28o Harry M. Hubbell, Ph.D., 



Zeno had not published his views, but Philodemus had published anony- 

 mously a Hypomnematicon which was not intended for general circula- 

 tion. A copy of this fell into the hands of an Epicurean of Rhodes who 

 wrote a reply criticizing Philodemus' pamphlet as heretical, and also 

 assuming that it had been written by Zeno. The next section is an answer 

 to this attack. 



I, 89, 11= Some Epicureans now resident at Rhodes write that when in 



Suppl. 44, 4. |-|-^g course of their teaching- at Cos and again at Rhodes they 

 were upholding the thesis, "Rhetoric is not an art," some stu- 

 dents recently come from Athens asserted that this position was 

 not agreeable to the teaching of Epicurus. Being asked to quote 

 their authority, one said that a definite statement on this point 

 was to be found in the Symposium or in the Lives ; the other 

 said he did not know where the statement was to be found, but 

 knew that this view of sophistic was held by the Epicureans in 

 Athens.^" The philosopher darkly hinted at in the latter phrase 

 is Zeno; the fact that he had written nothing on the subject 

 does not prevent the opponent from writing a reply to him. 

 Frequently in this treatise he says that he found in Epicurus no 

 trace of a statement that rhetoric is an art, but countless state- 

 ments that no part of it is subject to the principles of art. Now 

 we shall not hesitate to set forth in the future at greater length 

 wherein we think this philosopher is wrong. For the present we 

 shall give a brief outline of our criticism. 

 I, 92, 10= The opponent says that Epicurus and Metrodorus considered 



Suppl. 45, that the political and forensic branches of rhetoric needed prac- 

 tice and experience and a certain experimental knowledge, 

 whereas the panegyrical branch depended on practice and expe- 

 rience and a certain habit of expression without any knowledge 

 of facts. Moreover the leaders of the school believed there 

 was no art of persuading large bodies of men; that the afore- 

 mentioned practice and experience do not suffice to persuade even 

 in a majority of cases, and those trained in panegyric are less 

 able to face the tumult of the assembly than those who have no 

 rhetorical training; Epicurus and his followers knew that rix^'ai 



" Philodemus is careful not to mention names, though describing the 

 opposing parties by phrases which would be intelligible to his audience. 

 The Rhodian school represents the author who had criticized Philodemus' 

 work, thinking it to be Zeno's; the philosophers at Athens are Zeno and 

 Philodemus. 



