This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
‘In answering, you must meet ambiguous questions by drawing a distinction, and not expressing yourself too concisely’. Top. Θ 7, 156 a 26, ἐὰν (τὸ ἐρωτηθὲν) ἐπὶ τὶ μὲν ψεῦδος ᾖ, ἐπὶ τὶ δ᾽ ἀληθές, ἐπισημαντέον ὅτι πλεοναχῶς λέγεται καὶ διότι τὸ μὲν ψεῦδος τὸ δ̓ ἀληθές: ὕστερον γὰρ διαιρουμένου ἄδηλον εἰ καὶ ἐν ἀρχῇ συνεώρα τὸ ἀμφίβολον. In the fragment περὶ ἀποκρίσεως (as Spengel notices) the latter part is paraphrased in such a manner as to shew that the writer read διαιροῦντα λόγῳ (omitting καὶ μὴ) συντόμως. ‘In answering questions that appear to involve you in a contradiction, you must give your explanation immediately in your answer, before your opponent asks the next question or draws his conclusion’. This corresponds to what in the old style of our legal pleading would have been termed ‘confession and avoidance’. ἐκ τῶν τοπικῶν] namely in Top. lib. VIII (Θ), in the opening words of which πῶς δεῖ ἐρωτᾶν is mentioned as one of the subjects of the book; περὶ ἀποκρίσεως is treated from c. 4 to c. 10; (Grote's Ar. Vol. II 47—54). Spengel somewhat questionably remarks: “notandus imperativus ἔστω, hoc enim ut εἰρήσθω, librum illum nondum compositum esse indicare videtur;” (on the perfect imperative, see note on I 11. 29). He adds, “neque ἔσται, quod deteriores exhibent, placet, praesens expectamus, aut intelligendum potius verbum in hac formula.”
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.