On Figures of Speech I
Bill Long 3/26/08
De Schematibus in Three Authors
Donatus' fifth category in his Ars maior (one through four are On barbarism, Other vices, On metaplasms, On solecisms) is called De schematibus or "On Figures of Speech." That his categorization of these figures became standard can be seen if we compare his list with that of the 7th Century Spaniard Isidore of Seville and the Venerable Bede, who wrote in England early in the 8th Century (Libri II De Arte Metrica Et De Schematibus Et Tropis).
Donatus
prolepsis
zeugma
hypozeuxis
syllepsis
anadiplosis
anaphora
epanalepsis
epizeuxis
paronomasia
schesis
onomaton
parhomoeon
homoeoptoton
homoeoteleuton
polyptoton
hirmos
polysyndeton
dialyton
|
Isidore
prolepsis
zeugma
hypozeuxis
syllepsis
anadiplosis
anaphora
epanaphora
epizeuxis
epanalepsis
paranomasia
schsesis
onomaton
alliteration
homoeoptoton
homoeoteleuton
polyptoton
hirmos
polysyndeton
dialyton
hypallage
|
Venerable Bede
prolepsis
zeugma
hypozeuxis
syllepsis
anadiplosis
anaphora
epanalepsis
epizeusis
paronomasia
schesis onomaton
paromoeon
homoeoteleuton
homoeoptoton
polyptoton
hirmos
polysyndeton
dialyton
|
An alternative word for dialyton is asyndeton. Also schesis onomaton, given in separate lines, is really one figure. Donatus mentions that there are "so many of them" but that you only need 17, and so he gives you his list of 17. Though you may need other things than mastery of this list to get into the Kingdom of Heaven, if you know each word you are "figuring" well.
Some of these only make sense in the context of Latin prose or poetry, but several of them are transferable to modern English, too. Donatus begins by noting that there are "figures of words" (schemata lexeos) and "figures of senses" (schemata dianoeas), but the latter are within the province of the orator rather than the grammarian. So, he focuses on "lexical figures" only. Let's illustrate them in this and the next three essays.
1. We begin with a difficult one--prolepsis--difficult both because the example provided by Donatus, and copied by Isidore, isn't very useful and because there are so many meanings of the word in English. Its general meaning is "anticipation," derived from the Greek verb prolambanein ("to receive or take beforehand; to anticipate") and it means three things in argument or rhetoric. (a) The easiest to understand is when it means the same thing as anachronism--that is, the mentioning of something "out of time." Some dictionaries try to distinguish anachronism from prochronism, but several moments of trying to sort out differences in my mind left me unconvinced. But even on this one we have to be careful. Prolepsis can mean that something is "out of time," such as in the sentence, "By a sort of prolepsis, all those northern nations which from time to time invaded this country were called Danes." Such a sentence is proleptic because it spoke of invasions of Britain by people referred to as Danes before there was an identifiable group or nation of Danish people. But prolepsis can also be a powerful rhetorical device if it anticipates something as present which has really not yet occurred. This is the way that some have attempted to explain biblical prophecy--as a person's "seeing" of something that has not yet happened. The apocalyptic vision of John, where he sees a new heaven and earth (Rev. 22), is an example of prolepsis.
(b) It can also refer to a rhetorical strategy where objections are anticipated in argument and then refuted, so as to deprive the argument of force. This is also known as procatalepsis.
(c) The example given both by Donatus and Isidore, from Aen. 12.161, is, "Interea reges ingenti mole, Latinus..," translated as "In the meantime, the kings in mighty pomp, as Latinus..." Isidore says that what should follow immediately is the verb and object, "procedunt castra," or "proceed to camp." But, in the meantime, there is a five or so line "digression" on Latinus. This digressive interlude was a prolepsis, an "anticipation" of the subject that was placed early in the narrative but probably should have been placed later. We don't know if the authors regard this as a grammatical fault or as something that actualy enhances speech...
In conclusion, I should also mention that the OED lists an old English usage (which it now calls obsolete), where prolepsis means that "a matter is stated in a brief summary manner before the particular details, aspects, etc. are set out; esp. the particular form of this figure in which the main verb agrees in number with the plural subject rather than the singular nouns denoting its constituent parts." But this "esp." definition is reminiscent of syllepsis (see the next essay).
Conclusion
But let me close this essay, even though I am only on the first figure, with a comment. It is because of imprecision in usage of a term like prolepsis that literary "sin and death" has entered into the world. That is, because it is a plastic term, like tons of other words which I have written about or will get to (metaplasm, synechdoche, antithesis, etc.), people whose spirit may be alive but whose quest for precision leaves something to be desired, may glom on to such a term and use it as a basic term, from which one vaults into even higher and more obscure heavens. I suppose one shouldn't be "bothered" by this--just stay with texts that one can understand. But I have pity for all those undergraduates, and graduate students, who spend most of their lives just trying to understand words that, in fact, are more the products of confusion in scholarly minds than illustrative of anything of substance in literature or in describing the world.
With these comments out of the way, let's turn to the rest of the figures of speech.
3418
Copyright © 2004-2008 William R. Long
|