[406] Ibid. v. p. 159, b. 9: φανερὸν ὡς ἀδόξου μὲν ὄντος ἁπλῶς τοῦ κειμένου οὐ δοτέον τῷ ἀποκρινομένῳ οὔθ’ ὃ μὴ δοκεῖ ἁπλῶς, οὔθ’ ὃ δοκεῖ μέν ἧττον δὲ τοῦ συμπεράσματος δοκεῖ. ἀδόξου γὰρ οὔσης τῆς θέσεως ἔνδοξον τὸ συμπέρασμα, ὥστε δεῖ τὰ λαμβανόμενα ἐνδοξα πάντ’ εἶναι καὶ μᾶλλον ἔνδοξα τοῦ προκειμένου, εἰ μέλλει διὰ τῶν γνωριμωτέρων τὸ ἧττον γνώριμον περαίνεσθαι. ὥστ’ εἴ τι μὴ τοιοῦτόν ἐστι τῶν ἐρωτωμένων, οὐ θετέον τῷ ἀποκρινομένῳ.
[407] Ibid. b. 16.
[408] Topic. VIII. v. p. 159, b. 19-23: ἱκανῶς γὰρ ἂν δόξειε διειλέχθαι — οὕτω γὰρ ἐνδοξοτέρους συμβήσεται τοὺς λόγους γίνεσθαι.
When the probability or improbability of the thesis is considered simply and absolutely, the respondent ought to measure his concessions by the standard of opinion received usually.[409] When the probability or improbability of the thesis is considered as referable to the respondent himself, he has only to consult his own judgment and estimation in granting or refusing what is asked. When he undertakes to defend a thesis avowedly as the doctrine of some known philosopher, such as Herakleitus, he must, in giving his answers, measure probability and improbability according to what Herakleitus would determine.[410]
[409] Ibid. b. 24: πρὸς τὰ δοκοῦντα ἁπλῶς τὴν σύγκρισιν ποιητέον.
[410] Ibid. b. 25-35. πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνου διάνοιαν ἀποβλέποντα θετέον ἕκαστα καὶ ἀρνητέον.
Since all the questions that you ask must be either probable, improbable, or neuter, and either relevant[411] or not relevant to your purpose of refuting the thesis, let us first suppose that you ask for a concession which is in itself probable, but not relevant. The respondent ought to grant it, adding that he thinks it probable. If what you ask is neither probable nor relevant, he ought even then to grant it; but annexing a notification that he is aware of its improbability, in order to save his own credit for intelligence.[412] If it be both probable and relevant, he ought to say that he is aware of its probability, but that it is too closely connected with the thesis, and that, if he grants it, the thesis will stand refuted. If it be relevant, yet at the same time very improbable, he must reply that, if he grants it, the thesis will be refuted, but that it is too silly to be propounded. If, being neutral, it is also not relevant, he ought to grant it without comment; but if, being neutral, it is relevant, he ought to notify that he is aware that by granting it his thesis will be refuted.[413]
[411] Ibid. vi. p. 159, b. 39: ἢ πρὸς τὸν λόγον, ἢ μὴ πρὸς τὸν λόγον. By this phrase Aristotle seems to mean, not simply relevant, but closely, directly, conspicuously relevant — equivalent to λίαν συνεγγὺς τοῦ ἐν ἀρχῇ (p. 160, a. 5).
[412] Ibid. b. 36-p. 160, a. 2. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ δοκοῦν καὶ μὴ πρὸς τὸν λόγον, δοτέον μέν, ἐπισημαντέον δὲ τὸ μὴ δοκοῦν πρὸς εὐλάβειαν εὐηθείας.
How is this to be reconciled with what Aristotle says in the preceding chapter, p. 159, b. 11-18, that the respondent ought not to grant such improbabilities at all?