XXXV. ZOILUS (Jac慰by FGrHist. 71, Blass II2 373 sq. Udalr. Friedlaender, De Z慰ilo aliisque Homeri obtrectatoribus. Diss. Regimonti 1895.) 1. Dion. Hal. de Isaeo 20, p. 123, 14 sq. p慰st Thrasymachum: 蟿峤 未峤 伪峤愊勧桨 魏伪峤 蟺蔚蟻峤 螝蟻喂蟿委慰蠀 魏伪峤 蟺蔚蟻峤 螙蠅委位慰蠀 蟿喂蟼 峒偽 蔚峒跋蔚峥栁 峒斚囄课, 蟺位峤次 峤呄兾课 蟿慰峥栂 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿峥喯佅兾 蟿峥喯 峒懴佄嘉肺轿滴毕 未喂伪位位维蟿蟿慰蠀蟽喂谓 峒位位萎位蠅谓. Ab eodem antea enumerati erant (p. 122, 23 sq.) 峒埼较勎瓜嗎慷谓 蟿蔚 峤 峥蔽嘉轿肯嵪兾刮肯 魏伪峤 螛蟻伪蟽蠉渭伪蠂慰蟼 峤 螝伪位蠂畏未蠈谓喂慰蟼 魏伪峤 螤慰位蠀魏蟻维蟿畏蟼 峤 峒埼肝肺轿贬繓慰蟼 螝蟻喂蟿委伪蟼 蟿蔚 峤 蟿峥段 蟿蟻喂维魏慰谓蟿伪 峒勏佄疚毕, deinde singuli eorum characteres describuntur. Cf. eiusdem de Demosth. 8, p. 143, 6 Us.-R., ubi 峒埼较勎瓜嗎慷谓鈥 魏伪峤 螛蔚蠈未蠅蟻慰蟼 魏伪峤 螤慰位蠀魏蟻维蟿畏蟼 峒赶兾贬繓蠈蟼 蟿蔚 魏伪峤 峒埼轿蔽疚刮嘉轿废 iuxta ponuntur. Eundem esse rhetorem sophistam et decantatum illum 峤壩嘉废佄课嘉兿勎刮澄, cuius imprimis in scholiis Homericis memoria mansit, Spengel negaverat, nunc consentiunt omnes. Schol. Ioann. Tsets. ad Exeg. in Iliad. p. 125 H.: 峤 螙蠅委位慰蟼 慰峤椣勏屜 峒愊兿勎刮 峤 峤壩嘉废佄课嘉兿勎刮 魏伪位慰蠉渭蔚谓慰蟼... 魏伪峤 峤 渭峤参 危喂魏蔚位喂蠋蟿畏蟼 螖喂蠈未蠅蟻慰蟼 (fr. inc. 1) 蟿峤肝 螙蠅委位慰谓 蟿慰峥ο勎课 慰峤愇瘁讲谓 峒曄勎迪佄课 峒斚勎 纬蔚纬蟻伪蠁苇谓伪喂 蠁畏蟽喂谓 峒 蟿峤次 魏伪胃始 峤壩嘉佄肯... 蟽蠉谓蟿伪尉喂谓... 慰峒 未峤 蟿慰峥栂 蔚峤愇次课何嘉课瓜 蟿慰峥ο勎课 蟽蠀谓蟿维蟿蟿慰蠀蟽喂 峥ノ勎肯佅兾刮. Scripsisse eum 蟿峤 魏伪胃始 峤壩嘉佄肯 纬蠀渭谓伪蟽委伪蟼 峒曃轿滴何 contendit Porphyrii Schol. B Il. K 274. Ceterum de Zoili vita et scriptis quae exstant testimonia plerumque ad 峤壩嘉废佄课嘉兿勎刮澄 pertinentia diligenter collegit U. Friedlaender loco supra indicato p. 6 sq., 魏伪蟿伪未蟻慰渭峤次 螤位维蟿蠅谓慰蟼 Zoilo tribuit Dion. Hal. ad Pomp. Gem. II p. 222, 12, p. 226, 10 sq. Us.-R., Suda 魏伪蟿峤 峒赶兾课合佄勎肯呄 蟿慰峥 峥ノ刼蟻慰蟼 libellum. At 蟿慰峥 峒赶兾课合佄毕勎刮何酷喀 未喂未伪蟽魏伪位(蔚委慰蠀) eum fuisse Porphyrius in scholio Iliadis supra laudato dicit.
2. Phoebamm慰n 蟺蔚蟻峤 蟽蠂畏渭维蟿蠅谓 W VIII, p. 493, 15: 峤佅佄段迪勎蔽 未峤 螙蠅委位慰蟼 慰峤曄勏壪偮 蟽蠂峥單嘉 峒愊兿勎刮, 峒曄勎迪佄课 渭峤参 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺慰喂蔚峥栂兾肝蔽, 峒曄勎迪佄课 未峤 位苇纬蔚喂谓. 3 峒曄勎迪佅屛 蟿喂 alii codd., 峒曄勎迪佄课 未苇 蟿喂 Spengel Cf. Anaximenes 21 p. 57, 14 H. Alexander 蟺蔚蟻峤 蟽蠂畏渭维蟿蠅谓 III 22, 30, Zonaeus III 164, 12 Sp., Aquila Romanus 24, 21 H., Iulius Ruf. 38, 3 H., Mart. Cap. 478, 1 H. al. 鈥 Alium esse Zoilum eumque iuniorem huius definitionis auctorem putat Blass II2 375, vix recte.
3. Quint. inst. 9, 1, 14: verum id ipsum anguste Zoilus terminavit, qui id solum putaverit schema, quo aliud simulatur dici quam dicitur, quod sane vulgo quoque sic accipi scio, unde et figuratae controversiae quaedam, de quibus post paulo dicam, vocantur. 1 Zoilus: theodulus in ras. A2 2 qui id: quod A Recte hic 蟿峥段 峒愊兿囄肺嘉毕勎瓜兾嘉较壩 位蠈纬蠅谓 initium esse Quintilianus monet, cf. etiam Aristot. rhet. 1399 a 29: (蟿蠈蟺慰蟼) 峒勎晃晃肯, 峒愊蔚喂未峤 慰峤 蟿伪峤愊勧桨 蠁伪谓蔚蟻峥断 峒愊伪喂谓慰峥ο兾 魏伪峤 峒蠁伪谓峥断, 峒位位峤 蠁伪谓蔚蟻峥断 渭峤参 蟿峤 未委魏伪喂伪 魏伪峤 蟿峤 魏伪位峤 峒愊伪喂谓慰峥ο兾 渭维位喂蟽蟿伪, 峒拔次境 未峤 蟿峤 蟽蠀渭蠁苇蟻慰谓蟿伪 渭峋段晃晃课 尾慰蠉位慰谓蟿伪喂, quod, quatenus 峒愊喂蠂蔚喂蟻萎渭伪蟿喂 materiam dat, Theodoro tribuimus. Ceterum cf. Volkmann, Rhet.2 p. 121, Barczat 20 sq.
4. Schol. A Il. A 129 (ex Herodian慰): 螙蠅委位慰蟼 未峤 峤 峒埼枷單瓜慰位委蟿畏蟼 魏伪峤 围蟻蠉蟽喂蟺蟺慰蟼 峤 危蟿蠅喂魏峤赶 蟽慰位慰喂魏委味蔚喂谓 慰峒次课较勎蔽 蟿峤肝 蟺慰喂畏蟿峤次 峒谓蟿峤 峒懳轿刮何酷喀 蟺位畏胃蠀谓蟿喂魏峥 蠂蟻畏蟽维渭蔚谓慰谓 峥ノ嘉毕勎孤 蟿峤 纬峤跋 未峥废兾, 蠁伪蟽委, 蟺位畏胃蠀谓蟿喂魏蠈谓. Cf. B III 7 = Aristot. Soph. el. 165 b 12 sq.
5. Schol. in Platonis Hipparchum 229 D: 螙蠅委位慰蟼 峒愇 蟿峥 蔚峒跋 螤慰位蠉蠁畏渭慰谓 峒愇澄合壩嘉砍路 慰峤曄勏 纬峤跋 峤∥嘉课澄较壩枷屛轿废兾蔽 慰峒 胃蔚慰峤 蟺蔚蟻峤 蟿峥喯 蟿喂渭蠅蟻委伪蟼 蟿伪蠉蟿畏蟼, 峤ハ兿勎 蟺维谓蟿慰胃蔚谓 峤埼聪呄兿兾滇胶蟼 蟿苇蠅蟼 峤 蟽峥澄断屛嘉滴轿肯 魏伪峤 蟿峤跋 谓伪峥ο 峒魏蔚蟻伪委慰蠀蟼 蟺蔚蟻喂蟺慰喂慰蠉渭蔚谓慰蟼 蟺蔚蟻喂蠋蠁胃畏 渭蔚蟿峤 蟿峤次 峒蟻峤拔 峤懴峤 蟿峥喯 峒埼肝肺结径蟼. 蟽慰蠁喂蟽蟿伪峤 螔慰蠀蟽蔚委蟻喂未伪蟼 魏伪峤 螤慰位蠀蠁萎渭慰蠀蟼 峒愊伪喂谓慰峥ξ较勎迪 dum increpantur a Philodemo rhet. I 216, 19 S., iuxta Polycratem 螙oilus intellegendus.
6. Strab. VI 271 C: 峒埼幌單滴贯礁谓 未峤 螙蠅委位慰蟼 峤 峥ノ勏壪 峒愇 蟿峥 T蔚谓蔚未委蠅谓 峒愇澄合壩嘉砍 蠁畏蟽峤段 峒愇 韦蔚谓苇未慰蠀 峥ノ滇繓谓, 峤 蟿峤肝 峤嵨嘉废佄课 蠄苇纬蠅谓 峤∠ 渭蠀胃慰纬蟻维蠁慰谓. Tenediorum encomium 蟺伪委纬谓喂慰谓 fuisse iudicat Blass II2 374. Floruisse hoc genus, postquam inventum est, docent etiam Herculis laudes, quales Caucalus rhetor, Theopompi frater, composuit secundum Athenaeum 412 b. Cf. G. Fraustadt, Encomiorum hist. Diss. Leipz. 1905. Plutarchi regum et imp. apophth. 192 C (Apophth. Lac. 217 D/E).
|
XXXV. Zoilus
1. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On Isaeus: One could say the same things [as about Thrasymachus] about Kritias and Zoilus, except that they differ from one another in the characteristics of the elocution. The same author also lists the following earlier (p. 122, 23 f.): 鈥楢ntiphon of Rhamnus, Thrasymachus of Chalcedon, Polycrates of Athens and Critias the leader of the Thirty,鈥 and then the character of each is described. See also On Demosthenes by the same author 8, p. 143, 6 Us.-R., where 鈥楢ntiphon [鈥, Theodorus, Polycrates, Isaeus and Anaximenes鈥 are named besides each other. Spengel rejected the proposition that the sophistic rhetorician and the famous, widely praised 鈥楬omer鈥檚 scourge鈥, who is attested mainly in the Homeric Scholia, are the same person; today, however, everybody agrees that they are. Schol. Ioann. Tsets. ad Exeg. in Iliad. p. 125 H.: 鈥楾his Zoilus is the one called 鈥淗omer鈥檚 scourge鈥 [鈥 While Diodorus of Sicily (fr. inc. 1) writes that this Zoilus had not yet written anything except the composition against Homer [鈥, others list him among the famous rhetoricians.鈥 Porphyrius Schol. B Il. K 274 maintains that he wrote 鈥榯he works against Homer for the sake of practice鈥. U. Friedlaender in the abovementioned book, p. 6 sq., has collected the testimonies on Zoilus鈥 life and writings, which mainly refer to him as 鈥楬omer鈥檚 scourge鈥. An Attack on Plato is attributed to Zoilus by Dion. Hal. To Pompeius Geminus II p. 222, 12, p. 226, 10 f. Us.-R.; the booklet Against the Rhetorician Isocrates is attributed to him by Suda. Yet Porphyrius in the abovementioned Scholium on the Iliad claims that he was 鈥榦f Isocrates鈥 school鈥.
2. Phoebammon, On Figures: Zoillus defines it thusly: A figure is pretending to say one thing and saying another. Cf. Anaximenes 21 p. 57, 14 H.; Alexander On Tropes 3.22.30; Zonaeus 3.164.12 Sp.; Aquila Romanus 24, 21 H.; Iulius Ruf. 38, 3 H.; Mart. Cap. 478, 1 H. and others. 鈥 Blass II2 375 claims that the author of this definition was another Zoilus, one younger than ours; this is hardly correct.
3. Quintilian 9.1.4: Zoilus defined this matter narrowly: He only regarded as a figure what says something different from what it seems to be saying at the surface, which I know is also the common view. This has given the so-called figured controversies their name; I will speak about them in a moment.
Quintilian correctly points out that this is the beginning of 鈥榯he formalized speeches鈥, cf. also Aristotle Rhetoric 1399 a 29: 鈥楢nother topos, since because they do not praise the same things openly or covertly, but they praise openly mostly what is just and honorable, but in private they rather seek what is advantageous,鈥 which I attribute to Theodorus to the extent that it provides material for a 鈥榙ialectical proof.鈥 See also Volkmann, Rhet.2 p. 121; Barczat 20 f.
4. Scholion A on Iliad 1.129: Zoilus from Amphipolis and Chrysippus the Stoic think that the poet is committing a syntactic error by using the plural instead of the singular: They say that 诲么颈蝉颈 is plural. Cf. B III 7 = Arist. Soph. El. 165b12-
5. Scholion on Plato鈥檚 Hipparchos: Zoilus writes in his Praise of Polyphemus: 鈥楾he gods were so much in agreement about this punishment that Odysseus, who hitherto had managed to get out of every situation and to keep his ships unharmed, was suffered by Athena [to come to harm].鈥 When the 鈥榮ophists praising Bousirises and Polyphemuses鈥 are badmouthed by Philodemus On Rhetoric 1.216, 19 S., we must understand Zoilus besides Polycrates.
6. Strabo: Zoilus the rhetorician says in his Praise of Tenedos that the Alpheios flows out of Tenedos, he who blames Homer as a writer of myths. Blass II2 374 thinks that the praise of Tenedos was a 鈥榯rifle鈥. That this genre flourished after it was invented is clear also from the praises of Hercules such as were written by the rhetorician Caucalus, Theopompus鈥檚 brother, according to Athenaeus 412 b. Cf. G. Fraustadt, Encomiorum hist., Diss. Leipz. 1905; Plutarch, Sayings of Kings and Commanders 192 C (Spartan Sayings 217 D/E)
|