XXV. BRYSON 1. Athen. 509 b: 未喂峤 魏伪峤 峒溝單瓜蟺慰蟼 峤 魏蠅渭峥澄次刮肯慰喂峤赶 峒愇 螡伪蠀维纬峥 螤位维蟿蠅谓维 蟿蔚 伪峤愊勧礁谓 魏伪峤 蟿峥段 纬谓蠅蟻委渭蠅谓 蟿喂谓峤跋 魏蔚魏蠅渭峥次次肺何滴 峤∠ 魏伪峤 峒愊始 峒蟻纬蠀蟻委峥 蟽蠀魏慰蠁伪谓蟿慰峥ξ较勎毕... 位苇纬蔚喂 未始 慰峤曄勏壪偮 峒斚蔚喂蟿始 峒谓伪蟽蟿峤跋 蔚峤斚兿勎肯囄肯 谓蔚伪谓委伪蟼 蟿峥段 峒愇 峒埼何蔽次肺嘉毕 蟿喂蟼 峤懴峤 螤位维蟿蠅谓伪 魏伪峤 螔蚁蠀蟽蝇谓慰胃蚁伪蟽蠀渭伪蠂蔚喂慰位畏蠄喂魏蔚蚁渭维蟿蝇谓, 蟺位畏纬蔚峤断 峒谓维纬魏峥, 位畏蠄慰位喂纬慰渭委蟽胃峥 蟿苇蠂谓峥 蟽蠀谓蠋谓 蟿喂蟼, o峤愇 峒勏兾何迪蟿伪 未蠀谓维渭蔚谓慰蟼 位苇纬蔚喂谓, 5 蔚峤 渭峤参 渭伪蠂伪委蟻峋 尉蠉蟽蟿始 峒斚囅壩 蟿蟻喂蠂蠋渭伪蟿伪, 蔚峤 未始 峤懴慰魏伪胃喂蔚峤断 峒勏勎课嘉 蟺蠋纬蠅谓慰蟼 尾维胃畏, 蔚峤 未 峒愇 蟺蔚未委位峥 蟺蠈未伪 蟿喂胃蔚峤断 峤懴蠈尉蠀位慰谓 魏谓萎渭畏蟼 峒蔽嘉较勏壩 峒跋兾课嘉勏佄课瓜 峒懳晃澄嘉毕兾刮, 峤勎澄横砍 蟿蔚 蠂位伪谓委未慰蟼 蔚峤 蟿蔚胃蠅蟻伪魏喂蟽渭苇谓慰蟼, 10 蟽蠂峥單际 峒尉喂蠈蠂蟻蔚蠅谓 峒愊喂魏伪胃蔚峤断 尾伪魏蟿畏蟻委峋 峒位位蠈蟿蟻喂慰谓, 慰峤愇 慰峒拔何滇繓慰谓, 峤∠ 峒愇嘉酷蕉 未慰魏蔚峥, 峒斘晃滴疚滴铰 峒勎轿聪佄迪 蟿峥喯 峒埼肝肺轿蔽壩 蠂胃慰谓蠈蟼 1 峒愊蔚峤 魏伪蟿伪蟽蟿峤跋 4 位喂蠄喂纬慰渭委蟽胃蠅 8 蟺蠈未伪[ 蟺慰位位峤 峤懴峤 尉蠀蟻蠈谓 Iam primum 蔚峤斚兿勎肯囄肯 ad rhetoricen pertinet (ut de Diogene Diog. Laert. VI 2, 8 (74) 蔚峤愊兿勎肯囅幭勎毕勎肯 峒愇 蟿伪峥栂 峒蟺伪谓蟿萎蟽蔚蟽喂 蟿峥段 位蠈纬蠅谓) nec 蟽蠂峥單嘉 (11) sine acumine dictum, oratoris publici apparatus festive describitur. Ac sicut cum Thrasymacho Bryson copulatur, ita cum Isocrate in Platonis epistula 13, 360 C: 峒斚勎 未峤 魏伪峤 蟿峥段 峒赶兾课合佄勎肯呄 渭伪胃畏蟿峥段 蟿峥 尉蠀纬纬苇纬慰谓蔚谓 魏伪峤 螤慰位蠀尉苇谓峥 蟿峥段 螔蟻蠉蟽蠅谓蠈蟼 蟿喂谓喂 峒懴勎蔽佅壩. Bergkio ne credas, qui alium Thrasymachum intellegi voluit atque celeberrimum sophistam.
2. Aristot. rhet. 1405 b 6: 魏维位位慰蟼 未峤 峤谓蠈渭伪蟿慰蟼 蟿峤 渭峤参 峤ハ兿蔚蟻 螞喂魏蠉渭谓喂慰蟼 位苇纬蔚喂, 峒愇 蟿慰峥栂 蠄蠈蠁慰喂蟼 峒 蟿峥 蟽畏渭伪喂谓慰渭苇谓峥 魏伪峤 伪峒断兿囄肯 未峤 峤ハ兾毕嵪勏壪. 峒斚勎 未峤 蟿蟻委蟿慰谓, 峤 位蠉蔚喂 蟿峤肝 蟽慰蠁喂蟽蟿喂魏峤肝 位蠈纬慰谓. 慰峤 纬峤跋 峤∠ 峒斚單 螔蟻蠉蟽蠅谓 慰峤愇肝轿 伪峒跋兿囅佄课晃课澄滇繓谓, 蔚峒聪蔚蟻 蟿峤 伪峤愊勧礁 蟽畏渭伪委谓蔚喂 蟿蠈未蔚 5 峒谓蟿峤 蟿慰峥 蟿蠈未蔚 蔚峒跋蔚峥栁铰 蟿慰峥ο勎 纬维蟻 峒愊兿勎刮 蠄蔚峥ξ次肯. 峒斚兿勎刮 纬峤跋 峒勎晃晃 峒勎晃晃肯 魏蠀蟻喂蠋蟿蔚蟻慰谓. 5 峒谓蟿峤 蟿慰峥ξ次 蔚峒跋蔚峥栁 A Bryson igitur Prodici synonymorum distinctiones impugnaverat et rem non meliorem fieri docuerat, si tectius appellaretur, quo in iudicio Stoicos secutos esse inter alia Ciceronis ad Paetum epistola lepidissime exponit (fam. 9, 22). Ea res quantopere ad rhetoricen pertineat, docebit etiam Quint. inst. 8, 3, 15 sq., qui ibd. 39 dicit. 鈥榪uod viderint, qui non putant esse vitanda, quia nec sit vox ulla natura turpis et, si qua est rei deformitas, alia quoque appellatione quacumque ad intellectum eundem nihilo minus perveniat.鈥 Balbutiunt scholia anonyma ad Aristotelis locum. Rectius Stephanus p. 315, 2 R. Aristoteles enim, cum dicit 蟿峤 伪峤愊勧礁 蟽畏渭伪委谓蔚喂 蟿蠈未蔚 峒谓蟿峤 蟿慰峥 蟿蠈未蔚 蔚峒跋蔚峥栁, pronomine utitur, ubi certum nomen pro verecundia ponere nolebat, id quod Cicero l. l. minime facit, etsi ipse quoque verecundum se esse profitetur. Idem loquendi modus apud Isaeum fr. X 2 S.: 蔚峒跋兿單肯佱桨蟼 位慰纬委味峥 蟺蠈蟽伪蟼; 蟿蠈蟽伪蟼, 魏伪蟿峤 蟺蠈蟽慰谓 峒蟻纬蠉蟻喂慰谓 蔚峒跋兾滴轿肺轿滴澄嘉轿毕; 魏伪蟿峤 蟿蠈蟽慰谓 魏伪峤 蟿蠈蟽慰谓. 魏伪蟿峤 蟺慰峥栁 蠄畏蠁委蟽渭伪蟿伪; 蟿伪蠀蟿委. 蟿伪蠉蟿伪蟼 蔚峒拔晃單毕兾 蟿委谓蔚蟼; 慰峒滴次.
|
XXV. Bryson 1. Athenaeus: Therefore, the comedian Ephippus, too, in his Shipwrecked portrayed Plato himself and other famous people as starting frivolous prosecutions for money [鈥, and writes the following: 鈥楢fter that, a well-aiming young man, one of those who learn in the Academia under Plato and pick up the crumbs left by Bryson and Thrasymachus, plagued by necessity, since he had some profession that makes little money, capable of saying things not without investigation, his hair well cropped with a knife, his beard falling down uncut, his feet well couched in sandals with wooden soles, with the leather straps around his legs winding evenly, well armored by the bulk of his garment, a walking cane giving him a dignified appearance, though, I think, not his normal one, spoke: O men of the Athenian land鈥︹
First of all, 鈥榳ell-aiming鈥 refers to rhetorical prowess (as in Diog. Laert. 6.2.8 [74], on Diogenes: 鈥榟e was the best-aiming in the confrontations of words鈥); besides, 鈥榓ppearance鈥 is no unwitty saying, as it aptly describes the manner of clothing of a public speaker. And as Bryson is here paired with Thrasymachus, so he is with Isocrates in Plato Letters 13, 360 C: 鈥楬e further congregated both with one of Isocrates鈥 disciples and with Polyxenos, one of Bryson鈥檚 companions.鈥 Do not agree with Bergk, who thought that a different Thrasymachus from the very famous sophist is meant.
2. Aristotle, Rhetoric 1405b6: The beauty of a word consists, as Licymnius says, in its sound or sense, and its ugliness in the same. There is a third condition, which refutes the sophistical argument; for it is not the case, as Bryson said, that no one ever uses foul language, if the meaning is the same whether this or that word is used; this is false; for one word is more proper than another. Bryson thus criticized Prodicus鈥 synonym distinctions and taught that the substance did not become better if named with a more prudent word. That the Stoics followed him herein is shown, among other things, by Cicero鈥檚 letter to Paetus (fam. 9.22). One can see how closely this matter pertains to rhetoric also from Quint. 8.3.15 f., who ibid. 39 writes: 鈥樷 This fact should be considered by those who deny that such words ought to be avoided alleging that no word is vulgar by nature and that, if anything has any level of ugliness, any different designation will nonetheless lead to the same understanding.鈥 The anonymous Scholia on the Aristotelian passage are just babbling. More correctly Stephanus p. 315, 2 R. For Aristotle, when writing 鈥榯he meaning is the same whether this or that word is used,鈥 he uses a pronoun in order to avoid, out of shame, inserting the word itself, which Cicero ibid. does not do at all although he claims to be himself bashful. The same way of speaking in Isaeus frag. 10.2 S.: 鈥楬ow many acquisitions do you count? This many. Brought in for how much money? For this and that much. According to which decrees? These ones. Who took them? These people.鈥 |