ERRATA:
The doctor's prescription (“ovvero” the notion of poetic canons)
Joking apart, the series of posts under the title " The doctor's
prescription", was merely suggested by me as a set of stimuli to reflect
upon the notion of poetical canons, which implies two different attitudes
which, while clashing one against the other, co-exist, that of canonic
rhetorical rules and that of personal innovations and practices.
In the first one, we take it should be taken into consideration the so
called a "parte obiecti", the point of view, the perspective of the work
itself as such, say its connotation within a given literary tradition
carrying with it all the rhetorical rules, the elements of tastes and
poetics, ( therefore Ovid, Virgil and so on).
Of course, as Matthew has suggested with his personal remarks, any
statement regarding the existence of a set of rules, i.e., of a canon,
implies the birth of what we know to be an anti-canon ( often ideologically
enacted by both a group of poets: the Surrealists, for instance. Or by a
single individual operating towards innovation).
The second perspective is the one that assumes as valid and legislative the
point of view and the tastes of the reader and of the audience in general.
So, it is less canonic and more fluctuating, more connected with the " a
parte subiecti" . This second point of view is more conditioned by all the
changes that occur through time within a given community living in a given
place, and therefore reflects its needs more closely.
Therefore, one should acknowledge the fact that "overdoses " can occurr :
iper-dosages of a given aesthetical rule that, however valid in the
abstract within the realm of the " a parte objecti" , becomes obsolete (and
at least for a while) in the real world of the readers.
Omero, Dante e Shakespeare became all of a sudden more popular than the
classic Orazio, Virgilio and Petrarca.
For twenty years now, the second perspective tends to be more popular and
acclaimed because of the emphasis on the readers' tastes and shared
authority.
The hierarchy of value are established not by dictionary of rhetoric and
stylistic but by the audience’s interest in the published material
available and in its shifting extemporaneous moods.
This is why fame is more in danger and the work of art more subjected to
obsolescence. The updating of the institutionalized canons is a matter of
fact in modern and contemporary poetry, given also the accessibility and
availability of products on the market.
Nothing new.
Is this situation better than the one before, when the canons where more
rigid and secured by their crystallizations?
To put under investigation and discuss canons means that one is allowed to
render problematic the institution of poetry at its very core.
This coincides, luckily, with the evident decline of the canonized
critique. And this is what is happening, however lucid a doctor thinks he
is being in writing his prescriptions ( in a foreign language).
Apologies and regards,
Doctor Professor Vito Scogliamiglio,
otherwised called "The Priest"
University Hospital "Saint Jerome of the Leprouses", Naples.
|