{"title":"“今天,当时代为时已晚……”:Theodore Metochites论语音交流过程的优缺点","authors":"Dmitri I. Makarov","doi":"10.15826/adsv.2020.48.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper suggests a translation from the Byzantine Greek and an interpretation of two passages from Theodore Metochites’ (ca. 1270–1332) works addressing the strength and weakness of our word and the communication based on it. The third translated passage is taken from Ps.-Lucian’s Encomium to Demosthenes, which interprets one of Metochites’ texts. Using examples and reasoning, the megas logothete demonstrated the highs and lows, the strength and weakness of our speech acts (in the meaning of John Searle’s and other modern theories). If Demosthenes’ word was like “hammered” and in this form formed a formidable threat to Philip of Macedonia, despite he defeated the Hellenes at Cheronea, the first third of the fourteenth century Byzantines, intellectuals in particular, were totally unable to make themselves understand each other. To put it another way, there were great difficulties with bringing specific information, feelings or emotions to another person, or, in short, with making clear to someone else all the propositions of the one’s discursive intellect, notwithstanding the fact that one can both explain and mentally represent to him-/herself the matter of reflection. However, one is forceless to turn the above-said into clear-cut utterances. Such a communication crisis within the Byzantine society on the eve of the Hesychasm controversy evidently turned out to be a verge of the general civilization crisis. In this regard, Metochites’ works made a contribution into the overcoming of the crisis, as he constantly summoned to a dialogue between generations of not only his contemporaries, but also of their predecessors and descendants. Discussing the reciprocal unity of word and image/icon, Metochites expressed the Byzantine culture’s in-depth archetypes, particularly its centuries-long creative principle of iconicity in its approach to the Umwelt. This paper suggests parallels to Metochites’ ideas in the Byzantine hagiography of the eighth and fourteenth century (Stephen the Deacon, Theoktistos the Stoudite) and some pieces of reflection to sound in tune with Metochites, which originate from the works of great twentieth-century philosophers Friar Florenskii and Ludwig Wittgenstein.","PeriodicalId":33782,"journal":{"name":"Antichnaia drevnost'' i srednie veka","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Today, when the Times Are too Late…”: Theodore Metochites on the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Speech Communication Process\",\"authors\":\"Dmitri I. Makarov\",\"doi\":\"10.15826/adsv.2020.48.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper suggests a translation from the Byzantine Greek and an interpretation of two passages from Theodore Metochites’ (ca. 1270–1332) works addressing the strength and weakness of our word and the communication based on it. The third translated passage is taken from Ps.-Lucian’s Encomium to Demosthenes, which interprets one of Metochites’ texts. Using examples and reasoning, the megas logothete demonstrated the highs and lows, the strength and weakness of our speech acts (in the meaning of John Searle’s and other modern theories). If Demosthenes’ word was like “hammered” and in this form formed a formidable threat to Philip of Macedonia, despite he defeated the Hellenes at Cheronea, the first third of the fourteenth century Byzantines, intellectuals in particular, were totally unable to make themselves understand each other. To put it another way, there were great difficulties with bringing specific information, feelings or emotions to another person, or, in short, with making clear to someone else all the propositions of the one’s discursive intellect, notwithstanding the fact that one can both explain and mentally represent to him-/herself the matter of reflection. However, one is forceless to turn the above-said into clear-cut utterances. Such a communication crisis within the Byzantine society on the eve of the Hesychasm controversy evidently turned out to be a verge of the general civilization crisis. In this regard, Metochites’ works made a contribution into the overcoming of the crisis, as he constantly summoned to a dialogue between generations of not only his contemporaries, but also of their predecessors and descendants. Discussing the reciprocal unity of word and image/icon, Metochites expressed the Byzantine culture’s in-depth archetypes, particularly its centuries-long creative principle of iconicity in its approach to the Umwelt. This paper suggests parallels to Metochites’ ideas in the Byzantine hagiography of the eighth and fourteenth century (Stephen the Deacon, Theoktistos the Stoudite) and some pieces of reflection to sound in tune with Metochites, which originate from the works of great twentieth-century philosophers Friar Florenskii and Ludwig Wittgenstein.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antichnaia drevnost'' i srednie veka\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antichnaia drevnost'' i srednie veka\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15826/adsv.2020.48.009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antichnaia drevnost'' i srednie veka","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15826/adsv.2020.48.009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文建议翻译拜占庭希腊语,并解释西奥多·梅托奇特(Theodore Metochites,约1270-1332年)作品中的两段话,以解决我们这个词的优点和缺点以及基于它的交流。第三个翻译的段落摘自ps .卢西恩的《德摩斯梯尼颂》,它解释了梅托契人的一篇文章。通过举例和推理,巨型符号展示了我们言语行为的高潮和低谷,强弱(在约翰·塞尔和其他现代理论的意义上)。如果说德摩斯梯尼的这个词就像“锤击”,并且以这种形式对马其顿的腓力形成了强大的威胁,尽管他在切罗尼亚击败了希腊人,那么14世纪前三分之一的拜占庭人,尤其是知识分子,完全无法相互理解。换句话说,把特定的信息、感觉或情绪带给另一个人是非常困难的,或者,简而言之,向别人清楚地表达一个人的话语智力的所有命题,尽管一个人既可以解释,也可以在精神上向他/她自己表达反思的问题。然而,人们不得不把以上所说的变成明确的话语。在海斯深渊之争前夕,拜占庭社会内部的这种传播危机显然是普遍文明危机的边缘。在这方面,Metochites的作品为克服危机做出了贡献,因为他不断地召唤与他同时代的人,以及他们的前辈和后代之间的对话。Metochites讨论了文字和图像/图标的相互统一,表达了拜占庭文化的深层原型,特别是其在对待世界的方法中长达几个世纪的象似性创作原则。本文提出了在8世纪和14世纪的拜占庭圣徒传记中与Metochites思想的相似之处(Stephen the Deacon, Theoktistos the Stoudite),以及一些来自20世纪伟大哲学家Friar Florenskii和Ludwig Wittgenstein的作品,听起来与Metochites一致的反思。
“Today, when the Times Are too Late…”: Theodore Metochites on the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Speech Communication Process
This paper suggests a translation from the Byzantine Greek and an interpretation of two passages from Theodore Metochites’ (ca. 1270–1332) works addressing the strength and weakness of our word and the communication based on it. The third translated passage is taken from Ps.-Lucian’s Encomium to Demosthenes, which interprets one of Metochites’ texts. Using examples and reasoning, the megas logothete demonstrated the highs and lows, the strength and weakness of our speech acts (in the meaning of John Searle’s and other modern theories). If Demosthenes’ word was like “hammered” and in this form formed a formidable threat to Philip of Macedonia, despite he defeated the Hellenes at Cheronea, the first third of the fourteenth century Byzantines, intellectuals in particular, were totally unable to make themselves understand each other. To put it another way, there were great difficulties with bringing specific information, feelings or emotions to another person, or, in short, with making clear to someone else all the propositions of the one’s discursive intellect, notwithstanding the fact that one can both explain and mentally represent to him-/herself the matter of reflection. However, one is forceless to turn the above-said into clear-cut utterances. Such a communication crisis within the Byzantine society on the eve of the Hesychasm controversy evidently turned out to be a verge of the general civilization crisis. In this regard, Metochites’ works made a contribution into the overcoming of the crisis, as he constantly summoned to a dialogue between generations of not only his contemporaries, but also of their predecessors and descendants. Discussing the reciprocal unity of word and image/icon, Metochites expressed the Byzantine culture’s in-depth archetypes, particularly its centuries-long creative principle of iconicity in its approach to the Umwelt. This paper suggests parallels to Metochites’ ideas in the Byzantine hagiography of the eighth and fourteenth century (Stephen the Deacon, Theoktistos the Stoudite) and some pieces of reflection to sound in tune with Metochites, which originate from the works of great twentieth-century philosophers Friar Florenskii and Ludwig Wittgenstein.