XVI. LICYMNIUS 1. 蟺慰委畏蟽喂谓 蔚峤愇迪蔚委伪蟼 Licymni慰 adsignat Plato Phaedr. 267 C (B XIV 10), quod quadrat et ad dithyramborum poetam et ad rhetora, 螕慰蟻纬委慰蠀 蟽蠀谓慰蠀蟽喂伪蟽蟿萎蟼 audit Dionysio de Lys. p. 11, 3 U. R., hinc eius 蟺伪蟻喂蟽蠋蟽蔚喂蟼 魏伪峤 蟺伪蟻慰渭慰喂蠋蟽蔚喂蟼 魏伪峤 蟺伪蟻慰谓慰渭伪蟽委伪喂 魏伪峤 峒谓蟿喂胃苇蟽蔚喂蟼 Dionys. de Thuc. p. 363, 1 sq. (p. 424, 13 sq.).
2. Hermias in Plat慰nis Phaedr. p. 239, 12 (p. 192 Ast): 峤 螞喂魏蠉渭谓喂慰蟼 蟿峤肝 螤峥段晃课 峒愇次次蔽疚滴 峤谓慰渭维蟿蠅谓 蟿喂谓峤跋 未喂伪喂蟻苇蟽蔚喂蟼, 慰峒肺课 蟺慰峥栁 魏蠉蟻喂伪, 蟺慰峥栁 蟽蠉谓胃蔚蟿伪, 蟺慰峥栁 峒未蔚位蠁维, 蟺慰峥栁 峒愊委胃蔚蟿伪, 魏伪峤 峒勎晃晃 蟺慰位位峤 蟺蟻峤赶 蔚峤愇蔚喂伪谓. Schol. ad Platonis Phaedr. 267 C: 峤 螞喂魏蠉渭谓喂慰蟼 未峤 螤蠋位慰蠀 未喂未维蟽魏伪位慰蟼. 峤兿 未喂峥勏佄滴 蟿峤 峤谓蠈渭伪蟿伪 蔚峒跋 魏蠉蟻喂伪, 蟽蠉谓胃蔚蟿伪, 峒未蔚位蠁维, 峒愊委胃蔚蟿伪, 魏伪峤 蔚峒跋 峒勎晃晃 蟿喂谓维. At Polus Licymnii praeceptor sec. Sudam (s. v. 螤峥段晃肯). Contrarium fortasse ductum e Platonis verbis (Phaedri 267 C) 峤谓慰渭维蟿蠅谓 蟿蔚 螞喂魏蠀渭谓蔚委蠅谓, 峒 峒愇何滴结砍 (i. e. 螤蠋位峥) 峒愇聪壪佄兾毕勎 (scil. 螞喂魏蠉渭谓喂慰蟼).
3. Aristot. rhet. 1405 b 6: 魏伪峤 峒蟺峤 魏伪位峥段: 魏维位位慰蟼 未峤 峤谓蠈渭伪蟿慰蟼 蟿峤 渭峤参 峤ハ兿蔚蟻 螞喂魏蠉渭谓喂慰蟼 位苇纬蔚喂, 峒愇 蟿慰峥栂 蠄蠈蠁慰喂蟼 峒 蟿峥 蟽畏渭伪喂谓慰渭苇谓峥, 魏伪峤 伪峒断兿囄肯 未峤 峤∠兾毕嵪勏壪. 峒斚勎 未峤 蟿蟻委蟿慰谓 峤 位蠉蔚喂 蟿峤肝 蟽慰蠁喂蟽蟿喂魏峤肝 位蠈纬慰谓: 慰峤 纬峤跋 峤∠ 峒斚單 螔蟻蠉蟽蠅谓 慰峤愇肝轿 伪峒跋兿囅佄课晃课澄滇繓谓, 蔚峒聪蔚蟻 蟿峤 伪峤愊勧礁 蟽畏渭伪委谓蔚喂 蟿蠈未蔚 峒谓蟿峤 蟿慰峥ξ次 蔚峒跋蔚峥栁: 蟿慰峥ο勎 纬维蟻 峒愊兿勎刮 蠄蔚峥ξ次肯: 峒斚兿勎刮 纬峤跋 峒勎晃晃 峒勎晃晃肯 魏蠀蟻喂蠋蟿蔚蟻慰谓 魏伪峤 峤∥嘉课瓜壩嘉轿课 渭峋段晃晃课 魏伪峤 慰峒拔何滴瓜屜勎迪佄课, 蟿峥 蟺慰喂蔚峥栁 蟿峤 蟺蟻峋段澄嘉 蟺蟻峤 峤渭渭维蟿蠅谓. 峒斚勎 慰峤愊 峤佄嘉课壪 峒斚囄课 蟽畏渭伪委谓蔚喂 蟿蠈未蔚 魏伪峤 蟿蠈未蔚, 峤ハ兿勎 魏伪峤 慰峤曄勏壪 峒勎晃晃肯 峒勎晃晃 魏维位位喂慰谓 魏伪峤 伪峒聪兿囄刮课 胃蔚蟿苇慰谓: 峒勎枷喯 渭峤参 纬峤跋 蟿峤 魏伪位峤肝 峒 蟿峤 伪峒跋兿囅佱礁谓 蟽畏渭伪委谓慰蠀蟽喂谓, 峒位位峋 慰峤愊 峋 魏伪位峤肝 峒 慰峤愊 峋 伪峒跋兿囅佅屛: 峒 蟿伪峥ο勎 渭苇谓, 峒位位峤 渭峋段晃晃课 魏伪峤 峒勏勎课. 峒斚勎 慰峤愊 峤佄嘉课壪 峒斚囄课 蟽畏渭伪委谓蔚喂 蟿蠈未蔚 魏伪峤 蟿蠈未蔚, 峤ハ兿勎 魏伪峤 慰峤曄勏壪 峒勎晃晃肯 峒勎晃晃 魏维位位喂慰谓 魏伪峤 伪峒聪兿囄刮课 胃蔚蟿苇慰谓: 峒勎枷喯 渭峤参 纬峤跋 蟿峤 魏伪位峤肝结饥 蟿峤 伪峒跋兿囅佱礁谓 蟽畏渭伪委谓慰蠀蟽喂谓, 峒位位峋 慰峤愊 峋 魏伪位峤肝 峒 慰峤愊 峋 伪峒跋兿囅佅屛: 峒 蟿伪峥ο勎 渭苇谓, 峒位位峤 渭峋段晃晃课 魏伪峤 峒勏勎课. 蟿峤跋 未峤 渭蔚蟿伪蠁慰蟻峤跋 峒愇较勎滇喀胃蔚谓 慰峒跋兿勎课, 峒蟺峤 魏伪位峥段 峒 蟿峥 蠁蠅谓峥 峒 蟿峥 未蠀谓维渭蔚喂 峒 蟿峥 峤勏埼滴 峒 峒勎晃会績 蟿喂谓峤 伪峒跋兾肝兾滴. 未喂伪蠁苇蟻蔚喂 未峋 蔚峒跋蔚峥栁, 慰峒肺课 峥ノ课次课次合勏呂晃肯 峒犪郊蟼 渭峋段晃晃课 峒 蠁慰喂谓喂魏慰未维魏蟿蠀位慰蟼, 峒 峒斚勎 蠁伪蠀位蠈蟿蔚蟻慰谓 峒愊佅呂赶佄课次合勏呂晃肯.
4. Aristot. rhet. 14l4 b 15: 未蔚峥 未峤 蔚峒段聪屜 蟿喂 位苇纬慰谓蟿伪 魏伪峤 未喂伪蠁慰蟻峤拔 峤勎轿课嘉 蟿委胃蔚蟽胃伪喂路 蔚峒 未峤 渭萎, 纬委谓蔚蟿伪喂 魏蔚谓峤肝 魏伪峤 位畏蟻峥段次迪, 慰峒肺课 螞喂魏蠉渭谓喂慰蟼 蟺慰喂蔚峥 峒愇 蟿峥 蟿苇蠂谓峥, 峒愊慰蠉蟻蠅蟽喂谓 峤谓慰渭维味蠅谓 魏伪峤 峒蟺慰蟺位维谓畏蟽喂谓 魏伪峤 峤勎段肯呄. 3 峒愊蠈蟻慰蠀蟽喂谓 vel 峒愊苇蟻蠅蟽喂谓 libri dett. Ductum 峒愊慰蠉蟻蠅蟽喂蟼 a verbo 峒愊慰蠀蟻蠈蠅 quod est 鈥榮ecundo vento vehi始 (慰峤栂佄肯), inde narratio intellegi videtur, quae bene fluit. Hamberger 80 sq. (Immisch, Rh. M. 48, 522 sq.). 鈥 Plato Politici 263 A鈥揅: 峒∥嘉滇繓蟼... 峒蟺峤 蟿慰峥 蟺蟻慰蟿蔚胃苇谓蟿慰蟼 位蠈纬慰蠀 蟺蔚蟺位伪谓萎渭蔚胃伪... 峒愊伪谓委蠅渭蔚谓 蟺维位喂谓... (C) 蟿峤 蟿峥喯 峒蟺慰蟺位伪谓萎蟽蔚蠅蟼 峤佅蠈胃蔚谓 峒∥坚径蟼 未蔚峥ο伿 峒の澄蔽澄滴. Ceterum huius saltem generis atque aetatis etiam 峒愊慰喂魏慰未慰渭蔚峥栁 sive 峒愊慰喂魏慰未蠈渭畏蟽喂谓 fuisse puto, quam augendi formam postea 魏位委渭伪魏伪 nominaverunt (Aristoteles rhet. 1365 a 16, de animal. gen. 724 a 29, Anaxim. 3 p. 30, 6 H., auctor de subl. XXXIX 3, Eustathius B 101, 违 214.)
5. Crat. Juni慰r fr. 韦伪蟻伪谓蟿委谓蠅谓, Mein. fr. Com. III, p. 376: 峒斘肝肯 峒愊兿勧蕉谓 伪峤愊勎酷繓蟼, 峒勎 蟿喂谓始 峒拔次贯浇蟿畏谓 蟺慰胃峤参 位维尾蠅蟽喂谓 蔚峒跋兾滴晃赶屛较勎, 未喂伪蟺蔚喂蟻蠋渭蔚谓慰谓 蟿峥喯 蟿峥段 位蠈纬蠅谓 峥ハ幬嘉废, 蟿伪蟻维蟿蟿蔚喂谓 魏伪峤 魏蠀魏峋段 蟿慰峥栂 峒谓蟿喂胃苇蟿慰喂蟼, 蟿慰峥栂 蟺苇蟻伪蟽喂, 蟿慰峥栂 蟺伪蟻喂蟽蠋渭伪蟽喂谓, 蟿慰峥栂 峒蟺慰蟺位维谓慰喂蟼, 蟿慰峥栂 渭蔚纬苇胃蔚蟽喂谓 谓慰蠀尾蠀蟽蟿喂魏峥断. 蟺蔚蟻伪谓蟿喂魏蠈蟼 Phaeax dicitur, v. s. B XIII 1
6. Anon. in Aristot. rhet. p. 227, 34 Rabe: 峤 螞喂魏蠉渭谓喂慰蟼 峥ノ勏壪 峒ξ. 蟿峤跋 峒愊伪谓伪位萎蠄蔚喂蟼 峒斘晃滴澄滴 峒愇何滇繓谓慰蟼 峒愊慰蟻慰蠉蟽蔚喂蟼. 蟿峤 慰峤栁 峤勎轿课嘉 蟿慰峥ο勎 蟿峤 峒愊蠈蟻慰蠀蟽委蟼 峒愊兿勎刮 峒蟽伪蠁峤蚕 魏伪峤 慰峤 蟺伪蟻喂蟽蟿峋 魏伪峤 未畏位慰峥, 蟿委 蟽畏渭伪委谓蔚喂. 魏伪峤 位慰喂蟺蠈谓, 蔚峒 慰峤 未畏位慰峥, 蟿委 蟽畏渭伪委谓蔚喂, 位慰喂蟺峤肝 魏蔚谓蠈谓 峒愊兿勎 蟿峤 蔚峒段次肯 蟿慰峥ο勎, 蔚峒 纬蔚 峒纬谓蠅蟽蟿蠈谓 峒愊兿勎刮 峒∥坚繓谓. [f. 71v] 峒愊蠈蟻慰蠀蟽喂蟼 魏蠀蟻委蠅蟼 峒愊兿勧蕉 蟿峤 峒愊蔚谓胃蠀渭萎渭伪蟿伪 蟿峤 蟽蠀谓蔚蟺慰蠀蟻委味慰谓蟿伪 魏伪峤 尾慰畏胃慰峥ξ较勎 蟿慰峥栂 峒愇轿赶呂嘉嘉毕兾孤 魏伪峤 峒佅位峥断, 峤呄兾 位苇纬慰谓蟿伪喂 尾慰畏胃慰峥ξ较勎 蟿峥 峒蟺慰未蔚委尉蔚喂 蟿慰峥 蟺蟻维纬渭伪蟿慰蟼, 魏峒偽 蟿慰峥 蟺蟻维纬渭伪蟿慰蟼 峒愇合勏屜 蔚峒跋兾, 位苇纬慰谓蟿伪喂 峒愊慰蟻慰蠉蟽蔚喂蟼. [b 17] 峒蟺慰蟺位维谓畏蟽委谓 蟿喂谓蔚蟼 位苇纬慰蠀蟽喂 蟿峤次 峒愊喂未喂萎纬畏蟽喂谓, 蟿喂谓峤蚕 未峤 蟿峤 峒斘鞠 蟿慰峥 蟺蟻维纬渭伪蟿慰蟼 位蔚纬蠈渭蔚谓伪, 蟽蠀渭尾伪位位蠈渭蔚谓伪 未峤 蔚峒跋 蟿峤跋 峒蟺慰未蔚委尉蔚喂蟼 魏伪峤 尾慰畏胃慰峥ξ较勎. 峤勎段肯呄 位苇纬蔚喂 蟿峤 峒勎合佄, 峒は勎课 蟿峤 蟺蟻慰慰委渭喂伪 魏伪峤 蟿慰峤合 峒愊喂位蠈纬慰蠀蟼.
7. Schol. B Il. B 106: 螞喂魏蠉渭谓喂慰蟼 未峤 蟺伪蟻伪未畏位慰峥ο兾肝蔽 蠁畏蟽喂 位蔚位畏胃蠈蟿蠅蟼 蟿峤次 峒斚囄赶佄蔽, 峒滴轿 渭峤 位慰喂未慰蟻萎蟽峥 蟿峤 纬苇谓慰蟼. 蟿峤 渭峤参 纬峤跋 鈥樜瘁慷魏蔚始 蠁喂位委伪蟼 蟿蔚魏渭萎蟻喂慰谓, 蟿峤 未苇 鈥樜何毕勎蔽晃瓜蔚峥栁绞 峒谓维纬魏畏蟼, 未喂峤 峒愊喪 峤 渭峤参 蟿峥 鈥樶紨未蠅魏蔚谓始 峒愊囅佄兾毕勎, 苇蠁始 峤 未峤 蟿峥 鈥樶紨位喂蟺蔚谓始. Similiter schol. Townl. Fusius de hoc loco egit W. O. Friedel, Diss. Halens. I 185 sq.
|
XVI. Licymnius 1. Plato (Phdr. 267C) attributes 鈥渃reation of good diction鈥 (poi锚sis euepeias, cf. XIV 10) to Licymnius, which corresponds to both the dithyrambic poet and the rhetorician, 鈥渃ompanion of Gorgias鈥 (D.H. On Lysias 11.3, where his parisoseis and paromoioseis and paronomasia, D.H. On Thucydides 1- (p. 424.13-14)
2. Hermias, On Plato鈥檚 Phaedrus p. 239.12: Licymnius taught Polus certain distinctions among words: which kinds are principal, which are combined, which are related, which are supplemental, and many others with regard to good diction. Scholion ad Phdr. 267C Licymnius is the teacher of Polus who divided words into principal, combined, related, supplemental, and some others. However, according to the Suda, on 鈥淧olus鈥, Polus was teacher of Licymnius. The contrary is perhaps inferred from Phdr. 267C: 鈥渢he Licymnian terms, which he (Licymnius) had taught that man (Polus).鈥
3. Aristotle, Rhetoric 3.2.13 1405b6-12: (Metaphors should also be derived from) things that are beautiful. The beauty of a word is on the one hand, as Licymnius says, in the sounds or the meaning, and its ugliness in the same way. But there is also a third condition, which refutes the sophistic argument; for it is not the case, as Bryson (25.2) said, that no one speaks in an ugly way if saying this instead of that indicates the same thing; this is false; for one word is more proper than another, more of a likeness, and better suited to putting the matter before the eyes. Further, this word or that does not signify a thing under the same conditions; thus for this reason also it must be admitted that one word is fairer or fouler than the other. Both, indeed, signify what is fair or foul, but not qua fair or foul; or if they do, it is in a greater or less degree. Metaphors therefore should be derived from what is beautiful either in sound, or in signification, or to sight, or to some other sense. For it does make a difference, for instance, whether one says 鈥渞osy-fingered morn,鈥 rather than 鈥減urple-fingered,鈥 or, what is still worse, 鈥渞ed-fingered.鈥
4. Aristotle, Rhetoric 3.13.4 1414b15- But one must only apply a word to describe a certain species or a difference; otherwise, it becomes empty and silly, like the terms Licymnius creates in his Techne, where he speaks of 鈥渨afting,鈥 鈥渨andering鈥, and 鈥渞amifications.鈥 鈥淲afting鈥 is supposed to be derived from the verb 鈥渢o waft鈥 (epouroo), which means 鈥渢o be carried by a favoring wind (ouros).鈥 So it seems to be understood as a narration that flows well. Plato, Statesman 263a-c We have already strayed away from our subject more than we ought, and you wish us to go still further afield. So for the present let us return to our subject, as is proper; then we will go on the trail of this other matter by and by, when we have time. (c) That from which our present digression started.
5. Cratinus the Younger, Tarentinians, fr. Com III, p. 376 There is a custom among them, if they receive some private person entering from somewhere, one who is experienced with the strength of words, cleverly to upset and stir him up with contradictions, conclusions, parallelisms, wanderings, and magnitudes. Perantikos ("conclusive") is said of Pheaex, see above, B XIII 1.
6. Anonymous, On Aristotle鈥檚 Rhetoric p. 227.34 Rabe Licymnius was a rhetorician. He used to call resumptions 鈥渨aftings鈥. This term, 鈥渨afting鈥, is unclear and does not signify or clarify what is meant. And it remains, if it does not clarify what is meant, it remains that this area is empty, since it is unknown to us. Wafting is mainly added enthymemes that waft together and support the enthymemes. Basically, what they say that supports the demonstration of the subject, if it is outside the subject, they are speaking waftings. Some people call supplementary narration 鈥渨andering鈥, others call it what is said outside the subject but contributes to the demonstrations and supports them. He calls them the ends of a branch, that is, the prooimia and the epilogues.
7. Scholion B Iliad 2.106 Licymnius says that hostility is being implicitly intimated, so that he does not insult the clan. For 鈥済ave鈥 is a sign of friendship, but 鈥渓eft to鈥 is a sign of necessity. Therefore in some circumstances he used 鈥済ave鈥 and in other 鈥渓eft." An especially thorough analysis of this passage in W. O. Friedel, Diss. Halle I 185 f. |