TJic Rhctorica of Philodcmus. 325 



were examining some of the natural philosophers and not the 

 art or products of the art. For we are not examining politics, 

 but exhibiting what has been done by others ; nor is his state- 

 ment true that the natural philosopher will be best able to use 

 the Xe'^is hihaKTLKrj when that is needed to explain some difficult 

 question to the people.^- The political scientist (so-called) has no II, 22, col. 

 experimental knowledge of the peculiar facts of politics; so ^^^J-^J^- 

 when he attempts to make a speech he [goes astray] because 

 he does not take due account of y]6r] and Tra^r;. How can a II, 2^, col. 

 natural philosopher become a politician and rhetor? He is ^^^^• 

 exactly like a sophist who has no fundamental principles. 

 Nausiphanes then . . . 



"How is it possible that if one has the power to govern the n, 24. col. 

 state he will not desire to do so.^^ XXX. 



[The art of rhetoric] does not lead to ease nor does it produce n, 25, col. 



the best in the life of its possessor, nor incline him to XXXI. 



improvement. 



partly from custom imposed from without, partly n, 26, 



from the motions of the spirit within, there results a condition col. 17. 



which forces our language to say what is false and empty. 



"He did not imitate the common metaphors of those foolish II, 26, col. 



■ XXXTT 



men who have nothing better to do than listen to contests in the ' 



schools of oratory."^* 



Amazing is the style of the natural philosopher "composed II, 27, 

 for the delight of his audience, adorned with metaphors best ^^ • ^ • 

 designed for explaining the new subject, not in an empty style 

 fixed by rule, but according to nature and sanctioned by custom," 

 a style which we found neither useful nor practicable, but vicious n, 28, col. 

 and almost deadly. Wherefore not even if the philosopher has XXXIII. 

 something better to say will the people listen to him. For the 

 speech of the philosopher does not differ from that of the states- 

 man in its adaptation of the useful to the common needs of 

 the city, but in its relation to the individual. 



The soul of the ordinary man is blind to it (the "natural" II, 29, 

 style of the natural philosopher) and so it has no power over the '^^ ■ ^^• 



^^ I adopt the reading of von Arnim for I. 9; Kal ixr}U to ovdafxws dcdaKTiKijs 

 X^lews aTTopeiv, 

 ' " This is the argument of Nausiphanes. 



"A quotation from Nausiphanes. 



