35° 



Harry M. Huhbell, Ph.D., 



II, 221, col. 

 XVI. 



II. 222, col. 



XVII. 



II, 222, col. 

 XVIII. 



TI, 224, col. 

 XIX. 



II. 225, col. 

 XX. 



II, 226, col. 

 XXI. 



at another to make a short discussion (or dialogue), and again 

 not to say anything." Therefore as he takes away from science 

 and experience what they especially have to give, when one 

 fails he himself is ridiculous." "Why! if they are able to 

 reconcile cities and make alliances they ought to be better able 

 to reconcile friends who have quarreled, or sundered families ; 

 for the same experience will serve to unite two individuals as 

 well as multitudes ; just as the same skill is required to tune one 

 harp or many." How can they reconcile a wife to her husband, 

 as they persuade the multitude? Only a man who knew little" 

 philosophy would think that the two tasks were the same. 



(Nothing.) 



Quite the contrary; Socrates knew how to reconcile indi- 

 viduals, but could not win the multitude for one man ;" neither 

 could Antisthenes nor Zeno nor Cleanthes nor Chrysippus. If 

 he says that [the rhetor] will be able to stop quarrels and wars 

 between states, as the musician can tune one lyre to harmonize 

 with many, we should say that the rhetors do not aim at abolishing 

 war. 



"Scarcely a single ambassador," he says, "has been of service 

 to his state." 



He slanders the Greeks — thousands of whom have been use- 

 ful ambassadors, were prudent in their advice, were not the 

 cause of disaster, did not speak with an eye to gain, and were 

 not convicted of malfeasance in office. 



"Why not one of them is recorded as having been a good 

 citizen . . ." 



Not only many rhetors, but many private citizens as well have 

 become good political rhetors without philosophy. 



"Many, you say, if not all are wretched, not one is upright, 

 kind, patriotic or distinguished by ordinary virtues, let alone the 

 higher ones." Yet given natural endowment and training it is 

 granted that one can become a political rhetor without philosophy. 



"Not one," he says, "rhetorical . . . 



. . . men may become great artists. Whence they say that 

 the rhetor cannot guide the state successfully without philosophy, 

 even if he has experience. Pericles, who, he said, was the most 

 endurable of the rhetors, studied under Anaxagoras and other 



"Is he thinkinc? of Alcibiades? 



