366 Harry M. Huhhell, Ph.D., 



this excursus to discuss merely certain phases of that part of the 

 controversy which deals with the question whether rhetoric 

 deserves to be called an "art." 



Aristotle's attitude toward the question of "art" admits of 

 some dispute. True in his extant work there is no doubt that 

 he regards rhetoric as an art ; in fact the Rhetorica is a scientific 

 treatise on rhetoric along- the lines laid down by Plato ; it rests 

 on a study of psychology, and discusses the means of arousing 

 the emotions and convincing the intellect. It differs from Plato 

 in that it takes little account of the question whether the art is 

 beneficial ; a natural dilTerence since Plato regards rhetoric as 

 the art of persuasion; one who professes to persuade his people 

 makes himself responsible for their welfare ; whereas Aristotle 

 extends the field of the art only to include the discovery of the 

 persuasive elements in any case. So far the position of Aristotle 

 is plain. But in his lost dialogue, Gryllus, he attacked the right 

 of rhetoric to be called an "art." Quintilian, who is our authority 

 for the contents of the dialogue, suggests that it was a mere tour 

 de force, an attempt to maintain a paradox.^ This seems some- 

 what improbable, and I should suggest three possible explana- 

 tions of the inconsistency between the Gryllus and the Rhetorica. 

 i) The Gryllus may have been a dialogue in which both sides 

 of the question were presented, with the conclusion that rhetoric 

 is an "art." This seems hardly deducible from Quintilian's 

 words, which imply that Aristotle's position in the Gryllus needed 

 to be harmonized with that of the Rhetorica. 2) The Gryllus 

 may have been an attack on certain phases of the contemporary 

 teaching of rhetoric, certain perversions of the art, as Aristotle 

 may have thought. Here again Quintilian's words might mean 

 this, but are more naturally taken to mean that the attack was 

 unqualified. 3) The Gryllus may be from the earlier period of 

 Aristotle's teaching. \\"e know that rhetoric was a relatively late 

 addition to the curriculum of the Lyceum, whether or not we 

 credit the story that he was driven to adopt it by the competition 

 of Isocrates. It may well be that in his early career, while still 

 under the influence of Plato, he wrote against rhetoric, and later 

 adopted the position which he holds in the Rhetorica. 



MI, 17, 14; Aristotles, ut solet, quaercndi gratia quaedam suptilitatis 

 suae argnmenta excogitavit in Gryllo : sed idem et de arte rhetorica tris 

 libros scripsit, et in eorum primo non artein solum eam fatetur etc. 



