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

---

---

‘Another from the omission of when and how’; a particular case, like those of § 3, and § 7, of the following topic παρὰ τὸ ἁπλῶς καὶ μὴ ἁπλῶς; a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter; the omission of particulars in the way of exceptions to a general statement, as time, place, manner, circumstances. ‘For example, that Paris had a right to take Helen; for the choice was given her by her father (Tyndareus, the choice viz. of one of the suitors, whichever she preferred)’. Eur. Iph. Aul. 66, ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐπιστώθησαν, εὖ δέ πως γέρων ὑπῆλθεν αὐτοὺς Τυνδάρεως πυκνῇ φρενί, δίδως᾿ ἑλέσθαι θυγατρὶ μνηστήρων ἕνα (Victorius). The whole story of ‘Helen's choice’, and the sequel, is told by Agamemnon, Iph. Aul. 49 seq., in his speech at the opening of the play, which serves for the prologue.

But this is a fallacy; ‘for (the choice was granted) not it may be supposed (ἴσως) for ever, but only for the first time: for in fact the father's authority only extends so far’. Helen, acting upon her father's permission, chose Menelaus; ἡ δ᾽ εἵλεθ̓ ὥς γε μήποτ̓ ὤφελεν λαβεῖν Μενέλαον, Iph. A. 70; and here, at this first choice, her father's authority and her own right to choose ended. The fallacy therefore consists in the ‘omission’ of the particular time, τοῦ πότε; she generalized the time of choice from the particular time to all time; and therefore Paris was not ‘justified’ in taking her.

‘Or again, if one were to say, that to strike a free man is an act of ὕβρις (wanton outrage, liable to a γραφή, a public prosecution): for it is not so in every case (πάντως = ἁπλῶς), but only (κατά τι) when the striker is the aggressor’. This of course makes all the difference in the nature and legal construction of the offence. If the blow is returned, it may be regarded as an act of self-defence; the insulting wantonness, the injury to the sufferer's honour and personal self-respect, is shewn in the wanton aggression. ἄν τις τύπτῃ τινά φησιν (ὁ νόμος), ἄρχων χειρῶν ἀδίκων, ὡς, εἴ γε ἠμύνατο, οὐκ ἀδικεῖ. Demosth. c. Aristocr. § 50.

ἄρχειν χειρῶν ἀδίκων is to strike the first blow, to give the offence. The phrase assumes various forms. Rhet. ad. Alex. 36 (37) 39, συνέκοψάς μου τὸν υἱόν; ἔγωγε ἀδίκων χειρῶν ἄρχοντα. Isocr. κατὰ Λοχίτου § 1, ἔτυπτέ με Λοχίτης ἄρχων χειρῶν ἀδίκων. Xen. Cyrop. I 5. 13, Antiph. τετραλογία Γ. Or. 4, β § 1, and § 6, ἄρξας τῆς πληγῆς. χειρῶν is sometimes omitted, Bos, Ellips. p. 301, (527, ed. Schäfer); sometimes ἀδίκων, Plat. Legg. IX. 869 D, ἄρχ. χειρῶν πρότερον. Herodotus has ὑπάρχειν ἀδίκων ἔργων, I 5; and various similar phrases, IV 1. VII 8. 2, and 9 a, IX 78; also ἄρχειν ἀδικίης et sim. III 130, &c. ὑπάρχειν alone, Plat. Gorg. 456 E, ἀμυνομένους μὴ ὑπάρχοντας. Stallbaum et Ast, ad Legg. l. c. Also ἄρχεσθαι alone; Arist. Hist. Anim. IX. 12. 3, καὶ τὸν ἀετόν, ἐὰν ἄρξηται, ἀμυνόμενοι νικῶσιν (οἱ κύκνοι).