Argumentation

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 99–111 | Cite as

Paradoxes in the Argumentation of the Comic Double and Classemic Contradiction

  • Benjamín García-Hernández
Article

Abstract

In the comedies of errors, and more precisely in the comedies of double, in which two identities become confused, the characters get into paradoxical situations reigned by the principle of contradiction. The classemic relationships that are based on the criterion of subjectivity are broken due to the intervention of the character appearing as the double, for the doubled and the double can appear as one subject or as two. In fact, in the added double one + one equals one (1 + 1 = 1; Sosia + Mercury = Sosia) and in the split double one equals one + one (1 = 1 + 1; Philocomasium = Philocomasium + Dicea). In the modal oppositions of the alternative class (present ∣ absent, to be ∣ not to be) and in the aspectual oppositions of the sequential class (to arrive – to be in) the intrasubjective nature is cancelled; in the diathetic or complementary oppositions (to give .– to receive) the intersubjective relationship gets broken. Thus, it turns out that, due to the action of the double, a character can be present and absent at the same time, be and not be the same, be in a place before arriving there or have received what another has not yet given him.

Ancient mythology classemic relationships contradiction doubles paradoxes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Alonso, D.: 1976, ‘El misterio técnico de la poesía de San Juan de la Cruz’, in Id., Poesía española. Ensayo de métodos y límites estilísticos, Gredos, Madrid, pp. 217-305.Google Scholar
  2. AT: Adam, Ch. and P. Tannery (eds.): 1996, Descartes, Oeuvres complètes, I-XI, Vrin, Paris.Google Scholar
  3. Bettini, M.: 2000, Le orecchie di Hermes. Studi di antropologia e letterature classiche, Einaudi, Torino.Google Scholar
  4. Catullus, by F. W. Cornish: 1988, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  5. Colaclides, P.: 1981, ‘Odi et amo. Une lecture linguistique du c. LXXXV de Catulle’, in S. Kresic (ed.), Herméneutique littéraire contemporaine et interprétation des textes classiques, Éditions de l'Université d'Ottawa, pp. 227-233.Google Scholar
  6. De Brosses, P. (ed.): 1611, Corpus omnium ueterum poetarum latinorum secundum seriem temporum, et quinque libris distinctum, I-II, S. Crispinus, Geneva.Google Scholar
  7. García-Hernández, B.: 1976, El campo semántico de ‘ver’ en la lengua latina. Estudio estructural. Publicaciones de la Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca.Google Scholar
  8. García-Hernández, B.: 1991, ‘The lexical system of intersubjective and intrasubjective relationships’, in R. Coleman (ed.), New Studies in Latin Linguistics. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 129-149.Google Scholar
  9. García-Hernández, B.: 1997, Descartes y Plauto. La concepción dramática del sistema cartesiano. Tecnos, Madrid.Google Scholar
  10. García-Hernández, B.: 1998a, ‘Nomina relatiua. Termes complémentaires chez les grammairiens latins’, in M. Baratin and C. Moussy (eds.), Conceptions latines du sens et de la signification, PUPS, Paris, pp. 143-154.Google Scholar
  11. García-Hernández, B.: 1998b, ‘Diathèse et aspect verbal dans les structures lexicales’, BSL 93, 211-227.Google Scholar
  12. García-Hernández, B.: 2000, ‘Complementariedad intersubjetiva y secuencia intrasubjetiva. Desplazamientos históricos’, in M. Martínez Hernández et al. (eds.), Cien años de investigación semántica: de Michel Bréal a la actualidad. Congreso Internacional de Semántica, Ediciones Clásicas, Madrid, pp. 45-64.Google Scholar
  13. García-Hernández, B.: 2001a, Gemelos y sosias. La comedia de doble en Plauto, Shakespeare y Molière, Ediciones Clásicas, Madrid.Google Scholar
  14. García-Hernández, B.: 2001b, ‘Las estructuras de campo y clase. El campo semántico de parere’, in C. Moussy (ed.), Actes du Xme Colloque International de Linguistique Latine, Peeters, Louvain, pp. 737-755.Google Scholar
  15. Kienpointner, M.: 1983, Argumentationsanalyse, Verlag des Instituts für Sprachwissenschaft, Innsbruck.Google Scholar
  16. Martín Rodríguez, A. M.: 1994, ‘Egomet sum hic, animus domi est: intención paródica en Pl. Aul. 181’, in L. M. Macía Aparicio &; al. (eds.), Quid ultra faciam? Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma, Madrid, pp. 271-278.Google Scholar
  17. Menéndez Pidal, R.: 1958, ‘El lenguaje del siglo XVI’, in Id., La lengua de Cristóbal Colón, Espasa-Calpe, Madrid, pp. 47-84.Google Scholar
  18. Molière, by G. Couton: 1971, Oeuvres complètes, Gallimard, Paris, I-II.Google Scholar
  19. Plautus, T. M., by W. M. Lindsay: 1965-1966, Comoediae, Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
  20. Plautus with an English Translation, by P. Nixon: 1979-1984, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., I-V.Google Scholar
  21. Rotrou, J., by D. Charron: 1980, Les Sosies. Comédie (1638), Droz, Geneva.Google Scholar
  22. Shakespeare, W., by R. A. Foakes: 1991, The Comedy of Errors, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  23. Van Eemeren, F. H. and R. Grootendorst: 1996, ‘Developments in Argumentation Theory’, in J. Van Benthem et al. (eds.), Logic and Argumentation, North Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 9-26.Google Scholar
  24. Verdière, R.: 1985, ‘Odi et amo. Étude diachronique et psychique d'une antithèse’, in M. Renard and P. Laurens (eds.), Hommages à Henry Bardon, Coll. Latomus, Bruxelles, vol. 187, pp. 360-372.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamín García-Hernández
    • 1
  1. 1.Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Departamento de Filología ClásicaUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations