20.
mvp-aristotle-comment-1023
τὰ δὲ ἀμφιβολίᾳ,
scil.
δεῖ διαλύειν.
Aristotle now passes on to another kind of ambiguous statement, one capable of two interpretations through the presence of an ambiguous term. Such a term is said to be
ἀμφίβολον (
a26;
comp.
Rhet. 3. 5, 1407 a 32
); and its effect is
ἀμφιβολία.
ἀμφιβολία is here the same thing as what
Aristotle often calls elsewhere
ὁμωνυμία. It may be noted, as an instance of his variations in the use of technical language, that in
Soph. el. 4, 165
b26
ἀμφιβολία
is distinguished from
ὁμωνυμία, and used to describe the ambiguity arising from some ambiguous collocation of terms.
20.
mvp-aristotle-comment-1024
παρώχηκεν δὲ πλέω νύξ:
Il. 10. 251
ἀλλ᾽ ἴομεν μάλα γὰρ νὺξ ἄνεται, ἐγγύθι δ᾽ ἠώς, ἄστρα δὲ δὴ προβέβηκε, παρῴχωκεν δὲ πλέων νὺξ τῶν δύο μοιράων, τριτάτη δ᾽ ἔτι μοῖρα λέλειπται.
The reading
πλέω, which still survives in some of the MSS. of
Homer, and was a recognized variant in antiquity, has a certain interest as showing the affinity of
Aristotle's
Homer with that of
Zenodotus, who is known to have admitted forms like
ἀμείνω for
ἀμείνων,
γλυκίω for
γλυκίων, and
κρείσσω for
κρείσσων (
La Roche, Hom. Textkr. p. 302
;
Lobeck, Path. Elem. 2 p. 281
).
The problem was to explain how, if more than two-thirds of the night had gone, a third could be still left. According to
Porphyry
ad loc. (p. 147 Schr.) this was one of the earliest difficulties found in
Homer :
τῶν παλαιῶν ζητημάτων ὡμολόγηται εἶναι τὸ τοιοῦτο, ἐν οἷς φησιν “ ἄστρα ... λέλειπται”. πῶς γάρ, εἰ αἱ δύο μοῖραι ἐξήκουσιν αὐταί τε καὶ ἔτι τούτων πλέον, ἡ τριτάτη μοῖρα λέλειπται, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ τῆς τρίτης μόριον ;
Among the many solutions he mentions is one from the Aristotelian
Ἀπορήματα Ομηρικά (
fr. 161 Teubn.
),
ἐπεὶ οὖν καὶ τῆς νυκτὸς αἱ δώδεκα μοῖραι εἰς δύο ἴσας μερίδας μερίζεσθαι δύνανται, 341 εἰς ἕξ, ηὐξήθη δὲ καὶ πλέον γεγονὸς θάτερον μέρος, ἄδηλον δὲ τὸ πόσαις ὥραις (καὶ γὰρ μιᾷ καὶ δύο καὶ τρισὶ καὶ πλείοσιν ἡ αὔξησις δύναται γίνεσθαι)· ἀφορίζων ὁ ποιητὴς τὸ ἀόριστον τοῦ πλείονος πόσον ἦν καὶ ὅτι β ὥραις ηὐξήθη, ἐπήγαγεν ὅτι τριτάτη μοῖρα λέλειπται, ὡς ὀκτὼ μὲν γενέσθαι τὰς παρωχηκυίας ὥρας, καταλείπεσθαι δὲ τέσσαρας, αἵπερ εἰσὶ τοῦ ὅλου τρίτον.
This highly artificial interpretation, which makes
πλέω νὺξ τῶν δύο μοιράων mean 'the greater part of two-thirds of the night', can hardly be what
Aristotle has in mind, as he distinctly says that the solution of the difficulty may be found in recognizing
πλέω as an amphibolous word, i. e. in giving it not its usual sense of 'more', but some different sense. This other sense was probably that of 'full', which is mentioned by
Porphyry
ad loc. (p. 147) as the suggestion of a certain
Metrodorus :
Μητρόδωρος μὲν οὖν τὸ πλεῖον δύο σημαίνειν φησὶ παρ Ὁμήρῳ· καὶ γὰρ τὸ σύνηθες καὶ τὸ πλῆρες, ὡς ἐν τῷ σὸν δὲ πλεῖον δέπας αἰεὶ ἔστηκε, καὶ ἐν τῷ πλεῖαί τοι χαλκοῦ κλισίαι. νῦν οὖν τὸ πλέον ἀντὶ τοῦ πλῆρες εἰρῆσθαι· πλήρης γὰρ ἡ νὺξ τῶν δύο μοιρῶν γεγονυῖα παρώχηκε, τριτάτη δ᾽ ἔτι περιλέλειπται.
Aristonicus seems to have accepted this interpretation of
πλέω ἀντὶ τοῦ πλήρης (
Schol. Ven. A. Il. 9. 71
); and it survives also in the gloss of
Hesychius
πλέω· πλήρης.
