Tlic Rhctorica of Philodemus. 319 



phrasing the works of earlier Epicureans; the criticism of Nausiphanes 

 seems quite clearly to be based on Metrodorus' Upbs tovs dirb (pvcrioXoyiai 

 \4yovTai dyadoOs eJvai prjTopas. The fragments are of very uneven value ; 

 there are large sections of connected argument, in which the relation of 

 the pages can be clearly demonstrated; but many of the pages stand by 

 themselves, and the trend of the thought is not always clear. However by 

 a judicious piecing together of the several parts we can at least gain an 

 idea of the tenets of Nausiphanes. As the present arrangement of the 

 fragments in Sudhaus separates ideas which belong together, it may assist 

 the reader if a resume of Nausiphanes' doctrine is given here with a 

 brief statement of his position in the controversy over rhetoric. 



Nausiphanes was a natural philosopher (<^i/(n/c6s) of the latter part of 

 the fourth century, a pupil of Democritus and teacher of Epicurus. 

 Although Epicurus must have owed much of the foundation of his own 

 system to Nausiphanes, he took pains to deny any connection with him, 

 and even abused his master in no uncertain language. The feud thus 

 instituted by Epicurus was continued by Metrodorus and is reechoed in 

 Philodemus. The chief tenet of Nausiphanes, that a study of natural 

 philosophy {(pvaioXoyla) is the best training for an orator, sounds like an 

 absurd freak. Absurd it may have been in the effort to connect natural 

 philosophy and oratory, but it was a natural product of the educational 

 tendencies of the time. The educators of his period were afraid of a 

 divided authority. Some way must be found to enable one teacher to 

 guide the higher studies of the youth. As the ideal of education was for 

 the most part preparation for public life, and as oratorical ability was 

 indispensable for the aspiring politician in the Greek state, Nausiphanes 

 was compelled in self defence to show how a study of natural philosophy 

 could train an orator. As presented in Philodemus he appears ridiculous ; 

 we may perhaps be justified in believing that here as elsewhere, Philo- 

 demus has not been too scrupulous in presenting the views of his 

 opponents. Disentangled from the maze of Philodemus' polemic the 

 principles of Nausiphanes may be stated as follows : the study of natural 

 philosophy produces orators ; the natural philosopher derives from his 

 study of nature the knowledge of the causes of pleasure, and so is able to 

 guide his audience toward the true end of all action. Contrary to the 

 Epicurean view he holds that the philosopher should enter politics. The 

 style of the natural philosopher is plain like that of the average man, and 

 so is better adapted to explain a difficult case than the elaborate style of 

 the rhetoricians. The orators use of logic is the same as that of the 

 dialectician and the philosopher: Trapddei.yiJ.a = ^iraywyrj. ivdv/j.Tj/j.a = avX- 

 Xoyia/jids, the only difference is in the manner of presentation. Finally a 

 study of science produces in the student a political state of mind, so that 

 every natural philosopher is potentially an orator.^ 



The discussion of Aristotle begins w-ith the well known parody of the 



^ For a full discussion of Nausiphanes and this portion of Philodemus 

 v. von Arnim, Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa, pp. 43-62. 



