L'hagiographie pataphysique : enjeux de l'ethos dans les Vies de Saints du Calendrier

  Hagiography, a literary form dating back to the beginnings of fourth century Christianism, and later sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church, exhibits itself with all the ritualistic devices and decorum requisite to the genre, displaying the full intricacies of its knowledge and beliefs in the process. It was unexpectedly given new life by an extensive body of work put forth, in the second half of the 20th century, by the Collège de ‘Pataphysique (or ‘Pataphysics), a gathering of philosophical and literary minds. The Collège intended to be an institution dedicated to the emblematization of Science, something other than a conclave of eccentrics or a mere new “ism”. This generic reuse of hagiography exhibits a singular heterogeneity, which, far from being canonical, is part of a continuation, a problematic element vis-à-vis the subtext.  Upon reviewing the Calendar of the Saints, one could conclude that this collective work is little more than a parodical and iconoclastic enterprise. But parody, a form of imitation, raises the issue of scope. Gérard Genette’s Second degree refers to two main types of discourse: the serious -what is serious per say and what is satirical-, and the playful. This approach proved useful when tackling the matter of humour. There are, in fact, two alternatives: serious parody, which would deride hagiography and the Calendar of the Saints, or playful parody, a simple game, a farce with no actual scope, “just for fun”. While a valuable argument can be made for either option, we will attempt to demonstrate that a distinction between the two is in fact impossible, precisely because it is possible to prove that it is both serious and not serious. Ultimately, we can also demonstrate that the not-serious is serious. After all, isn’t it true that puns and homophony both involve the Word? And doesn’t the impossible imitation reflect the imitabile of the Holy Church itself?  The enunciative situation stemming from pataphysical hagiography is indistinguishable from any didactical endeavour with a moralistic component at its core. It calls for ethos, with a social representation of the enunciator as well as a didactical representation from within the discourse itself. It also takes a more scholarly tone, which disrupts the convergence and has a disjunctive effect on the rhetoric of the genre. We chose to approach the “rhetorical problem” raised by pataphysical hagiography through the notion of ethos. The ethos, as a validation premise, takes us beyond the speaker’s character, in the footsteps of the likes of Dominique Maingueneau, to the type of message stemming from the discourse, making it credible. But what becomes of this premise when the discourse’s persuasive scope is put into question? When the ethos multiplies itself, preserving neither the message’s cohesion nor its scope? If parody incidentally raises the issue of scope, does the answer lie in some form of parodical ethos? We saw fit to measure, articulate and analyse this hypothesis from different angles. For the purposes of our analysis, we took on a disciplined, rhetorical approach. Although cumbersome from a theoretical standpoint, this method for creating discourse is based on elements capable of inciting both adherence from (and emulation of) the enunciator, as well as on a method of analysis.  Guided by a broader definition of the text, spanning both narrative and non-narrative literary genres, we sought to restore the cymbalistic approach from a body of work belonging solely to the pataphysician. We thus positioned ourselves in the greater setting of a discourse free of ideological considerations, that is never quite fully understood or stuck within the confines of meaning, and therefore has endless potential ; a discourse based on random axioms bound only by the requirement of internal coherence.

Keyphrases: ethos, rhetoric, ethos, 'Pataphysics, parody, hagiography