'Necessary AND Proper' and 'Cruel AND Unusual': Hendiadys in the Constitution
Constitutional doctrine is often shaped by the details of the constitutional text. Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Supreme Court first considers whether a law is “necessary” and then whether it is “proper.” Some justices have urged the same approach for the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause: first ask if the punishment is “cruel,” then if it is “unusual.” That each clause has two requirements seems obvious, and it is has been the assumption underlying vast amounts of scholarship. That assumption is incorrect.This Article argues that “necessary and proper” and “cruel and unusual” are best read as instances of hendiadys. Hendiadys is a figure of speech in which two terms, separated by a conjunction, work together as a single complex expression. It is found in many languages, including English: e.g., “rise and shine,” “nice and fat,” “cakes and ale,” “open and notorious.” When “cruel and unusual” is read as a hendiadys, the clause does not prohibit punishments that merely happen to be both cruel and unusual. Rather, it prohibits punishments that are unusually cruel, i.e., innovative in their cruelty. If “necessary and proper” is read as a hendiadys, then the terms are not separate requirements for congressional action. The word “necessary” requires a close relationship between a statute and the constitutional power it is carrying into execution, while “proper” instructs us not to interpret “necessary” in its strictest sense. “Proper” also reminds us that the incidental power Congress is exercising must belong to an enumerated power.To read each of these constitutional phrases as a hendiadys, though seemingly novel, actually aligns closely with the early interpretations, including the interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause in McCulloch v. Maryland. The readings offered here solve a number of puzzles, and they better capture the subtlety of these clauses.
Hendíadis em análise nas traduções para o português de peças de W. Shakespeare
VALENTE, Melina C. Hendiadys under analysis in the Portuguese translations of W. Shakespeare’s plays. 121 p. Dissertation for Master’s Degree Translation Studies – Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2018. This study investigates the use of hendiadys in three (3) plays by William Shakespeare (15641616): Macbeth (1603-1606), Twelfth Night (1602), Julius Caesar (1599), and how they were translated into Portuguese by Carlos Alberto Nunes (1897-1990), Barbara Heliodora (19232015) and Beatriz Viégas-Faria (1956-). Hendiadys is a figure of speech whose structure uses the conjunction and to connect two nouns with different semantic fields presenting a unique and complex idea. Frequent in biblical and Latin literature, they are distinctive in Shakespeare’s language, being used for example in the famous soliloquy of Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5: “sound and fury.” After compiling the bilingual parallel corpus, the material is analyzed using translation theories, specifically the propositions proposed by Antoine Berman (1942-1991) on translation deformations to understand how an element of difficult identification and understanding behaves when translated into Portuguese. The proposal aims to highlight the structure in the language and make an analysis of this feature in the author’s poetics, more specifically the appropriation and the mode in which he applied structures from Latin to English – and how (and whether) they have been understood in the Portuguese translations in Brazil – where translations of Shakespeare's plays have been made since 1933. The study also attempts to understand the theoretical guidelines of the field, traductologie, developed by Antoine Berman, which incorporate translation criticism. In dealing with the topic of standard theme and pattern break, the analysis seeks to understand how a strange and complex element is interpreted and assimilated, also considering sociolinguistic and historical factors related to the production and reception of texts.
Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification
Preface Acknowledgements 1. Prolegomena 2. The fountainhead: Augustine of Hippo 3. The development of the doctrine in the medieval period 4. The medieval schools of thought on justification 5. The transition from the medieval to the modern period 6. The development of the doctrine in the Reformation period 7. The Tridentine decree of justification 8. The legacy of the English Reformation 9. The modern period Appendix: a glossary of medieval soteriological terms Abbreviations Notes Bibliography Index.