33^ 



Harry M. Huhbell, Ph.D., 



I, 352, col. 

 LVIII. 



I. 352, col. 

 LIX. 



I. 353. col. 

 LX. 



I, 353, col. 

 LXI. 



I, 354, col. 

 LXII. 



I, 355. col. 

 LXIII. 



I, 355. col. 

 LXIV. 



I, 356, col. 

 LXV. 



I, 357. col. 

 LXVI. 



T, 357. col. 

 LXVII. 



T, 358, col. 

 LXVIII. 



that each one be confused and excited ; wherefore 

 Aristophanes compares them to pathics. 



. . . to one starting to write history he seems to offer the 

 history of an ignoble man. He roused not only Alexander, but 

 the comic poet who began it all by mentioning this attack on 

 rhetors. 



. . . attacking unexpectedly and for the nonce adopting the 

 philosophic style, he presses the philosopher into a quandary. 

 But we shall put a damper on such arguments if we are com- 

 pelled by these people to answer them. 



To say that there is no harm in knowing how to make the 

 worn appear new, and how to cut purses, but that one should 

 not use this power against men except when need arises, is the 

 same as saying that there is nothing . . . 



The [sciences] introduce no reasoning which is aimed to 

 deceive, but all the principles of the rhetoricians are aimed 

 exclusively at that, and according to Heraclitus rhetoric is the 

 prince of liars. How is it possible to say anything apart from 

 showing that all their arguments tend toward that end? 



perhaps it gives some an occasion to deceive the 

 audience. But, some one objects, arms do not give occasion to 

 deceive. "We ought not, then," I shall say, "to claim that this 

 is the characteristic of all the principles of rhetoric, but of some." 



Many things such as wealth, strength, beauty, offer an oppor- 

 tunity for wrong-doing, but are honored for the good they do. 

 and are called useful even by Diogenes. 



How is it possible for the Stoics — not to mention all the phi- 

 losophers — to claim to be of this character, and to demonstrate 

 that some rhetors are not of this character? 



[Rhetors are the cause of much trouble] as he charged that 

 rhetors were shown to be in Lacedaemon. I pass over the fact 

 that he could show that some with philosophical training have 

 been guilty as well as innocent of the same charges. They will 

 be able to show that rhetors have replaced tyrannies by democ- 

 racies, and performed similar good offices. 



Nor if he says that at Athens rhetoric was a strong bulwark 

 against tyrants, where there were more rhetors than in the whole 

 world put together, can it be said truly that no democracy has 

 been replaced by a tyranny through the aid of a rhetor. 



H Aeschines rebuked the Athenians because thev did not treat 



