Literary Criticism Theory

Roberts discusses the extensive use of chiasmus in Old Testament poetry and Semitic literature at large with emphasis on the ability of chiasmus to maintain its meaning across several translations due to its unique structure. She concludes by stating that chiasmus is uniquely built to be translatable in a way that typical poetry is not—even more translatable than non-poetic text.

For anyone who doesn’t know, chiasmus is a poetic form of literature in which each line ‘rhymes’ with another through meaning or thought rather than phonetically. Here is an example that Roberts shares from psalm 51:

Have mercy upon me, O God.

according to thy lovingkindness:

according to the multitude of thy tender mercies

Blot out my transgressions…

This chiasm has a ‘rhyming’ structure of ABBA in which “have mercy upon me,” is synonymous in thought with “blot out my transgressions,” and “according to thy lovingkindness,” rhymes with “according to the multitude of thy tender mercies.”

After sharing this short couplet, Roberts explores a far more complex chiasm composed of 28 lines with a more advanced “rhyming scheme,” on pg 991. After this, she explores the reversibility of chiasmus, in which a chiasm can be mirrored from beginning to end, and with very little change to the words maintains the same meaning. This method of self-reinforcement of meaning or “selfglossing” as Roberts calls it is what allows chiasmus to maintain its highly translatable property.

After this, Roberts discusses several other aspects of chiasmus typically found in Semitic literature that is not common to all chiasms, but were common tools used by various authors, including transitioning from abstract to concrete thought following the “turn” or central point of the chiasm, and parallel thought that nonetheless develops to a certain end throughout the chiasm, transforming the turn in the chiasm into a redemptive moment in which everything mentioned after is a type of what came before, but transformed in some way from what came previously.

With this in mind, Roberts is able to show the layered meaning in certain biblical passages that is only revealed when the structure of the chiasm is made known to the reader, eventually lamenting that students of theology and biblical studies neglect to learn and identify this poetic art form that is extremely pervasive throughout Abrahamic scripture.

In this essay, Delany utilizes Dialectical Materialism to explore King Lear in an effort to gain "a general assessment of Shakespeare's political outlook," as it relates to the decline of Feudalism (429).

Delany begins by stating "Shakespeare lived at a time when an uncertain balance had been struck in the transition from the feudal-aristocratic society of medieval England to the emergent bourgeois state" (429). The aristocracy and bourgeoisie had differing views on what constituted human nature. Delany argues that these rival metaphysical concepts are pitted against each other in King Lear.

Thus, the conflict in the story truly begins with differing understandings of the word "bond" between the two parties in the play. Gloucester and Lear seeing a bond as defined by the relationship between family members: the world runs on the bonds between family or aristocracy. Edmund, Goneril, and Regan, however, see a bond as something that binds them, restricting their freedoms; they view success in the world as defined by their own actions, requiring freedom of movement up the social ladder through their own successes and triumphs. The aristocratic party fails to understand this difference in metaphysical world view, resulting in the usurpation of the aristocratic world (or party) by the laissez-faire world (or party).

With this dichotomy of world views in mind then, Delany concludes that Shakespeare was expressing a degree of trepidation in the movement of his world towards a bourgeois state. This is evident in the tragic nature of the play, suggesting that Shakespeare believed Edmund's metaphysical views represented a "triumph of crime" (433).

Delany also discusses the role money or thrift plays in the text as well as historical materialism in relationship to class conflict.

/// BREAK ///

I intend on writing more in-depth reviews of essays I read for discussion here as I have above, including citations and in the future, my own commentary.

If you'd like to read these essays for yourself, JSTOR allows anyone to create a free account that gives them access to 100 articles every month. All of the essays I post will be pulled from JSTOR to ensure everyone has access to them--primarily from the PMLA journal.

I thought this essay was really interesting. Fisher admits the disconnected nature of Beowulf between the three phases of the story; however, he demonstrates their interconnectedness by focusing on the journey of the hero Beowulf through the mythic story.

Beowulf represents a type of the race or culture that produced the epic. Fisher describes Beowulf in these terms by framing his battles with Grendel and the mere-woman as a reminiscent story describing Beowulf’s progression to king of the geats. The first two phrases of the epic are meant to be seen as background to Beowulf’s tragic end in his fight with the dragon. It typifies Anglo-Saxon perceptions of the fatalism for persons in positions of power or leadership. However, their views on Fate were tempered by an understanding of Christian theology. Thus, despite this fatalistic approach, a redemptive element is woven throughout the story in which Beowulf is described as a person who provides a type of atonement for his people.

Fisher shows this by comparing Beowulf’s descent into the mere-woman’s lair as both a katabasis in the Greek tradition, and as a type of redemptive baptism in Christian literature. Later, in the battle with the dragon, Beowulf faces a Christianized apocalypse or transformative baptism by fire that results in his death. What’s really interesting is the tragic nature of the ending despite this apocalyptic ending which in Christian literature usually ends with the faithful living in a millennial paradise.

This is a really interesting article on the subjectivity of the reader when experiencing a novel. It likens one’s ability to “read” themselves to how one reads a novel, and explores the impact that has on the reader’s perceptions of themselves by looking at Tolstoy’s character Anna Karenina.