358 Harry M. Hubbell, Ph.D., 



argument that rhetors qua rhetors possess knowledge and ability 

 in these matters, yet it must be objected that some statesmen 

 who are not rhetors possess all these qualifications. If by 

 rhetors they mean those trained in the schools, we shall simply 

 laugh at them ; if they mean the practical rhetors, they will not 

 find us opposing them. For they claim for themselves nothing 

 ridiculous. 



W^hen they say that it is ridiculous to separate the political 

 faculty from perfect rhetoric, for it is included in the concept 

 II, 266, col. of rhetoric, just as those skilled in the art of medicine possess 

 ■^^'^- a knowledge of what is healthful and harmful, they are exceed- 



ingly amusihg. For how can that which is not acknowledged 

 to include politics be granted to include politics by preconception? 

 But the announced claims of rhetoric do not include this ; only 

 a confusion of thought includes this with rhetoric without 

 proving that it belongs to rhetoric. There is no need of fur- 

 ther argument in reply to the claim that states have been man- 

 aged by rhetors. For even if we grant that it has been done by 

 the political rhetors, qua statesmen, we shall not grant that it has 

 been done by the rhetoricians, and if by them, not (7;^^ rhetori- 

 cians. It is the same way with the claim that it is the rhetors, not 

 the philosophers, who have busied themselves with political af- 

 II, 267, col. fairs. They may use this argument against others, we grant 

 •^^^'^- that philosophy does not produce statesmen. Some babblers they 



produce who use the same words that the statesmen use, but not 

 for that shall we grant that it produces the political faculty. If 

 we worked on this principle we should soon be granting every 

 thing which they profess to write about. 



Now that we have finished this chapter, it remains for us to 

 discuss the question whether the rhetor because of his rhetoric 

 would become a good statesman. As for the rhetor produced 

 by the schools, how could we say that qiM rhetor he could become 

 a good statesman, seeing that qua rhetor he is not a statesman 

 II 268 col ^^ '^^^^ ^" regard to the political rhetor we think the case stands 

 XIII=>-. thus : the phrase "good statesman" means either a capable and 



experienced statesman, or one morally good. According to the 

 former interpretation, qua rhetor, we say that he is a good states- 

 man, just as we call the artistic flautist, qua flautist, an artistic 

 flautist, and so a good flautist. According to the second inter- 

 pretation we no longer say that the rhetor qua rhetor would be a 



