Pričanje povijesti književnosti iz perspektive interpretacije/falsifikacije perioda i pis(a)ca: interpretacija kao doprinos re/konstrukciji kanonâ

This work is concern with the questions of history of Croatian literature in relation to the interpretative practices and ideological framings which the every hegemony that has ceased the power tries to re-construct from its own perspective and for its own political and ideological advancement. The canon thus constructed becomes an entity very strongly ideologically charged and is blurred by mythological layers. These ideologically charged readings from a certain discursive perspective at the same time represent the subversion of previous canon and are considered to be the acts of violence in relation to previously dominant hegemonic order. I argue that the question of corpus is always related to the privileged position of elites and their ownership of the canon. The question of performative interpretation, which at the same time represents a production of meaning, in the Croatian tradition did not produce the plurality of views in relation to the construction of canon in any particular point of time. Instead of the construction, we can talk about the reconstructions that were always influenced by ideology and the mythological realm. I support this hypothesis by analysing how Marin Držić, the famous play-write from 16th century Dubrovnik, is treated in Croatian histories of literature. There becomes obvious that the interpretation of the corpus which was in each particular point in history presented by ruling hegemony as 'unquestionably given' was always also undermined by subaltern voice of unprivileged other. However, this cannot be decoded at the surface reading, but only at the level where the ironic layers are considered. Subsequently, this other from the position of subalterns becomes a dominant voice. How will this subaltern other appropriate and naturalize the corpus into a new canon, once when in language games of power become an 'owner of the truth', is the question that I am trying to answer by relating the 'truthfulness' and 'believable' as the opposed interpretative potentials in the process of narrating the story of history of literature. In conclusion, I am opening yet another question related to the perspectives of the re-construction of canon. That is the question which in its core has a theoretically charged relationship between the perspective of spectator and the spectacle of history of literature.