E. M. Cope, Commentary on the Rhetoric of Aristotle

διαλύοι ἄν τις] or λύειν and διαλίειν, see Introd. p. 267 note.

τἀληθῆ λέγων] These words have been variously interpreted. Muretus omitted τἀληθῆ, as contrary to Aristotle's opinion on the subject of torture—which however must be gathered from the words of the text, and not assumed a priori, and the text altered in conformity with the hypothesis—evidently supposing that if retained it must be construed with διαλύοι and not with λέγων. There can be no doubt that the latter is right, and that the words do express Aristotle's opinion upon the use of torture, by asserting the truth and right of the arguments directed against the use of it. [On ‘torture’ see C. R. Kennedy's Demosthenes, Vol. IV., pp. 382—391, appendix. S.]

διακαρτεροῦντες] (thoroughly, διά,) obstinately, resolutely, persisting, (holding out).

καὶ ῥᾳδίως καταψευδόμενοι] ‘and ready to make false accusations (κατά ‘against others’) in the expectation of a speedier release’.

On the passage which in MS A^{c} concludes this section, and is printed in the note of the Oxford reprint of Bekker's 1st ed., see in Introd. p. 201, and the note. It is omitted by Bekker. Spengel, On the Rhetoric, in Bav. Trans. 1851, p. 51, thinks that it is an extract from some other treatise on Rhetoric, introduced by the transcribers. The last sentence at all events must be corrupt, being as it stands devoid of meaning and connexion with the preceding. Brandis in his tract in Schneidewin's Philologus, IV i. p. 43, informs us that his Anonymous Annotator found the passage in the MSS that he used, though he thinks that Victorius was right in rejecting it as an interpolation. Victorius, a man whose judgment is to be relied on, writes thus. ‘Delevi autem quia adulterinos putavi; aut enim ex alio scriptore artis haec pars sumta est (so Spengel), aut Scholion olim fuit quod importune post in contextum verborum Aristotelis translatum sit;...Qui accurate quae supra a philosopho iam tradita erant perpendit ipsius haec non esse manifesto intelligit; cuncta enim ille quae ad quaestiones pertinentia dicere voluerat iam explicaverat; sententia vero quae his viribus exponitur superioribus continetur; vox etiam iuncta illic est quae sermonem Aristotelis non redolet, viz. λιθόδερμος (this applies still more strongly to καταθαῤῥεῖν); et omnis denique haec locutio, e. c. ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὄντες δυνατοί, locutionis Aristotelicae dissimilis videtur’.