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

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

Revision as of 13:26, 27 March 2022

2,885 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.
@@ Line 315: / Line 315: @@
 Per quale ragione però non dovrebbe essere davvero soltanto (o almeno in parte) il <u>pensiero</u> a farmi impressione? Non possono forse essere spaventose le rappresentazioni? Non posso sentirmi //trovarmi a essere// orribilmente a disagio al pensiero che un tempo la torta coi bottoni venisse impiegata per tirare a sorte la vittima sacrificale? Non ha il <u>pensiero</u> {{Frazer MS reference|Ms or Ts=Ms |number=143|page= 20}} qualcosa di spaventoso? – Certo, tuttavia ciò che io scorgo in quei racconti è associato a essi sulla base dell’evidenza, anche di quell’evidenza che non sembra a essi immediatamente collegata, e dei pensieri intorno all’umanità e al suo passato, e di tutto ciò di strano che io, in me e nell’altro, scorgo, ho scorto e udito.
-{{Frazer MS reference|Ms or Ts=Ms |number=143|page= 21}} 640<ref>«Various rules were also laid down as to the kind of persons who might or should make the need-fire. Sometimes it was said that the two persons who pulled the rope which twirled the roller should always be brothers or at least bear the same baptismal name; sometimes it was deemed sufficient if they were both chaste young men. In some villages of Brunswick people thought that if everybody who lent a hand in kindling the need-fire did not bear the same Christian name, they would labour in vain.» J. G. Frazer, ''The Golden Bough'', ''op. cit.'', pp. 640.</ref>
+{{Frazer MS reference|Ms or Ts=Ms |number=143|page= 21}} 640<ref>«Various rules were also laid down as to the kind of persons who might or should make the need-fire. Sometimes it was said that the two persons who pulled the rope which twirled the roller should always be brothers or at least bear the same baptismal name; sometimes it was deemed sufficient if they were both chaste young men. In some villages of Brunswick people thought that if everybody who lent a hand in kindling the need-fire did not bear the same Christian name, they would labour in vain.» J. G. Frazer, ''The Golden Bough'', ''op. cit.'', p. 640.</ref>
 Si può benissimo raffigurarselo //immaginarselo// – e per esempio vi si potrebbe porre a fondamento il fatto che, altrimenti, i santi protettori entrerebbero in conflitto l’uno con l’altro e solo uno potrebbe sovrintendere alla cosa. Ma anche questa non sarebbe altro che un’interpretazione ({{Udashed|retrospettiva}}) dell’istinto.
@@ Line 321: / Line 321: @@
 Tutte queste <u>diverse</u> usanze mostrano che qui non si tratta della filiazione dell’una dall’altra, {{Frazer MS reference|Ms or Ts=Ms |number=143|page= 22}} bensì di uno spirito comune. E uno potrebbe inventarsi (escogitare) tutte queste cerimonie anche per conto proprio. E lo spirito con il quale le si inventerebbe sarebbe appunto il loro spirito comune.
+<ref>«In the western islands of Scotland and on the adjoining mainland, as soon as the fire on the domestic hearth had been rekindled from the need-fire, a pot full of water was set on it, and the water thus heated was afterwards sprinkled upon the people infected with the plague or upon the cattle that were tainted by the murrain.» J. G. Frazer, ''The Golden Bough'', ''op. cit.'', pp. 640-641.</ref>
 Il nesso fra malattia e sporcizia. «Epurare da una malattia».
@@ Line 331: / Line 331: @@
 Ciò che è corretto e interessante non è affermare che questo è derivato da quest’altro, ma piuttosto: questo potrebbe essere derivato in questo modo.
-{{Frazer MS reference|Ms or Ts=Ms |number=143|page= 24}} 643
+{{Frazer MS reference|Ms or Ts=Ms |number=143|page= 24}} 643<ref>«Yet the two explanations, different as they are in the character which they attribute to the fire, are perhaps not wholly irreconcilable. If we assume that the fires kindled at these festivals were primarily intended to imitate the sun’s light and heat, may we not regard the purificatory and disinfecting qualities, which popular opinion certainly appears to have ascribed to them, as attributes derived directly from the purificatory and disinfecting qualities of sunshine? In this way we might conclude that, while the imitation of sunshine in these ceremonies was primary and original, the purification attributed to them was secondary and derivative. Such a conclusion, occupying an intermediate position between the two opposing theories and recognising an element of truth in both of them, was adopted by me in earlier editions of this work; but in the meantime Dr. Westermarck has argued powerfully in favour of the purificatory theory alone, and I am bound to say that his arguments carry great weight, and that on a fuller review of the facts the balance of evidence seems to me to incline decidedly in his favour.» J. G. Frazer, ''The Golden Bough'', ''op. cit.'', pp. 642-643.</ref>
 Che il fuoco sia stato impiegato per purificare è chiaro. Ma niente può essere più verosimile del fatto che gli esseri umani pensanti abbiano in seguito posto le cerimonie di purificazione, anche laddove esse originariamente era state concepite solo come tali, in rapporto al sole. Quando un pensiero si impone a una persona (fuoco-purificazione) e un altro a un’altra {{Frazer MS reference|Ms or Ts=Ms |number=143|page= 25}} (fuoco-sole), cosa può essere più verosimile del fatto che a una persona si impongano entrambi i pensieri? I dotti che vorrebbero sempre avere <u>una</u> teoria!!!
@@ Line 339: / Line 339: @@
 Quand’anche non si sapesse alcunché di una tale connessione fra il pensiero della purificazione e quello del sole, si potrebbe supporre che da qualche parte esso si sia presentato.
-{{Frazer MS reference|Ms or Ts=Ms |number=143|page= 26}} 680
+{{Frazer MS reference|Ms or Ts=Ms |number=143|page= 26}} 680<ref>«Among the natives of the Gazelle Peninsula in New Britain there is a secret society which goes by the name of Ingniet or Ingiet. On his entrance into it every man receives a stone in the shape either of a human being or of an animal, and henceforth his soul is believed to be knit up in a manner with the stone. If it breaks, it is an evil omen for him; they say that the thunder has struck the stone and that he who owns it will soon die. If nevertheless the man survives the breaking of his soul-stone, they say that it was not a proper soul-stone and he gets a new one instead.» J. G. Frazer, ''The Golden Bough'', ''op. cit.'', p. 680.</ref>
 «soul-stone»<ref>"Anima-pietra" (''N. d. T.'').</ref>
@@ Line 345: / Line 345: @@
 In ciò si vede come opera una tale ipotesi.
-{{Frazer MS reference|Ms or Ts=Ms |number=143|page= 27}} 681
+{{Frazer MS reference|Ms or Ts=Ms |number=143|page= 27}} 681<ref>«Here in Europe it used to be thought that the maleficent powers of witches and wizards resided in their hair, and that nothing could make any impression on these miscreants so long as they kept their hair on. Hence in France it was customary to shave the whole bodies of persons charged with sorcery before handing them over to the torturer. Millaeus witnessed the torture of some persons at Toulouse, from whom no confession could be wrung until they were stripped and completely shaven, when they readily acknowledged the truth of the charge.» J. G. Frazer, ''The Golden Bough'', ''op. cit.'', pp. 680-681.</ref>
 Questo starebbe a indicare che qui il fondamento è una verità e non una superstizione. (Certo è facile, di fronte agli scienziati sciocchi, cadere nello spirito di contraddizione.) Ma può ben darsi il caso che il corpo completamente depilato ci induca, in un certo senso, a perdere il rispetto di noi stessi.