Bittersüße Pfeile. Protreptische Rhetorik und platonische Philosophie in Lukians Nigrinus (2. Teil)

Q4 Social Sciences Millennium DIPr Pub Date : 2016-01-01 DOI:10.1515/mill-2016-0009
T. Lechner
{"title":"Bittersüße Pfeile. Protreptische Rhetorik und platonische Philosophie in Lukians Nigrinus (2. Teil)","authors":"T. Lechner","doi":"10.1515/mill-2016-0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"After 150 years of intensive investigation about Lucian’s Nigrinus, the research is still largely inconclusive. All essential issues concerning the interpretation of this enigmatic text remain unresolved. What is the meaning of the introductory letter to the Platonic philosopher Nigrinos? What is the intention of the following dialogue that is personally dedicated to Nigrinos? What role does Lucian play in this Platonic conversion drama? Why does Nigrinos’ protreptic discourse not contain any specific Platonic topics? How can the double conversion of the two dialogue partners be evaluated?What is the function of the framing dialogue with its intertextual allusions? In this analysis, Lucian’s text will be interpreted as a commentary to Plato’s arguments about rhetoric in the Phaedrus. As a consequence, the relation between rhetoric and philosophy emerges as the central theme ofNigrinus. In this sense, Lucian focuses on the Platonic definition of rhetoric as psychagogia and analyzes the dialectical and psychological art of protreptic discourse. The various allusions to Plato’s Symposion referring mainly to the speech of Alcibiades illustrate in this context the power of psychagogic protrepsis. Lucian’s parable of the bowman which treats the protreptic art of Nigrinos can be described as the metaphorical exegesis of the rhetorical recommendations of Socrates in the Phaedrus:Bowmen such as Nigrinos aim at potentially receptive souls with bitter-sweet arrows in order to convert them to philosophy. The specific formulations of the parable can be attributed exactly to the corresponding parts of the dialogue in the Phaedrus. But how can the discrepancy between Nigrinos’ philosophically meaningless speech and the enthusiastic feedback in the bowman’s parable be interpreted? In order to properly evaluate Nigrinos’ protreptic discourse, it is essential to analyze the text specifically as logos protreptikos. Thereby, Nigrinos’ speech does not gain in quality but in logic because it fits with the typical criteria of the therapeutical protrepsis and actually creates the prerequisites for the described conversions. Considering the intertextual allusions in the framing dialogue, Lucian’s Nigrinus can be characterized as a tragicomical dialogue: it cautions against the intriguing protreptic discourses of philosophers who are trained theoretically and practically in psychagogical rhetoric.","PeriodicalId":36600,"journal":{"name":"Millennium DIPr","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Millennium DIPr","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2016-0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

After 150 years of intensive investigation about Lucian’s Nigrinus, the research is still largely inconclusive. All essential issues concerning the interpretation of this enigmatic text remain unresolved. What is the meaning of the introductory letter to the Platonic philosopher Nigrinos? What is the intention of the following dialogue that is personally dedicated to Nigrinos? What role does Lucian play in this Platonic conversion drama? Why does Nigrinos’ protreptic discourse not contain any specific Platonic topics? How can the double conversion of the two dialogue partners be evaluated?What is the function of the framing dialogue with its intertextual allusions? In this analysis, Lucian’s text will be interpreted as a commentary to Plato’s arguments about rhetoric in the Phaedrus. As a consequence, the relation between rhetoric and philosophy emerges as the central theme ofNigrinus. In this sense, Lucian focuses on the Platonic definition of rhetoric as psychagogia and analyzes the dialectical and psychological art of protreptic discourse. The various allusions to Plato’s Symposion referring mainly to the speech of Alcibiades illustrate in this context the power of psychagogic protrepsis. Lucian’s parable of the bowman which treats the protreptic art of Nigrinos can be described as the metaphorical exegesis of the rhetorical recommendations of Socrates in the Phaedrus:Bowmen such as Nigrinos aim at potentially receptive souls with bitter-sweet arrows in order to convert them to philosophy. The specific formulations of the parable can be attributed exactly to the corresponding parts of the dialogue in the Phaedrus. But how can the discrepancy between Nigrinos’ philosophically meaningless speech and the enthusiastic feedback in the bowman’s parable be interpreted? In order to properly evaluate Nigrinos’ protreptic discourse, it is essential to analyze the text specifically as logos protreptikos. Thereby, Nigrinos’ speech does not gain in quality but in logic because it fits with the typical criteria of the therapeutical protrepsis and actually creates the prerequisites for the described conversions. Considering the intertextual allusions in the framing dialogue, Lucian’s Nigrinus can be characterized as a tragicomical dialogue: it cautions against the intriguing protreptic discourses of philosophers who are trained theoretically and practically in psychagogical rhetoric.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Bittersüße .箭卢基文尼斯的纯洁圣经主张和柏拉图哲学。(部分)
经过150年的深入研究,卢西恩的Nigrinus,研究在很大程度上仍然没有定论。有关解释这一神秘文本的所有基本问题仍未得到解决。柏拉图哲学家尼格里诺斯的介绍信是什么意思?下面这段个人献给尼格里诺斯的对话的意图是什么?卢西安在这场柏拉图式的转变中扮演了什么角色?为什么尼格里诺斯的保护主义论述没有包含任何具体的柏拉图主题?如何评价对话双方的双重转换?框架对话及其互文典故的功能是什么?在这个分析中,卢西恩的文本将被解读为柏拉图在《费德鲁斯篇》中关于修辞学的论述的注释。因此,修辞学与哲学的关系成为尼格里努斯的中心主题。在这个意义上,卢西恩着重于柏拉图对修辞学的定义,并分析了修辞学话语的辩证和心理艺术。柏拉图的《沉思录》的各种典故主要指的是亚西比德的演讲,在这种情况下,说明了心理预言的力量。卢西恩关于弓箭手的比喻是关于尼格里诺斯的神秘艺术的可以被描述为苏格拉底在《费德鲁斯篇》中的修辞建议的隐喻性注释像尼格里诺斯这样的弓箭手用苦乐兼备的箭瞄准可能接受的灵魂,以便将他们转化为哲学。寓言的具体表述可以准确地归因于《费德鲁斯篇》中对话的相应部分。但如何解释尼格里诺斯哲学上无意义的演讲和弓箭手寓言中热情的反馈之间的差异呢?为了正确评价尼格里诺斯的保护话语,有必要将文本具体分析为逻各斯的保护话语。因此,尼格里诺斯的演讲并没有提高质量,而是提高了逻辑性,因为它符合治疗前隐症的典型标准,实际上为所描述的转换创造了先决条件。考虑到框架对话中的互文典故,卢西恩的《尼格里努斯》可以被描述为一种悲喜剧式的对话:它对那些在理论和实践上受过心理修辞学训练的哲学家的引人入胜的神秘话语提出了警告。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Millennium DIPr
Millennium DIPr Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
1 weeks
期刊最新文献
Erratum: Pollen, brooches, solidi and Restgermanen, or today’s Poland in the Migration Period Pollen, brooches, solidi and Restgermanen, or today’s Poland in the Migration Period Phaedrus und Martial: Zur Interaktion von Versfabel und Epigrammatik Prokop, ein glaubwürdiger Berichterstatter? Der Gotenkrieg im Ager Gallicus und im Picenum und seine Auswirkungen auf die Region Towards a History of Syriac Rhetoric in Late Antiquity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1