Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:01:51.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CHIASMUS IN ART AND TEXT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2013

Edmund Thomas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Sixty years ago, on 25 April 1953, probably the most influential scientific article of the twentieth century appeared. Its uninviting title, ‘Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid’, concealed the revolutionary discovery by the molecular biologists James Watson and Francis Crick of the structure of what became known as ‘the molecule of life’. The ‘radically different structure’ that they proposed for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA) had ‘two helical chains each coiled round the same axis’. ‘Both chains’, they wrote, ‘follow right-handed helices, but owing to the dyad the sequences of the atoms in the two chains run in opposite directions.’ When Bruno J. Strasser asked in the same journal fifty years later ‘Who cares about the double helix?’, he answered that it marked ‘an age of (lost) innocence, when youth, intelligence and self-assurance were sufficient to make great discoveries in science’.

Type
Figures, guest-edited by Tim Whitmarsh
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , April 2013 , pp. 50 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Puttenham, G., The Arte of English Poesie [1589], ed. Willcock, G. D. and Walker, A. (Cambridge, 1936), 208Google Scholar.

2 Watson, J. and Crick, F., ‘Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid’, Nature, 171, no. 4356 (25 April 1953), 737–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

3 Strasser, B. J., ‘Who cares about the double helix? Collective memory links the past to the future in science as well as history’, Nature, 422, no. 6934 (24 April 2003), 804Google Scholar.

4 Hdt. 1.59–64; Myres, J. L., Herodotus. Father of History (Oxford, 1953), 81–8Google Scholar.

5 Whitman, C. H., Homer and the Heroic Tradition (Cambridge, MA, 1958), 98–101, 284CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Reprinted by permission of the publisher from HOMER AND THE HEROIC TRADITION by Cedric H. Whitman, pp. 255–256, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Copyright © 1958 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College, Copyright © 1986 renewed by Leda Whitman-Raymond and Rachel C. Whitman.

6 Ibid., 255–6.

7 Isar, N., ‘Undoing Forgetfulness: Chiasmus of Poetical Mind – A Cultural Paradigm of Archetypal Imagination’, Europe's Journal of Psychology 1.3 (2005), <http://ejop.psychopen.eu/article/view/370>, accessed 15 October 2012Google Scholar.

8 Steele, R. B., Chiasmus in Sallust, Caesar, Tacitus, and Justinus (Northfield, MN, 1891), 3Google Scholar.

9 E.g. Hom. Il. 24.605.

10 POxy. VIII.1086.11–18; Hom. Od. 11.164–203.

11 Smith, R. F., ‘Chiasm in Sumero-Akkadian’, in Welch, J. W. (ed.), Chiasmus in Antiquity (Hildesheim, 1981), 21Google Scholar.

12 Cic. Att. 1.16.1. This phrase is not the same as hysteron proteron in the modern sense of a reversal of the logical order of two ideas. See Bassett, S. E., ‘ὕστερον πρότερον, Ὁμηρικῶς (Cicero Att. 1, 16, 1)’, HSPh 31 (1920), 39–62Google Scholar.

13 Anonymi in Hermogenem Rhet., Commentarium in librum περὶ εὑρέσεως, in C. Walz (ed.), Rhetores Graeci, vii.2 (Stuttgart, 1834, repr. 1968), 815.4, 11. See also Kennedy, G. A., New Testament interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill, NC, 1984), 28–9Google Scholar.

14 Lehnert, G. (ed.), Eustathius. Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem et Odysseam (Hildesheim, 1960)Google Scholar, 390.2–27 on Hom. Il. 3.103; translation adapted from Bassett (this note). See also Bassett, S. E., The Poetry of Homer (Berkeley, CA, 1938), 125Google Scholar.

15 E.g. Scholia in Isocratem, in Dindorf, W. (ed.), Scholia Graeca in Aeschinem et Isocratem (Oxford, 1852), 51.2Google Scholar on Isocr. Panath. 47 as arranged ‘according to a chiasmus, but without inversion in the sense’ (κατὰ χιασμὸν, μὴ ἀναστρέφον πρὸς τὴν διάνοιαν τοῦ λόγου). However, the very lack of inversion makes it not a chiasmus at all, but rather an isocolon, or direct parallelism (ABAB, rather than ABBA), on which see Martin, J., Antike Rhetorik. Technik und Methode (Munich, 1974), 310Google Scholar.

16 E.g. DK fr. 90: πυρός τε ἀνταμοιβὴ τὰ πάντα καὶ πῦρ ἁπάντων ὅκωσπερ χρυσοῦ χρήματα καὶ χρημάτων χρυσός.

17 See Brumbaugh, R. S., Plato's Mathematical Imagination. The Mathematical Passages in the Dialogues and their Interpretation (Bloomington, IN, 1954), 161Google Scholar; J. W. Welch, ‘Chiasmus in Ancient Greek and Latin Literatures’, in Welch (n. 11), 264. Plato favours the interlocking and fully inverted form ABB´A´ (e.g. Plato, Resp. 6.494e: πᾶν μὲν ἔργον, πᾶν δ’ ἔπος λέγοντάς τε καὶ πράττοντας, ‘every deed, every word saying and doing’). The same words in the following order would be an example of reflecting chiasmus in the pattern AA´B´B: πᾶν ἔργον πράττοντας καὶ λέγοντας πᾶν ἔπος (‘every deed doing and saying every word’). The normal, non-chiastic arrangement of the same words would follow the pattern AA´B B´: πᾶν ἔργον πράττοντας καὶ πᾶν ἔπος λέγοντας (‘every deed doing and every word saying’). Other examples of interlocking chiasmus in the Republic are 2.370e2–3, 6.500a4–5, 7.536b1–2, and 10.604d1–2.

18 For Lowth, see Holladay, W., ‘Form and Wordplay in David's Lament over Saul and Jonathan’, Vetus Testamentum 20 (1970), 155–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 See particularly J. W. Welch, ‘Criteria for Identifying and Evaluating the Presence of Chiasmus,’ Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4/2 (1995), 13.

20 Thomson, I. H., Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters (Sheffield, 1995), 28–9Google Scholar.

21 Talbert, C. H., ‘Artistry and Theology: An Analysis of the Architecture of John 1:19–5:47,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 32 (1970), 364Google Scholar.

22 Kosmala, H., ‘Form and Structure in Ancient Hebrew Poetry’, Vetus Testamentum 14 (1964), 445CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Welch (n. 17), 257.

24 For συμμετρία, see Pollitt, J. J., The Ancient View of Greek Art. Criticism, History, and Terminology (New Haven, CT, 1974), 14–22Google Scholar; Knell, H., Vitruvs Architekturtheorie. Versuch einer Interpretation (Darmstadt, 1985)Google Scholar, 30 ff.; Gros, P., ‘Les fondements philosophiques de l'harmonie architecturale selon Vitruve’, Aesthetics: Journal of the Faculty of Letters, Tokyo University 14 (1989), 13–22Google Scholar; Koenigs, W., ‘Maβe und Proportionen in der griechischen Baukunst’, in Bol, P. C. (ed.), Polyklet der Bildhauer der griechischen Klassik (Frankfurt, 1990), 119–74Google Scholar.

25 Engel, W., Chiastic Designs in English Literature from Sidney to Shakespeare (Farnham, 2009), 5Google Scholar. See also Welch, J. W., ‘Criteria for Identifying Chiasmus’, in Welch, J. W. and McKinlay, D. B. (eds.), Chiasmus Bibliography (Provo, UT, 1999), 172Google Scholar.

26 Norman, R., Samuel Butler and the Meaning of Chiasmus (London, 1986), 276CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Thomson (n. 20), 25–6.

28 de la Coste-Messelière, P., Fouilles de Delphes, iv.3 Monuments figurés, Sculptures. Art archaïque (Paris, 1931)Google Scholar, 33 ff.; Stewart, A. F., Greek Sculpture. An Exploration (New Haven, CT, 1990), 86–9Google Scholar.

29 Ohly, D., Die Aegineten. Die Marmorskulpturen des Tempels der Aphaia auf Aegina (Munich, 1976–2001)Google Scholar, i.85.

30 For the special role of the centre of a chiasmus as ‘pivot’, where ‘ideas deployed…enjoy a special prominence’, see Thomson (n. 20), 43. Note also McCoy, B., ‘Chiasmus: An Important Structural Device Commonly Found in Biblical Literature’, Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 9 (Fall 2003), 20Google Scholar, for ‘the emphatically placed, pivotal [C] proposition of the chiasm’.

31 For the most recent interpretation of the figures on the pediments, see Barringer, J. M., ‘The Temple of Zeus at Olympia: Heroes and Athletes’, Hesperia 74 (2005), 214–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar with figs. 2–3 and 7–8.

32 Despite the usual reconstruction of the olive tree on the central axis: see Palagia, O., ‘Fire from Heaven: Pediments and Akroteria of the Parthenon’, in Neils, J. (ed.), The Parthenon. From Antiquity to the Present (Cambridge, 2005), 246Google Scholar, who at the same time argues that the west pediment glorifies Poseidon rather than Athena (252).

33 Beyer, I., ‘Die Position des Peplosfigur Wegner im Parthenon-Ostgiebel’, MDAI(A) 89 (1974), 123–49Google Scholar, followed with amendments by Jeppesen, K., ‘Evidence for the Restoration of the East Pediment in the Light of Recent Achievements’, in Berger, E. (ed.), Der Parthenon-Kongress Basel (Mainz, 1984), 267–77Google Scholar; Palagia, O., The Pediments of the Parthenon (Leiden, 1993), 29–30Google Scholar; and eadem, ‘First among Equals: Athena in the East Pediment of the Parthenon’, in Buitron-Oliver, D. (ed.), The Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture in Greece and Rome (Washington, DC, 1997), 42–5Google Scholar.

34 E.g. 1,257 examples in Livy, 1,088 in Tacitus, and hundreds in each of Sallust and Caesar: Steele (n. 8), 61.

35 Steele (n. 8), 5.

36 Rhet. Her. 4.30, citing the example in pace bellum quaeritas, in bello pacem desideras (‘in peace you ask for war, in war you long for peace’).

37 Cornificius 4.15.21. Modern philologists call this ‘the change of the relative order of the successive parts of a sentence which are grammatically coördinate, or at least grammatically equivalent’: Steele, R. B., ‘Anaphora and Chiasmus in Livy,’ TAPhA 32 (1901), 154–5Google Scholar.

38 Quint. Inst. 9.3.85, 10.3.9–10.

39 E.g. Livy 3.66.1: nec seditionem domi nec foris bellum acceperunt (‘they faced neither sedition at home nor abroad war’).

40 Welch (n. 17), 258.

41 Lucian, Hist. conscr. 55.

42 Pack, R. A., The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt, second edition (Ann Arbor, MI, 1965), nos. 2708–9Google Scholar; Bonner, S. F., Education in Ancient Rome. From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny (London 1977), 168Google Scholar.

43 Norman (n. 26), vii; Thomson (n. 20), 21.

44 On chiasmus as an art form, see Myres (n. 4), 66; as a mnemonic, see Whitman (n. 5), 98.

45 Thomson (n. 20), 36.

46 Talbert (n. 21), 363–5.

47 Verg. Aen. 12.500–554. Quint, D., ‘Virgil's Double Cross: Chiasmus and the Aeneid’, AJPh 132 (2011), 277–82Google Scholar; see also Clark, I., Rhetorical Readings, Dark Comedies, and Shakespeare's Problem Plays (Gainesville, FL, 2007), 31–56Google Scholar.

48 Livy 1.21.5.

49 Vitr. De arch. 3.5.2. See John, R., ‘Vitruvian Symmetriae: The Debate about Method’, in Salmon, F. (ed.), The Persistence of the Classical. Essays on Architecture Presented to David Watkin (London, 2008), 6–7Google Scholar. For Doric design, see Jones, M. Wilson, ‘Doric Measure and Architectural Design 2: A Modular Reading of the Classical Temple’, AJA 105 (2001), 675–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Cesariano, C., Vitruvius. De Architectura. Translated from the Italian with Commentary & Illustrations by Cesare di Lorenzo Cesariano, Como 1521, facsimile edition (New York and London, 1968)Google Scholar, fo. lii; cf. Vitr. De arch. 3.2.3. Cesariano's error arose because he wrongly takes the word contra as ‘against’ rather than ‘opposite’ and thus interprets the corner elements as what contemporary architects called cantoni, consisting of pilasters with projecting and receding parts, instead of in the true ancient sense of a front row of columns standing apart from the antae.

51 Tzonis, A. and Lefaivre, L., Classical Architecture. The Poetics of Order (Cambridge, MA), 27, fig. 11Google Scholar.

52 Grundmann, S., with Fürst, U., The Architecture of Rome, second edition (Stuttgart, 2007), 207Google Scholar.

53 The appearance of the interior elevation before the changes of the 1750s can be established from Raphael's drawing, Florence, Uffizi architectural drawings, 164.

54 For more extensive development of this argument, see Thomas, E. V., ‘Architecture, Rhetoric, and the Sublime’, in Elsner, J. and Meyer, M. (eds.), Art and Rhetoric (Cambridge, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

55 [Longinus] Subl. 23.

56 Jones, M. Wilson, Principles of Roman Architecture (New Haven, CT, and London, 2000), 123–7Google Scholar.

57 On lustratio at the end of the campaign, see Sabin, P., Van Wees, H., and Whitby, M. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare (Cambridge, 2007), i.538Google Scholar.

58 For a reading of these panels in their original context, together with those now exhibited in the Capitoline Museums, as representations of imperial virtues, see Hölscher, T., ‘The Transformation of Victory into Power: From Event to Structure’, in Welch, K. (ed.), Representations of War in Ancient Rome (Cambridge, 2007), 43Google Scholar.

59 Deleuze, G., The Fold. Leibniz and the Baroque, tr. Conley, T. (Minneapolis, Minn., 1993), 35Google Scholar. For the boundary between the exterior of the interior and the interior of the exterior, see Berressem, H., ‘Architexturen: Überlegungen zu einer Topologie der Torsion’, Kasseler Philosophische Schriften (1997), 51–79Google Scholar.

60 Kunze, D., ‘The Missing Guest: The Twisted Topology of Hospitality’, in Horwitz, J. and Singley, P. (eds.), Eating Architecture (Cambridge, MA, 2004), 185Google Scholar.

61 Nicomachus, Arithmetike, 1.19.11; translation in D'Ooge, M. L., Nicomachus of Gerasa. Introduction to Arithmetic (New York, 1926)Google Scholar.

62 Balbus, Expositio et ratio omnium formarum, in Blume, F., Lachmann, K., and Rudorff, A. (eds.), Die Schriften der Römischen Feldmesser (Berlin, 1848)Google Scholar, i.107.12–19. Translation from Campbell, J. B., The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors. Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary (London, 2000), 212–15Google Scholar, with 435–6 n. 25.

63 Loeben, C. E., ‘Symmetrie, Diagonale und Chiasmus als Dekorprinzipien im Bildprogramm des Grossen Tempels von Abu Simbel: Beobachtungen und vorläufige Ergebnisse’, in Kurth, D. (ed.), Systeme und Programme der ägyptischen Tempeldekoration. 3. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung, Hamburg 1.–5. Juni 1994 (Wiesbaden, 1995), 143–62Google Scholar.

64 Rehak, P., ‘Aeneas or Numa? Rethinking the Meaning of the Ara Pacis Augustae’, Art Bulletin 83 (2001), 197CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Suggested identities: Italia: Van Buren, A., ‘The Ara Pacis Augustae’, JRS 3 (1913), 134–41Google Scholar; Terra Mater: Petersen, E., Ara Pacis Augustae (Vienna, 1902), 49–54Google Scholar; Strong, E., ‘Terra Mater or Italia?’, JRS 27 (1937), 114–26Google Scholar; Momigliano, A., ‘The Peace of the Ara Pacis’, JWI 3 (1942), 228 n. 1Google Scholar; Rhea Silvia: Berczelly, L., ‘Ilia and the Divine Twins: A Reconsideration of Two Relief Panels from the Ara Pacis Augustae’, Acta ad archaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia 5 (1985)Google Scholar, 89–149; Pax: De Grummond, N., ‘Pax Augusta and the Horae on the Ara Pacis Augustae’, AJA 94 (1990), 663–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Venus: Galinsky, G. K., ‘Venus on a Relief of the Ara Pacis Augustae’, AJA 70 (1966), 223–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; multiple meanings: Galinsky, G. K., ‘Venus, Polysemy, and the Ara Pacis Augustae’, AJA 96 (1992), 457–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ceres: Spaeth, B. S., ‘The Goddess Ceres in the Ara Pacis Augustae and the Carthage Relief’, AJA 98 (1994), 65–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar; eadem, The Roman Goddess Ceres (Austin, TX, 1996), 125–51Google Scholar.

66 The young male head in the Terme Museum (Honour or the Genius of the Roman People) may have been positioned as a framing figure corresponding to the missing figure on the right of the Aeneas/Numa relief, of which only the hand holding the top of a spear is preserved.

67 Modern examples in literature are the use of the figure in Hamlet to focus on Gertrude's central decision whether or not to marry again after the death of Claudius, and the concentration of chiasmus in Book 3 of Milton's Paradise Lost to explore the relation between the justice of the Father and the mercy and love of the Son: see Clark (n. 47), 40–1.

68 Verg. Aen. 5.559, with Torelli, M., Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs (Ann Arbor, MI, 1992), 48–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Billows, R., ‘The religious procession of the Ara Pacis Augustae: Augustus' Supplicatio in 13 b.c.’, JRA 6 (1993), 80–92Google Scholar. An alternative identification as eastern and western princes from the Bosporus and Gaul (Rose, B. C., ‘“Princes” and Barbarians on the Ara Pacis’, AJA 94 (1990), 453–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar) fails to explain their centrality in the processions here or their proximity to Agrippa and Julia in particular.

69 Marvin, M., ‘Freestanding Sculpture from the Baths of Caracalla’, AJA 87 (1983), 363CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 Lanciani, R., Storia degli scavi di Roma (Rome, 1989), ii.198Google Scholar.

71 On the basis of Cavalieri's engraving, where it is presented in reverse: see Marvin (n. 69), 357.

72 If both statues faced the same way, the visitor entering the frigidarium would have seen both from behind; but if they faced opposite directions both the hero's front, wearied from his labours, and his rear side, revealing the apple of the Hesperides clasped behind his back, would have been visible simultaneously from either approach, alongside one another, and the views from inside and outside the frigidarium would have been in a chiastic relationship.