Between the publication of Montaigne's Essais (1588–1595) and Hobbes's Leviathan (1651) rhetors became increasingly anxious about arguing in utramque partem. Paradiastolic discourse, fundamental to Montaigne's early essays, is anxiously though expertly deployed in Leviathan. Paradiastole fuses the ability to see and speak about an issue from antithetical perspectives with the ambivalence such power arouses in. Beyond their skepticism, Montaigne and Hobbes share a concern for how phenomena can be interpreted and represented through language. Despite Hobbes's desire for a method that would ensure constant and determinate linguistic acts that would render rhetoric supererogatory, Leviathan demonstrates his unremarkable affinities with mainline Renaissance humanists alongside his uneasy affinities with the Sophists. Both the humanist and the Sophist used the trope to probe and to persuade, though both were anxious about the reversibility of such rhetorical redescriptions. Paradiastolic discourses, we argue, integrate the cognitive procedures of philosophy with the judicative procedures of rhetoric. The trope operates through exploiting the reciprocity between similar qualities, as exemplified by the influential paradiastolic pairing of ferox and fortis.
May 22, 1967 Mines — Colliery — Rail track — Dirt‐stack less than three feet from line — Shunter accompanying train — Path across dirt‐stack — Route shunter was “required” to follow — Negligence at common law — Coal and Other Mines (Sidings) Regulations, 1956 (S.I. 1956, No. 1773), reg. 20.
THE HOMERIC HYMN TO DEMETER 403-4 AND CHIASMUS IN CONVERSATION In the Hymn to Demeter we are concerned with Demeter's speech to Persephone and Persephone's reply (393-433). The two speeches are too long to quote in full. In the manuscripts, and also in the papyrus (P. Oxy. 2379) of the 3rd century A.D., lines 403-4 appear as aÔtiw ênei m°ga yaËma yeo›w ynhto›w tÉ ényr≈poiw. / ka‹ t¤ni sÉ §japãthse dÒlƒ kraterÚw polud°gmvn; However this sequence has raised doubts, as ka¤ is not a natural connection here, and Ruhnken proposed a lacuna after 403. This was accepted by Allen-Halliday-Sikes, who comment "The construction is broken and a lacuna necessary". However N.J. Richardson rejects the lacuna, in his comment ad loc.: "If there was a lacuna after 403 ... it existed already when the papyrus was written. But more probably the text is sound, and there is an abrupt break in the sense. Demeter's question in 404 refers to the rape, not to Persephone's having eaten in Hades, and Persephone answers her in 414ff" 1). However a consideration of Persephone's reply to Demeter may give some support to Ruhnken's suggestion. The reply falls into two parts: first Persephone tells how Hades made her eat the poppy seed (406-13), and then she relates the story of the rape (414-33). A transition clearly separates the two parts: …w d° mÉ énarpãjaw Kron¤dev pukinØn diå m∞tin / 'xeto patrÚw §me›o f°rvn ÍpÚ keÊyea ga¤hw / §jer°v ka‹ pãnta di¤jomai …w §ree¤neiw (414-6). The reply as a whole is knit together by ring-composition whereby Persephone's opening words toigår §g≈ toi m∞ter §r°v nhmert°a pãnta (406) are recalled at the end of her speech: taËtã toi éxnum°nh per élhy°a pãntÉ égo-reÊv (433), while the same thought appears in the transition: §jer°v ka‹ pãnta di¤jomai …w §ree¤neiw (416). It seems likely that the speech of Demeter, in spite of the tear in the Mosquensis at its beginning, was also enclosed by a ring, and that ka‹ t¤ni sÉ §japãthse dÒlƒ kraterÚw polud°gmvn (404) recalls t°knon mAE =ã t¤ moi s[Ê ge pãssao n°ryen §oËsa] br≈mhw (393 f., suppl. A. Goodwin), provided, of course, that 404 refers to the eating of the pomegranate seed. If Persephone's reply is twofold , we might expect Demeter to ask two questions. However on Richardson's view there is only one question (404), which he takes as referring to the rape, and which is answered by Persephone in 414 ff. As a result 406-13 are left with no direct relation to Demeter's speech. It is true that …w §ree¤neiw (416) shows that the second part of Persephone's speech must be in reply to Demeter, but it does not follow that the first part cannot also be in reply to Demeter. With Ruhnken's lacuna, however, and a supplement such as efip¢ d¢ p«w sÉ ¥rpajen ÍpÚ
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.