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

‘The historical example (τὸ λέγειν πράγματα προγεγενημένα) is of this kind: as if, for instance (a deliberative speaker) were to say, We must arm against the King’ (the Great King, the King of Persia, as usual without the article), ‘and not allow him to subdue Egypt: for in fact Darius did not cross (the Aegean to attack us) until he had secured (got possession of) Egypt, but as soon as he had done that, he did cross; and Xerxes again did not make his attempt upon us until he had seized it, but crossed as soon as he was master of it: and therefore (the inference from the two examples or historical parallels) this King also is likely to cross if he is allowed to seize it, so that we must not permit it’. The case here given in illustration is probably an imaginary one, εἴ τις λέγοι; and this seems to be Victorius's opinion. But it is barely possible that the recovery of Egypt by Ochus, ὁ μετονομασθεὶς Ἀρταξέρξης (Diod.), about 350 B.C., Clint. Fast. Hell. 11, p. 316 and note w, may have attracted the attention of the Athenian assembly, and this argument have been used by one of the speakers on the question. Max Schmidt, in his tract On the date of the Rhetoric, makes use of this passage as helping to fix it, pp. 19—21. Artaxerxes' expedition to Egypt was undertaken in 351 B. C., and continued through the next year. Both the rival sovereigns, Nectanebus, the reigning king, and Artaxerxes, sent ambassadors to the Greek states for aid, and the subject excited general interest at Athens, as well as in the rest of Greece. It was at this time that Aristotle, who was then employed on his Rhetoric, introduced this illustration, which was suggested by what was actually going on at the time.