288 Harry M. Huhbell, Ph.D., 



II, 77, fr. IV Probably all that Homer meant was that they surpassed the 



7^ ^^^ Y' other heroes in charm of conversation. 



II 119 fr Speaking' of heroes who were able to speak, and kings 



XVI, Sflf. ,,,j]e. . .'\ 



II, 115, fr. This argument assumes that sciences are the same in different 



VI- localities, but that rhetoric dilTers in different countries and 



cities. 



jl 74 f J. The sense of the following passages runs somewhat as follows : Rhetoric 



XII = II, has been criticized for being all things to all men, so that it could be com- 



106, fr. pared to the polypus which adapts its color to the rock on which it rests.* 



XTl T XTV t- J f 1 



' ^^ ^ • Philodemus' answer is an analogy drawn from medicine; the rhetor must 



consider the needs and character of his audience, just as the physician 

 must take into account differences of climate and constitution in regulat- 

 ing the diet of the patient. Fr. XIV, p. 106 views the same subject from 

 a different angle. A rhetor cannot be expected to be equally successful in 

 all countries. A great Italian physician if transferred to Egypt would 

 "send many mighty souls to Hades," through failure to understand all 

 the local conditions. 



II, 127, fr. ... art does not vary with locality, and does not adapt itself 



"VTT 



to different peoples, consequently he demands that rhetoric shall 



not change. 

 II, 127, fr. ... demands that the perfect orator be also a good man 



yc i^Xlil and a good citizen.^" But such a combination is not required in 



the case of any other art ; a good musician may be a villain. 

 II, 83, fr. "Every art receives suitable pay ; rhetoric does not." But 



dialectic does not receive large fees, nor does medicine; so by 



this reasoning these should not be considered arts. 

 II, 85, fr. Grant that the artist alone attains the end. or does so more 



"V'f 



than anyone else. If the rhetor is said to succeed alone or more 

 than anyone else, that does not prove the sophist a rhetor. But 

 this does not prove that politics is not an art, but the point would 

 be proven if in law court and assembly no one of them suc- 

 ceeded more than those not rhetors. If it said that one skilled 

 in trials attains the end, this remark is ridiculous. For in some 

 arts, those untrained can attain the end. 



rhetoric because the heroes were rhetors before any treatises on rhetoric 

 were written. Cf. I, 27, 6=Suppl. 15, i7- Also II, 76, fr. III. Philo- 

 demus seems to be arguing with a Stoic; cf. Sudhaus I, p. XXX. 



-'* Cf. Theognis, 215 f. 



"' This is the Stoic position. Probably he is quoting Diogenes of Baby- 

 lon ; cf. Radermacher, Rhein. Mus. LIV (1899) p. 290. 



