Metonymy is, of course, the rhetorical figure by which one thing is called with the name of another thing associated with it. The historian who writes, “At last, the crown was safe at Hampton,” is not concerned with the metallic tiarra but the monarch who, from time to time, wore it. The dispatcher who reports to the truck-boss, “Thirty drivers rolled in this weekend,” is basically communicating about the arrival of trucks those drivers drove and cargoes those trucks hauled. Metonymic is a slightly strained, adjectival construction to label such associational processes. Metonym is a wholly-coined, nominative one, shored by a wholly spurious (etymologically speaking) resemblance to “synonymy/synonym” and “antinomy/antinym.” Still, it avoids confusion. In a text practically opaque with precision, it distinguishes “metonymy”—the-thing-associated (“crown,” “driver”) from “metonymy”—the-process-of-association (crown to monarch; driver to cargo). The orthodox way of referring to both is with the single term.
The episteme is the structure of knowledge read from the epistomological textus when it is sliced through (usually with the help of several texts) at a given, cultural moment.
All quotes attributed to Slade are from the notes of Slade’s current and former students. Statements reported in indirect discourse are from personal reminiscences of both students and Slade’s fellow tutors and—in one instance—from notes on a comment the precise wording of which the writer did not feel she could vouch for, as the notes had been hastily jotted down seventeen years ago. To all who have helped in the preparation of this appendix, the editor extends her grateful thanks.