The Difference between a Chiasmus & an Antimetabole

The following is a technical explanation, concerning rhetorical devices, on the difference between an ordinary chiasmus, and an antimetabole.

A chiasmus is a rhetorical device in which two or more clauses are balanced against each other by the reversal of their structures in order to produce an artistic effect.  It is reverse parallelism or syntactical inversion. 

For example, in Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, he wrote, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”  Here, the chiasmus is found in the parallel of “injustice” with “justice”, which contrasts with the “anywhere” and “everywhere”.  Both parallels are opposites, antithesis.

For example, Emiliano Zapata, the leader of the peasant army during the Mexican Revolution, is purported to have said, “I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.”  Here, the chiasmus is found in the parallel of dying and living in contrast to the allusion of being on the feet and on his knees.

An antimetabole is a subtype of chiasmus.  An antimetabole is the repetition of words in consecutive clauses, but in an inverted or transposed order.

For example, Winston Churchill, in his “1941 Mansion House Speech”, said, “Now, this is not the end.  No, it is not even the beginning of the end.  But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”  Here, the antimetabole is found in the transposing of the words, “end” and “beginning”.

Foer example, Malcolm X, in his “1964 Speech at the Audubon Ballroom”, said, “We didn’t land at Plymouth Rock.  The rock landed on us.”  Here, the antimetabole is found in the transposing of the words, “land” and “rock”.

In summary, a chiasmus would have the second clause filled with antonyms of the first, whereas, the antimetabole would have two words transposed, instead of using antonyms.