Peter Kirby

Well, without any knowledge of how the ancients viewed the chiasmus, or how they constructed them (intentionally--or even how they would construct them unintentinally!), how could any such judgments on the matter be anything other than "subjective" or, to put it better, based on nothing at all?

Including, of course, the judgments that there are chiasms, that there are not, that they are intentional, and that they are not.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Joel Ng has started a new chiasmus thread.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

CJD, it is not delusional to imagine we can uncover the author's original structure. Why don't you lower the rhetorical tone so we can talk? Right now your defenses are up too high for me to have any kind of meaningful exchange on the issue.

Amaleq13

I wouldn't say we are "without any knowledge". IIUC from the other threads discussing the subject, chiastic structures were a way students were commonly taught to write. It seemed to me similar to the concept, fundamental to MacDonald's book, that Homer was a standard primer of sorts for students. I would think we should be no more surprised to find chiasms in Mark than we would hints of Homeric influence. This seems true regardless of whether one thinks Vorkosigan or MacDonald have seen more than actually exists. What seems strange to me is the vehement opposition this idea has received (both ideas, actually) given that all it really suggests is that the author might not have been as clueless a writer as some appear to believe with astounding and unassailable conviction.

I agree that there is an unavoidable element of subjectivity in any speculation about what the author had in mind when writing. That's why I have asked for a basis in judging this particular effort as somehow more speculative than any other.

Peter Kirby

This statement is empty without knowing what the students were taught, how they would construct a chiasm. If we don't know how they would construct a chiasm, or the ways in which they would do so, we don't know how to identify a literary structure as properly chiasmic or not.

It seems to me that we are dealing with multiple types of structures that we have, willy nilly, called chiasmus. First, there is the tight ABBA pattern that often takes up a single line. This seems to be the strongest case, and I can believe that students of rhetoric would learn this pattern explicitly. Second, there is the chiasmus that extends over a paragraph or so. This one typically relies on a strong similarity or contrast between the brackets, preferrably verbal or explicit. This appears to tbe the length of Vorkosigan's chiasms, although he has complicated the form beyond ABCNNCBA to include complex centers. This would require more evidence in terms of how authors would construct chiasms of such length, or if they even would. There is also the question of whether the complex centers would be something that would be constructed intentionally. Third, there is the chiasmus that extends over a storyline. This one depends less on strong verbal similarity, instead relying on themes that are abstracted from the text by the critic. It is a good question whether the ancients created these intentionally at all. If so, again we would like to know what ways they would construct such intentional structures.

How about a basis for judging it at all? Don't we need evidence for what would be considered a chiasm in antiquity? I agree that there would be subjectivity in judging what the author had in mind even with such evidence. But without such evidence, there is no basis for judgment at all.

best,
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13

Kind of an "intelligent design" question? How and when can an apparent pattern be judged as deliberately constructed as opposed to coincidence or observer bias?

You are correct that, absent any objective (in the sense of one established by ancient authors) criteria, the answer to the above question is entirely subjective. It either "seems" like a bonafide pattern deliberately constructed by the author or it "seems" like something a guy with too much time on his hands has created out of the text.

Utu

From here:

Two works the author cites may be of use:
Isocarates' Panegyricus 4.67–68
John D. Harvey, Listening to the Text (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998)

The article has a wealth of information, mentioning the use of chiasmus in antiquity, and provides citations to several works by scholars who have studied chiasmic structures in biblical literature, such as Nils W. Lund (1942), and John Breck (1987).

Searching on google yields a page called "Criteria for Identifying and Evaluating the Presence of Chiasmus" by a John W. Welch who McCoy cites in his article.
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=101

Peter Kirby

Here is Isocrates, Panegyricus, 4.67-68.

[67] Let us single out, then, the races which have the strongest instinct for domination and the greatest power of aggression--the Scythians and the Thracians and the Persians; it so happens that these have all had hostile designs upon us and that against all these our city has fought decisive wars. And yet what ground will be left for our opponents if it be shown that those among the Hellenes who are powerless to obtain their rights see fit to appeal to us for help, and that those among the barbarians who purpose to enslave the Hellenes make us the first object of their attacks?

[68] Now, while the most celebrated of our wars was the one against the Persians, yet certainly our deeds of old offer evidence no less strong for those who dispute over ancestral rights. For while Hellas was still insignificant, our territory was invaded by the Thracians, led by Eumolpus, son of Poseidon, and by the Scythians, led by the Amazons,1 the daughters of Ares--not at the same time, but during the period when both races were trying to extend their dominion over Europe; for though they hated the whole Hellenic race, they raised complaints2 against us in particular, thinking that in this way they would wage war against one state only, but would at the same time impose their power on all the states of Hellas.

best,
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13

Excellent work! :thumbs:

I wonder how many of Vorkosigan's will meet the proposed criteria (Welch's or Lund's)?

CJD

It does because in this case (and it is not a fallacy to suggest this) the overwhelming majority of reputable scholars are skeptical of chiastic endeavors such as these. But the real problem (and this answers your last question) is that Vork's chiasm (as my own 'class assignments' were) is arranged thematically, not linguistically. As such, he can easily shape the interpretation to fit his chiasm (as that Ebla thread Kirby links to points out). Indeed, it pushes the chiastic enthusiast to do this. Tell us, Vork, how much Greek do you know?

In my opinion, unless you're able to think in the language that you are working with, stay the hell away from chiasms (this goes for all of us).

CJD