Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: January ::
Re: A Rhetorical Question
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0175  Thursday, 25 January 2001

[1]     From:   Marti Markus <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Jan 2001 00:26:42 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0159 Re: A Rhetorical Question

[2]     From:   Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Jan 2001 06:19:55 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0159 Re: A Rhetorical Question


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marti Markus <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 25 Jan 2001 00:26:42 +0100
Subject: 12.0159 Re: A Rhetorical Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0159 Re: A Rhetorical Question

I tried my way through the "forest of rhetoric" at
[http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm] (I always stroll through
this "garden of speech" to collect "posies of hard words". Sometimes
they sound like a "bunch of illnesses", e.g. antimetathesis,
antiprosopopoeia, antiptosis [sic], antirrhesis, antisagoge, antistasis
or antisthecon), and the best I could find was after all the simple
"metaphor" (e.g. "ship of state"), or the even simpler "simile" ("X of
Y" => "Y is like X").

Markus Marti

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 25 Jan 2001 06:19:55 EST
Subject: 12.0159 Re: A Rhetorical Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0159 Re: A Rhetorical Question

A Brief note on metaphor and rhetorical terms:

The standard tome for these matters used to be (and IS in my house)
Fowler's Modern English Usage plus you can always check the series of
The King's English (when there was a king) another favourite of mine.

Fowler states: "hendiadys (Rhet.); 'one by means of two'. The expression
of a compound notion by giving its two constituents as though they were
independent & connecting them with a conjunction instead of
subordinating one to the other, as 'pour libation from bowls & from
gold' = from bowls of gold.  Chiefly a poetic ornament in Greek and
Latin, & little used in English; but 'nice & warm', 'try & do better'
etc...."

Therefore the kingdom of gold etc is NOT a hendiadys (?)

It is closer to a catchresis (?) but I'm not convinced that that is
exactly the right term.

Fowler: catachresis (Gram.) ; 'misuse' . Wrong application of a term,
use of words in senses that do not belong to them. The popular uses of
chronic=severe, asset=advantage, conservative=low, annex=win,
mutual=common are examples.

Fowler's lengthy discussion of Metaphor is better than most you will
find and his distinction between 'Live' and 'Dead' metaphor perhaps
relevant here. As any undergrad philosopher will tell you, most words
are metaphoric in origin but they are mostly now 'dead' rather than
'live'. Noticeably it is difficult to write about metaphor without using
them as Fowler shows:

Some metaphors are living, i.e., are offered & accepted with a
consciousness of their nature as substitutes for their literal
equivalents, while others are dead, i.e. have been so often used that
speaker and hearer have ceased to be aware that the words used are not
literal; but the line of distinction between the live and the dead is a
shifting one, the dead being sometimes liable, under the stimulus of an
affinity or repulsion, to galvanic stirrings indistinguishable from
life.

[What would Frankenstein have thought?]

Fowler goes on:

Thus in 'The men were sifting meal' we have a literal use of sift; in
Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat, is a live
metaphor; in the sifting of evidence the metaphor is so familiar that it
is about equal chances whether sifting or examination will be used, and
that a sieve is not present to the thought...

Fowler's distinction here is in terms of the idea brought to mind. A
good one in terms of metaphor: in the ocean of despair we may ask
whether it is truly possible to see the sea filled with despair. Is the
hear/reader meant to think of the reality of the ocean or to think
analogously - this is like that
- there is so much despair about that it consumes its surrounding like
an ocean?

Big subject small mind -but there it is.

Yours,
Marcus.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.