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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MALCOLM HEATH, METALEPSIS, PARAGRAPHE AND THE SCHOLIA TO HERMOGENES will not be relevant; for one cannot claim that this is not a homicide. When definition is relevant, the concomitants of definition (as the theorist says) will also be relevant. According to Minucianus these are counterdefinition and assimilation; that is as far as he goes when they prescribe definition, on the grounds that once he has assimilated and shown the identity of the defendant’s premise and his own, it is superfluous to add anything else. But when Hermogenes refers to the concomitants he means to include relative importance and importance as well, as we have said in counterplea, on the grounds that one needs not just demonstration but also amplification. Counterdefinition and assimilation establish the demonstration, relative importance and importance the magnitude of the crime, which is a matter of aggravation. So Minucianus, not tolerating departure from the aim of the argument, which is demonstration, once he has brought together the defendant’s premise and that of the prosecutor, adds nothing more; but Hermogenes, when he says ‘and the concomitants of definition’ adds relative importance and importance, so that after the demonstration he can give the act added weight. The positions of Minucianus and Hermogenes are summarised and their rationale explained in parallel form (toÚtJ tù lÒgJ 175.27f., 176.1f.). One might feel that the repetitive summation at 176.5-12 is somewhat laboured, but the recapitulation covers both 175.26-30 and 176.1-5, so is no evidence of a combination of two sources. (iv) The fourth example comes from the discussion of the head of presentation in letter and intent. Gloeckner sees the juxtaposition of praise and criticism of Hermogenes, apparently with respect to the same point, as evidence of pro- and anti-Hermogenean sources (‘Plane duorum auctorum perlucent vestigia in p.197 ... ubi v. 17 Hermogenes laudatur (kalîj), v. 22 vituperatur (kakîj), quae iudicia secum pugnantia leviter consuta sunt verbis: e„dšnai d kaˆ toàto cr» (v. 21)’). In fact, the argument is single, consistent and nuanced. The text is as follows (RG 5.197.17-29): kalîj p£nu prosšqhken n aÙtù e„pe‹n probolÍ ·htoà, ¢podiŽst¦j t¦j nomik¦j kaˆ t¦j logik£j. k¢ke‹ mn g£r sti probol», ¢ll' ¹ probol¾ ¢dik»matÒj stin x ¢gr£fou 61 eÙqunomšnou genomšnh. ntaàqa d ¹ probol¾ x ggr£fou st…n. e„dšnai d kaˆ toàto cr», Óti kakîj epen probolÍ ·htoà. crÁn g¦r e„pe‹n tÍ ¢p' aÙtoà toà ·htoà. oÙd g¦r aÙtÕ tÕ ·htÕn proballÒmeqa, ¢ll¦ tÕ œgklhma tÕ di¦ ·htÕn genÒmenon. Ótan oân lšgV probolÍ ·htoà, ndeîj Ðr…zetai tÕ kef£laion: oÙd g¦r aÙtÕ mÒnon tÕ ·htÕn proballÒmeqa (po…a g¦r ¨n e‡h cre…a to‹j ge gnwkÒsi tÕ ·htÕn prote…nein;), ¢ll¦ tÕ œgklhma tÕ ¢pÕ toà ·htoà. He made an excellent addition in saying ‘presentation of the verbal instrument’, distinguishing the legal and the logical issues. There is a presentation in the latter as well, but the presentation is of the crime, and arises from something non-documentary being subjected to scrutiny. But here the presentation is from the document. But one must also recognise that he was wrong to say ‘presentation of the verbal instrument’: he should have said ‘based on the verbal 61 ggr£fou cod.: cf. RG 4.802.6 (‘Sopater’) ~ RG 7.637.2. The latter is from the ‘patchwork’ source (cf. §3.3): 7.636.24-637.7 ~ RG 4.801.22-802.2 (Syrianus) + 802.3-14 (Sopater). There is also a parallel at RG 4.813.24-814.5, in an eclectic section headed kaˆ ¥llwj ¢nwnÚmou (813.17, cf. 795.3, 845.19). 26
MALCOLM HEATH, METALEPSIS, PARAGRAPHE AND THE SCHOLIA TO HERMOGENES instrument itself’. We do not, in fact, present the actual verbal instrument, but the charge that arises through the verbal instrument. So when he says ‘presentation of the verbal instrument’ his definition of the head is inadequate: we do not present just the verbal instrument itself (what need would there be to put forward the verbal instrument to people who are familiar with it?), but the charge that arises from the verbal instrument. So Hermogenes was in one respect right to speak of a ‘presentation of the verbal instrument’, distinguishing presentation in letter and intent from presentation in logical issues (which is a presentation of the facts). However, in another respect he was wrong to say this; it would have been better to say ‘presentation based on the verbal instrument’, since it is not the legal instrument as such that is presented, but the infringement that arises on the basis of the legal instrument. It is possible that epitomisation and paraphrase have here helped to give pedantry the appearance of inconsistency. The progression of the argument is perhaps easier to see in a parallel passage, attributed to Sopater, in RG 4.802.3-13: zhtoàmen d t… d» pote probol¾n ·htoà t¾n probol¾n taÚthn çnÒmasin. roàmen oân æj ¢podiŽst¦j t¦j nomik¦j ¢pÕ tîn logikîn toàtÒ fhsin. œsti g¦r ¥llh probol¾ x ¢dik»matoj ¢gr£fou ginomšnh, ¼ tij oÙk œsti tîn nomikîn. ntaàqa g¦r x ggr£fou ¹ probol». diÕ prosšqhke kaˆ ·htoà. œdei d mfatikèteron tÕn `Ermogšnhn perˆ toÚtou e„pe‹n oÛtwj, probolÍ tÍ ¢pÕ ·htoà. oÙd g¦r aÙtÕ tÕ ·htÕn prob£llontai, Ö d…dwsi noe‹n ¹ toà tecnikoà lšxij, ¢ll¦ tÕ œgklhma tÕ di¦ tÕ ·htÕn ginÒmenon, ¥llwj te d kaˆ Óti oÙd cre…an œcomen to‹j gnwkÒsi aÙtÕ tÕ ·htÕn prote…nein, ¢ll¦ tÕ œgklhma tÕ ¢pÕ toà ·htoà. We ask why they call this presentation a presentation of the verbal instrument. Well, we shall say that he says this distinguishing the legal from the logical issues. There is another kind of presentation that arises from a non-documentary crime, which does not belong to the legal issues. For here the presentation is from the document. Hence he added ‘of the verbal instrument’. But Hermogenes should have spoken more clearly about this, as follows: ‘presentation based on the verbal instrument.’ They do not put forward the verbal instrument itself, as the theorist’s phrasing suggests, but the charge that arises through the verbal instrument, especially since we have no need to put forward the verbal instrument itself to people who are familiar with it, but the charge based on the verbal instrument. Although it is possible that the parallel preserves Sopater’s original phrasing more faithfully in places, I suspect that its greater clarity is at least in part the result of deliberate adaptation of an original that was felt to be somewhat opaque and abrupt. This brings us to the question of the relationship between the two bodies of scholia attributed to Sopater. 3.3 The ‘three-man commentary’ (RG 4) The following tables list the manuscript attributions of the sections in the ‘three-man commentary’ concerned with the issue metalepsis, and records parallels in RG 5. The text is presented in extenso, along with the parallels, in Appendix 4. 27
Page 1 and 2: LEEDS INTERNATIONAL CLASSICAL STUDI
Page 3 and 4: MALCOLM HEATH, METALEPSIS, PARAGRAP
Page 25: MALCOLM HEATH, METALEPSIS, PARAGRAP
Page 77 and 78:
MALCOLM HEATH, METALEPSIS, PARAGRAP
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?