{"title":"Bittersüße .箭卢基文尼斯的纯洁圣经主张和柏拉图哲学。(部分)","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":"1 1","pages":"140 - 67"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"140 - 67\"},\"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}","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}
Bittersüße Pfeile. Protreptische Rhetorik und platonische Philosophie in Lukians Nigrinus (2. Teil)
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.