In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

§2.1 Evidence from Lucian of Samosata and Quintilian§2.2 Modelling Chain-Link Interlock The first of this project’s triangulation points is the evidence of GraecoRoman rhetoricians of the first two centuries CE. Both the first-century rhetorician Quintilian and the second-century rhetorician Lucian of Samosata seem to be aware of the form, function, and utility of chainlink interlock, as demonstrated below.§2.1 Evidence from Lucian of Samosata and Quintilian In his book How to Write History, Lucian of Samosata (ca. 125–80 CE) instructs his audience about the manner in which historical narrative is to be constructed to ensure its rhetorical effectiveness. In the course of his presentation Lucian gives the following advice concerning the relationship between text units (§55):1 11 c h a p t e r 2 The Rhetoricians’ Recommendations 1 The translation is by H. W. Fowler and F. G. Fowler, The Works of Lucian (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905), 2:133. See also K. Kilburn (Lucian [Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968], 6:67) who provides a less free, but also less clear, translation. R. Morgenthaler (Lukas und Quintilian: Rhetorik als Erzählkunst [Zürich: Gotthelf Verlag, 1993], 171) offers the following German translation: “Der Autor Rhetoric at the Boundaries 12 [T]hough all parts must be independently perfected, when the first is complete the second will be brought into essential connection with it, and attached like one link of a chain to another; there must be no possibility of separating them; no mere bundle of parallel threads; the first is not simply to be next to the second, but part of it, their extremities intermingling. kai\ to\ prw~ton e0cergasa/menoj e0pa/cei to\ deu/teron e0xo/menon au0tou~ kai\ a(lu/sewj tro/pon sunhrmosme/non w(j mh\ diakeko/fqai mhde\ dihgh /seij polla\j ei]nai a)llh/laij parakeime/naj, a)ll 0 a)ei\ tw|~ prw/tw| to\ deu/teron mh\ geitnia=n mo/non, a0lla\ kai\ koinwnei=n kai\ a)nakekra ~sqai kata\ ta\ a1kra. Although the English translation is somewhat free, it nonetheless captures Lucian’s meaning well. In Lucian’s view, units of narrative material are not merely to sit side-by-side in a linear, boxed fashion, but should be joined inextricably by weaving them together in non-linear fashion through a chain-link interlock. Each textual unit is to overlap with its neighbour and intermingle with it, or more precisely, “to mix across the boundaries’ (a)nakekra~sqai kata\ ta\ a1kra; i.e., the shared text-unit boundary). In this way a rhetor’s presentation can exemplify what Lucian calls the “virtues proper to narrative” (tai=j th~j dihgh/sewj a0retai=j), ensuring that a narrative progresses “smoothly, evenly, and consistently, free from humps and hollows” (lei/wj te kai\ o9malw~j proi+ou~sa kai\ au0th\ o(moi/wj w#ste mh\ prou!xein mhde\ koilai/nesqai).2 It is not wholly clear what Lucian meant to convey by the “chainlink ” imagery that he uses. Perhaps his point is that the boundary between two text units should be free from tectonic compression and bunching on the one hand (i.e., “humps”) and from tectonic spread and separation on the other hand (i.e., “hollows”). Avoiding these two situations , the rhetor should ensure that text-unit boundaries are marked out by an overlap of material. In contrast to transitional constructions that resemble tectonic fault-lines of one kind or another (i.e., “humps and hollows”), the transitional construction preferred by Lucian is likened to wird zunächst alles einzelne getrennt und in sich abgerundet ausarbeiten. Hat er dann den ersten Teil abgeschlossen, so fügt er den zweiten daran; dieser soll sich so anschliessen und anpassen wie ein Kettenglied an das andere, so dass das Ganze nicht abgehackt in viele nebeneinanderstehende Einzelerzählungen zerfällt.” 2 The translation here is Kilburn’s (Lucian, 67). Note that in How to Write History 55, Lucian is not simply talking about the transition from a narrative’s prologue to the narrative proper. Having advised that that transition should be “gentle and easy,” he then turns to the nature of the narrative in general. In order to prevent it from being “simply a long narrative,” it needs to be adorned with “the virtues proper to narrative,” and it is at this point that he discusses the chainlink transition. [18.216.233.58] Project MUSE (2024-04-19 17:27 GMT...

Share