Self-Canonization – Canon Theory

Abstract

The author's English summary from the article:

Key words: Canon theory, chronotope, myth, ritual, pseudo-father.

The individual canon and the chronotop of language are correlative terms. The chronotop of language is result of culture, which is to be changed and renewed. It’s a parallel phenomenon of any creative process. Tradition forms and their general systems – myth and ritual – are changed by new forms, which are inversions of tradition systems. There are many things in tradition culture to be changed and renewed. From the archaic epoch till the medieval epoch the chronotop of the language of the an- cient cultural nations submited to the strict frames. It was shown by the forms of the general myth and the general ritual, which were invariable. The main result of this appearance was the absence of the free interpretation.

This phenomenon defended the tradition frames of the author’s legiti- mate. Modern time destroyed this frames. The free interpretation of the text and the appearance is the main principle of postmodern epoch. The free interpretation and the special meaning of this phenomenon is a result of the absence of the absolute truth in a modern time, in a postmodern epoch. There is not the universal idea and the general system which would be protected by the recipient of culture. In the medieval epoch all appearences and the literary texts were connected with the idea of divinity, with the idea of Absolute. So, it was inadmissible to have own position, own attitude and there was not interpretation like in modern time (postmodern epoch).

If it was admited, so, it was the same appearance of the heresy. The intention of thinking was apprehen- sion of the subject, which were connected with the divine plan. So, it was impossible to find the own reason of the appearance or the subject. The postmodern interpretation destroyed this whole system. In the modern time we haven’t the absolute truth and the universal idea. It means that the modern chronotop of the language is devastated by the tradition myth and the tradition ritual. The new myth and the new ritual is connected with the instinct of ,,father’s castration“. Another name of this phenomenon is ,,the fear of the influence“. On the other hand the new myth and the new ritual have general foundation, general hy- podigmus.

It represents as the general myth – the new god changes the old god. The principle of mimesis is most perfect form, most perfect paradigmus of this myth. The principle of mimesis means that new forms are constructed on the old basis, on the tradition foundation. It resists to the principle of destruction, which means that the individual canon is founding by the destroyer, who has destructed and hasn’t renewed tradition forms. To create the new forms – this necessity is realized by the language. The artist (author) realizes the direction of the language. So, to create the new myth and the new ritual is a duty of the author. The author must do it not against the tradition myth and the tradition ritual, but the au- thor must remake the tradition myth and the tradition ritual.

So, the new myth and the new ritual it is the general forms of the myth and the ritual, which are made by individual scheme. Modern time is known like the time that subjective factor is the main structure of the culture (Manana Kvachantiradze, Bela tsipuria), So, the legitimate of the author by the tradition norm of the uni- versal canon is changed by the individual canon as the subjective canon. The culture, which is devasteded by the tradition myth and the tradition ritual, cann’t legitimate the new author, which must create the new form of the myth and the new form of the ritual. On the other hand, author must legitimate himself/herself, because he/she must save the culture, which is devasteded by the tradition myth and the tradition ritual.

He/she must protect the culture from the chaos and lawlessness, from the chaotic structures, which are out of the main law – the general myth and the general ritual. He/she must destroy the idol and make himself/herself like the new idol. He/ she must overcome the old legislator and make himself/herself like the new law – the new myth and the new rirual. The individual canon is an author’s individual condition. It is negative consequence of necessity of the new chronotop of language. It is projection of concrete writers. It is demon- strated by subjective condition. The author is oriented to make himself/herself as an idol, to make own canon and to legitimate herself/himself before time and culture will give it to him /her.

The phenomenon of the individual canon – self-legitimate – is the totality of three arche- types: the divinity, the priest and the hero. This three archetypes are shown by the activity of the modern author. Everytime when we have the new myth and the new ritual it is the individual myth and the individual ritual, which are just transformation of the tradition myth and the tradi- tion ritual. It’s just inversion of the archaic chronotop. The chronotop of language is an alternative phenomenon of the individual canon, because it’s the system of culture as the permanent transforming structure, inversion of the archaic chro- notop – the tradition myth and the tradition ritual.

The author has directives of culture that he/ she must change and renew the chronotop of language. If this process ends successfuly, it will represent the chronotop of language as the one system uniting the three main chronotops: the author’s chronotop, the reader ‘s chronotop and the text’s chronotop. So, this will make foundation for the author and he/she will legitimate by culture and time. This article also presents the ancient mythologema of the individual canon (Uranos – kro- nos; Kronos – Zeus.), forms of individual canon in literature (Laios – Edipos; Orestes – Kliptem- nestra; Tariel – Parsadan; Hamlet – Klavdius; Promethes – Zeus). We also present forms of the individual canon, which are realized not as revolt or insurrection, but the principle of mimesis (Odyssey – Thelemakhos; Avtandil – Rostevan; father Hamlet – son Hamlet, Father (God) – Son (God), Jesus Christ.).

Published in the journal Sjani, vol. 12 (2011), pp. 237–243. Open the paper