Osservazioni sul “Ramo d’oro” di Frazer: Difference between revisions

Osservazioni sul “Ramo d’oro” di Frazer (view source)

Revision as of 12:13, 27 March 2022

1,168 bytes added , 2 years ago

no edit summary

MLavazza

Bureaucrats, Editors, Interface administrators, Administrators

5,225

edits

@@ Line 247: / Line 247: @@
 <p id="parte-ii" style="text-align: center; font-size: 125%;">'''Parte II'''</p>
-{{Frazer MS reference|Ms or Ts=Ms |number=143|page= 1}} 168<ref>«At a certain stage of early society the king or priest is often thought to be endowed with supernatural powers or to be an incarnation of a deity, and consistently with this belief the course of nature is supposed to be more or less under his control, and he is held responsible for bad weather, failure of the crops, and similar calamities. To some extent it appears to be assumed that the king's power over nature, like that over his subjects and slaves, is exerted through definite acts of will; and therefore if drought, famine, pestilence, or storms arise, the people attribute the misfortune to the negligence or guilt of their king, and punish him accordingly with stripes and bonds, or, if he remains obdurate, with deposition and death. Sometimes, however, the course of nature, while regarded as dependent on the king, is supposed to be partly independent of his will. His person is considered, if we may express it so, as the dynamical centre of the universe, from which lines of force radiate to all quarters of the heaven; so that any motion of his—the turning of his head, the lifting of his hand—instantaneously affects and may seriously disturb some part of nature. He is the point of support on which hangs the balance of the world, and the slightest irregularity on his part may overthrow the delicate equipoise. The greatest care must, therefore, be taken both by and of him; and his whole life, down to its minutest details, must be so regulated that no act of his, voluntary or involuntary, may disarrange or upset the established order of nature. [...]» J. G. Frazer, ''<span class="plainlinks">[https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.210147/ The Golden Bough. A Study in Magic and Religion]</span>'', Macmillan and Co., Londra 1925, p. 168.</ref>
+{{Frazer MS reference|Ms or Ts=Ms |number=143|page= 1}} 168<ref>«At a certain stage of early society the king or priest is often thought to be endowed with supernatural powers or to be an incarnation of a deity, and consistently with this belief the course of nature is supposed to be more or less under his control, and he is held responsible for bad weather, failure of the crops, and similar calamities. To some extent it appears to be assumed that the king's power over nature, like that over his subjects and slaves, is exerted through definite acts of will; and therefore if drought, famine, pestilence, or storms arise, the people attribute the misfortune to the negligence or guilt of their king, and punish him accordingly with stripes and bonds, or, if he remains obdurate, with deposition and death. Sometimes, however, the course of nature, while regarded as dependent on the king, is supposed to be partly independent of his will. His person is considered, if we may express it so, as the dynamical centre of the universe, from which lines of force radiate to all quarters of the heaven; so that any motion of his—the turning of his head, the lifting of his hand—instantaneously affects and may seriously disturb some part of nature. He is the point of support on which hangs the balance of the world, and the slightest irregularity on his part may overthrow the delicate equipoise. The greatest care must, therefore, be taken both by and of him; and his whole life, down to its minutest details, must be so regulated that no act of his, voluntary or involuntary, may disarrange or upset the established order of nature.» J. G. Frazer, ''<span class="plainlinks">[https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.210147/ The Golden Bough. A Study in Magic and Religion]</span>'', Macmillan and Co., Londra 1925, p. 168.</ref>
 Questo non vuol dire naturalmente che il popolo creda che il sovrano abbia tali poteri; egli, comunque, sa benissimo di non possederli, oppure può ignorarlo nel caso in cui sia un imbecille o un demente. Piuttosto, la definizione della sua forza è naturalmente già stabilita in modo da poter concordare con l’esperienza sua e del popolo. Che in ciò giochi un ruolo una qualche ipocrisia {{Frazer MS reference|Ms or Ts=Ms |number=143|page= 2}} è vero solo nella misura in cui essa comunque va a braccetto con la maggior parte delle cose che gli uomini fanno.
+<ref>«“In ancient times, he [the Mikado] was obliged to sit on the throne for some hours every morning, with the imperial crown on his head, but to sit altogether like a statue, without stirring either hands or feet, head or eyes, nor indeed any part of his body, because, by this means, it was thought that he could preserve peace and tranquillity in his empire; for if, unfortunately, he turned himself on one side or the other, or if he looked a good while towards any part of his dominions, it was apprehended that war, famine, fire, or some other great misfortune was near at hand to desolate the country. [...]”» J. G. Frazer, ''The Golden Bough'', ''op. cit.'', p. 169.</ref>
 Se nella nostra società (o almeno nella mia) una persona ride troppo, in maniera {{Udashed|semi-}}involontaria io stringo le labbra, come se con ciò credessi di poter serrare le sue.
-{{Frazer MS reference|Ms or Ts=Ms |number=143|page= 3}} 170
+{{Frazer MS reference|Ms or Ts=Ms |number=143|page= 3}} 170<ref>«On Mount Agu in Togo there lives a fetish or spirit called Bagba, who is of great importance for the whole of the surrounding country. The power of giving or withholding rain is ascribed to him, and he is lord of the winds, including the Harmattan, the dry, hot wind which blows from the interior. His priest dwells in a house on the highest peak of the mountain, where he keeps the winds bottled up in huge jars.» J. G. Frazer, ''The Golden Bough'', ''op. cit.'', p. 170.</ref>
 Il nonsenso sta proprio qui, nel fatto che Frazer presenti le cose come se questi popoli avessero una raffigurazione completamente falsa (anzi, delirante) sul corso della natura, laddove invece essi hanno soltanto una peculiare interpretazione dei fenomeni. Cioè la loro conoscenza della natura, qualora la mettessero per iscritto, non si distinguerebbe <u>fondamentalmente</u> dalla nostra. Solo la loro <u>magia</u> è differente.