’s author. Insufficiently studied and as yet unused in the editions of Držić’s Hecuba, this manuscript is additionally interesting on account of the numerous quotation marks found in its margins. Although noted, these marks have not so far been adequately or correctly interpreted. Our aim is to discover what exactly is going on in the margins of this codex and what consequences our inquiry might have for the readings of Držić, both in Renaissance Dubrovnik and in our time. We show that the markings in the Šibenik manuscript are an example of gnomic pointing, found everywhere in Renaissance manuscript and print cultures and linked, on the one hand, to Renaissance reading and writing practices, and, on the other, to the reception of Greek and Roman classics as well as to the formation of literary canons in the vernacular in accordance with classicalmodels. By considering the Šibenik manuscript in the context of the manuscript culture of Renaissance Dubrovnik and in the light of the reception of Euripides in sixteenth-century Europe, we show the problematic nature of the still dominant political interpretations of Držić’s dramatic adaptation. Such interpretations fail to find support even in the archival documents relating to the performances of earlyRagusan drama, which are here subjected to fresh analysis and supplemented by some new archival findings