hoc quia concedit, accipio

Latin Learning Latin
1

Peter Ramus, a 16th-century commentator on Aristotle is OK with Aristotle saying that an enthymeme is a truncated syllogism but not that an induction and an example are.

He writes, “Enthymema truncum syllogismum confitetur, hoc quia concedit, accipio. Inductio et exemplum syllogismi non sunt: huic mendacio resisto.”

How to translate that?

Something like “It is acceptable that an enthymeme is a truncated syllogism; because he says so, I accept it. [But] induction and example are not syllogisms—resist that lie!”

But that can’t be right for “hoc quia concedit.” Ramus’s whole point is that he does not accept something just because Aristotle says it. Is Aristotle really the subject of “concedit”?

And why is “enthymema” nominative but “truncum syllogismum” accusative? If “confitetur” takes accusative-infinitive, why isn’t “Enthymema” accusative also? Or is “confitetur” not impersonal and “Enthymema” is its subject?

–

2

Enthymema is a neuter noun, here accusative, and I take it that Aristotle is the subject of confitetur. “He admits that an enthymeme is a defective syllogism: because he allows this I accept it. Induction and example are not syllogisms: this lie I resist.”
He’s saying he’s willing to accept Aristotle’s calling an enthymeme a kind of syllogism because Aristotle allowed that it was only a partial one, but that’s as far as he’s prepared to go.

3

Ah, that helps. Thanks!