256 Harry M. Hubhell, Ph.D., 



parts hopelessly corrupt, but the general sense is clear enough. 

 It seems that Epicurus recognized epideictic oratory as an 

 art, and made the distinction between this and practical oratory 

 which Philodemus makes. That he applied the term "sophistic" 

 to epideictic oratory cannot be proved from Philodemus. The 

 latter is arguing against an unnamed opponent who claimed to be 

 unable to find in Epicurus a statement that sophistic was an art. 

 But the mere fact that Philodemus is compelled to argue that 

 Epicurus meant this, instead of quoting a short sentence that 

 would settle the question definitely, seems to point to the con- 

 clusion that the statement was not to be found in Epicurus 

 except by implication. As to Metrodorus the case is simpler, 

 for we know the title IIpos tovs cro<^io-ras,^^ in which sophist prob- 

 ably had the meaning which it bears in Philodemus. We might 

 conjecture that this work was the first in which the word was 

 regularly used in the technical sense. The question is doubtful, 

 however, for there is the possibility that o-o^iaTr/s was used in a 

 dififerent sense. Diogenes Laertius (x, 26) concludes his list of 

 Epicureans with the words, Zr/vwv^'6 StSo'ji^ios dK/ooarr/s 'A7roAXo8wpoi', 



TToXvypdffiO^ avr'jp' kol \r]iJii]TpLO<; 6 CTrtKAry^ei? AaKcov, AtoyeVr;? 0' 6 Tapcrev'S 

 6 Tas €7riA.€/<Tous cr^oAas cuy-ypai/zas, Kai 'Qpiwv kul aAAot oi'S ol yvr/crtoi 

 'ETTiKOwpeiot ao(fiLaTa^ aTroKakovaiv. 



The difificulty arises first in regard to the antecedent of ovs. 

 Is it aAAot or Demetrius, Diogenes, Orion and others ? It is 

 tempting to reason thus : Zeno invented this meaning of o-oc^to-rtK?; 

 and o-o</)to-T?7s; he with the others mentioned with him, and Philo- 

 demus formed a distinct group of Epicureans noted for their 

 contention that sophistic was an art, and called sophists in deri- 

 sion by orthodox Epicureans. But two objections arise to this 

 interpretation; Zeno was probably head of the school; if so he 

 was presumably orthodox. In the second place it is probable 

 that this list in Diogenes comes from Philodemus' o-wra^is twv 

 <f)iXoa-6(f}0)v. If that is so the last clause ow — airoKaXovatv cannot 

 refer to Zeno, for Philodemus would not reproach his master 

 with heterodoxy. Consequently the identity of those called soph- 

 ists remains doubtful, and there is always the possibility that 

 the word may have had two different applications in the Epi- 

 curean school, and that Metrodorus used one and Zeno the other. 



Diog. Laert. X, 24. 



