254 Harry M. HiihheU, Ph.D., 



It will be seen that the work assumes a twofold character. 

 On the one hand it is a discussion of the moral and educational 

 value of rhetoric, and is a counterpart of the encomia of rhetoric 

 prefixed to manuals such as we find in the Rhetores Graeci. On 

 the other hand it is a discussion of a minor point in Epicurean 

 philosophy, an attempt to interpret the Epicurean creed to meet 

 the changed conditions of the time. The latter side was the im- 

 mediate occasion for the work, and the one into which Philo- 

 demus throws his whole soul. But by the perversity of history 

 it is his criticism of other works on rhetoric which is of most 

 interest to us. For in the hazy condition of our knowledge of 

 the development of rhetoric subsequent to Aristotle, and of the 

 educational conflict between the rhetoricians and the philoso- 

 phers, any additional facts assume an importance quite out of 

 proportion to their original value. Nausiphanes, Alexinus, Diog- 

 enes of Babylon, these are names which Philodemus has made 

 more than mere names. One who wishes to see how far Philo- 

 demus is of service to the history of literature should carefully 

 study Philodemus in connection with the first chapter of von 

 Arnim's Dio von Prusa, and note how much of our still meager 

 history of the period depends on Philodemus. 



If the most valuable portions of the Rhetorica are the quota- 

 tions from earlier authors, the imique part is his definition of 

 "sophistic rhetoric." His discussion of the value of rhetoric and 

 its place in the educational system is concerned first wnth the 

 definition of "Art." After a lengthy refutation of the views 

 of others he presents his own definition, which he claims is sanc- 

 tioned by usage, and not formed, as those of his opponent have 

 been, for the purpose of proving the doctrines of some school. 

 An art, he tells us, is a habit of action resulting from the obser- 

 vation of certain fundamental principles which apply to the 

 majority of cases. The art produces a result that is beyond the 

 power of those who have not studied it. Moreover, it produces 

 this result regularly and surely, and not at random. ^^ 



On the basis of this definition he examines the claims of 

 rhetoric,' and makes a threefold division. These three divisions, 

 he says, are not the ordinary divisions, ■n-avrjyvpt.Kow ttoXltlkov, SiKav- 

 iKov, but croffyicrTLKr] p-qTopiKi], generally called by him simply o-o<^t- 



" I, 69, 2 = Suppl. 35, I. 



