K O D I K A S / C O D E Volume 41 (2018) · No. 3 - 4 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen Faces and Masks Rodica Amel (Bukarest) Abstract: Communication studies are troubled by a difficult question: Is the genuine identity of the individual (the speaker) a clear communicative parameter or rather a (rationally) wrong presumption? For an answer to a controversial issue - the identity of dialogical partners - our paper will present a particular semiotic aspect, namely, the symbolic function of the mask in veiling the identity of the speaking subject. In order to be more adequate to the proposed idea, some general commentaries about the mask as a symbol will be necessary. In the centre of discussion stand two directions of art, in which the symbol of the mask refers ironically to the reality of the face. The mixed (human and aesthetic) identity of the speaker ’ s/ artist ’ s voice and the uncertain direction of his ironical intention (speaker ’ s meaning) generate interpretative controversies. A semiotic turn of pragmatics will be of much help for the analysis of the proposed issue. Given the polyfunctionality of the mask-symbol, and for a better understanding of the way the conventional nature of the mask-symbol stands in opposition to the human face, we will introduce the two terms into Jakobson ’ s scheme of communication, in the form reformulated and developed by Amel (2016). Our interest is focused on the poetic function (using R. Jakobson ’ s concept) the mask-symbol has within the communicative relationships. Keywords: Pragmatics and beyond, Jakobson ’ s scheme of communication, the poetic function, speaker ’ s voice, speaker ’ s meaning, subjectivity, identity, irony 1 General considerations The question - is the genuine identity of the individual (the speaker) a clear communicative parameter or rather a (rationally) wrong presumption? - represents a theoretical problem that engenders controversy. The question formulated above constituted the subject of one of our studies (Amel 2005), in which the thesis - “ The qui-pro-quo constitutive condition of the dialogue ” was approached from a pragmatic point of view. The issue we intend to develop now refers to a specific aspect: the dialogical ambiguities generated by masked identities. Our commentary will follow two lines of interpretation: one from the perspective of dialogical partners and another one from the perspective of a philosophical observer who tries to define the semiotic function of the mask as an ontological substitute of the face. Progressively the analysis will introduce some theoretical instruments necessary for reaching the target of our commentary: ( Jakobson ’ s concept) poetic function of language; (Dascal ’ s concept) speaker ’ s meaning; (Amel ’ s definition of ) ironia as a speech act. 2 The poly-functionality of the mask-symbol 2.1 A short historical commentary “ Many masks are primarily associated with ceremonies that have religious and social significance or are concerned with funerary customs, fertility rites, or curing sickness. Other masks are used on festive occasions or to portray characters in a dramatic performance and in re-enactments of mythological events. Masks are also used for warfare and as protective devices in medical practice (our pandemic time, our remark) or in certain sports, as well as frequently being employed as architectural ornament ” (EB, 11: 580). In funerary and commemorative uses, “ masks were made to protect the deceased by frightening away malevolent spirits ” (EB, 11: 581). In primitive societies the thought was expressed in intuitive forms, equivalent to conceptual forms of the modern ways of thinking. We may say that the masks had transcendental function, ‘ figuring ’ deities, principles, categories or human characters. In pagan religions, the sacred was intuitively figured by a panoply of allegorical representations, conventionally perpetuated through out generations till nowadays. The primitive religious are ritual and the pagan dances of persons wearing masks are more than symbolic forms, they are acts, ‘ forms ’ of worship or conjuration of the deities. Those people who wear the ‘ mask of the sacred ’ are specially trained not to be contaminated by the incarnated spirit. In most primitive societies the masks are thought to have supernatural powers. Beginning with Greek, the religious function of the mask is progressively substituted by the categorical representations of existential principles. Greek drama, originated in the ancient Eleusis ceremonies of worship of Dionysus God 1 , is a masking theatre, symbolically representing the tragic or the comic versions of human existence. Up to the medieval mystery plays, the masking theatre perpetuated the religious, respectively Christian beliefs, deprived of magic power. The mystery plays are forms of popular instruction about the exemplary stories telling the life of biblical personages. The distance between the divine level and the human life is maintained. Progressively, due to the secularized mentality, the mask theatre knows forms of dis-semantisation. The Italian comedia del arte, and later the commedia buffa, improvised domestic dramas the characters of which are involved in a conventionally archetypical story, a simple scenario with moral or satiric content. In the modern theatre the masks were eliminated. Due to the newly acquired psychological or philosophical dimension of the modern theatre, what happens on the stage is focused on the human life and its convulsions. The masks are in our time worn only incidentally (from private reasons), on holidays or social festivities. With these occasions, the masks have formal function, considered an artifact in the panoply of what is called ‘ les jeux de société ’ . 322 Rodica Amel (Bukarest) 2.2 The semiotic function of the mask Is the mask a simple object or a symbol? Does the mask hide or protect? In the definition of the mask, given by any dictionary, the mask is considered an ‘ object ’ : “ 1. The mask is an object worn either to disguise or to protect the face. 2. A grotesque or humorous false face worn at a carnival, masquerade, etc. (Halloween masks) ” and so on. In usual communicative relationships masks are used with the intentio to disguise one ’ s own true identity in front of the other(s), as self-protection, etc. The disguising/ protective intention represents the essential feature of the mask. For instance: the masked faces of malefactors have ‘ communicative ’ values - not to be recognized, but we are not interested in making any theoretical remarks about this type of situations. Our opinion regarding the first question is that the mask is an object, which has symbolic function. It is no ‘ symbol ’ in itself. An object becomes ‘ a symbol ’ only in relationship with an idea or a transcendent ‘ reality ’ , for which it is ‘ a symbol ’ . 2 Simultaneously, a symbol is always in relationship with somebody - a subject, who wants to stress a symbolic function, namely ‘ uses an object symbolically ’ . Concerning the second question, we may say that frequently ‘ hiding ’ is a kind of ‘ protection ’ , and vice versa. So, the connection between the two meanings becomes obvious. 2.2.1 The symbolic value of the mask The goal of our present commentary is to examine the symbolic value of the mask and to see to what extent the symbolic intention is dependent not only upon the cultural context, but upon the fundamental paradigm of interpretation. Concerning the symbolic function of the mask, we should stress an important fact: there is no mask without a face (which means identity) that the mask hides or protects. Mask and face are correlative concepts. Mask is the sign of a corrupted communication, better said, the mask is the symbol of a double identity. Reminding the goal of our commentary, we may affirm that the mask is also face-like, although it is not the symbol of the face, but of an alternative identity. If we do not neglect the divine roots of wearing a mask, we are legitimized to say that the mask is the symbol of the transcendence, of a ‘ mysterious ’ , un-definable ‘ reality ’ . This general definition is of special relevance for our argumentation, as we shall see further. The ample literature dedicated to the mask-symbol lays the stress on an important idea: in spite of a disguised identity that mask exhibits, there is a strong solidarity between the person who wears the mask and his dissimulating intention and, finally, between mask and face. By opposing the mask symbol to the human face we may remind the Platonic opposition thesis vs. physis 3 . Both the mask symbol and the human face (=expression) are language forms of addressing to somebody else, a partner in a dialogue: the mask is a conventional form of expression - the thesis, while the human face represents the natural expression - the physis. Once we touch this point of argumentation, other theoretical aspects should be elucidated: one concerning the speaker ’ s identity and the other one concerning the speaker ’ s intention to veil his identity with a mask. In what circumstances the human being presents his genuine and when his conventional, even false, identity? The target of our issue being the elucidation of the symbolic function of the mask (in the modern Faces and Masks 323 mentality), the difficulty of the question - is the genuine identity of the individual a real communicative parameter or rather a (rationally) wrong presumption? - becomes actual again. 2.2.2 The mask-symbol from the perspective of the communicative relationships In order to make clear the perspective of our theoretical goal we shall a. connect the two aspects from the theory of communication: the speaking voice (speaker ’ s identity) vs. the speaking meaning 4 (speaker ’ s communicative intention), and b. include them into the scheme of language functions. a. The Presumption of Identity with one ’ s self is an exigency derived prom the Principle of Rationality, as Grice formulated it: Where there is no reason to assume the contrary, take the speaker to be a rational agent. His ends and beliefs, in a context of utterances, should be assumed to supply a complete justification of his behavior, unless, there is evidence of the contrary (Grice 1975: 33). The Principle of Rationality, such it was formulated by Grice, is founded on the Presumption of Sincerity and the Presumption of Seriousness, eliminating pre-conceived worries about speaker ’ s duplicity and starting with the moral premise of bona fide. In a masked communication we have “ the reason to assume the contrary ” of what Grice said, but, actually, due to a convention (the thesis) concerning the [-serious] and, possible, [-sincere] relationship, the masked play can be considered a rational behaviour, but nevertheless it is ambiguous. Interlocutors are conscious that in each subject there is always a polyphonic voice. The interpretative strategy moves on a scheme that relates the speaking voice - the genuine identity of the subject, with the speaker ’ s meaning - the intention to perform the role which he chooses to play. In our interpretation, the speaker ’ s meaning is a speech act, the meaning (illocutionary or per-locutionary) force being oriented toward the dialogue partner. Unlike the theatrical play, where the polyphonic voice of the speaker is a convention of the theatrical condition 5 , in a masquerade, for instance, the dual personality of the speaker represents his own choice. He is responsible of having a veiled identity. This was the reason of the above affirmation: “ There is a strong solidarity between the (identity of the) person who wears the mask and his dissimulating intention. ” b. The ambiguity of the voice in the masked ‘ ceremonies ’ is generated by the symbolic function of the mask. As the symbolic function of the mask is a kind of language, we propose to present it in the perspective of the hierarchy of language functions. Language function represents the speech force oriented towards an interactive factor (addresser, addressee, message, contact, code). (See our commentary regarding Jakobson ’ s communicative scheme 6 ). In our less conventional scheme of language functions (2016: 57), the modifications allow the perception of the complex intermingle between the active and latent language functions. Our interest is focused on the poetic function the mask-symbol has within communicative relationships, its transparency regarding the metalanguage function and its role in fixing a certain communicative relation between partners. 324 Rodica Amel (Bukarest) THE INTERACTION OF LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS METALANGUAGE Fc. AXIOLOGIC field (cognitive codes, philosophical options, etc.) ↓ PHATIC Fc. the degree of institutionalization of role relationships (socio-psychological conventions) ↓ POETIC the discursive structure (creative means; sediments of phatic and metalanguage functions; connotations) EXPRESSIVE Fc. DOXASTIC field CONATIVE Fc DEONTIC field REFERENTIAL Fc. EPISTEMIC field (language adequacy to CRITICAL Fc. the truth of things) The speaker expresses that specific communicative voice which ‘ represents ’ the role he plays in the communicative interaction. In ‘ masked interrelationships ’ the conative (appellative) function is ‘ dictated ’ by the symbolic function of the mask. Having in view the short historical presentation of the symbolic function of the mask, one should make the difference between the ritual function of the mask and the theatrical function, including the burlesque manifestations in the modern festivals or with certain social occasions. All these symbolic uses of the mask increase the poetic function of language, but in different way. 2.2.3 The poetic function of the mask-symbol Jakobson ’ s ingenious idea of introducing the poetic function inside the relationships between the communicative factors was to stress the importance of language structures and the force they have in challenging the other functions of language. Due to the poetic function, the partner/ interlocutor/ participants become aware of “ what happens in language ” (Amel 2016: 54), and with the language in specific communicative contexts. If we mean the masked ceremony, the poetic function increases the interest in the mask itself, as an object. The mask is an artifact, more or less face-like. a. In pagan rituals and in Greek drama, or in mystery plays, the person wearing the mask (and the adequate costumes) does not hide his identity. His role is to incarnate the deity or the mythological/ religious character, a reason for a conformist conception concerning the confection of ritual masks. There are specific codes, traditionally transmitted, which do not exclude the inventive liberty in confection of ritual masks. In pagan rituals, the masks make evident the meta-reality of those times, translated in our theoretical terms, in a symbolic form, by the metalanguage function. Anthropologists, folklorists, and historians of art develop intense studies in this sense, evaluating the variety of symbols used in mask confection. The religious or mythological beliefs compose a cultural background that the masks reflect. When a person wears the ‘ mask of the sacred ’ , he incarnates the respective spirit. The ritual dance, or the stories, which are ‘ presented ’ do not narrate, but perform a Faces and Masks 325 mythological reality. From philosophical or anthropological point of view, the reality of a myth is a perceptual form of a mystical truth. During their dancing, the persons who wear ritual masks, and ritual costumes as well, give birth to a mystical event (epiphania). Beginning with the Greek theatre, the religious or mythological beliefs compose the cultural background that the mask reflect, a ‘ mental conceived reality ’ , the metalanguage of all cultural events of those times. The features of the ‘ face ’ are conventionally representing the tragic or the comic expressions of the existential archetype. Generally speaking, the role of the masked person is to make conscious the interlocutor that he is partner in the symbolic play. The mask is in the focus of the symbolic force of the performance (the poetic function); it is the ‘ instrument ’ of the symbolic act. A masked partner activates the phatic function - the communicative distance - with a more or less coefficient of indetermination. The communicative distance depends on the divine or social parameter. For instance, due to its satirical intention, the symbolic function of the mask in the comedia del ’ arte is to reduce the critical force of speaker ’ s meaning (which is that of the author). We may say that the phatic function, which is active in comedia del ’ arte, has an impersonal role, so that the satirical ’ voice ’ could neutralize the social or psychological vulnerabilities existing inside the community. Both the metalanguage and phatic functions influence the conative function, by the per-locutionary force of the masked relationship. The mask is composed in such a way that its features could raise fear or strange impression, or, in comic plays, the features generate amusement. In the modern mentality the mask became more and more an artifact, deprived of transcendental symbolism. It is created by a spoiled fantasy for the delight of the sight during ‘ les jeux de société ’ .When we speak about the new trend of masked festivals, the intention (the poetic function) is to satisfy an aesthetic interest and to create a magic atmosphere without any symbolic value (a semantic vacuum). b. In the modern deconstructivist mentality the mask refers ironically to its symbolic function; for instance in the masked ‘ ceremonies ’ of our time. According to Liddel-Scott ’ s Greek-English Lexicon, irony - ειρων εία is defined in following way: 1. Dissimulation; 2. Generally mock-modesty, sarcasm, understatement etc. The word comes from the Greek ειρων , defined in the same dictionary as “ dissembler, one who says less than he thinks ” . The majority of scientific studies dedicated to irony develop the issue either from a pure rhetorical perspective or from a philosophical one. This distinction is mentioned by La Grande Encyclopédie (p. 967) as follows: “ Les rhéteurs en font une figure de mots ou une figure de pensée ” . Regarding the rhetorical definition, respectively figure de mots, the dictionaries are in agreement: «Figure qui consiste à dire le contraire de ce qu ’ on veut faire entendre» (LGE, pp. 967 - 968). From the philosophical point of view, the axiological relevance of the irony is evident. The ironic attitude aims the evaluative criteria, sometimes an entire hierarchy of values being questions. The definition of the ironic “ speech act ” (Amel [Mihail ă ] 1984/ 1) seems to satisfy the general speaker ’ s meaning of a masked person. The symbolic function of the mask is based on the same strategy: a. The partner is invited to guess the authentic identity of the person with a masked face. b. The ironic “ speech act ” (Amel, supra) turns into derision the commonly accepted system of values. By irony, the speaker operates a paradigmatic transfer from approval to 326 Rodica Amel (Bukarest) disapproval. The ironic behaviour is focused on the axiological metalanguage. One may discover the same dynamics of value minimization, in the case of the symbolic function of the mask in modern mentality. In a masquerade, for instance, to wear a mask is a kind of joke by which the symbolic function of the mask turns to derision. On the other hand, the distance between the genuine and the veiled identity loses its relevance. The main function of the mask - that of concealing the face - becomes irrelevant. c. Due to its discursive mechanism that reverses the meaning of the referential information, irony is an instrument of the poetic function of language. In the modern mentality, the mask as an object is simplified. The mask becomes conventional by a strange lack of individuality. In exchange, the costumes become object of ‘ poetic ’ invention. For instance, in the Venetian festivals, the magnificent costumes are a pretext to stir up the aesthetic interest and admiration. Instead of hiding the identities, the priority is given to vestment invention, in a mixed historical styles. An abundance of luxuriant details expresses the nostalgia of ‘ tempi passati ’ . 3 The mask as an object of art In our postmodernist era, the artistic interest in the mask as ‘ symbolic object ’ in itself grows up. In order to be more adequate to the proposed issue, the confrontation between mask and face will be done, in what follows, in a commentary that brings to the centre of discussion two approaches of art. The theoretical analysis should establish the difference between the artist ’ s subjectivity and the semiotic function he chooses for the symbol he uses. Art is a communicative event between the artist and the public to whom the object of art is destined. In the aesthetic way, art is a philosophical ‘ commentary ’ about the essence of things, of life in general. The ‘ commentary ’ is displayed by the poetic function of the aesthetic language. Here we have two examples of possible approach of the mask and its symbolic function related to face. 3.1 ILM ’ s series of masks Ion Lucian Murnu is a Romanian sculptor and painter. 7 Between his sculptural works figures a series called by the artist himself Masks. It is no need of a sophisticated examination to find with fascination that the objects of art which the sculptor Murnu presents are not ‘ masks ’ , but faces. From the artist ’ s own confessions, in his Journal 8 , we learn that between the speaker ’ s voice (his voice/ his identity) and the speaker ’ s meaning (his artistic intentions) a gap is interposed, generating a dramatic inner conflict. I. L. Murnu lived during the communist era, when art was dominated by militant ideology. Unable of any compromise, the artist was highly perspicacious of being in the danger of alienation. Faces and Masks 327 During a period of spiritualization of his art, from the beginning moment influenced by the Greek feeling of measure, passing through the influence of the Byzantine hyieratism, to his concise forms of a strange abstractionism, the inner speaker ’ s voice sounds more and more ‘ de profundis ’ . Flora is artistically the first step in a long experience of consumption, about which the sculptor wrote: The mask of bronze is burning like my soul. It resembles me only now with its painful expression, which before was only a strange feeling (p. 168). The bronze transposition of Flora helped the sculptor to realize that it expressed himself, his aesthetic intention (speaker ’ s meaning) to re-present his ‘ painful expression ’ . Flora represents his strange identity, him as a mask. While I was shaving my beard in front of the mirror, and like with many other occasions, I had the sensation that the blade sleeps on a strange skin. My feeling was that this external shell doesn ’ t belong to me. In spite of being inside it, the appearance didn ’ t meet me entirely. I was retired somewhere, much more profound, in a hidden reality, which is mine (p. 200). Flora is an art re-presentation of artist ’ s condition in general, in his severe consumption. Today, as never before, I can see it differently, much clearer than on other occasions. Flora suddenly has appeared to my sight, in all its hardness, the mask with its eyes sunken in the darkness (p. 225). Flora inaugurated Murnu ’ s series of Masks. After Flora, the sculptor begun to compose new models of masks, more conscious about the need to reach an abstract, nevertheless striking, expression of martyrdom. By naming his 328 Rodica Amel (Bukarest) series Masks, the artist found a poetic alibi of expressing his voice under a deceiving ‘ face ’ . Instead of being conventionally designed, the facial features are extremely human. All the ‘ masks ’ compose a chorus of Ego-voices, each de profundis clamavi. The terrible breath getting through the mouth holes, the impressions of a sight coming from the black depth of the orbit holes, the consumption of cheeks drawn together into an unfinished but silent cry, a tear-drop slipping on a single mask, frozen, are living signs, easily recognized by everybody. For those who are familiar with the aesthetic message of Murnu ’ s art, with its elliptic forms of spiritual devitalisation, these signs are once more proofs of metaphysical transfiguration. In an ironic way, a never reached speaker ’ s voice - “ From the Depths, I have cried out to You, o Lord! ” - is hiding under one ’ s own face. The ambiguous speaker ’ s intention is heard from inside a living mask (the face itself )! This is the philosophical insight into the tragic human condition, for which the alienation is the ‘ natural condition ’ of life. The artist Murnu lived in the period when the philosophy of existentialism was in its high moment. By his introspective intuition, the artist Murnu realized the presence in himself of an enigmatic urego, the expression of which is ineffable. 3.2 AA ’ s interpretation of the idea of mask Andrei Amel is a Romanian architect and painter. 9 In his two pictures, which we will present, his humorous nature shares some of de-constructive tendencies. The language and even thinking clichés are frequently subjects for his plastic inventiveness and source of his ironic view. In the first picture, entitled Ball-game, the irony has three levels of perception. On the first one, the fingers catching a sheet, may be of a journal, showing the picture drawn on it, ‘ indicates ’ that what we see is only a joke, it has no serious meaning. The speaker ’ s/ artist ’ s meaning is a fantasy, not a ‘ representation ’ of a real scene. The second level of perception is focused on the mask, though the mask is rather an illusion, it stands on the second plan, avoiding any rhetoric intention. The mask, detached from the face, is suspended of nowhere, in a kind of a semantic autonomy. Reminding our affirmation formulated above: “ mask and face are correlative terms ” , a mask detached from the face loses it symbolic function. Instead, the idea of mask becomes obvious: the futility of an object, which could regain its function only when it hides a / the reality (respectively, a ‘ face ’ ). Faces and Masks 329 In the centre of the drawing stands a mysterious silhouette, as big as the whole picture. The silhouette, noble and solemn, with a sacerdotal gesture plays ball-game with the moon, or indicates towards her, an ambiguity which increases the ironical mystery of the drawing. With her black face, the silhouette seems to be only a presence, a deity enveloped in the cloak of anonymity. The third and main force of irony is focused on the way two expectations are deconstructed: the perception of the moon that could be a ball, and the ‘ divine ’ presence that refuses any expression (face or mask). It is difficult to accept that the humorous impact of the drawing would be the unique artist ’ s meaning. Actually, the [-serious] sense of the drawing reveals its philosophical ambiguity: the provisional character of any cognitive thesis - the mask is detached from the face, because it is detachable! The second drawing, entitled the Wall, has a paradoxical meaning (speaker ’ s/ artist ’ s meaning). To our much surprise, what we see is not a ‘ wall ’ , not even a broken wall, but rather a ‘ portrait ’ . Or is it a mask? The mask of a satyr? 330 Rodica Amel (Bukarest) Symbolically, the wall ‘ represents ’ the idea of separation, of interdiction or impossibility to see what is beyond the wall, to reach reality. The wall has a symbolic function similar to that of the mask that hides the authenticity of the ‘ face ’ . Paradoxically, what we see is not a broken wall, but an ambiguous image. Is it a mask composed of bricks or the face of a powerful being, a satyr may be? The breaches in the wall are they windows through which reality is visible, or, very likely, they are eyes ironically squinting us? Maybe it is a mask, with large holes making visible the powerful expression of a speaker ’ s/ artist ’ s sight (expressing speaker ’ s/ artist ’ s voice). In a more subtle way the irony of the drawing is generated by this multiple ambiguity. Nevertheless, we discover la figure de pensée in the drawing art, a subliminal intention that invites us not to approach too seriously the meaning of the image. Instead of being the tool of a dramatic non-conformism, the irony in this drawing has the pure-mindedness of an intelligent child playing cube games! 4 Instead of conclusions Some considerations: 1. The main target of our issue was to re-actualize the scientific importance of Roman Jakobson ’ s concept - the poetic function of language - for the pragmatic studies of conversation: not only what is said (the referential function of language), but how is said. 2. For a better understanding of the way the conventional nature (thesis) of the masksymbol stands in opposition to the human face (physis), we will introduce the two terms in Jakobson ’ s scheme of communication, in the form reformulated and developed by Amel (2016). According to the scheme mentioned above, the speaker ’ s voice represents the artist ’ s inner subjectivity and the speaker ’ s meaning should be deciphered in the way the artists ’ subjectivity activates the poetic function as an ironic tool. The poetic function is responsible for the interpretative controversies generated by the mixed (human and esthetic) identity of the ‘ speaker ’ / artist and the uncertain direction of the irony. 3. Our intention was to stress the relevance of the philosophical question regarding the genuine identity of the individual. Almost usually, we are involved in a kind of quid pro quo game, when the face becomes a mask, given : a. the difficulty to find an expression for what we intend to say - in a strong (philosophical) way, or because of less linguistic competence; b. the difficulty to overstep the communicative bounds - in a strong way (expressed by hypocrisy), or in a soft way (expressed by conventional behaviour). Our conclusion is actually a question: Is the genuine identity of the individual a real communicative parameter or rather a (rationally) wrong presumption? 4. The possibility to apply the same considerations with reference to the everyday conversation is obvious. Notes 1. Friedrich Nietzsche, in his book Die Geburt der Tragödie, developed the thesis concerning the birth of the Greek tragedy as originating from dithyrambs that, during the Eleusis ceremonies, were narrating the avatars of the God Dionysos. Nietzsche reached this Faces and Masks 331 conclusion led by a philosophical interest in finding the interference between the two Greek great ceremonies of worship, dedicated to Apollo and Dionysos (a superposition “ Einheitmysterum ” ! ), and explaining the divine role of the mask in ancient drama ( “ . . . alle die berühmten Figuren der Griechischen Bühne, Prometeus, Ödipus usw. nur Masken jenes ursprünglichen Helden Dionysus sind. DaB hinter allen diesen Masken eine Gottheit steckt. . . ” § 10). For Nietzsche the book was burdened with an entire bundle of difficult questions, the important and the enigmatic one being: “ The synthesis of god and goat in the satyr? ” (Introduction). 2. The symbol, as a sign (different from icon and index), concentrates the intelligible perception in accordance with a rule (code), which imposes the ‘ representative ’ interpretation. The symbol abbreviates the intelligible process on the base of a metaphoric or metonymic (contiguity and pars pro toto) relationship. 3. See Platon ’ s dialogue Cratylos, in which the philosopher makes the confrontation between two contradictory points of view regarding the origin of language: a natural and respectively a conventional one - in Greek physis vs. thesis. 4. Speaker ’ s meaning is an important hermeneutic tool in Dascal ’ s pragmatic philosophy: “ what is intended to be conveyed by the utterance ” (Dascal 1992: 40). From our pragmatic and beyond point of view, the speaker ’ s meaning is limited to the question: to what extent the speaker ’ s discursive intentionality is or is not relevant for the speaker ’ s identity? 5. “ The theatre-like model, is based on the AS IF condition of reality. An AS IF condition defines the constitutive character of those interactive conditions, within which any act acquires relevance in so far as it is part of the committing rule. The conventionally constituted world institutes a reality the nature of which is fictional (in the proper sense), the reason why Pirandello names it a “ transcendental irony ” (cf. Potra 1967: 20), or rather, “ a transcendental joke ” . The speaker, as a subject, is the prisoner of the role assigned to him (in this fictional reality) (Amel 2006: 58). 6. The cybernetic theory of communication supplies Jakobson with the theoretical model of factors implicated in the communicative process: addresser, addressee, referential context, message, code, and dialogical contact ( Jakobson 1985: 150): CONTEXT MESSAGE ADDRESSER ———————— ADDRESSEE CONTACT CODE In relationship to this model Roman Jakobson suggests the scheme of language functions: REERENTIAL POETIC EMOTIVE ————— CONATIVE PHATIC METALINGUAL 7. The Romanian sculptor and painter Ion Lucian Murnu, was the son of the painter, Arie Murnu, and the nephew of the great Romanian scholar in classical science, George Murnu, best translator of Homer ’ s work in Romanian. I. L. Murnu studied art in the Academy of Plastic Arts in Romania and Italy. Professor of sculpture throughout his life, Murnu was the mentor of many important Romanian artists. His artistic vision is a complex synthesis 332 Rodica Amel (Bukarest) between Greek classicism, Byzantine art and metaphysical abstraction, identified and defined by the critics as “ Murnu ’ s strange world ” . 8. Ion Lucian Murnu ’ s Journal, entitled Idee ș i me ș te ș ug (Idea & Techne) is a dramatic and noble confession of the artist about his creative effort to find and define the meaning of art in general and of his own in particular. 9. Andrei Amel is the son of the painter and drawer Iosif Cova. Architect, painter and illustrator, Andrei Amel has received in 1983 a prize for picture from the Union of Architects. References Amel (Mihail ă ), Rodica 1984: “ L ’ ironie en tant qu ’ acte de langage ” , in: RRL 29(1): 55 - 72 Amel, Rodica 1999: “ Doxastic dialectic ” , in: RRL 44(1 - 4): 3 - 12 Amel, Rodica 2005: “ The Qui Pro Quo Constitutive Condition of the dialogue ” , in: Cooperation and Conflict in Group and Intergroup Communication, selected papers from the X th Biennial Congress of the IADA, Bucharest: EUB Amel, Rodica 2007: “ Dreapta potrivire a numelor ( “ The correctness of names, Plato, Cratylos ” ), in: Proceedings of the 6 th Colloquium of the Department of Romanian Philology, Bucharest: EUB, 223 - 262 Amel, Rodica 2008: “ Sign Systems - Reference systems ” , in: Kodikas/ Code. An International Journal of Semiotics 31.1 - 2 (2008): 59 - 68 Amel, Rodica 2016: Conversatinal Complicity, Bucharest: Ars Docendi Dascal, Marcelo 1992: “ On the Pragmatic Structure of Conversation ” , in: (On) Searle on Conversation, compiled and introduced by Herman Parret & Jef Verschueren, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 35 - 56 Encyclopaedia Britannica (Macropaedia) 1977: vol. 11, 15 th edition, Chicago/ London: W. Benton Grice, Paul 1975: “ Logic and Conversation ” , in: Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.) 1975: Syntax and Semantics, vol.3: Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press, 41 - 58 Jakobson, Roman 1985: “ Linguistics and Poetics ” , in: Robert E. Innis (ed.)1985: Semiotics. An Introductory Anthology, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 145 - 175 Murnu, Ion Lucian 1994: Idee ș i me ș te ș ug ( „ Idea and Techne ” ), Bucure ș ti: Ed. Staff Nietzsche, Friedrich 1907: Die Geburt der Tragödie, Leipzig: C. G. Naumann Plato 1969: The Collected Dialogues, ed. Edith Hamilton & Huntington Cairns, Princeton/ NJ: Princeton University Press Potra, Florian 1967: Studiu introductiv, Luigi Pirandello, Teatru, Bucure ş ti: Editura pentru Literatur ă Universal ă Faces and Masks 333