354 



Harry M. Huhhell, Ph.D., 



n. 247, 

 XLIV. 



II, 248, col 

 XLV. 



II, 249, 

 XLVI. 



book litpi TToirjfjidTwv he appears to disagree saying, "There is no 

 faculty and science of persuading the multitvide." 



The art of politics then is understood to be experimental 

 knowledge of constitutions and laws, and a knack which enables 

 one to accept the guidance of states. Rhetoric is considered to 

 include along with this the equipment and faculty for speaking. 

 Now whoever has this experience, but lacks effectiveness in 

 speaking", evidently possesses the political faculty and is a states- 

 man, but he cannot be a rhetor, because though they possess 

 experience in government and much greater knowledge of con- 

 stitutions and laws and revenues and other things which pertain 

 to the management of states, than the rhetors have, and actually 

 col. do govern their countries, many who possess this experience do 

 not possess the rhetorical faculty or such equipment as do those 

 who are properly called rhetors ; many in fact have no rhetorical 

 ability at all. 



The rhetors on the other hand would not seem to anyone to 

 lack rhetoric, which is the proper possession of a rhetor. For 

 none of those called by common consent powerful and noble 

 rhetors can be found without political experience and faculty. 

 But it is not one of the attributes of sophistical rhetoric qua 

 rhetoric to be the art of politics, nor is the sophistical rhetor, 

 qua rhetor, a statesman ; nor is the statesman qua statesman, a 

 rhetor, as is evident from what Epicurus says in his Hepl prjTopiKrj^ 

 and Metrodorus in the first book Uepl 7roLrjfj.dTw, and Hermarchus 

 in an epistle to Theophides. 



Now if every art has its own peculiar field, we shall not expect 

 navigation to produce geometricians and grammarians, nor is the 

 knowledge of these sciences an attribute of a sailor. Why should 

 we any more expect that statesmen or men prudent, courageous 

 and highminded should be produced by this rhetoric qua rhetoric, 

 and that such qualities are peculiar to rhetoric? For as we 

 certainly would not say that the majority of people possess these 

 qualities in so far as they possess the rhetorical faculty, but that 

 they are good geometricians and grammarians, brave and just, 

 and philosophers in a greater rather than in a less degree than 

 those who possess the rhetorical faculty ; and that many who 

 have the advantages of rhetoric plainly lack the abovementioned 

 sciences; in similar fashion, since many who not only have not 



col. 



