OZALJSKI JEZIČNO-KNJIŽEVNI KRUG (THE OZALJ LINGUISTIC-LITERARY CIRCLE) OR THE ZRINSKO-FRANKOPANSKI KNJIŽEVNI KRUG (ZRINSKI-FRANKOPAN LITERARY CIRCLE)

Prvi se spram jezika Sirene Zrinskoga negativno odredio Jagić, nazvavši ga „mješovitim i šarovitim“, objašnjavajući to pomicanjem Zrinskih iz čakavske južne postojbine prema kajkavskom sjeveru. Potom Kostrenčić odbacuje postavku o „nemiloj sudbini“ Zrinskih, tvrdeći kako je razlog hibridnog jezika Sirene svjesna jezično-književna djelatnost svojevrsne „hrvatske literarne akademije“, koja se po uzoru na slične talijanske oblikovala u zrinsko-frankopanskom krugu i čiji je jezični savjetnik, kasniji senjski biskup, Smoljanić „nagrdio“ tiskanu verziju Sirene. Ovu tezu prihvaća Pavletić dodajući kao mogućeg prethodnika Glavinića i njegovu „mješavinu narječja“ te imena kao što su: Rafael Levaković, Benedikt Vinković, Gjuro Ratkay, Danilo Gvozdek i Pavao Jančić a potom Šrepel, koji Zrinske zove hrvatski Medici a na koncu i Pisarević. Sve ovo kao neutemeljeno odbacuje Matić, da bi deset godina kasnije Novalić, pozivajući se na Klaniczaya, ponovo uskrsnuo tezu o „književnom kolu“ Zrinskih i Frankopana, dopunjujući krug Draškovićima, Pethöom i Fodroczyjem te Madžarima iz okoline Nikole Zrinskog. Narednih se godina navedena teza o širem i užem krugu ustaljuje zahvaljujući prije svega Vončininim raspravama: krug dobiva ime ozaljski književno-jezični krug, umjesto Smoljanića se kao jezični savjetnik pojavljuje Belostenec, a kao prethodnici se, pored Glavinića, navode popovi glagoljaši, hrvatski protestanti iz Uracha i Dešić. U novije vrijeme ime kruga, kao i njegovo oslanjanje na protestante iz Uracha, osporava Jembrih i predlaže termin zrinsko-frankopanski jezično-književni krug. Već površni pogled na naziv jezika pojedinih navodnih sudionika kruga nameće dvojbu o njihovoj povezanosti u jezično-književni krug: Zrinski (Nikola, Petar, Katarina) ga zovu hrvatski, Belostenec ilirskim a Ratkaj slovinskim. I dok Belostenec i Ratkaj na kajkavsku osnovicu naslojavaju čakavski i dijelom štokavski sloj (prvi zbog toga da bi bio razumljiv redovnicima i pastvi Krajine, Istre i Primorja a drugi krajiškoj publici), jezik zrinsko-frankopanskog terceta je čakavska osnovica s kajkavskim i dijelom štokavskim slojem. Stoga se termin zrinsko-frankopanski jezično-književni krug čini prikladnijim od ozaljskog, jer za neko aktivno sudjelovanje Belostenca i Ratkaja u krugu nemamo nikakvih dokaza, kako neposrednih, tako ni posrednih.Summary Jagić was the first to react negatively in respect to the language of Zrinski\u27s 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\u27 „ill fate“, claiming that the reason for „Sirena\u27s“ 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\u27s 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\u27s 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\u27s 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\u27s 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