chiasmus

[poems.potatoes]

I'm struggling with whether or not line 4 can be said to form some sort of conceptual chiasmus because the ideas seem to be "fire eaten by wood" then "wood eaten by fire" but grammatically I don't think they are structured in parallel or in chiasmus. Also the line is only one clause; does chiasmus have to be formed in two clauses? Any guidance would be much appreciated.

In me thou see'st the glowing of such fire,
That on the ashes of his youth doth lie,
As the death-bed whereon it must expire,
Consum'd with that which it was nourish'd by.


Could I place the chiasmus break between "that" and "which" and treat them as separate subjects both referring to the fuel? My problem is still that the following is not structured A B B A or A B A B:

verb-modifier-subject-subject-object-verb(aux&inf)-modifier

[AuntShecky]

I see this is your first posting and welcome to the Lit Net.

It is my understanding that the structure of a chiasmus contains a criss-crossing and one of the most famous ones was created by Mary Leapor, whose misfortune was to be remembered mostly for one line rather than anything else in her entire body of works.

I found that example as well as a definition on-line from
"The Literary Dictionary":
chiasmus [ky‐az‐mŭs] (plural ‐mi), a figure of speech by which the order of the terms in the first of two parallel clauses is reversed in the second. This may involve a repetition of the same words (‘Pleasure's a sin, and sometimes sin's a pleasure’—Byron), in which case the figure may be classified as antimetabole, or just a reversed parallel between two corresponding pairs of ideas, as in this line from Mary Leapor's ‘Essay on Woman’ (1751):

Despised, if ugly; if she's fair, betrayed.

The figure is especially common in 18th‐century English poetry, but is also found in prose of all periods. It is named after the Greek letter chi (χ), indicating a ‘criss‐cross’ arrangement of terms

[poems.potatoes]

thankyou for the welcome and the reply :) So would you say that my example above does not constitute chiasmus then? The ideas seem to be "fuel consuming fire"--"fire consuming fuel" which is criss-cross, no? I mean to say it's like the second example: a reversed parallel. Except I'm not sure the ideas are structured in parallel grammatically...

[AuntShecky]

Look at Mary Leapor's construction:

Despised, if ugly; if she's fair, betrayed.

Note that the "if" phrases are right in the middle, at the cross. So the middle part of your chiasmus should have "consumed" in the middle, I would think.

But I have a question for you. We should read and admire poetry from previous centuries, and we can't help learning from the past. Unless we are attempting to write a direct parody, there is no good reason to emulate older styles and diction. Tell the truth, other than Shakespeare in the Park when was the last time you actually heard someone actually say "doth" or "see'st"? Or "Thou"
other than in Church?

It's 2010. If one is writing an original verse today, it is automatically "contemporary" poetry. It is best to use the language as it exists today, or as one envisions the style of the future. When one creates a poem, he or she is attempting to create something "new" or at least represent observations of the world as it actually exists. If we want to read Elizabethan or 17th century poetry, we'd prefer reading the originals.

[JBI]

Doesn't work too much in English, as the above example is not perfect, as the word "if" kind of hurts it a bit, but still, the classic textbook example:
Exalts his enemies, his friends, destroys. verb noun noun verb.

Generally pronouns in English and prepositions screw this up, but technically these work.

You wouldn't happen to know Professor J. M. Reibetanz would you?

Either way, the preposition by really cuts up the line, making it to me not a perfect Chiasmus, if at all one. Even if it is though, assuming you are writing this essay for the person I think you are, it is probably safer to not mention it, as such a scheme is not central to interpretation.

[poems.potatoes]

Thanks again for replying. I see your point. I hope you didn't think I was taking credit for the above excerpt (your question for me confused me at first) because it is from shakespeare's 73rd sonnet :P

[poems.potatoes]

I am in her class, yes. I hope it's ok to ask for advice online (this is my first english course at UofT and the office hours are only directly after class...also I'm a bit intimidated to call a professor on the phone for help esp on the weekend). Your suggestion was very useful and I see that you're right; the concept I wanted to discuss from that line stands on its own and I shouldn't try to force the chiasmus structure onto it.

[quasimodo1]

the other classic rhetorical devices... Alliteration - Anacolouthon - Anaphora - Anastrophe - antithesis - aposiopesis - apostrophe - asyndeton -brachylogy - chiasmus - ellipsis - enallage - euphemism - euphony - Hendiadys - hypallage - hyperbaton or trajection - hyperbole - Hysteron Proteron - Irony - litotes - Metaphor - onomatopoeia - oxymoron - Paraleipsis or Preterition - personification - pleonasm - polysyndeton - prolepsis or anticipation - simile - synchysis - tmesis - transferred epithet - zeugma

[JBI]

I am in her class, yes. I hope it's ok to ask for advice online (this is my first english course at UofT and the office hours are only directly after class...also I'm a bit intimidated to call a professor on the phone for help esp on the weekend). Your suggestion was very useful and I see that you're right; the concept I wanted to discuss from that line stands on its own and I shouldn't try to force the chiasmus structure onto it.

Good to know you took up an English course; she is definitely the best lecturer on poetry ever, though some people have reservations about her assignments and marking (she doesn't seem to hand things back, and she is also rather hard to get a hold of of late).

Just a tip, having written that same essay, you will want to focus on central tropes, and ignore schemes unless they add to your discussion about the tropes themselves. A key thing to remember is her suggestion of "read the sonnets quatrain by quatrain." Function on analyzing how the key tropes, metaphor, simile, etc. work in the poems given, and how they develop as the sonnet commences. Also, another key thing she will look for is that you have an argument; there should be an argument always when writing about the poems, not just an analysis; she doesn't want to know that you can find every scheme and trope, but rather that you can read the poems and say something intelligent in interpreting them.

I don't want to give you my answer (having written probably the same test as you before), but if you have any more questions feel free to PM me. Just make sure you sit back, show up to her lectures, and enjoy them, as reading poetry with her is really a treat and she is a far better lecturer than most other professors (especially when she reads the Romantics and T. S. Eliot).

Feel free to PM me if you have questions, though I will tell you now, I won't give you more help than pointing you toward the right direction.

[poems.potatoes]

Wonderful, thanks so much! :)

[AuntShecky]

Wait -- this is for a critical essay? If you had i.d.'ed the original source one I wouldn't've taken it as an line of verse you yourself had written.

Nevertheless, what I said about avoiding the use of anachronistic vocabulary in contemporary verse still goes.