I found myself compelled to look up the name for this rhetorical device, having come across it a lot both in (recently read) Ms. Dalloway and (currently reading) The Wings of The Dove. Definition:

The repetition of the last word (or phrase) from the previous line, clause, or sentence at the beginning of the next.

In James, I find anadiplosis often occurring in the midst of two long sentences, a sort of hinge to them:

She had come alone, putting her friend off with a fraud: giving a pretext of shops, of a whim, of she didn’t know what –the amusement of being for once in the streets by herself. The streets by herself were knew to her — she had always had in them a companion, or a maid; and he was never to believe, moreover, that she couldn’t take full in the face anything he might have to say.

Looking back in Woolf, I’m actually finding more anaphora than anadiplosis, but here are a couple examples:

–“They hunt in packs. Their packs scour the desert and vanish screaming into the wilderness.”
–“But women, he thought, shutting his picket-knife, don’t know what passion is. They don’t know the meaning of it to men.”
–“Gloves and shoes; she had a passion for gloves; but her own daughter, her Elizabeth, cared not a straw for either of them. (paragraph) Not a straw, she thought, going on up Bond street to a shop where they kept flower for her when she gave a party.”

There’s a specific use of anadiplosis I was thinking of these books sharing, but which I would have to investigate further to confirm; which involves starting a sentence with the word concluding the last for the specific purpose of launching into a new thought. The last Dalloway example given would seem an instance of that: Woolf wants to go from talking about hats and shoes and Dalloway’s daughter to Dalloway’s immediate surroundings, and she uses this rhetorical device as a sort of technique for achieving that.

11:7-10

7 Truly the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold the sun:

8 But if a man live many years, and rejoice in them all; yet let him remember the days of darkness; for they shall be many. All that cometh is vanity.

9 Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment.

10 Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for childhood and youth are vanity

“Mirror and Map.”

Proust seeming a figure behind me, showing the impossibility of ever knowing or describing one’s own feelings with the necessary exactitude (if only to prove to oneself they are definitely there);

Joyce seeming a figure in front of and above me, emphasizing a similar defect that lies in the opposite direction, of realizing one’s place in the feelings of the world, in history and geography, of knowing one’s situation appropriately.

That is- Proust/ interior, Joyce/ exterior, and not having for oneself hardly any sense of either.

Make a joke of these demented ideas and I’m done.

“Ms. Lavers and her colleagues estimated that there were 17.6 tons of debris on the shores of the tiny island. The world produces that amount of plastic every 1.98 seconds, the researchers wrote.” [NYT / 5.17]

2.11:

Mon article fut chaudement discuté, ce qui lui valut un grand retentissement. Il rallia un certain nombre de partisans. La solution qu’il proposait, d’ailleurs, laissait libre carrière à l’imagination. L’esprit humain se plaît à ces conceptions grandioses d’êtres surnaturels. Or la mer est précisément leur meilleur véhicule, le seul milieu où ces géants, — près desquels les animaux terrestres, éléphants ou rhinocéros, ne sont que des nains — puissent se produire et se développer. Les masses liquides transportent les plus grandes espèces connues de mammifères, et peut-être recèlent-elles des mollusques d’une incomparable taille, des crustacés effrayants à contempler, tels que seraient des homards de cent mètres ou des crabes pesant deux cents tonnes ! Pourquoi non ? Autrefois, les animaux terrestres, contemporains des époques géologiques, les quadrupèdes, les quadrumanes, les reptiles, les oiseaux étaient construits sur des gabarits gigantesques. Le Créateur les avait jetés dans un moule colossal que le temps a réduit peu à peu. Pourquoi la mer, dans ses profondeurs ignorées, n’aurait-elle pas gardé ces vastes échantillons de la vie d’un autre âge, elle qui ne se modifie jamais. alors que le noyau terrestre change presque incessamment ? Pourquoi ne cacherait-elle pas dans son sein les dernières variétés de ces espèces titanesques, dont les années sont des siècles, et les siècles des millénaires ?

It’s looking like I will not finish my This Is Not a Novel Spreadsheet before I close this blog up for an indefinite period, but having gotten through better than a quarter of it, I’ll permit myself an observation and an outlandish guess.

–The observation is that, to an extent that surprises me, the “narrative” of the book is driven by the continuous appearance of new “characters”, with rather infrequent, or very rare, reappearances of the old ones. At least, of the almost five hundred “stanzas” I have so far gone through, about four hundred of them involve figures that have been mentioned only once…. (Of the figures that do reappear: I’d guess Shakespeare and Homer most predominate.)

–The wild guess pertains to “stanza” 467 (pp.49) where Markson mentions that in The Iliad 243 people die from 147 separate wounds. Right now I’ve gone through 50 pages of THIS IS NOT’S 190 pages and I have counted 96 people dying from 66 causes of death. According to my calculations, I’m not on pace for these numbers to work out (I should be at only about 64 character deaths by this point) but it would be so very cool if they did — if the same number of poets and painters and composers died in this book as warriors had in the Iliad and if they had died of as many different forms of peacetime ailments as the Iliad’s participants had of war-time ones. That is unlikely but would be quite an orchestration on Markson’s part.

………………………..ρῷ 1
………………………….ῥέειSky kingHong
……………………………, ἀirremeable
……………………………..μDarkliquidity
……………………………….φὶCapitol Columns
………………………………….δὲ κavoirdupois
……………………………………απνcathectic polysemous
………………………………………..ὸςPlenary session
……………………………………………..ἐξ αlaresNakano
…………………………………………………..ὐyellowemperor
……………………………………………………..τῆlemuriaDragoman
…………………………………………………..ς ὡς εOliver O. Howard
…………………………………………………ἰ πυ brumalthe doll
………………………………………………ρὸςRencenAriel
…………………………………………..αἰθGog and Magog
………………………………………ομέAutomobileplatform
……………………………………νοι acedia renga
………………………………….οveriadégueuler
……………………………. (0);reeveDragoon……………………………
………..ἣ μὲ 0 63 23 90 (0); 100 54(1)
…………..ν γά 37 1) ;; 99 (090 **0
………………ρ θ᾽ 258 259, (0)267
………………… ὕδ ((1))166(1);
…………………..ατι 1545462
…………………….. λια (0)a
………………………..ρῷ 1
……………………………, ἀ

…………

The dunes were formed from sand and soil deposits of the Rio Grande and its tributaries, flowing through the San Luis Valley. Over the ages, glaciers feeding the river and the vast lake that existed upon the valley melted, and the waters evaporated. Westerly winds picked up sand particles from the lake and river flood plain. As the wind lost power before crossing the Sangre de Cristo Range, the sand was deposited on the east edge of the valley. This process continues, and the dunes are slowly growing. The wind changes the shape of the dunes daily… Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve

“If there’s no hatred in a mind
Assault and battery of the wind
Can never tear the linnet from the leaf.”

(Linnet)

Proposition, that the clash of the desires and the demands of ethics are such that the only responsible activity is art production.

?

Not a leap of faith but a faith in Fear and Trembling?

Rimbaud’s ‘disordering of the senses’, Thoreau’s ‘Wildness’ — the former seeks wilderness when, according to the senses, there is none?

… Idea of technology being a sort of ‘painting’ upon Nature rather than an outgrowth or extension of it.

…”Not a stoicism, but a contravelent force of some type against the excessive self-care that democracy will encourage (maybe, demand, require)” (Is it democracy or capitalism that is the source of our rampant self-care — individuals sticking up for themselves a social and moral good, is my belief; individuals taking anti-biotics at the first sign of cold, etc., not good)

[But I have to jujitsu all such sententious posturings: “let my pronouncements, before they issue from my face, be tumbled upon the mat, my leg thrust across their path, all their parts must be disjointed before I resume my ‘at peace’ pose”] [Also: “Let us all wrestle each other into the lotus position: let us wrestle til we face each other calmly on the mat”

“Maybe technology is a visible border, or the only one, between nature’s drives and nature’s laws.”

Writing guideline — to use, whenever possible, the name a thing gives to itself, rather than the name you would give it.

Idea that because my fears overstate my challenges, I feel more accomplished than I should, when I achieve anything.

Succinct: (Fears don’t just exaggerate difficulty; they overstate success.) boasting…

Libation Bearers, 380-381 (English):

τοῦτο διαμπερὲς οὖς
ἵκεθ᾽ ἅπερ τι βέλος.

[ ἅπερ = ὥσπερ, as, so as.]

(Loeb, translation Haines. Book 9, 42,4) —

But above all, when thou findest fault with a man for faithlessness and ingratitude, turn thy thoughts to thyself. For evidently that fault is thine own, whether thou hadst faith that a man with such a character would keep faith with thee, or if in bestowing a kindness thou did not bestow it absolutely and as from the very doing of having at once received the full complete fruit. For when thou hast done a kindness, what more would thou have?

Greek:

μάλιστα δέ, ὅταν ὡς ἀπίστῳ ἢ ἀχαρίστῳ μέμφῃ, εἰς σεαυτὸν ἐπιστρέφου: προδήλως γὰρ σὸν τὸ ἁμάρτημα, εἴτε περὶ τοῦ τοιαύτην τὴν διάθεσιν ἔχοντος ἐπίστευσας ὅτι τὴν πίστιν φυλάξει, εἴτε τὴν χάριν διδοὺς μὴ καταληκτικῶς ἔδωκας μηδὲ ὥστε ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς πράξεως εὐθὺς ἀπειληφέναι πάντα τὸν καρπόν. τί γὰρ πλέον θέλεις εὖ ποιήσας ἄνθρωπον;

Forever Overhead — to be noted that this story doesn’t seem to end in quite the same spirit with which it begins. The spirit it begins with seems autobiographical and exhibits an incredible descriptive power, bringing together in a very small space pretty much all the sensations one will ever have at a public swimming pool. The spirit it concludes with seems philosophical and perhaps more reaching and abstruse in what it says…. Not uninteresting but I can’t decide on the extent to which it follows from what’s come before. The scenario it most suggests for me is one in which Wallace “found an end” for an interesting fragment, and the end serves, but imperfectly.

Stupid thing: I noticed in this story the phrase “coins of light” which he also uses in the beautiful opening to The Pale King. Also, Infinite Jest.

He has a terrible fear of dying because he has not yet lived. By this I do not mean that wife and child, fields and cattle are essential to living. The only essential thing for life is forgoing smugness, moving into the house instead of admiring it and hanging garlands around it. One might argue that this is a matter of fate and is not given to anyone’s hand. But then why this sense of remorse; why does the remorse never stop? To become finer and more savoury? That, too. But why do such nights always end on this note: I could live and I do not live. The second major reason – perhaps it is all really one, I don’t seem to be able to sort them apart now – is the idea: ‘What I have toyed with is really going to happen. I have not bought myself off by my writing. I died my whole life long and now I will really die. My life was sweeter than other people’s and my death will be all the more terrible.’…. [KAFKA]

« J’ai su tout cela quand je ne savais encore rien. » *

Reading Wings of The Dove I find James having used the word beautifully (and related forms) quite a bit again. (In Golden Bowl (1904) the word occurred about 180 times, in Wings (1902) 150, in The Ambassadors (1903) more like 80…. Wow: could he have really written these books over three years? It appears so.) First number below is occurrences in first volume; second in the second; third is the total; in paren is the ratio of occurrences in the first volume (which is about 3/4ths the length of the second) to those of the second.

Beaut–: 67/ 83 ……… 150 (.8)

wonder–: 92 /124 ………. 216 (.74)

wondrous: 4 /4 ……….. 8 (1)

“The anterior or front part of your lower leg is comprised of the tibialis anterior, extensor hallucis longus, extensor digitorum longus and peroneous tertius muscles. The tibialis anterior runs along the tibia or shin bone, and is most easily seen when you flex your foot”… *

Example showing inversion and eversion of the foot, Abduction and adduction, Flexion and extension

……lo.ho.lo……
….ob..yt..ob….
om…..pm…..om
lo…….ou…….lo
1t……..ge……..1t
.n………pC B……….n
e …….bse …….e
..t…..eNol…..t..
….la…rie…la….
……lo.ho.lo……
….ob..yt..ob….
om…..pm…..om
lo…….ou…….lo
1t……..ge……..1t
.n………pC B……….n
e …….bse …….e
..t…..eNol…..t..
….la…rie…la….
……lo.ho.lo……
….ob..yt..ob….
om…..pm…..om
lo…….ou…….lo
1t……..ge……..1t
.n………pC B……….n
e …….bse …….e
..t…..eNol…..t..
….la…rie…la….

Just a quick look at the repetitions of “everything” in Wings of the Dove (1, 329 pp.s) vol (2, 439, pp.s), which first caught my eye in a passage from volume one book two part three (“What has he done if no one can name it?” “He has done everything.” “Oh — everything! Everything’s nothing.” “Well then,” said Kate, “he has done some particular thing.) Everything goes on to be mentioned 191 times, and nothing 331. See also.

(In my copy, the first volume is 329 pages while the second is 439. The ratio of the former to the latter is about .75. Thus, if the words below were evenly distributed, you’d expect those also to have .75 ratio between the two volumes. That’s the fourth number, and it’s pretty close. Note that the -thing- number is not quite entirely reliable as it undoubtedly includes in its count –generated by Chrome’s ‘find’ function– words in it like mou-thing and ba-thing. However, if you assume every -thing- is a thing then there are 475 of them, that is, of things, once you subtract the everythings and nothings and somethings and anythings. That means the total of the everythings and nothings and somethings and anythings comes to an even one thousand.

-Thing-: 659/816 …. 1475…… (.8)

Everything: 91 /100……. 191….. (.9)

Nothing: 141 / 190…….. 331….. (.74)

Something: 100 /157….. 257…… (.63)

Anything: 100/ 121….. 221……… (.82)

(great thing) 6/8 ….. 14…….. (.75)

In syllogistic lock-step with Mount Everest – which was climbed simply “because it was there” – they are there … simply because… meaning of skyscrapers