On the Interpretation of Metaphors and Similes in the Psalms: subtilitas intelligendi – subtilitas explicandi – subtilitas applicandi
https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7935-2021-19-4-36-47
Abstract
Based on the example of sacred Psalter explanations, the article examines numerous metaphorical descriptions with the intention to reconstruct the procedures and operations for extracting the spiritual meaning from the veil of the literal. According to the authoritative explanations in question, metaphors and figurative comparisons (similes) used by the psalm singer differ in their inherent meaning despite the coincidence in the semantic mechanism of transposition and the need for their subsequent transformation in interpretation. Some of them, in a poetic way, reflect David’s state of mind; others are filled with a deeper spiritual meaning. As a consequence, instructions for their interpretation become different. In the figurative-symbolic interpretation, explaining conditions for the choice of an auxiliary object, it is the nearest linguistic context that becomes an explanatory instruction; and when there is no such context it is the presumption of similarity by which X can be linked to Y in expressions like “God, the horn of my salvation” that serves this function. In the symbolic-allegorical interpretation, designed to explain metaphorical expressions at a different level of understanding, it is the presumption of spiritual meaning that becomes the instruction explaining metaphorical expressions in accordance with the rules of the Christian exegesis as a prefiguration of the New Testament history (in the typological reading), as a norm of moral behavior (in the tropological reading), and as the fulfillment of promises (in the anagogic reading). The basics for hermeneutics are implemented in the following way: subtilitas intelligendi, subtilitas explicanda, and subtilitas applicandi.
About the Author
A. E. Bochkarev
National Research University “Higher School of Economics”
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andrey Е. Bochkarev, Doctor of Sciences (Philology), Professor
SPIN 3213-6724
Nizhniy Novgorod
References
1. Athanasius the Great. Explanation of the Psalms. Moscow, Blagovest, 2011. (in Russ.)
2. Basil the Great. The Psalm Commentaries. Moscow, Moscow Courtyard of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 2000. (in Russ.)
3. John Chrysostom. Creations of our Holy Father John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, vol. 5, book 1–2. St. Petersburg, Edition of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Academy, 1899. (in Russ.)
4. Irenaeus. Interpretation on the Psalter according to the Hebrew and Greek text, interpreted by the care and labors of the most Holy governing Synod member, the deceased Archbishop of Pskov, Livonia and Courland and Cavalier Irenaeus. Edition Eight. Moscow, Synodal Printing House, 1894. (in Russ.)
5. Lopukhin, A. P. Explanatory Bible or commentary on all books of St. Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. St. Petersburg, Free supplement to the journal “Strannik”, 1907, vol. 4. p. 122–410. (in Russ.)
6. Theodoret of Cyrus. Creations of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. Part two. The Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, Own printing house, 1905. (in Russ.)
7. Theophan Zatvornik. Psalom Davida 118 [Psalm of David 118th]. 2nd ed. Moscow, Edition of the Russian St. Panteleimon monastery on mount Athos, 1891. (in Russ.)
8. Zigabenus. The Explanatory Psalter of Euthymius Zigabenus, Greek philosopher and monk, explained in the patristic interpretation. 3rd ed. Kiev, Printing house of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, 1907. (in Russ.)
9. Augustine. On Christian Doctrine, or the Foundations of the Sacred Hermeneutics and Church Eloquence. Kiev, Kiev-Pechersk Lavra printing house, 1835 (reprint: Bibliopolis, 2007). (in Russ.)
10. Augustine. On the Catechising of the Uninstructed. In: Theological works, 15. Moscow, Edition of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1976, pp. 25–55. (in Russ.)
11. Arutyunova, N. D. Language and Human World. Moscow, Yazyki russkoy kul’tury, 1998, 896 p. (in Russ.)
12. Bychkov, V. V. AESTHETICA PATRUM. Aesthetics of the Church Fathers. Apologists. Blessed Augustine. Moscow, Ladomir, 1995, 594 p. (in Russ.)
13. Gadamer, H.-G. Truth and Method. Moscow, Progress, 1988, 704 p. (in Russ.)
14. Lakoff, G. Hedges: a study of meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In: Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, 1972, pp. 183‒228.
15. Moshina, E. A. Philosophical and Religious Projections of the Polysemantic Lexeme Dust in the Russian Language Picture of the World. Vestnik NSU. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 2020, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 129–140. (in Russ.) DOI 10.25205/1818-7935-2020-18-3-129-140
16. Postovalova, V. I. Religious Concepts in the Orthodox World Outlook (Experience of a Theolinguistic Analysis). Critique and Semiotics, 2014, no. 2, pp. 127–148. (in Russ.)
17. Postovalova, V. I. Athos dispute about the name of God in the context of the formation of world vision and the spiritual life of Russia of the 20th – 21st centuries. Vestnik NSU. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 2014, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 50–65. (in Russ.)
18. Rastier, F. Interpretative semantics. Nizhny Novgorod, DEKOM, 2001, 368 p. (in Russ.)
19. Riffaterre, M. La métaphore filée dans la poésie surréaliste. Langue française, 1969, no. 3, pp. 46‒60.
20. Timofeeva, M. K. Applicability of Rhetorical Structure Theory for Representing Logical-Cognitive Organization of Poetic Texts: Empirical Investigation. Vestnik NSU. Series: Linguistics and In-tercultural Communication, 2020, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 28–45. (in Russ.) DOI 10.25205/1818-7935-2020-18-2-28-45
21. Zadeh, L. A. Quantitative fuzzily semantics. Information Sciences, 1971, no. 3, pp. 159‒176.
22. Zadeh, L. A. A fuzzy-set-theoretic interpretation of linguistic hedges. Journal of Cybernetics, 1972, no. 2, pp. 4‒34.
Review
For citations:
Bochkarev A.E. On the Interpretation of Metaphors and Similes in the Psalms: subtilitas intelligendi – subtilitas explicandi – subtilitas applicandi. NSU Vestnik. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication. 2021;19(4):36-47. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7935-2021-19-4-36-47
Views:
373
Email this article 