{"title":"这是神话般的风格长老会和温谷","authors":"Yannis Kakridis, S. Dekker","doi":"10.36253/studi_slavis-12473","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The diatribe is a mode of exposition that grew out of the teaching of the popular philosophers of the Hellenistic and Roman period. It was adopted by St. Paul in his epistles and by the Church Fathers, first of all by John Chrysostom. In a diatribe, the author presents his thoughts in the form of an argumentative dialogue with an imaginary interlocutor; moreover, this dialogue is not narrated, but acted out, the author speaking both on behalf of himself and his opponent. Some characteristic features of the diatribe are the frequent use of the parenthetical φησί ‘says (the imaginary opponent)’, the formulas τί οὖν ‘what then?’ (to introduce a false conclusion) and μὴ γένοιτο ‘far be it from me’ (to reject it), questions such as asὁρᾷς ‘don’t you see?’ and vocatives such as ἄνθρωπε ‘man’. \nThe diatribe entered medieval Orthodox Slavic writing through the translations of the New Testament and the Church fathers. This paper examines the impact of the diatribe on original texts written by two of the most prominent authors of the Slavic Middle Ages: Kosmas the Presbyter and Grigorij Camblak. \nKosmas the Presbyter wrote his Sermon Against the Newly-Appeared Heresy of Bogomil in the second half of the 10th century. This work combines a pedagogical (instruction to the believers) with a polemical layer (refutation of the “heretics”). In a handful of passages, the transition from the first to the second layer exhibits the typical features of diatribe: Kosmas introduces a counterargument by the imaginary opponent by parenthetical рече (φησί) and then addresses this opponent directly in order to refute him. Most of the time, however, the transition from the pedagogical to the polemical layer is less smooth. All in all, Kosmas’s diatribal style does not reach the smoothness of his Chrysostomic models. \nGrigorij Camblak is the author of a number of homilies that he delivered in the late 14th-early 15th century. Seven of the published homilies attributed to him show a variety of diatribal formulas, which are investigated in more detail. Their function in the polemical discourse is compared to that of the original Hellenistic, Biblical and Patristic diatribal formulas in Greek. Grigorij Camblak’s spontaneous use of these formulas in his original Slavic compositions shows that he internalized the polemical and didactic strategies of the diatribe and found ways to express its functions in Slavic. Some of his homilies indeed approach or even equal the level of Chrysostom’s diatribal style. ","PeriodicalId":41566,"journal":{"name":"Studi Slavistici","volume":"80 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Der diatribische Stil bei Kosmas dem Presbyter und Grigorij Camblak\",\"authors\":\"Yannis Kakridis, S. Dekker\",\"doi\":\"10.36253/studi_slavis-12473\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The diatribe is a mode of exposition that grew out of the teaching of the popular philosophers of the Hellenistic and Roman period. It was adopted by St. Paul in his epistles and by the Church Fathers, first of all by John Chrysostom. In a diatribe, the author presents his thoughts in the form of an argumentative dialogue with an imaginary interlocutor; moreover, this dialogue is not narrated, but acted out, the author speaking both on behalf of himself and his opponent. Some characteristic features of the diatribe are the frequent use of the parenthetical φησί ‘says (the imaginary opponent)’, the formulas τί οὖν ‘what then?’ (to introduce a false conclusion) and μὴ γένοιτο ‘far be it from me’ (to reject it), questions such as asὁρᾷς ‘don’t you see?’ and vocatives such as ἄνθρωπε ‘man’. \\nThe diatribe entered medieval Orthodox Slavic writing through the translations of the New Testament and the Church fathers. This paper examines the impact of the diatribe on original texts written by two of the most prominent authors of the Slavic Middle Ages: Kosmas the Presbyter and Grigorij Camblak. \\nKosmas the Presbyter wrote his Sermon Against the Newly-Appeared Heresy of Bogomil in the second half of the 10th century. This work combines a pedagogical (instruction to the believers) with a polemical layer (refutation of the “heretics”). In a handful of passages, the transition from the first to the second layer exhibits the typical features of diatribe: Kosmas introduces a counterargument by the imaginary opponent by parenthetical рече (φησί) and then addresses this opponent directly in order to refute him. Most of the time, however, the transition from the pedagogical to the polemical layer is less smooth. All in all, Kosmas’s diatribal style does not reach the smoothness of his Chrysostomic models. \\nGrigorij Camblak is the author of a number of homilies that he delivered in the late 14th-early 15th century. Seven of the published homilies attributed to him show a variety of diatribal formulas, which are investigated in more detail. Their function in the polemical discourse is compared to that of the original Hellenistic, Biblical and Patristic diatribal formulas in Greek. Grigorij Camblak’s spontaneous use of these formulas in his original Slavic compositions shows that he internalized the polemical and didactic strategies of the diatribe and found ways to express its functions in Slavic. Some of his homilies indeed approach or even equal the level of Chrysostom’s diatribal style. \",\"PeriodicalId\":41566,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studi Slavistici\",\"volume\":\"80 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studi Slavistici\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36253/studi_slavis-12473\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studi Slavistici","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36253/studi_slavis-12473","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
谩骂是希腊化和罗马时期流行哲学家的教导中发展出来的一种阐述方式。它是由圣保罗在他的书信和教会的父亲,首先是由金口约翰采用。在谩骂中,作者以与想象中的对话者进行辩论对话的形式表达自己的思想;此外,这种对话不是叙述的,而是表演的,作者既代表自己,也代表对手。这种谩骂的一些特点是经常使用插入语φησί '说(假想的对手)',公式τί ο ο ν '然后呢?’(引入错误结论)和μ μ γ οιτο‘far be it from me’(拒绝它),比如ς ρ ς‘don’t you see?以及诸如νθρωπε ' man '这样的祈使词。这种谩骂通过新约和教父的翻译进入中世纪东正教斯拉夫文字。本文考察了中世纪两位最杰出的斯拉夫作家:科斯马斯长老和格里高利·坎布拉克对原文的诽谤影响。科斯马斯长老在10世纪下半叶写了他的布道反对新出现的博戈米尔异端。这部作品结合了教学(对信徒的指导)和辩论(对“异端”的反驳)。在少数几个段落中,从第一层到第二层的过渡表现出典型的谩骂特征:Kosmas通过插入рече (σί ί ί)引入假想对手的反论点,然后直接与这个对手交谈以反驳他。然而,大多数时候,从教学层面到辩论层面的过渡并不那么顺利。总而言之,科斯马斯的谩骂风格没有达到他的Chrysostomic模型的流畅性。格里高利·坎布拉克在14世纪末到15世纪初发表了许多布道书。在他发表的七篇讲道中,有各种各样的谩骂公式,我们对此进行了更详细的研究。它们在辩论话语中的功能与希腊文原始的、圣经的和教父的谩骂公式进行了比较。格里高利·坎布拉克在他的斯拉夫语原创作品中自发地使用了这些公式,这表明他内化了诽谤的辩论和教学策略,并找到了在斯拉夫语中表达其功能的方法。他的一些讲道确实接近甚至等于金口的谩骂风格。
Der diatribische Stil bei Kosmas dem Presbyter und Grigorij Camblak
The diatribe is a mode of exposition that grew out of the teaching of the popular philosophers of the Hellenistic and Roman period. It was adopted by St. Paul in his epistles and by the Church Fathers, first of all by John Chrysostom. In a diatribe, the author presents his thoughts in the form of an argumentative dialogue with an imaginary interlocutor; moreover, this dialogue is not narrated, but acted out, the author speaking both on behalf of himself and his opponent. Some characteristic features of the diatribe are the frequent use of the parenthetical φησί ‘says (the imaginary opponent)’, the formulas τί οὖν ‘what then?’ (to introduce a false conclusion) and μὴ γένοιτο ‘far be it from me’ (to reject it), questions such as asὁρᾷς ‘don’t you see?’ and vocatives such as ἄνθρωπε ‘man’.
The diatribe entered medieval Orthodox Slavic writing through the translations of the New Testament and the Church fathers. This paper examines the impact of the diatribe on original texts written by two of the most prominent authors of the Slavic Middle Ages: Kosmas the Presbyter and Grigorij Camblak.
Kosmas the Presbyter wrote his Sermon Against the Newly-Appeared Heresy of Bogomil in the second half of the 10th century. This work combines a pedagogical (instruction to the believers) with a polemical layer (refutation of the “heretics”). In a handful of passages, the transition from the first to the second layer exhibits the typical features of diatribe: Kosmas introduces a counterargument by the imaginary opponent by parenthetical рече (φησί) and then addresses this opponent directly in order to refute him. Most of the time, however, the transition from the pedagogical to the polemical layer is less smooth. All in all, Kosmas’s diatribal style does not reach the smoothness of his Chrysostomic models.
Grigorij Camblak is the author of a number of homilies that he delivered in the late 14th-early 15th century. Seven of the published homilies attributed to him show a variety of diatribal formulas, which are investigated in more detail. Their function in the polemical discourse is compared to that of the original Hellenistic, Biblical and Patristic diatribal formulas in Greek. Grigorij Camblak’s spontaneous use of these formulas in his original Slavic compositions shows that he internalized the polemical and didactic strategies of the diatribe and found ways to express its functions in Slavic. Some of his homilies indeed approach or even equal the level of Chrysostom’s diatribal style.