This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
‘So one point (or head, of merit in style) appears, resides, in the due construction of connectives (conjunctions); a second is to call things by their own proper (special) names, and not by terms that are general (comprehensive; i. e. names of classes, abstract terms)’. τὰ περιέχοντα is explained by Victorius and Schrader, ‘periphrases, circumlocutions’, such as the general definition for the particular object under it, the λόγος for the ὄνομα; or a description in several words substituted for the single ἴδιον ὄνομα, as Ibericas herbas for spartum, duratos muria pisces for salsamenta, Quint. VIII 2. 2, 3, and others, quoted by Schrader from Cic. de Div. II 64. This is περίφρασις, a roundabout, not direct, expression of your meaning, circumlocutio, circuitus eloquendi, Quint. VIII 6. 59—61. I have followed this explanation myself in the paraphrase, Introd. p. 293; but I now see that the word cannot bear this meaning, and adopt the explanation of Schweighäuser on Athen. VII 309 A (q. v.), who understands by it the γένος, the genus or class name, which, being an abstract, general term, is of course less perspicuous than the direct expression of one of the particulars, (ἴδια, of which the class is composed,) by the name of the concrete individual; as animal or man than John and Thomas. The genus may be said περιέχειν ‘to comprehend, embrace, include’, the species, and individuals of which it is made up; and conversely περιέχεσθαι of the included object, τὸ ὑποκείμενον, Anal. Pr. I 27, 43 b 23, 29. Comp. Met. Δ 2, 1013 b 34, τὰ περιέχοντα ὁτιοῦν τῶν καθ᾽ ἔκαστα. Ib. Θ 2, 1046 b 24, μιᾷ γὰρ ἀρχῇ περιέχεται, τῷ λόγῳ. Moreover ὀνόμασι, which must be carried on to περιέχουσιν, can hardly stand for ‘descriptions’ consisting of many words.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.