XXV. BRYSON 1. Athen. 509 b: 帤庣廔 庥帢廔 廒庣怷 廔 庥弮彃割棒團諫怷庣廔裒 廒彖 帢峎帠彃 弇峎彖峎 庰 帢廔廔裕 庥帢廔 彃僇 帠彖巹弮彖 庣彖廔區 庥庰庥弮彃棒棒煎睡舒 廔＋ 庥帢廔 廒宎 廒帠巹彃 庥怷帢彖怷彃缶誕帢... 弇峟帠庰庣 帤宎 怷廔繚 廒庰庣宎 廒彖帢廔區 庰廔怷怷 彖庰帢彖巹帢 彃僇 廒徆 廒庥帢帤庢弮巹帢 庣 廔廔 弇峎彖帢 庥帢廔 眐茯彖怷庛眐帢弮帢庰庣怷弇庢庣庥庰眐弮峎茯彖, 弇庢帠庰廔剿 廒彖峎帠庥彃, 弇庢怷弇庣帠怷弮巹庛彃 峟彖彃 彖彖 庣, o廔庥 廒庥庰帢 帤彖峎弮庰彖怷 弇峟帠庰庣彖, 5 庰廔 弮廔統 弮帢帢巹彄 徆宎 廒彖 庣弮帢帢, 庰廔 帤宎 廔怷庥帢庛庣庰廔剿 廒怷弮帢 帠彖怷 帣峎庛庢, 庰廔 帤 廒彖 庰帤巹弇彃 帤帢 庣庛庰廔剿 廔徆弇怷彖 庥彖峸弮庢 廒敖樁疥誕彖 廒區怷弮峟怷庣 廒弇巹帠弮帢庣彖, 廔帠庥彃 庰 弇帢彖巹帤怷 庰廔 庰庛帢庥庣弮峟彖怷, 10 彃弮宎 廒徆庣庰彖 廒庣庥帢庛庰廔剿 帣帢庥庢巹彄 廒弇弇庣怷彖, 怷廔庥 怷廒匿睡菲怷彖, 廔＋ 廒弮怷廔 帤怷庥庰彃, 廒弇庰徆庰彖繚 廒彖帤庰 彃 廒庛庢彖帢巹彖 庛怷彖 1 廒庰廔 庥帢帢廔區 4 弇庣庣帠怷弮巹庛 8 帤帢[ 怷弇弇廔 廔廔 徆彖 Iam primum 庰廔怷怷 ad rhetoricen pertinet (ut de Diogene Diog. Laert. VI 2, 8 (74) 庰廔怷帢怷 廒彖 帢彃 廒帢彖峸庰庣 彃僇 弇帠彖) nec 彃弮帢 (11) sine acumine dictum, oratoris publici apparatus festive describitur. Ac sicut cum Thrasymacho Bryson copulatur, ita cum Isocrate in Platonis epistula 13, 360 C: 廒庣 帤廔 庥帢廔 彃僇 廒裒怷庥峎怷 弮帢庛庢彃僇 彃 徆帠帠峟帠怷彖庰彖 庥帢廔 怷弇徆峟彖彃 彃僇 彖 庣彖庣 廒帢巹彖. Bergkio ne credas, qui alium Thrasymachum intellegi voluit atque celeberrimum sophistam.
2. Aristot. rhet. 1405 b 6: 庥峎弇弇怷 帤廔 廔彖弮帢怷 廔 弮廔統 廔甩庰 庣庥弮彖庣怷 弇峟帠庰庣, 廒彖 怷彃 怷庣 廒 彃 庢弮帢庣彖怷弮峟彖彃 庥帢廔 帢廒剿怷 帤廔 廔甩帢. 廒庣 帤廔 巹怷彖, 廔 弇庰庣 廔裕 怷庣庣庥廔裕 弇帠怷彖. 怷廔 帠廔區 廔＋ 廒庢 彖 怷廔庛峟彖帢 帢廒區怷弇怷帠庰彃彖, 庰廒棲庰 廔 帢廔廔 庢弮帢巹彖庰庣 帤庰 5 廒彖廔 怷彃 帤庰 庰廒區庰彃彖繚 怷彃羊怷 帠峎 廒庣彖 庰彃缶棒諫. 廒庣彖 帠廔區 廒弇弇怷 廒弇弇怷 庥庣庰怷彖. 5 廒彖廔 怷彃缶棒 庰廒區庰彃彖 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. quod 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. Balbutiunt scholia anonyma ad Aristotelis locum. Rectius Stephanus p. 315, 2 R. Aristoteles enim, cum dicit 廔 帢廔廔 庢弮帢巹彖庰庣 帤庰 廒彖廔 怷彃 帤庰 庰廒區庰彃彖, 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.: 庰廒區怷廔區 弇怷帠巹庤彃 帢; 帢, 庥帢廔 怷彖 廒帠庣怷彖 庰廒區庰彖庢彖庰帠弮峟彖帢; 庥帢廔 怷彖 庥帢廔 怷彖. 庥帢廔 怷彃帢 庢巹弮帢帢; 帢巹. 帢帢 庰廒匿銜晅帢庣 巹彖庰; 怷廒舒棒.
|
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 [因, and writes the following: After 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色
First of all, well-aiming refers to rhetorical prowess (as in Diog. Laert. 6.2.8 [74], on Diogenes: he was the best-aiming in the confrontations of words); besides, appearance 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: He further congregated both with one of Isocrates disciples and with Polyxenos, one of Brysons companions. 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 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 Ciceros 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: 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. The anonymous Scholia on the Aristotelian passage are just babbling. More correctly Stephanus p. 315, 2 R. For Aristotle, when writing the meaning is the same whether this or that word is used, 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.: How 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. |