352 



Harry M. Hubbell, Ph.D., 



II, 234, col. 

 XXXV. 



II, 236. col. 



XXXVI. 

 II, 237. col. 

 XXXVII. 



II, 238, col. 

 XXXVIII. 



II, 239, col. 

 XXXIX. 



II, 241, col. 

 XL. 



a partial error. For Themistocles and Pericles have always been 

 considered consummate rhetors. If Matris and his school are 

 called rhetors, as he said, he ought not to apply this term to the 

 political rhetors but to the other class, just as we would confine 

 the term rhetors to Demosthenes and Callistratus and others of 

 their class, who are said to have possessed political power, of 

 whom we spoke in another section. 



Now changing' our subject we shall show that the so-called 

 sophists seem to us to have more power in political rhetoric 

 than the theorists in politics. Now we have already treated in 

 a previous section the idea that sophistic or panegyric or what- 

 ever it may be called, by means of which some exercise the power 

 of speech in assembly and forum, may easily be called rhetoric. 

 That statement "He is a good rhetor" simply means that he is 

 experienced and skilled in speaking. For as we say "good 

 rhetor" we say "good artist" meaning "skillful"; "good rhetor" 

 might also mean "morally good." 



(Nothing.) 



. . of those who were statesmen and had acquired this 

 faculty, and of those who do not have it but succeed by dint of 

 experience, of these many are better in character, many are very 

 good, some have private virtues ; some who have studied phi- 

 losophy are justly considered more attractive than these. 



In examining political matters he is not accurate, as we have 

 shown in the passages referring to his statements. And when 

 he considers rhetoric and the rhetor equivalent to politics and 

 the statesman, he is inaccurate. 



We shall inquire whether rhetoric is politics, and if there is 

 a faculty which produces rhetors and statesmen ; and again 

 whether politics is exactly equivalent to rhetoric ; and we shall 

 make a careful inquiry as to whether the art of rhetoric is also 

 the art of politics. We meet these questions as follows ; 

 sophistical rhetoric does not include a study of politics, and it 

 is not political science ; the rhetorical schools do not produce 

 the political faculty or statesmen prepared for practical speak- 

 ing and success in ecclesia and other public gatherings ; and 

 rhetoric qua rhetoric is not politics, and the rhetor is not a 

 statesman and public speaker ; and by no means do we agree 

 with the statement made by some that rhetoric is politics ; and 

 we deny that the rhetor is always a statesman, not even in the 



