CHAPTER 3

THE FIGURES OF COMPOSITION

Linguistic elements in a relation of identity or opposition can fulfil a function as marks of composition. Their arrangement in the text then forms “figures of composition”. The systematic arrangement of all these figures must be the most complete, but also, to be manageable and efficient, the simplest possible1. First of all, whole symmetries will be introduced, then partial ones. The former are those in which all the elements of part of a text—or most of them—have their counterpart in another part of the text, whether in the same order or in inverse order. Partial symmetries, however, concern only one element or a limited set of elements which have their counterparts in two or more textual units where they occupy a position that has a bearing on the composition. The system proposed takes its inspiration directly from the work of those who, at the beginning of the 19th century, discovered the symme- tries that characterize biblical texts: John Jebb who brought to light the existence of extensive total symmetries—“direct parallelism” and espe- cially “inverse parallelism”—and Thomas Boys who furthermore revea- led some of the partial symmetries—“initial terms”, “final terms” and “intermediary terms”2. Less than a century later, Charles Souvay added to the system devised by Boys, but by having recourse to the categories and the terminology of classical rhetoric; thus, leaving aside “the vocabulary and figures” which “especially concern the colour and vivacity of the style and the harmony of the language”, he keeps to seven “literary devices” that make it possible to bring out the composition of the verses and the strophes3.

———– 1 W. G. E. Watson’s manual, Classical Hebrew Poetry, is a very rich mine, but hard to exploit, given the abundance of facts and the lack of systematic arrangement. Its subject index fortunately makes it possible to find one’s way around, but its very abundance (23 pages) bears witness to the complexity of the subject discussed; for example, “chiasmus” and “chiastic” come to no less than thirty items. 2 For Jebb, see R. Meynet, Rhetorical Analysis, pp. 65-88; for Boys, see Ibid., pp. 88- 126. 3 See R. Meynet, Rhetorical Analysis, p. 135. 130 TREATISE ON BIBLICAL RHETORIC

Among the many figures that Graeco-Roman rhetoric lists4, only those will be mentioned in the system offered here that fulfil the function of composition mark in the text at one or other level of its arrangement. In classical rhetoric figures—figures of words and figures of thought—are listed under the ornatus, the most developed part of elocutio. If one wanted to adopt the outlook of Graeco-Roman rhetoric with its five parts (inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, pronuntiatio/actio), what we here call “figures of composition” would have to be transferred from elocutio to dispositio. Actually, these figures do not in the first place serve to embellish the speech but to construct it, to compose it (to “dispose it”), that is to say to mark out the boundaries between the units at the various levels of organization of the text and to point out the relations they have among themselves. Souvay had adopted the traditional Greek terminology, mixed with a little Latin, to designate his “literary devices”. It seemed preferable to follow the way traced out by Boys by opting for a terminology that, according to the rules of the art, is at once consistent and transparent. This is why the technical terms chosen are entirely English; they are also easily adaptable in other modern languages5.

BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION: A FIRST SURVEY

The bimember segment, with four, five and six terms makes it possible to give a first overview of the whole system of the figures of composition. One example will be provided for each of the figures.

1. Total symmetries

1.1 Parallel composition The bimember segment with four terms equally spread out among the two members and in direct relation to them, according to the plan a b | a’b’, represents the simplest case of parallel composition:

———– 4 See, for example, B. Mortara Garavelli, Manuale di retorica, in particular figure 8, p. 188, where twenty-nine “figures of words” are grouped into various categories”, and figure 10, p. 239, which shows the “catalogue of the [thirty-four] figures of thought”; the list of “figures of speech” (which includes metaplasms, figures of grammar, tropes, figures of words and figures of thought” (pp. 347-51) amounts to two hundred and seventy-eight entries. 5 At www.retoricabiblicaesemitica.org: Biblical Rhetorical Analysis, Terminology, this terminology will be found in French, English, Italian, Polish, Portuguese and Spanish.