15 ff. 



274 Harry M. Hubbell, Ph.D., 



applyini^- ihc term rhetoric to what should properly be called 

 sophistic. Those who admit that sophistic is an art, but deny 

 that there is an art of forensic and deliberative oratory because 

 sophistic is not the art of these branches, have failed to prove 

 that there is no art of forensic and deliberative oratory. There 

 may be a method of these branches ; but all they have shown is 

 that some do succeed by means of natural ability and experience 

 without the aid of rhetoric. Nor have they established beyond a 

 doubt, as they should, that sophistic is the art of epideictic. The 

 treatise on rhetoric ascribed to Polyaenus we have already shown 

 to be spurious. 

 I, 49, 14 ff. Those who say it is an art, but requires ability and practice, 



Suppl. 25, j^Q|. ^Q acquire it but to attain the end completely, have utterly 

 failed. They have not made the division between the dififerent 

 parts of rhetoric (i. e. sophistic and practical rhetoric) which 

 was made by Epicurus and his immediate successors. Epicurus 

 demonstrated that sophistic is an art of writing speeches and 

 delivering epideictic orations but is not the art of forensic or 

 deliberative oratory; accordingly they say that sophistic is an 

 art ; his successors likewise have said that there is no art of 

 politics. They certainly leave no place for any science of politics. 

 Moreover their statement that ability and practice are needed 

 to learn the art of sophistic is false, or we must make the same 

 statement about philosophy. Their illustration from the art of 

 grammar turns against them. For natural ability is required for 

 rhetoric just as much as it is as a foundation for grammar. In the 

 case of grammar natural ability and practice are required in order 

 to acquire the knowledge of the subject, not to attain the end. 

 Consequently if rhetoric is similar to grammar we must admit 

 that ability and practice are needed to acquire rhetoric. When 

 they say that ability is required for delineation, for making 

 suitable gestures, etc., and experience is needed to judge the 

 proper occasion for speaking, what have they left for art ? They 

 ought to show what is needed to acquire the art if ability and 

 practice are not needed, 

 j^ ^2, 3 ff. = Those are wrong who claim that rhetoric is not an art on the 

 Suppl. 27, assumption that an art must have method and a transmission of 

 definite knowledge, if on the other hand they allow medicine 

 which is conjectural to be an art. 



6ff. 



