Metalepsis, paragraphe and the scholia to Hermogenes - Leeds ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MALCOLM HEATH, METALEPSIS, PARAGRAPHE AND THE SCHOLIA TO HERMOGENES holds that the issue of the prior question in documentary metalepsis is always legal; so he rejects (192.2-18) Hermogenes’ statement (80.1) that it is sometimes definition. He does not explain how the insistence that the prior question is legal is to be reconciled with his classification of Against Timarchus as paragraphe. Nor does he explain a unique feature of Against Timarchus—the fact that the first question, about the admissibility of the primary case, is not followed by a second question about the primary case itself (191.26-31); he merely refers us vaguely to ‘the interpreter’ of Aeschines’ speech for an explanation (see further §1.9). It is worth noting that his comments on Against Timarchus assume that both questions would normally be argued out in a single hearing (a question raised in §1.4 above). If the absence of the second question in Against Timarchus is unique, then the normal expectation must be that the second question will be treated within the same speech as the paragraphe. Moreover, since this expectation apparently applies even in a case (such as that against Timarchus) in which paragraphe is successful, the assumption must be that there is normally a single verdict at the end of the single hearing. 38 Hermogenes’ view on the issue of the prior question is also rejected, though in a different way, by Eustathius. He is cited (Nilus fol. 156v; Christophorus fol. 131r) 39 for the view that paragraphe may be based on conjecture, definition, letter and intent, or ambiguity. This is similar to the view mentioned under Aquila (§1.6), except that ambiguity takes the place of conflict of law. This variance is perhaps related to the reinterpretation of the prior question in Hermogenes’ example of documentary metalepsis as ambiguity rather than letter and intent, which we observed in Sopater’s commentary. But it is puzzling: what, for example, would Eustathius do with the conflict of law in the example from Sopater’s Division of Questions (§1.7)? Sopater describes paragraphe as a ‘complete ejection’ (kbol¾ ... tele…a) of the primary case (191.5-26, cf. 110.14f.). This implies that he understands ‘complete paragraphe’ to be making a contrast with non-documentary metalepsis; there is no indication that he distinguished complete and incomplete paragraphe within the documentary species. So the problem which troubled Athanasius would not arise for him. Marcellinus, one of the main sources of the ‘three-man commentary’ (RG 4), 40 also takes up the question of what Hermogenes meant when he described documentary metalepsis as a ‘complete paragraphe’ (292.18- 29). He rejects the view that documentary metalepsis is being contrasted with the incomplete non-documentary metalepsis; instead he contrasts complete paragraphe, which rejects the primary case completely, with incomplete but does not endorse it (RG 4.285.28-286.9, 782.2-8). Compare the head of homonymy in Marcomannus’ division of paragraphe (340.31-7). 38 Of course, a successful incomplete paragraphe leaves open the possibility that the prosecution will be renewed under other circumstances. But this is irrelevant to Sopater’s point: in this sense, the second question (that is, primary case against Aeschines) was heard, with Demosthenes as prosecutor. 39 Gloeckner (1901) 79; Rabe (1895) 248: see Appendix 7. Further fragments from unpublished scholia are collected in Gloeckner (1901) 78-86, (1908) 22-5; Schilling (1903) 715-33. 40 The text of the ‘three-man commentary’ is given in Appendix 4. 14
MALCOLM HEATH, METALEPSIS, PARAGRAPHE AND THE SCHOLIA TO HERMOGENES paragraphe, which finds fault with an aspect of it, such as the person of the prosecutor, as in Against Timarchus. We have found this terminology in Menander (§1.5), Aquila (§1.6) and Athanasius; but unlike Athanasius, Marcellinus does not see Hermogenes’ text as posing any difficulty for this interpretation. Unlike Sopater, Marcellinus has no problem with the idea that nondocumentary metalepsis is about the admissibility of the primary case. But his formulations are not very clear: ‘the one utterly rejects the case on the basis of one of the circumstances specified in the law; the other, conceding permissibility (xous…a), in turn makes use of the circumstances’ (279.21-3); ‘the documentary kind completely rejects the case initially and primarily; the non-documentary kind, which is determined by the prosecutor, concedes the primary case but rejects it by means of the circumstances’ (279.33-280.3). His main purpose here is to stress the relevance of circumstance in both kinds of metalepsis: since circumstance is the crucial element in metalepsis as a head of argument, the fact that circumstance is involved in both species of the issue helps make their combination within a single issue seem easier to understand. But the formulations do not give a clear statement of the nature of the two species. He later provides a more focused account of non-documentary metalepsis (291.14-23); but even here a formula such as that ‘it brings a paragraphe in certain way (trÒpon tin¦ pragr£fetai), rejecting the permissibility of the act (kb£llousa t¾n xous…an tÁj pr£xewj)’ does not make it clear that the paragraphe belongs to the defendant, while the denial of permissibility is the prosecutor’s response (292.6f. shows that the permissibility of the act is the permissibility of the defendant’s act, not of the case). 1.9 John and deutero-Sopater John of Caesarea has been conjecturally identified as the author of a commentary, probably dating to the first part of the fifth century, that was one of the sources of the compilation of scholia in RG 7 (see §3.4). 41 He offers another solution to the problem posed by Athanasius (§1.8): the distinction between complete and incomplete paragraphe is consistent with paragraphe as a whole being ‘complete’, if that is taken in a comparative sense: any paragraphe, even an incomplete one, is more complete than non-documentary metalepsis (619.3-11). John says that the division of the prior question in paragraphe usually follows one of the legal issues, although it may also use the heads of conjecture or definition (617.10-14); in fact, the view that paragraphe may based on letter and intent, ambiguity, definition or conjecture (compare Eustathius, in §1.8) is at one point described as a universally accepted tradition (kat¦ t¾n koin¾n ¡p£ntwn par£dosin 619.30f.: an exaggeration, as we have seen from Sopater). But John sees that this raises a problem (619.23-620.2): why does Hermogenes say nothing 41 The text of RG 7 (omitting material from the ‘patchwork’ source: §3.4) is given in Appendix 5. Note that Walz does not print the text of the RG 7 scholia in full: where the text is parallel to material already printed in the commentary attributed to Planudes in RG 5, he merely gives a cross-reference. When I refer to a passage in RG 7 which includes such a cross-reference the material printed in RG 5 (taking account of the RG 7 variants reported in the apparatus) is to be incorporated (as has been done in the text in the Appendix). 15
Page 1 and 2: LEEDS INTERNATIONAL CLASSICAL STUDI
Page 3 and 4: MALCOLM HEATH, METALEPSIS, PARAGRAP
Page 13: MALCOLM HEATH, METALEPSIS, PARAGRAP
Page 65 and 66:
MALCOLM HEATH, METALEPSIS, PARAGRAP
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91:
show all

Metalepsis, paragraphe and the scholia to Hermogenes - Leeds ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?