previous next


Top. XVIII. ‘Another (is derived from the natural habit or tendency of mankind) that the same men don't always choose the same things’ (Spengel omits τοὺς αὐτοὺς with A^{c}; Bekker, as usual, retains it) ‘after as before (something intermediate, act, occurrence, period), but conversely’ (i. e. do the second time what they have avoided the first, or vice versa); ‘of which the following enthymeme is an example’.

quaere ? which expresses ‘as’ (in the way in which), much more naturally than . This seems to be the required sense: and so I think Victorius understands it, “non eadem iidem homines diversis temporibus sequuntur.” The same meaning is very awkwardly expressed, if indeed it is expressed, by rendering ‘or’. In that case ὕστερον and πρότερον must be ‘at one time or another’: Riccobon ‘posterius vel prius’ ‘after or before’: ‘sooner or later’. I will put the question, and leave it to the judgment of others. Which is the more natural expression, the more usual Greek, and more in accordance with the example? ‘The same men don't always choose the same things after as before’, i. e. the second time, when they have to repeat some action or the like, as the first time, when the circumstances are perhaps different: or, if be or, ‘men don't always choose the same things after or before, sooner or later’. Surely the alternative is here out of place; in this case it should be καί, not .

ἐνθύμημα] Victorius interprets this “argumentum ex contrariis conclusum:” on which see Introd. pp. 104, 5, Cic. Top. XIII 55. This is the sense in which it is found in the Rhet. ad Alex., Cicero and Quintilian, and was in fact the common usage of it. But, as far as I can recollect, it never occurs in this special sense, at all events, in Aristotle's Rhetoric; and is in fact one of the leading distinctions between it and the Rhet. ad Alex. Neither was there any occasion to depart here from his ordinary use of the term: for enthymemes, i. e. rhetorical inferences in general, are exactly what he is employed in illustrating throughout this chapter.

The original sentence of Lysias begins with, δεινὸν γὰρ ἂν εἴη, Ἀθηναῖοι, εἰ κ.τ.λ. ‘For monstrous would it be, men of Athens, if when we were in exile we fought for our return (to be restored to our) home, and now that we have returned (been restored) we shall fly to avoid fighting’. We were eager to fight before (this was, as will appear afterwards, with the Lacedaemonians who aided the Thirty), shall we now after our restoration shrink from it? The example is an instance of what men are in the habit of doing, viz. changing their minds without reason: the argument, that it is unreasonable, and monstrous at all events to do it now.

κατελθεῖν, to return from exile, prop. ‘down’, κατά, viz. to the shore or harbour, at which almost all returned exiles would naturally arrive; either from the interior of the country, ἀναβαίνειν καταβαίνειν; or from the open sea into port, ἀνάγεσθαι contrasted with κατάγεσθαι, προσσχεῖν. Aesch. Choeph. 3, and his own commentary, Arist. Ran. 1163—5.

This is followed by Aristotle's explanation, which is certainly more obscure than what it professes to explain. ‘That is to say (γάρ), at one time (before) they preferred staying (where they were, ‘maintaining their ground’) at the price of fighting; at another (after their restoration) not fighting at the expense of not staying’, i. e. the second time, they preferred not staying, quitting the city, to avoid fighting. It is necessary to interpret ἀντί in this way, not ‘instead of’—if the reading be sound, to bring the explanation into conformity with the example; and thus no alteration is required.

The words quoted by Ar. are taken from a speech of Lysias, of which Dionysius, de Lys. Iud. c. 33, has preserved a long fragment; printed amongst Lysias' speeches as Orat. 34. Baiter et Sauppe Or. Att. I 147. [Blass, die Attische Beredsamkeit I p.441 and Jebb's Attic Orators I p. 211.] Dion. gives an account of the occasion of it in the preceding chapter. He doubts if it was ever actually delivered. The title of it is, περὶ τοῦ μὴ καταλῦσαι τὴν πάτριον πολιτείαν Ἀθήνῃσι; and its object was to prevent the carrying into effect of a proposal of one Phormisius, one of the restored exiles μετὰ τοῦ δήμου,—this was after the expulsion of the Thirty in 403 B. C., when the demus had been restored and recovered its authority, and the other party were now in exile—to permit the return of the present exiles, but to accompany this by a constitutional change, which should exclude from political rights all but the possessors of land; a measure which would have disfranchised 5000 citizens. The passage here quoted refers to a somewhat different subject. The Lace daemonians, who were at hand with their troops, were trying to impose the measure upon them by force, dictating, and ordering, κελεύουσιν, προστάττουσιν, § 6, and apparently preparing to interfere with arms. Lysias is accordingly exhorting the Athenians to resist manfully, and not to give way and quit the city again, after their restoration, for fear of having to fight: and Aristotle—and this is a most striking instance of the difficulty that so frequently arises from Aristotle's haste and carelessness in writing, and also of his constant liability to lapses of memory—quoting from memory, and quoting wrong, and neglecting to mention the occasion of the speech and the name of the author, which he had probably forgotten for the time,—has both altered the words and omitted precisely the two things—δεινὸν ἂν εἴη, which shows what the inference is intended to be, and Λακεδαιμονίοις—which would have enabled his readers to understand his meaning. The passage of Lysias runs thus: δεινὸν γὰρ ἂν εἴη, Ἀθηναῖοι, εἰ ὅτε μὲν ἐφεύγομεν, ἐμαχόμεθα Λακεδαιμονίοις ἵνα κατέλθωμεν, κατελθόντες δὲ φευξόμεθα ἵνα μὴ μαχώμεθα. And it is now pretty clear what the intention of the writer of the fragment was, namely to stimulate the Athenian assembly not to submit to the dictation of the Lacedaemonians and to encounter them if it were necessary in battle, by urging the inconsistency and absurdity of which they would be guilty, if, whilst they were ready to fight before their restoration to their city, now that they were in actual possession of it they should quit it and return into exile, merely to avoid fighting.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: