The Rlictorica of PJiilodemus. 273 



do not share any of their good qualities. However we may be 

 accused of using language loosely and failing to distinguish 

 between what comes with art and what without. For we use the 

 word "artistic" in our everyday speech in a loose way. e. g. one 

 plays games artistically. 



"On seeing a beautiful statue you would say without argu- 

 ment that it w^as the product of art; you will pass the same ^Suppi 23 

 judgment after investigating the acts of statesmen." One might 5 ff- 

 acknowledge that the works of the panegyrists are the products 

 of art. But inasmuch as the acts of a statesman deal with a 

 subject which cannot be reduced to the. rules of art how can they 

 reveal that they are the products of art. 



"If it were not an art those who have studied it would not ^45. 13 ff- 

 practice proof (or demonstration)." Not only is one who has 2ofif. 

 not studied an art unable to do the work of an art, but one who 

 has not practiced and observed cannot reap the benefits. By 

 studying what pleases the crowd and practicing, one can become 

 skilled in politics. This is a strong proof that sophistic is not 

 the art of politics.^ If it is, let him who has studied the technical 

 treatises go before the people and speak ! 



Section I-3. 

 Criticism of the views of Epicureans on rhetoric. 



I, 47, iff.= 



The Epicureans who claim that rhetoric is an art of writing g ^^'j ^' 

 speeches and delivering epideictic orations make the error of 10 ff. 



* Here Philodemus seems to be attacking "sophistic" which he else- 

 where admits as an art. The inconsistency is only apparent, however, as 

 will be plain if we examine closely the meaning of "sophistic" as defined 

 by Philodemus. The "sophists" are in his language the professional 

 teachers of rhetoric, and sophistic is the subject taught in these schools. 

 This subject matter is called "rhetoric" by those who teach it, and it is 

 claimed that it trains for dehberative and forensic oratory, and therefore 

 is an art. This Philodemus denies. The ability to persuade in a speech 

 whether in law court or in public assembly, he says, is the result of natural 

 endowment and facility acquired by practice ; it must be acquired by each 

 individual and cannot be set down in the form of rules and imparted from 

 teacher to pupil ; hence it cannot be called an art. In so far, then, as the 

 professors of rhetoric attempt to teach the principles of public speaking 

 and the laws of politics with a view to producing statesmen, they fail, for 

 sophistic is not an art of politics. Later he sets the limits of sophistic — 

 it is the art of epideixis and nothing more. 



