XII. THEODORUS 1. Diog. Laert. II 8, 103/4: 螛蔚蠈未蠅蟻慰喂 未峤 纬蔚纬蠈谓伪蟽喂谓 蔚峒拔何肯兾光 峒斘轿毕勎肯 螔蠀味维谓蟿喂慰蟼 峒蟺峤 位蠈纬蠅谓 蟺慰位喂蟿喂魏峥段, 未苇魏伪蟿慰蟼, 峤佄嘉课壪 慰峤 峒埾佄瓜兿勎肯勎晃废 渭谓畏渭慰谓蔚蠉蔚喂 未喂峤 蟿峥喯 峒愊喂蟿慰渭峥喯 蟿峥段 峥ノ废勏屜佅壩. Post 蟺慰位喂蟿喂魏峥段 deesse videtur velut 蔚峤愇次课何刮坚慷谓. Nonum nostrum sophistam esse puto, decimum vero hominem minus nobilem, ab Aristotele solummodo memoratum, fort. noni filium, cf. Theodectarum exemplum. Edunt sane 未苇魏伪蟿慰蟼 峤佄嘉课壪, 慰峤.
2. Sud. s. v.: 螛蔚蠈未蠅蟻慰蟼 螔蠀味峒谓蟿喂慰蟼 蟽慰蠁喂蟽蟿萎蟼, 峤兿 峤懴峤 螤位维蟿蠅谓慰蟼 位慰纬慰未伪委未伪位慰蟼 峒愇何晃肝. 峒斘诚佄毕埼 魏伪蟿峤 螛蟻伪蟽蠀尾慰蠉位慰蠀, 魏伪蟿峤 峒埼轿次课何次肯 魏伪峤 峒勎晃晃 蟿喂谓维. Cf. Cic. orat. 12, 39 Theodorum inter eos enumerans, qui non ad iudiciorum certamen sed voluptatem aurium scripserant 鈥榪uos logodaedalos appellat in Phaedro Socrates始. Quint. inst. 3, 1, 11: Theodorus Byzantius ex iis et ipse quos Plato appellat 位慰纬慰未伪喂未维位慰蠀蟼 (ex Cicerone?). Sophistae stilum Cic. orat. 40 rectius describere videtur (praefractior nec satis鈥 rotundus).
3. Cic. Brut. 12, 48 (ex Aristotele): Lysiam primo profiteri solitum artem esse dicendi, deinde, quod Theodorus esset in arte subtilior, in orationibus autem ieiunior, orationes eum scribere aliis coepisse. Artibus suis eum rhetoricen auxisse post Thrasymachum Aristoteles ait Soph. el. 34, 183 b 32 (v. supra A V 6), de temporum ratione etiam cf. Cic. orat. 12, 39.
4. Di慰nysius Hal. de Isaeo p. 121, 25 Us. Rad.: 螛蔚蠈未蠅蟻慰谓 未峤 蟿峤肝 螔蠀味维谓蟿喂慰谓 峒蟻蠂伪峥栂屛 蟿喂谓伪 魏伪峤 慰峤斚勎 峒愇 蟿伪峥栂 蟿苇蠂谓伪喂蟼 峒魏蟻喂尾峥 (sic) 慰峤曄勎 峒愇疚勎毕兾刮 峒蔽何蔽结酱谓 (?) 峒愇 蟿慰峥栂 峒愇轿蔽诚壩轿课瓜 未蔚未蠅魏蠈蟿伪 位蠈纬慰喂蟼. 蟽蟺慰蠀未峥喯 峒勎疚刮课 慰峤愇羔讲谓 eum invenisse idem dicit ad Ammaeum p. 259, 2 sq., 慰峤愇羔讲谓 慰峤斚勎 魏伪喂谓峤肝 慰峤斚勎 蟺蔚蟻喂蟿蟿蠈谓 de Demosth. p. 143, 8. Artem testari videtur Plato Phaedr. 261 C, testatur Quint. 3, 1, 11 (supra A V 10).
5. Plato Phaedr. 266 D: {魏伪峤秨 魏伪位峥断 纬蔚 峤懴苇渭谓畏蟽伪蟼. 螤蟻慰慰委渭喂慰谓 渭峤参 慰峒段嘉蔽 蟺蟻峥断勎课 峤∠ 未蔚峥 蟿慰峥 位蠈纬慰蠀 位苇纬蔚蟽胃伪喂 峒愇 峒蟻蠂峥. 蟿伪峥ο勎 位苇纬蔚喂蟼 (峒 纬维蟻;) 蟿峤 魏慰渭蠄峤 蟿峥喯 蟿苇蠂谓畏蟼; 鈥 谓伪委. 鈥 未蔚蠉蟿蔚蟻慰谓 未峤 未峤 未喂萎纬畏蟽委谓 蟿喂谓伪 渭伪蟻蟿蠀蟻委伪蟼 蟿始 峒愊始 伪峤愊勧繃, 蟿蟻委蟿慰谓 蟿蔚魏渭萎蟻喂伪, 蟿苇蟿伪蟻蟿慰谓 蔚峒拔合屜勎. 魏伪峤 5 蟺委蟽蟿蠅蟽喂谓 慰峒段嘉蔽 魏伪峤 峒愊喂蟺委蟽蟿蠅蟽喂谓 位苇纬蔚喂谓 蟿蠈谓 纬蔚 尾苇位蟿喂蟽蟿慰谓 位慰纬慰未伪委未伪位慰谓 B蠀味峒谓蟿喂慰谓 峒勎轿聪佄. 鈥 蟿峤肝 蠂蟻畏蟽蟿峤肝 位苇纬蔚喂蟼 螛蔚蠈未蠅蟻慰谓; 鈥 蟿委 渭萎谓; 魏伪峤 峒斘晃滴诚囅屛 纬蔚 魏伪峤 峒愊蔚尉苇位蔚纬蠂慰谓 峤∠ 蟺慰喂畏蟿苇慰谓 峒愇 魏伪蟿畏纬慰蟻委峋 蟿蔚 魏伪峤 峒蟺慰位慰纬委峋. 蟿峤肝 未峤 魏维位位喂蟽蟿慰谓 螤维蟻喂慰谓 螘峤斘肺轿课 魏蟿位. 2 峒愊始 峒蟻蠂峥 B Hermias ad locum: 峒愊喂蟺委蟽蟿蠅蟽喂谓 位苇纬蔚喂 蟿峤 峒愊峤 峒蟺慰未蔚委尉蔚喂 峒愊勎佄蔽 峒蟺蠈未蔚喂尉喂谓 峒愊伪纬伪纬蔚峥栁. Schol. Aristot. rhet. p. 227, 25 峒愊蔚尉苇位蔚纬蠂蠈蟼 峒愊兿勎刮, 峤呄勎蔽 蟿喂蟼 峒斘鞠 蟿慰峥 蟺蟻维纬渭伪蟿慰蟼 位苇纬峥 魏伪峤 渭峤 蟺蟻峤赶 蟿峤肝 峒斘晃滴诚囄课 魏伪峤 蟿峤肝 峒纬峥段轿 蟽蠀渭尾伪位位蠈渭蔚谓伪. V. Hamberger 73 sq.
6. Anaximenes p. 88, 19 H.: 蟿维蟿蟿蔚喂谓 未峤 未蔚峥 蟿峥段 渭峤参 蟺委蟽蟿蔚蠅谓 蟺蟻蠋蟿伪蟼 蟿峤跋 渭伪蟻蟿蠀蟻委伪蟼. Ordinem esse Byzantii ex Platone coniecit Spengel ad Anaxim. p. 257 sq.
7. Aristot. rhet. 1414 b 7: 峒谓伪纬魏伪峥栁 峒勏佄 渭蠈蟻喂伪 蟺蟻蠈胃蔚蟽喂蟼 魏伪峤 蟺委蟽蟿蔚喂蟼. 峒次次刮 渭峤参 慰峤栁 蟿伪峥ο勎, 蟿峤 未峤 蟺位蔚峥栂兿勎 蟺蟻慰慰委渭喂慰谓 蟺蟻蠈胃蔚蟽喂蟼 蟺委蟽蟿蔚喂蟼 峒愊委位慰纬慰蟼路 蟿峤 纬峤跋 蟺蟻峤赶 蟿峤肝 峒谓蟿委未喂魏慰谓 蟿峥段 蟺委蟽蟿蔚蠋谓 峒愊兿勎, 魏伪峤 峒 峒谓蟿喂蟺伪蟻伪尾慰位峤 伪峤斘疚废兾瓜 蟿峥段 伪峤愊勎酷喀, 峤ハ兿勎 渭苇蟻慰蟼 蟿喂 蟿峥段 蟺委蟽蟿蔚蠅谓路 5 峒蟺慰未蔚委魏谓蠀蟽喂 纬维蟻 蟿喂 峤 蟺慰喂峥段 蟿慰峥ο勎. 峒位位始 慰峤 蟿峤 蟺蟻慰慰委渭喂慰谓 慰峤愇词 峤 峒愊委位慰纬慰蟼, 峒位位始 峒谓伪渭喂渭谓萎蟽魏蔚喂. 峒斚兿勎蔽 慰峤栁, 峒勎 蟿喂蟼 蟿峤 蟿慰喂伪峥ο勎 未喂伪喂蟻峥, 峤呄蔚蟻 峒愊慰委慰蠀谓 慰峒 蟺蔚蟻峤 螛蔚蠈未蠅蟻慰谓, 未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼 峒曄勎迪佄课 魏伪峤 峒 峒愊喂未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼 魏伪峤 蟺蟻慰未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼 魏伪峤 峒斘晃滴诚囄肯 魏伪峤 峒愊蔚尉苇位蔚纬蠂慰蟼. 2 et 3 蟺委蟽蟿喂蟼 ll. 7. 8 an 峒 峒愊喂未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼 <魏伪峤 蟺伪蟻伪未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼> 魏伪峤 蟺蟻慰未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼? Cf. sequentia. 慰峒 蟺蔚蟻峤 螛蔚蠈未蠅蟻慰谓 significare videtur Theodorum habuisse sectatores, qui etiam nova invenirent. 蟺伪蟻伪未喂萎纬畏蟽喂谓 Aristoteles etiam 1417 a 3 sq.commendat. Ceterum adeundus est Quint. 4, 2, 128: est quaedam etiam repetita narratio, quae 峒愊喂未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼 dicitur, sane res declamatoria magis quam forensis, ideo autem reperta, ut, quia narratio brevis esse debet, fusius et ornatius res posset exponi, quod fit vel invidiae gratia vel miserationis. [Cassiodorii] de rhet. p. 502, 28 Halm: 峒愊喂未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼 fit ad augmentum vel invidiae vel miserationis. Hermogenes 蟺蔚蟻峤 蔚峤懴. 2, 1 p. 189, 7 Sp. 蟿峤次 未峤 蟺蟻慰魏伪蟿维蟽蟿伪蟽喂谓 蟿峥喯 未喂畏纬萎蟽蔚蠅蟼, 蟿峤次 魏伪峤 蟺蟻慰未喂萎纬畏蟽喂谓 魏伪位慰蠀渭苇谓畏谓 (repetita apud Maximum Planudem W V 220, 27 = Prol. Syll. p. 212, 17 R., Maximum Planudem W V 385, 20). Cf. W. Schmid, Gesch. d. gr. Lit. III 1 p. 193, 2.
8. An慰n. (Cornuti) rhet. 57 p. 364, 11 H.: 蔚峒次次 未峤 蟿峥段 蟺伪蟻伪未喂畏纬萎蟽蔚蠅谓 蟿蟻委伪路 蟺蟻慰未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼, 蟺伪蟻伪未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼, 峒愊喂未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼. (58) 魏伪峤 蟺蟻慰未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼 渭苇谓 峒愊兿勎刮, 峤呄勎蔽 蟺蟻峤 伪峤愊勎酷喀 蟿慰峥 蟺蟻维纬渭伪蟿慰蟼 峒斘鞠壩肝滴 峒曄勎迪佅屛 蟿喂 未喂畏纬畏蟽蠋渭蔚胃伪, 峤ハ兿蔚蟻 魏蟿位. (59) 蟺伪蟻伪未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼 未苇, 峤呄勎蔽 蟺蔚蟻峤 蟿峤 伪峤愊勧礁 蟺蟻峋段澄嘉 峒曄勎迪佄 未喂畏纬畏蟽蠋渭蔚胃伪, 峤∠ 魏蟿位., (60) 峒愊喂未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼 未苇, 峤呄勎蔽 渭蔚蟿峤 蟿峤跋 蟺委蟽蟿蔚喂蟼 峒 蟿峤肝 峒愊委位慰纬慰谓 未喂畏纬畏蟽蠋渭蔚胃伪. Novit idem p. 364, 6 etiam 峒谓蟿喂未喂畏纬萎蟽蔚喂蟼 (i. e. 蟿峥段 峒谓蟿喂未委魏蠅谓 蔚峒跋兾蔽诚屛较勏壩 峒愊勎佅壪 峒愊伪纬慰渭苇谓伪蟼 伪峤愊勎酷蕉 峒谓蟿喂未喂畏纬慰蠉渭蔚胃伪). Ipsa autem terminorum explicatio sumpta est ex auctore, qui post Demetrium Phalereum fuit, cf. eiusdem Anonymi p. 374, 6.
9. Rufus rhet. (蟺蔚蟻峤 未喂畏纬萎蟽蔚蠅蟼) W III p. 453, 6 = Rhet.gr. I p. 402, 23 H.: 蟿蟻蠈蟺慰喂 未峤 蟿苇蟽蟽伪蟻蔚蟼路 未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼, 蟺伪蟻伪未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼, 蟺蟻慰未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼 魏伪峤 峤懴慰未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼. (8) 未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼 渭峤参 慰峤栁 峒愊兿勎刮, 峤ハ兿蔚蟻 峒斚單肺嘉滴, 峒蟺位峥 蟿峥段 纬蔚纬蔚谓畏渭苇谓蠅谓 蠁蟻维蟽喂蟼路 慰峒肺课 魏蟿位. (17) 蟺伪蟻伪未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼 未苇 峒愊兿勎刮 峒 蟺蟻峤赶 蟿峤 蠂蟻萎蟽喂渭慰谓 蟿慰峥 峤懴慰魏蔚喂渭苇谓慰蠀 位蠈纬慰蠀 峒斘鞠壩肝滴 蟺蟻慰蟽蟿喂胃蔚渭苇谓畏 魏伪峤 蟺伪蟻伪位伪渭尾伪谓慰渭苇谓畏 未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼 峒愇 蟿蟻蠈蟺峥 峒蠁畏纬萎蟽蔚蠅蟼路 慰峒肺课 魏蟿位. (454, 8 W. ) 蟺蟻慰未喂萎纬畏蟽委蟼 峒愊兿勎刮 峒 蟺蟻峤 蟿峥喯 蔚峒跋 蟿峤 蟺蟻峋段澄嘉毕勎滴晃肯嵪兾废 未喂畏纬萎蟽蔚蠅蟼 伪峒跋勎 蟺伪蟻伪位伪渭尾伪谓慰渭苇谓畏路 慰峒肺课 魏蟿位. (14) 峤懴慰未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼 未苇, 峤呄勎蔽 渭蔚蟿峤 蟿峥段 蟺蟻伪纬渭维蟿蠅谓 魏伪峤 蟿峤跋 纬谓蠋渭伪蟼 蟿峥段 蟺蟻伪尉维谓蟿蠅谓 峒懳何兿勎肯 魏伪峤 蟿峤跋 伪峒跋勎毕 位苇纬蠅渭蔚谓路 慰峒肺课 魏蟿位. 未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼, 蟺蟻慰未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼 iam Theodori fuere, sed 峤懴慰未喂萎纬畏蟽喂谓 non esse in 峒愊喂未喂萎纬畏蟽喂谓 mutandam docet etiam Schol. B Hom. I 527.
10. Mart. Cap. rhet. 46 p. 486, 30 Halm: n慰nnulli quinque species narrationis esse dixerunt, ut Theodorus Byzantius Graece discernit 蟺蟻慰未喂萎纬畏蟽喂谓, 峤懴慰未喂萎纬畏蟽喂谓 (sic), 蟺伪蟻伪未喂萎纬畏蟽喂谓, 峒谓蟿喂未喂萎纬畏蟽喂谓, 魏伪蟿伪未喂萎纬畏蟽喂谓 (sic).
Fortunatianus artis II 19 p. 112, 5 sq. Halm octo narrationis species discernit, quae sunt: 未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼, 峒谓蟿喂未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼, 渭蔚蟻喂魏峤 未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼, 蟺伪蟻伪未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼, 峤懴慰未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼, 魏伪蟿伪未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼, 峒愊喂未喂萎纬畏蟽喂蟼, 未喂伪蟽魏蔚蠀维 (sic). Theodori sectatorum vestigia agnoscuntur. Non ad genera, sed rationem narrandi pertinet, quod anonymus (Cornutus) I p. 443, 19 Sp. (= p. 375, 9 H.) docet: 螛蔚蠈未蠅蟻慰蟼 渭峤参 蟺慰位位维蟼 蠁畏蟽喂 纬委谓蔚蟽胃伪喂 (sc. 未喂畏纬萎蟽蔚喂蟼) 魏伪峤 峒愇 蟿伪峥栂 蟺伪蟻伪纬蟻伪蠁伪峥栂 未峤晃 蠁畏蟽峤段 蔚峒段轿蔽, 蟿萎谓 蟿蔚 蟿峥喯 伪峒跋勎毕 魏伪峤 蟿峤次 蟿峥喯 蟺伪蟻伪纬蟻伪蠁峥喯 伪峤愊勧繂蟼, quae verba ad nostrum Theodorum rettullit W. Schmid (Gesch. d. gr. Lit. III 1 p. 193, 4).
11. Aristot. rhet. 2.23.28 1400b9: 峒勎晃晃肯 蟿蠈蟺慰蟼 苇魏 蟿峥段 峒渭伪蟻蟿畏胃苇谓蟿蠅谓 魏伪蟿畏纬慰蟻蔚峥栁 峒 峒蟺慰位慰纬蔚峥栂兾肝蔽, 慰峒肺课 峒愇 蟿峥 螝伪蟻魏委谓慰蠀 螠畏未蔚委峋 慰峒 渭峤参 魏伪蟿畏纬慰蟻慰峥ο兾刮, 峤呄勎 蟿慰峤合 蟺伪峥栁次毕 峒蟺苇魏蟿蔚喂谓蔚谓, 慰峤 蠁伪委谓蔚蟽胃伪喂 纬慰峥ξ 伪峤愊勎肯嵪. 峒ノ嘉毕佅勎 纬峤跋 峒 M萎未蔚喂伪 蟺蔚蟻峤 蟿峤次 峒蟺慰蟽蟿慰位峤次 蟿峥段 蟺伪委未蠅谓. 5 峒 未始 峒蟺慰位慰纬蔚峥栂勎蔽, 峤呄勎 慰峤愇 峒偽 蟿慰峤合 蟺伪峥栁次毕 峒位位峤 蟿峤肝 螜维蟽慰谓伪 峒偽 峒蟺苇魏蟿蔚喂谓蔚谓. 蟿慰峥ο勎 纬峤跋 峒ノ嘉毕佅勎滴 峒偽 渭峤 蟺慰喂萎蟽伪蟽伪, 蔚峒聪蔚蟻 魏伪峤 胃维蟿蔚蟻慰谓 峒愊慰委畏蟽蔚谓. 峒斚兿勎 未始 峤 蟿蠈蟺慰蟼 慰峤椣勎肯 蟿慰峥 峒愇轿赶呂嘉嘉毕勎肯 魏伪峤 蟿峤 蔚峒段次肯 峤呂晃 峒 蟺蟻蠈蟿蔚蟻慰谓 螛蔚慰未蠋蟻慰蠀 蟿苇蠂谓畏. 8 峒 蟺蟻慰蟿苇蟻伪 螛螘 Dubitant sitne prior Theodori ars intellegenda an ars ante The慰dorum, ut Spengel recte meo quoque iudicio iudicavit; ad rem F. Solmsen, RE. V A 2, 1843, 32 sq. Certe autem 蟿峤 峒愇 蟿峥段 峒渭伪蟻蟿畏胃苇谓蟿蠅谓 魏伪蟿畏纬慰蟻蔚峥栁 cohaeret cum usu mores adversariorum exagitandi, quod genus antiquissimae proprium rhetoricae. Scholiasta quidem ad locum (p. 146, 5 R.) docet: 峒 纬慰峥ξ 峥ノ废勎肯佄刮横酱 蟿慰峥 螛蔚慰未蠋蟻慰蠀 蟿慰峥ο勎课 蟿峤肝 蟿蟻蠈蟺慰谓 蟺伪蟻蔚未委未慰蠀 峒は勎课 蟿峤 峒愇 蟿峥段 峒佄嘉毕佅勎肺肝较勏壩 蟿喂谓峤 峒愊喂蠂蔚喂蟻蔚峥栁, quod sane tam inane est, ut ex ipsis Aristotelis verbis neglecto eo quod est 蟺蟻蠈蟿蔚蟻慰谓 videatur esse ductum. Locum ab Antiphonte egregie esse tractatum Hamberger monuit allatis exemplis 99 sq.
12. Aristot. rhet. 3.11.6 1412a 23: 魏伪峤 蟿峤 蔚峤 峋愇轿刮澄嘉轿 未喂峤 蟿峤 伪峤愊勧礁 峒∥次甭 渭维胃畏蟽喂蟼 纬维蟻, 魏伪峤 位苇纬蔚蟿伪喂 渭蔚蟿伪蠁慰蟻峥 魏伪峤 峤 位苇纬蔚喂 螛蔚蠈未蠅蟻慰蟼 蟿峤 魏伪喂谓峤 位苇纬蔚喂谓. 纬委纬谓蔚蟿伪喂 未苇, 峤呄勎蔽 蟺伪蟻维未慰尉慰谓 峋, 魏伪峤 渭萎, 峤∠ 峒愇何滇繓谓慰蟼 位苇纬蔚喂, 蟺蟻峤赶 蟿峤次 峒斘枷蟻慰蟽胃蔚谓 未蠈尉伪谓, 峒位位始 峤∠兿蔚蟻蔚峤 峒愇 5 蟿慰峥栂 纬蔚位慰委慰喂蟼 蟿峤 蟺伪蟻伪蟺蔚蟺慰喂畏渭苇谓伪, 峤呄蔚蟻 未蠉谓伪蟿伪喂 魏伪峤 蟿峤 蟺伪蟻峤 纬蟻维渭渭伪 蟽魏蠋渭渭伪蟿伪. 峒愇疚毕伪蟿峋 纬维蟻, 魏伪峤 峒愇 蟿慰峥栂 渭苇蟿蟻慰喂蟼路 慰峤 纬峤跋 峤ハ兿蔚蟻 峤 峒魏慰蠉蠅谓 峤懴苇位伪尾蔚谓: 鈥樶紨蟽蟿蔚喂蠂蔚 未始 峒斚囅壩 峤懴峤 蟺慰蟽蟽峤 蠂委渭蔚胃位伪始, 峤 未始 峋の迪勎 蟺苇未喂位伪 峒愊佄滇繓谓. 蟿慰蠉蟿慰蠀 未始 峒呂嘉 位蔚纬慰渭苇谓慰蠀 未蔚峥 未峥單晃课 蔚峒段轿蔽, 蟿峤 未峤 蟺伪蟻峤 纬蟻维渭渭伪 蟺慰喂蔚峥 慰峤愊 峤 位苇纬蔚喂 位苇纬蔚喂谓 峒位位始 <峒勎晃晃>, 峤 渭蔚蟿伪蟽蟿蟻苇蠁蔚喂, 10 峤勎轿课嘉, 慰峒肺课 蟿峤 螛蔚慰未蠋蟻慰蠀 蔚峒跋 螡委魏蠅谓伪 蟿峤肝 魏喂胃伪蟻峥澄聪屛 鈥樜樝佱痉蟿蟿始 峋栂兾凳. 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺慰喂蔚峥栂勎蔽 纬峤跋 位苇纬蔚喂谓 蟿峤 鈥樜赶佄勏勎滴 蟽蔚始, 魏伪峤 峒愇疚毕伪蟿峋仿 峒勎晃晃 纬峤跋 位苇纬蔚喂. 未喂峤 渭伪胃蠈谓蟿喂 峒∥聪, 峒愊蔚委, 蔚峒 渭峤 峤懴慰位伪渭尾维谓蔚喂 螛蟻峋肺何 蔚峒段轿蔽, 慰峤 未蠈尉蔚喂 峒蟽蟿蔚峥栁课 蔚峒段轿蔽. 2 渭蔚蟿伪蠁慰蟻维 3 comma ante 蟿峤 魏伪喂谓峤 falso additur 4-5 峤ハ兿蔚蟻 慰峒 峒愇 11 胃蟻维蟿蟿蔚喂 蟽蔚: 螛蟻峋废勏勈 峋栂兾, ut Meinekius coniecit, recepi collate narratiuncula, quae de Thraessa musicam corrumpente mutila sane exstat apud Mexlerum in Academicorum philosophorum indice Hercul. Col. V. 1 p. 14. Multi artem nova dicendi tractaverant, Theodorus 蟿峤 魏伪喂谓峤 位苇纬蔚喂谓 dixerat esse 蟺蟻峤赶 蟿峤次 峒斘枷蟻慰蟽胃蔚谓 未蠈尉伪谓, i.e. si quis vocabulo daret sensum a consuetudine abhorrentem, quod Aristoteles improbat. Nicon autem citharoedus progenie Thrax erat idque scire debebant, ut dictum urbanum esse intellegerent auditores, neque enim iucundum erat nescientibus, nam Theodorus non quidem 胃蟻维蟿蟿蔚喂 蟽蔚 enuntiaverat, sed 蟺伪蟻峤 纬蟻维渭渭伪 (unalittera mutata) 螛蟻峋废勏勈 峋椣兾, scilicet propter corruptam Niconis canendi rationem (cf. scholia p. 212, 10 R. 蟺伪蟻伪蟺蔚蟺慰喂畏渭苇谓伪 位苇纬蔚喂 蟿峤 蟽魏蠋渭渭伪蟿伪 蟿峤 峤懴维蟻蠂慰谓蟿伪 蟺伪蟻峤 纬蟻维渭渭伪 峒斘, 慰峒肺课 蟺蟻蠈蟼 蟿喂谓伪 蟿蟻伪蠀位蠈谓路 峤佄会痉蟼, 魏蠈位伪魏慰蟼 魏蔚蠁伪位峤次 峒斚囄滴瓜). Sic verba accipienda videntur, commentaria Aristotelis conferas.
13. Schol. ad Aristot. rhet. p. 1412a 25, p. 212, 2 R.: 峒位位峤 魏伪峤 峤 螛蔚蠈未蠅蟻慰蟼 (峥ノ勏壪 未峤 峒ξ) 位苇纬蔚喂 蟿峤 蟿峤跋 蔚峤愇次课何刮嘉肯嵪兾毕 蔚峒拔合屛轿毕 位苇纬蔚喂谓 {魏伪峤秨 蟽畏渭伪委谓蔚喂谓 魏伪喂谓峤 峒は勎课 蟺伪蟻维尉蔚谓伪, 峒偽 魏伪峤 峒勎晃晃 蟿喂 蠁伪委谓畏蟿伪喂 位苇纬蔚喂谓 魏伪蟿峤 蟿峤 蠁伪喂谓蠈渭蔚谓慰谓, 慰峒废屛 峒愊兿勎 蟿峤 鈥樜酷急 蟿苇蟿蟿喂纬蔚蟼 5 伪峤愊勎酷繓蟼 蠂伪渭蠈胃蔚谓 峋勏兾课较勎蔽故. 纬委谓蔚蟿伪喂 未峤 蟿慰峥ο勎 峒ハ勎课 蟿峥 峒勎晃晃 蟽畏渭伪委谓蔚喂谓 蟺伪蟻峤 蟿峤 蠁伪喂谓蠈渭蔚谓慰谓, 峤呄勎蔽 蟿峤 谓慰慰蠉渭蔚谓慰谓 蟺伪蟻维未慰尉慰谓, 峒 蟺伪蟻峤 蟿峤次 蟺蟻慰蟿苇蟻伪谓 未蠈尉伪谓 魏伪峤 渭峤 峤∠ 位苇纬蔚喂 魏伪蟿峤 蟿峤 蠁伪喂谓蠈渭蔚谓慰谓. 5 峒は勎课 蟿峤 6 峋
14. Aristot. rhet. 2.23.16 p. 1399a 29: 峒勎晃晃肯 (sc. 蟿蠈蟺慰蟼), 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 渭苇谓 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, 峒愇 蟿慰蠉蟿蠅谓 蟺蔚喂蟻峋断兾肝蔽 蟽蠀谓维纬蔚喂谓 胃维蟿蔚蟻慰谓路 蟿峥段 纬峤跋 蟺伪蟻伪未蠈尉蠅谓 慰峤椣勎肯 峤 蟿蠈蟺慰蟼 魏蠀蟻喂峤较勎毕勏屜 峒愊兿勎刮. Cf. Athenaeus 122 b 螝畏蠁喂蟽蠈未蠅蟻慰蟼... 位苇纬蔚喂 峤呄勎 蔚峤曄佄课 蟿喂蟼 峒偽 峤愊峤 蟿峥段 峒勎晃幌壩 蟺慰喂畏蟿峥段 峒 魏伪峤 蟽慰蠁喂蟽蟿峥段 峒曃 峒 未蠉慰 纬慰峥ξ 蟺慰谓畏蟻峥断 蔚峒跋佄肺嘉轿... 螛蔚慰未蠋蟻峥 未峤 蟿峤 魏蔚位蔚蠉蔚喂谓 渭峤参 蟺位苇慰谓 峒斚囄滴刮, 峒愊伪喂谓蔚峥栁 未峤 蟿峤 峒聪兾课. Theodorus inter Archilochum et Euripidem laudatur eumque poetam fuisse suspicatur Kaibel in indice Ath. p. 667 referens ad Bergkium P. l. g.4 II 376, Keilium Anal. Isocr. p. 99. Mira tamen cum Aristotele congruentia. Cf. Spengel ad Ar. rhet. p. 318 sq. [Isocr.] ad Demonic. 38. Theodorum vero poetam alium atque Kaibelius putat Bergkius l. l. a Kaibelio laudatus.
15. Philod. rhet. II 114 fr. IV 6 S.: 慰峤 渭峋段晃晃课 峒蟺伪蟿峥断兾刮 峒愇 峒纬[峥断兾筣谓 魏伪峤 慰峒 [未蠀谓伪蟿]慰峤 峒 峒蟺伪蟿峥段较勎蔽. 胃伪[蠀渭维]味蠅 未鈥, 蔚峒 渭峤 渭蠀蟻喂维魏喂蟼 伪峤愊勧繃 峒∠维蟿伪 蟺慰位位慰峥ο 螛[蔚蠈]未[蠅蟻]慰蟼路 慰峤椣刐慰蟼 纬峤跋 未蠉谓伪]渭喂谓 峒斚囅壩 蟿峥喯 峒蟺维蟿畏[蟼 峤呂枷壪俔 魏伪峤 峒愇毕呄勧礁谓 [峤乚渭慰位[慰纬蔚峥 蟺位]伪谓峋断兾肝蔽. 伪峤愊勧繃 i. e. 蟿峥 峥ノ废勎肯佄刮横繃. 螛蔚蠈未蠅蟻慰蟼 incerto supplemento. 慰峤愊囜蕉 pro 峤呂枷壪 Sudhaus. De 峒蟺维蟿畏蟼 notione cf. Gorgias apud Plutarchum de glor. Athen. 348 C, de aud. poet. 15 螔, Helenae 8.
16. Rufini rhetoris de Theodoro numeros oratorios tractante ineptias v. apud Gorgiam fr. 38. Item quod Cicero (or. 39 = G慰rgiae fr. 34) de Theodorei stili argutiis narrat, ea verba The慰dorum 蟺蔚蟻峤 位苇尉蔚蠅蟼 praecepta dedisse minime docent.
17. Quint. inst. 2, 15, 16: omnia subiecisse oratori videtur Aristoteles, cum dixit 鈥榲im esse videndi, quid in quaque re possit esse persuasibile始, et Iatrocles, qui non quidem adicit 鈥榠n quaque re始, sed nihil excipiendo idem ostendit. vim enim vocat 5 inveniendi, quod sit in oratione persuasibile. qui fines et ipsi solam complectuntur inventionem. quod vitium fugiens Theodorus vim putat inveniendi et eloquendi cum ornatu credibilia in omni oratione. 3 Patrocles AP latrocles B 6. 7 Theodorus AN Eudorus Bn Bg P. Vel si Theodori nomen recte traditum esset, ne tum quidem Byzantium intellegi certum esset. Nec vero recte W. Schmid (Gesch. d. gr. Lit. III 1 p. 193, 4) Theodori Byzantii 未喂畏纬萎蟽蔚蠅蟼 definitionem ab an慰nym慰 Seg. (Cornut慰) p. 434, 25 Sp. servatam esse putavit, quia is Theodorus, qui illic tertius post Neoclem et Zenonem et prior ante Apollodorum Theodori Gadareni adversarium appellatur, sine dubio iste Gadarenus est.
18. Auctor de sublimitate III 5: 蟿慰蠉蟿峥 蟺伪蟻维魏蔚喂蟿伪喂 蟿蟻委蟿慰谓 蟿喂 魏伪魏委伪蟼 蔚峒段次肯 峒愇 蟿慰峥栂 蟺伪胃畏蟿喂魏慰峥栂, 峤呄蔚蟻 峤 螛蔚蠈未蠅蟻慰蟼 蟺伪蟻苇谓胃蠀蟻蟽慰谓 峒愇何晃滴. Nempe Theodorus Gadarenus, Tiberii magister. Byzantium laudari Spengel ipse valde incertum iudicavit. Pleraque enim, quae posteriores Theodoro tribuunt, Gadareni videntur esse.
|
XII. THEODORUS 1. Diogenes Laertius 2.8, 103-4: Some twenty persons have borne the name of Theodorus: [鈥 (9) A Byzantine, (famous) for his political speeches. (10) Another, equally famous, mentioned by Aristotle in his Epitome of Rhetors. The word for 鈥榝amous鈥 appears to be missing in the Greek. The ninth man is, I think, our sophist, the tenth a less well-known one whom only Aristotle names, perhaps a son of the ninth, cf. the example of the Theodecteses. Others interpret the sentence as 鈥榦ne equally famous鈥 (while Radermacher thinks it means 鈥榦ne Aristotle equally mentions鈥︹). 2. Suda 螛 149: Theodorus was a sophist from Byzantium, whom Plato called logodaidalos (鈥渟killed with words鈥). He wrote Against Thrasybulus, Against Andokides, and some others.
Cf. Cic. orat. 12, 39: 鈥樷 listing Theodorus among those who wrote not for court proceedings but to please the ears, 鈥渨hom Socrates in Phaedrus calls 鈥榳ordsmiths鈥.鈥濃 Quint. 3.1.11: 鈥楾heodorus of Byzantium 鈥 another one of those Plato calls 鈥渨ordsmiths鈥,鈥 perhaps taking this from Cicero. Cicero orat. 40 seems to describe this sophist鈥檚 style more correctly: 鈥榗hoppy and not well-rounded enough.鈥
3. Cicero, Brutus 12.48 (from Aristotle): Lysias first laid claim to using the art of speaking; later, however, as Theodorus was more subtle in the art and at the same time more jejune in his speeches, Lysias began writing speeches for others. Aristotle Soph. el. 34, 183 b 32 claims that he improved the art of rhetoric after Thrasymachus (see above, A V 6). On the chronology cf. Cic. orat. 12.39.
4. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On Isaeus: Theodorus of Byzantium was one of the ancients. He was imprecise in his technai and did not give sufficient extetasis to his agonistic speeches. The same author claims in To Ammaeus p. 259.2 f. that he discovered 鈥榥othing worth studying鈥; in On Demosthenes p. 143.8 鈥榥othing new or remarkable鈥. Plato Phaedr. 261C seems to testify to an Art, as certainly does Quint. 3.1.11 (above A V 10). 5. Plato, Phaedrus 266 D 鈥 267 A: Thank you for reminding me. You mean that there must be an prooimion first, at the beginning of the speech; these are the things you mean, are they not?鈥攖he niceties of the art. 鈥 Yes. 鈥 And a narrative must come second, overlaid with testimony, and third tekmeria, and fourth probabilities; and proof and 'further proof' are mentioned, I believe, by the man from Byzantium, that most excellent artist in words. 鈥 You mean the worthy Theodorus? 鈥 Of course. And he tells how refutation and 'further refutation' must be accomplished, both in a prosecution speech and in an apologia. Shall we not bring the illustrious Parian, Evenus, into our discussion? Hermias on this passage: 鈥楬e calls 鈥渇urther proof鈥 the adding of another demonstration to demonstration.鈥 Schol. Aristot. rhet. p. 227, 25: 鈥楢 鈥渇urther refutation鈥 is when someone speaks outside of the issue and says things that do not fit with the refutation and the dispute.鈥 See Hamberger 73 f.
6. Anaximenes, On Rhetoric: We must place witness testimony as the first of the means of proof. Spengel on Anaximenes p. 257 f. infers from Plato that this order stems from our Byzantine.
7. Aristotle, Rhetoric 1414b7: So then the necessary parts of a speech are the proposition and proofs. These parts are appropriate to every speech, and at most the parts are prooimion, proposition, proof, and epilogue; for response to the opponent is part of the proofs, and contrast is amplification of one's own case, and therefore also part of the proofs; for he who does this demonstrates something, whereas the prooimion and the epilogue are not, but aid memory. Therefore, if we adopt all such divisions, those following Theodorus do, there is a distinct narrative, and 'additional narrative", and a 'preliminary narrative', and a refutation and ;additional refutation'. 鈥榯hose following Theodorus鈥 seems to show that Theodorus had followers who came up with new ideas themselves. In 1417a3 ff. Aristotle also names a 鈥榮ide narrative鈥. One must also take account of Quint. 4.2.128: 鈥楾here is a certain repeated narrative, called epidiegesis 鈥 more a declamatory thing, to be sure, than forensic 鈥 which was invented in order that, as a narrative has to be short, the events might be expounded at greater length and more ornately; this is done either for the sake of creating enmity or pity.鈥 Hermogenes On Invention 2.1 p. 189, 7 Sp.: 鈥樷he preparation of the exposition, which is also called 鈥減re-exposition鈥濃︹ 鈥 words repeated in Maximus Planudes W V 220.27 = Prol. Syll. P. 212, 17 R., Maximus Planudes W V 385.20. Cf. W. Schmid, Gesch. d. gr. Lit. III 1 p. 193, 2.
8. Anonymus (Cornutus), On Rhetoric: There are three kinds of side narrative: pre-narrative, side narrative and after-narrative. A pre-narrative happens when, before dealing with the matter at hand itself, we narrate another one independent of it [there follow some examples]. Side narrative is given when we narrate different things about the same matter [鈥. An after-narrative happens when we narrate something after the proofs or the epilogue. The same author on p. 364.6 also knows a 鈥榗ounter-narrative鈥 (antidiegesis) (that is, when 鈥榯he opponents introduce narratives given differently and we narrate against them鈥). The explanation of the terms as such is taken from an author who lived after Demetrius of Phaleron, cf. the same Anonymous p. 374.6.
9. Rufus, On Rhetoric (On Exposition): There are four kinds: narrative, side narrative, pre-narrative and sub-narrative. (8) A narrative, as we said, is the mere description of what happened [鈥. (17) A side narrative is a narrative in the manner of a narrative that is added and borrowed from the outside to what is useful for the underlying speech [鈥. (454, 8W.) A pre-narrative is a causal description inserted before the narrative that deals with the matter itself [鈥. (14) A sub-narrative happens when, alongside the facts of the matter, we describe both the judgements of the actors and their reasons. 鈥楴arrative鈥 and 鈥榩re-narrative鈥 were already in Theodorus, but 鈥榮ub-narrative鈥 is not to be changed into 鈥榓dditional narrative鈥 is shown also by the Scholium B on Iliad 1.527.
10. Martianus Capella, On Rhetoric: Some have claimed that there are five kinds of narrative; for instance, Theodorus of Byzantium distinguishes in Greek between pre-narrative, sub-narrative, side narrative, counter-narrative and pure narrative. Fortunatianus, Ars 2.19 p. 112.5 f. Halm distinguishes eight forms of narratives, namely narrative, counter-narrative, partial narrative, side narrative, sub-narrative, pure narrative, additional narrative, disposition. One can sense a follower of Theodorus. The following teachings of the anonymous (Cornutus) 1 p. 443, 19 Sp. (= p. 375, 9 H.) refer not to genres but to the manner of narrating: 鈥楾heodorus claims that there are many kinds of narrative and in procedures of paragraphe specifically two, that of the charge and that of the paragraphe itself.鈥 W. Schmid (Gesch. d. gr. Lit. III 1 p. 193, 4) argues that these words refer to the Theodorus we are dealing with here.
11. Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.23.28 1400 b9: Another topic consists in making use of errors committed, for purposes of prosecution or defence. For instance, in the Medea of Carcinus, some accuse Medea of having killed her children鈥攁t any rate, they disappeared; for she had made the mistake of sending them out of the way. Medea herself pleads that she would have slain, not her children, but her husband Jason; for it would have been a mistake on her part not to have done this, if she had done the other. This topic and kind of enthymeme is the subject of the whole of the first Techne of Theodorus. There is doubt as to whether one should take this passage to refer to an earlier Art by Theodorus or one before Theodorus; the latter is the view of Spengel, which I deem correct. On this issue see F. Solmsen, RE. V A 2, 1843, 32 f. Certainly 鈥榤aking use of errors committed for purposes of prosecution鈥 is consistent with the custom of exposing the opponent鈥檚 character, something that pertains to the most ancient rhetoric. The scholiast ad loc. (p. 146, 5 R.) writes: 鈥楾he rhetoric of Theodorus handed down the precept of attacking someone based on his errors,鈥 which however is so unsound that it seems to have been taken from Aristotle's words themselves with no mind paid to what 鈥榖efore鈥 means. Hamberger (99 f.) points out that Antiphon deals with this topos excellently.
12. Aristotle, Rhetoric 3.11.6 1412 a23 鈥 1412 b2: And good riddles are agreeable for the same reason; for there is learning, and it is spoken metaphorically. And what Theodorus calls 鈥渘ovelties鈥. They arise when there is paradox, and, as he puts it, not in accordance with our previous expectation, but just like alterations in jokes, which can become puns from a letter change. For they are deceptive, also in poetry; for instance, the following verse does not finish as the hearer expected: 鈥淎nd he strode on, under his feet鈥攃hilblains,鈥 whereas the hearer thought he was going to say 鈥渟andals.鈥 This kind of joke is clear as soon as it is said. Puns mean not what is said, but something else, which it twists; for instance, when Theodorus said to Nicon, the player on the cithara, 鈥測ou are troubled鈥 (胃蟻峤毕勏勎滴); for while pretending to say 鈥渟omething troubles you,鈥 he deceives; for he means something else. Therefore the joke is only agreeable to one who understands the point; for if one does not know that Nicon is Thracian, he will not see any urbanity in it. Many dealt with the art of speaking novelties; Theodorus claimed that 鈥榥ovel expressions鈥 were 鈥榦pposed to the opinion prevailing so far鈥, that is, if someone gave a word a meaning very different from the customary one, which Aristotle criticizes. The lyre-player Nicon was of Thracian origin and this must have been well-known for the listeners to understand that it was an urbane saying, as it would not have been funny to someone who did not know it. For Theodorus did not say 鈥榠t troubles you鈥 but, changing one letter, 鈥榟e sang Thracian songs鈥, alluding to Nicon鈥檚 impure manner of singing (cf. Schol. P. 212, 10 R.: 鈥楬e calls 鈥渕odified鈥 the jokes created by the change of one letter, for instance, by saying to somebody who lisps : [鈥鈥濃).
13. Scholia on Aristotle鈥檚 Rhetoric: But Theodorus, too, who was a rhetor, says that using the popular images conveys novelties or half-foreign meanings even if it seems to be saying something else according to the appearance, as in 鈥淭he cicadae will sing for them from the ground鈥. This happens when something is signified either against the appearance, whenever the mental image is paradoxical, or against the initial impression and not the way one speaks according to the appearance.
14. Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.23.16 1399a29: Again, since men do not praise the same things in public and in secret, but in public chiefly praise what is just and beautiful, and in secret rather wish for what is expedient, another topic consists in endeavoring to infer its opposite from one or other of these statements. This topic is the most weighty of those that deal with paradox. Cf. Athenaeus 122b: 鈥楥ephisodorus [鈥 says that one would certainly find one or maybe two bad claims by any other poet or sophist [鈥. As for Theodorus, (the bad claims are) that he encourages to have more, but then praises having equal shares.鈥 Theodorus is mentioned between Archilochus and Euripides, and Kaibel suspects he was a poet, see his index on Athenaeus, p. 667, referring to Bergk P. l. g.4 II 376, Keil Anal. Isocr. p. 99. It is strange, though, how much similarity there is with Aristotle. Cf. Spengel ad Ar. rhet. p. 318 f.; [Isocr.] ad Demonic. 38. Bergk, however, in the passage cited by Kaibel opines that this Theodorus is a poet different from the one Kaibel thinks of.
15. Philodemos, On Rhetoric: Even the powerful do not deceive others as much as they are deceived. On this note, I wonder whether Theodorus did not deceive many people plenty of times: though having the ability to deceive, he admits that he himself is often in error. 鈥楧eceive with it鈥, that is, with rhetoric. 鈥楾hedorus鈥 is not a certain reconstruction of the fragmentary text. Sudhaus inserts 鈥榥ot鈥 instead of 鈥榟imself鈥. On the concept of 鈥榙eception鈥 cf. Gorgias in Plutarch, De gloria Atheniensium 348 C, De audiendis poetis 15 B, Helen 8.
16. On the rhetor Rufinus鈥 on Theodorus see Gorgias Frag. 38.
17. Quintilian, 2.15.16: Aristotle seems to have subjected everything to the orator by saying: 鈥淭here is a power of seeing what is persuasive about each and every thing.鈥 So does Iatrocles, who while he does not add 鈥渁bout each and every thing鈥, conveys the same concept by not naming any exceptions; for he refers to a power of finding what is persuasive in a speech. Such definitions too cover nothing but invention. Theodorus, on the other hand, avoids that flaw by positing a power of finding and ornately expressing what is credible in any speech. Even if Theodorus鈥 name was handed down correctly, it would not be clear whether the one of Byzantium is meant. W. Schmid (Gesch. d. gr. Lit. III 1 p. 193.4) is wrong to think that Theodorus of Byzantium鈥檚 definition of 鈥榥arrative鈥 is preserved in the anonymous Seg. (Cornutus) p. 434, 25 Sp., for the Theodorus who is named in that passage after Neocles and Zeno and before Apollodorus the opponent of Theodorus of Gadara must be that Th. of Gadara.
18. Treatise On the Sublime: To this comes a third kind of flaw in impassioned speech, which Theodorus called affectation of style. That is, Theodorus of Gadara, teacher of Tiberius. Spengel himself thought it very dubious that the one of Byzantium could be mentioned here. For most sayings that later authors attribute to a Theodorus appear to be from Theodorus of Gadara. |