330 Harry M. Huhbell, Ph.D., 



by writing- treatises on the art of rhetoric, and by making poHtics 

 a branch of philosophy. 



He alleged many reasons for engaging- in politics; first, that 

 one who has no knowledge of what is done in governments finds 

 them unfriendly to him; secondly, that a good government will 

 be favorable to the growth of philosophy ; thirdly, that he was 

 disgusted with most of the contemporary statesmen and their 

 continual rivalry for office. One banished to a country where 

 the people admire rhetoric but lack'" the most necessary edu- 

 cation (i. e. philosophy) if he had some experience in rhetoric 

 might lead them in a short time to the realms of philosophy. ^^ 

 But we object that to practice rhetoric is toilsome to body and 

 soul, and we would not endure it. [Rhetoric] is most unsuit- 

 able for one who aims at quiet happiness, and compels one to 

 meddle more or less with affairs, and provides no more right 

 opinion or acquaintance with nature than one's ordinary style 

 of speaking, and draws the attention of young men from phi- 

 losophy the true horn of Amalthea and directs it to the sophistical 

 rhyton.^- . . . If he knew that he could not attain the highest 

 position or "become a philosopher because of various hindering 

 circumstances, he might propose to teach grammar, music or 

 tactics. For we can find no reason why anyone with the least 

 spark of nobility in his nature should become a sophist, as one 

 could find reason for pursuing practical rhetoric ; for the claim 

 that the former leads to the latter is ridiculous. Consequently 

 Aristotle's practice and his remark were not philosophic. Why is 

 it more disgraceful to be silent and permit Isocrates to speak than 

 to live in a city and allow Manes to dig, or to stay on land and 

 allow the Phoenician trader to be tossed by the waves, or to 

 pass one's life in safety as a private citizen and allow Themis- 

 tocles to enjoy the perils of a general? He ought to have refused 

 to rival Isocrates, in order that he might not seem to be acting 

 from envy. Either he judged it disgraceful by the standards of 

 the multitude, or by natural standards. If by the latter why did 

 he not consider it naturally disgraceful to speak on the public 

 platform like a hired rhetor, rather than to speak like the divine 



*" Reading 1. 4, 5, [ifi'Tas 5e] rCi[v ava'y\^K'\aluv [f\v5eei\i\. 



^^ Still the argument of Aristotle. 



" The rest of the sentence seems to lack coherence. 



