282 Harry M. Hubbell, Ph.D., 



he claimed that his rhetorical study gave him power to deliver 

 panegyrics and engage in politics, Epicurus makes Idomeneus 

 beg pardon for his youthful presumption, and represents some 

 one addressing him thus ; I quote word for word, "It is strange 

 that you are not prevented by your youth from surpassing older 

 and famous men in the power of rhetoric" ; by which he means. 

 "It is strange that you are not prevented by your youth from 

 excelling in rhetoric, which seems to require practice, while it 

 is possible for you to be prevented by your youth from partici- 

 pating- in philosophical discussions which depend more on 

 knowledge than on practice." 

 I. 103, 13= "This." says the opponent, "is a clear statement from Epi- 

 upp • 5 . curus ; he makes a hard and fast distinction between iiriaT-jfirj 

 and Tpifty, and considers that all rhetoric, not merely the political 

 and forensic divisions, depends entirely on experience. If 

 rhetoric were wholly or in part an art, Epicurus' statement would 

 become an absurdity meaning, Tf that which is produced by 

 method can be attained by a youth, much more can that be 

 obtained which is produced by method.' " 



To assume that this statement of Epicurus refers to rhetoric 

 as a whole, and not to the political part alone violates both the 

 letter and the spirit of the Symposium. If sophistic rhetoric is 

 an art, as it really is, requiring much practice (for the Epi- 

 cureans acknowledge that some sciences need practice)' how is 

 Epicurus absurd? If the political form or division of rhetoric 

 requires practice, and the sophistic, knowledge only, how is this 

 absurd? The statement which our opponent thought to reduce 

 to an absurdity, really means, "If that which is produced partly 

 by method can be obtained by a young man, much more so, that 

 which is produced by method alone." 



J jQ_ Our opponent now proceeds to discuss the phrase 5 5ok« TpijBrjs ehai (I, 



s'uppl.' 53, 5. 103, 6 = Suppl. 50, 12). The passage is so fragmentary that the meaning 

 can be restored only partially. Philodemus has been arguing that the 

 phrase meant that a part of rhetoric employed method and art, and a 

 part depended on practice and experience. The opponent insists that the 

 phrase doKet Tpi^Tjs ehai. expresses Epicurus' view of rhetoric as a whole, 

 and that Sokci ehai is merely a milder expression for ia-nv, a form of 

 expression which Epicurus uses even when making a positive statement 

 about philosophy. If SoKei rpi^rjs ehai applies to the political branch of 

 rhetoric Soku must be equivalent to ianv with the implication that 

 ffo<piffTLKr) pr)TopiK'f) also depends solely on rpL^-f) and so Philodemus' position 

 is refuted. To this Philodemus replies : 



