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

MALCOLM HEATH, METALEPSIS, PARAGRAPHE AND THE SCHOLIA TO HERMOGENES
This is consistent with the impression given by John of Caesarea. But other
sources seem to tell a different story. In the special heads of argument proposed by
Metrophanes (and accepted, though in different theoretical terms, by his critics),
the speakers need to argue for the acceptance or rejection of the paragraphe in
order to secure or close off the opportunity to argue about the primary case (§1.5).
It follows that the speaker’s tactical decisions are not the only factor that might
determine whether both paragraphe and primary case are heard. In§2, we shall
follow deutero-Sopater’s lead and consider whether ‘real cases’ help us to discern
a coherent picture in this variation.
1.10 Conclusions
We have seen that metalepsis, a unitary issue in Zeno’s theory, was extended
to produce an anomalous combination of two diverse species in Minucianus,
Hermogenes and later theorists.
Every prosecution starts with a charge: typically, it will be claimed that the
defendant has performed a certain act, and therefore is guilty of a certain crime. In
Zeno’s system, the issue is metalepsis if the defendant responds by arguing that
the act is explicitly licensed by some law (or other legal instrument), and the
prosecution counters by arguing that a circumstance of the act puts it outside the
scope of the law. The question is then whether the circumstance makes the act
relevantly different from acts covered by the law.
This pattern remains as one species of metalepsis in its extended form. But a
second species is added, in which the defendant’s response is a claim that the
prosecution is invalid under some law, and the prosecution counters by arguing
that the defendant has interpreted or applied the law incorrectly. The question is
then whether the defendant’s interpretation or application of the law is correct.
The law invoked in this second species may take one of two forms. If a
double jeopardy rule is successfully invoked, the case is killed off entirely. If,
however, the law specifies conditions of procedural validity (for example, who is
qualified to act as prosecutor, or which court has jurisdiction), it may still be
possible for the case to be reopened under different circumstances (for example,
by another prosecutor, or in a different court).
Terminologically, the two species are variously distinguished as nondocumentary
metalepsis and documentary metalepsis (as in Hermogenes), or as
metalepsis and paragraphe. In the Hermogenean terminology, the issue of
metalepsis as a whole equates to paragraphe; documentary metalepsis may then
be described as a ‘complete paragraphe’—a phrase variously explained as
marking a contrast with non-documentary metalepsis or with the head
paragraphikon. In the alternative terminology ‘complete paragraphe’ may be
applied to double jeopardy paragraphe, by which the case is killed off entirely, as
against the other kinds of paragraphe, which leave open the possibility that the
case will be reopened, and are therefore incomplete.
this appears paradoxical, consider Quintilian 5.13.45-50). It makes sense always to practise
addressing both questions in exercises, even if this will sometimes not be necessary in reality.
18