268 Harry M. Hubbell, Ph.D., 



I. Arguments advanced by others. 



1. Arguments against rhetoric refuted. 



2. Arguments in favor of rhetoric refuted. 



3. Criticism of the views of Epicureans on rhetoric. 



II. Philodemus' constructive arguments. 



The book is thus seen to be a critique of various works about rhetoric. 

 The Epicurean triad, Epicurus, Hermarchus and Metrodorus provide most 

 of the material for the last two sections. Among the opponents of 

 rhetoric to. whom prominence is given are Diogenes of Babylon and Crito- 

 laus. The work of Critolaus has been discussed by F. Olivier, De Critolao 

 Peripatetico, Berlin 1895, and by Radermacher in the introduction to 

 Sudhaus' Supplementum. In general I follow their conclusions, although 

 I am not prepared to go as far as they do in crediting Critolaus with most 

 of the ideas expressed in this book. In the notes I have indicated briefly 

 my judgment on the sources of the principal ideas without entering into 

 an extended discussion for which the reader is referred to the excursus at 

 the end of this volume. 



Section I-i. 

 Refutation of argnuicnts against rhetoric.'^ 



I, 14, fr. V. The arguments are quoted in direct form without introduction, and are 



I, 16, fr. IX. followed by a brief criticism. The first is fragmentary but may be recon- 

 structed as follows : 



(a) "The Spartans and Romans expelled rhetors." This does 

 not prove that it is not an art, for states have expelled physicians, 

 musicians and even philosophers. - 



I, 19, Col. I The argument which is criticized at the beginning of column I is miss- 

 el Suppl. II. ing, but must have run somewhat as follows: "An art always produces a 

 beneficial result.''" 



But the captain sometimes loses his ship, the 

 physician kills his patient. We must either deny that navigation 

 and medicine are arts, or abandon the demand that all arts must 

 always be beneficial.* 



(c) "Dififerent arts do not attain the same end, but gram- 



' See note 5 on page 266. 



' Cf. the similar discussion in Sext. Emp. Adv. Rhet. 20-25. It was one 

 of the commonplaces of current educational argument; Sextus records 

 that it was used by Critolaus, and by the Academics, Clitomachus and 

 Charmadas ; v. Excursus p. 379. 



"For a' similar passage cf. Quint. II, 17. 23 ff. ; v. Excursus p. 378. 



*Cf. Book I, fr. III. 



