XXIX. CALLIPPUS (Pamphilus) 1. Isocr. 15, 93: 峒は佄疚蔽较勎 渭峤参 慰峤栁 峒愇 蟺蟻蠋蟿慰喂蟼 螘峤斘轿课枷屜 渭慰喂 魏伪峤 螞蠀蟽喂胃蔚委未畏蟼 魏伪峤 螝维位位喂蟺蟺慰蟼 蟺位畏蟽喂维味蔚喂谓. Idem Callippus nominari videtur Demosth. 7, 42, cf. Schol. 峥ノ勏壪 峒ξ 峒埼肝肺轿贬繓慰蟼. 2. Aristot. rhet. 1399 a 10: 峒勎晃晃肯 (sc. 蟿蠈蟺慰蟼 蟿峥段 蠁伪喂谓慰渭苇谓蠅谓 峒愇轿赶呂嘉肺嘉勏壩), 峒愊蔚喂未峤 峒愊峤 蟿峥段 蟺位蔚委蟽蟿蠅谓 蟽蠀渭尾伪委谓蔚喂 峤ハ兿勎 峒曄蔚蟽胃伪委 蟿喂 蟿峥 伪峤愊勧糠 峒纬伪胃峤肝 魏伪峤 魏伪魏蠈谓, 峒愇 蟿慰峥 峒魏慰位慰蠀胃慰峥ξ较勎肯 蟺蟻慰蟿蟻苇蟺蔚喂谓 峒 峒蟺慰蟿蟻苇蟺蔚喂谓 魏伪峤 魏伪蟿畏纬慰蟻蔚峥栁 峒 峒蟺慰位慰纬蔚峥栂兾肝蔽 魏伪峤 峒愊伪喂谓蔚峥栁 峒 蠄苇纬蔚喂谓, 5 慰峒肺课 蟿峥 蟺伪喂未蔚蠉蟽蔚喂 蟿峤 蠁胃慰谓蔚峥栂兾肝蔽 峒魏慰位慰蠀胃蔚峥 魏伪魏蠈谓, 蟿峤 未峤 蟽慰蠁峤肝 蔚峒段轿蔽 峒纬伪胃蠈谓. 慰峤 蟿慰委谓蠀谓 未蔚峥 蟺伪喂未蔚蠉蔚蟽胃伪喂, 蠁胃慰谓蔚峥栂兾肝蔽 纬峤跋 慰峤 未蔚峥. 未蔚峥 渭峤参 慰峤栁 蟺伪喂未蔚蠉蔚蟽胃伪喂, 蟽慰蠁峤肝 纬峤跋 蔚峒段轿蔽 未蔚峥, 峤 蟿蠈蟺慰蟼 慰峤椣勏屜 峒愊兿勎刮 峒 螝伪位位委蟺蟺慰蠀 蟿苇蠂谓畏, 蟺蟻慰蟽位伪尾慰峥ο兾 蟿峤 未蠀谓伪蟿峤肝 魏伪峤 蟿峒單晃晃, 峤∠ 蔚峒跋佄兾迪勎蔽. 8. 9 峤∠ 蔚峒聪佄废勎蔽 ll. cf. infra 4.
3. Aristot. rhet. 1399 a 18: 峒勎晃晃肯, 峤呄勎蔽 蟺蔚蟻峤 未蠀慰峥栁 魏伪峤 峒谓蟿喂魏蔚喂渭苇谓慰喂谓 峒 蟺蟻慰蟿蟻苇蟺蔚喂谓 峒 峒蟺慰蟿蟻苇蟺蔚喂谓 未苇畏, {魏伪峤秨 蟿峥 蟺蟻蠈蟿蔚蟻慰谓 蔚峒跋佄肺嘉结砍 蟿蠈蟺峥 峒愊始 峒渭蠁慰峥栁 蠂蟻峥喯兾肝蔽. 未喂伪蠁苇蟻蔚喂 未苇, 峤呄勎 峒愇何滇繓 渭峤参 蟿峤 蟿蠀蠂蠈谓蟿伪 峒谓蟿喂蟿委胃蔚蟿伪喂, 峒愇较勎贬喀胃伪 未峤 蟿峒谓伪谓蟿委伪. 慰峒肺课 峒蔽佄滴刮 慰峤愇 蔚峒次 蟿峤肝 5 蠀峒贬礁谓 未畏渭畏纬慰蟻蔚峥栁铰 峒愥桨谓 渭峤参 纬维蟻, 峒斚單, 蟿峤 未委魏伪喂伪 位苇纬峥兿, 慰峒 峒勎轿赶佅壪慰委 蟽蔚 渭喂蟽萎蟽慰蠀蟽喂谓, 峒愥桨谓 未峤 蟿峤 峒勎次刮何, 慰峒 胃蔚慰委. 未蔚峥 渭峤参 慰峤栁 未畏渭畏纬慰蟻蔚峥栁铰 峒愥桨谓 渭峤参 纬峤跋 蟿峤 未委魏伪喂伪 位苇纬峥兿, 慰峒 胃蔚慰委 蟽蔚 蠁喂位萎蟽慰蠀蟽喂谓, 峒愥桨谓 未峤 蟿峤 峒勎次刮何, 慰峒 峒勎轿赶佅壪慰喂. 蟿慰峥ο勎 未始 峒愊兿勧蕉 蟿伪峤愊勧礁 蟿峥 位蔚纬慰渭苇谓峥 蟿峤 峒曃晃肯 蟺蟻委伪蟽胃伪喂 魏伪峤 蟿慰峤合 峒呂晃毕. 魏伪峤 峒 尾位伪委蟽蠅蟽喂蟼 蟿慰峥ο勏 峒愊兿勎刮, 峤呄勎蔽 未蠀慰峥栁 10 峒愇轿蔽较勎课刮 峒懳何毕勎佱砍 峒纬伪胃峤肝 魏伪峤 魏伪魏峤肝 峒曄畏蟿伪喂, 峒愇轿蔽较勎 峒懳何勎迪佄 峒懳何毕勎佄课瓜. 3 蟿蟻蠈蟺峥 codd. Hic locus cum antecedente tam arcte cohaeret, ut ab eodem Callippo elaboratus videatur.
4. Aristot. rhet. 1399 b 31: 峒勎晃晃肯 魏慰喂谓峤赶 魏伪峤 蟿慰峥栂 峒渭蠁喂蟽尾畏蟿慰峥ο兾刮 魏伪峤 蟿慰峥栂 蟽蠀渭尾慰蠀位蔚蠉慰蠀蟽喂, 蟽魏慰蟺蔚峥栁 蟿峤 蟺蟻慰蟿蟻苇蟺慰谓蟿伪 魏伪委 峒蟺慰蟿蟻苇蟺慰谓蟿伪 魏伪峤 峤 峒曃轿滴何 魏伪峤 蟺蟻维蟿蟿慰蠀蟽喂 魏伪峤 蠁蔚蠉纬慰蠀蟽喂谓. 蟿伪峥ο勎 纬峤跋 峒斚兿勎刮, 峒 峒愥桨谓 渭峤参 峤懴维蟻蠂峥, 未蔚峥 蟺蟻维蟿蟿蔚喂谓, <峒愥桨谓 未峤 渭峤 峤懴维蟻蠂峥, 渭峤 蟺蟻维蟿蟿蔚喂谓,> 慰峒肺课 蔚峒 未蠀谓伪蟿峤肝 魏伪峤 峥メ敬未喂慰谓 魏伪峤 峤犗單晃刮嘉课 峒 伪峤愊勧糠 峒 蠁委位慰喂蟼 峒 尾位伪尾蔚蟻峤肝 峒愊囄赶佄酷繓蟼, 魏峒偽 峒愊喂味萎渭喂慰谓 峋, <蔚峒> 峒愇晃勏勏壩 峒 味畏渭委伪 蟿慰峥 蟺蟻维纬渭伪蟿慰蟼. 魏伪峤 蟺蟻慰蟿蟻苇蟺慰蠀蟽喂 未始 峒愇 蟿慰蠉蟿蠅谓 魏伪峤 峒蟺慰蟿蟻苇蟺慰蠀蟽喂谓 峒愇 蟿峥段 峒愇轿蔽较勎壩, 峒愇 未峤 蟿峥段 伪峤愊勧慷谓 蟿慰蠉蟿蠅谓 魏伪峤 魏伪蟿畏纬慰蟻慰峥ο兾 魏伪峤 峒蟺慰位慰纬慰峥ξ较勎蔽, 峒愇 渭峤参 蟿峥段 峒蟺慰蟿蟻蔚蟺蠈谓蟿蠅谓 峒蟺慰位慰纬慰峥ξ较勎蔽, 峒愇 未峤 蟿峥段 10 蟺蟻慰蟿蟻蔚蟺蠈谓蟿蠅谓 魏伪蟿畏纬慰蟻慰峥ο兾刮. 峒斚兿勎 未始 峤 蟿蠈蟺慰蟼 慰峤椣勎肯 峤呂晃 蟿苇蠂谓畏 峒 蟿蔚 螤伪渭蠁委位慰蠀 魏伪峤 峒 螝伪位位委蟺蟺慰蠀. 1 魏伪峤 峒愊喂味萎渭喂慰谓 峒 2 蟺蟻慰蟿蟻苇蟺慰谓蟿伪喂 鈥 峒蟺慰蟿蟻苇蟺慰谓蟿伪喂 Alius est Pamphilus quem laudat Quint. inst. 3, 6, 34, de Ciceronis Pamphilo rhetore (de orat. 3, 21, 81) non constat. Callippi non artem scriptam intellegi, sed ea artificia, quae in orationibus adhibuerat, Spengel ad Ar. rhet. p. 317 iudicavit, argumentis futilibus usus. Quis credat illas 蟿苇蠂谓伪蟼, quales singuli sophistae edebant, semper totam artem rhetoricam exhausisse? Immo Callippi exemplum docet singula inventa interdum ese arte elaborata, illustrata. Ceterum vide, qua ratione auctor ad Her. 2, 2, 3 蟿峤 蔚峒拔合屜 interpretetur: 鈥榩robabile est, per quod probatur expedisse peccare et ab simili turpitudine hominem numquam afuisse. Id dividitur in causam et in vitam. Causa est ea, quae induxit ad maleficium commodorum <spe aut incommodorum> vitatione, cum quaeritur, num quod commodum maleficio appetierit, num honorem, num pecuniam, num dominationem.始 Quibus in verbis tota 蟿慰峥 蔚峒拔合屜勎肯 doctrina Callippi praecepto tamquam altero pede videtur niti. Neque vero discipulum non agnosces Isocratis 15, 217 docentis: 蟺蟻峥断勎课 渭峤参 慰峤栁 峤佅佄兾毕兾肝蔽 未蔚峥, 蟿委谓蠅谓 峒蟻蔚纬蠈渭蔚谓慰喂... 蟿慰位渭峥断兾 蟿喂谓蔚蟼 峒未喂魏蔚峥栁... 峒愇翅郊 渭峤参 慰峤栁 峒∥次课结繂蟼 峒 魏苇蟻未慰蠀蟼 峒 蟿喂渭峥喯 峒曃轿滴何 蠁畏渭峤 蟺维谓蟿伪蟼 蟺维谓蟿伪 蟺蟻维蟿蟿蔚喂谓. 峒斘鞠 纬峤跋 蟿慰蠉蟿蠅谓 慰峤愇次滴嘉蔽 峒愊喂胃蠀渭委伪谓 峤佅佱慷 蟿慰峥栂 峒谓胃蟻蠋蟺慰喂蟼 峒愇澄澄刮澄轿课嘉轿肺.
5. Philod. rhet. I p. 196. C慰l. XV a 3 S.: 谓峤 螖喂鈥 峒位位峤 螖畏渭慰蟽胃苇谓畏蟼 魏伪峤 蟺蟻峥断勎课 峒斘晃滴澄 魏伪峤 未蔚蠉蟿蔚蟻慰谓 魏伪峤 蟿蟻委蟿慰谓 蔚峒段轿蔽 蟿峤次 峤懴蠈魏蟻委蟽喂谓 峒愇 蟿[峥 峥ノ废勎縘蟻喂魏峥, 螝伪位位喂蟺蟺委[未畏蟼 未]峤 魏伪峤 螡蔚喂魏蠈蟽蟿蟻伪蟿慰蟼 鈥 峒愇翅郊 蠁萎蟽蠅 鈥 蟿峤 蟺峋段 峒愇 蟿蟻伪纬蠅未委峋斥
|
XXIX. Callippus (Pamphilus) 1. Isocrates 15.93: Among the first to begin studying with me were Eunomus, Lysitheides, and Callippus. The same Callippus seems to be named in Demosth. 7.42, cf. Schol.: 鈥楬e was an Athenian orator.鈥 2. Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.23 1399a11-18: Again, since in most human affairs the same thing is accompanied by some bad or good result, another topic consists in employing the consequence to exhort or dissuade, accuse or defend, praise or blame. For instance, education is attended by the evil of being envied, and by the good of being wise; therefore we should not be educated, for we should avoid being envied; nay rather, we should be educated, for we should be wise. This topic is identical with the 鈥淎rt鈥 of Callippus, when you have also included the topic of the possible and the others that have been mentioned. Cf. below, 4.
3. Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.23 1399a18-29: Another topic may be employed when it is necessary to exhort or dissuade in regard to two opposites, and one has to employ the method previously stated in the case of both. But there is this difference, that in the former case things of any kind whatever are opposed, in the latter opposites. For instance, a priestess refused to allow her son to speak in public; 鈥淔or if,鈥 said she, 鈥測ou say what is just, men will hate you; if you say what is unjust, the gods will.鈥 On the other hand, 鈥測ou should speak in public; for if you say what is just, the gods will love you, if you say what is unjust, men will.鈥 This is the same as the proverb, 鈥淭o buy the swamp with the salt鈥; and retorting a dilemma on its proposer takes place when, two things being opposite, good and evil follow on each, the good and evil being opposite like the things themselves. This passage is so closely connected with the preceding one that it seems to have been composed by the same Callippus.
4. Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.23 1399b31鈥1400a4: Another topic common to forensic and deliberative rhetoric consists in examining what is hortatory and dissuasive, and the reasons which make men act or not. Now, these are the reasons which, if they exist, determine us to act, if not, not; for instance, if a thing is possible, easy, or useful to ourselves or our friends, or injurious and prejudicial to our enemies, or if the penalty is less than the profit. From these grounds we exhort, and dissuade from their contraries. It is on the same grounds that we accuse and defend; for what dissuades serves for defence, what persuades, for accusation. This topic comprises the whole 鈥淎rt鈥 of Pamphilus and Callippus. The Pamphilus cited in Quint. 3.6.34 is a different one. It is not clear who is the orator Pamphilus mentioned by Cicero (de orat. 3.21.81). Spengel on Aristotle Rhetoric p. 317 argues that this passage refers not to a written treatise by Callippus but to the tricks he employed in his speeches; his arguments for this conclusion are however extremely weak. Who would believe that such 鈥榯reatises鈥 as the individual sophists published always exhausted the entire art of rhetoric? On the contrary, Callippus鈥 example teaches that individual inventions were often expanded upon and illustrated by a treatise. See, besides, in which way the anonymous Ad Herennium explains 鈥榯he plausible鈥 (2.2.3): 鈥楾he plausible is that through which it is demonstrated that it was advantageous to commit a crime and that the defendant has never refrained from such shameful acts. Here there is a distinction between cause and lifestyle. The cause is what led to the misdeed through hope for advantages or avoidance of disadvantages, and in this case one asks which advantage the defendant was seeking through the misdeed, whether honor, money, or power.鈥 In these words the entire doctrine of 鈥榯he plausible鈥 seems to stand on Callippus鈥 teaching as though on one of the feet. You will also recognize the student of Callippus speaking when Isocrates teaches (15.217): 鈥楩irst, one must define which goals people desire to obtain when they dare to commit evil. [鈥 I for my part say that they all commit all of their crimes either for pleasure or for gain or for honor. I do not see in people any desires other than these ones.鈥
5. Philodemus, On Rhetoric: By Zeus, Demosthenes said that the first, second and third thing in rhetoric is acting. Callippides and Nicostratus 鈥 I shall say 鈥 [claim that it is?] all in tragedy鈥
|