IX. THRASYMACHUS (Cf. A V 1 sq. V慰rsokratiker 78. 855) 1. Sud. lex. s. v.: 螛蟻伪蟽蠉渭伪蠂慰蟼路 围伪位魏畏未蠈谓喂慰蟼 蟽慰蠁喂蟽蟿峤聪 蟿峥喯 峒愇 螔喂胃蠀谓委峋 围伪位魏畏未蠈谓慰蟼 ... 渭伪胃畏蟿峤聪 (l. 魏伪胃畏纬畏蟿峤聪 Bernhardy) 螤位维蟿蠅谓慰蟼 蟿慰峥 蠁喂位慰蟽蠈蠁慰蠀 魏伪峤 峒赶兾课合佄勎肯呄 蟿慰峥 峥ノ勎肯佄肯. 峒斘诚佄毕埼 危蠀渭尾慰蠀位蔚蠀蟿喂魏慰蠉蟼, 韦苇蠂谓畏谓 峥ノ废勎肯佄刮何, 螤伪委纬谓喂伪, 峒埾單肯佄坚桨蟼 峥ノ废勎肯佄刮何. Cf. Aristot. Soph. el. 33, 183 b 29 (supra A V 6) - 畏峤愇疚何毕兾 韦蔚喂蟽委伪蟼 渭峤参 渭蔚蟿峤 蟿慰峤合 蟺蟻蠋蟿慰蠀蟼, 螛蟻伪蟽蠉渭伪蠂慰蟼 未峤 渭蔚蟿峤 韦蔚喂渭蟽委伪谓. - De singulorum librorum argumentis v. Schwartz p. 4 sq., Navarre 155, Maas, Hermae 22, 575 sq. (Pl枚bst 17 adn. 2).
2. Schol. Aristoph. Av. 880: 蟿峤 伪峤愊勧桨 蟿慰峥栂 螛蔚慰蟺蠈渭蟺慰蠀 (de Atheniensibus pro Chiorum salute precantibus) 魏伪峤 螛蟻伪蟽蠉渭伪蠂蠈蟼 蠁畏蟽喂谓 峒愇 蟿峥 螠蔚纬维位畏 韦苇蠂谓畏. Artem Plato quoque testari videtur Phaedri 261 C, 266 C. D.
3. Plato Phaedr. 271 A (Socrates, sua ipsius praecepta dans) 未峥單晃课 峒勏佄, 峤呄勎 峤 螛蟻伪蟽蠉渭伪蠂蠈蟼 蟿蔚 魏伪峤 峤兿 峒偽 峒勎晃晃肯 蟽蟺慰蠀未峥 蟿苇蠂谓畏谓 峥ノ废勎肯佄刮横酱谓 未喂未峥, 蟺蟻峥断勎课 蟺维蟽峥 峒魏蟻喂尾蔚委峋 纬蟻维蠄蔚喂 蟿蔚 魏伪峤 蟺慰喂萎蟽蔚喂 蠄蠀蠂峤次 峒拔次滇繓谓.
4. Ibid. 269 D: 蔚峒 渭苇谓 蟽慰喂 峤懴维蟻蠂蔚喂 蠁蠉蟽蔚喂 峥ノ废勎肯佄刮横糠 蔚峒段轿蔽, 峒斚兾滴 峥ノ勏壪 峒愇晃幌屛澄刮嘉肯, 蟺蟻慰蟽位伪尾峤嘉 峒愊喂蟽蟿萎渭畏谓 蟿蔚 魏伪峤 渭蔚位苇蟿畏谓路 峤呄勎肯 未始 峒偽 峒愇晃晃峥兿 蟿慰蠉蟿蠅谓, 蟿伪蠉蟿峥 峒蟿蔚位峤聪 峒斚兾滴. 峤呄兾课 未峤 伪峤愊勎酷喀 蟿苇蠂谓畏, 慰峤愊, 峋 螞蠀蟽委伪蟼 蟿蔚 魏伪峤 螛蟻伪蟽蠉渭伪蠂慰蟼 蟺慰蟻蔚蠉蔚蟿伪喂, 未慰魏蔚峥 渭慰喂 蠁伪委谓蔚蟽胃伪喂 峒 渭苇胃慰未慰蟼. Thrasymachum 蟽蟺慰蠀未峥喯 峒勎疚刮 invenisse ante Aristotelis 峥ノ废勎肯佄刮横桨 蟺伪蟻伪纬纬苇位渭伪蟿伪 testatur Dionysius Hal. ad Amm. I p. 259, 1 sq.
5. Philod. rhet. p. I 86, 11 (laudans Metrodori verba 峒愇 蟿峥 蟺蟻蠋蟿峥 蟺蔚蟻峤 蟺慰喂畏渭维蟿蠅谓): 魏伪峤 峒勎晃晃肯匸蟼 蟿慰喂慰蠉蟿慰蠀蟼] 蔚峒跋[蔚峥栁絔 渭峤参 峒愇 蟺位萎胃蔚喂 蟺蔚蟻峤 蟿峥段 蟺位萎胃蔚喂 蠂蟻畏蟽委渭蠅谓 峒蔽何盵谓慰蠉蟼, 蟿]峤次 {未峤瞹 螛蟻伪蟽蠀渭维[蠂慰蠀 蟿苇]蠂谓畏谓 峒 峒勎晃晃肯 峤佅勎縖蠀未萎蟺慰蟿始] 伪峤愊勧慷谓 慰峤 渭[伪胃蠈]谓蟿[伪蟼 蟺伪谓蟿蔚]位峥禰蟼], 峒愊喂[蟽蟿维]蟿伪蟼 [未峤 峤勎絔蟿伪蟼 魏伪蟿伪[谓慰蔚峥栁, 峤 未苇慰谓] 峒懳何兿勎肯勈 峒ξ, 蟿慰峤合 蟿慰喂慰蠉蟿慰蠀蟼 峒谓胃蟻蠋[蟺慰蠀蟼. 蟿慰峤怾谓伪谓蟿委慰谓 [未始 峒愊]维[纬蔚喂 蟺]伪蟻伪未[蔚喂魏]谓蠉蠅谓, [螛]蟻伪[蟽蠉]渭伪蠂慰谓 魏伪峤 峒勎晃晃肯呄 慰峤愇 峤位委纬慰蠀蟼 蟿峥段 未慰魏慰蠉谓蟿蠅谓 蟿峤跋 蟿慰喂伪蠉蟿伪蟼 峒斚囄滴刮 位蠈纬蠅谓 蟺慰位喂蟿喂魏峥段 峒 峥ノ废勎肯佄刮横慷谓 蟿苇蠂谓伪蟼 慰峤愇肝, 峤 蠁伪蟽喂谓 峒斚囄滴刮 蟿峤跋 蟿苇蠂谓伪[蟼, 蟽蠀谓蟿]蔚[位慰峥谓蟿伪蟼, [峒愊蔚喂未峤拔 谓慰渭慰]胃苇蟿伪喂 峤ο兾刮. Supplementa partim incerta; v. Sudhaus, Philodemi Supplementum p. 43.
6. Plato Phaedr. 267 C: 蟿峥段 纬蔚 渭峤次 慰峒拔合勏佄课诚屜壩 峒愊峤 纬峥喯佄毕 魏伪峤 蟺蔚谓委伪谓 峒懳晃何课嘉较壩 位蠈纬蠅谓 魏蔚魏蟻伪蟿畏魏苇谓伪喂 蟿苇蠂谓峥 渭慰喂 蠁伪委谓蔚蟿伪喂 蟿峤 蟿慰峥 围伪位魏畏未慰谓委慰蠀 蟽胃苇谓慰蟼, 峤蟻纬委蟽伪喂 蟿蔚 伪峤 蟺慰位位慰峤合 峒呂嘉 未蔚喂谓峤赶 峒谓峤聪 纬苇纬慰谓蔚谓, 魏伪峤 蟺维位喂谓 峤犗佄澄瓜兾嘉轿课瓜 峒愊峋次聪壩 魏畏位蔚峥栁, 峤∠ 峒斚單, 未喂伪尾维位位蔚喂谓 蟿蔚 魏伪峤 峒蟺慰位蠉蟽伪蟽胃伪喂 未喂伪尾慰位峤跋 峤佄肝滴轿瘁酱 魏蟻维蟿喂蟽蟿慰蟼. 蟿峤 未峤 未峤 蟿苇位慰蟼 蟿峥段 位蠈纬蠅谓 魏慰喂谓峥 蟺峋断兾刮 峒斘课刮何 蟽蠀谓未蔚未慰纬渭苇谓慰谓 蔚峒段轿蔽, 峋 蟿喂谓蔚蟼 渭峤参 峒愊维谓慰未慰谓, 峒勎晃晃课 未峤 峒勎晃晃 蟿委胃蔚谓蟿伪喂 峤勎轿课嘉. 峒樜晃肯呄 (v. i.) tangit, 峒愇晃滴滴刮轿课晃课澄蔽 vocat Phaedri 272 A. Rei nihil addit Hermias ad locum (p. 239, p. 192 Ast, 螣r. Att. fr. p. 164 Sauppii). Cf. Aristot. rhet. 1354 a 14 慰峒 未峤 (sc. 慰峒 蟿峤跋 蟿苇蠂谓伪蟼 蟿峥段 位蠈纬蠅谓 蟽蠀谓蟿喂胃苇谓蟿蔚蟼) 蟺蔚蟻峤 渭峤参 峒愇轿赶呂嘉肺嘉勏壩 慰峤愇瘁讲谓 位苇纬慰蠀蟽喂谓, 峤呄蔚蟻 峒愊兿勧蕉 蟽峥段嘉 蟿峥喯 蟺委蟽蟿蔚蠅蟼, 蟺蔚蟻峤 未峤 蟿峥段 峒斘鞠 蟿慰峥 蟺蟻维纬渭伪蟿慰蟼 蟿峤 蟺位蔚峥栂兿勎 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿蔚蠉慰谓蟿伪喂. 未喂伪尾慰位峤 纬峤跋 魏伪峤 峒斘晃滴肯 魏伪峤 峤蟻纬峤 魏伪峤 蟿峤 蟿慰喂伪峥ο勎 蟺维胃畏 蟿峥喯 蠄蠀蠂峥喯 慰峤 蟺蔚蟻峤 蟿慰峥 蟺蟻维纬渭伪蟿蠈蟼 峒愊兿勎刮, 峒位位峤 蟺蟻峤赶 蟿峤肝 未喂魏伪蟽蟿萎谓. Thrasymachum idem respicit 1356 a 15, respicit fortasse Thucydides, cum Cleonem dicentem inducit (III 40, 2): 峒愇翅郊 渭峤参 慰峤栁 魏伪峤 蟿蠈蟿蔚 蟺蟻峥断勎课 魏伪峤 谓峥ξ 未喂伪渭维蠂慰渭伪喂 渭峤 渭蔚蟿伪纬谓峥段轿蔽 峤懳坚径蟼 蟿峤 蟺蟻慰未蔚未慰纬渭苇谓伪 渭畏未峤 蟿蟻喂蟽峤 蟿慰峥栂 峒尉蠀渭蠁慰蟻蠅蟿维蟿慰喂蟼 蟿峥 峒蟻蠂峥, 慰峒次合勧砍 魏伪峤 峒∥次课结繃 位蠈纬蠅谓 魏伪峤 峒愊喂蔚喂魏蔚委峋, 峒佄嘉毕佅勎轿滴刮. 峒斘晃迪屜 蟿蔚 纬峤跋 蟺蟻峤赶 蟿慰峤合 峤佄嘉课肯呄 未委魏伪喂慰蟼 峒谓蟿喂未委未慰蟽胃伪喂 魏蟿位. 围enophon Cyrop. II 2, 13 峒愇 位蠈纬慰喂蟼 慰峒拔合勏佄 蟿喂谓伪 位慰纬慰蟺慰喂慰峥ξ较勎迪 蔚峒跋 未维魏蟻蠀伪 蟺蔚喂蟻峥段较勎蔽 峒勎澄滴刮 (峒斘轿刮课). Quint. 3, 1, 12: adfectus (scil. primi tractasse dicuntur) Prodicus, Hippias et idem Protagoras et Thrasymachus. V. Drerup, Die Anf盲nge der rhetorischen Kunstprosa 226. Platonis Cicero memor est de orat. 1, 12, 53. Ceterum notabis puros numeros: 蟿峥段 纬蔚 渭峤次 鈥 位蠈纬蠅谓 [metrical scheme] ex quo conicias in 峒愇晃壩 exemplis admodum numerosam fuisse sophistae orationem, cf. infra Ciceronis in Oratore testimonium (52, 175).
7. Lysias 24, 7: 渭峤 蟿慰委谓蠀谓, 峒愊蔚喂未萎 纬蔚 峒斚兿勎刮, 峤 尾慰蠀位萎, 蟽峥断兾蔽 渭蔚 未喂魏伪委蠅蟼, 峒蟺慰位苇蟽畏蟿蔚 峒未委魏蠅蟼路 渭畏未峤 峒 谓蔚蠅蟿苇蟻峥 魏伪峤 渭峋段晃晃课 峒愊佅佄枷壩嘉结砍 峤勎较勎 峒斘次肯勎, 蟺蟻蔚蟽尾蠉蟿蔚蟻慰谓 魏伪峤 峒蟽胃蔚谓苇蟽蟿蔚蟻慰谓 纬喂纬谓蠈渭蔚谓慰谓 峒蠁苇位畏蟽胃蔚 ... (8) 魏伪峤 纬峤跋 峒偽 峒勏勎肯慰谓 蔚峒次, 峤 尾慰蠀位萎, 蔚峒, 峤呄勎 渭峤参 峒佅位峥 渭慰喂 峒ξ 峒 蟽蠀渭蠁慰蟻维, 蟿蠈蟿蔚 渭峤参 蠁伪喂谓慰委渭畏谓 位伪渭尾维谓蠅谓 蟿峤 峒蟻纬蠉蟻喂慰谓 蟿慰峥ο勎, 谓峥ξ 未始 峒愊蔚喂未峤 魏伪峤 纬峥喯佄毕 魏伪峤 谓蠈蟽慰喂 魏伪峤 蟿峤 蟿慰蠉蟿慰喂蟼 峒愇轿迪囅屛嘉滴轿 魏伪魏峤 蟺蟻慰蟽纬委纬谓蔚蟿伪委 渭慰喂, 蟿蠈蟿蔚 峒蠁伪喂蟻蔚胃蔚委畏谓. 未慰魏蔚峥 未苇 渭慰喂 蟿峥喯 蟺蔚谓委伪蟼 蟿峥喯 峒愇坚繂蟼 蟿峤 渭苇纬蔚胃慰蟼 峤 魏伪蟿萎纬慰蟻慰蟼 峒偽 峒愊喂未蔚峥栁疚蔽 蟽伪蠁苇蟽蟿伪蟿伪 魏蟿位. 6 峒愊囅屛嘉滴轿. Egregium 蟿峥段 峒愊峤 纬峥喯佄毕 魏伪峤 蟺蔚谓委伪谓 峒懳晃何课嘉较壩 位蠈纬蠅谓 exemplum. Anaximenes 34 p. 77, 10 H.: 蔚峤愊慰蟻萎蟽慰渭蔚谓 未峤 峒愇晃滴滴刮结桨 蟺慰喂蔚峥栁, 峒呄蔚蟻 峒偽 峒愇肝幌壩嘉滴, 峒愥桨谓 蟽蠀谓蔚喂未峥段嘉滴, 峤呄勎 蟺维谓蟿蔚蟼 峒愇晃滴酷喀蟽喂 蟿慰蠉蟿慰蠀蟼, 慰峤曄 ... 慰峒次课较勎蔽 峒谓伪尉委慰蠀蟼 蔚峒段轿蔽 未蠀蟽蟿蠀蠂蔚峥栁, porro Aristot. rhet. 1386 a 4 sq. (9 纬峥喯佄毕 魏伪峤 谓蠈蟽慰喂 魏伪峤 蟿蟻慰蠁峥喯 峒斘轿次滴刮). Dinarchus 1, 108 慰峤愇瘁讲 蟺蟻慰蔚蟿苇慰谓, 峒愥桨谓 蟽蠅蠁蟻慰谓峥喯勎, 蟿慰峥栂 螖畏渭慰蟽胃苇谓慰蠀蟼 峒愇晃课瓜 蟿峤次 魏慰喂谓峤次 魏伪峤 未喂魏伪委伪谓 峤懴峤蚕 蟿峥喯 蟺蠈位蔚蠅蟼 峒蟺慰位慰纬委伪谓 (cf. 1, 111). Thucyd. III 67, Christel in Opusculis philologicis I, Wien 1926, 33 sq. Lysiam vero ex Thrasymacho hausisse cave ne contendas, misericordiae enim movendae usum in iudiciis Atheniensium tritum fuisse loci docent, qualis est Aristoph. Vesp. 550 sq., Platonis Apol. 34 C. Artis exempla finxerat Thrasymachus.
8. Plut. quaest. conv. 616 C. D: 峒蟿慰蟺蠋蟿蔚蟻慰蟼 未始 峤 蟺慰喂峥段 峒懳毕呄勧礁谓 峒谓胃始 峒懴兿勎刮勎肯佄肯 未喂魏伪蟽蟿峤次 魏伪峤 魏蟻喂蟿峤次 蟿峥段 慰峤愇 峒愊喂蟿蟻蔚蟺蠈谓蟿蠅谓 慰峤愇瘁讲 魏蟻喂谓慰渭苇谓蠅谓, 蟿委蟼 峒愊兿勎 尾蔚位蟿委蠅谓 蟿委谓慰蟼 峒 蠂蔚委蟻蠅谓. 慰峤 纬峤跋 蔚峒跋 峒纬峥段轿 魏伪胃蔚委魏伪蟽喂谓, 峒位位始 峒愊峤 未蔚峥栂谓慰谓 峒ノ何肯呄兾刮. 峒位位始 慰峤愇词 蔚峤愊囄迪佱酱蟼 峒 未喂维魏蟻喂蟽委蟼 峒愊兿勎 ..., 峒位位峤 未蔚峥, 魏伪胃维蟺蔚蟻 峤懴蠈胃蔚蟽喂谓 渭蔚位蔚蟿峥段较勎 蟽蠀纬魏蟻喂蟿喂魏萎谓, 蟿慰峤合 峒埾佄瓜兿勎肯勎晃肯呄 蟿蠈蟺慰蠀蟼 峒 蟿慰峤合 螛蟻伪蟽蠀渭维蠂慰蠀 峤懴蔚蟻尾维位位慰谓蟿伪蟼 峒斚囄滴刮 蟺蟻慰蠂蔚委蟻慰蠀蟼, 慰峤愇瘁讲谓 蟿峥段 蠂蟻畏蟽委渭蠅谓 未喂伪蟺蟻伪蟿蟿蠈渭蔚谓慰谓, 峒位位峤 蟿峤次 魏蔚谓峤次 未蠈尉伪谓 峒愇 蟿峥喯 峒纬慰蟻峋断 魏伪峤 蟿峥段 胃蔚维蟿蟻蠅谓 蔚峒跋 蟿峤 蟽蠀渭蟺蠈蟽喂伪 渭蔚蟿维纬慰谓蟿伪. 蟽蠉纬魏蟻喂蟽喂谓 a Thrasymacho exercitatam esse e Plutarchi testimonio concluditur, ea vero opposita, quae in Lysiae verbis supra prolatis misericordiae movendae gratia proferuntur, ex comparatione temporum derivari in propatulo est. Item 峒愇 蟽蠀纬魏蟻委蟽蔚蠅蟼 sunt illa 蔚峒拔合屜勎, quae Andocides 1, 3 et 1, 6 sq. ad iudicum animos movendos profert, quod prooemium universum ex technographo aliquo haustum esse inter omnes constat. Denique in Antiphontis or. 1, 21 sq. inesse 蟽蠉纬魏蟻喂蟽喂谓 misericordiae movendae gratia, quod ad Thrasymachi 峒愇晃肯呄 bene quadrat, recte monet W. Schmid, Gesch. d gr. Lit. III 1, p. 106, 4. V. etiam E. Schwartz l. l. p. 5.
9. Athenaeus X 416 a: 螛蟻伪蟽蠉渭伪蠂慰蟼 未始 峤 围伪位魏畏未蠈谓喂慰蟼 峒斘 蟿喂谓喂 蟿峥段 蟺蟻慰慰喂渭委蠅谓 蟿峤肝 韦喂渭慰魏蟻苇慰谓蟿维 蠁畏蟽喂谓 峤∠ 渭苇纬伪谓 尾伪蟽喂位苇伪 峒蠁喂魏蠈渭蔚谓慰谓 魏伪峤 尉蔚谓喂味蠈渭蔚谓慰谓 蟺伪蟻始 伪峤愊勧糠 蟺慰位位峤 峒愇枷單肯佄滇繓蟽胃伪喂. 蟺蠀胃慰渭苇谓慰蠀 未峤 蟿慰峥 尾伪蟽喂位苇蠅蟼, 峤 蟿喂 峒蟺峤 蟿慰蠉蟿蠅谓 峒愊佄澄段课瓜勎, 蔚峒断蔚 螤蔚蟻蟽峥段 5 峒谓伪蟻喂胃渭萎蟿慰蠀蟼 蟽蠀纬魏蠈蠄蔚喂谓. 魏伪峤 蟿峥 峤懴兿勎迪佄蔽境 蟺慰位位慰峤合 魏伪胃始 峒曃轿 谓喂魏萎蟽伪蟼 渭蔚蟿峤 蟿慰峥ο勎 峒愊囄滴瓜佄课较屛嘉废兾. 蟺蠀谓胃伪谓慰渭苇谓慰蠀 未峤 蟿峤次 蟺蟻蠈蠁伪蟽喂谓, 峤懴慰位蔚委蟺蔚蟽胃伪喂 峒斚單 蟿慰蟽伪蠉蟿伪蟼, 蔚峒 蟺蟻慰蟽委慰喂 蟿喂蟼, 蟺位畏纬维蟼. 6.7 峒蟺慰位蔚委蟺蔚蟽胃伪喂. Aristoph. Vesp. 566 de causam dicentibus apud iudices 慰峒 未峤 位苇纬慰蠀蟽喂谓 渭蠉胃慰蠀蟼 峒∥坚繓谓, 慰峒 未始 螒峒跋兿幭慰蠀 蟿喂 纬苇位慰喂慰谓. Rei confirmandae gratia v. Aesopi fab. 117 (63 Hausrath). Scholion in Platonis Phaedri 260 C. Anonym. Segueri 99, p. 369, 21 H. 蟺慰喂蔚峥 蟿蔚 峒∥次课结酱谓 峒愇轿肯勎 魏伪峤 峒蟻蠂伪喂慰位慰纬委伪 蟺伪蟻伪位畏蠁胃蔚峥栂兾 蔚峤愇何蔽佅壪, 峤∠ 蟺伪蟻始 峤櫹蔚蟻委未峥 峤 蟿峥喯 螞畏蟿慰峥ο 渭峥ξ肝肯. Igitur talia ad 魏伪喂蟻慰峥 artem pertinent.
10. Di慰nysius Hal. de Isaeo p. 122, 21 sq. U. R. Thrasymachum unum 蟿峥段 蟿慰峤合 峒魏蟻喂尾蔚峥栂 蟺蟻慰伪喂蟻慰蠀渭苇谓蠅谓 位蠈纬慰蠀蟼 魏伪峤 蟺蟻峤赶 蟿峤次 峒愇轿蔽诚幬轿刮课 峒蟽魏慰蠉谓蟿蠅谓 峥ノ废刼蟻喂魏萎谓 fuisse iudicat, idem de eodem, de Lys. p. 13, 23: 渭蔚蟿峤 蟿伪蠉蟿伪蟼 峒蟻蔚蟿峤次 蔚峤懴佄兾合 蟺伪蟻峤 螞蠀蟽委峋 蟺维谓蠀 5 胃伪蠀渭伪蟽蟿萎谓, 峒 螛蔚蠈蠁蟻伪蟽蟿慰蟼 渭苇谓 蠁畏蟽喂谓 峒勏佄疚蔽 螛蟻伪蟽蠉渭伪蠂慰谓 (蟺. 位. fr. III), 峒愇翅郊 未始 峒∥澄酷喀渭伪喂 螞蠀蟽委伪谓. - (14, 9) 蟿委蟼 未始 峒斚兿勎刮, 峒ノ 蠁畏渭喂 峒蟻蔚蟿萎谓; 峒 蟽蠀蟽蟿蟻苇蠁慰蠀蟽伪 蟿峤 谓慰萎渭伪蟿伪 魏伪峤 蟽蟿蟻慰纬纬蠉位蠅蟼 峒愇合單佄肯呄兾 位苇尉喂蟼, 慰峒拔何滴 蟺维谓蠀 魏伪峤 峒谓伪纬魏伪委伪 蟿慰峥栂 未喂魏伪谓喂魏慰峥栂 位蠈纬慰喂蟼 魏伪峤 蟺伪谓蟿峤 峒位畏胃蔚峥 峒纬峥段轿. 蟿伪蠉蟿畏谓 峤位委纬慰喂 渭峤参 峒愇嘉刮嘉兾蔽较勎, 螖畏渭慰蟽胃苇谓畏蟼 未峤 魏伪峤 10 峤懴蔚蟻蔚尾维位蔚蟿慰. Idem de Isaeo p. 123, 10: 螛蟻伪蟽蠉渭伪蠂慰蟼 未峤 魏伪胃伪蟻峤赶 渭峤参 魏伪峤 位蔚蟺蟿峤赶 魏伪峤 未蔚喂谓峤赶 蔚峤懴佄滇繓谓 蟿蔚 魏伪峤 蔚峒跋蔚峥栁 蟽蟿蟻慰纬纬蠉位蠅蟼 魏伪峤 蟺蔚蟻喂蟿蟿峥断, 峤 尾慰蠉位蔚蟿伪喂, 蟺峋断 未苇 峒愊兿勎刮 峒愇 蟿慰峥栂 蟿蔚蠂谓慰纬蟻伪蠁喂魏慰峥栂 魏伪峤 峒愊喂未蔚喂魏蟿喂魏慰峥栂, 未喂魏伪谓喂魏慰峤合 未峤 峒 蟽蠀渭尾慰蠀位蔚蠀蟿喂魏慰峤合 慰峤愇 峒蟺慰位苇位慰喂蟺蔚 位蠈纬慰蠀蟼 (峒 蟽蠀渭尾慰蠀位蔚蠀蟿喂魏慰峤合 del. E. Schwartz). Idem de Demosth. 15 p. 132, 3: 蟿蟻委蟿畏 位苇尉蔚蠅蟼 <峒拔次> 峒ξ 峒 渭喂魏蟿萎 蟿蔚 魏伪峤 蟽蠉谓胃蔚蟿慰蟼 峒愇 蟿慰蠉蟿蠅谓 蟿峥段 未蠀蔚峥栁 (峒跋兿囄结繂蟼 魏伪峤 蟺蔚蟻喂蟿蟿峥喯), 峒Ｎ 峤 渭峤参 蟺蟻峥断勎肯 峒佅佄嘉肯兾嘉滴轿肯 魏伪峤 魏伪蟿伪蟽蟿萎蟽伪蟼 蔚峒跋 蟿峤肝 谓峥ξ 峤懴维蟻蠂慰谓蟿伪 魏蠈蟽渭慰谓 蔚峒聪勎 螛蟻伪蟽蠉渭伪蠂慰蟼 峤 螝伪位蠂畏未蠈谓喂慰蟼 峒ξ, 峤∠ 慰峒次迪勎蔽 螛蔚蠈蠁蟻伪蟽蟿慰蟼 (fr. IV), 蔚峒聪勎 峒勎晃晃肯 蟿喂蟼, 慰峤愇 峒斚囅 位苇纬蔚喂谓. - (132, 13) 峒 渭峤参 慰峤栁 螛蟻伪蟽蠀渭维蠂慰蠀 20 位苇尉喂蟼, 峒 未峤 蟺畏纬萎 蟿喂蟼 峒ξ 峤勎较勏壪 蟿峥喯 渭蔚蟽蠈蟿畏蟿慰蟼, 伪峤愊勧酱谓 蟿峤次 蟺蟻慰伪委蟻蔚蟽喂谓 峒斘课刮何滴 峒斚囄滴刮 蟽蟺慰蠀未峥喯 峒尉委伪谓. 魏苇魏蟻伪蟿伪喂 纬峤跋 蔚峤 蟺蠅蟼 魏伪峤 伪峤愊勧礁 蟿峤 蠂蟻萎蟽喂渭慰谓 蔚峒次晃废單滴 峒懳何毕勎佄毕. 未蠀谓维渭蔚喂 未始 峤∠ 慰峤愇 峒聪冡績 <蟿峥> 尾慰蠀位萎蟽蔚喂 魏苇蠂蟻畏蟿伪喂, 蟺伪蟻维未蔚喂纬渭伪 峒愇 峒懳结礁蟼 蟿峥段 未畏渭畏纬慰蟻喂魏峥段 位蠈纬蠅谓 蟿蠈未蔚: 鈥樶紣尾慰蠀位蠈渭畏谓 渭苇谓, 峤 峒埼肝肺轿贬繓慰喂, 渭蔚蟿伪蟽蠂蔚峥栁 峒愇何滴轿肯 蟿慰峥 蠂蟻蠈谓慰蠀 蟿慰峥 蟺伪位伪喂慰峥 25 魏伪峤 蟿峥段 蟺蟻伪纬渭维蟿蠅谓, 峒∥轿何 蟽喂蠅蟺峋段 峒蟺苇蠂蟻畏 蟿慰峥栂 谓蔚蠅蟿苇蟻慰喂蟼, 蟿峥段 蟿蔚 蟺蟻伪纬渭维蟿蠅谓 o峤愇 峒谓伪纬魏伪味蠈谓蟿蠅谓 峒纬慰蟻蔚蠉蔚喂谓 魏伪峤 蟿峥段 蟺蟻蔚蟽尾蠀蟿苇蟻蠅谓 峤蟻胃峥断 蟿峤次 蟺蠈位喂谓 峒愊喂蟿蟻慰蟺蔚蠀蠈谓蟿蠅谓. 峒愊蔚喂未峤 未始 蔚峒跋 蟿慰喂慰峥ο勎课 峒∥坚径蟼 峒谓苇胃蔚蟿慰 蠂蟻蠈谓慰谓 峤 未伪委渭蠅谓, 峤ハ兿勎 ... 蟿峥喯 蟺蠈位蔚蠅蟼 峒魏慰蠉蔚喂谓, 蟿峤跋 未峤 蟽蠀渭蠁慰蟻峤跋 <... 峤佅佱径谓> 伪峤愊勎肯嵪, 魏伪峤 蟿慰蠉蟿蠅谓 蟿峤 渭苇纬喂蟽蟿伪 渭峤 胃蔚峥段 峒斚佄澄 30 蔚峒段轿蔽 渭畏未峤 蟿峥喯 蟿蠉蠂畏蟼 峒位位峤 蟿峥段 峒愊喂渭蔚位畏胃苇谓蟿蠅谓, 峒谓维纬魏畏 {未峤瞹 位苇纬蔚喂谓. 峒 纬峤跋 峒谓伪委蟽胃畏蟿慰蟼 峒 魏伪蟻蟿蔚蟻蠋蟿伪蟿蠈蟼 峒愊兿勎刮, 峤呄兿勎瓜 峒愇疚蔽嘉毕佅勎轿滴刮 峒懳毕呄勧礁谓 峒斚勎 蟺伪蟻苇尉蔚喂 蟿慰峥栂 尾慰蠀位慰渭苇谓慰喂蟼 魏伪峤 蟿峥喯 峒懴勎佅壩 峒愊喂尾慰蠀位峥喯 蟿蔚 魏伪峤 魏伪魏委伪蟼 伪峤愊勧礁蟼 峤懴慰蟽蠂萎蟽蔚喂 蟿峤跋 伪峒跋勎毕. 峒呂晃瓜 纬峤跋 峒∥坚繓谓 峤 蟺伪蟻蔚位胃峤嘉 蠂蟻蠈谓慰蟼 魏伪峤 峒谓蟿峤 渭峤参 蔚峒跋佄轿废 峒愇 蟺慰位苇渭峥 纬蔚谓苇蟽胃伪喂 魏伪峤 魏喂谓未蠉谓峥, 蔚峒跋 20 峒 位慰喂蟺萎 蟿喂蟼 峒ξ 22 未蠀谓维渭蔚蠅蟼 峤∠ 未峤 慰峤愇 28 desideratur fere 蟿峤 渭峤参 蔚峤愊勏呄囄嘉毕勎 34 蠂蟻蠈谓慰蟼 魏伪<魏峥段 峒斘肝肺何滴, 慰峒断 蟺蔚蟻喂苇蟽蟿畏> 峒谓蟿峤 H. Weil 未喂峤 魏喂谓未蠉谓蠅谓: cf. Rh. M. 50, 477 蟿蠈谓未蔚 蟿峤肝 蠂蟻蠈谓慰谓 蟿峤次 渭峤参 蟺伪蟻蔚位胃慰峥ο兾蔽 峒∥嘉佄蔽 峒纬伪蟺峥断兾, 蟿峤次 未始 峒愊喂慰峥ο兾蔽 未蔚未喂蠈蟽喂谓, 峒谓蟿峤 未始 峤佄嘉课轿课毕 蔚峒跋 峒斚囄赶佄蔽 魏伪峤 蟿伪蟻伪蠂峤跋 蟺蟻峤赶 峒位位萎位慰蠀蟼 峒蠁喂魏苇蟽胃伪喂. 魏伪峤 蟿慰峤合 渭峤参 峒勎晃晃肯呄 蟿峤 蟺位峥單肝肯 蟿峥段 峒纬伪胃峥段 峤懳蚕佄段滴刮 蟿蔚 蟺慰喂蔚峥 魏伪峤 蟽蟿伪蟽喂维味蔚喂谓, 峒∥嘉滇繓蟼 未峤 渭蔚蟿峤 渭峤参 蟿峥段 5 峒纬伪胃峥段 峒愊兿壪喯佄课轿酷喀渭蔚谓, 峒愇 未峤 蟿慰峥栂 魏伪魏慰峥栂 峒愇嘉轿肺嘉滴, 峒 蟿慰峤合 峒勎晃晃肯呄 蟽蠅蠁蟻慰谓委味蔚喂谓 蔚峒聪壩肝滴. 蟿委 未峥喯勎 渭苇位位慰喂 蟿喂蟼 峒勎 纬喂纬谓蠋蟽魏蔚喂谓 {蔚峒跋蔚峥栁絵, 峤呄勧砍 纬蔚 <位蔚委蟺蔚蟿伪喂 蟿峤> 位蠀蟺蔚峥栂兾肝蔽 峒愊峤 蟿慰峥栂 蟺伪蟻慰峥ο兾 魏伪峤 谓慰渭委味蔚喂谓 峒斚囄滴刮 蟿喂 蟿慰喂慰峥ο勎课, 峤∠ 渭畏未峤参 峒斚勎 蟿慰喂慰峥ο勎课 峒斚兿勎蔽; 蟺蟻峥断勎课 渭峤参 慰峤栁 蟿慰峤合 未喂伪蠁蔚蟻慰渭苇谓慰蠀蟼 蟺蟻峤赶 峒位位萎位慰蠀蟼 魏伪峤 蟿峥段 峥ノ废勏屜佅壩 魏伪峤 蟿峥段 峒勎晃幌壩 10 峒蟺慰未蔚委尉蠅 纬蔚 蟺伪蟻峤 位蠈纬慰谓 蟺蔚蟺慰谓胃蠈蟿伪蟼 蟺蟻峤赶 峒位位萎位慰蠀蟼, 峤呄蔚蟻 峒谓维纬魏畏 蟿慰峤合 峒勎轿迪 纬谓蠋渭畏蟼 蠁喂位慰谓喂魏慰峥ξ较勎毕 蟺维蟽蠂蔚喂谓路 慰峒跋屛嘉滴轿课 纬峤跋 峒愇轿蔽较勎 位苇纬蔚喂谓 峒位位萎位慰喂蟼 o峤愇 伪峒跋兾肝轿课较勎蔽 蟿峤 伪峤愊勧桨 蟺蟻维蟿蟿慰谓蟿蔚蟼 慰峤愇瘁讲 蟿峤肝 蟿峥段 峒懴勎佅壩 位蠈纬慰谓 峒愇 蟿峥 蟽蠁蔚蟿苇蟻峥 位蠈纬峥 峒愇较屛较勎. 蟽魏苇蠄伪蟽胃蔚 纬峤跋 峒愇 峒蟻蠂峥喯, 峒 味畏蟿慰峥ο兾刮 峒懳何勎迪佄课. 蟺蟻峥断勎课 渭峤参 峒 蟺维蟿蟻喂慰蟼 蟺慰位喂蟿蔚委伪 蟿伪蟻伪蠂峤次 15 伪峤愊勎酷繓蟼 蟺伪蟻苇蠂蔚喂, 峥メ敬蟽蟿畏 纬谓蠅蟽胃峥單轿蔽 魏伪峤 魏慰喂谓慰蟿维蟿畏 蟿慰峥栂 蟺慰位委蟿伪喂蟼 慰峤栂兾 蟺峋断兾刮. 峤佅蠈蟽伪 渭峤参 慰峤栁 峒愊苇魏蔚喂谓伪 蟿峥喯 峒∥嘉迪勎佄毕 纬谓蠋渭畏蟼 峒愊兿勎, 峒魏慰峤次 峒谓维纬魏畏 位苇纬蔚喂谓 蟿峥段 蟺伪位伪喂慰蟿苇蟻蠅谓, 峤佅蠈蟽伪 未始 伪峤愊勎酷蕉 峒愊蔚峥栁次课 慰峒 蟺蟻蔚蟽尾蠉蟿蔚蟻慰喂, 蟿伪峥ο勎 未峤 蟺伪蟻峤 蟿峥段 蔚峒拔聪屜勏壩 蟺蠀谓胃维谓蔚蟽胃伪喂.始 6 纬喂纬谓蠋蟽魏蠅谓 蔚峒跋蔚峥栁 Blass 10 纬蔚 蟺蟻慰位苇纬蠅谓 蟺蔚蟺慰谓胃蠈蟿蔚蟼 13 峒愇 蟿峥 峒懴勎佱砍 16 慰峤栁 峒愇何滴较壩 16.17 峒魏慰蠉蔚喂谓 峒谓维纬魏畏: corrigenda ex Platonis verbis Phaedr. 274 C 峒魏慰萎谓 纬始 峒斚囅 位苇纬蔚喂谓 蟿峥段 蟺蟻慰蟿苇蟻蠅谓. Exemplum 蠄蠈纬慰蠀 commune ideo, quod paene ad unamquamque rei publicae occasionem adcommodari potest. Volgare antitheseon genus inter iuniores et seniores, fortunas secundas et adversas, tempora praeterita et praesentia, mores aliorum et ipsorum, communis rhetorum vituperatio, rei publlcae laus. Cf. 螣ppenheimer, RE. VI A 1, 586 sq. Attamen Thrasymachi verba ex prooemiis verae orationis sumpta esse (qualia sunt Demosthenis pr. 21. 23. 25. 53), idcirco adfirmari non potest, quia 蠄蠈纬慰蟼 alterum genus est epideicticorum, quo e genere sophistae alicuius in musicos invectiva ex parte servata primum in Hibeh Pap. I (1906) p. 45 n. 13, deinde saepius edita est.
11. Aristot. rhet. 1404 a 12: 峒愇何滴轿 渭峤参 慰峤栁 峤呄勎蔽 峒斘晃肝 (sc. 峒 位苇尉喂蟼), 蟿伪峤愊勧礁 蟺慰喂萎蟽蔚喂 蟿峥 峤懴慰魏蟻喂蟿喂魏峥, 峒愇澄何迪囄滴瓜佄何毕兾刮 未峤 峒愊始 峤位委纬慰谓 蟺蔚蟻峤 伪峤愊勧繂蟼 蔚峒跋蔚峥栁 蟿喂谓蔚蟼, 慰峒肺课 螛蟻伪蟽蠉渭伪蠂慰蟼 峒愇 蟿慰峥栂 峒櫸晃课瓜. Ceterum Aristoteles minus perspicue loquitur; cum autem incipiat 峒愇何滴轿 渭峤参 慰峤栁 峤呄勎蔽 峒斘晃羔績, Spengel 峒愇何滴轿 ad 峤懴蠈魏蟻喂蟽喂谓 峥ノ废勎肯佄刮何 rettulit, quod vel ideo falsum est, quia A. paulo antea statuerat, de actione rhetorica nondum esse scriptum. neque pergere poterat A. 蟿伪峤愊勧礁 蟺慰喂萎蟽蔚喂 蟿峥 峤懴慰魏蟻喂蟿喂魏峥 non addens 蟿峤次 蟿峥喯 蟿蟻伪纬峥澄次毕 intellegi actionem. At idem antea 蟺蔚蟻峤 蟿峥喯 位苇尉蔚蠅蟼 locutus erat (l. 8).
12. Aristot. rhet. 1409 a 2: 位蔚委蟺蔚蟿伪喂 未峤 蟺伪喂维谓, 峋 峒愊囅佱慷谓蟿慰 渭峤参 峒蟺峤 螛蟻伪蟽蠀渭维蠂慰蠀 峒蟻尉维渭蔚谓慰喂, 慰峤愇 蔚峒断囄课 未峤 位苇纬蔚喂谓 蟿委蟼 峒ξ.
13. Quint. inst. 9, 4, 87: licet igitur paeana sequatur Ephorus, inventum a Thrasymach慰, probatum ab Aristotele.
14. Cic. orat. 12, 39 de figuris Gorgianis: haec tractasse Thrasymachum Calchedonium primum et Leontinum ferunt Gorgiam. Thrasymachum Gorgiamque 蟿峥段 蟺伪蟻委蟽蠅谓 causa iungit etiam Athanasius in Hermogenem Prol. Syll. p. 180, 9 sq. R.
15. Cic. orat. 52, 175 (de numero oratori慰): neminem in eo genere scientius versatum Isocrate confitendum est, sed princeps inveniendi fuit Thrasymachus, cuius omnia nimis etiam exstant scripta numerose. Ciceronem laudat Rufinus rhetor p. 581, 15 H.
16. Cic. orat. 13, 40: nam cum concisus ei (Isocrati) Thrasymachus minutis numeris videretur et Gorgias, qui tamen primi traduntur arte quadam verba vinxisse 鈥
17. Sud. s. v. 螛.: 蟺蟻峥断勎肯 蟺蔚蟻委慰未慰谓 魏伪峤 魏峥段晃课 魏伪蟿苇未蔚喂尉蔚 魏伪峤 谓峥ξ 蟿峥喯 峥ノ废勎肯佄刮横繂蟼 蟿蟻蠈蟺慰谓 蔚峒跋兾肺澄兾毕勎. Vide inter alla Philologi 65, 149 sq.
18. Aristoph. 螖伪喂蟿伪位峥喯 fr. XVI Mein. (ex Galen慰), (pater et filius improbus certant): - 峒 渭峤次 峒聪兿壪 蟽峤 魏伪蟿伪蟺位喂纬萎蟽峥 蟿峥 蠂蟻蠈谓峥. - 蟿峤 魏伪蟿伪蟺位喂纬萎蟽峥 蟿慰峥ο勎 蟺伪蟻峤 蟿峥段 峥ノ废勏屜佅壩. - 峒蟺慰尾萎蟽蔚蟿伪委 蟽慰喂 蟿伪峥ο勎 蟺慰峥 蟿峤 峥ノ嘉毕勎; - 蟺伪蟻始 峒埼晃何刮参刮次肯 蟿慰峥ο勎 蟿峒蟺慰尾萎蟽蔚蟿伪喂. - 蟿委 未始 峤懴慰蟿蔚魏渭伪委蟻峥 魏伪峤 魏伪魏峥断 峒勎轿聪佄毕 位苇纬蔚喂蟼 魏伪位慰魏峒纬伪胃委伪谓 峒蟽魏慰峥ξ较勎毕; - 慰峒次际 峤 螛蟻伪蟽蠉渭伪蠂蔚, 蟿委蟼 蟿慰峥ο勎 蟿峥段 尉蠀谓畏纬蠈蟻蠅谓 蟿蔚蟻胃蟻蔚蠉蔚蟿伪喂; Thrasymachum Calchedonium sophistam intellegi coniecerat Suevern, quam interpretationem nullo modo ferri posse Meineke enuntiavit, ipse de filii improbi patrem compellantis nomine cogitat, Fritzsche autem de filio altero probo adstante.
19. Quint. inst. 3, 3, 4: nec audiendi quidam, quorum est Albutius, qui tris modo primas esse partis volunt, quia memoria atque actio natura, non arte contingent 鈥 licet Thrasymachus quoque idem de actione crediderit. Cf. Aristot. rhet. 1404 a 15: 魏伪峤 峒斚兿勎刮 蠁蠉蟽蔚蠅蟼 蟿峤 峤懴慰魏蟻喂蟿喂魏峤肝 蔚峒段轿蔽 魏伪峤 峒蟿蔚蠂谓蠈蟿蔚蟻慰谓.
|
IX. Thrasymachus
1. Suda s.v. Thrasymachus: a sophist from Chalcedon, the one in Bithynia [鈥. He was a pupil of the philosopher Plato and the rhetorician Isocrates. He wrote On Advice, A Manual of Rhetoric, Plays, and Rhetorical Starters. Cf. Aristot. Soph. el. 33, 183 b 29 (above A V 6): 鈥業t has been improved by Tisias after the very first, by Thrasymachus after Tisias.鈥 鈥 On the contents of the individual books see Schwartz p. 4 f., Navarre 155, Maas, Hermae 22, 575 f. (Pl枚bst 17 n. 2).
2. Scholion on Aristophanes, Birds 880: The same things that Theopompus says (about the Athenians begging for mercy on behalf of the Chians) Thrasymachus writes, too, in his Great Treatise. Plato too seems to bear witness to the art in Phaedrus 261C, 266 C-D.
3. Plato, Phaedrus 271a: It is clear, then, that Thrasymachus and all the others who seriously attempt to compose a treatise on rhetoric will first of all write with absolute precision and make the soul see. 4. Plato, Phaedrus 269d: If you happen to have a gift for rhetoric, you will be one of the illustrious orators, provided you add to your talent specific knowledge and practice; should you be deficient in any of these things, you will be unaccomplished in that respect. To the extent that it is a science, however, I do not think you will get there through the path that Lysias and Thrasymachus go. Dionysius Hal. ad Amm. I p. 259.1 f. reports that Thrasymachus came up with things 鈥榯o be taken seriously鈥 before Aristotle鈥檚 鈥榬hetorical precepts鈥. 5. Philodemus, On Rhetoric 1.86.11: [Praising what Metrodorus says in the first book of On Poems:] 鈥樷 And many others were able to speak in front of the people about what was advantageous for them, and such men, without having ever in the least studied Thrasymachus鈥 treatise or those of others like him, knew as leaders which course of action was appropriate in each case.鈥 He also shows by way of example that, on the contrary, Thrasymachus and many others who were thought to possess similar expertise regarding political or rhetorical speeches got done none of the things of which they claimed to be experts once they were lawgivers. The reconstruction of this fragmentary text is often uncertain, see Sudhaus, Philodemi Supplementum p. 43.
6. Plato, Phaedrus 267 C-D: For tearful speeches, to arouse pity for old age and poverty, I think the precepts of the mighty Chalcedonian hold the palm, and he is also a genius, as he said, at rousing large companies to wrath, and soothing them again by his charms when they are angry, and most powerful in devising and abolishing calumnies on any grounds whatsoever. But all seem to be in agreement concerning the conclusion of discourses, which some call recapitulation, while others give it some other name. He touches on 鈥榩ity-inducing speeches鈥 and calls them 鈥榩ity-mongering鈥 in Phaedrus 272 A. Hermias ad loc. (p. 239, p. 192 Ast, 螣r. Att. fr. p. 164 Sauppe) adds nothing to the explanation. Cf. Aristot. Rhet. 1354a14: 鈥楾hose who compose treatises on rhetoric say nothing about enthymemes, which are the body of persuasion, while spending most of their time on what lies outside of the merit of the issue. For slander, pity, anger and all such feelings are not about the merit but are aimed at the judge.鈥 Aristotle also relates to Thrasymachus in 1356 a15, as does, perhaps, Thucydides when he portrays Cleon as saying the following (3.40.2): 鈥業 try to make sure 鈥 first back then and then now 鈥 that you people do not walk back on your earlier decisions and make mistakes due to the three causes most contrary to the interests of power: commiseration, pleasant words and fair-mindedness. For it is just to repay your equals with pity鈥︹ 围enophon Cyrop. 2.2.13: 鈥楽ome try to make the audience cry by inserting into their speeches some sob stories.鈥 Quint. 3.1.12: 鈥楾he first to deal with the affects are allegedly Prodicus, Hippias, Protagoras and Thrasymachus. See Drerup, Die Anf盲nge der rhetorischen Kunstprosa 226. Cicero, On the Orator 1.12.53 remembers Plato. Notice also the pure meter: from which one can surmise that in the examples of pity the speech of the sophist was exceedingly metrical, cf. below Cicero鈥檚 testimony (Orator 52.175).
7. Lysias 24.6-9: Do not, therefore, gentlemen, when you can save me justly, ruin me unjustly; what you granted me when I was younger and stronger, do not take from me when I am growing older and weaker; [鈥 And indeed, how extraordinary the case would be, gentlemen! When my misfortune was but simple, I am found to have been receiving this pension; but now, when old age, diseases, and the ills that attend on them are added to my trouble, I am to be deprived of it! The depth of my poverty, I believe, can be revealed more clearly by my accuser than by anyone else on earth. An outstanding example of 鈥榯earful speeches, to arouse pity for old age and poverty.鈥 Anaximenes 34 p. 77, 10 H.: 鈥榃e shall have plenty of material to arouse pity in whatever circumstances we may want to, provided we are aware that everyone pities those he [鈥 thinks do not deserve their misfortune,鈥 further Aristot. Rhet. 1386a4 f. (9: 鈥榦ld age, illnesses and lack of food鈥). Dinarchus 1.108: 鈥楴ot should you people, if you are reasonable, leave the common and just defense speech on behalf of the city to Demosthenes鈥 enticements of pity鈥 (cf. 1.111). Thucyd. 3.67, Christel in Opusculis philologicis I, Vienna 1926, 33 f. You should however not maintain that Lysias drew on Thrasymachus, for the habit of arousing pity was common in Athenian trials, as shown by passages such as Aristoph. Wasps 550 f., Plato Apol. 34C. Thrasymachus had made up examples for the sake of the art. 8. Plutarch, Table-Talk 616C-D: It is exceedingly strange for somebody to make themselves judge instead of banqueter and evaluate people who and not asking for it and are not litigating over who is better or worse than whom. For they have not come to a competition but to a banquet. And the judgement is a tough one too [鈥 But now that I am engaged in this evaluative exercise, I must keep handy Aristotle鈥檚 Topics and Thrasymachus鈥檚 Overpowering arguments. I am not doing anything useful but just transferring empty opinions from the market place to banquets. That the 鈥comparison鈥 was exercised by Thrasymachus is to be gathered from the Plutarch passage; as for the opposites proffered in Lysias鈥 words that are reported above, it is clear that they are derived from a comparison of times. From a comparison likewise stem those 鈥榣ikelihoods鈥 that Andocides 1.3 and 1.6 f. cites in order to stir the emotions of the judges, a proem that all agree was lifted in its entirety from some treatise writer. Finally, as W. Schmid, Gesch. d gr. Lit. III 1, p. 106, 4 correctly points out, such a comparison is present in Antiphon 1.21 f. as a means to arouse pity, which fits well with Thrasymachus鈥 鈥榩ity-inductions鈥. See also E. Schwartz ibid. p. 5.
9. Athenaeus 10, 416A: Thrasymachus of Chalcedon writes in one of his proems that when Timocreon once came to the Persian king and was treated like a guest by him, he was carrying a great deal of weapons; ad when the king asked what he did with those, he answered that he would kill countless Persians. The next day he defeated many of them together and then started shadow-fighting. As the king asked why he did this, he answered that there were as many hits left for anyone who should still approach him.
Aristoph. Wasps 566, about those who argue their case in front of a court: 鈥楽ome tell us stories, others some joke from Aesop.鈥 To find confirmation of this, see Aesopus鈥 fable 117 (63 Hausrath); scholium on Plato Phaedrus 260 C; Anonym. Segueri 99, p. 369, 21 H.: 鈥楽ometimes it gives the listener pleasure when an old tale is used at the right time, like the Leto myth in Hyperides.鈥 Thus, such things belong to the art of kairos. 10. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, (a) On Isaeus 122.21f.: Thrasymachus was one of those who made it their business to write precise speeches and practice rhetoric for litigation. (b) On Lysias: After these I discover excellence in Lysias, which Theophrastus says was begun by Thrasymachus, in my opinion, however, actually by Lysias. [鈥 What is this excellence I am talking about? The phrasing that collects the thoughts and expresses them in a well-rounded manner, particular to and necessary for forensic speeches and any real competition. Few have attained it; Demosthenes however was superlative in it. (c) On Isaeus: Thrasymachus is clean and subtle and very good at finding the subject-matter he wants to address and expressing it roundly and abundantly; however, his activity is limited to theoretical manuals and declamatory rhetoric, whereas he has not left behind any forensic or deliberative speeches. (d) On Demosthenes: The third form of speaking is the one consisting in a mix of these two (the lean one and the pompous one). Whether the first to give it shape and put in into the present order was either Thrasymachus of Calchedon, as Theophrastus thinks, or somebody else, I cannot say. [鈥 Thrasymachus鈥 way of speaking, which was really a major source of the middle range, seems to be worthwhile down to its very intention. For it is well mixed and draws on what is useful in either of the others. That the force it uses is not equal to its will is shown by the following example taken from one of his deliberative speeches: 鈥淚 would like, Athenians, to be a part of that ancient time and those political circumstances when young people need not say anything, since the situation did not compel them to speak and the older citizens governed the city correctly. Now, however, that the gods have led us into such a time that [text corrupt] we see the disasters ourselves, and the greatest of these affairs are not the works of the gods or of destiny but of whoever happens to take care of them, it is necessary for me to speak. For it must be either an insensitive or an incredibly strong person who will still open himself up to suffering injustice at the hands of whoever so wishes and himself bear the guilt for other people鈥檚 schemes and wickedness. The time past has caused us to get into war and peril instead of peace, so that up to the present we have been happy for every day that would pass by and wary of the coming one, and into enmity and upheaval against one another instead of unity. And while a great deal of prosperity makes others become arrogant and start civil strife, we were wise when we had it good and got crazy when it went bad, which tends to make others become wise. How could anyone know, when he is left with sorrow about the present and the opinion that he has such a thing, that there will not be such a thing again? First of all I shall show that those among the politicians and the rest of the people who are in conflict with each other have unreasonable feelings about one another, which is bound to happen to those who are rivals without reason: while they believe they are saying opposite things they fail to see that they are doing the same things and that the other鈥檚 speech is contained in their own. Just look from the start what both are chasing after. First the constitution handed down by our forefathers is confounding them, although it is the easiest to know about and most common to the citizens. Whatever lays beyond our ken must be heard from the past generations, but what the older citizens saw themselves we must learn from those who know.
This is a common instance of 鈥榖lame鈥 on the grounds that it can be accommodated to almost any occasion in political life. It is a commonplace kind of antithesis, between the young and the old, good and bad fortune, past and present times, the customs of others and one鈥檚 own, the common vituperation of orators and praise of the state. Cf. 螣ppenheimer, RE VI A 1, 586 f. Yet one cannot claim that Thrasymachus鈥 words are taken from the proems of an actual speech (as are those of Demosthenes 21, 23, 25, 53), since 鈥榖lame鈥 is one of the two genres of epideictic speeches, a genre from which comes the invective of some sophist against musicians that is partially conserved, to start with, in Pap. Hibeh 1 (1906) p. 45 n. 13 and has then been published several times. 11. Aristotle, Rhetoric 3.1.7 1404a12: Now, when (style) comes into fashion, it will have the same effect as acting. Some writers have attempted to say a few words about it, as Thrasymachus, in his Eleoi. Aristotle is not expressing himself clearly; however, it is wrong to refer, as Spengel does, the clause 鈥榳hen鈥 comes into fashion鈥 to 鈥榬hetorical delivery鈥 since Aristotle says not long before that nothing has yet been written about the latter; nor could he in this case continue the sentence as 鈥渨ill have the same effect as delivery鈥 without specifying that he means the acting of tragedy. And he has also just talked about 鈥榩hrasing鈥 (l. 8).
12. Aristotle, Rhetoric 3.8.4 1409a2: There remains the Paean, used by rhetoricians from the time of Thrasymachus, although they could not define it.
13. Quintilian, 9.4.87: Ephorus follows the Paean, which was invented by Thrasymachus and approved by Aristotle.
14. Cicero, Orator 12.39 (on Gorgias鈥 figures of speech): They say the first orators to deal with them were Thrasymachus of Chalcedon and Gorgias of Leontinoi. Athanasius on Hermogenes Prol. Syll. p. 180, 9 f. R., too, names Gorgias and Thrasymachus together on account of the same-length clauses.
15. Cicero, Orator 52.175 (on metre in oratory): One must admit that nobody surpasses Isocrates鈥 expertise in that field; the first to come up with it, however, was Thrasymachus, all of whose extant writings are metrical to a fault. Cicero is cited by the rhetorician Rufinus p. 581, 15 H.
16. Cicero, Orator 13.40: Thrasymachus was judged by Isocrates to be too concise due to his small metric units, and so was Gorgias, although they are reported to have been the first to put the art of speaking on a theoretical basis.
17. Suda s.v. Thrasymachus: He was the first to define a period and a clause and introduced the present form of rhetoric. See, among other things, Philologus 65, 149 f.
18. Aristophanes, Daitaleis frag. 16 Mein. (from Galen; a father arguing with his dishonest son): You will be crushed sooner or later. 鈥 This word 鈥渃rushed鈥 comes from the orators. 鈥 And where will the words you鈥檙e speaking end up? 鈥 鈥淓nd up鈥 comes from Alcibiades. 鈥 Why do you keep second-guessing things and talk bad of people who practice being good? 鈥 Woe is me, Thrasymachus, which one of the public speakers uses such subtleties?
Sueveren surmised that this passage refers to the sophist Thrasymachus of Chalcedon; Meineke claims that this interpretation is untenable, while he himself thinks it is the name of the dishonest son who harasses his father; Fritzsche, on the other hand, thinks it refers to another son, the honest one, who is present.
19. Quintilian 3.3.4: We need not even listen to some, Albutius among them, who claim that there are only three primary parts on the grounds that memory and delivery come from nature and not nurture [鈥, even though Thrasymachus too believed the same thing about delivery. Cf. Aristoteles Rhetoric 1404 a15: 鈥楧elivery comes from nature, and is somewhat lacking in techne.鈥 |