~ DUE O TRE COSE SULLA SATIRA
NELL’EPOCA DELLA SUA INVADENZA ~
«– Domani all’alba ho un impegno al Quirinale – .
Di che natura? – Non sai? Ho un amico
Che piglia per marito un amico.
Cerimonia per pochi intimi – .
Viviamo ancora un poco: vedremo
Fare in pubblico queste cose.
E messe agli atti anche».
Il poeta nelle previsioni sdegnate si ingannò: trascorsero almeno mille e novecento anni circa da questa scenetta schizzata da Giovenale nella II Satira (qui in translating Ceronetti, for Einaudi, which dates back to 1971) and began to acts symbolic marriages of this kind. Perhaps the advent of Christianity, a little later, overthrew the climax of extravagance brought by a desire without brakes. Or took a look at the body and eros in a less futile, leaving aside the tone of parody in the satire alluded to the practice and finding happiness in a new brake. In any case, the translator warns: "the classic drug: nailing the vanity opinions on this." The similarity with our discussions, it empties them of their dependents 'innovative', the heady feeling of being extreme in history, and back to the relentless repeatability of human action, more or less successful copies, a d'après often forget the original, a little 'note compartment. But even the classical moralists can be deceiving, since the game is to oppose the satire of modern corruption the golden world of yesteryear, the laudatio temporis acti. The moralists of every age have clung to these Latin verses to justify their arguments atrabiliari, angry regret, but they form the style of Juvenal: he managed to turn honey into gall, according to the formula of its modern translator.
rages in our time a different satire. Nor gall or honey, syrupy drink instead of the label shows a maximum false-old even in Latin, dating from the seventeenth-century French writer Jean de Santeul and bonhomie by the resounding oratory: "laughing castigat mores." Literature can punish someone (apart from the fame of mediocre writers who autopuniscono)? There is a very powerful feared that the poets? Are no more dangerous than the shyster that manipulate the public audience with the worst banalities without metrics? The fact is that no one wants to conquer the palm of contemporary poetry when downloading insults under the guise of satire. The willingness to say anything, to challenge good manners, has resulted in an acquired right, even endorsed by the Supreme Court, such as mutual and pension, which usually relies on the "constitutional values \u200b\u200b', culture and freedom, to protect every grimace like a' work of art.
The ideal 'complicity with the other people laugh, "he was talking about Bergson in his famous" essay on the meaning of the comic, "now seems to evoke the identity politics or what's left of it: complicity in laughter. And the accomplices form a herd, as they say today, a lovely bunch, never - even Bergson argued - there can be identification with the victim of rice. In times of good intentions of hidden aggression, so that the rice is not to besiege and isolate the special scapegoat. Small hyenas. The words are sometimes stones but of course the stoning of quips and jokes hurts less true of the stones is a symbolic stoning. Laughter is still hard, takes a far too fleeting compassion. In these cases, the 'punishment' is probably grinning painless? Nothing to do with the generous smile of the test.
Presenting his Juvenal, Ceronetti warned by such degeneration, "A wise moralist knows to stop in time, because over the invisible line of wisdom is the greed of the destruction of the sinner." Probably Judgement as a satirist, the Latin poet knows that his literary work can not redeem Rome, nor straighten characters and peoples, at best to console the sad friends of the writer as unfortunate elected. The great satirist is merciful, loving his views should not be confused with the "satire des petites gens" (Boissier) that tickles the minds to produce smiles hardship. The translator of Juvenal revealed in the last lines of its introduction four decades ago the secret of the poet and moralist of the best: the battle with evil is driven by an irresistible fascination that it exerts on them, to the point of dedicating one's life and writing to the ugliness that offend us. Moreover, even a Daumier were forced not to ever depict the beauty, to pursue the ridiculous, to travel perpetually in the "third-class carriages."
NELL’EPOCA DELLA SUA INVADENZA ~
«– Domani all’alba ho un impegno al Quirinale – .
Di che natura? – Non sai? Ho un amico
Che piglia per marito un amico.
Cerimonia per pochi intimi – .
Viviamo ancora un poco: vedremo
Fare in pubblico queste cose.
E messe agli atti anche».
Il poeta nelle previsioni sdegnate si ingannò: trascorsero almeno mille e novecento anni circa da questa scenetta schizzata da Giovenale nella II Satira (qui in translating Ceronetti, for Einaudi, which dates back to 1971) and began to acts symbolic marriages of this kind. Perhaps the advent of Christianity, a little later, overthrew the climax of extravagance brought by a desire without brakes. Or took a look at the body and eros in a less futile, leaving aside the tone of parody in the satire alluded to the practice and finding happiness in a new brake. In any case, the translator warns: "the classic drug: nailing the vanity opinions on this." The similarity with our discussions, it empties them of their dependents 'innovative', the heady feeling of being extreme in history, and back to the relentless repeatability of human action, more or less successful copies, a d'après often forget the original, a little 'note compartment. But even the classical moralists can be deceiving, since the game is to oppose the satire of modern corruption the golden world of yesteryear, the laudatio temporis acti. The moralists of every age have clung to these Latin verses to justify their arguments atrabiliari, angry regret, but they form the style of Juvenal: he managed to turn honey into gall, according to the formula of its modern translator.
rages in our time a different satire. Nor gall or honey, syrupy drink instead of the label shows a maximum false-old even in Latin, dating from the seventeenth-century French writer Jean de Santeul and bonhomie by the resounding oratory: "laughing castigat mores." Literature can punish someone (apart from the fame of mediocre writers who autopuniscono)? There is a very powerful feared that the poets? Are no more dangerous than the shyster that manipulate the public audience with the worst banalities without metrics? The fact is that no one wants to conquer the palm of contemporary poetry when downloading insults under the guise of satire. The willingness to say anything, to challenge good manners, has resulted in an acquired right, even endorsed by the Supreme Court, such as mutual and pension, which usually relies on the "constitutional values \u200b\u200b', culture and freedom, to protect every grimace like a' work of art.
The ideal 'complicity with the other people laugh, "he was talking about Bergson in his famous" essay on the meaning of the comic, "now seems to evoke the identity politics or what's left of it: complicity in laughter. And the accomplices form a herd, as they say today, a lovely bunch, never - even Bergson argued - there can be identification with the victim of rice. In times of good intentions of hidden aggression, so that the rice is not to besiege and isolate the special scapegoat. Small hyenas. The words are sometimes stones but of course the stoning of quips and jokes hurts less true of the stones is a symbolic stoning. Laughter is still hard, takes a far too fleeting compassion. In these cases, the 'punishment' is probably grinning painless? Nothing to do with the generous smile of the test.
Presenting his Juvenal, Ceronetti warned by such degeneration, "A wise moralist knows to stop in time, because over the invisible line of wisdom is the greed of the destruction of the sinner." Probably Judgement as a satirist, the Latin poet knows that his literary work can not redeem Rome, nor straighten characters and peoples, at best to console the sad friends of the writer as unfortunate elected. The great satirist is merciful, loving his views should not be confused with the "satire des petites gens" (Boissier) that tickles the minds to produce smiles hardship. The translator of Juvenal revealed in the last lines of its introduction four decades ago the secret of the poet and moralist of the best: the battle with evil is driven by an irresistible fascination that it exerts on them, to the point of dedicating one's life and writing to the ugliness that offend us. Moreover, even a Daumier were forced not to ever depict the beauty, to pursue the ridiculous, to travel perpetually in the "third-class carriages."
http / / almanaccoromano.blogspot.com / feed 
0 comments:
Post a Comment