324 



Harry M. Huhhell, Ph.D., 



U, 18, 

 col. 14. 



Col. XXIV. 



II, 19, 

 col. 15. 



II, 19, col. 

 XXV. 



II. 20, 

 col. 16. 



II, 21, col. 

 XXVI. 



II, 22, col. 

 XXVII. 



what they wish. Nor can one know what the populace rejoice 

 in as they depend on opinion and not on the natural end or 

 object; nor if we could know it could any one persuade them. 

 For the mob changes and repents quickly. 



This column is practically hopeless. Von Arnim has a highly doubtful 

 restoration on page 55. 



Their proposition to persuade reduces to a knowledge of 

 justice and advantage which he (i. e. the natu-ral philosopher) 

 is best able to adapt to the common advantage.^" In the first 

 place he cannot observe the relations of the subject, but will 

 be excelled by one who has been engaged in public affairs and 

 has practiced pleasing the people and advising them to do things 

 that are within their power. Yet this resembles the doctrine of 

 Nausiphanes. . . . 



On the length of time one must spend with another in order to know 

 him thoroughly.^^ 



[And he seems to agree with us] for he says that persuasive 

 power comes from knowledge of affairs rather than from 

 personal investigation. But enough of him. 



Let us take up the next division. It is supposed that the 

 natural philosopher is the best rhetor inasmuch as it is possible 

 for a study of natural philosophy to give political experience 

 and skill. "If," he says "he should add experience in political 

 affairs, and learn the habits of the people as the philosopher 

 studies natural philosophy." Does this art produce ability to 

 make political speeches by giving experience from which one may 

 deduce what is of advantage to the people, or do they think it 

 prodtices immediately a state of mind, so that the natttral phi- 

 losopher needs no practice or further study? If the former is 

 the case they ought to show that one can become a political 

 rhetor by experience. But no one would grant that any one 

 who had acquired a knowledge of natural philosophy can make 

 political speeches. We must understand the statement as if we 



'" Cf. col. IV. 



^^ "If one has a natural philosopher living with him for a year and 

 associating with him for a considerable time each day, he will be able to 

 acquire such a knowledge of affairs as to make him a rhetor." This is 

 von Arnim's interpretation of an exceedingly obscure passage. I do not 

 feel at all sure that the details are right, or that we can assert more about 

 the meaning of the passage than is given above. 



