[520]: They murdered Alexander, tyrant of Pherae, being instigated by their sister, his wife. Nothing is known of the case referred to. According to Cope, the meaning is: When they were at Pherae, they used to sell you as slaves, but now they have come to buy you (referring to bribery in court). Others take ὠνεῖσθαι in a passive sense: they have been bought, i.e. have had to sell themselves to you.
[521]: Aristoph. frag. 649 (Kock, Com. Att. Frag. 1.1880).
[522]: Hom. Il. 9.526
[523]: Hom. Il. 9.526.
[524]: The text is obviously corrupt.
[525]: See Introduction.
[526]: Roemer's text has ἀρεταί (excellences).
[527]: There is no real antithesis, the sense of both clauses being the same.
[528]: Hom. Od. 24.213 ἀλλ’ ἔμπης καλάμην γέ σ’ ὀΐμαι εἰσορόωντα γιγνώσκειν. The words are those of Odysseus, whom Athene had changed into an old beggar, to Eumaeus, his faithful swineherd, in whose house he was staying unrecognized.
[529]: προσθέσει: the addition of the particle of comparison ὡς. προθέσει (the reading of the Paris ms.) would mean, (1) manner of setting forth (Cope), or (2) a metaphor, with a preface (Jebb) (but the meaning of this is not clear). The simile only says that one thing resembles another, not, like the metaphor, that it is another; since the speaker does not say this, the result is that the mind of the hearer does not go into the matter, and so the chance of instruction, of acquiring some information, is lost.
[530]: The meaning is: the two kinds of enthymemes mentioned last do convey some information, whereas the superficial enthymemes teach nothing, either at once, or a little later, when reflection has made the meaning clear.
[531]: Isoc. 5.73.
[532]: In Aristot. Poet. 21 metaphor and its four classes are defined: Metaphor consists in assigning to a thing the name of something else; and this may take place either from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or proportionally. An instance of a metaphor from genus to species is ‘here stands my ship,’ for ‘standing’ is a genus, ‘being moored’ a species; from species to genus: ‘Odysseus truly has wrought a myriad good deeds,’ for ‘myriad’ is a specific large number, used for the generic ‘multitude’; from species to species: ‘having drawn off the life with the bronze’ and ‘having cut it with the unyielding bronze,’ where ‘drawn off’ is used in the sense of ‘cut,’ and ‘cut’ in the sense of ‘drawn off,’ both being species of ‘taking away.’ For the proportional metaphor see note on 4.4 above.
[533]: 1.7.34.
[534]: εὔθυνα was the technical term for the examination of accounts to which all public officers had to submit when their term of office expired. Cephisodotus and Chares were both Athenian generals. Having the people by the throat may refer to the condition of Athens financially and his unsatisfactory conduct of the war. But the phrase εἰς πνῖγμα τὸν δῆμον ἔχοντα is objected to by Cope, who reads ἀγαγόντα and translates: that he drove the people into a fit of choking by his attempts to offer his accounts for scrutiny in this way, i.e. he tried to force his accounts down their throats, and nearly choked them. Another reading suggested is ἄγχοντα (throttling so as to choke).
[535]: This may refer to a decree of Miltiades which was so speedily carried out that it became proverbial. The expedition was undertaken to assist Euboea against Thebes.
[536]: By making peace, Iphicrates said that the Athenians had deprived themselves of the opportunity of attacking and plundering a weak maritime city, and so securing provisions for the war. The word ἐφόδια properly means provisions for a journey and travelling expenses.
[537]: The Paralus and Salaminia were the two sacred galleys which conveyed state prisoners.
[538]: It commanded the trade of the Euxine.
[539]: Moerocles was a contemporary of Demosthenes, and an anti-Macedonian in politics. He seems to have been a money-grubber and was once prosecuted for extortion. The degree of the respectability (or rather, the swindling practices) of each is calculated by their respective profits.
[540]: Poet of the Middle Comedy: Frag. 68 (Kock, Com. Att. Frag. 2.). The metaphor in ὑπερήμενοι is from those who failed to keep the term of payment of a fine or debt. Cope translates: I find ( μοι) the young ladies are . . .
[541]: Athenian orator, contemporary of Demosthenes
[542]: As grinding down the tributary states. They differed from ordinary mills in being gaily painted.
[543]: Contrasted with the Spartan messes, which were of a plain and simple character, at which all the citizens dined together. The tavern orgies, according to Diogenes, represented these at Athens.
[544]: Athenian orator, opponent of Demosthenes.
[545]: Referring to the disastrous Sicilian expedition.
[546]: Isoc. 5.12. Both συνδρομάς and συντρέχοντας refer to the collecting of a mob in a state of excitement.
[547]: The statue of Chabrias, erected after one of his victories, represented him as kneeling on the ground, the position which he had ordered his soldiers to take up when awaiting the enemy. The statue was in the agora and could be seen from the court. Lycoleon points to it, and bases his appeal on its suppliant attitude.
[548]: Isoc. 4.151.
[549]: Metaphor from species to genus (10.7, first note.), studying being a species of increasing. As a rule one studies to increase some good quality, not a bad one.
[550]: Isoc. 4.172.
[551]: Isoc. 4.180 (apparently from memory).
[552]: εὔθυνα (see 10.7, third note) further implies the punishment for an unsatisfactory statement of accounts.
[553]: Simonides, frag. 5 (P.L.G. 2.). Both a good man and a square are complete as far as they go, but they do not express actuality.
[554]: Isoc. 5.10.
[555]: Isoc. 5.127. This speech is an appeal to Philip to lead the Greeks against Persia. As a sacred animal could roam where it pleased within the precincts of its temple, so Philip could claim the whole of Greece as his fatherland, while other descendants of Heracles (whom Isocrates calls the author of Philip's line) were tied down and their outlook narrowed by the laws and constitution of the city in which they dwelt.
[556]: Eur. IA 80
[557]: Eur. IA 80, with δορί for ποσίν.
[558]: Hom. Od. 11.598
[559]: Hom. Od. 11.598, with ἔπειτα πέδονδε for ἐπὶ δάπεδόνδε.
[560]: Hom. Il. 13.587
[561]: Hom. Il. 13.587.
[562]: Hom. Il. 4.126
[563]: Hom. Il. 4.126.
[564]: Hom. Il. 11.574
[565]: Hom. Il. 11.574.
[566]: Hom. Il. 15.541
[567]: Hom. Il. 15.541.
[568]: Hom. Il. 13.799
[569]: Hom. Il. 13.799. The reference is to the boiling waves of the loud-roaring sea.
[570]: The anchor keeps a ship steady below, the pot hook is above, and the pot hangs down from it.
[571]: Cope, retaining ἀνωμαλίσθαι (as if from ἀνομαλίζειν, aequalitatem restituere Bonitz, cf. ἀνομάλωσις) says: the widely dissimilar things here compared are the areas of properties and the state offices and privileges, which are to be alike equalized, translating: And the re-equalization of cities, when the same principle is applied to things standing wide apart, viz. to surface (area) and powers (functions, offices). ( ἀν- is not negative, but = re.) But the passage quoted by Victorius from Isoc. 5.40: for I know that all the cities of Greece have been placed on the same level ( ὡμαλίσθαι) by misfortunes suggests this as a preferable reading here, ὡμαλίσθαι meaning (1) have been levelled to the ground (although the Lexica give no instance of this use), (2) reduced to the same level of weakness.
[572]: προεξαπατᾶν. Or, reading προσεξαπατᾶν, by adding deception.
[573]: See 2.21.8.
[574]: According to Cope, Θρᾷττ’ εἶ, you are no better than a Thracian slave-girl.
[575]: There is obviously a play on πέρσαι (aor. 1 infin. of πέρθω) and Πέρσαι (Persians), but no satisfactory interpretation of the joke has been suggested.
[576]: The paradoxical and verbal. Suitably may refer to the manner of delivery; to being used at the proper time; or to taking care that the word is one that may be used in the two senses.
[577]: Isoc. 5.61; Isoc. 8.101. The point in the illustrations lies in the use of ἀρχή, first in the sense of empire, then in that of beginning. It could be said that the empire of the sea was or was not the beginning of misfortunes for Athens; for at first it was highly beneficial to them, but in the end brought disaster, and thus was the beginning of evil.
[578]: Usually translated, There is no bearing Baring.
[579]: Kock, C.A.F. 3.209, p. 448. In the two first examples stranger refers to a distant and reserved manner, as we say don't make yourself a stranger; in the third ξένος is apparently to be taken in the sense of alien. Cope translates: for that too is of a different kind (foreign, alien to the two others; ἀλλότριον, belonging to something or somebody else, opposed to οἰκεῖον). But the whole passage is obscure.
[580]: Kock, C.A.F. 2. Frag. 64, p. 163.
[581]: Or, reading αἱ for ἀεὶ, approved similes are . . .
[582]: In the simple metaphor goblet is substituted for shield, but sometimes additions are made to the word as differently applied, such as of Ares and without strings. These additions, besides involving greater detail (a characteristic of the simile), distinctly bring out the contrast of the two terms and make a simile, whereas the metaphor simply transfers the meaning.
[583]: In posture.
[584]: Contraction of eyelids and flame.
[585]: Like Philoctetes on Lemnos after he had been bitten by the snake.
[586]: When the concluding corresponds with the introductory expression. This answering clause is called apodosis (5.2), not restricted, as in modern usage, to the conclusion of a conditional sentence.
[587]: Or, he says it is a case of the Carpathian and the hare. An inhabitant of the island of Carpathus introduced a brace of hares, which so multiplied that they devoured all the crops and ruined the farmers (like the rabbits in Australia).
[588]: Hom. Il. 9.385
[589]: Hom. Il. 9.385.
[590]: This must be taken as a parenthetical remark, if it is Aristotle's at all.
[591]: Because they are boyish.
[592]: See 2.13 of this book.
[593]: What follows, to the end of sect. 3, is of the nature of a parenthesis, not immediately connected with the subject of the chapter.
[594]: The variation in the form of the expression suggests a similar variation in the form of the delivery or declamation.
[595]: The meaning of this has not been satisfactorily explained. On the face of it, it seems to mean that the excellence of Philemon's delivery consisted in his way of declaiming passages in which the same words were repeated. Philemon is not to be confused with the writer of the New Comedy, the rival and contemporary of Menander.
[596]: Used of a stiff, ungraceful speaker.
[597]: Spengel's reading here is: πολλὰ δοκεῖ· ὑπερεῖδεν ὅσα εἶπον, πολλὰ δοκεῖ being parenthetical, and ὑπερεῖδον ὅσα εἶπον part of the quotation. Jebb translates: I came, I spoke to him, I besought (these seem many things); he disregarded all I said (which certainly gives a more natural sense to ὑπερεῖδον).
[598]: Hom. Il. 2.671 ff.
[599]: Hom. Il. 2.671 ff.
[600]: Cope translates: they think that, if the name is often repeated, there must be a great deal to say about its owner; but can this be got out of the Greek ( εἰρῆσθαι)?
[601]: Intended to produce the effect of finished work at a distance before a large number of spectators.
[602]: The meaning apparently is that there is no discussion, as might be the case when there were several judges, so that the decision is clear and unbiased. ἀγών and ἀγωνιστικὴ λέξις are terms used for debate (e.g. in the law courts) and the style suited to it (cf sect. 1). Cope's editor refers to Cic. Ad Att. 1.16.8 remoto illo studio contentionis, quem vos [you Athenians] ἀγῶνα appellatis. Jebb translates: the turmoil is absent, so that the judgement is serene (in a note, unclouded).
[603]: This does not seem to agree with the general view. Funeral orations of the nature of panegyrics, for instance, were certainly meant to be spoken; but the ἔργον or proper function of an epideictic may be said to consist in reading, in its being agreeable to read. Its τέλος or end is to be read.
[604]: The generally accepted divisions are: προοίμιον (exordium), διήγησις (narrative), πίστις (proof), ἐπίλογος (peroration). ( διήγησις is a species of πρόθεσις, which is used instead of it just before.) Aristotle objects that it is (as a rule) only the forensic speech which requires a regular διήγησις, a full and detailed statement of what has happened before. In epideictic and demonstrative (deliberative) speeches, the object of which is to prove something, there is no need of another existing division called the refutation of the adversary, and in the demonstrative there can be no room for an epilogue, which is not a summary of proofs and arguments. Thus the necessary divisions of a speech are really only two; πρόθεσις and πίστις, or at most four.
[605]: i.e. its use is to recall the main facts briefly (sect. 4 end), which in a short speech is needless.
[606]: Plat. Phaedrus 266d, where the additional kinds of narrative are omitted, and their place taken by πίστωσις and ἐπιπίστωσις (confirmation of the proof).
[607]: Or, diverting the judge's attention.
[608]: The subject of the oration was the praise of Helen, but Isocrates took the opportunity of attacking the sophists. This exemplifies his skill in the introduction of matter not strictly proper to, or in common with, the subject. The key-note is Helen; but the exordium is an attack on the Eristics, with special allusion to the Cynics and the Megarians.
[609]: Of Samos, epic poet, author of a poem on the Persian war, from which this half-line and the context preserved in the Scholiast are taken. He complains that whereas the poets of olden times had plenty to write about, the field of poetry being as yet untilled, it was now all apportioned, and he, the last of the poets, was left behind, unable to find a new chariot for the race-course of his song.
[610]: ἐνδόσιμα = προοίμια.
[611]: A parenthetical remark to the effect that epideictic exordia are different. Those of a forensic speech are like prologues and epic exordia, but it is different with epideictic, which may be wild, high-flown, as in the example given from an unknown author.
[612]: That is, forensic speeches. δράμασι has been suggested for λόγοις.
[613]: Hom. Il 1.1
[614]: Hom. Il 1.1.
[615]: Hom. Od. 1.1
[616]: Hom. Od. 1.1.
[617]: From Choerilus (sect. 4).
[618]: Soph. OT 774
[619]: Soph. OT 774. But this can hardly be called the prologue.
[620]: That is, special remedies in the case of the hearers suffering from inattention, unfavorable disposition, and the like (Cope).
[621]: i.e., to claim the hearer's attention at the beginning, for every one is keen to listen then, but later on attention slackens.
[622]: The hearer qua hearer should be unbiased, but in fact hearers often suffer from the defects referred to in sect. 7, for which certain forms of exordia are remedies.
[623]: Soph. Ant. 223
[624]: Soph. Ant. 223.
[625]: Eur. IT 1162
[626]: Eur. IT 1162.
[627]: 2.1.7, 8.
[628]: Hom. Od. 7.327
[629]: Hom. Od. 7.327.
[630]: See 1.9.30.
[631]: Another reading is τόπος (topic) and so throughout.
[632]: Sophocles had two sons, Iophon and Ariston, by different wives; the latter had a son named Sophocles. Iophon, jealous of the affection shown by Sophocles to this grandson, summoned him before the phratores (a body which had some jurisdiction in family affairs) on the ground that his age rendered him incapable of managing his affairs. In reply to the charge, Sophocles read the famous choric ode on Attica from the Oedipus Coloneus, beginning Εὐίππου, ξένε, τᾶσδε χώρας (Soph. OC 668 ff.), and was acquitted. The story in this form is probably derived from some comedy, which introduced the case on the stage (see Jebb's Introd. to the tragedy).
[633]: In the reading in the text, αὐτούς must apparently refer to the defendant, and one would rather expect αὐτόν. Spengel suggested ἢ ἄλλος ἢ αὐτός for ἢ ἄλλος αὐτούς: if he (i.e. the adversary) or another has similarly accused others.
[634]: When a citizen was called upon to perform a liturgy or public service (e.g. the equipment of a chorus), if he thought that one richer than himself had been passed over he could summon him and compel him to exchange properties.
[635]: Eur. Hipp. 612
[636]: Aristoph. Thes. 275
[637]: Aristoph. Frogs 101
[638]: Aristoph. Frogs1471
[639]: Eur. Hipp. 612. This well-known verse is three times parodied in Aristophanes (Aristoph. Thes. 275; Aristoph. Frogs 101, Aristoph. Frogs1471). In the first passage, the sense is reversed: Euripides has dressed up a certain Mnesilochus as a woman in order that he may attend the Thesmophorian assembly. Mnesilochus first requires Euripides to take an oath that he will help him out of any trouble that may arise. Euripides takes an oath by all the gods, whereupon Mnesilochus says to Euripides: Remember that it was your mind that swore, but not your tongue. When Euripides was engaged in a lawsuit, his adversary quoted the line, implying that even on oath Euripides could not be believed; Euripides replied that his adversary had no right to bring before the law courts a matter which had already been settled by the theatrical judges.
[640]: In the great Dionysiac theater.
[641]: Or, makes extraneous points the subject of decision (Cope), raises false issues (Jebb).
[642]: Of Sophocles.
[643]: Who had been sent to Troy by the Greeks to spy upon the Trojans. It seems that he was afterwards accused of treachery, the token being the fact that Teucer was a near connection of Priam; to which he replied with another token that his father was an enemy of Priam, and further, when the Greek spies were in Troy, he never betrayed them.
[644]: Jebb refers τοιοῦτοι to the accusers, translating τεχνικοί artistic, certainly the commoner meaning.
[645]: Involving a continuous succession of proofs.
[646]: Something has been lost here, as is shown by the transition from epideictic to forensic Rhetoric. All the mss. have a gap, which in several of them is filled by introducing the passage ἔστι δ’ ἔπαινος . . . μετατεθῇ (1.9.33-37).
[647]: Hdt. 2.30. The story was that a number of Egyptian soldiers had revolted and left in a body for Ethiopia. Their king Psammetichus begged them not to desert their wives and children, to which one of them made answer ( τῶν δέ τινα λέγεται δέξαντα τὸ αἰδοῖον εἰπεῖν, ἔνθα ἂν τοῦτο ᾖ, ἔσεσθαι αὐτοῖσι ἐνθαῦτα καὶ τέκνα καὶ γυναῖκας).
[648]: Hom. Od. 23.264-284, Hom. Od. 23.310-343. The title referred to the narrative in Books 9-12. It became proverbial for a long-winded story.
[649]: he apparently summarized it.
[650]: Of Euripides. It was apparently very compact.
[651]: Soph. Ant. 911-912
[652]: Soph. Ant. 911-912, where the mss. have κεκευθότοιν instead of Aristotle's βεβηκότων.
[653]: Whereas this man makes his temperament responsible for the strange things he does; he is built that way and cannot help it.
[654]: Supposed to be Aeschines called Socraticus from his intimate friendship with Socrates. A philosopher and writer of speeches for the law courts, he had a great reputation as an orator.
[655]: Hom. Od. 19.361
[656]: Hom. Od. 19.361.
[657]: δεῖ (omitted by others) = one cannot help seeing.
[658]: Omitting τε. The difficulty is διατάττειν, which can apparently only mean arrange. Jebb retains τε, and reads ὡς for οἷς: the speaker must make himself responsible for the fact . . . and marshal his reasons in a way acceptable to the hearers. The old Latin translation vadiare quibus volunt suggested to Roemer διαιτηταῖς, to the arbitrators they approve.
[659]: According to Jebb, Jocasta tells the inquirer incredible things about her son, and pledges her word for the facts. Cope says: promises (to do something or other to satisfy him).
[660]: Soph. Ant. 683-723. On this Cope remarks: This last example must be given up as hopeless; there is nothing in the extant play which could be interpreted as required here. According to Jebb, the incredibility consists in the fact that Haemon, although in love with Antigone, and strongly opposed to the sentence pronounced upon her by his father Creon, still remains loyal to the latter. Haemon explains the reason in lines 701-3, where he says that he prizes his father's welfare more than anything else, for a father's good name and prosperity is the greatest ornament for children, as is the son's for the father.
[661]: Aristotle's argument is as follows. But it must not be forgotten that it is only in a dispute as to this question of fact that one of the two parties must necessarily be a rogue. For ignorance is not the cause (of there being a dispute about the fact, e.g. you hit me, no, I didn't, where both know the truth), as it might be in a dispute on what was right or wrong, so that this is the topic on which you should spend some time (i.e. because here you can prove or disprove that A is πονηρός). The passage is generally taken to mean that when it is a question of fact it is universally true that one of the disputants must be a rogue. Cope alone among editors makes any comment. In his note he says: all that is meant is that there is a certain class of cases which fall under this issue, in which this topic may be safely used. For instance, A may on justifiable grounds charge B with theft; B denies it, and he may be innocent, although the evidence is strongly against him. In such a case, neither of the parties is necessarily πονηρός.
[662]: Or, reading ἄλλως, if there is some other reason.
[663]: It is irrevocable, and it is possible to discuss it with some degree of certainty, whereas the future is quite uncertain, and all that can be done is to draw inferences from the past.
[664]: Hom. Od. 4.204
[665]: Hom. Od. 4.204.
[666]: For this passage see 1.2.12-13. The meaning is that it is absurd to prove what every one knows already.
[667]: The remark of Epimenides is by many editors interpreted as a sarcasm upon the fraternity of soothsayers, who pretended to be able to foretell the future. But how is this to be got out of the Greek? The point is perhaps something like: it is easy enough to talk about the past, for even soothsayers know it. What Aristotle says here is that Epimenides practised a different kind of divination, relating to the obscure phenomena of the past. The following is an instance. After the followers of Cylon, who tried to make himself tyrant of Athens (c. 632) had been put to death by the Alcmaeonid archon Megacles, in violation of the terms of surrender, a curse rested upon the city and it was devastated by a pestilence. On the advice of the oracle, Epimenides was summoned from Crete, and by certain rites and sacrifices purified the city and put a stop to the pestilence.
[668]: Isoc. 4.110-114.
[669]: Isoc. 8.27.
[670]: He enumerates all the deeds that proceed from courage. Another reading is ἢ τὰ καὶ τά, ποιεῖ ὃ τοιόνδε ἐστίν, i.e. when praising courage, and this or that, he is employing a method of the kind mentioned.
[671]: There is no difference in form between the demonstrative and refutative enthymeme, but the latter draws opposite conclusions; and opposites are always more striking when they are brought together, and a parallel drawn between them. It is then easy to see where the fallacy lies. Cf. 2.23.30: Refutative enthymemes are more effective (popular) than demonstrative, because they bring opposites together in a small compass, which are more striking (clearer) to the hearer from being put side by side.
[672]: In the translation τῶν πίστεων is taken with ἔστι: it is the business of, the proper function of, proofs. Others take it with τὰ μὲν . . . τὰ δέ: some . . . other (of the opponent's arguments).
[673]: If the opponent's arguments are numerous and strong, by reason of the varied nature of the points dealt with.
[674]: Eur. Tro. 969-971
[675]: Eur. Tro. 969-971. Hecuba had advised Menelaus to put Helen to death; she defends herself at length, and is answered by Hecuba in a reply of which these words form part. Her argument is that none of the three goddesses who contended for the prize of beauty on Mt. Ida would have been such fools as to allow Argos and Athens to become subject to Troy as the result of the contest, which was merely a prank.
[676]: Isoc. 5.4-7. Isocrates says that his friends thought very highly of one of his addresses, as likely to bring peace.
[677]: Isoc. 15.132-139, Isoc. 15.141-149. Here again Isocrates puts compliments on his composition into the mouth of an imaginary friend.
[678]: Archilochus (c. 650) of Paros was engaged to Neobule, the daughter of Lycambes. Her father broke off the engagement, whereupon Archilochus pursued father and daughter with furious and scurrilous abuse. It is here said that, instead of attacking the daughter directly, he represented her as being attacked by her father. The meaning of ἄελπτον is not clear. It may be a general statement: the unexpected often happens; or, there is nothing so bad that you may not expect it. B. St. Hilaire translates: There is nothing that money cannot procure, meaning that the father was prepared to sell his daughter (Frag. 74).
[679]: The line ends: τοῦ πολυχρύσου μέλει. Archilochus represents Charon the carpenter as expressing his own disapproval of the desire for wealth and of the envy caused by others possessing it.
[680]: Here again, Haemon similarly puts his own feeling as to Creon's cruel treatment of Antigone into the mouth of the people of the city, and refers to popular rumor.
[681]: The words ὅταν . . . ᾖ have been variously translated: (1) when one of the two alternatives has already been stated; (2) when the opponent has stated what is different from the fact; (3) when the opponent has already conceded so much, made one admission (Jebb).
[682]: Reading ἤρετο.
[683]: For the first of the quibbles Sandys refers to Aristoph. Ach. 396, where Cephisophon, being asked if Euripides was indoors, replies, Yes and no, if you understand me; and he gives the explanation, his mind is outside, collecting scraps of poetry, while he himself is upstairs ( ἀναβάδην, unless it means with his legs up) composing a tragedy. The reference in the second instance is to the adversary being reduced to such a position that he cannot answer without having recourse to sophistical divisions and distinctions, which seem to imply uncertainty. Aristotle himself is fond of such cautiously limited judgements (Gomperz). The translation is that of the reading ἀποροῦντος, a conjecture of Spengel's. The audience will be ready to express its disapproval of his shuffling answers, which are evidence of his perplexity. The ordinary reading ἀποροῦντες attributes the perplexity to the hearers. Or, the hearers, thinking he is puzzled, applaud us [the interrogator] (Jebb).
[684]: Aristot. Top. 8.4.
[685]: Cp. 1.14.3.
[686]: The chapters are lost (cp. 1.11.29).
[687]: Or, mould the hearers to one's will (L. and S.).
[688]: Book 1.9.
[689]: Book 2.19.
[690]: Book 2.1-11.
[691]: Reading τελευτῇ, a conjecture of Victorius. With τελευτή, the sense will be: as a conclusion, the asyndectic style is appropriate.
[692]: It is generally supposed that this example of a suitable peroration is an echo of the conclusion of the speech of Lysias Against Eratosthenes.