Notes on Plato's "Phaedrus" Author(s): W. J. Verdenius Source: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 8, Fasc. 4 (1955), pp. 265-289 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4427742 . Accessed: 04/11/2013 19:25 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 181.1.29.14 on Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:25:13 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Notes on Plato's "Phaedrus"Author(s): W. J. VerdeniusSource: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 8, Fasc. 4 (1955), pp. 265-289Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4427742 .
Accessed: 04/11/2013 19:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 181.1.29.14 on Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:25:13 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
229 c 6 : o? s?f??. Why does Socrates criticize the allegorists?
Hackforth, p. 26: "in order to preclude any questions that might arise later on about the local divinities who inspire Socrates:
Phaedrus, and the reader too, are not to attempt to rationalise
what Plato makes Socrates say about them any more than they should rationalise the rape of Oreithuia". But this was not a real
danger. We should rather think of the subsequent myths on the
soul and on love. These will have to be interpreted allegorically, but Socrates already warns us that allegorical interpretation should
always be directed by self-examination (cf. 22ge-23oa, and Robin,
Notice, XXVIII). This point of view also connects the present
passage with the general theme of the dialogue, the true art of
rhetoric.
229 c 7 : e?ta. Thompson is right in putting a colon after e???. The meaning of e?ta seems to be "in that case", cf. T 23-26 ???'
dte d? ?a? ??? p??f??? e??????? e??ssa?, / a?t? ?e? ?a?? ???sa??' a?t? te ?a?ass?? / se???? ??? ?e? ?'pe?ta pe?? ???? ?????p??? / d?sa????. It is not necessary to alter e?ta into e?, as is suggested by P. Von
der M?hll, Mus. Helv. 9 (1952), 58-59, nor to add a? after fa???
230 a 3: ?????? t??????. Not ?????? d? (Burnet). Cf. Laws 918c t? t? d?a?e?????? t?????e?, ?d??e?, K?hner- Gerth II, 67. Similarly
263 cu ????st?? t?? a?a??? t?????e? (Burnet ?e??st?? ov).
230 a 4? ?p?te????????. Not "puffed up with pride" (Hackforth), for this cannot be the contrary of ??e???, but "fierce", "passionate". Cf. Arist. Lys. 221 dp?? a? ???? ?p?t?f? ????sta ???. For the com-
parison of the passions with smoke, cf. the Homeric conception of
????? (Onians, Origins of European Thought, 44 ff.), and especially S HO (?????) a?d??? ?? st??ess?? ???eta? ??te ?ap??? (Onians, 52). For ??e??? as a characteristic of the philosopher, Rep. 410e t?
??e??? ??? ? f???s?f?? a? ?'??? f?s??; . . . ?'st? ta?ta. In this context
?p????, too, must be typical of the philosopher. So it cannot mean
"simple" as contrary to "complex" (Hackforth, Robin), but in the
sense of "straightforward". Cf. Rep. 361b t?? d??a??? . . . ??d?a ?p????, 382e ?p???? ?a? a?????, Crat. 4?5C t? a????? te ?a? t? ?p????
(ta?t?? ??? ?st??). For p???p????? = "crafty", "tortuous", cf.
232 a 2: ?pa????a? t? ???e??. Not "will be proud to talk about it" (Hackforth), for in that case epa????a? would be followed by the
infin. alone. The meaning is "they will feel flattered by the fact that people speak about it" (cf. 231 e 4 p???????? t?? a????p??). ?a? before f???t?????????? has consecutive force. Cf. Prot. 342b
?a? t?? ??????sa? ?fe??a? ?ses?a?. Not seil, ?????, but a paradox: "The first clause is very ascetic and high-minded (no pleasure), while the second offers long-term benefits, plus a hint of present
pleasure after all" (G. E. Dimock, A.J.P. 73, 1952, 392, who refers
adopted by Robin is impossible in this context. It is difficult to
decide whether the addition of ???? was accidental (dittography?) or intentional. In such cases we should bear in mind Jachmann's words: "Sinngebung des Sinnlosen ist eine unbillige und eitle Forde-
rung, aber Erkenntnis des Sinnlosen als unsinnig ist eine sehr
wichtige Aufgabe der Philologie, dazu eine h?chst unbeliebte"
{Der Piatontext, Nachr. Gott. 1941, 276-7).
234 e 3: ?e???. Not ??e??? (Hackforth), for ???a? often means
"important", cf. p 291 p??? d' ?'t? ?a? t?de ?e???? ??? f?es? ???e
236 b ? : t?? d? ???p??. The gen. depends on e?p??, cf. Rep. 439b t?? t???t?? ?? ?a??? ??e? ???e??, 459^ t'1 d? t?? Spp?? ??e?, K?hner-
Gerth ?, 363, Schwyzer ?, 132, ?. Nachmanson, ???G?? (Fest- schr. Nilsson, Lund, 1939), 310 ff. So it is unnecessary to delete t??de
(b 2), as is suggested by P. Von der M?hll, Mus. Helv. 9 (1952), 59.
236 c 2: ??a d? ??. This reading (?) is convincingly defended by Robin, Notice, XXXI, n. 1. Hackforth puts a full stop before
e??a????t?, but this involves an awkward asyndeton.
238 a 3 : p????e??? ?a? ?a? p???e?d??. Robin rightly adopts this
reading, for (1) it is supported by 265e ?at' e?d? d??as?a? d?a-
t???e?? ?at' ????a ? p?f??e? (cf. Phil. 14e e??st?? t? ???? te ?a?
??a ???? d?e??? t? ????, Polit. 287c, Tim. 76e, Laws 795e) ; (2) t??t?? t?? ?de?? refers to p???e?d??; (3) p????e??? does not occur in Plato and seems to be a creation of Aristotle.
This content downloaded from 181.1.29.14 on Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:25:13 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
238 b 4: t??t??. Not mase. (Hackforth) but neut.; ?a? before
ade?f?? is explicative ; ep??????? is a partitive gen. depending on t?? which is a possessive gen. depending on ????ata. The plural ????ata is not incorrect, for t?? is a collective sing.; ?e? is distributive, "in each case", wrongly translated by Robin as "sans rel?che", "constamment au pouvoir".
238 d 6 : ?s?? ?a? ?a? ?p?t??p??t? t? ?p???. The meaning of ?a?
is similar to that in 228 e 1: "Possibly it may still turn away"
(Dutch "nog wel"). The negation to which ?a? is opposed is implied in d 1-2 p??????? ???f???pt?? ?????a?. Cf. Phd. 62a (??d?? ?????a) ???a p?????e?s?a? ???, ef?? t??a ??? a? ?a? ????sa?? ("nog wel
eens").
239 a 6 t?? ??? ?des?a?. Burnet wrongly deletes t??. The gen. is partitive, cf. Soph. Phil. 715 p??at?? ?s??, ? 780 a?t?? ?pe?
241 d 4: se ?es??? a?t??. Not ?e ?es??? a?t?? (Burnet), for ????? can hardly be the subject of ??e?? (Stallbaum's parallels are not
convincing). For the gen., cf. Rep. 618b t? d? ?a? ?es??? t??t??, Hdt. I 181, 4 ?es???t? d? ??? t?? ??a??s???.
242 a 4 '
? d? ?a????e?? sta?e??. This is doubtless a gloss on
?stata?. Grammatically it could be an epexegesis (cf. 229 b 5 ?p?
t?? ???ss??), but it sounds too pedantic.
242 a 6: t??a ?pe?d?? ?p????? ??e?. Not "perhaps" (Hackforth) but "presently" (Stallbaum, who refers to Gorg. 450c t??a d?
e?s??a? saf?ste???). Cf. 228 c 4 dpe? t??a p??t?? p???se?. Thompson, Lidd.-Sc, Robin take t??a ?pe?d?? to be equivalent to ?pe? t???sta, but there is no parallel for this.
242 b 8 : t? da??????? te ?a? t? e????? s??e???. Wilamowitz {Platon
This content downloaded from 181.1.29.14 on Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:25:13 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
243 d6: ?? t?? ??????. Fraenkel (on Ag. 1423) rightly argues that this does not mean " other things being equal" (Hackforth) but "corresponding to the action of the other side".
244 c 5 : ?pe? ?a?. Not "la preuve en est aussi", "a preuve encore"
(Robin), for there is only one proof. ?a? emphasizes ?pe? (Dutch: "dan ook"), cf. Euthyd. 287a pe???? ?a? ?p???????, epe?d? ?a?
??????e?? ?e s?f?? e??a?, Denn., 297? Similarly d?? ?a?, e.g. 258 e 4?
244 c 5: ??f?????. Wilamowitz {Platon II, 363) is right in omit-
ting the comma after ??f????? (p?????e??? seil, ??t?s??).
244 e 8: ???*?. Not "rationalit?", "sagacit?" (Robin), for ???? is
"to realize that something {i.e. the s??e?a) is something definite".
244 d 6: ??. Not ?? ??, ???? (Hackforth) or e?? (Robin), but an
ellipse of ??. This ellipse is also found in relative clauses, cf. Thuc.
tying influence without passing judgment on it. So he should not be
supposed to regard the inspired poet as "the instrument of a divine
pa?de?a" (Hackforth), an idea which seems to me to be un-Platonic.
245 a 5: ?p? p???t???? ???a?. Not "to the gates of poetry" (Hack-
forth), but "to gates of poetry", i.e., to some kind of poetry.
245 a 7: ate???. It appears from this sentence that Plato re-
cognises the existence of good poetry. This seems to be contradicted
by his critical attitude towards poetry adopted in the Republic. Hackforth contents himself with the assumption that "Plato him-
self is a compound of rationalist and poet, and that ... in the Phae-
drus the poet definitely gets the upper hand". I have criticized
this explanation and attempted another solution of the paradox in my article "Platon et la po?sie", Mnemos. Ill 12 (1944), 118-150.
24505: ?e?????t??. Not a?t?????t?? (Robin). Hackforth rightly defends ?e?????t??. Cf. also C. Diano, Par. Pass. 2 (1947), 189-92, who adds some important arguments (see infra). The demonstration
proceeds through the following stages: (1) What is immortal must
be ever in motion. (2) What is ever in motion must move itself.
(3) What moves itself must be animate. It follows that d? in c 6
cannot be adversative (Hackforth: "but"), but must be progressive
(Diano), cf. d ? a??? d?, d 7 t??t? d?. Stress should be laid on ?a?
?p ????? ??????e???: "and that (Dutch: "en wel") being moved by
something else", i.e. "because it is moved by something else".
245 d 3 : ?? a???? ??????t?. Not et? a??? ??????t? (Burnet, Hack-
forth). The subject of ??????t? is p?? t? ??????e???, and a??? is not a
principle, but the first principle of all things. It is very improbable that ?t? ??????t? = ?t? e??, for ??????a? in this context means "to
come to be".
245 e ?: ???es??. Not ??? e?? ?? (Burnet), for ???es?? here (and Tim. 29e) =t? ??????e?a, and ???a??? = universe (Lidd.-Sc, I 4,
Robin, Notice, LXXXI n. i):
246 a 3 : ?d?a?. In 245 c 2 Socr. announces his exposition as
????? f?se?? p???. It is not correct to interpret f?s?? as "quality" and ?d?a as "essence", as is suggested by A. de Marignac, Imagina- tion et dialectique (Paris, 1951), 141 -4. The ?d?a is the form in which
the nature (f?s??) of the soul manifests itself; so the words are
practically synonymous.
246 a 6: ????? t? d?. This is better than ?????t? (Burnet, Hack-
forth). Denn., 213 gives examples of d? t?? ?quidam, and notes
that "there is a meaning air of mystery about most of these".
This shade is especially appropriate to the present passage. For d?
following t??, cf. Laws 803 e pa????ta ?st?? d?a???t??? t???? d? pa?d???.
246 a 8: ?? ??????. Not "compos?s de bons ?l?ments" (Robin), for "the phrase became stereotyped, and often meant no more than
'wholly good' "
(Hackforth, who refers to Arist. Ran. 731 p?????? ??? p??????).
246 b ? : ?a? p??t??. For the explanatory force of ?a?, cf. Io 538 b
The 145a ?a? ast????????? ?a? ????st???? te ?a? ???s???? ?a? dsa pa?-
de?a? ??eta?, Mnemos. IV 7 (?954?)> 38.
247 a 8 : p??? da?ta ?a? ?p? ??????. This is not pleonastic (Hack- forth: "they go to their feasting and banquet"), for ?p? expresses an end in view: "in order to feast". Cf. ? 439 ?p? d??p?? a??st?,
Symp. 174e ????e?? ?p? de?p???.
247 b 2: ?s????p??. Not to be connected with p??e?eta? (Lidd.-
Sc), but with e????a d?ta. Robin takes it in a causal sense ("faciles ? mener en raison de l'?quilibre de l'attelage"), for which there
seem to be no parallels. We should rather take it proleptically, cf.
K?hner-Gerth ?, 115: "Nicht selten werden die Folgen einer
Handlung mit energischer K?rze als ein Merkmal (Attributiv) der
Handlung durch ein Adverb statt eines konsekutiven Nebensatzes
248 b 4: p???? ????sa? p????. Not "accabl?es de fatigue" (Robin), but "for all their toiling" (Hackforth). The partie, is of the imperi., cf. t 253-4 ??^ ^? d? ?101* ?e^?e> p???? pe? ??? e?ee????, / ?? ?e?????s??
????s? f???? t ?s?, Hes. Op. 292 ???d?? d? ?pe?ta p??e? ?a?ep? pe? ???sa (not "hard though it may still be", Sinclair, or "pour difficile
qu'il soit", Mazon, but "though before that she was hard", Evelyn-
White), Hdt. VII 237, 2 t??s? ?e???????s? p??te???, K?hner-Gerth I,
200, Schwyzer II, 297.
24806: ?a? t???. P. von der M?hll, Mus. Helv. 9 (1952), 58,
suggests ?, because in 250 a 2-4 the souls which had the vision but
for a short time are distinguished from those which are affected
by forgetfulness. The two passages, however, are not strictly pa-
rallel, for in 248c oblivion takes place before they are on earth, whereas in 250a it is caused by falling into bad company. So the
latter oblivion seems to be a secondary and additional one.
248 c 7: ?a??a?. Not "wrongdoing" (Hackforth), "perversion", "m?chancet?" (Robin), but "weakness'. Cf. b 4 ?a??a ??????? which is rightly explained by Hackforth as "imperfect functioning". Plato does not know a Fall in the moral or biblical sense, cf. R.
Schaerer, Dieu, G homme et la vie d'apr?s Platon (Neuch?tel, 1944),
180-3, Id., La repr?sentation mythique de la chute et du mal, Diogene
n, July 1955, 1-31, esp. 16 ff.
248 d 6: f???p???? ????ast????. Burnet wrongly inserts ? after
f???p????. It appears from Rep. 536 d that ????ast???? is a ne-
cessary specification of f???p????. Cf. also Gorg. 464b t?? t??
250 e 4^ ?a??e??. "Mount", and not "go after the fashion of"
(Hackforth), or is this an euphemism?
251 a 2: ? t??. ?. Alline, Rev. Philol. 34 (1910), 284 defends the
reading of the pap. ? by referring to 250 e ? ?? ?e?te??? ? d?ef?a?-
?????. He is followed by P. Friedl?nder, Platon I (Berlin, 1928), 226 n. 2, and P. von der M?hll, Mus. Helv. 9 (1952), 58. But in 250e
? expresses a dilemma, for d?ef?a?????? does not refer to a "cor-
ruption originelle qui n'a pas permis de contempler les id?es", as is assumed by Alline, but to corruption ?p? t???? ??????? (250 a 3). The present passage, on the other hand, cannot involve such a
dilemma. So ? seems to be an attempt to assimilate the two passages.
This content downloaded from 181.1.29.14 on Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:25:13 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
wrongly suspect this construction in Attic prose, Stahl, Syntax d. gr. Verb., 408.
251 b6: ?p? p?? t? t?? ????? e?d??. Not "over the whole sub-
stance of the soul" (Hackforth) or "dans tout l'int?rieur de la
nature de l'?me" (Robin), but "under the surface of the soul",
e?d?? being the outward appearance. Cf. 249b ?? ?????p?? e?de?,
246b ????te ?? ?????? e?des? ?????????.
251 c 3? pe?? t? ???a. Wrongly deleted by Robin.
252 a 5: ???ta. Not ???ta (Burnet), not "l'amour des beaux
gar?ons" (Robin), for ???? here means "beloved" (cf. Pind. ? em. 11,
48, Luc?an. Tim. 14, and supra 252 a 7 p????), so that t?? ?a???
is a partitive gen.
252 e 7 : ??e???s?e??. Depends on ???e???te? (Thompson, Hack-
forth), and not on e?p????s? (Robin), as appears from the po- sition of e?p????s?.
253 a 6: ?*?? Not ??? (Hackforth), for the passage 252 e 5-
253 a 6, although it starts from a special case, the followers of
Zeus, develops into a general consideration, so that Socrates now
takes up his thread. Accordingly we should put a full stop or a
semicolon after ??ap?s?. This interpretation also disposes of Ro-
bin's objection (in a note to his second translation): "pourquoi revenir, une fois de plus sur l'influence de ce Dieu?" (he proposes to read ?????s??). His second objection, "pourquoi la pens?e de
Zeus appellerait-elle l'image des Bacchantes ?", has been sufficiently refuted by Hackforth: "The point is that in both sorts of divine
madness the immediate subject of possession 'infects' another or
others" (Burnet's comma after ????a? should be removed).
253 b 4: ???te?. Hackforth suggests p??te?, because "a com-
parison with A 1 and ? ? makes it highly probable that ?at? t??
?e?? t?? sf?te??? go together". But pa?da cannot be left undefined.
253 e ?: p????. Not "massif" (Robin), but to be taken predi-
catively with s??pef???????? (Hackforth). Cf. p???? ??e??, p????
p??e??, etc. (Lidd.-Sc, I 2c).
253 e 3: ?fa????. Not "hot-blooded" (Lidd.-Sc, Hackforth), but
"with bloodshot eyes" (Thompson).
Mnemosyne VIII 20
This content downloaded from 181.1.29.14 on Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:25:13 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
253 e 6: a?s??se?. Hackforth rightly remarks that this cannot
mean "at (or by) the perception", which would require the definite
article, and that a?s??se? d?a?e??a??e?? is equivalent to a?s??s??
?e???t?t?? ??p??e??. Yet this is not "a bold phrase", for a????se?. is a modal dat., cf. Aesch. Prom. 384 t?de t? ??s? ??se??, Soph. O.C. 659 ???? ?at?pe???sa?, El. 650 ??sa? ???a?e? ???, Thuc. V 13, ?
t?? te '????a??? ?ss? ?pe??????t??.
254 a4: p??ta. "All possible", cf. E 60 da?da?a p??ta, ? 292 ??
254?>4: ????? Not "sPectacle" (Hackforth, Robin), but "face", as appears from ??t??pt??sa?. Cf. Aesch. Prom. 356 ?? ????t?? d' ?st?apte ?????p?? s??a?, Xen. Cyneg. VI 15 ?st??pt??sa? t???
???as??, Mosch. 2, 86.
255 c 7: a?apt???sa?. Not a?ap????sa? (Robin), ??G??apte??? =
270 a 5' ????a?. Not d?a???a? (Burnet). The meaning is not "folly"
(Hackforth), for I cannot believe that "Socrates (Plato) is merely
suggesting that Anaxagoras in his converse with Pericles would
naturally have passed from speculation on the general nature of
???? to its manifestations, varying in degree down to vanishing
point, in human beings" (Hackforth), or that "si Y intelligence a
fait leur m?rite, c'est bien Y inintelligence qui a motiv? les haines
dont ils ont ?t? l'objet" (Robin). If the term is taken as an ab-
stractum pro concreto, it may be assumed to denote that part of
reality which does not consist of ????.
270 c 2 : t?? ????. Hackforth rightly argues that this does not
refer to the universe but to the whole of the soul and the whole
of the body. The question t? p?t? ???e? '?pp????t?? (c 9) is answered
by stating the problem ?p???? ? p???e?d?? ?st?? ?? p??? ?????s??e?a e??a? a?t?? te?????? ?a? ????? d??at?? p??e?? (di). This is clearly meant as an explanation of the preceding allusion to t? d???. It
is obvious that the question ap???? ? p???e?d?? can only be decided
by keeping the whole of these objects, and not the whole of the
universe, in view. This interpretation has also been proposed by L. Edelstein, ?e?? a???? und die Sammlung der hippokratischen
Schriften (Berlin, 1931), 130 ft., A. Rey, La maturit? de la pens?e
scientifique en Gr?ce (Paris, 1939), 435-8, F. Steckerl, Cl. Phil. 40
(1945), 168-70.
271 e 2 : e??a? p? p???? a?t?. This is better than Robin's e?d??a?
277 d 7: p???t????. F. Scheidweiler, Herrn. 83 (?955)> ?2?>
wrongly suspects p???t????, because it cannot refer to ?d?a, "wie
notwendig w?re". The words ?????? t??e?? are subordinate to
s????a??a p???t???? ???f?? (cf. supra, on 249 a 6), which is an
explanation of ????e? d???s?a, and a?t? refers to s????a??a implied in ???a?e?.
277 d I0: ^pa? te ?a? d?a?. Hackforth takes these terms as real
nouns, but in that case Plato would have added the article. That
the phrase is meant adverbially, appears from Rep. 382e ???' ?pa? ??d' d?a?, Phil. 36e, 65e, The. 158e d?a? te ?a? ?pa?, Polit. 2Jj? ???d??e?e? ??? ???? ??ast?? ???? ??a? e?d?? ?pa?ta p??t' a? p????
?spe? ?pa? ????e??.
277 e 8: ?? ?? ?a??d???e???. F. Scheidweiler, Herrn. 83 (?955)> 121-2, points out that ?a??d?? in Plato always refers to poetry, and proposes to read <ds??> ?? ??. But pe????? ??e?a is an appropriate
qualification of poetry viewed as d???????a (cf. Gor g. 502cd).
278 a 4: ??????. Robin rightly omits ?????e???, which seems to
be a pedantic repetition of 277 e 6.
279 a 8: ?p? ?e??? d?. E. Bickel, Rh. Mus. 92 (1943), 153-7
suggests ?p? ?e????a? (seil, ??????), because the older MSS. have
?e???? or ?e????. It seems simpler to adopt the reading ?e????: "a greater thing". See supra, on 263 c 1. Hackforth's interpretation
This content downloaded from 181.1.29.14 on Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:25:13 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of the eulogy of Isocrates as an amende honorable for Rep. 500 b has
been rightly criticized by G. J. de Vries, Mnemos. IV 6 (1953),
39-45-
279 c 2 : ???s?? p?????. W. Kranz, Phil. 94 (1941), 332-3 wrongly
interprets this as the gold of the soul {Rep. 416e). The passage has
been satisfactorily explained by Thompson.
Zeist, Homeruslaan 53
AD TACITI DIALOGUM, C. XXIII 6
In fine orationis quam pro eloquentia nova habuit (e. XXIII 6), Aper adversarios suos Messallam, Maternum, Secundum appellat eorumque eloquentiam callide laudat quod minime quam laudibus efferre soient anti- quitatem redoleat. Praecipue nitori et cultui, inventioni et dispositioni, brevitati, compositioni, sententiis multum tribuit, quae singula in veteribus oratoribus misere desiderari ante affirmaverat. Postremo addit ?sic ex- primais affectus, sto libertatem temperatis, ut'* etc. Prima verba comparetis velim cum e. XXII 3, ubi de Cicerone asseverati ?tarde commovetur, raro incalescit". Eodem modo ex laudatione libertatis temperatae Apri quidem opinione libertatem antiquorum nimiam fuisse colliges ; quorum vero hac in oratione nihil invenies. Obiecit sane Materno poetae nimiam libertatem priore in oratione (e. X 6-8), et ipse Maternus in fine e. XXVII Messallam monet ut de antiquis loquens antiqua utatur lib?rtate, ?qua vel magis degeneravimus quam ab eloquentia'*. Verum eo loco, ut ipse affirm?t, non de eloquentia sed de lib?rtate animi loquitur, nostro loco nil nisi de eloquentia agitur. Et novum dicendi genus tantum a temperatione afuisse ut ei licentia audaciaque nimia saepe obiceretur quis nescit? Quod fecerunt et Seneca in Epist. CXIV, et Quintilianus plurimis locis Institut- ionis suae (tantum afiero 1. XII io, 73 ?corruptum dicendi genus quod aut verborum licentia exult?t aut puerilibus sententiolis lascivit, aut ... turgescit aut ... bacchatur, aut ... nitet ... aut specie libertatis insanii; comp. VIII 5, 35 et alia multa), et ipsius Dialogi auctor in e. XXVI, ubi Messalla Apro respondens novis rhetoribus lasciviam verborum et licentiam compositionis obicit.
Ergo Aper nostro loco perorans Messallam aliosque laudat non quia temp?rent, sed quod temptent libertatem illam novi dicendi generis imprimis propriam. In ipso Cicerone paulo ante laudavit, quod nonnunquam ?locos quoque laetiores attemptaverit". Et apud Senecam, novae eloquentiae vel maximum auctorem, in Epist. CXIV legimus ?aliquid grande temptant?* necesse esse usque ad vitia accedere. Eadem verba ?libertatem temptare" apud Livium quoque in 1. VI 18, 11 invenimus. Ut coniecturam ex palaeo- graphica quoque ratione probem, lectorem admoneo in scripturis q.v. nationalibus -er- et -/- litteras saepius similitudinem quandam praebere. Amstelodami, Gerrit van der Veenstraat 171 ?. A. D. Leeman
This content downloaded from 181.1.29.14 on Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:25:13 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions