Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/171

 of Norman, French, and later literary and scientific additions from classical and other sources, while the present-day “dialects” preserve, in inflections, pronunciation and particular words, traces of the original variety of the language not incorporated in the standard language of the country. See the various articles on languages (,, &c.).

 DIALECTIC, or (from Gr. , discourse, debate;  , sc.  , the art of debate), a logical term, generally used in common parlance in a contemptuous sense for verbal or purely abstract disputation devoid of practical value. According to Aristotle, Zeno of Elea “invented” dialectic, the art of disputation by question and answer, while Plato developed it metaphysically in connexion with his doctrine of “Ideas” as the art of analysing ideas in themselves and in relation to the ultimate idea of the Good (Repub. vii.). The special function of the so-called “Socratic dialectic” was to show the inadequacy of popular beliefs. Aristotle himself used “dialectic,” as opposed to “science,” for that department of mental activity which examines the presuppositions lying at the back of all the particular sciences. Each particular science has its own subject matter and special principles  ) on which the superstructure of its special discoveries is based. The Aristotelian dialectic, however, deals with the universal laws  ) of reasoning, which can be applied to the particular arguments of all the sciences. The sciences, for example, all seek to define their own species; dialectic, on the other hand, sets forth the conditions which all definitions must satisfy whatever their subject matter. Again, the sciences all seek to educe general laws; dialectic investigates the nature of such laws, and the kind and degree of necessity to which they can attain. To this general subject matter Aristotle gives the name “Topics” , loci, communes loci). “Dialectic” in this sense is the equivalent of “logic.” Aristotle also uses the term for the science of probable reasoning as opposed to demonstrative reasoning ( ). The Stoics divided  (logic) into rhetoric and dialectic, and from their time till the end of the middle ages dialectic was either synonymous with, or a part of, logic.

In modern philosophy the word has received certain special meanings. In Kantian terminology Dialektik is the name of that portion of the Kritik d. reinen Vernunft in which Kant discusses the impossibility of applying to “things-in-themselves” the principles which are found to govern phenomena. In the system of Hegel the word resumes its original Socratic sense, as the name of that intellectual process whereby the inadequacy of popular conceptions is exposed. Throughout its history, therefore, “dialectic” has been connected with that which is remote from, or alien to, unsystematic thought, with the a priori, or transcendental, rather than with the facts of common experience and material things.

 DIALLAGE, an important mineral of the pyroxene group, distinguished by its thin foliated structure and bronzy lustre. The chemical composition is the same as diopside, Ca Mg (SiO3)2, but it sometimes contains the molecules (Mg, Fe″) (Al, Fe‴)2 SiO6 and Na Fe‴ (SiO3)2, in addition, when it approaches to augite in composition. Diallage is in fact an altered form of these varieties of pyroxene; the particular kind of alteration which they have undergone being known as “schillerization.” This, as described by Prof. J. W. Judd, consists in the development of a fine lamellar structure or parting due to secondary twinning and the separation of secondary products along these and other planes of chemical weakness (“solution planes”) in the crystal. The secondary products consist of mixtures of various hydrated oxides—opal, göthite, limonite, &c.—and appear as microscopic inclusions filling or partly filling cavities, which have definite outlines with respect to the enclosing crystal and are known as negative crystals. It is to the reflection and interference of light from these minute inclusions that the peculiar bronzy sheen or “schiller” of the mineral is due. The most pronounced lamination is that parallel to the orthopinacoid; another, less distinct, is parallel to the basal plane, and a third parallel to the plane of symmetry; these planes of secondary parting are in addition to the ordinary prismatic cleavage of all pyroxenes. Frequently the material is interlaminated with a rhombic pyroxene (bronzite) or with an amphibole (smaragdite or uralite), the latter being an alteration product of the diallage.

Diallage is usually greyish-green or dark green, sometimes brown, in colour, and has a pearly to metallic lustre or schiller on the laminated surfaces. The hardness is 4, and the specific gravity 3·2 to 3·35. It does not occur in distinct crystals with definite outlines, but only as lamellar masses in deep-seated igneous rocks, principally gabbro, of which it is an essential constituent. It occurs also in some peridotites and serpentines, and rarely in volcanic rocks (basalt) and crystalline schists. Masses of considerable size are found in the coarse-grained gabbros of the Island of Skye, Le Prese near Bornio in Valtellina, Lombardy, Prato near Florence, and many other localities.

The name diallage, from diallage, “difference,” in allusion to the dissimilar cleavages and planes of fracture, as originally applied by R. J. Haüy in 1801, included other minerals (the orthorhombic pyroxenes hypersthene, bronzite and bastite, and the smaragdite variety of hornblende) which exhibit the same peculiarities of schiller structure; it is now limited to the monoclinic pyroxenes with this structure. Like the minerals of similar appearance just mentioned, it is sometimes cut and polished for ornamental purposes.

 DIALOGUE, properly the conversation between two or more persons, reported in writing, a form of literature invented by the Greeks for purposes of rhetorical entertainment and instruction, and scarcely modified since the days of its invention. A dialogue is in reality a little drama without a theatre, and with scarcely any change of scene. It should be illuminated with those qualities which La Fontaine applauded in the dialogue of Plato, namely vivacity, fidelity of tone, and accuracy in the opposition of opinions. It has always been a favourite with those writers who have something to censure or to impart, but who love to stand outside the pulpit, and to encourage others to pursue a train of thought which the author does not seem to do more than indicate. The dialogue is so spontaneous a mode of expressing and noting down the undulations of human thought that it almost escapes analysis. All that is recorded, in any literature, of what pretend to be the actual words spoken by living or imaginary people is of the nature of dialogue. One branch of letters, the drama, is entirely founded upon it. But in its technical sense the word is used to describe what the Greek philosophers invented, and what the noblest of them lifted to the extreme refinement of an art.

The systematic use of dialogue as an independent literary form is commonly supposed to have been introduced by Plato, whose earliest experiment in it is believed to survive in the Laches. The Platonic dialogue, however, was founded on the mime, which had been cultivated half a century earlier by the Sicilian poets, Sophron and Epicharmus. The works of these writers, which Plato admired and imitated, are lost, but it is believed that they were little plays, usually with only two performers. The recently discovered mimes of Herodas (Herondas) give us some idea of their scope. Plato further simplified the form, and reduced it to pure argumentative conversation, while leaving intact the amusing element of character-drawing. He must have begun this about the year 405, and by 399 he had brought the dialogue to its highest perfection, especially in the cycle directly inspired by the death of Socrates. All his philosophical writings, except the Apology, are cast in this form. As the greatest of all masters of Greek prose style, Plato lifted his favourite instrument, the dialogue, to its highest splendour, and to this day he remains by far its most distinguished proficient. In the 2nd century Lucian of Samosata achieved a brilliant success with his ironic dialogues “Of the Gods,” “Of the Dead,” “Of Love” and “Of the Courtesans.” In some of them he attacks superstition and philosophical error with the sharpness of his wit; in others he merely paints scenes of modern life. The title of Lucian’s most famous collection was borrowed in the 17th century by two French writers of eminence, each of whom prepared Dialogues des morts. These were Fontenelle (1683) and Fénelon (1712). In English non-dramatic literature the dialogue had not been extensively<section end="Dialogue" />