Loved this analysis. Very clear on meaning and structure. It is interesting to me that Line 10 goes in the order past, present then future rather than the traditional reverse. Had never heard of these Figures of Speech that you pick out and explain so thanks for that. Feeling very learned now.
Thank you for this amazing analysis! Could you please share where chiasmus and antimetabole are used in the sense you've given. I know Wikipedia is not to trust but it says antimetabole is a special case of chiasmus.
Adam, what is the most advanced English grammar book you recommend? Is there a book explaining: Anaphora, anadiplosis, polystaton, chiasmus and the likes?
The best one I know of is E.W. Bullinger's "Figures of Speech in the Bible." It's available for free on archive.org here at this link: archive.org/details/figuresofspeechu00bull I have the paper copy because I use it so much. When I helped teach a college course on rhetoric at Harvard, the textbook we used was Corbett and Connor's "Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, 4th edition." The chapter dedicated to figures of speech incorrectly classified antimetabole and chiasmus. It's still an excellent book for rhetoric, but it's not the one I would recommend if you're specifically interested in figures of speech, such as anaphora, anadiplosis, polysyndeton, chiasmus, etc. Bullinger is the way to go. I'm curious about what other viewers may recommend here.
And, in defense of Corbett and Connors's book, which truly is good, the terms for figures of speech have been collapsing since the Renaissance. During Shakespeare and Donne's day, there were over 400 specific kinds of figures of speech that rhetoricians and poets knew. A great book about this is "Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of Language" by Sister Miriam Joseph. But as an interest in rhetoric erodes after the Restoration of Charles II (1660), and the rise of a "purer, scientific" language promoted by John Locke and Thomas Spratt, you see the minute distinctions that separate figures collapsing under broader terms. This continued and, by the time of the Scottish revival of rhetoric in the 18th century, George Campbell argued that the figures "synecdoche" and "metonymy" should really be considered the same thing, since the difference between the two is so minute. So Corbett and Connors's books is not *totally* wrong, since antimetabole is a form of chiasmus; just as synecdoche is a form of metonymy. But most recent manuals and textbooks today don't make a distinction between the two. M.H. Abrams's "A Glossary of Literary Terms," a standard textbook recommended to graduate students, conflates the two (chiasmus and antimetabole) as well.
Over 400 rhetorical techniques? And you know their names, how to pronounce them and how to use them? Erudite to describe your capacities is inadequate. Skip the dissertation (unless there is a book deal). Demand John Harvard hand you the sheepskin now. And the way you maneuvered through the poem's top layers of meaning, excepting that one phrase, all whilst skirting the vast pool of carnality that it is ... well - adroit, sirrah. Must google you. A Ted -- I wake to sleep, I take my waking slow -- Roethke guy here -- learning by going where I have to go.
Hah! Too kind. Really, I don't know all the 400 rhetorical techniques by heart. I found a list of them, though. You can find a long list in the Oxford Handbook of Rhetorical Studies (2014) and many of them are listed and explained in Sister Miriam Joseph's "Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of Language" (1947).
Loved this analysis. Very clear on meaning and structure. It is interesting to me that Line 10 goes in the order past, present then future rather than the traditional reverse. Had never heard of these Figures of Speech that you pick out and explain so thanks for that. Feeling very learned now.
Glad you enjoyed it, and good observation about the verb tense!
Bro thank you for making this video! Saved my life on the project where I have to analyze this sonnet.
Thank you for this amazing analysis! Could you please share where chiasmus and antimetabole are used in the sense you've given. I know Wikipedia is not to trust but it says antimetabole is a special case of chiasmus.
Adam,
what is the most advanced English grammar book you recommend?
Is there a book explaining: Anaphora, anadiplosis, polystaton, chiasmus and the likes?
The best one I know of is E.W. Bullinger's "Figures of Speech in the Bible." It's available for free on archive.org here at this link: archive.org/details/figuresofspeechu00bull
I have the paper copy because I use it so much.
When I helped teach a college course on rhetoric at Harvard, the textbook we used was Corbett and Connor's "Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, 4th edition." The chapter dedicated to figures of speech incorrectly classified antimetabole and chiasmus. It's still an excellent book for rhetoric, but it's not the one I would recommend if you're specifically interested in figures of speech, such as anaphora, anadiplosis, polysyndeton, chiasmus, etc. Bullinger is the way to go. I'm curious about what other viewers may recommend here.
And, in defense of Corbett and Connors's book, which truly is good, the terms for figures of speech have been collapsing since the Renaissance. During Shakespeare and Donne's day, there were over 400 specific kinds of figures of speech that rhetoricians and poets knew. A great book about this is "Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of Language" by Sister Miriam Joseph. But as an interest in rhetoric erodes after the Restoration of Charles II (1660), and the rise of a "purer, scientific" language promoted by John Locke and Thomas Spratt, you see the minute distinctions that separate figures collapsing under broader terms. This continued and, by the time of the Scottish revival of rhetoric in the 18th century, George Campbell argued that the figures "synecdoche" and "metonymy" should really be considered the same thing, since the difference between the two is so minute.
So Corbett and Connors's books is not *totally* wrong, since antimetabole is a form of chiasmus; just as synecdoche is a form of metonymy. But most recent manuals and textbooks today don't make a distinction between the two. M.H. Abrams's "A Glossary of Literary Terms," a standard textbook recommended to graduate students, conflates the two (chiasmus and antimetabole) as well.
cool
Over 400 rhetorical techniques? And you know their names, how to pronounce them and how to use them? Erudite to describe your capacities is inadequate. Skip the dissertation (unless there is a book deal). Demand John Harvard hand you the sheepskin now.
And the way you maneuvered through the poem's top layers of meaning, excepting that one phrase, all whilst skirting the vast pool of carnality that it is ... well - adroit, sirrah.
Must google you.
A Ted -- I wake to sleep, I take my waking slow -- Roethke guy here -- learning by going where I have to go.
Hah! Too kind. Really, I don't know all the 400 rhetorical techniques by heart. I found a list of them, though. You can find a long list in the Oxford Handbook of Rhetorical Studies (2014) and many of them are listed and explained in Sister Miriam Joseph's "Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of Language" (1947).