Bibliotheca Polyglotta

22. (21) Περὶ δ’ ἐνθυμημάτων καθόλου τε εἴπωμεν τίνα τρόπον δεῖ (22) ζητεῖν, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τοὺς τόπους· ἄλλο γὰρ εἶδος ἑκάτερον (23) τούτων ἐστίν. ὅτι μὲν οὖν τὸ ἐνθύμημα συλλογισμός ἐστιν, (24) εἴρηται πρότερον, καὶ πῶς συλλογισμός, καὶ τί διαφέρει τῶν (25) διαλεκτικῶν· οὔτε γὰρ πόρρωθεν οὔτε πάντα δεῖ λαμβάνοντας (26) συνάγειν· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀσαφὲς διὰ τὸ μῆκος, τὸ δὲ ἀδολεσχία (27) διὰ τὸ φανερὰ λέγειν.

. . . . . . .

Part 22. We now come to the Enthymemes, and will begin the subject with some general consideration of the proper way of looking for them, and then proceed to what is a distinct question, the lines of argument to be embodied in them. It has already been pointed out that the Enthymeme is a syllogism, and in what sense it is so. We have also noted the differences between it and the syllogism of dialectic. Thus we must not carry its reasoning too far back, or the length of our argument will cause obscurity: nor must we put in all the steps that lead to our conclusion, or we shall waste words in saying what is manifest.

τοῦτο γὰρ αἴτιον καὶ τοῦ πιθανωτέρους (28) εἶναι τοὺς ἀπαιδεύτους τῶν πεπαιδευμένων ἐν τοῖς ὄχλοις, (29) ὥσπερ φασὶν οἱ ποιηταὶ τοὺς ἀπαιδεύτους παρ’ ὄχλῳ μουσι(30)κωτέρως λέγειν· οἱ μὲν γὰρ τὰ κοινὰ καὶ καθόλου λέγουσιν, οἱ (31) δ’ ἐξ ὧν ἴσασι, καὶ τὰ ἐγγύς· ὥστ’ οὐκ ἐξ ἁπάντων τῶν (32) δοκούντων ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν ὡρισμένων λεκτέον, οἷον ἢ τοῖς κρί(1396a1)νουσιν ἢ οὓς ἀποδέχονται, καὶ τοῦτο διότι οὕτως φαίνεται (2) δῆλον εἶναι ἅπασιν ἢ τοῖς πλείστοις· καὶ μὴ μόνον συνάγειν (3) ἐκ τῶν ἀναγκαίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ.

. . . . . .

It is this simplicity that makes the uneducated more effective than the educated when addressing popular audiences —makes them, as the poets tell us, ‘charm the crowd’s ears more finely’. Educated men lay down broad general principles; uneducated men argue from common knowledge and draw obvious conclusions. We must not, therefore, start from any and every accepted opinion, but only from those we have defined —those accepted by our judges or by those whose authority they recognize: and there must, moreover, be no doubt in the minds of most, if not all, of our judges that the opinions put forward really are of this sort. We should also base our arguments upon probabilities as well as upon certainties.

(4) πρῶτον μὲν οὖν δεῖ λαβεῖν ὅτι περὶ οὗ δεῖ λέγειν καὶ συλ(5)λογίζεσθαι εἴτε πολιτικῷ συλλογισμῷ εἴθ’ ὁποιῳοῦν, ἀναγκαῖον (6) κατὰ τούτου ἔχειν τὰ ὑπάρχοντα, ἢ πάντα ἢ ἔνια· μηδὲν γὰρ (7) ἔχων ἐξ οὐδενὸς ἂν ἔχοις συνάγειν. λέγω δ’ οἷον πῶς ἂν (8) δυναίμεθα συμβουλεύειν Ἀθηναίοις εἰ πολεμητέον ἢ μὴ (9) πολεμητέον, μὴ ἔχοντες τίς ἡ δύναμις αὐτῶν, πότερον ναυ(10)τικὴ ἢ πεζικὴ ἢ ἄμφω, καὶ αὕτη πόση, καὶ πρόσοδοι τίνες ἢ (11) φίλοι καὶ ἐχθροί, εἶτα τίνας πολέμους πεπολεμήκασι καὶ πῶς, (12) καὶ τἆλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα· ἢ ἐπαινεῖν, εἰ μὴ ἔχοιμεν τὴν ἐν Σαλα(13)μῖνι ναυμαχίαν ἢ τὴν ἐν Μαραθῶνι μάχην ἢ τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν (14) Ἡρακλειδῶν πραχθέντα ἢ ἄλλο τι τῶν τοιούτων. ἐκ γὰρ τῶν (15) ὑπαρχόντων ἢ δοκούντων ὑπάρχειν καλῶν ἐπαινοῦσι πάντες. (16) ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ψέγουσιν ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων, σκοποῦντες τί (17) ὑπάρχει τοιοῦτον αὐτοῖς ἢ δοκεῖ ὑπάρχειν, οἷον ὅτι τοὺς (18) Ἕλληνας κατεδουλώσαντο, καὶ τοὺς πρὸς τὸν βάρβαρον (19) συμμαχεσαμένους καὶ ἀριστεύσαντας ἠνδραποδίσαντο, Αἰγινή(20)τας καὶ Ποτιδαιάτας, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα τοιαῦτα, [καὶ] εἴ τι ἄλλο (21) τοιοῦτον ἁμάρτημα ὑπάρχει αὐτοῖς. ὡς δ’ αὔτως καὶ οἱ κατ(22)ηγοροῦντες καὶ οἱ ἀπολογούμενοι ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων σκοπού(23)μενοι κατηγοροῦσι καὶ ἀπολογοῦνται. οὐδὲν δὲ διαφέρει περὶ (24) Ἀθηναίων ἢ Λακεδαιμονίων, ἢ ἀνθρώπου ἢ θεοῦ, τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο (25) δρᾶν· καὶ γὰρ συμβουλεύοντα τῷ Ἀχιλλεῖ, καὶ ἐπαινοῦντα καὶ (26) ψέγοντα, καὶ κατηγοροῦντα καὶ ἀπολογούμενον ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ, τὰ (27) ὑπάρχοντα ἢ δοκοῦντα ὑπάρχειν ληπτέον, ἵν’ ἐκ τούτων (28) λέγωμεν, ἐπαινοῦντες ἢ ψέγοντες εἴ τι καλὸν ἢ αἰσχρὸν ὑπ(29)άρχει, κατηγοροῦντες δ’ ἢ ἀπολογούμενοι εἴ τι δίκαιον ἢ ἄδικον, (30) συμβουλεύοντες δ’ εἴ τι συμφέρον ἢ βλαβερόν.

. . . . . . . . . . .

The first thing we have to remember is this. Whether our argument concerns public affairs or some other subject, we must know some, if not all, of the facts about the subject on which we are to speak and argue. Otherwise we can have no materials out of which to construct arguments. I mean, for instance, how could we advise the Athenians whether they should go to war or not, if we did not know their strength, whether it was naval or military or both, and how great it is; what their revenues amount to; who their friends and enemies are; what wars, too, they have waged, and with what success; and so on? Or how could we eulogize them if we knew nothing about the sea—fight at Salamis, or the battle of Marathon, or what they did for the Heracleidae, or any other facts like that? All eulogy is based upon the noble deeds——real or imaginary——that stand to the credit of those eulogized. On the same principle, invectives are based on facts of the opposite kind: the orator looks to see what base deeds——real or imaginary——stand to the discredit of those he is attacking, such as treachery to the cause of Hellenic freedom, or the enslavement of their gallant allies against the barbarians (Aegina, Potidaea, &c.), or any other misdeeds of this kind that are recorded against them. So, too, in a court of law: whether we are prosecuting or defending, we must pay attention to the existing facts of the case. It makes no difference whether the subject is the Lacedaemonians or the Athenians, a man or a god; we must do the same thing. Suppose it to be Achilles whom we are to advise, to praise or blame, to accuse or defend; here too we must take the facts, real or imaginary; these must be our material, whether we are to praise or blame him for the noble or base deeds he has done, to accuse or defend him for his just or unjust treatment of others, or to advise him about what is or is not to his interest.

ὁμοίως δὲ (31) τούτοις καὶ περὶ πράγματος ὁτουοῦν, οἷον περὶ δικαιοσύνης, (32) εἰ ἀγαθὸν ἢ μὴ ἀγαθόν, ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ (33) καὶ τῷ ἀγαθῷ· ὥστ’ ἐπειδὴ καὶ πάντες οὕτω φαίνονται ἀπο(34)δεικνύντες, ἐάν τε ἀκριβέστερον ἐάν τε μαλακώτερον συλ(1396b1)λογίζωνται (οὐ γὰρ ἐξ ἁπάντων λαμβάνουσιν ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν περὶ (2) ἕκαστον ὑπαρχόντων), καὶ διὰ τοῦ λόγου δῆλον ὅτι ἀδύνατον (3) ἄλλως δεικνύναι, φανερὸν ὅτι ἀναγκαῖον, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς Τοπι(4)κοῖς, πρῶτον περὶ ἕκαστον ἔχειν ἐξειλεγμένα περὶ τῶν ἐν(5)δεχομένων καὶ τῶν ἐπικαιροτάτων, περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐξ ὑπογυίου (6) γιγνομένων ζητεῖν τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, ἀποβλέποντα μὴ εἰς (7) ἀόριστα ἀλλ’ εἰς τὰ ὑπάρχοντα περὶ ὧν ὁ λόγος, καὶ περιγρά(8)φοντα ὅ τι πλεῖστα καὶ ἐγγύτατα τοῦ πράγματος· ὅσῳ μὲν γὰρ (9) ἂν πλείω ἔχῃ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων, τοσούτῳ ῥᾷον δεικνύναι, ὅσῳ (10) δ’ ἐγγύτερον, τοσούτῳ οἰκειότερα καὶ ἧττον κοινά.

. . . . . . . . . . .

T he same thing applies to any subject whatever. Thus, in handling the question whether justice is or is not a good, we must start with the real facts about justice and goodness. We see, then, that this is the only way in which any one ever proves anything, whether his arguments are strictly cogent or not: not all facts can form his basis, but only those that bear on the matter in hand: nor, plainly, can proof be effected otherwise by means of the speech. Consequently, as appears in the Topics, we must first of all have by us a selection of arguments about questions that may arise and are suitable for us to handle; and then we must try to think out arguments of the same type for special needs as they emerge; not vaguely and indefinitely, but by keeping our eyes on the actual facts of the subject we have to speak on, and gathering in as many of them as we can that bear closely upon it: for the more actual facts we have at our command, the more easily we prove our case;

λέγω δὲ (11) κοινὰ μὲν τὸ ἐπαινεῖν τὸν Ἀχιλλέα ὅτι ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὅτι τῶν (12) ἡμιθέων καὶ ὅτι ἐπὶ τὸ Ἴλιον ἐστρατεύσατο· ταῦτα γὰρ καὶ (13) ἄλλοις ὑπάρχει πολλοῖς, ὥστε οὐδὲν μᾶλλον ὁ τοιοῦτος τὸν (14) Ἀχιλλέα ἐπαινεῖ ἢ Διομήδην· ἴδια δὲ ἃ μηδενὶ ἄλλῳ συμ(15)βέβηκεν ἢ τῷ Ἀχιλλεῖ, οἷον τὸ ἀποκτεῖναι τὸν Ἕκτορα τὸν (16) ἄριστον τῶν Τρώων καὶ τὸν Κύκνον, ὃς ἐκώλυσεν ἅπαντας (17) ἀποβαίνειν ἄτρωτος ὤν, καὶ ὅτι νεώτατος καὶ οὐκ ἔνορκος ὢν (18) ἐστράτευσεν, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα τοιαῦτα.

. . . .

and the more closely they bear on the subject, the more they will seem to belong to that speech only instead of being commonplaces. By ‘commonplaces’ I mean, for example, eulogy of Achilles because he is a human being or a demi—god, or because he joined the expedition against Troy: these things are true of many others, so that this kind of eulogy applies no better to Achilles than to Diomede. The special facts here needed are those that are true of Achilles alone;

(19) εἷς μὲν οὖν τρόπος τῆς ἐκλογῆς πρῶτος οὗτος ὁ τοπικός, (20) τὰ δὲ στοιχεῖα τῶν ἐνθυμημάτων λέγωμεν· στοιχεῖον δὲ λέγω (21) καὶ τόπον ἐνθυμήματος τὸ αὐτό.

. .

such facts as that he slew Hector, the bravest of the Trojans, and Cycnus the invulnerable, who prevented all the Greeks from landing, and again that he was the youngest man who joined the expedition, and was not bound by oath to join it, and so on. Here, again, we have our first principle of selection of Enthymemes—that which refers to the lines of argument selected.

πρῶτον δὲ εἴπωμεν περὶ ὧν (22) ἀναγκαῖον εἰπεῖν πρῶτον. ἔστιν γὰρ τῶν ἐνθυμημάτων εἴδη (23) δύο· τὰ μὲν γὰρ δεικτικά ἐστιν ὅτι ἔστιν ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν, τὰ δ’ (24) ἐλεγκτικά, καὶ διαφέρει ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς διαλεκτικοῖς ἔλεγχος (25) καὶ συλλογισμός. ἔστι δὲ τὸ μὲν δεικτικὸν ἐνθύμημα τὸ ἐξ (26) ὁμολογουμένων συνάγειν, τὸ δὲ ἐλεγκτικὸν τὸ τὰ ἀνομολο(27)γούμενα συνάγειν. (28) σχεδὸν μὲν οὖν ἡμῖν περὶ ἕκαστον τῶν εἰδῶν τῶν (29) χρησίμων καὶ ἀναγκαίων ἔχονται οἱ τόποι· ἐξειλεγμέναι γὰρ (30) αἱ προτάσεις περὶ ἕκαστόν εἰσιν, ὥστε ἐξ ὧν δεῖ φέρειν τὰ (31) ἐνθυμήματα τόπων περὶ ἀγαθοῦ ἢ κακοῦ, ἢ καλοῦ ἢ αἰσχροῦ, (32) ἢ δικαίου ἢ ἀδίκου, καὶ περὶ τῶν ἠθῶν καὶ παθημάτων καὶ (33) ἕξεων ὡσαύτως, εἰλημμένοι ἡμῖν ὑπάρχουσι πρότερον οἱ τόποι.

. . . . . . .

We will now consider the various elementary classes of enthymemes. (By an ‘elementary class’ of enthymeme I mean the same thing as a ‘line of argument’.) We will begin, as we must begin, by observing that there are two kinds of enthymemes. One kind proves some affirmative or negative proposition; the other kind disproves one. The difference between the two kinds is the same as that between syllogistic proof and disproof in dialectic. The demonstrative enthymeme is formed by the conjunction of compatible propositions; the refutative, by the conjunction of incompatible propositions. We may now be said to have in our hands the lines of argument for the various special subjects that it is useful or necessary to handle, having selected the propositions suitable in various cases.

(1397a1) ἔτι δὲ ἄλλον τρόπον καθόλου περὶ ἁπάντων λάβωμεν, καὶ (2) λέγωμεν παρασημαινόμενοι τοὺς ἐλεγκτικοὺς καὶ τοὺς ἀπο(3)δεικτικούς, καὶ τοὺς τῶν φαινομένων ἐνθυμημάτων, οὐκ ὄντων (4) δὲ ἐνθυμημάτων, ἐπεί περ οὐδὲ συλλογισμῶν.

. . .

We have, in fact, already ascertained the lines of argument applicable to enthymemes about good and evil, the noble and the base, justice and injustice, and also to those about types of character, emotions, and moral qualities. Let us now lay hold of certain facts about the whole subject, considered from a different and more general point of view. In the course of our discussion we will take note of the distinction between lines of proof and lines of disproof:

δηλωθέντων δὲ (5) τούτων περὶ τῶν λύσεων καὶ ἐνστάσεων διορίσωμεν, πόθεν δεῖ (6) πρὸς τὰ ἐνθυμήματα φέρειν.

.

and also of those lines of argument used in what seems to be enthymemes, but are not, since they do not represent valid syllogisms.

Permanent link

http://www2.hf.uio.no/common/apps/permlink/permlink.php?app=polyglotta&context=ctext&uid=cf958d93-1d51-11e7-ba66-0050569f23b2

Choose languages

Choose images, etc.

Choose languages

Choose display